Defined by misery

In light of the spirited discussion on the prior Rebellion post, I thought I would post a Matrix clip that might be of relevance.

The part that is of interest is at the beginning when Smith speculates on misery and suffering. They could not program a perfect world where people are happy and free from misery. "Some believe that we lacked the programming language to describe a perfect world," Smith says, but Smith has a different theory. Smith believes that "human beings define themselves through misery."



I've got a few questions. They are short and sweet, but loaded.

First: Could God have "programed" a perfect world? Some might argue that he did program a perfect world and that humans screwed it up. I tend not to agree. I think that if God is omniscient (all knowing), then he would have known that if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were available, then humanity would partake of the wisdom of its fruit. So, I think it is reasonable to say that God created a world where suffering and misery were inevitable.

Second question....Is it possible to return to a time when we are free from misery? What happens if we restore the Garden of Eden? Is it possible that we can define our reality through something other than misery? (And maybe we already do, at least in some way.)

Personally, I'm dubious that such a return to Eden could ever occur. It seems to me that one of the most fundamental elements of our world is chaos. But nonetheless, what if we could restore something of a paradise on earth? Or at least get close? What about God? Would we need God? And if we didn't need God, then would God disappear? I say this because I think that it seems generally true that the less people need God, the less of a real presence he seems to have. I think this is true even of very religious communities here in the U.S. Even among the very religious, God still seems rather absent from the scene, and it seems to me as though our churches are more like services of remembrances of a time when we really did need God. Kind of like placing roses on a gravestone.

Those are just a few of my thoughts, stirred by Smith's speculation that "human beings define their reality through misery."

Is happiness possible and what is it?

One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be happy is not included in the plan of creation.
Sigmund Freud

I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live....I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
Qohelet, chapter 3

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Westminster Shorter Catechism

So I hated life, for the work which had been done under the sun was grievous to me; because everything is futility and striving after wind.
Ecclesiastes 2:17 (NASB)

Did you know hat the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
Agent Smith, The Matrix

God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.
John Piper

If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. If it makes you happy, then why the hell are you so sad?
Sheryl Crow, 1996

What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving with which he labors under the sun? All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless. A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
Qohelet chapter 2 (NIV)


Happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus, Matthew chapter 5

Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1.4

"A living hell" and other misunderstandings

For those of you who read me regularly you know that every now and again I find people (usually Evangelicals or conservatives of some stripe) who soften Qohelet (the book of Ecclesiastes) and sell a chewable, children's version. This happens for many portions of Scripture, but I find it especially true of Qohelet that ministers/preachers/teachers/scholars/etc. continually turn the robust, rich, and complex wine of Qohelet into a little swig of grape juice.

Here is the latest quote I found, this from Junius Batten Pressey Jr.:
What Ecclesiastes makes abundantly clear is that life on the earth without submission to God's direction is a living hell. You're born. You work all your life. You die. That's it. No rest, and no meaning to the whole thing. If you buy into the world's view of human effort, you'll be draining yourself even when you dream.[1]

The point of this article is to tell Christians not to go so hard and to carry their crosses by day and lay them down by night. But the funny thing is that even if one is in "submission to God's direction" there is still no escaping the hevel (translated as "meaningless" or "absurd") of life. And the book of Job goes straight to this point - talk about a living hell! For all of Job's questioning and searching he still remained submissive to the will of God. Even reduced to dust and ashes.

Just another encouragement to allow Scriptures like Qohelet to speak new things into our contexts and not to be contented with spiritual fast food.

The Metaphorical Ripley

I wrote up a review of one of my favorite movies, The Talented Mr. Ripley over at amazon.com. I have reproduced it here:

The movie is an adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel by the same name. The story line follows Highsmith, but there are notable departures. I find the movie adaptation to be brilliant. It is a psychologically complex movie that continues to probe deeper and deeper into issues of identity and moral conscience right up until the closing scene. Seeing the movie for the first time one might have the feel that director/writer Anthony Minghella is walking one through a tour of a grand old castle where rooms and corridors upon up into more rooms and corridors even more intriguing than the first.

The film seems to divide into two movements. The first is the "age of innocence" for Tom Ripley. He is a boy with an opportunity and a hope for a better life: to escape his boring life of normalcy in New York for a life of beauty and taste. Where else, but Italy!??!

While in Italy he is charged with bringing playboy Dickie Greenleaf back home to his wealthy father in the States. Dickie, however, has no interest, and Tom quickly realizes this and chooses to cast in his lot with Dickie and become fast friends. But Dickie is too fickle for the "brotherhood" that Tom craves. Hence the tension leads up to a moment of dramatic tragedy that forever changes the course of Ripley's life and ushers in the second movement of the film.

There is now a turn towards suspense and intrigue as Tom uses his "talents" to gain a life of privilege and beauty. The narrative unfolds the suspense of Ripley trying to maintain multiple "worlds" and "realities" of deceit that Minghella describes as a myriad of "spinning plates," and Matt Damon creates a character who skillfully holds all of these false realities together in a grand score that somehow makes sense to all the players despite the glaring inconsistencies that the audience can see.

Holding this labyrinth of duplicity together would not have been possible without an absolutely incredible cast of actors and characters who come in and out of Ripley's life at every turn. The classical scenery also provides a setting where Damon can create his character of complexity.

Ripley is desperate to escape the social and aesthetic "basement" of life, and for a while he seems to have succeeded. Yet despite his achievement he is left wondering whether he has not simply constructed another basement of moral and spiritual darkness. This is a character who begins a journey of discovering identity and finds himself trying to attain a new life through any means possible. But the events of Ripley's life play out like a tragedy and the grip of irony becomes tighter and tighter for Ripley as the road to his self discovery leads, as Minghella says, to "the annihilation of self."

I find it ironic as I watch this movie that often times the things we pursue the most wind up out of our reach because of the means by which we pursue them....or sometimes we fail to achieve what we desire simply because we desire it so much. It is this type of irony that I see in Qohelet (crf. the book of Ecclesiastes): Life is a "chasing after of the wind." The metaphor of pursuing what ultimately cannot be caught. And yet this is the metaphor used to describe life, leading Qohelet to conclude in chapter 8 that anyone who is able to appreciate one's position and status in life that this is commendable. After all, life is complex and no one can claim to understand all that God has done!

Notes:
1-For various muddleheaded interpretations of the film/book please see Ktismatics and his dialogue with Parody.
2-If you compare the translations of 8:17 you will notice the NIV adds the word "meaning", as in "no one can discover its meaning." This is a terrible move, and one of many translation/interpretive moves made by the NIV that have enormous and in my opinion devastating philosophical/theological consequences for the book. It provides the setting for theologians to transform Qohelet from someone standing in awe at the mystery and irony of life into a Modern apologetics evangelist preaching about how having God in your life can make it more meaningful. Tragic!)

A Meaningful Life

One of the differences that separates humanity as unique, as far as I see it, is our ability to transcend our thinking from the activities of living and ask whether or not our life as a whole is meaningful. We can do things and perform tasks and complete activities, but many of us often reflect on whether or not our life was a meaningful one. We ask ourselves questions of significance. And even if these are not explicitely stated they are in many cases deeply felt. Parents try to pass on to their children all of the meaningful things they wished they had done and hope that their kids have more meaningful lives...

The problem is that meaning and significance is relative to the community and to the individual. If you were born in ancient Sparta, for example, you would find significance in honoring your city-state, and dying on the battlefield would be a very meaningful death. Same thing with the Samurii. In The Last Samurii there is a strong motif of dying "a good death." Contrast this with a northeastern, liberal dinner party where dying in war would probably be about the worst possible way to go!

So, in terms of what is meaningful and living a significant life, we must reference our context. We take our que's from our families and clans and from our peers and our neighborhoods and our nations. This is the way we are made. We learn from others as the desire for meaning wells up within us and as we comtemplate and long to do something significant. In this way meaningfulness is taught.

But is there something greater? Is there something universal? Is there "one thing" that defines the meaningful life? Is there a commonality that transcends culture and binds together all meaningful ventures. This seems to be the unstated question that underlines all of Qohelet's pursuits. So, I take this question to you, the people: Is there an ultimate meaning in life?

Qohelet, God and Meaning

I recently had a bit of a disagreement with fellow blogger and OT professor, Dr. Mariottini that I wondered if you all could weigh in on. (You can find it here.) The disagreement concerned the interpretation of Qohelet (the voice in the book of Ecclesiastes). These days it seems that the standard Conservative/Evangelical interpretation of Qohelet is as follows: Without God there is no meaning in life, but with God a person can experience a meaningful life.

Here is the problem as I see it: The following statement is not found in Qohelet, nor is anything that even resembles it.

There are a few verses that Dr. M used to rebut my point:

For to the man who pleases him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy; but to the sinner he gives the work of gathering and heaping, only to give to one who pleases God, 2:26

That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil-- this is the gift of God, 3:13

Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work-- this is a gift of God, 5:19

Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do, 9:7

I suggest that a close reading of the text shows that in context these are references to God's sovereignty. God is in control of meaning/satisfaction, and one should be happy if God grants to you the good life and the ability to enjoy it.

I realize that this upsets the typical interpretation of Qohelet. However, as I suggested to Dr. M, I believe that much of this interpretation has been driven by a desire to refute Nietzsche, Sartre, and other non-Christian existentialists who seem to promote the meaninglessness of life. As such, Qohelet became a useful god-of-the-gaps, and we used him to win an artificial battle with non-Christian philosophy.

I suggest that the point of Qohelet is not to use God as a variable in an equation. Ever seen the bumper sticker, "Know God, know peace. No God, no peace"? Qohelet is not saying, "Know God, know meaning. No God, no meaning." Rather, Qohelet's point is that meaning can never, (ever!) be found at the end of a simple equation. Rather, meaning is something that is something one is fortunate to find. All of life is hebel. Hebel is the Hebrew word that is often translated as "meaningless," and in my opinion it is incorrect to do so, for hebel is the situation of life that destabilizes all of our efforts to attain meaning.

What say you? Can we find in Qohelet a formula for the meaningful life, whereby God is the missing variable???

Notes, etc.:
For a more technical discussion of some of the themes in this post see my essay
Nothing new under the Sun: An exegetical analysis of hebel as a deconstruction of the human experience
Dr. Claude Mariottini's post "The book of Ecclesiastes: Vanity of Vanities"

Qohelet and the Sopranos?

Did I miss it? Did Qohelet make a guest appearance on the Sopranos last night? I have no HBO so I did not see the finale. However, like everyone else in America I know the ending.

Jeremy McCarter suggests that Qohelet showed up:

We should have seen this coming. For 86 episodes, David Chase has shown us characters absorbed in the picayune little details of life, even as threats of violence and catastrophe lurk around every corner (and jukebox). Had Chase killed off Tony or his family, or shown them riding triumphant in the sunshine, he would have put a limit on that view of the world: "Life is messy and dangerous... and then it kills you in the end," or "Life is messy and dangerous... but things turn out okay in the end." The series has shown too large a spirit to be pinned down that way. After all the tense references to Revelations and the end times this season, the finale is pure Ecclesiastes: The whole point is that there is no end, even when it comes time to say "The End" — or, in this case, "Whaddya gonna do?"

Nice.

I like it.

The powerful rule the world. We must bow to the Tony Sopranos of the world who pull the strings of the puppets - and we dance. But even at the top can the Tony Sopranos find meaning? Or are they even more paranoid/depressed/confused/angry/fearful than the rest of us?

A meaningful life. There is no guarantee.

Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God.
5:7

It seems that contentment, satisfaction, and gladness of heart come to the blessed few:

Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him—for this is his lot. Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work—this is a gift of God. He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. 5:18-20

Qohelet and Deconstruction

I am excited for this Friday's Evangelical Theological Society Midwest Regional Meeting. Unfortunately, for the second consecutive year in a row your's truly submitted a paper that was turned down for a reading.....Yes, I hear the violin music playing...and, yes, I will take cheese with my whine....In any case, I thought I would take a break from wallowing in self-pity (see my previous post on narcissism!) and post this year's failed submission for your thoughtful consideration.

http://erdman31.googlepages.com/Qohelet-Hebel-Decontruction.pdf

This paper is only the beginning of my research on Qohelet (the book of Ecclesiastes). I am fascinated by it because I see many themes which contemporary philosophy is exploring, or should explore as far as I am concerned. One of these themes is deconstruction. In this paper I make an attempt to show that Qohelet is deconstructing the human experience. I do that by exegesis of the key word hebel (the "b" is pronounced more like a "v" in Hebrew, and if you really want to sound Semitic you will might sound the "h" with a gutteral!) and showing that at bottom hebel is functioning as a destabilizing device.

There is by no means a consensus on the study of hebel, or even on anything related to Qohelet for that matter. So, in this current paper I take a look at Douglas Miller's recent work and pit it against Michael Fox's highly respected studies. The result is a tension on interpreting hebel. Hebel, as I mentioned, is the key word in Qohelet's thought and is sometimes translated as "meaningless" or "vanity", etc. It occurs nearly forty times and has produced varying interpretations. Fox, on the one hand, wants us to preserve a common meaning to hebel, while Miller leans more towards seeing diversity to the term (but also wants us to see hebel as a unifying symbol). This is an important and key philosophical contrast: Is there one thing that is true of all experiences in this world, or is Qohelet leveling different critiques as he examines different aspects of the human condition.

I believe I have an interesting solution to this tension, and I find it by interpreting hebel as a destabilizing device that is used in a deconstruction of the human experience.

Enjoy and don't forget to leave a comment.

A fragmented past

This is Perkins speaking of the ancient mindset (third century):
The traditional society of the ancient world resisted change. "The new" was no virtue. Its visionaries did not seek to bring into being a new and glorious future but to recover a revered and glorious past...Since people sought to recover the past, their tradition, and since they did not have print and electronic media documenting every change of style, they perceived much less discontinuity between themselves and their past than we do... (Pheme Perkins, The Gnostic Dialogue, 4)

Interesting quote, I thought. It continues along my theme of the fragmented self in contemporary culture. That is, we are not holistic and complete. We are various fragments pulled together: work life, love life, entertainment life, religious life (which is often a pluralistic compilation in itself), online self, hobbies, etc, etc. We are a myriad of fragmented interests and preoccupations....Perkins here points out that in the ancient world there was a reverence for the past, in contemporary society there is an obsession with the future: We are anticipating the improvements that lie just around the corner, especially technological. Perkins also notes that when media documents "every change of style" there is a sense of discontinuity of the past. In other words, in contemporary society our historical progress is fragmented. A few weeks ago it was the Super Bowl, next it was the astronaut love-triangle, yesterday it was Anna Nichole, today it's Britney and her kids, etc....I think we view ourselves as more fragmented because we move so rapidly through history from one current event to the next to the next. History happens faster. We can follow a war on the other side of the world in real time. 24/7 media on the cable networks document every latest breaking news story with a deluge of commentators who exhaust a subject within a few short hours of its breaking. And, of course, within a few hours there is something else that follows.

Do we feel any continuity to the historical flow of our lives? We live from one event to the next, to the next, to the next. Our mass media outlets document "every change of style." We are a people in flux. Ever changing. Always anticipating. Breathless. We never stabilize and settle. We are always progressing, without any real time to reflect. It is progression without the stabilization necessary for genuine reflection. We process our events in hours and then move one. It is historical fragmentation.

Finding Meaning in Suffering

I've been reading through Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" and I'm through the first half, which chronicles Frankl's time in a German concentration camps during WWII. The conditions were, from my point of view, unbearable. The amount of work and the shortage and irregularity of food rations (maybe one piece of bread a day, and perhaps some watered down soup) make it hard to believe that any human being could live through it. Oh, and add to that the fact that they lived under the constant threat of death if they showed that they were becoming frail or if they upset an officer.

And yet Frankl and others were able to somehow survive.

Frankl makes the point that those who made it through had some future objective and hope before them. They also were able to find meaning in their suffering. Their pain had to have purpose. The abuse and suffering was so great that if it was perceived as being senseless or without purpose and if the prisoner had no hope for the future then the prisoner would give up and allow himself to die.

Meaning is critical to enduring extreme circumstances that push us past our physical/biological, emotional, and psychological limits. What are the consequences of those who do not have extreme circumstances? For those of us Americans who have relatively easy lives: Flavored lattes, multistory houses, state of the art stereo systems, Comfy SUVs, etc., etc., etc. Is meaning and purpose even important when you do not suffer?

Or do we find ways to suffer? Do we have to invent suffering? Do we now give the label of "suffering" to trivial things: Waiting in line for my coffee, paying a little more property taxes, dealing with a neighbor who doesn't take care of their lawn, having a chair that is not ergonomically correct, losing a few hours of sleep, etc.

What does it mean for our generation to "suffer"??? Do we really and truly find meaning in our suffering? Do we suffer for a higher purpose or for a greater calling?

Reason, Lewis, and the faith

Screwtape, an evil demon who is the uncle and mentor to another demon named "Wormwood" writes to him the following advice on how to deal with Wormwood's human "patient," i.e. how to keep him away from God, the Kingdom, and Church:


Are you not being a triffel naive? It sounds as if you suppose that argument was the way to keep him out of the enemies clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time humans pretty well knew when a thing was proved and when it was not. And if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as a result of the chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we've largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily true or false but as "academic" or "practical" "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless," jargon, not argument is your best allie in keeping him away from the church...The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle on to the enemies own ground...By the very act of arguing you awake the patient's reason, and once it is awakened who can foresee the result. Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favor, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fateal habit of attending to universal things and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real."....
[From chapter 1 of The Screwtape Letters]

There are a lot of interesting things in the above quote by Lewis, but one thing that strikes me is the statement that people do not connect thinking with doing, or at least they do not do so anymore: "Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head."

Now, if that was true in Lewis' day 70 years or so ago, then it is all the more true these days. In fact, it is no longer even a revelation to say so. It is the fashion these days to kind of pick and chose which beliefs to accept from a religion or philosophy and which ones are not so desirable. The illustration of the food buffet-line is often used. We go through and pick what we want and leave what we don't want. I think it is for this reason that religions today, in an attempt to take advantage of our consumer oriented culture, put their best food forward and emphasize the best of their beliefs. With Christianity, of course, we've got a lot going for us. In my opinion, we are the best deal out there!

But I digress...this quote of Lewis' also brings up the question of evangelism and apologetics: Do we make an appeal to people's reason? Or do we seek other ground, since our culture is suspicious of reason? If reason is not in fashion these days, do we let it slide and appeal to other things: community, personal healing, etc.???

In this post-modern era many are Christians critical of reason. On the other hand there are many Christians who believe that reason still rules the roost. And so the debate goes on.

For Lewis it is evident that he believes that reason is a positive appeal. The "very act of argument" is the playing field of the Christian faith. This is so much the case, says Lewis here, that even if a particular argument does not convince the unbeliever it still moves their mind on to "universal things" rather than "the stream of immediate sense experiences." So, in this sense, even when a Christian fails to convince a non-believer there is still a victory because the mind and heart have been turned to spiritual thoughts and away from the temporality of this world.

Although I have gone back and forth in my mind about the use of reason and argument and its affectiveness, I've never completely abandoned it. I think that in some way human beings are rational beings. We seem to have been born with an internal sense that things should make sense. That things ought to be coherent. The fact that things are not coherent and do not always make sense is no major rap against reason. At least I don't think so. It simply means that reason is limited and subject to frustration.

Even more so, to discover that things do not make sense is not even new to post-modern thought. In some ways it seems to be a re-discovery of an ancient theme. One of the major gripes of Qohelet (the voice of the book of Ecclesiastes) is that things should make more sense than they do: the good should be happy, the evil people should live bad lives, and people should get what they deserve. Things ought to be a certain way, but often they are not.

Perhaps Lewis is on to something and we need, in this culture of anti-reason, to imploy the use of the argument. After all, the human being is a whole person, and to deny the rational side of personhood seems to be as dangerous as to elevate reason higher than it was meant to be.

South Park - Losing touch with the real world

I watched the season premiere of South Park on Wednesday night.

The boys of South Park are all excited because of a new online battle video game called Warcraft. Unfortunately there is a middle-aged man out there who has dominated the game to such a degree that no one can make any progress. This is a concern for the makers of the game because everyone will quit playing as they get discouraged by their lack of progress.

Cartman, however, develops a scheme whereby they can get enough experience points to defeat this middle-aged man. However, it will require hours on end of dedication to the game. Cartman is ready to go, but the other boys balk. Finally Cartman convinces them by saying, "You can stay out here and play in the sun, or you can get to the computer and do something that really matters!"

The boys all get on board and in the end all their hours and days on end of playing the game pay off when they defeat the middle-aged man. In the process of playing, however, their bodies get deformed: They gain weight and develop grotesque acne on their faces. Doing something that matters has a price!

Now, initially we would be critical of such an endeavor. Have the boys really done something that "matters"? All the time they spent was simply in a fantasy world. They are impacting an game that is on the internet: an artificial world - a created reality. The internet isn't real, right? So what the boys did doesn't matter, right?


For the boys we can understand. I mean, after all, they're just kids. But what about the unemployed, middle aged man living with his mother who plays the game for 20 some hours a day. That's the dude that we are going to be hardest on, right? I mean, what is he really doing with his life that "matters"?

But before we condemn the middle-aged guy, what about the career-man who works for 18 hours a day? Has he done something that matters? What if he's doing it for God? Does it matter that he has disconnected himself from anything outside of his office?

One might say that the career-guy is superior because he is in the real world. Ok, then what about if we go home at night and disconnect from the real world by losing ourselves in a novel for a few hours every night? Is this an illegitimate activity? I mean, when I'm into a good novel I am absolutely gone - my mind is in an artificial fantasy world. Is this any different than the middle-aged guy playing Warcraft?

What do you do to lose yourself? Don't we all have fantasy worlds to escape the real world? Books, television, the internet, music, and the list goes on....

I have to hand it to the middle-aged South Park character, at least he had passion. He certainly had commitment. I have a problem with how he was channeling his passion, but I'm sure he had his reasons. Without anything going for him in the real world, why not make a go of it on the internet? In Warcraft he has managed to manufacture some small amount of success and pleasure. He has accomplished something here in his fantasy world. To him that is what really "matters."

From our perspective here "under the sun" it seems difficult to really condemn the guy. But from God's perspective things may be different....

God-feelings

There are times when I feel the emotional burden of the evil in the world. These are usually times that overwhelm me, and it is usually triggered by a specific instance of evil and pain that leaves me particularly disturbed. It may be the abuse of a child or some other innocent victim who is destroyed by the evils of mankind.

It is at this point that I sometimes begin to consider all the evil in the world. I consider the fact that these instances of evil happen quite literally every day. Evil men oppresses and abuse the innocent.

Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed- and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors- and they have no comforter.
- Ecclesiastes 4:1

Qohelet (the writer of Ecclesiastes) understood this fact and wrote about it several thousands of years ago. This simply shows us that such abuses have been taking place for ages on end, with no end in sight.

There are times when all of the pain and suffering weighs heavy upon my soul.

These reflections of mine do not happen all that often because, frankly, I don't think that I could handle it if it did. But it is at this point that I sometimes start to think about God: How does God deal with his knowledge of all the evil and pain and abuses in the world?

I wonder how God emotionally deals with pain. This, of course, begs the question about whether or not the word emotional is even an adequate term to ascribe God. Is God an emotional God?

There are instances in Scripture where God seems to display God's emotions. One that particularly stands out to me is Genesis 6:5-8

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. (NIV)

Is God experiencing an emotion here? The passage states that God was grieved, and even more so that "his heart was filled with pain." What does this mean? Does it mean that God had the same type of emotional experience that I've been describing?

The question of whether or not God has emotions is an intriguing one. It is a mystery, of course, exactly what God feels, and whether or not those feelings are the same kinds of feelings that you and I experience. But perhaps we can be content with a little mystery and simply call them "God-feelings."

I doubt that God has the same type of emotional experiences that I have because, afer all, he is God. But on the other hand, God may actually experience emotions on a deeper and more intense level. If God has more power than anyone else and if God knows more than anyone else, is it possible that God feels more than anyone else? I don't know the answer to that. So, for me, I'll be content to speak of God-feelings. And maybe someday I'll get a chance to ask God how he's feeling. Maybe I'll ask the Son if he remembers some of his feelings while he walked the earth...speculations and questions...

Now the question of God-feelings raises another issue: Is God actually affected by his creation? Traditionally the doctrine of Impassibility has answered with a resounding, "No"! But a word of clarification is needed here.

The doctrine of Impassibility does not, necessarily, mean that God does not somehow experience emotions. Rather, Impassibility asserts that God's experiences are not "involuntary surprises."

Consider J.I. Packer:
[Impassibility is] not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are.
(From "God without mood swings" at: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm)

Another quote by Philip Johnson goes right to the point:

God is the sovereign initiator and instigator of all His own affections-which are never uncontrolled or arbitrary. He cannot be made to emote against His will, but is always the source and author of all His affective dispositions.
(From "God without mood swings" at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm)

So, in other words, God is not at the whim of us. His "mood" or "emotions" do not swing back and forth based upon what we, his little creatures, choose to do or not do.

The point of the doctrine seems to be to preserve the greatness and transcendence of God. God is big. God is great. God is not affected by wee mortals, like us.

However, one problem with the doctrine of Impassibility that we notice right off the bat is that Scripture actually presents God as reacting to his creation. We do not see a God who planned out his experience, but a God whose experience was related to our experience. This is how the narrative of Scripture presents God to us. As such, we ought to take it somewhat seriously.

Now, those who assert Impassibility will simply say that God is not being presented as he truly is, but that this is a presentation of God in human terms, for our benefit. As Calvin said, God "lisps" to us kind of like a nursemaid to a little child. So, according to Calvin and others who assert Impassibility, the Scriptures present God in human terms so that we can get an understanding of who he is, even if what we see in Scripture isn't quite exactly who God is.

This, of course, is a fine response. I don't know that it is entirely true, but neither can I falsify it. After all, how do I know for sure whether God planned out and initiated his emotions, or whether he is going with the flow like the rest of us? It seems to me to simply be beyond me.

But for now I will stick with my quaint little term: God-feelings. God seems to be experiencing something in his Being. We bear his image in some strange way. And when we feel the pain of the abuses and evil in this world we can know that in some way we are mirroring our God.

Qohelet rescues the doctrine of total depravity

For quite some time I have been rather dissatisfied with the doctrine of total depravity. For those of you keeping score at home the doctrine of total depravity basically says that sin affects all aspects of human nature. The name of the doctrine is rather unfortunate because the word "total" in "total depravity" does not mean that human beings are as bad as they could be or "totally" sinful. The "total" in "total depravity" refers to the fact that all of a person's being is affected by sin. In today's language, however this significance is lost...but no matter, this is a side note...

I have had a gripe against this doctrine because it often seems so static. When I hear this doctrine presented it is often just kind of thrown out there: "Human beings are corrupt" or "People are bad." Anytime I have heard this doctrine presented it has left me hanging there - it's a cliff hanger. I usually kind of cock my head to one side, scrunch my face and think, "The world is messed up? People are bad? So, what. That's not news to me or anyone else."
In most situations in which I hear about the doctrine of total depravity this cliff hanger is relieved because the Christian who is explaining the doctrine of total depravity begins to talk about his or her real point, which is the fact that people need Christ. So, most of the time when people talk about the doctrine of total depravity it is a bridge builder: We use it to get to our real point, which is that people need something. But I see this as a problem.

The first thing is that people don't come to Christ unless they see the need for Christ in their
lives. Here's the formula: Needy Me + Christ = Christian. But this compeletly misses the point, because human need (i.e. our own depravity) cannot merely be one of the factors of an equation. To simply say, "Ah, well, ok, I'll add some Jesus to my need" is to miss the point of conversion, which is a deeply spiritual and life-changing event.

So, what do we need here? More than simply acknowledging our personal depravity is the fact that we must feel it. I mean that we need to feel it deep down as a burden ,as a weight that is holding us down and as a cancer that is destroying us. We must feel ourselves on our spiritual death bed in a hopeless state of misery. This is far more than an intellectual acknowledgment of a particular doctrinal point. What we are talking about here is something deeply personal. So deep, in fact, and so personal that it is possible to feel our depravity even if we could not express the doctrine in words or write it out as a theological formulation.

The problem, then, with presenting a static doctrine of depravity is that it seems to suck the life out the Gospel. The doctrine of depravity is something dynamic that we experience and feel on the deepest of levels. Without this feeling, forget it. Move on. Don't waste your time talking about the cure if someone is not sick. Let them live and wish them well in their life! Why try to convince a person to believe, intellectually, a doctrine whose whole point is to feel the doctrine on a spiritual level?

Now, if anyone is going to really feel the doctrine of depravity and if we are to present a doctrine that is dynamic and not static, then we have to camp on it. We have to give pause and truly ponder what it means to live as a depraved person in a depraved world. We have to step back and submerge ourselves in life; to engage in a deeply reflective conversation with our human situation.

Qohelet enters stage right...

This is the whole point of Qohelet (the author of the book of Ecclesiastes) - to examine the human condition. Qohelet is on a quest, and his quest is the quest of all persons: to explore and understand the world. To drink from the wells of experience and to eat at the table of knowledge and understanding. Consider Qohelet's own statement of purpose:

I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under
heaven. (1:13)

This is Qohelet's quest. And his conclusion quickly follows:

What a heavy burden God has laid on men! (1:13)

Life, as we know it is backwards from what it should be. As Qohelet relates his quest he finds that at every turn there is either frustration or the potential for frustration. The world as we experience it is messed up. It is a burden.

The fascinating thing about Qohelet is how he seems content to just camp on this theme. Many perceive the Bible as a handy answer key to life. A book with all the right things to do and say. But Qohelet shatters this perception of Scripture. With Qohelet we have a whole book of the Bible, twelve chapters in all, that takes the time to discuss all of the worst things about living!
But notice what Qohelet does. He does not simply talk about the bad in you and I, but talks about the system as the world. Life "under the sun" is subject to the worst uncertainties. Our sense of meaning and purpose is frustrated. We seek for more, but there is nothing more to be found. If one reads Qohelet they quickly begin to feel tension and even contradiction. It is a disturbing book, but this is exactly what Qohelet wants us to feel. We must feel the tentions because Qohelet was burdened with these tensions, and so is anyone who begins to live life and seriously examine it from life's many different angles. Life is "crooked." (1:15, 7:13)

The world, as a system, is meangingless and absurd. The word "meaningless" or "absurd" is the word Qohelet uses thirty some times to label various aspects of human experience and situations. (The Hebrew word is hebel (pronounced he-vel).) But after we have camped on the absurdity of the world's system it is quite easy to discuss the depravity of the human being. This is because the depravity in each of us is one of the major contributors to system that is so absurd.

So, what would we do without Qohelet? The doctrine of depravity might possibly become doomed to quipes and cliches. Qohelet opens our minds up to the ramifications of living in a crooked world. We are crooked people in a crooked world.

Sit on that stuff for a while. Discuss Qohelet at the coffee house. Talk about the crooked world of Qohelet and I guarantee you'll generate some chatter. What is there "under the sun" that can be predicted? Where are the easy answers in life? You won't find them in Qohelet.

And now you're ready to talk about total depravity. And then you're ready to talk about the Gospel.

What is the meaning of life?

What is the answer to the age old question “What is the meaning of life?” This is of particular interest to me because I have developed a fascination with the book of Ecclesiastes, which begins by saying “Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless!” (NIV) It is fascinating that a book of the Bible would ever utter such a depressing statement. After all, isn’t the Bible all about finding meaning in life, or finding the answers? Isn’t the Bible here for us to navigate our way in the world and develop a sense of personal purpose and significance?

Well, in this day and age if we want to answer the question “What is the meaning of life?” we need not consult the musty old books nor spend our time locked away in an ivory tower pouring through the writings of the academics and the existentialists. Nay! We need only to Ask Yahoo! And this is precisely what Juan from Tegucigalpa, Honduras has done:


Dear Juan:
We get this one a lot and while we don't purport to have an "inside line" on the subject, we have given it some serious thought.
Life, in general, as in "all creatures great and small" (you know -- the bugs, birds, mountain lions, you, me, etc., as a group) has no one specific "meaning." Most of the world's religions postulate different origins, purposes, and destinies for humanity, nature, and the universe as a whole, but only one thing is sure: there isn't a global consensus on anything when it comes to religion.
Of course, you're free to investigate the various tenets and teachings of different religions and align yourself with a specific set of beliefs. This is a very popular practice throughout the world. For ideas on the subject, you might peruse Yahoo!'s Faiths and Practices category, where you'll find everything from Agnosticism to Zoroastrianism.
Now, if you're looking for the meaning of your life in particular, then we're afraid we have to fall back on the somewhat predictable response: "It's up to you." Many people try to give lasting meaning to their lives by making the world a better place than when they entered it, either through scientific, philosophical, or artistic contributions. Others try by raising children that can themselves make contributions and preserve important societal and religious values for future generations.
That's our take on the subject. If you're interested in other opinions, check out Yahoo!'s Meaning of Life category. Good luck, Juan.
http://ask.yahoo.com/19981215.html


The interesting thing about the above response by Yahoo is that it actually echoes a few points from Ecclesiastes. First of all, notice that Yahoo responds by saying that many people search for meaning by “making the world a better place than when they entered it, either through scientific, philosophical, or artistic contributions.” The author of Ecclesiastes talks about this kind of achievement is chapter 2:11. He had done great things. Greater than most, and yet he still says:

Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
And what I had toiled to achieve,
Everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
Nothing was gained under the sun. (NIV)

Interesting….

But what about the other point made by Yahoo: “Others try [to find meaning] by raising children that can themselves make contributions and preserve important societal and religious values for future generations.”

The author of Ecclesiastes also has something to say about this, as well:

So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun as grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. (NIV)

Ouch! That’s a downer!

Various Christians have tried to soften the blow of Ecclesiastes by saying that this is a non-believer’s perspective. In other words, life is meaningless, unless you’ve got God. If you get God then you get meaning. I’m quite opposed to this for several reasons, not the least of which is that I think it misses the point of Ecclesiastes.

The point of Ecclesiastes is not to bring everything down and depress everyone. If so, then why not just end it all??? The point of Ecclesiastes, as I see it, is to undercut all attempts at absolute security. In other words, there is nothing in this world that can’t be messed up or frustrated.

Ecclesiastes never denies that there are not some good things to do in this world, and it never denies that we cannot life satisfied and happy lives. Even non-believers can live the good life. You don’t need God to be happy. (See 2:26 - To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. 7:15 - In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness. And 8:14 - There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless.)

The point is that there is nothing that we can absolutely rely on in this world (“under the sun”). And, when we sit back and reflect this seems to prove itself true in many instances. Money can be lost, relationships can be ruined, children can disappoint us, and we can even encounter a lot of trouble despite the fact that we may have lived a good moral life and been an outstanding citizen.

Now, this doesn’t mean we can’t find deep meaning. In fact, many of us can and do live very satisfying lives. We can have successful and gratifying careers, love in our families, and retire in Florida! But there is no formula for success. There are guidelines to help us, that’s for sure. After all, life isn’t just a free-for-all with no rules! (“wisdom is better than folly.” 2:13) And yet even if we follow the rules there is no guarantee.

The beauty of the book of Ecclesiastes is found in how realistic it is. There is an acknowledgment of good things in life and an acknowledgment of the bad. Ecclesiastes takes a realistic view of life, and I think it is right on. Ecclesiastes leaves us feeling a bit uncertain because, after all, that’s a bit more like what life is, anyway.

But what about God? Isn’t this the Bible? Shouldn’t God fit somewhere in here?

Interestingly, the view of God here is very lofty and high. We are told not to say too much to God out of a sense of reverence. And it is this reverence for God that reminds us of our position as those who are often tainted by sin. (5:1-7) In the end we are told to “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” (12:13)




In the end, Ecclesiastes is a very honest book. It is not a “Christian” book in the way that most of us have been trained to think of “Christian.” It does not pretend to offer us happy feelings and good times. There is not even any reason given that we should think that the ideas of Ecclesiastes should be taken to heart. Unlike the introduction to Proverbs there is no grand calling for us to follow. It remains the simple observations of a profound life and a probing mind.

Ecclesiastes is a bare-faced and honest book about life and the way we experience life. It was not written to sell us a bill of goods or to indoctrinate. It was written to question and to probe.

So, “What is the meaning of life?”

Good question.