In trying to think about my writing, I wrote a page called
Categories of my Writing. I noticed
different trends in my writing: "how can we love?", the "exilic/familial",
"radically theistic / New Wine" (or, I should
say now, "radically theistic / millennial holiness"), "aletheism".
How would I now say all these things relate? And how do they relate to
outside views?
Overall, I want to move forward. "Moving forward" characterizes
"advancing kingdoms" -- the kingdom of God, or civilization, or justice,
or something like that. One thing I have had to do is move beyond being
more into advancing secular things (civilization, justice, etc.) and
into doing good in a really theistic way (advance the kingdom of God,
the God who really exists).
Is the project (or projects) of "moving forward" a good thing?
I can think of some "dissents": postmodernism (in my mind "there are
a diversity of viewpoints none of which can be said are invalid"),
and elements of the "exilic/familial" (the sense that nobody wins,
and we mourn the death of our enemies). If we mourn our enemies too
much, then we risk being on their side, or sinking into inactivity.
Being on their side might sound like a good thing if we think that
we are on the side of them as persons. But we should not necessarily
adopt everyone else's point of view. The truth is what it is -- that
our enemies are wrong necessarily connects to the fact that there is
something we need to do in the world.
Another dissent is the apocalyptic view (in the sense of, there
is only a little bit of time left). I feel that this is working
deep, under the surface of our culture, in a way we don't always
explicitly state. But it can be an explicit view (climate, AI,
the perennial religious end-times thinking). If there is no more
time left, then we lost motivation to move forward.
Another dissent is the appeal to human nature, or other kinds of
nature, or the body, or health. Human nature certainly isn't the best
thing we can conceive of, but it's also not the worst. Health calls
for moderation (for not moving forward too much, or not at all in a
sense, since we already have the body and its desires).
Those engaged in the project of moving forward might become
disillusioned with its failures (they might be on the side of moving
forward still, in principle, but might have lost some faith in it
because they see the damage it causes, or its inability to bring
about what we think it promises). Prophets speak the unvarnished
truth which "nobody" wants to hear, for the sake of the truth, even
if it seems unhelpful for them to do so.
Part of moving forward involves the truth. How do we know the
truth? Can we know the truth? For the postmodernist, the claim
is that there is no one truth. For the Reformed (Calvinist) thinker,
the claim is that humans can't naturally come to know the truth,
and God has to give us that truth (this undermining natural reason).
Buddhism and modern science also cast doubt on natural reason.
The Bible itself (I think, this is my reading) contains both
moving forward and critique of moving forward. Abraham is called
by God to found a new nation to bless the whole world ("moving forward")
(Genesis 12:1-3). But he is also commanded by God to sacrifice his son,
who is the child through whom that nation is supposed to descend (Genesis
22). David weeps for his son Absalom (who had been killed after trying
to take the throne from David), but then David realizes (is told) that he has
to live for the ongoing process, for the people who were on his (rightful)
side (2 Samuel 19:1-7). Should you trust the voice of God? Overall you
should. Should you fight for God's project (as I think the Bible would
say David was doing more so than Absalom was)? Yes, but you have to
acknowledge the danger in what you're doing and listen to the critique.
I use the term "moving forward" rather than "progress" because while
progress is a form of moving forward, there is also the moving forward
needed to preserve the things that already exist. Neither the church,
civilization, nor justice will maintain their current sizes/fullness (in
general) unless individual people move forward. The dissents to moving
forward take away energy that can help people move forward -- whether to
maintain what is good or to make things better.
"How can we love?" is about "moving forward". "Radical theism" contains
both "moving forward" and concern for every person (because every person
came from God -- every person has a history of being a child descended
from God, even if they choose to reject God permanently) -- thus, mourning
and losing (like in the "exilic/familial"). God loses in the end -- but
he doesn't have to lose as much. Love mourns what is lost, but has to
apply effort to prevent further loss.
I think that evangelicals (at least, the best of them) balance this
forward-moving with a concern for every person, a concern which does
not demoralize them but causes them to move forward (in a way that
does not "outpace" the people they try to help), and I would consider
my writing project overall to be
evangelical in a certain basic sense.
I think it is wise to consider the dissents to moving forward, as
each contain some element of wisdom and can be a check on moving forward
in a misguided way.
Postmodernism in a strong-enough form is a way to close
the mind against the possibility of there being answers, and this I
find hard to like. But in a sufficiently weak form, it says "you
have to listen to everyone's point of view in seeking the truth, and
when you start the discussion, everyone's view is equally valid". Or
it could say as well "You feel like X is true from your own experience
and reason, but other people believe not-X. Why do you think you're
right and they're wrong?"
Apocalypticism biases us to do good in the short term. Perhaps
we have too many incentives to do good in the short term already. But
maybe apocalypticism biases us to act intensely in the short term.
I don't know if that always is a good thing, but it's worth considering.
Apocalypticism may also bias us to rest, a similarly mixed thing to
pursue.
Concern for health, the body, human nature, etc. is necessary to
keep us from burning out and to do good in an unhealthy way tends to
be doing something that has evil mixed in it somewhere. Health-pursuing,
like postmodernism, can close the mind, but if it does not make itself a
god, it is something worth listening to. Respect for human nature
(in the sense of seeing it there, like you see a rattlesnake in your
path) and typical human fallibility is wise.
Those who move forward but in the process of moving forward critique
specific ways of moving forward, are doing something good to make sure
that their efforts are really good instead of bad, as long as they
avoid demoralizing themselves (or other people) about the overall
process of moving forward.
Reformed, Buddhist, and scientific questioning of human's natural
ability to reason each have their uses.
The Reformed perspective says
"you are not God". I think people should move forward, try to have the
values of God and then do the things that God wants, which are in line
with those people's values now that they have adopted God's values.
So you should see what you see and do what you want. You want to do
what is good, so your appetite is trustworthy when you want that. When
you do what you and God want, you are an agent of God. You are becoming like
God, on the small scale that you can act in. Everyone who acts out
God's will is in a sense God himself, his body. When you behave completely
legitimately, you are part of Legitimacy.
However, there is a sense
in which you are not God and never will be. God's work is much greater
than yours. Your work has a boundary to it and many things happen
outside your work. Your work is affected by things you don't
understand, but which God does understand.
If you are trustworthy,
people will trust you, and some will think you are most-trustworthy
on a deeper level -- they will give you the glory
and not God, and this is a dangerous mistake. If they make you an
idol, you (with all of your trustworthiness) could keep them from
loving God.
So it is good to consider the Reformed perspective (in which it can
sometimes seem like God does everything). I don't think it's literally true
that God does everything and we do nothing, but it's a good perspective.
The Buddhist perspective
can be taken as a means to achieve mental health (see above). The scientific
perspective can elucidate human nature (see above). Also it teaches
us to think carefully and biases us to not trust our intuitions,
which is a good thing up to a point.
All of these things are dangerous
when they close the mind to the good that we really should be doing,
the forward moving that we should really take seriously. Buddhist
and Reformed critiques of reason need to see the danger that they
are wrong and that reason is saying something valuable (as much as
it is important for rationalists to consider that their reasoning is
dangerous, as Buddhist or Reformed thinkers allege). I would propose
that everyone move forward with their worldview (postmodern, Reformed,
Buddhist, evangelical, etc.), but periodically consider that which
questions their worldview, take it as a live possibility.
This would be an "aletheistic" thing to do.
So, perhaps I could integrate all of the above into a kind of
formula:
Movement: Motivate yourself strongly ("how can we love?") to go into the
secular world to some extent ("how can we love?"), but primarily to reach
people to prevent them from hardening and dying the second death
("radically theistic / millennial holiness"), seeing them as kin, children
of a God who risks losing them if they reject him ("exilic/familial"),
not as people to defeat but rather people to mourn ("exilic/familial")
but overall still moving forward with the work to make the world
more the way God wants it to be ("how can we love?"),
anti-tempting ourselves and those
around us ("radical theism / millennial holiness").
Dissents: We need to question the movement from time to time
("aletheism"). We can consider "dissents", like Reformed, Buddhist,
health-oriented, human nature-oriented, postmodern, and apocalyptic
thinking (mentioned above). Or perhaps even the Bible could be considered as
a dissent, or both a dissent and a support (call of Abraham and binding
of Isaac / David mourning Absalom and moving on). Or there could be
other dissents not mentioned. The movement is improved by the dissents,
but overall the movement is where you are headed.
Semi-dissents: We need to improve the movement. We might accept it
as it is on a "coarse-grained" level, but on a "fine-grained" level
still want to improve it. This requires self-criticism. Perhaps this
self-criticism can morph into full-on dissent.
A person could try to live this out (or an improved version of it)
both somehow integrating all of the above into everything they do in
each moment (or getting closer to doing that), or by going through
phases.