Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Theory of Relativity (and Einstein rolled over and groaned)

Where does relativism end?
How much of it do we ingest every day and how much do we breathe out?
Relative, i.e. not absolute or independent.
I'm sure there would be a consensus among most of us, that-
Noam Chomsky is a zealot.
Not only that, he's zealous about absolutely nothing, and quite literally.
Nietzsche, was, in my mind, not the father of, (the claim to that title goes to the one who spoke the words, ". . .and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.") but the Bill Gates of functional moral relativism. He made it user-friendly and progressively, since his death, more necessary until now, we're confounded without it. He was also Adolf Hitler's false prophet.
It doesn't impress me that Nietzsche held anti-Semitism in low regard. He had no right to hold anything in low regard. He certainly couldn't have said that killing Jews for being Jews was wrong, now, could he?
But Nietzsche was the hairy, scary, real deal.
He emblazoned the pages of his books with courageous pronouncements. He minced no words, he made no concessions, and, to his credit, was quite possibly the least contradictory relativist I've ever read after.
But his stuff was a little too strong for us to stomach.
Especially after the development of his ideas arguably contributed to the Holocaust. So, we watered it down a little.
Not unlike evangelical Christianity does with predestination.
Poor John Calvin must have been in a theological slump when he walked up to the plate with that predestination idea.
But the doctrine of eternal security, he knocked that one out of the park!
Which is not unlike saying he used a matchstick to hit one out.
Just a curious aside, if the doctrine of eternal security was based on predestination and it was, how come everyone goes around assuming they are one of the ones God chose to go to Heaven and not hell?
So, are you a relativist?
Before you lower your eyebrows, when was the last time, when discussing a difference in a certain point of doctrine, or standard of living, you said, "Well, I have confidence in that person, I just don't agree with them on this or that."?
Without getting into specifics, (I haven't the nerve) what exactly is it that makes you so sure that the person is dead wrong, and all right at the same time?
Just how far back up through the ranks and levels of rules and regulations can we take this "personal conviction" stuff?
All the way to the very first ten?
Where do you put the kibosh on not judging?
When they start getting on your nerves?
The deeper I sink into this quagmire, the more I realize that "judge not that ye be not judged" is a command only understood and followed properly by the most devout, an order I long to join.
Did it mean, "Decide not for yourself whether this person is right or wrong?"
Upon quick perusal, I say, "No, it doesn't, it just means, keep your decision to yourself."
Quick perusal is generally a bad idea.
Looking closer, I see a command, a directive given to the heart, an attitude the Lord instructed us to cultivate.
It means, desperately wish and hope for and believe the best about your brother's spirituality, and when you are proved wrong, don't "aha!" Rather mourn and intercede for that soul as if it were your own.
Furthermore, "their Christianity is their business," is pure flippancy when viewed through this Christ lens.
We are to become heavily invested in our brother's success as a follower of Jesus.
Don't just not care.
Don't just make it a matter not for your concern.
Until now, there is a story about the Wesley brothers I have always regarded with some degree of cynicism.
It is said that John stated that Charles reserved judgement, and wished to be convinced of someones spirituality, but that he, John, took them at their word. I, John said, have been more often right than Charles.
I'm as cynical as the next cynic, but now, I wonder, without deciding for sure, can the confidence you place in someone become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

No comments: