On Aurelius and God

A friend recently posted the following quote on Facebook, which got me thinking:

Aurelius’ theory is laid out rather logically, but a few moments’ consideration reveals some underlying assumptions that cast doubt on his conclusion.

First, virtue or goodness, unless defined by a sole authority, is a moving target; one’s culture, upbringing, and personal perspectives affect what an individual perceives as most “virtuous.”  For example, in a dilemma, is it more virtuous to do what is better for one’s family or for one’s country?  Is it more virtuous to lie to keep the peace or to never lie at all?  Is it more virtuous to tolerate rude people or to encourage them toward more considerate behavior?  Is it ever virtuous to kill to save one or more lives?  Is collaboration virtuous, or is it plagiarism and immoral—or is it amoral?  Is it more virtuous to obey the law or to obey one’s conscience or one’s God?  A person can find many such situations—some small, some large—and the answer will vary according to the individual asked.

Would any decent judge allow the one on trial to define what is good or virtuous?  Of course not!  Would a judge write off a defendant’s crimes if that person did his or her best otherwise?  That wouldn’t be fair!  Humans are masters at justifying all manner of atrocities, from a childish prank to genocide.  Thus, regarding Aurelius’s first premise, presuming there is a God, and presuming that Being is just, won’t that same justice require Him to judge a person as welcome or not according to one unchanging standard—not an individual’s best effort or a fuzzy definition of “a good life”?  

Following this line of thought, still working under the assumption of the existence of a just God or gods, we’re left wondering what Heaven’s unchanging standard is.  The world’s gods and pantheons each have their own, often conflicting, standards for human conduct and virtue.  Obviously, a person can’t follow them all.  Moreover, many faiths state that a person’s eternal welcome depends not on (or not solely on) virtue, but on whether that person welcomed and was devoted to God in his or her mortal life.

Considering all this, it seems clear that Aurelius’ first premise, and thus his conclusion, are unsound, based on assumptions about the character of the gods and Man’s understanding of “virtue.”  Only in a few faiths (e.g. the Greco-Roman pantheon) would Aurelius’ gamble on living a good life pay off in all potential outcomes.  In others faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and others I don’t know well enough to include with certainty), choosing to live a virtuous life without devotion to God is the same as rejecting God and rejecting eternal safety. 

Since all people must choose to worship something or nothing, I reckon a person gambles a lot if they follow Aurelius’s advice.  After death, should that person discover God is real and just and judges according to faith, that person would fail the test of following Him.  Thus, each person must consider and choose whom to worship (or not) wisely lest God does exist and He someday says to us, “Why did you give up seeking me?  Why did you reject me?  Now I must honor your decision; you are not welcome in Heaven with me.” 

It is daunting to think of examining the world’s many beliefs and forms of unbelief—to determine whether any are plausible, and then whether the most plausible one merits devoting a lifetime to it—devotion based on faith in something no human can prove or disprove (empirically, at least).  Considering the stakes—eternity—surely it’s worth it to keep searching for Truth our whole lives, not being satisfied with simply living "a good life."  And if found, surely one should follow the Truth to the Source and devote oneself to it. 

Of course, my readers know from my previous posts that I believe the Truth to be Jesus Christ.  I continue to examine that faith and compare it with others, but none have persuaded me against Him. The most persuasive argument against Jesus Christ is actually my own selfishness that doesn’t want to submit to any authority but my own will, and that’s a foolishly short-sighed basis for a decision with such potentially dire—or wonderful—consequences that will last for a literal eternity. 

On Mental Associations

What a wonder is the human brain!  It can think linearly and episodically, making marvelous leaps between information and memory to come to novel topics or conclusions—sometimes wrong, sometimes irrelevant, but at times, brilliant.  The brain has invented wonders, created beauty, and discovered criminals--in between forgetting friends' birthdays and being unable to forget that one annoying song...

Consider this line of thought: Passion—verve—"a little late for trimming the verge, don’t you think?”—Gandalf—pointy hat—the sorting cap from Hogwarts—Hog’s Head—a medieval roast boar with an apple in its mouth—basting—when’s lunch?—tea time—French vanilla creamer—toast—weddings—white...

Without looking, can you remember what idea I started with?  How about the fifth item?  It wouldn't be strange for a conversation to canvass these topics—and for one of the interlocutors to have forgotten a thought or two they'd wanted to share as they listened to their fellows. No wonder people have trouble concentrating and remembering and reasoning if our brains won't focus long enough to do a thorough, logical job—and yet we manage to make sense, somehow (to varying extents), and we still manage to function in society and in the workplace, and to do those wonderful things mentioned above.

It’s something to think on.

On Oneness

“. . . that they may be one just as We are one . . .” (John 17:22).

I never thought much on the idea of oneness with God until a year or two ago.  Since then, I’ve noticed it cropping up in a lot of places--in my devotionals, my Bible readings, our pastor’s sermons, casual conversation, even the essays I help students revise.  A few repetitions is a neat coincidence.  Constant reiteration is more likely a sign that God really wants me to get and apply this concept.

So what does it mean to “be one”?  

With other humans, complete oneness is impossible; we are in separate bodies, thinking separate thoughts from separate points of view, often working in separate places.  Thus, human oneness is nonliteral, more about emotional intimacy, sharing time and lives as with a married couple or family or close friends, until the individuals know each other well enough that they’re on the same “wavelength” or at least know how to work smoothly together.

However, in context with our omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, whose Holy Spirit indwells us, this ideal state of “oneness” is far more literal.  Reaching that point is a matter of seeking God wholeheartedly during every waking moment, trusting God’s promises and character, completely dying to Self, surrendering our own desires and goals and thoughts so that we may see people and circumstances with God’s perspective and then act on His prompting rather than on our human sympathy or assumptions.  To understand oneness, we may consider ourselves a branch grafted onto the vine of Jesus (John 15:5), and as such, should aim to become so thoroughly and naturally connected that we don’t know where our Self starts and Jesus begins.  

photo from Chaumette Winery, on Flickr

Unfortunately, no one’s perfect this side of Heaven where the curse of sin remains.  It takes time for any graft to take secure hold, and our willfulness, circumstances, and other factors may prevent us from truly becoming one with God.  Even when close to oneness, we widen cracks at the grafting point any time we choose to act on our own whims and assert our own will, moving contrary to the Vine.  To remain one, we must grow and move at God’s pace.  Sometimes this requires the discipline of doing nothing—remaining still, waiting, listening, or learning—before acting so that we may move in God’s way and God’s timing.  At other times, it requires the discipline of instant obedience when we feel led to do something uncomfortable before the opportunity passes. Regular obedience makes us more sensitive to His direction, but our free will remains, and we don’t always make good use of it.  

How we react to a damaged relationship with the Vine is vital to our health as a branch, as well as to the amount and quality of our fruit.  The revelation of a break in our connection to the Vine is not the time to despair of oneness and go do our own thing, but a time to seek healing.  Whether we notice the separation hidden in our center or whether it forms a jarringly obvious crack in our surface life, we need to repair the connection at once; we must be repentant and then request—and allow—our Master Gardener to mend us.  

Because of my fallibility, attaining and maintaining oneness with God takes work--constant vigilance, readiness, and willingness.  It takes actively setting aside my plans, my preferences, my perspective each morning—and any other time during the day when I try to assert my own will.  It takes being immersed in God’s Word, in prayer, and in fellowship with the Body of Christ even when—or especially when—I’m not “in the mood.”  I’m not there yet, and I still catch myself seeking God for self-improvement or for the peace that comes from spiritual balance rather than for God Himself.  But our awe-inspiring, loving, fearsome, mysterious God deserves my whole heart, not a corner of it.  To be truly one with Him, I must try, try again, be it seven times or seven times seventy (thousand) times.  I want to produce good fruit, and when my earthly life ends--although I am not always willing to do and be what it takes to receive God’s praise—I hope to improve so that I may hear Him say “Well done, good and faithful servant.”  

My Gardener and I have our work cut out for us.  

....How’s your connection to the Vine?