fruitful faith » freedom

beings that have – or havers that are had

Dale — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:04:17 +0000

(The excellent documentary that got my brain going down this – excellent or not so excellent – train of thought is ‘Consumed: Inside the Belly of the Beast‘)¹

Erich Fromm is known in large part for his contrast between the ‘being’ and ‘having’ modes of existence, as expressed in his 1976 book (partial preview here), To Have or To Be? The basic idea is that humans, having estranged ourselves from our environment or the other(s), try to restore this relationship either by way of some kind of dominating possession (‘having’) of the other, or by way of relating to or existing (‘being’) with the other.

The speculative thought I wanted to explore via blogging (one of blogging’s best uses) is thus: Only ‘beings’ can actually ‘have’; and ‘havers’ are actually ‘had’ by the things they think they ‘have’.

The haver is defined by the act of possession of the other, and is thus enslaved to his desire to have this other. The being, however, is defined by, not possession, but relationship to other (and self), and is thus free of needing to have the other.

It is worth pausing and considering the many things we can desire to possess – the many things which can thus begin to possess us. Status. Wealth. Comfort. Knowledge. Satisfaction. Power. Relationships. Affection. I reckon all of these things are good things which are nonetheless distorted when we seek to found our being upon having them. i.e. “I am one who has knowledge, friends, wealth, etc.”

I believe the ultimate Being is the Creator, whose ontological (Gk. ontos = being/existence) status is wholly distinct from, and transcendent of, our world. The Creator did not need to have a creation², but rather simply is a creative Being, and thus a) relates to creation as being the Creator, and b) therefore truly has it.

Thus, we most reflect this ultimate Being when our being is grounded by relationship to the other, rather than established by possession of the other.

And no, I’m not going to pretend I didn’t notice the parallel language to John the Seer in chapters 17-18 of his Apocalypse!
which would make the Creator contingent upon the creation!!

distance

Dale — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:17:33 +0000

So… I’m trying hard to be sensitive to people’s feelings, but how many blocks does this proposed mosque have to be away from ground zero before it doesn’t offend people?

had to be chance?

Dale — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:19:41 +0000

chance & necessity | random & planned | chaos & order | freedom & determinism

The phrase ‘by chance’ refers to an event/result happening without compulsion or determination – we say the situation/result ‘did not have to be that way’.

The phrase ‘of necessity’ refers to an event/result happening according to compulsion or law – we say the situation/result ‘had to be that way’.

So. The universe or ‘the world’ or ‘things’ or ‘stuff’… Chance or necessity?

Interestingly, both answers can be used to argue for some form of theism.

Leaving the question of a rather large number of ‘multiverses’ to the side for the moment (it’s interesting to reflect on whether or not this actually affects the ‘chance’ issue – I’m not convinced it does); if we “did not have to” exist in the way that we do, and are merely the result of ‘luck’ or ‘chance’ or ‘accident’ (in terms of cosmological, material causes and phenomena), then this can quite easily be said to point to a Creator who, as it were, was not surprised by the draw to the ‘lottery’ that is this creation. An omniscient architect of the great ‘lottery’, who knows the mechanics of the machinery so well that the result is known before it plays out. The odds, we say, are simply too small for it not to have been a plan.

And also, if we “had to” exist in the way that we do, being the result of sheer unflinching physical necessity (i.e. ‘it was just a matter of time until we got here’), and attribute our existence to the brute, unchangeable laws of nature, then this too can be said to point to a Creator who, as it were, is the Legislator behind the “Laws of Nature”, who builds the desired result into the building blocks of Creation. Everything is predestined and determined, and (to quote atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett) “of course you have free will – you have no choice about that”.

humane sex

Dale — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:39:10 +0000

Conversations about sexual ethics often are had without reference to assumed/unstated/unconsidered ideas about:

(in particular) goals for human(e) sexual acts – ‘what is the telos (end, goal, purpose) of human sexuality?’ (i.e. ‘what is sex for?’)
and (in general) the relationship between sexual acts and being a human – ‘what is the relationship between sexual actions and human identity?’ (i.e. ‘how dependent is human identity on sexual actions?’)

(Warning: some of the following may offend some – read at own risk) Some sexual actions would be met with a near-universal judgement of ‘wrong’ with little actual consideration of why they are thought to be so. Beastiality, for example, would be considered ‘wrong’ by many people (certainly myself!), but many would struggle to provide actual reasons why it is so. We tend to defer to popular opinion or typical reaction – namely: ‘with a cow!? sick!’

The above points should be brought to bear on things. For example, if the guiding telos/goal of sexual action is enjoyment, then cow-intercourse could be perfectly consistent with that goal, if, of course, the human and the cow were into that kind of thing. If the guiding goal of sex is procreation, however, the cow-intercourse would be (unless I’m very uninformed about sexual reproduction?) quite inconsistent with that goal.

Other sex-acts could be considered. Consensual paedophilia (which, of course, I’m not hesitant to be ‘against’ even if I didn’t have good reasons for it – which I happen to have) would be consistent with a goal of maximum exposure of humans to sexual experience, but inconsistent with a goal of protection of children from various kinds of harm (albeit, ‘harm’ can be a very tricky thing to nail down – and this is in no way hinting that paedophilia in any form could ever be OK).

Enough examples, you get the drift. The other point (relationship of sexual acts to human identity) is also key. For example, does celibacy affect a person’s identity as a human being in any way? Do other sex-acts? Much of western culture presents a view that sex (and lots of it) is what humans do – but what about who humans are?

Other human goals are also relevant to whatever one’s understanding is of the goal of human sexuality. For example, the goal of strong, monogamous marriages/all-of-life-partnerships/’joinings’ (which all really mean the same thing) would clearly contrast with an understanding in which maximum enjoyment was the guiding goal for human sexuality.

An over-arching goal contrary to a lesser goal can override it. Also, an equal goal contrary to another goal can be in conflict with it. The over-arching goal for humanity for the apostle Paul was, in a word, freedom. Full, unadulterated, unhindered, genuine humanness. For all kinds of ethical areas he advised in, the goal could usually/always be seen in terms of not being ruled, controlled, mastered or enslaved by anything, but instead to stand firm in freedom.

Under this overriding goal, were other goals, such as an acknowledgement and appreciation of the basic human goal to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. Though, of course, for Paul, singleness came with its own benefits, which equally – or even better – served other goals, so marriage was not a central or definitive thing to being a genuine human.

But the over-arching goal of freedom shaped all subsequent goals. The goal of human freedom shaped Paul’s understanding of sexual freedom (quite distinct from modern/western connotations of that phrase). For Paul, no sexual desire was to control or enslave humans. This is not, of course, suppressionism, but a humane ethic of (with patient discipline) sharpening, shaping, directing and moulding desires such that they serve the human rather than the other way around – blunted, distorted, undirected and unmoulded (indeed suppressed and ignored!) desires that make the human their servant.

india trip

Dale — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:29:09 +0000

Not that I always maintain regular posting, but I’ll not (probably?) be posting for a couple weeks, as I leave Sunday night (or Monday morning, actually) for Kolkata, India with a group from my church. We are helping Freeset refurbish their new building to expand their business. Freeset make fair-trade, organic, eco-friendly and pretty stinkin’ classy jute bags; and they are expanding to making t-shirts with the new building. Their reason for existence is to provide alternative employment for Indian women who want out of the sex trade – a form of human trafficking.

Team 1 (3 people) is already over there now; our team (Team 2 – 11 people) goes this weekend; and Team 3 (4 people) go later in February. We’ve got a great range of people going over, from tradesmen to those just willing to pitch in wherever needed.

freedom

Dale — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:38:56 +0000

I’m really appreciating how significant the theme of freedom is in the Bible.

Freedom is opposed to compulsion, captivity or slavery.

Utterly free of compulsion, God freely acts to create and sustain a free creation, particularly free and dangerous human beings, which constantly, continually and consistently become enslaved, manipulated, captive or otherwise enslaved to and by various kinds of anti-freedom things (aptly summarised as sin and evil).

The work of Creation is a risky yet grace-filled work of giving freedom to that which is created. But then there’s the work of Redemption.

Utterly free of compulsion, God freely acts in many ways to lead his creation, particularly humans, out of bondage, captivity and slavery and into freedom. The Israelites are freed from slavery in Egypt, and are given a Law which instructs them how to be free – the anti-enslavement people, the counter-compulsion people, the bondage-breaking people.

Paul, writing in the 1st century to a community at Rome, writes, however, that this freedom-oriented Law Code was unable to make them truly free, and that it had actually served to make their enslavement all the more obvious. For human beings to be truly and fully free, their hearts and minds must be freed first. For Paul, this freedom – a liberation which the whole creation waits eagerly for - happens by way of a wholly new kind of Law, which he calls the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Christians are to be freed from all that enslaves them, and to stand firm in that freedom and not be held by any possible thing that could enslave them. Sin itself and the various schemes at managing, decreasing, hiding or otherwise ‘fixing’ sin (in short: ‘religion’, Jewish or otherwise) both drive humans deeper and deeper into bondage, self-un-control, frustration, un-peace and slavery. With brotherly yet passionate (and often stern!) affection, Paul continually guarded his loved ones to not be enslaved to anything – food, sex, ideas or religion to name a few.

The vocation (note: a freely given and freely received vocation!) for these freed people is to be God’s vessels of freedom-bringing in God’s world. To be used by God to release those who are held captive by any and all things that enslave them.

* * *

As I spend Christmas, New Year’s Day and my wife’s birthday in my home country of the United States, I am struck by an irony. Many (not all!) American Christians are worried about whether or not United States Law will reflect their beliefs.

The irony is not that I disagree with the desired outcomes. The irony is the methods by which they imagine them to be realised. Sermons, Books, Websites, Newsletters and Radio Programmes all across the country warn Christians not only of the demise of the nation, but also of the means of rescue – political muscle.

I am not advising withdrawal from the political realm (quite the contrary, actually), but merely am calling to remembrance Paul’s conviction that true freedom does not come by way of any Law or any sin-’fixing’ schemes, no matter what country or race they are attached to.

I am persuaded to believe that for Paul, the worst news would not be that abortions happened to be legal or even government funded (or that same-sex couples had the same state tax status as male/female couples). I think Paul might well be more saddened by the failure of the Church to trust God to bring true and complete freedom to the world – the kind of freedom that cannot come through Law (religious or national).

Is this a pro-abortion stance (or pro-homosexuality for that matter)?? Absolutely not. It is merely an attempt to remember that true Freedom comes not through sin-’fixing’ systems. I don’t think American Christians need to choose between democratic process and spiritual transformation – I’m definitely a ‘both/and’ kind of person. But at the end of the day, a Christian puts their ‘eggs’ in the ‘basket’ of the freedom-bringing Gospel of Christ. A law can be changed easily enough –especially in the States!– if enough Christians persuade each other to vote the same way on a given issue. But changing a heart – freeing a human being… now that takes something else.