We Are All Rebels At Heart

I will embark in 3 days time on an adventure to what is arguably one of the largest, if not the largest counter-culture event in the country. As I thought about this trip, and my motivations for going, it occurred to me that basically everyone there is a rebel of one sort or another.

This line of thought set me to wondering about people in general. And it occurred to me, that in small ways and sometimes great ways, we are all rebels.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a rebel as "one who rebels or participates in a rebellion". I think perhaps many (most?) of you might take exception to being called a rebel. You aren't, after all, participating in a rebellion. Or are you?

Most people think of rebellion in the social sense as going against the prevailing culture, or challenging the status quo. Certainly there have been fashion rebellions, think of the flappers of the 1920's, or the beehives and mini-skirts of the sixties, or even the ubiquitous bikini (once quite a scandalous outfit). There have been rebellions in music, with the Beatles, Elvis Presley, atonal and polytonal composition. Art had the abstract impressionists, and dada'ists.

Rebellion has had a darker side with drugs, gangs, and other criminal behaviors. And religion has been rife with rebellions since, well probably the dawn of man.

So what do all these things have in common? More particularly what do they have in common with you? I think for the most part rebellious behaviour can loosely be grouped into three categories, attempts to create something new, dissatisfaction with the current status quo and search for something different, and disagreement with the status quo and the attempt to destroy it and replace it with something new. Admittedly the last two are similar.

The first category, the attempt to create something new, is actually the oldest rebellion known. For really what it is, is an attempt to emulate God, the ultimate creator. Don't get me wrong, I am not down on the creative impulse, in fact, I rather favor it. Still creators are playing god in a sense, and the source of that impulse to create is what I am interested in here.

The next two categories roughly follow the same line, unhappiness with the current state of things. Something, some impulse, leads to a search for something new that will satisfy.

I would argue, that at the root, what all social rebellions have in common, is an impulse to seek something new, because what is currently available fails to satisfy. And I would argue that the impulse that drives us, in little ways, and sometimes great ways, to seek the new and part from the old, is the fingerprint of God on our hearts. We are created to seek God, and heaven is our intended destiny. We yearn for nearness to our Creator. And we realize, some of us consciously, and many unconsciously, that something is missing in our current state. So we seek the new. Those who don't know God, who haven't heard the Gospel, or who reject God and the Gospel, seek to fill the void in material ways, and are in fact impelled by the yearning within to seek something new.

The truly happiest people I know of are the Saints. They were the happiest in their lives precisely because of their closeness to their Creator. They understood what the impulse in their hearts meant, what its purpose was. And faithful to it, they rebelled against their contemporaries and their cultures and sought God. St. Francis was a rebel. So were the Apostles. St. Maximillian Kolbe. Mother Theresa.

We are all rebels. We are in a constant state of rebellion against the sins in our lives, the sins in our cultures, against our very flesh. Consider this from one of the New Testaments greatest rebels, "I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature. For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawlessness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord".(Romans 6:19-23)

It's all in how we express our rebellion.

The Logical Consequence of Silence

I spoke in the last post about the Christian obligation to tell others about the Gospel. The Bible is clear, and history and Tradition confirm it. However, to unbelievers, the reason for this may not be so clear. What's wrong with simply believing what we believe and letting others believe, or not, what they wish?

Pretty much all Christian denominations hold a few core beliefs in common. Among these is a belief in heaven or hell as the eternal fate of the soul after the death of the mortal body. Orthodox Christianity teaches that all humans are fallen and separated from God. Out of love for his creation, God the Son took on flesh, lived a human life and was sacrificed on the Cross for our sins, "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God..." (1 Peter 3). Through belief in Christ and Baptism, we are reconciled to God and the possibility of Heaven opens to us.

I don't propose to discuss these specific beliefs or the many variations that well-meaning Christians have thought up over the last two millenia. Nor do I propose to discuss Salvation or its prerequisites. I do propose to look at the logical consequences that derive from belief in them.

First heaven and hell, particularly hell. If Scriptural teaching that there is a heaven, and that not everyone will go there is true, then there must be a hell. And if there is no hell, what is the point of heaven and living a virtuous life. Some will argue, based on an understanding of 2 Peter 3, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance" that there is no possibility of going to hell. That is, out of love, God in his mercy will save everyone. This is not logical. If God will gift his mercy to all, what was the point of His taking flesh, suffering and dying on the Cross. More importantly, Scripture says some will go to hell (c.f Matthew 25:32-33, Revelation 20:13-14). So from the Christian perspective, the possibility of hell is real and is a bad thing.

Second, the way to heaven and to avoid hell is through Baptism and belief in Christ. In fact, Traditional and Scriptural understanding is that the only way to heaven is through Christ. The Scriptural references to this are numerous, but suffice to mention John 14:6, "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." If this is true, the consequence of this is that those who have had the opportunity to know and believe but choose not to will go to hell. God in his mercy may make exceptions for those who have never had the opportunity to know Christ, but have otherwise lived a virtuous life in accord with natural law.

It's a bit like crossing the street. If you have heard of a car and that it will hurt if it hits you, even if you aren't sure what one looks like, or how it works, simple reason would suggest you look both ways before you cross the street. It's not an accident if you fail to take reasonable precautions. Likewise, if you have heard of heaven and hell, and of Christ, and Baptism, even if you don't know much about them, you have an obligation of conscience to investigate the claims intelligently, to examine the evidence, and make a determination that they are true or false. To fail to examine the claims and intelligently examine the evidence, is to fail to look both ways before crossing the street; if you get hit, it's not an accident, it's your fault.

If Christianity is true in its claims, then there are consequences for unbelief. There are also consequences for believers. Believers are like bystanders on the sidewalk, watching the unbeliever cross the street. They see the bus coming, and they recognize that barring some intervention, the bus will hit the person crossing the street.

This is my point, the object of this discussion. Imagine that I am standing on a sidewalk watching my friend (or a total stranger) crossing the street. I see that a bus is barreling down the street. My friend is clearly unaware and oblivious to the oncoming bus. And I see that in all probability, the bus is going to hit my friend unless something happens to change the situation.

I have two choices. One I could choose to do nothing. My friend chose to cross the street. He knew or should have know of the possibility of traffic, and the failure to look for traffic is his own. Or I could shout and try to run and knock him out of the way of the oncoming bus. From my standpoint, the standpoint of my conscience, which is the right approach?

If I try and fail, at least I did what I could to save my friend. However, if I remain silent, when I could have done something, I am complicit in whatever happens to my friend by my omission.

This is why Christians must evangelize. This is why St. Paul said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel." (1 Cor 9:16). This is the Christian point of view that unbelievers fail to appreciate. They are critical and claim we are "imposing" our beliefs, and that we lack "acceptance" and "love" if we are critical of their point of view. Nothing could be farther from the Truth. From the Christian perspective, to be silent would be the most hateful, uncaring, unloving, uncompassionate action we could take.

Hell is a lot worse than getting hit by a bus.

Should Christians 'Coexist' or should they evangelize

A friend posted the following question on her Facebook page:

"Why do people (who say they are Christians) see things only from their point of view, never considering how the other person may feel, and showing them love-in the name of Jesus? Isn’t that what we are supposed to do? Don’t we learn a few things with age and maturity?"

It raised a few questions in my mind that I wanted to explore.

The first question that came to mind was, "Should Christians 'Coexist' or should they evangelize?" Her question was in the context of Christians relating to other Christians, but the question also applies to interactions between Christians and non-Christians.

My initial, admittedly shoot-from-the-hip response was "I don't necessarily disagree with you. But let me turn your question around. Why do non-Christians seem to never look at things from the Christian point of view. Perhaps it's because they dismiss the Christian point as unworthy of consideration?"

Certainly everyone brings their own views (biases?) to a discussion like this. So I thought I would examine the question of 'Coexist' versus evangelize first from the Christian point of view. In this context, I am referring to 'Coexist' to mean the viewpoint that all religions and points of view are valid, and the movement, for lack of a better term, that goes with it. (c.f. www.coexistonline.com).

I have no problem with the idea of creating harmony through understanding. but the branding and propagation of this idea has had the side effect, in my opinion, of promoting a relativistic view of various religions and ideas, and labels a challenge to any specific point of view as racism or hate-speech. One only needs to look at the amount of 'hate-speech' legislation in the U.S. to understand the problem. We are rapidly reaching the point where espousing a point of view that is offends someone (is contrary to their point of view) is being criminalized.

This is a growing problem for Christians. Because 'evangelism' (1: to preach the gospel to 2: to convert to Christianity, Merriam-Webster Online) implicitly contradicts all non-Christian points of view. If Christians are, in fact, called to evangelize, then we are called to engage in what is rapidly being defined as hate-speech. Are we to engage in potentially criminal behavior, or can we all just get along?

What is the proper Christian viewpoint? St. Paul speaks to this, proclaiming “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel” (1 Cor 9:16). Pope John Paul II stated, "Those who have come into genuine contact with Christ cannot keep him for themselves, they must proclaim him... This should be done however with the respect due to the different paths of different people and with sensitivity to the diversity of cultures in which the Christian message must be planted, in such a way that the particular values of each people will not be rejected but purified and brought to their fullness." (1)

Without belaboring this, the Great Commission calls us to go and make disciples of all nations. Passive coexistence cannot accomplish this. So we have a duty of conscience to speak out. Surely we should do this will charity. "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2)

I think, perhaps, my friend was bemoaning the all too common lack of charity in our interactions. But to be silent is to fail in our duty.

Next -- The logical consequence of silence.

Notes:
1. John Paul II, Apostolic letter, Novo Millenio Ineunte (6 January 2001)

Blogged with the Flock Browser