One...Two...
Freddy's coming for you.
Three...Four...
Better lock the door.
Five...Six...
Get your crucifix.
Seven...Eight...
Stay up late.
Nine...Ten...
Never sleep again.
Eleven...Twelve...
See you in Hell.
Fear is a powerful thing. When I was a baby, it made me cling to my mother. When I was a young child, it kept me from running into the street. As a teenager, it kept me from looking in the bathroom mirror in the dark. It has made me say no to drugs, sex, and skydiving. There are fears of real things like bombs, killer bees, and root canals. There are fears of not-so-real things like Freddy Kruger, bad luck, and evil leprechauns. I used to have shirts that I refused to wear because I feared the disaster that accompanied my donning of the shirt last week. I used to run from yellow dune buggies because of a recurring nightmare with a fiendish yellow dune buggy. I used to believe in Jesus because I feared Hell.
And there we have it - the great motivator of the Church: fear. I have come to see that fear is one of the largest and most widely used weapons in the Church's arsenal. Granted, the Church does not represent the only weapon-ization of fear. Batman does it. Terrorists do it. The pharmaceutical industry does it. And certainly, the Church does it. Fear of excommunication keeps people from questioning the status quo. Fear of missing a blessing keeps people tithing. Fear of burning in Hell motivates conversion. In their song, "Selling the Drama," Live sings:
and to love: a god
and to fear: a flame
and to burn a crowd that has a name
Live perceptively picks up on how the Church has gone about the work of evangelism: coercion. People choose to love God because they fear the alternative - a flame.
The traditional order of worship for a wedding involves some sort of question regarding the intent of the couple. The question is asked at the very beginning of the ceremony. It is designed to be sure that neither the bride nor the groom are being coerced. It is designed to eliminate things like shotgun weddings because love cannot exist without a will. Love is not the end of coercion. Yes, a shotgun wedding could conceivably last and even thrive in love, but for that to happen, the person being coerced must choose to love. The person coercing must give freedom. Coercion must cease for love to begin.
Why do we think a relationship with God is different? Why do we think fear is the appropriate starting place for love? Why do we think a fear of Hell necessitates a love for God?
Yes, the Bible calls for a healthy fear of God: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." and "But I'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill people and then throw them into hell." But this is a fear of God - a healthy fear, a reverent fear. The kind of fear we have sold (as Live would say) is a fear of Hell, loneliness, torment. We have idolized a dogma of Hell and placed it on the throne of God: "Fear Hell, not God."
I used to believe in Jesus because I was scared of Hell. Now I not only believe in Jesus, but I love Jesus. I even try to live like Him. I believe in Jesus, love Jesus, try to live like Jesus, because I think he had/has it right. I believe his way - the Kingdom of God - will bring about the restoration of the world...the way God created it to be. I don't know if Heaven and Hell are literal places or spiritual planes of existence or whatever you want to call it. And to me, it doesn't matter. I think following Jesus is the answer even if there is no heaven...or Hell.
3 comments:
Wow that was quick...good words. Right on the head of that proverbial nail.
I like your comment about replacing God on His throne with hell. That is a vivid picture.
A pastor of a church my family attended in California told this story:
A little boy walked into his daddy's room shortly after his daddy came home from work. Lying on the dresser was the patriarch's wallet, filled with cash, ripe for the snatching. That little boy could have one of several options to play out in response to the temptation of stealing:
a. Don't steal because Daddy told me not to
b. Don't steal because I might get caught
c. Don't steal because I love my Daddy
The first to options produce the 'right' behavior, externally, but they reflect incorrect motivations in the scheme of righteousness. The third option is one that should reflect our desire to follow God, obedience out of love.
The second option is the connection in my mind to your posting. The fear of punishment, while a good motivation for a child who is not yet a moral agent, is not a good motivation for continued fellowship with the Creator. It cannot replace love and gratitude.
Drake
"incorrect motivations in the scheme of righteous"
Choice A to me is the most interesting choice.
"Don't steal because Daddy told me not to"
This is Authority.
and Authority is one of the hardest concepts for me to deal with personal.
Being an Anarchist and a Buddhist (Buddha's last words "Question Authority")
I often find it hard when to accept authority.
Is all authority bad?
Is Jesus's authority worth questioning?
If Jesus, or Moses, or God said "Don't steal"... is that not enough?
Authority seems connected with the old word "Ethos" or character/credibility (loose def.) of a person or speaker.
Or how about this definition.. Ethos is the Audiences perspective.
I do believe Ethos is an important attribute to have (Go Aristotle!!)
But is Ethos enough?
Is Authority enough?
If God jumped off a cliff, would I?
I think Aristotle was right about Ethos.
He said that there is a trinity, Ethos, Logos, and the greastest of all Pathos.
So if choice A. is Ethos.
Choice B is Logos.
Logos is the "Logic" or rational behind the argument or claim.
Choice B is the most rational, and living in a Modern "Reason before Faith" world, it is no wonder that Logic and Reason seem to be the most motivating force...
THIS IS NOT ABOUT FEAR....
IT IS ABOUT A INABILITY TO SEE ANYTHING OTHER THAT RATIONAL.
IT IS ABOUT LIVING IN A WORLD RULED BY LOGIC AND REASON.
"I might get caught" is a reasonable responce.
So that leaves me with the Greatest of the Trinity "Pathos"
Pathos is the Emotional Appeal. It is the nonrational commitment, based on feeling and "heart".
This is what I love to use to persuade hehehe.
This is choice "C"
All three of these choices A B and C are all good choices.
It is NOT about RIGhEOUSNESS in making the right choice.
Life is not a multiple choice test!
All three (Pathos, Ethos, and Logos) are important and should be used in understanding.
It is not that one is right and the other is wrong.
It is that some instances work better for some types of critical thinking.
Some experiences are better suited for Ethos, and other Logos, and still others all three together.
It is not about "correct motivations in the scheme of righteous"
It is about the realization that we live in a culture that only utilizes "Logos" and leaves out the other 2 as "not good enough"
strangely I think option one is ok. I have a huge struggle with human authority. I've never been able to deal well with it. But God's authority is different...
As humans we have very little capacity to know and understand the world around us. Because we have no clue what is going on in the "spiritual" aspects of this world. Yea some people might can tap into that spiritual realm, but if they can they still probably have no clue what their dealing with.
That realm that we know almost nothing of is first nature to God. He knows it just as well as he knows our physical world.
Compared to God we are infinitely less than in our understanding. So, God telling us to do something should be enough. Yea we may love Him. But we also realize that his understanding far surpasses our own.
A kid might not no why he cant play in the street, but a dad knows that a fast moving truck and a slow moving child are a messy combination.
There's lots of things that God tells us not to do that we may never fully understand. But I reckon He can foresee a messy combination better than me.
Post a Comment