Friday night, two good friends came to our concert, and they brought along a friend. The four of us spent some time at a coffee shop, just chatting about all kinds of things. Talk turned towards movies, and probably the one movie that has stimulated more coffee shop talk than any others in the past few months: Borat.
The friend of my friends, was discussing the movie, and mentioned how he didn't feel that he could see the movie, on moral grounds. I mentioned that I had seen the movie, and David jokingly mentioned that he appreciated me confessing to seeing the film. It was all in good fun, of course, and I followed up by saying that I didn't have any regrets about seeing the movie.
The movie is a bit disconcerting, and it raises all kinds of questions. My brother Steve walked out of the movie, saying that he felt a priest probably shouldn't be seen watching the movie, but he needed to know what all the buzz was about. I completely understand that position.
But it begs the question of morality, and what is right. It seems to me that a safe bet is that we all live by our own internal moral compass. There are few people who see identically on 100% of every situation that might pose a moral dilemma, even those who share the same faith. There are conservatives and liberals in all denominations, and one denomination's conservatives might be another's liberals, and vice versa. How do we know what is right?
I lost a job from a Christian university because I drink alcohol. Intelligent, God-fearing men and women in that denomination have arrived at the conviction that drinking is sinful, and cannot be tolerated. Is this legalism? I think so. But is it legalism at the same time for the guy who doesn't go see a movie? I don't think so. But does that fact make it wrong for another individual? I don't think so on that score either.
I want to think about these things more. I have an entire mental list in my mind of things that are right and wrong. It's changed over the years, and I suspect it will change with age as well. I abide by most of the biggies, but find myself on a fairly regular basis violating some of the points of the inner code that I have in my mind, falling short on a rather daily basis. This code has been shaped by so many different things: the Bible, my Christian school, my family, my church, my experience, my friendships, my reading, and my personal reflections on life.
Over at Scott's blog, he's talked recently about cussing, something that I partake in on a fairly frequent basis. I used to think this was vorboten, but now, I take that position with a grain of salt. Sometimes, nothing fits better than a well placed four letter word. I don't feel much compunction about that. He also had a stimulating post on sexuality that was fodder for my thinking. That's certainly an area where all kinds of different levels of morality come into play for different people and different denominations. I would say it's nigh on impossible to find a common ground on this issue, except on the biggest issues, e.g. adultery and the like.
Where does personal conviction intersect with absolute truth? What's the dividing line? How is it possible one person to navigate a path that they feel is the "straight and narrow," and claim that this path is the path upon which everyone else must climb? Scripture talks about the eye of the needle--I've often wondered what that means. Two questions arise for me: 1) How narrow is the way? and 2) Do we sometimes make the way more narrow? The path I've taken so far has been a rather winding road, and at times, I've purposely tried to lose the path. How do you know if you're on the path anyway? I don't go to church on a regular basis, for many reasons. Some would say that I can't be on the path, unless I go to church (a friend said to me, "You can't be a Lone Ranger, Dan."). I don't accept this, but some believe this absolutely.
What about the pursuit of happiness? How happy should we strive to become? This idea of pursuing happiness is a rather recent idea, in the history of the world, and I don't think it was much on the minds of people who lived during Biblical times, at least as we perceive the concept today. Augustine touches upon this in the Confessions, but his was really a pursuit of hedonism and pleasure. Where does morality enter into our pursuit of happiness? It has to intersect on many, many planes, but deciphering what is right and wrong is a difficult question.
Some would say having a second car is wrong, considering the number of starving people in the world. Or having a big house, or striving to better one's living conditions. I find this hard to swallow, and this is where I would have to say that individual conscience must play a role. I honestly believe that for some, God has called them to forgo certain things that are perfectly acceptable for others. One need only think of the religious orders and the vows taken by members of those orders. For them, God has called them to more stringent standards than a layman.
I don't have answers to these questions. I think I'll read the Confessions again, since that's always food for thought. I'm left honestly with more questions the more I think about these things, and I often wonder if my "inner code" is warped or distorted. I think this could mean being warped in one of two directions: legalistic thinking on some issues, or too lenient on others. But I guess that's what it means to work out our faith with fear and trembling.
Regardless, I still contend that Borat's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. And the most disconcerting one as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I haven't seen Borat. What makes it so disconcerting?
You raise some interesting questions in this post, Dan. Some of your questions about authority are the questions that led me to Catholicism. For instance, if you say your authority lies in the Bible Alone, then it immediately brings the question of "Whose interpretation?" to the forefront. This is easily demonstrated by walking the streets of Grand Rapids and seeing the multitude of churches who are Bible Alone types. If an objective interpretation were possible, the Protestant church would be far more unified. Instead we see further splintering over 'objective biblical truths.' That was an issue that I found I could not ignore.
Now obviously there's a great deal of disagreement within Catholicism as well. Some of it is valid, and some of it is what I see as the Protestant spirit of American Catholicism. But I probably haven't been Catholic long enough to speak about it, and perhaps I come across as someone who thinks he's got all his puzzle pieces placed - I haven't and do not think I have, by the way.
Anyway, with that Catholic advertisment out of the way, let me address legalism and morality.
Some of these ideas were interestingly discussed over at Jesus Creed some time ago. I don't remember all of it and haven't reread it, but it concerned the idea of zealotry, or fence-making, within Christendom.
Scot McKnight's contention is that we ought not to be in the business of fence-making (at least not for other believers) where the Bible is unclear or silent. It seems fairly practical advice.
One of his examples is alcohol. There are many believers who believe that alcohol is immoral. But such zealotry is pharasaical in that it creates a law where there is no law. Or, it takes one's own personal code and inflates it to be the code of the Church.
There is nothing wrong with being a teetotaler. But to say that everyone, therefore, must be a teetotaler is wrong. (Not to mention stupid, given the clarity of the Scriptures and the example of Christ.)
Another example: My father-in-law, when he visited for Christmas, told my wife that a marriage will fail if the couple do not go out on dates every once in a while - to get away from the kids. Now he knows we are in no position to do such a thing, but he enjoys critiquing without lifting a finger to help (for instance, he never offered to watch the kids while he was here so Laura and I could go on a date).
This is common marriage-advice fodder, which is almost as helpful as the financial-advice fodder that pollutes our Christian airwaves and dribbles forth from our pulpits. (Sorry, personal baggage.)
Now, there is a helluvalot more to marriage than going out on a date every now and again. Furthermore, demanding a fence without offering help is seriously dysfunctional/immoral. But my point is that there is no authority that demands that married couples date occasionally. We don't date more because of where we live and because of the crazy expense of it all once you add in the babysitter(s). Now we love to stand around the kitchen and talk, and do so all the time. To me this is far more valuable than sitting down in a movie theater together, but every relationship is different.
In other words, that fence doesn't fit us - perhaps it never will, certainly not now.
The same case can be made for having a budget, smoking, swearing, dancing, movie-going, and an infinite host of other examples.
I do believe that we need to understand our own propensity to wander, and where we are likely to wander. In understanding our weakness and fleeing it, if necessary, there can be great good. I know some people who refuse to have the Internet in their home because of the potential toward immorality that's there. I would personally like to see it someone simply be more responsible with such an invaluable tool, but perhaps they understand that the temptation to view pornography or gamble or whatever would be too great for them.
I suppose this begins to skirt the issue of religious life that you spoke of. Some choose poverty or chastity - or, perhaps more appropriately, are called to chastity or poverty. But that does not mean that all must give away everything they own to follow Christ.
Anyway - lots of stuff to think about here. I appreciate it. And sorry about the tome - just thinking out loud more than anything here.
Well, perhaps disconcerting is the wrong word. Disturbing certainly applies. I've never felt more uncomfortable in a movie, watching incredibly awkward interactions and conversations. When you can see fellow audience members squirm in their seats, you know you're watching something unique...and in this case, uncomfortable. But funny at the same time.
Thanks for your comments, Scott. I think the appeal of Catholicism for you in this area was one that was shared by some other members of my family, and I admit that can be appealing for me as well. But then again, there are issues with Catholicism that I simply don't agree with, so it's not an option. However, there are plenty of Catholics who would tell me just to trust. My dad had certain issues when he joined the Church again, but he decided to give those up to God.
Your comments on "inflating" something so that it is the code of the Church is interesting. This is exactly what I think about in this area. I have struggled in the past in my own life with an overly wrought sense of a code, that I feel was primarily legalism.
But then, I wonder if sometimes I travel, or wander, too far in the other direction.
There's always the words of Luther that we Protestants can cling to: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more boldly still."
hehe
Post a Comment