Making
spiritual progress?
The Lord Jesus said
something very sobering,
“Will the Son of Man find faith on the earth?”
Now, he isn't being cynical about the end.
He’s simply talking about the slow descent of man into an ever
increasing blind arrogance and purposeful distraction.
He’s talking about a spiritual de-evolution, generation by
generation. He sees the
possibility of everyone becoming religious without a hint of faith.
How does this affect our view of the future?
How do the young, so full of
self-confidence and personal credibility, acquiesce into a life
with little meaning? How do
the old believe one thing and practice something entirely
different? How do the
middle-aged seem eager for God, only to exploit him for their personal
agenda? How can we be
religious and self-absorbed at the same time?
Quite easily, it would seem.
We’re told in the end we’ll be,
“… lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful proud,
abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love,
unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the
good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than
lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power.”
It would make sense that the enemy wants us to think we’re
reaching higher spiritual ground, when actually we’re descending a slow
and quiet slope. He would prefer
that we were distracted so that we wouldn’t notice the subtle and yet
constant downward stroll. He
wants us to think we’re being original and independent as we join the
masses. He desires that we
become so entangled in the mesh that by the time we come to our senses,
we lack the will or energy to resist.
Still, I’ve heard it
said that mankind is religiously evolving.
Before I came to repentance I thought the same thing.
It's difficult to talk about this in just a few hundred words, so
forgive me if I summarize some rich history to paint a broad picture.
Let's hope it's helpful. Let's look at the idea of monotheism.
There are three types of monotheism and two of them have actually
been developing over the years: Hellenic
monotheism (Greek) and Indic monotheism (Hindu).
Historically, the Hellenic style began as polytheism.
Polytheism was a religion of many
gods who resembled us:
Drunks, rebels, prostitutes, power-hungry leaders, materialists,
politicians and highly sensual children who believe they know better
than those who’ve gone before. These
gods, as a group, functioned in competition each trying to get the upper
hand. It’s logical: If we’re
like this, then where ever we came from - it must be the same.
But, philosophers thought this was sad.
They’re right. There isn’t
much hope in polytheism. (It does
have an upside to our old nature though. It gives a person license to
increase their exploitation as an act of worship.
If the gods can do it then it must be alright.
In fact, you could postulate a theory:
Those who do the best job at exploiting must be gods).
In any case, something fundamental in the heart of man rejected
polytheism and began to think about alternatives.
They articulated our internal
problem quite well, talking about our self-absorption and exploitation.
You can’t help but sense they’re
on the right track, like,
“An unexamined life isn’t worth living”.
That’s one of my favorites.
But, the trouble was
finding a solution to our common problem.
The suggested Hellenic solution was that God, who is beyond our
reach, set things into motion giving us tools and leaving it up to us to
fix it. This solution boiled
down to education and money.
It went something like this:
If a person can understand the negative implications of their behavior,
they will be motivated to change.
So, education became a primary player in the solution. Finances
also entered the equation. First, we must be able to afford this
education and second, once we know what to do, we need money to make
progress. Therefore peasants can’t change because they have neither the
education nor the money. Only the
elite can change and therefore only they know what’s best.
Hellenic monotheism attempts to fix society through the elite by
educating the masses and throwing money at the symptoms of the problem,
it’s an old Greek idea.
What keeps you going in
this system? Well, you’re
motivated as you climb the rungs of formal education as it gives the
impression of progress, a sort of personal renaissance.
You also hope that you can become
the expert from out of
town, encouraging your need
for value. Motivation also
comes with the hope of finding more avenues of funding.
So, if we stand back and consider the Hellenic system we can see
progress from polytheism to monotheism, even though it’s hit a ceiling.
The Hellenic style can do no more than continue to invest in education
and the pursuit of finances, even when it changes nothing.
It’s been said that insanity
is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
The second form of monotheism is the Indic style born out of
pantheism. Pantheism is the
wispy idea of seeing Nature as god, or god as nature.
Pantheism had the good sense to initially reject the idea that
god is like us. Yet, it
struggled with god being nature, since creation can be impacted by our
poor choices. So, the Indic
monotheist entered upon the scene. He saw the same old internal problem
very well, but his suggestion was different than his Greek cousin.
The Indic came to the conclusion we must be in the middle of a
night-mare, insisting that everything material around us is evil.
The Indic style provides hope by encouraging us to transcend the
problem. There is a certain
amount of sense to this, life does seem nightmarish.
The Indic goal is to get past our superficiality, our
exploitation and impulsiveness and into the absence of evil.
We must transcend this ‘apparent reality’ and gain a ‘true
reality’. This nebulas true
reality is god.
To transcend, we must empty ourselves of everything sensual and
material, moving deeper into the contemplative.
We must monastically brick ourselves away where we flog ourselves
in order to break away from the beast within. Awareness becomes the road
to transcendence. How do you know
if you’re on the right track?
Well, when you experience various explosions of ecstasy and feel
noble as you advocate for others, then you know.
Western culture began its dance
with the Indic style during the Middle Ages.
So, if we stand back
and close our eyes, we can feel the progress from pantheism to Indic
monotheism. There’s no doubt
about it, the Indic style has come from something primitive to something
sophisticated. But, like the
Hellenic style, it has hit a ceiling as well.
Ecstatic experience and social
reform doesn’t solve our problem anymore than money or formal academics.
Today, in our culture, you
can see these two systems wrestling for the upper hand economically,
politically and religiously.
One side thinks it’s more enlightened than the other.
While the other thinks it has the corner on common sense.
The one believes their education and their ability to make money
is the solution to national problems, while the other believes the elite
know best, benevolently and nobly advocating for the rights of a token
poor. They continue to
duke-it-out among themselves for control.
The pendulum swings back and forth between the Hellenic and
Indic cultural styles. Yet,
slowly and subtly they become one, like iron and clay.
The third form of monotheism is Judaic.
Unlike the Greek and Indic styles, Judaic hasn’t developed from
something primitive. From
Abraham to Moses, God made it clear that there was only one true God,
united in plurality. But,
contrary to the plurality of polytheism, there is no competition, only
oneness. Contrary to
pantheism, God said reality is not the design but the designer, not
creation but the creator, not the gift but the giver, not beyond it all
but very close and approachable.
The differences don’t stop here. Where the other two styles are
philosophic, Judaic is revelatory:
What we know, we didn’t figure
out. He told us.
In the Judaic, God explains then
we understand. And, we’re
encouraged to process the implications with him.
Other differences lie along the lines of
voluntarism:
We grow to be part of his life by
voluntary repentance and faith, rather than through academics or raw
experience. In addition,
where the Hellenic style needs proof to believe, the Judaic is
comfortable with mysteries.
Where the Indic style needs a consistent
rush, the Judaic is
comfortable with little to no sensory connection.
Where the Indic says creation is evil, the Judaic sees it as
good. Where the Hellenic
style sees evolution, the Judaic sees degeneration.
Where the Indic defines meditation as emptying, the Judaic
defines meditation as filling with his word and chewing on the
implications. The Hellenic and Indic styles eventually lead us to become
god, ourselves. But, the Judaic
style leads to deference and humility.
Here we receive grace to change. That’s God’s solution to the
problem and its good news.
Obviously, the three are
very distinct. Yet, there
are those who consider the next step in the evolution of religion to be
syncretic. Syncretism is
something like the making of an all-star team, where bits and pieces of
the three styles are blended together giving us the best of all worlds.
It’s an old practice.
In syncretism we’re encouraged to
blend the Judaic with the Hellenic; emphasizing political action, money
and education as the solution to our internal and social problem.
We’re encouraged to look at the local church as a business where
analysis and demographics are the counselors, ever seeking more funding
sources. We’re also encouraged to blend the Judaic with the Indic,
emphasizing a monastic, sensory-driven style of decision-making.
The hope is we’ll transcend the old obsolete systems of the past
and turn into a sophisticated and cosmopolitan believer who experiences
the authentic, hoping that our fears and doubts will be put to rest
because we can ecstatically experience God on a regular basis.
Gurus encourage us to participate in the evolution of religion,
by blending the three together.
But, this blending of systems wrenches the heart and soul out of
Judeo-Christianity, leaving the well-meaning believer frustrated,
wondering why the power of the gospel has been neutralized in their
life. Yet, the spiritual-business consultants are relentless, convinced
of their wisdom. New words are
coined for old ideas, giving the impression of progress.
But it’s not progress.
It’s simply retro-philosophy, like everything else
retro in our culture.
There’s an enormous desire to be
creative and original, but it remains elusive to those distracted by
affluence. It’s painful.
It hurts. Life seems
to be getting away from us, as if mankind were losing its grip.
It’s no doubt that in the end a blend of the three will be touted
as the best idea: An
ecstatic-institutionalized-academic-business model of religion that
absorbs us all. Are we
standing at the threshold of the end?
Only the Father knows.
But, if we are on the threshold then we’re too hardened to
realize it. Have we sensed
something is wrong but refuse to confront it, or are we so entangled
that we have neither the desire nor the energy to resist?
Do we simply allow the current to
carry us downward - drugged asleep by what seems to be responsible
choices?
The end will probably be characterized by a blended-Christianized
religion, one without faith.
People will be voluntarily distracted and busy.
The problem will be too subtle and confronted too late for most.
So, you can see why the enemy’s best tool is a slow descent down
a wide road where the mega-masses travel through a pleasant grassy wood.
Is mankind getting more
spiritually sensitive and responsive?
Nope. But,
whether or not it’s the end times, our practice is to be the same: Brokenness, humility and responsiveness to God.
In a word: Repentance. The only difference is, in the end no one
will be talking about it. The spiritual elite will have progressed well
beyond such concepts.