Sunday, January 18, 2009

Scratch an Altruist: Watch a Hypocrite Bleed

Can there be such a thing as a Christian altruist? How can a Christian make a purely selfless act? You may say, “By offering to give up his life for someone else, etc.” However, belief in the afterlife and God make this (at least indirectly) selfish, since the Christian knows that this act will result in eternal salvation.

It would seem that the only selfless act a Christian can make is one that helps another and defies his religious beliefs. In this way, there is nothing at all to be gained on a personal level.

14 comments:

  1. Excellent, EXCELLENT point! One of the most profoundly subtle truths of reality is that Christian Love/agape/caritas is not altruistic. Modern man pragmatically dismisses the Christian as an altruistic fool. But Christ's commandment to "love thy neighbor AS THYSELF" reveals a greater truth. God is Love, but Love is Communion of persons; it is not the negation of the lover, but rather the communion of the lover and the beloved. God Themself exists as an eternal Communion of the Trinity, and the most wild and wonderful truth of the gospel is that God invited human beings to join in that Communion. The truth is, I don't give a guy on the street money for a train ride out of "purely selfless" motives-that would be an unhealthy way to live-but out of self-and-otherish motives, fundamentally that I might become one with God, but also that the guy might eventually join us as well. Love is a matter of self-gift "This is my body, given up for you", but it also entails reciprocity, receiving the self-gift of the other "I will draw all men unto me."
    For more on this idea of Communion, read the Gospel of John.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Post Script: It's not for arbitrary reasons that every attack of the devil is against communion-the breakdown of society, the breakdown of family, the breakdown of marriage, the exultation of the Individual. In Lewis's the Great Divorce, Hell is a grey world in which everyone creates their own houses, but choose to live in ever-greater isolation from one another. Come Further Up and Further In!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tremendous posts, Basil. You seem to answer everything with your “communion” theology. But, of course, that would be your point.

    For the sake of intellectual curiosity, I ask the question, “Is God ever/always selfless?” We say that the Father would have send Christ, and Christ would have died for us even if He/They knew no one would accept their invitation to communion. Perhaps this is selflessness.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everyone’s points are well said. However, to bring your ideas to their logical fulfillment, are you saying that there is no “good” [“good” in the Christian sense] action [and here I mean “action” in the broadest of senses: inaction, thoughts, etc.] that doesn’t benefit the “do-er?” Are we saying that a person should always do what is best for himself, for in doing this, he is doing what is best for all --- granted he understands what is best for himself?

    This sounds a lot like the tenets of laissez faire: we’re all on the lookout for ourselves, since this is the best for everyone.

    You may say that a person should choose what is best for everyone ELSE, and in doing so, will be choosing what is best for himself --- or something like that. That may work in a perfect world, but practically that doesn’t work, since we agree that man has tendencies to selfishness --- i.e. fallen nature or whatever we may call it.

    The exclusion of pure selflessness from Christianity results in some un-Christian doctrines --- at least in the world as we know it --- not in a perfect world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To Jonas: I would say that the Father would have sent the Son even if we hadn't sinned or needed redemption. At the risk of heresy, I would say the Incarnation is more fundamental-if that's the word I want-than the Redemption--that is, the Redemption was enacted as part of the work of Incarnation; Jesus "humbled himself to share in our humanity" that we might "come to share in His divinity."
    To Skrignov: I think the guy from A Beautiful Mind puts it best in that bar scene when he gets his inspiration. The best course of action is that which has the good of the individual AND the group as its goal. This is Love; this is Communion. I always do what is best for me, but because I am a person (a being or a "becoming" in relationship) what is best for me is necessarily best also for those around me. It would certainly NOT be best for me to do whatever gains me the most material comforts. I think if we view things from a correct perspective, taking into account all realities, we cannot help but do what is best for the Self and the Other. It is the natural tendency for stuff made out of Communion to drift towards it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only unusual thing I have found since I've been on this Communion rail is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Everything in the universe is moving toward entropy. This is disintegration, not Communion, so it confuses me greatly...what does it tell me about God?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Basil: I have stolen a moment to write one quick thought concerning your “entropy” issue. The fall of man --- i.e. original sin, etc --- affects the whole of the physical universe. Nature itself, although good and beautiful, is itself fallen. I have always seen entropy as an example of this. The redemption of man, although achieved perfectly and fully by Christ on the Cross, doesn’t find physical fulfillment until Paradise; that is why we have a proclivity to sin. Analogously, the redemption of the physical world will not find physical fulfillment until the New Heaven and the New Earth. I don’t know if this helps your thought-process…

    ReplyDelete
  8. PS I'm not sure entropy tells us anything about God (I mean directly), but instead tells us about the effect of sin, i.e. disunity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is from Romans and relates what I just stated about the physical universe being fallen. Take a lookskie. Here’s a snapshot: “creation was subjected to futility,” but “will be set free from its bondage to corruption.” Paul speaks of this freedom coming soon (or now), but, of course, he thought the end of the world (as we know it) was ever-present (even though it kind of is…). I hope this helps your ponderings, Basil.

    “19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Basil: You are saying that the Incarnation was NOT contingent upon Man’s sin. I am not sure that I agree with you. CCC: “…the Church calls ‘Incarnation’ the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it” (441). Around this section, there are a lot of similar comments made. Here’s a link to the page I cited from. (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm)

    If and when you have time, here is a fascinating article discussing your exact question. It is rather lengthy and protestant, but it argues well and solidly. Although it sees the point of arguing that ‘the Incarnation seems flawed being contingent upon something that may not have happened, especially considering that this “something” is bad,’ (my quote) it ends up revealing the deep flaw in seeing the Incarnation as something separate from Salvation. (http://www.ondoctrine.com/2war1401.htm)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jonas: We really need to sit down in a drawing room and discuss this over some chemet. You must invite Chesterton, Lewis, Neuhaus, and others.
    In reading the CCC, I think I could still say the Incarnation was not ALTOGETHER contingent upon us falling, tho I'm not positive. The CCC gives 4 reasons after introducing the topic :For us men AND for our salvation- this to me implies the Word became flesh for our salvation, but also "for us men", a phrase whose simplicity points to its iconic volume.
    the 4 reasons: 1)in order to save us by reconciling us with God,2)that thus we might know God's love,3)to be our model of holiness, 4)to make us "partakers of the divine nature".
    I have no doubt that my lack of awareness of my own sin makes it easy for me to focus more on the communion aspects of redemption than on the sacrificial ransom aspects.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jonas: I def like the way Warfield writes, but I can't help but question a few things. What is salvation? I think there may be less of a dichotomy between the two schools of thought (ontological and soteriological) than he describes. He does not seem to address the thought: Why did God WANT to save humans? I think it still ties back into Love/Communion, and that is why Albertus Magnus and others (JPII?) might wonder that the same Love which is the cause of Salvation mightn't have also desired Communion sans fall.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not going to attempt to develop this b/c I'm too lazy to even spell out the word signified by "b/c", but I'd like to suggest the bit in Genesis describing God walking with Adam in the cool of the evening, pre-Fall, as a starting point for a possible/partial reconcilation between your guyses's views.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Unless I’m misinterpreting your words, aren’t you (John42) saying that pre-Fall there was no need for the Incarnation, since there was a direct connection between God and Man? As such, aren’t you disagreeing with Basil? Your response made it sound like you had come up with a compromise, but I see this as proof of my side of the argument. Once again, perhaps I’m misinterpreting your words/ideas (or taking them to a different level).

    ReplyDelete