Be Good

     This semester has been filled with lesson after lesson after lesson. I think that the lesson about compassion that I shared earlier has had the greatest impact on me, but it was backed up by another lesson that I was (and still am) learning at the time. In the class that I have been writing about, we read Plato's Gorgias, which is a Socratic dialogue about the purpose of an orator and of persuasion in general. As Socrates tends to do, the conversation became an ethical argument. (Now I'm all for searching for the truth, but Socrates is really annoying about the manner in which he goes about it. That being said, I agree with him, with reservations.)
     The argument that Socrates eventually centers on is what power means. He insists that to be good is the only power. Socrates then argues that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong. I agree with Socrates that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong, but my argument diverges from his in that I don't merely see the effects of both as pain versus painlessness or pleasure. There are bigger things at stake here.
     However, looking at Socrates' argument and coupling it with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, I learned that virtue is the only way to happiness on the earth. (I don't think that it is possible to be entirely virtuous until we have reached heaven, and I think that the happiness we get from virtue finds its source in being godly.) Aristotle's argument is a sort of corollary to Plato/ Socrates' argument regarding power. Aristotle insists that virtue is the only way to happiness, and Plato insists that goodness is the only (or at least the greatest) power. Plato, also through Socrates, argues in Phaedo that the purpose of rhetoric is to lead men into the Good. Coupling this with his argument in Gorgias, we must assume that Socrates thought that rhetoric is intended to make men powerful. Socrates' idea that good is the highests power is backed up in the Bible. Proverbs 3:27 says "Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,when it is in your power to do it." Other passages mention being in someone's power, which means they have the authority to do good or evil to you. That being said, Socrates' argument about doing wrong or suffering wrong is an argument about power. God has given us all some extent of power (2 Peter 1:3), and the more power we have the more good we can do, but when we have power we can also do evil. This is where Plato's argument and Aristotle's argument couple with the Word of God. If we have the power to do evil, but doing wrong is worse than suffering it, and virtue is the only way to reach happiness, then we need to be able to do good and to be virtuous in order to be happy.
      This is where Romans 7 comes in. In Romans 7, Paul is discussing his inability to do what he knows is right. He doesn't have the power to do it; even though he knows what is good and virtuous, he can't. Socrates would tell us that he didn't really know, but I disagree with Socrates' definition of knowledge in this case.
      I'm going to backtrack here. People want to be happy. And in our culture, "a virtuous person" is not on the top of many peoples' lists of "what I want to be when I grow up." They want to be happy, but they seek happiness outside of virtue; that's a surefire way to avoid happiness according to Aristotle. The Bible says, "Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’" Even when we were told directly by God that the way to peace and happiness is His Way, humankind rejected Him.
     If we want to be happy we have to follow God, but as Paul says in Romans "For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want." We can't do the good it requires to be happy. That's where grace comes in. At the end of this semester, I went to a friend's musical performance. She wrote of grace, and in order to help the audience understand her point, she had a theology professor explain some things about grace. He spoke about the practical implications of grace and what it meant to us once we are saved. We cannot be good without God's grace. We are slaves to our sin. However, once we have been set free from our sin, we are able to be good, virtuous people and to show the compassion I spoke of in my last post. It takes God's transformation of us to make us into good people. It takes God to make us happy. And though we will not be perfect on the earth, we are charged with being "perfect as [He] is perfect," "holy, for [He is] holy," pure "as He is pure," and "merciful [as He] is merciful." We will not reach it here, but our work on earth will bring glory to God and will last into eternity. We should think about what we do with eternity on our minds. Since virtue is the only way to happiness, it shouldn't be a chore, but rather a joy to do these things; besides, we have God's grace giving us the power to do all of this. Also, since it's Mother's Day, I thought I'd leave you with the admonition with which my mom sends me into the world: "Be good!"

P. S. Written from my dining room at home.
P. P. S. Thanks, Mom!

The Laws of Life

     This summer I was tasked with writing a paper with the topic "The Laws of Life". I started to write down ideas and came up with a list that could take me in several directions. Once I decided on how I wanted to approach it I sat down and started to type. That's how I often start essays (and how I start a lot of my blog posts). This time, though, I was hit with a problem: I had to write a narrative about the topic, which meant a story. That would not have been a problem, but for the topic and my thoughts on it. The way I had started led to something like this blog, an essay in which I discuss my own take on the subject, not a story. My problem was taking my thoughts on the idea and looking for stories in my life which showed that I knew what I was talking about and lived it out.
     As I thought, I just couldn't think of any significant times in my life in which I had used the laws of life I had set for myself. (I had some minor things, but writing about them just seemed like trite bragging.) So I stopped writing and stood back. Often we set rules out for ourselves and we make them as easy to follow as possible, yet still we break them and end up feeling guilty. This problem (termed akrasia by philosophers) is the very problem Paul struggled with in Romans 7.

"I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"

     Luckily he approaches it from the same angle I have to. (I wrote these verses down in my original list) In Romans 8 the first thing Paul does is compare the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus with the law of sin and of death. The two different laws are at war with each other: akrasia. More and more I realise that submitting to one law is rejecting the other. And I can never follow both at once.
     When I first got this assignment I was staffing at the Bible camp that I have grown up going to and staffing at (after I turned 14). One theme that the staff has been focusing on this summer is the enemy Christ came to defeat (what we are really freed from). I have always thought of Christ's motives in terms of heaven and hell, and a long time ago God vs. Satan, but the real enemy is sin! Not to say that Christ didn't defeat the devil or free us from hell, but these were all minor battles in the war against sin. Sin is the sting of death; it is the cause of death, it is the problem introduced into the world by Adam's rebellion. John writes:

 "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

In the past I always read this passage as "the Son of God appeared to destroy the works of the devil", now the emphasis I see is "the works of the devil". And just before that he tells us what those works are: sin.
     Look through all the passages you associate with Christ's mission on the world (He came to seek and to save that which was lost, etc.). These passages all point back to the problem philosophers, politicians, religious leaders, teachers, parents, employers, and every day people deal with: sin. John talks about it, Peter talks about it, David talks about it, and all of them have only one answer: God.
     The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the only alternative to the law of sin and of death. The Old Testament Laws were all inspired by the Spirit and given by God. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. This is the Gospel we spend so much time talking about. This is the Gospel we need to share. God created men in His image, an image which was marred by man's choice to allow sin in his life. But God didn't let that get in the way of His plan. He sent the Law to show us that we need Him. And He sent grace to save us from the Law of sin and of death. He sent His sinless Son to become sin and to die on our behalf, that His justice might be done, and that He might show us His love. The old path was set. We left it. The boundaries were set. We moved them. And after getting lost and finding we had led ourselves to death's door, He brought us back and showed us the boundaries He had set before time.

"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."