I. INTRODUCTION
I am an optimistic theoretical determinist. I also encourage freedom of conscience on a pragmatic level. While avoiding the all too ubiquitous and gratuitous theological discussion surrounding election and free-will, I nevertheless contend that the distinction between determinism and freedom of conscience presents a false dichotomy; the latter is merely a practical extension of the former. This is precisely why I can be both at once. I do not find either Calvinist claims regarding election to be persuasive, nor do I feel the utility or even existence of free-will, as it is commonly understood, to be valid. Mine is not a theological concern, per se, however; it is rather a philosophical matter or an evaluation of reality itself.
Many Christians feel threatened by the notion that their beliefs are little more than by-products of their life experiences and influences, but such concern is unjustified. Not only can it be demonstrated that a determinist epistemology is more convincing, but the consequences of such an approach are also more consistent with the teachings and example of Jesus when placed within this context. Reality should not be evaluated with the goal of creating an illusion that will provide peace of mind, rather the objective should be admitting the seemingly difficult lessons presented by reality and then making the appropriate adjustments to one's theology and worldview. While acknowledging the restraints reality affords human freedom, it is essential to acknowledge also that God too understands the difficulties reality presents. This being the case, there is no need to feel threatened by a determinist epistemology.
Furthermore, the understanding that Christianity is merely a set of beliefs needs to be challenged, while the role of beliefs themselves must be modified to that of servant to behaviour and transformative priorities as well as a tool for becoming or being a Christian. For example, it is more Christian to have an ambiguously defined christology, while nevertheless seeing Jesus in a murderer by showing compassion and forgiveness for her or him than it is to claim an objectively verifiable and orthodox christology, while simultaneously denying this same murderer the compassion and forgiveness Jesus shows the world. The former scenario illustrates what it means to follow Jesus, both his teachings and example, while the latter expression derives its authority from elsewhere and is therefore inherently un-Christian notwithstanding the semblance between it and the militant and contemptuous attitude dominating today’s North American Christian mind-set against criminals and other “reprobates”.
Therefore, it is not what one believes that makes her or him a Christian, rather it is how a Christian reacts toward those who do not share these same beliefs that is the defining characteristic. Although a determinist epistemology may threaten the conventional role of beliefs and knowledge within Christianity, it does not threaten Christianity itself, or being a Christian. On the contrary, by acknowledging the fragility and vulnerability of knowledge in general and Christian beliefs in particular, the salience of being a Christian in the behavioural and ontological sense, and precisely what that looks like, emerges consequentially. Specifically, a theoretical determinism united with a pragmatic freedom of conscience will yield a unique epistemology of obedience, compassion and social responsibility when placed within the context of Jesus' teachings and example. A scriptural text which demonstrates a symbiosis between the aforementioned epistemology and Jesus’ own understanding of the function and limitations of knowledge is Luke 23:34: “And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’.”[i] This is one of Jesus’ well-known seven last statements he uttered while hanging on the cross. The context for this verse will provide clues as to what Jesus’ own epistemology appears to be. It is not just the context, however, which provides signals pointing to the composition of Jesus’ epistemology; the juxtaposition between Jesus’ attitude of forgiveness and the ignorance of his crucifiers described within the verse itself also exhibits his conception of the function and limitations of knowledge.
II. TERMINOLOGY
By appending the epithets ‘theoretical’ and ‘pragmatic’ to both determinism and freedom of conscience respectively, their distinctive roles within our current discussion are identified. An epistemology of obedience, compassion and social responsibility, particularly as it is embraced by Jesus, is initiated by a theoretical or cognitive awareness of the limits of knowledge, not only for ourselves but for others as well. Alternatively, assigning freedom of conscience a pragmatic role demonstrates its subsequent applied function within reality. As will be explained in greater detail later, it is ultimately obedience that ensures that the deterministic outlook does not become too paralyzing.
It is imperative to differentiate between determinism and election. The doctrine of election concerns itself with God’s imposition on people’s lives, both positively and, in the case of double-election, negatively. With a toss of the divine dice, that is, through reasons undisclosed to God's creation, humans must confront their eternal fate without authentic hope, but rather fear. I find this doctrine to be as depressing as it sounds. Determinism, although also seemingly disheartening, deals with life’s imposition on life. It deals with points of intersection within reality, and is only disheartening if viewed as an isolated epistemology rather than one element of a more comprehensive philosophy, the other elements being a pragmatic freedom of conscience regulated by obedience, compassion and social responsibility.
It is also important to distinguish between freedom of conscience and free-will. Free-will denotes an internalized self-motivating or self-initiating choice, which is patently pure and able to discern properly because of its receptivity to the infinite amount of information, emotions, contexts, nuances, reactions and consequences available. Essentially, it makes the feeble claim that despite one’s influences and experiences, both broad and minute, almost infinitesimal or seemingly insignificant, everyone is endowed with the capacity to erase her or his own history and make a pure, effectively dispassionate and omniscient decision. This understanding of free-will is a relatively new innovation and does not resonate with the patristic understanding from which the historical church derives its doctrine on this matter.[ii] Although describing a patristic notion using admittedly contemporary language with which the Church Fathers would be unfamiliar, I nevertheless prefer to use the expression "freedom of conscience". This alternative phraseology implies that one is acting in accordance with the diction of her or his own conscience, a faculty acutely defined by external influences and experiences, both sinful and holy. Since freedom of conscience paradoxically denotes external control, it does not represent what one is able to do, but rather merely what happens. The introductory scene of the movie Forrest Gump displays a white feather floating effortlessly, while synchronized capriciously with the unpredictable gusts of wind directing its delicate and arbitrary descent. This image, I believe, illustrates freedom of conscience well. Despite the often erratic and uncontrollable direction one’s conscience may take, it is free to act in accordance with what is there, with what is formed by external influences and experiences. It is also free to acknowledge the limitations therein, admit the apparent predicament and make the appropriate adjustments, both theoretical and pragmatic. It is, therefore, not "free" in the conventional sense of the word, but rather free in the sense that it is available for manipulation.
III. ADMITTING DETERMINISM AND TRUSTING THE CONSEQUENCES
Without worrying about possible negative consequences, it is important to make certain admissions about reality, while retaining confidence that God can function within reality regardless of how much strain this reality appears to place on the status quo or typical theological conjecture. Determinism could be labeled the philosophical “Copernican rotation around the sun,” so to speak. Traditional theologically significant claims that are incongruent with reality (i.e. the earth is the centre of the universe) usually yield consequences that are outside the teachings and example of Jesus. This is because Jesus functions within reality, a claim that cannot accurately describe all Christians. There is not enough space to prove the validity of determinism conclusively, but with the combination of reader receptivity and a few hopefully persuasive comments, although not comprehensively so, perhaps the general apprehensiveness about determinism within Christian circles can be mitigated at least to some extent.
A major contributor to the determinist outlook was the seventeenth-century English empiricist philosopher and diplomat, John Locke. While questioning the rationalist confidence in the existence of innate ideas, Locke was convinced that humans are born with a tabula rasa or clean slate therefore relying on experience and various external influences for the acquisition of all knowledge.[iii] This claim, although quite apparent from mere observation, is threatening to some Christians because it implies that essentially innocent people are going to hell since all sin can be attributed to uncontrollable circumstances. The doctrine of hell as it is commonly understood is itself seriously lacking and warrants revisiting, but space does not permit such an investigation in this article. This doctrine does, however, demonstrate how an unwillingness to admit the nature of reality produces deficient doctrines that require illusions to sustain their existence, much like the theologically precarious doctrines that were threatened by Copernicus' cosmological discovery.
Throughout history Christians have made a career, even obsession, of telling others that they are categorically wrong, are nevertheless capable of believing and conforming to an ideology to which they are not even attracted, while subsequently offering eternal damnation as the consequence for their apparent ignorance. If you are a Christian, I beseech you to make an attempt at choosing to believe that God does not exist, however insufficient such a category may be to describe God. Undoubtedly, you cannot make this choice simply because such an option is not attractive to you and does not make sense to you. The same is true for others who do not, and therefore cannot, share your beliefs, opinions and behaviour. If a given belief or opinion is inherently the best (i.e. your brand of Christian theology), and everyone is able to accept and espouse this belief as their own, why is this not universally the case? Something must be stopping them, and this "something" must be acknowledged and accounted for by making the appropriate theological and behavioural adjustments. Although it feels like an authentic decision is being made, if one were to analyze the basis for the decision by pealing away the layers of surface estimation, a passive and compulsory, almost artificial, attraction and rationalization would at last be exposed. Unfortunately, one cannot choose what makes sense to her or him; it is a collection of involuntarily absorbed information, which inevitably produces various corresponding points of view or opinions. Additionally, one cannot choose what is attractive; it develops over time concomitantly with the influences that fashioned such an attraction. Regardless of how distant people are from crucial information and how little information they are actually exposed to, opinions just happen. A quote by George Burns says it best I think: “Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair.”
Within the context of religion, crime and sin, this reality, and the reality determinism itself presents, reaches far beyond someone’s “background”; it reaches far beyond the faith someone was taught as a child or the abusive father endangering the stability of someone’s household. Everyone’s life is inundated with an infinite number of influences and experiences resulting in a similar amount of intersecting points requiring a “step forward” in one of many possible directions. If someone is a Christian, it is because that person was taught Christianity and retained an attraction for it, or was exposed to it somehow later in life and was predisposed to accepting it; if someone is not a Christian, that person was either not exposed to its teachings, has not found its teachings attractive enough or abandoned it because it simply did not make sense. The reasons for all of these situations are infinite and therefore cannot be narrowed down to one isolated event. Often these reasons cannot be identified at all, at least not initially.
In addition to the philosophical justification, neurophysiological evidence also demonstrates the limitations on consciousness and therefore inability to consciously choose one direction or life-governing ideology. In Jay Ingram’s most recent book, Theatre of the Mind, the function of and limitations on consciousness are investigated resulting in some fascinating insights. The book recounts one experiment to illustrate the apparent passivity of consciousness in decision-making. When subjects were asked to push a button at any time, a device monitoring the activity of their conscience revealed that each subject’s consciousness did not kick-in until after the button was suppressed; the decision to push the button was executed before consciousness became active.[iv] Therefore, consciousness had no hand in choosing to push the button. A pre-informed conscience or sub-conscience must have made the decision in accordance with the demands of information and knowledge absorbed involuntarily throughout life. The implications are obvious; not only is a choice, whether concerning faith, ideology or sin, never consciously selected, decisions appear to proceed from the collection of involuntary influences and experiences, or the sub-conscience.
Dr. Steven Pinker, well-known Cognitive Scientist and Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, makes another complementary observation in his book, How the Mind Works. When discussing the function of the left and right sides of the brain, Pinker acknowledges the left side’s ability to recognize patterns and eagerly receive stories. The purpose of the right side of the brain, however, is to do everything in its power to justify the legitimacy of the story just received regardless of how implausible that story may be.[v] Therefore, not only does one’s consciousness remain dormant during the initial stage of the decision-making process, this subconscious decision is executed based on a story or information, influences and experiences which are not initially challenged and scrutinized, but readily accepted and even intentionally and continually defended against better judgment.
Humans love a story, a sympathetic character, an enemy to consolidate forces against and a tight, swift resolution. For years we justify stories as absurd as the existence of Santa Claus and his annual excursion every Christmas Eve, that is until this narrative is replaced with the equally absurd story of the inherent goodness of consumer products to generate domestic harmony, peace on earth and goodwill towards man. However, it is important to realize that this neurophysiological and philosophical reality is acknowledged, indeed created, by God. Therefore, the reaction to this epistemological situation should be one of compassion and interminable mercy, as well as the provision of unending empowering divine graces and empirical influences necessary for following the teachings and example of Jesus. This is precisely the message epitomizing the kingdom of God andits requirement of obedience and is the message that characterizes his socioeconomic agenda of compassion and social responsibility, a message he expects his followers to…follow.
It is therefore a synergistic relationship between humankind and God that allows determinist inclinations to harmonize with a request for obedience; the validity and even existence of God's mercy, forgiveness and empowering divine graces is threatened without determinist circumstances within which such theistic attributes thrive. At the same time, malevolent subsistence is curtailed through Christ's victory over death, thus ensuring the survival of divine and virtuous influences in life to draw humans toward the way of obedience. Christ's victory over death may not directly compel his creation toward obedience, but it does allow for the survival and existence of inherently good influences that have the capacity to induce obedience from those to whom such influences are attractive.
IV. OBEDIENCE: FREEDOM FROM UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
God requires obedience. The context of Luke 23:34 demonstrates this clearly. Luke 23:18-25 recounts the tense situation when Pontius Pilate found himself between the violent demands of an aggressive mob and his own inclinations. The mob’s preference of releasing a known murderer and insurrectionist, Barabbas, rather than Jesus, demonstrates their allegiance to that which is contrary to the kingdom of God and therefore their disobedience. On his way to the cross, Jesus pronounces Jerusalem's austere fate because of their disobedience. Of course, one must interpret Jesus’ declarations not only as warnings, which do not necessary need to come into fruition but are instead meant to inspire the required inevitable obedience, but also as aligned with his alternate message of compassion and mercy. If this balance is not achieved, and a reason for his ostensible severity and ruthlessness not discovered, Jesus becomes a delusional and inconsistent fool. In Luke 23:34, Jesus nevertheless declares, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” and this in the face of the gathered crowd’s anticipating gaze, the rulers’ scoffing and the soldiers’ ignorance and insulting remarks (Luke 23:35-38). How can he require obedience and offer forgiveness simultaneously? The addendum, “for they know not what they do,” to his initial statement of forgiveness provides the answer. It demonstrates that Jesus does not require obedience for obedience’ sake alone, but rather to offer freedom, which comes from the recognition that knowledge of the kingdom expectations and knowledge in general is indeed elusive. Freedom is commonly regarded as "doing whatever I want." Benedictine spirituality, however, locates freedom within a seemingly restrictive framework; freedom is understood as obedience. Benedictine oblate and author, Esther de Waal declares,
Subjecting myself to another ‘in all obedience for the love of God’ means giving up my power, and arrogance, and instead submitting myself to speak the will of God through others. … I admit my limitations and my weakness, and I let someone else hold me up so that I can go on. This of course prevents any self-image and cuts down my pride in my own sufficiency. It involves trust, for it means recognizing someone else’s strengths so that he can rescue me from my weakness…The very top of the ladder carries a promise of the serenity that comes with my discovery that God is in charge of my life and that as a result I am finally free. And then it becomes clear what this long consideration of humility has been about. It is the interior breaking free. I am released from my bondage to my self-seeking, my ambitions, my self-sufficiency and all the rest of it. This is of course New Testament teaching, that in God’s service men and women find perfect freedom.[vi]
Therefore, obedience is freedom because by affiliating oneself with and participating in something larger than oneself, an authentic freedom from the unrealistic demands of individually and independently trying to "figure everything out" is achieved. Furthermore, one begins to gain at least some freedom from external influences and experiences, the information that renders one belief or ideology as “logical” or “attractive” and another not; determinism is therefore left nominally if not at least somewhat in check.[vii] Instead of acting in accordance with what individually makes sense, true faith, the trust and obedience in Jesus’ teachings and example, stimulates freedom from a logical “choice” that is formed independently by utilizing only a fraction of the information actually out there. When the properties of determinism are understood and accepted, individualism, a trait celebrated by Western society, essentially becomes the act of completely enslaving oneself to the external influences on her or his life. Obedience, as well as availing oneself to the demands of a community, emancipates the participant from the enslaving circumstances of individualism, and to an extent, determinism.
The reason most people, including most Christians, would not forgive a criminal, or a general enemy, and have compassion on her or him, is because it does not make sense.[viii] Obedience to Jesus’ teaching of love for enemies and unconditional forgiveness frees one from the justification for her or his hate, blame and resentment (I can already envision you rationalizing against forgiveness after reading this). Because “what makes sense” is formed from influences derived from the priorities of society such as self-preservation, monetary success and individualism, obedience to Jesus’ teachings should in fact not make sense, and this obedience is indeed freedom. But the lesson of determinism demonstrates precisely why God requested, and continues to request, obedience so much; if it simply is not possibly to individually "figure everything out," God must supply his creation with this information and request obedience as well as a faith resembling that of Abraham, a polytheist and general conformist who acted against his own logic more than once. In this sense, Abraham's is a story of God's guidance through the restrictions of determinism. If a Christian or otherwise consistently does only what individually and personally makes sense, she or he is not obeying God or even attempting to do so but is instead effectively idolizing her or his own conscience. One cannot claim Jesus as the exclusive authority if "what makes sense" functions as its replacement. I fear that Jesus' nonviolence and concern for the poor and generally exploited peoples has been forfeited by such a replacement where war now makes sense and the poor have to earn our compassion through the pursuit of societal standards of success.
V. COMPASSION: DETERMINISM AND THE INEVITABLITY OF SIN
Compassion is the emotional and cognitive consequence of theoretical determinism. It is the attitude one projects in response to the acknowledgement that poor judgment by others is inevitable because of the various, often conflicting, influences and experiences. If a murderer is attracted to death, and homicidal actions make sense to her or him, they are, although difficult to admit, essentially uncontrollable. The doctrine of original sin, although flawed in many of its forms, still conveys a truth often ignored by Christians in their condemnation of others; sin is inevitable and God knows this. When God created humans, essentially as a conduit for his love, these autonomous beings were compelled to make decisions that ensured their own survival simply because their very existence warranted such self-centred attention. By first and foremost looking out for oneself, pride and violence, the origin of all sin, is the inevitable outcome. An autonomous existence within the context of additional autonomous existences ensures that sin will prevail. This situation continues with every generation, which accounts for Jesus’ emphasis on loving neighbours. Jesus’ understanding of the limitations on knowledge accounts for his emphasis on loving enemies. Esther de Waal again offers her insight:
If…I learn to deal with my own limitations then I shall be able to deal with those of other people. This humility which I am learning to practice may prevent me from laughing quite so easily at other people, or finding things superficial, or being ready so quickly to scorn and criticize. Knowing my own limitations I have no right to destroy other people for theirs.[ix]
The reality that no single life can subsist apart from sin, due to the combination of self-preserving priorities and external influences, demands a compassionate response. This truth is further magnified when recognizing one’s own participation in this predicament and the resulting personal shortcomings.
Jesus forgave his crucifiers precisely because they did not know what they were doing; neither do we, and neither do those who “crucify” us. Compassion is willing to admit not only that no one is perfect, but also that no one can ever be perfect, and responding in love for the reconciliation of the offender back to God and for the restoration of peace.
VI. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: OBEDIENCE AND THE ALLEVIATION OF OPPRESSION
For obvious reasons, obedience and compassion both maintain a strong relationship with social responsibility. It is imperative to abandon what individually and independently makes sense in favour of a compassionate response of obedience to the socioeconomic teachings of Jesus. Offering free social housing to someone who refuses, yet is able, to work does not make sense to most people. Of course, ideally it would be better if everyone could support themselves, but due to the aforementioned inevitability of sin, this simply is not realistic. Given the decision between life and death, the follower of Jesus’ teachings must always support policies and perform acts that sustain life despite their subject’s apparent lack of effort. Jesus did not concern himself with endorsing monetary success, and in a world and economic system where financial sustenance, an arbitrary prerequisite one's sustained existence, determines whether or not someone lives, it is the Christian’s responsibility to bypass the priorities of society in order to maintain that which is intrinsically Christian such as life, peace and justice.
It is not only that recipients of compassion are ambushed by the restraints of determinism which illuminates the need for social action, the ignorance of those who manipulate the current economic system for personal gain without considering the effect on others also stimulates a response. Theologically, the economic exploitation of others is achieved through the aforementioned self-preserving and prideful priorities of the autonomous created being within the context of other autonomous created victims. By understanding the effects of determinism on the social sphere, namely that the existence of avaricious people is inevitable because their influences dictate so, concrete actions to alleviate the suffering of others is the only response that is consistent with the teachings of Jesus. One person’s monetary success is always achieved through violence and exploitation, and the only way to terminate this relationship is to offer unconditional compassion to those in need by creating an equitable environment through social action. Christians cannot always demand what is ideal, but instead they can do everything in their power to maintain the priorities of Jesus, the kingdom of God here on earth. This is the responsibility of the Christian, to be a microcosm of the kingdom of God and to be a catalyst for its spread despite insurmountable circumstances, simply because Jesus requires such obedience. It is sacrificing "what works" in favour of "what is right."
While Jesus hung on the cross, an illuminating exchange ensued between himself and one of the criminals sharing his fate. In his conversation with the criminal who hurled insults at Christ, the more sympathetic criminal declared, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41). But in a significant reversal, Jesus disagrees with the criminal. He is not punished justly and he is not getting what his deeds deserve. Within the context of his epistemologically significant statement, "For they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), Jesus takes social action on a cosmic level for the benefit of this, no doubt, disadvantaged and impoverished criminal and slave to determinist demands by offering him paradise instead of condemnation. In essence, Jesus declares that this criminal, like himself, has "done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41).
VII. CONCLUSION
Determinist obligations require that one follow the direction of her or his own conscience, a faculty that cannot intentionally take on a desired form. By admitting this situation within the context of Jesus' teachings and example, a new epistemology of obedience, compassion and social responsibility emerges. But even this three-fold epistemology is quite limiting. Determinism is not just a theological sidebar; as strong a statement as this may be, a determinist epistemology is nevertheless the central, although tacitly invoked, element coalescing all God's teachings and interaction with his creation. If one were to stop and take stock of the implications of determinism, it would be discovered that such an epistemology intrinsically generates more peacemaking, community, mercy and forgiveness. It illuminates why obedience is so important to God and is central to his mission. It offers insight into why Jesus requires love even for one's enemies; without admitting determinism, this request becomes imprudent. It demonstrates why humans require divine transformative graces, and it stimulates authentic trust and faith.
This last point deserves further elaboration in its own right. Instead of pawning off an individually formulated Christian-like, yet thoroughly socially-induced, ideological framework as that which authentically represents Jesus' example and teachings, true faith is abandoning "what makes sense" in recognition of one's epistemological limitations and that of others, while embracing the framework that "makes sense" to Jesus, the kingdom of God. Therefore, this determinist epistemology, as one element of a more comprehensive epistemology, does not only characterize reality best, but also stimulates a rebirth of the often eclipsed yet essential socioeconomic priorities presented in the teachings of Jesus and more tangibly in the kingdom he ushered in.
Alternatively, and perhaps even more disturbing, by refusing to admit this determinist situation, the typical Christian interaction with and attitude towards both neighbour and enemy will project in an inherently un-Christian direction. Unfortunately, in naivety to the principles of determinism, Christians have far too often opted for violence, undue moral and political coercion, apathy and contempt against those they perceive as on the "outside," exposing themselves as less Christian than the objects of their campaigns. These are the consequences of an individualistic and "will to power" society; therefore a step towards obedience to the teachings of Jesus requires an acknowledgement of the determinist reality of which Jesus himself is aware. Through this acknowledgment begins the cultivation of obedience, compassion and social responsibility.
Andrew Klager is currently working on his PhD at the University of Glasgow in the area of sixteenth-century Anabaptist history, while evaluating possible patristic influences. He has a Master’s degree from McMaster University focusing on patristic history and the thought of Gregory of Nyssa in particular. Andrew also teaches sessionally at Columbia Bible College, Abbotsford, BC.
[i] From the Revised Standard Version.
[ii] The patristic understanding of free-will makes far greater concessions for the struggle of sin, what I refer to in this article as the "inevitability of sin". In this manner, Gregory of Nyssa declares, "Then that godly beauty of the soul which was an imitation of the Archetypal Beauty, like fine steel blackened with the vicious rust, preserved no longer the glory of its familiar essence, but was disfigured with the ugliness of sin." Gregory further identifies the impetus for this misdirection as a "proud birthright." It is this self-centredness that yields violence all of which is readily visible and acts as an influence for further sinful replication. However, at least some good influences continue to survive, although patristic emphasis is clearly placed on the divine good "within each of us" rather than without. These influences allow (or force) humans to address the "perishable and foul resemblance to something else…by washing it off in the cleansing water of this calling." Gregory of Nyssa, "On Virginity," Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc., Translated by William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson, vol. 5 (Peabody, MA: HendricksonPublishers, 2004). Therefore, a reciprocal relationship exists between what God desires of us (as opposed to what God expects of us) and what sin, or the out-of-kilter worldly kingdom, demands of us or forces us to do. This reciprocal relationship coincides with the patristic notion of synergism, which places equal emphasis on the responsibility of both God and humanity. Essentially, the patristic conception of free-will resembles the balance between obedience and determinist compulsions exhibited in this article. Admittedly, this article is using contemporary language and concepts to describe this notion in a way unfamiliar to the Church Fathers, but nevertheless embraces the spirit of patristic writings on the subject.
[iii] For an extensive firsthand account of Locke’s empiricist epistemology as it is briefly described here see, Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995).
[iv] Jay Ingram, Theatre of the Mind (Toronto: Harper Collins, 2005). This illustration was discussed during Jay Ingram's appearance on Studio 4, Shaw Television on Nov. 8 and 16, 2005.
[v] Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (W. W. Norton & Company, 1997). Journalist Barrie Zwicker discusses Pinker’s observation of the dynamic between the left and right side of the brain in relation to the “official story” of 9/11 when the former spoke at St. Andrew’s-Wesley United Church, Vancouver, BC. This portion of his address can be listened to at http://www.workingtv.com/towers-of-deception/Zwicker201.mov.
[vi] Esther de Waal, Seeking God: The Way of St. Benedict (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 47-48.
[vii] Some might argue that to be consistent, the decision to follow in obedience is nevertheless not a pure choice either, which is a valid argument. However, if some are fortunate enough to be externally influenced to make this "decision" (this article itself perhaps being an influence to some), the subsequent practical and even cognitive acts of obedience, if against individual judgment, that is, if it still does not make sense, are free choices because they are at least not as controlled by external experiences and influences. In this scenario, determinism still dictates "that" a decision is being made, but not "what" the decision itself is. In this sense, determinism is intimately wedded with individualism. It is therefore an issue of the degree to which influences and experiences enslave its subject. Individualism guarantees enslavement to external influences, while obedience and community regulates these influences at least to some degree.
[viii] Another example of something Jesus does, which does not make sense to most North American Christians is recorded in Matthew 19:16-22. Jesus offers salvation to his inquirer by requesting obedience to God’s commandments and demanding that he sell everything and give it to the poor. Instead of advancing a similar plan for salvation, which includes participation in the kingdom of through obedience and socioeconomic responsibility, most Christians replace this plan with the thoroughly un-Christian "Jesus prayer" mechanism. The latter is another example of knowledge-based, forensic Christianity. The former is behavioural, and therefore demonstrates what it means to be a Christian; it is no small wonder that Jesus preferred this latter expression.
[ix] Esther de Waal, Seeking God: The Way of St. Benedict, 47.
Comments