Assurance for the modern age. (Part 5)

Assurance for the modern age

Part 5: We all need to adopt a world-view in which we can hold the myriad things that may happen to us

In this respect, one answer to my question about assurance is for some people to argue that it just doesn’t bother them. If I want to navel-gaze and agonise about existential, spiritual questions, then more fool me: they are quite happy to just have a good time. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way – enjoying time with your family, in your job and on holiday are wonderful things. Yet I write from the perspective of someone who has discovered that it is the inner life which brings the greatest source of satisfaction of all. It is a life of faith that makes all life more precious. I am going to argue that adopting a set of values, principles and ways of life is the ultimate way to bring meaning, purpose, value and joy to life. If I am right, then even the fortunate person whose life, on balance, tips strongly towards good things, needs to adopt their own set of values, principles and ways of life that gives them their foundation in life. Some way is needed to tie this list of good things into some coherent whole, to integrate all their experience into an understanding of what it is they are doing with their lives. Their good fortune needs, somehow, to sink into the roots of their lives, and it must be from their depths that their choices and decisions and judgements in life arise, so that the “list of good things in their lives” is not what defines them, as though all of life is just a surface flow of experience, but, rather, the good things that they produce in their lives arise from a person who is living with intent, to achieve purposes that they – and others – can affirm as good.

Otherwise, one obvious danger for modern secular people – and I think this is much in evidence – is that life becomes overtaken by consumerism. That is, in the absence of sound values on which your life is founded, life becomes about maximising consumption. If good things are good – and clearly they are, then it must be better to have more of them – more of everything. I feel an expression of this is found in the concept of “bucket lists” – 50 or 100 things that “we ought to do” before we die. Of course, there is no harm, and much to commend, in the idea of setting yourself goals and fulfilling dreams, and maximising pleasure – why settle for less when you can have more? My complaint is in the spiritual effect of an attitude that puts the focus of life on consuming pleasure. Surely life is more profound than that? Pleasure is good, and a good life will bring us many pleasures, but pleasure is not the same as goodness, nor the same as fulfilment.

Assurance for the modern age. (Part 4)

Assurance for the modern age

Part 4: Coping with the fragility of what we have

Let’s suppose you are fortunate enough to be on track to enjoy all these things: what else might you still be lacking? What are the aspects of the human condition that might still unsettle you?

Firstly, there is the fragility of your good fortune. What if ill health or tragedy do befall you? How will you cope if your sense of well-being in life rests on the multitude of good and enjoyable experiences that pervade your life?

This fragility is multiplied beyond measure if you are deprived of your good fortune through injustice. This could well be at the national or international level through warfare or famine – not likely for us in Britain, but, even though we are considering our situation, our worldview needs to be able to encompass others – we cannot simply bury our heads in the sand and revel in our good fortune while ignoring the plight of others. And, of course, even in Britain, the scope for suffering from injustice is present – whether it be through crime, changes in technology and the economy, government decisions, or simply other people “doing us in” in some way to gain advantage for themselves.

Finally, there is finality. With a long and happy life, it is perfectly possible to just put off thinking about big questions, and only when time finally catches up with you and you realise you’re on the final countdown, then start to consider big existential questions. Perhaps by then, it will be too late to bother you, as you’ve already got 80 years of good living “in the bank”, and there is barely time to adjust to your new frailty before you’re gone.

Assurance for the modern age. (Part 3)

Assurance for the modern age

Part 3: A life full of opportunities

I can expect to live for 80 plus years in reasonable good health before a decline where I will be well looked after – though things may be difficult in my final few years. I will never go hungry; on the contrary, I will have a plenitude of good things to enjoy. I will receive a good education and there will be many opportunities open to me, subject to my personal interests and aptitudes. Of course, there will be obstacles, set-backs and difficulties, some caused by others, some inevitable according to how the cookie crumbles, and from time to time I will stumble because of my own weaknesses and mistakes. Nevertheless, there is every opportunity for me to enjoy a satisfying life, where, according to my preferences and the chances of life, I may get married, have a family, pursue an interesting, worthwhile and fulfilling career, and enjoy numerous milestones in the lives of myself and my loved ones and through holidays and special occasions, have many, many high spots.

There is much to celebrate! And, in practice, these things are the bedrock of what makes life worth living. I suppose I have a particular concern because – although I freely recognise that the above wonderful list of experiences is what makes life satisfying – I am committed to a life of faith, and I want to explore how modern people may discover an inner life and a world view to sustain them – not simply in case they should be unlucky and miss out on this list of “goodies”, but precisely because there is a deep-seated calling in humankind for life to be about even more than enjoying the good things of life.

Assurance for the modern age (Part 2)

Assurance for the modern age

Part 2: What foundation is there, then, for atheists in our secular society?

My deep concern is for secular minded people who, in their self-confident atheism, have gladly, sometimes triumphantly, abandoned faith in God. They have a certain sort of assurance, in that they are absolutely convinced that they are right in their thinking, but they patently lack the assurance that I am blessed with. This emptiness reveals itself in multiple ways in modern society. Therefore, I wish to investigate how people in a secular age may discover a fulfilling, robust, supportive inner life. Is this possible in an entirely secular way? What would that look like, and how would it compare to and improve on the current negative effects of secular ideology? Then, if we can find such a positive ideology, how does it compare with the religious and spiritual worldview that I have? Will they be sufficiently similar that we might conclude that one is as good as the other? Would such a secular ideology be so close to the religious one that it would be wise to recommend that modern secular people simply take the final step and move over to embrace the assurance that is found in God?

What we’re talking about is the human condition – those essential, inescapable, core experiences that are at the heart of being human. What does life look like from an entirely secular point of view?

We must begin with the Big Bang and evolution, which, after a very long period of time, have resulted in us living our lives today. Richard Dawkins has written very eloquently and inspiringly on this theme, so it is perfectly possible to produce an exceptionally positive life view from the simple facts of our existence. Many people do not do so, of course, so we must consider how best to attain such a positive view. In many ways, it is very straightforward, and the story we would tell ourselves would be something like what follows.

How fortunate we are to be alive in the 21st century, with the immense benefits that modern life gives us for prosperity and the advantages of technology. How fortunate we are to live in the UK, a society which is prosperous, peaceful, governed by law, democratic, with strong respect for individual rights. Of course, there are many blows that may befall us – we may have a severe disability, be born into a dysfunctional family, live in poverty, develop severe mental health problems, be the victim of other people’s cruelty and greed. The list of pitfalls is long, and we must return to think how a worldview could be created that would benefit these people too. However, for now, let’s consider the situation of – hopefully – the large majority of people who – while facing many a challenge, for almost no-one escapes challenges – have what I think is a typical life ahead of them. What does the human condition look like for them?

Assurance for the modern age. (Part 1)

(A long reflection in 12 parts – some stamina will be required!)

Assurance for the modern age

Part 1: A firm foundation in faith

How may people in the modern secular world find peace for their restless hearts? This appears to be a vital, urgent task. I write as a person of faith, who finds all they need in the assurance of God’s love. This provides me with complete stability of spirit, even within the trials and tribulations of life. I do not mean, of course, that I serenely step through life untroubled by any external events in the life of the world, nor undisturbed in spirit by all the internal anguish that befalls humankind in response to the many troubles that come our way. How on earth then can I talk about “stability of spirit”? It is because my faith in God gives me a foundation on which to stand, and I have complete confidence in this foundation. Though I may regularly be battered and wounded and in distress, these are not sufficient to shake my trust in the God who loves me. In him, I find an invincible confidence in life -that life is wonderful, that hope, goodness, truth and love surround and uphold me. I have complete assurance that these things can never be taken away from me – not even by death. Though in my bodily weakness, I am often anxious and sometimes afraid, even these stabs of pain to my soul do not threaten my assurance, for the Lord is with me, I will not be afraid, nor will I ever be lost to him.

On forgiveness. (Part 9)

On forgiveness

Part 9: The nature of God is forgiveness

Why should God be so keen on forgiveness? He has no need of it for himself. Therefore, it is something that he does because he knows we need it. In this respect, it is exactly in tune with – an intrinsic part of – his grace. The very essence of God is his self-giving love. The Greek word is “agape”. Love not given because we deserve it, or because it has been evoked by the lovability of the person we give it to. It is love given selflessly, altruistically, out of the love of giving gifts to others. God loves in this way because it is his nature, and we might say that he can do no other. But God is never constrained; his power is such that he always has free choice. Except, of course, that God has to be true to himself. So, God forgives us because he has a desire to see us whole and because it gives him joy when that happens.

I cannot but think of the link to the essence of humankind, so powerfully expressed in Genesis chapter 3, where the most fundamental fact about us is expressed: that we are capable of doing both good and evil. This is our nature – and it cannot be otherwise, but the desire of God in creation must be that we should do good. We are made to live in communion with God. And – amazing beyond all amazement – we are able to do good, and wonderful it is to behold. But when we do evil – when we sin – that is contradictory to being in communion with God. So, God’s purpose in forgiveness is to restore to us his intention in creation that we should live freely and joyfully in relationship with him. Forgiveness then is an inescapable part of God’s purposes in creation. The essence of it is the restoration of our relationship with him – and with any others whom we have sinned against. When we receive forgiveness we are endowed with the very essence of Godliness, and when we give forgiveness to others we embrace Godliness itself and become at one with him.

On forgiveness. (Part 8)

On forgiveness

Part 8: Forgiveness is a freely-given generous gift; it is not self-seeking

I am still a little troubled by the motivation of us “forgiving in order to be forgiven”. It must be a good thing to do this, but it sounds substandard, in that our focus could be completely on ourselves, rather than desiring for the other person the gracious freedom that God bestows on us in his forgiveness of us. In comparison, any forgiveness of ours which in effect says, “I can’t stand that person, but I want to be in God’s good books so I suppose I will have to let them off”, sounds selfish. Jesus, of course, seems to say very strongly that we must “forgive others their trespasses in order to be forgiven of our own”. But is this what Jesus means? The words are, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. There does seem to be a strong element of contract: if we want to be forgiven then we have to forgive others. I think it can become less selfish if we shift our motivation and our understanding of what is going on. If the essence of forgiveness is restoring our relationship with God, then our aim is to live displaying the same grace that God has shown to us. If we judge soundly, we can see that the debt that God has written off in our account is greater than the debt we are asked to write off in relation to those who have harmed us. Forgiving others then is not a reluctant release from judgement by us in order to get the gift that we really want – God’s forgiveness of us. Rather it is a joyful expression of thanksgiving in that we are so conscious of having been released from the oppression of our own sins that we “cannot help” but let our joy overflow into releasing others from the condemnation that we may rightly feel that their harm done to us deserves. Our forgiveness then is not a contractual thing at all, but a natural expression of the freedom that God’s grace has poured into our lives, and which we now gladly share with others. It would simply not be right for us to be mean-spirited in our lack of forgiveness to others, when God has been so generous in forgiving us. This seems to be the clear message of a parable that Jesus told, where the person in the story representing God is outraged that someone forgiven so much refuses to forgive a trifling amount. It is as though the forgiveness received has “failed” in that it has failed to elicit a generous spirit towards others.

I’m aware that some people have suffered from enormous harm at other peoples’ hands, and they may well feel that their own sins – which do need God’s forgiveness – are nevertheless slight in relation to what they are asked to forgive in relation to other people. In such cases, I think we are called to be like God – an extraordinary ask to think that those who have suffered terrible injustice should even consider being generous in the way they forgive others. Extraordinary again, is the fact that some people do manage to achieve this level of grace. It is as though the harm done to them can generate an understanding that others may also be suffering, and to release them from a burden by forgiving them is the right – and amazingly graceful – thing to do. We note that this would only be applicable to those who are seeking forgiveness through their repentance; we are not saying that those who have suffered grievously have any responsibility to release the guilty party who caused such harm through forgiving them until there was overwhelming evidence of their change of heart.

On forgiveness. (Part 7)

On forgiveness

Part 7: God’s forgiveness and God’s judgement go hand in hand

Do we now have a problem for the Christian? We are aiming to be the sort of people who have the grace to forgive others. Yet we seem to be in the position of passing a condemning judgement. Is this compatible with forgiveness? The logic of the situation must be that it is. Fact are facts – the other person acted badly. (Of course, we must take into account extenuating circumstances, pressures the other person was under, whether it was possible for you to have acted better). We have made a true judgement that they are in the wrong. We have genuinely tried to forgive in terms of “letting go of the hurt”. We have found freedom on our side, but if the other person rejects the truth of the situation, then reconciliation and new life is not possible – between the two of us. We do, I think, maintain our freedom, but we withhold our granting of freedom to them in terms of our relationship no longer being restrained by the harm they did us, because reconciliation is not possible with someone who is not sorry. The fact that they are not sorry does not impinge on our freedom to live in a state of not holding the offence against them. Yet our judgement against them remains.

How does this relate to the forgiveness that Christians seek from God?

Here, there is the crucial difference that we are sorry for our sins, and we are making some attempt at repentance. Therefore, reconciliation with God is possible. There is still the potentially troubling aspect that God’s judgement still stands. However, that can never be changed. Wrong actions cannot be undone, and so God’s righteous judgement against them is a true judgement that stands against us for all time. Yet we want to be free in the love of God; to have a relationship that is unsullied by our sins. This must therefore be compatible with being sinners.

Has God “written off” the offence? This is how I usually understand his forgiveness. He has the power and authority to write off the offence that I have done against him. He treats me as though nothing has ever come between us. This does seem, in fact, to be completely analogous with what we have done in terms of our attitude to those who wronged us. There was a weight of offence that we felt, but rather than hold onto that offence – and so continue to feel the pain of it – we laid it to one side, and so were set free from its power. If the person who hurt us in sorry, then reconciliation if possible. If they refuse, then we maintain the power and freedom not to be bothered by that; it is simply that our judgement against them remains. For us, in relation to God, our repentance allows the freedom that God is offering in terms of writing off the offence to be fully received by us as a gracious act of reconciliation and new life.

On forgiveness. (Part 6)

On forgiveness

Part 6: The essence of giving forgiveness is not letting the harm done to you have any impact in your future dealing with the person who hurt you, but true judgement is still truth

I think this is probably the essence of forgiveness. Whether you draw the incident to mind regularly, almost never, or, in practice, never, if you do think of it you have written off the offence. This means that – should you have further dealings with this person – there is no barrier (for you) in the relationship. You are not trying to get recompense or dealing any differently with this person as you would anyone else. This seems an ideal – and successful – version of forgiveness.

There is still an interesting issue which I am not sure about. It is to do with whether or not the person who harmed you needs to be sorry. I don’t think they do, for, otherwise, the “evil actor” in this situation retains power over you forever, for, as an evil actor, they may relish “getting one over on you”. You must be free to write off the offence, so that you feel free, regardless of what they do. However, there is still the issue of judgement, and I think this is crucial in forgiveness.

Suppose you meet someone who hurt you several years ago. In your own heart and mind you have let go of the hurt, found your own freedom, and found the grace to hope that they are also living free from the power of the offence – you are truly not holding it against them. However, you do not forget the incident – certainly not now you have met them again – and your judgement remains that they were the offender. This judgement can never change, for it is true. Forgiveness does not mean saying, “You did not harm me”. It means saying, “You did harm me, but I don’t hold it against you”. However, if the person is not willing to accept that, then there remains power in the offence. I don’t think you, as the innocent party, needs to feel the offence all over again, for you have used the power of forgiveness to set yourself free for your part – even though reconciliation with the other person has not (yet) been possible because they have not acknowledged their wrongdoing. If, “in the cool of the moment”, years later, they refuse to acknowledge their fault, then I think we are justified in issuing some sort of condemnation of them. Our forgiveness does not mean, “OK, now that it no longer bothers me, I will change my judgment and say that you were not at fault”. As people committed to the truth we can never say that. Therefore, the ideal completion of forgiveness is when the perpetrator of harm acknowledges their fault, and then I think it really is possible to give full forgiveness, for this is a wonderful moment of reconciliation and newness of life. If they will not acknowledge their fault, then I think, as the innocent party, we have to settle for passing judgement on them, for example, “I think your behaviour was appalling”.

On forgiveness. (Part 5)

On forgiveness

Part 5: The start of forgiveness is letting go of hurt – but needs to be much more than that

What about giving forgiveness?

I recognise that this is said rather too glibly –  certainly, I do. I suppose that means that I approve of the idea of forgiveness, but, in practice, I find it rather difficult.

If it is a minor matter that I need to forgive, I do find that easy. I am an easy-going, considerate, understanding person, keen to keep the peace, and with a good understanding of the weaknesses of human nature. I do not get angry easily, and am willing to consider how things might look like from another person’s point of view. However, if this sort of forgiveness is easy, then it hardly counts as forgiveness. It is forgiveness – and people with different personalities to mine, and who, perhaps, have fewer advantages than me, and so are not so comfortably inclined to let other people off, may find forgiveness even in “minor” circumstances to be very difficult indeed.

Nevertheless, I think the key issues are to do with forgiveness on a substantial matter, where significant hurt has been done on a matter of importance to me.

Let’s deal with the issue of “forgive and forget” first. I don’t think it is actually possible to forget a serious hurt. You will always be able to call it to mind if you wish, or if some event prompts a memory. However, this is still very different from holding a grievance actively in your heart and mind, and dwelling on it continuously. This is clearly very harmful to yourself – and is often done by sensitive people who are the injured party, while the perpetrator of harm has truly forgotten all about it. So, if you don’t “forgive” in terms of “letting go” you are simply allowing the unjust person who hurt you to hurt you more. In this case, forgiveness is certainly important – though the focus is on protecting yourself rather than on bestowing the gift of forgiveness on the other person. I think this is important to do, but may well be falling short of the Christian ideal of forgiveness. I think it is a good outcome when – although you have not genuinely forgotten – in practice you just don’t bring a hurt to mind. It has lost its power over you – perhaps if the memory of it does come back to mind, you do get a surge of the former negative feelings, but this can often be dealt with as “just a memory of hurt” rather than an ongoing, active hurt. You may well be able to go further than easing your own hurt over the matter by coming to a settled judgement that you will not hold the offence against the person.