There’s an old adage that all philosophy breaks down in the extreme. Take, for instance, free speech. It’s a good that we would all defend, but it’s not a universal ideal.1 Meaning there is no universal good called free speech sitting in the heavens by which everything we do here on earth is contrasted and compared. Freedom in general is only universal inasmuch as it rests in God. So it’s not true liberty in the sense of that we are free from all constraints, but rather freedom inasmuch as it is contingent on God’s limits on our contingent natures.
For instance there is no absolute freedom (right) to murder in God because it goes against the characteristics of God. Since God is the universal, anything that detracts from him, is subject to that universal. One is only as free as he is to operate within those parameters, and to operate outside comes with all sorts of consequences. Humans are not free to jump off a building and fly. They might be free to jump, but they are subject to the contingent constraints that a created being has. That is, they are then obligated to fall. Without the Gospel I shudder to imagine the consequence of murdering God.
Free speech as a philosophy breaks down on the fringes, as it not a universal good. Think of our ven diagram shown above. There is a loose ideal called freedom, and then the ideals contingent within God. True freedom, as a philosophy is only coherent where it is subject to the contingency of God, as God is truth. A human being is not free to fly, but he is free to run, and talk, and stretch given his contingent nature. That much is true. Freedom of speech is only coherent within this same contingency. We are free to bless, honor, learn, and praise. But what happens when rights fall outside of our contingent limits?
This is much of the civic nightmare of a secular society, and why the courts are flooded with cases of having to determine this very reality. In God, there is no absolute freedom (right) to cuss out one’s neighbor2 and therefore courts and legislatures are forced to question to what degree they police this behavior as a society and how we cope with the inevitable consequences? Effectively, how do they manage sin, especially since sin, by its nature, is harmful to others? To what degree do we allow for freedom, when all are affected by said freedom? Where are the limits of freedom, once you are already out of their contingent boundaries? In this space, human conceived universal rights invade other human conceived universal rights. So a free speech absolutist would argue strongly that a cake maker should not have to bake a cake that has a racial slur embedded into it. When do the rights of one cross over to the rights of another. Maybe we can’t make them bake the cake, but how much should they have to listen to the same profanities? Is someone allowed to walk into a public space and begin to yell racial slurs?Is that to always be allowed? What about around children? Since our ears extend beyond our bodies, how much autonomous space are we allotted?
Non-contingent universal rights are incoherent. Since God is the only non-contingent thing, all contingent universals outside of him break down under such duress. The same is true for philosophy in general. Capitalism, Feminism, Stoicism, Asceticism. Since God is the only non-contingent, all truth is rooted in him. Therefore, contingent truth separate from him breaks down the further it moves away from that contingency.
Why do I bring this up? Because I wonder if the same is true of theology, or the study of God. By placing universals that are themselves contingent on God, we limit him to our particular brands of theology. In effect, we make the universals non-contingent, and God himself contingent upon them.
Oh, God can’t do that because…
Freedom is defined by God, not God by freedom. And our theology is defined by God, not God by our theology.
And, when we begin to create universals within our theology we, at the very least, run the risk of restricting God to be the thing that is contingent.
Let’s think of a few:
- One must be baptized to go to heaven
- One must be baptized as an adult to go to heaven
- Once we are saved, we are always saved
- There is no salvation outside of the church
- One must speak in tongues to show they have the Holy Spirit
- God only likes Organ music….3
We could literally name thousands more in a moments time.
While each of these might contain some truth (obviously not organ music), each is subject to God himself, and therefore not universal goods. Even if, as in the ven diagram, they are 99.9% within the contingency, they are still not universal. Like freedom of speech is subjectively good, our theologies are also subjectively good, when contingent. Maybe most must and should be baptized. Maybe most must and should be adults. Maybe it’s very hard to lose our salvation. (Maybe not). Maybe most must and should speak in tongues…
But to create absolutes from them, to me, is similar to our friends in the secular realm who try to create absolutes from philosophies that are not capable of carrying that level of universality. They place our theology as our God, and lose sight of their limits.
It reminds me of the scene at the end of the book of Job, where Job has been listening to his friends wax philosophically about why God would allow all the terrible things to happen to him. When Job himself confronts God, instead of justifying himself, God’s answer is finally unsatisfying to our desire to create universals:
“Who are you Job? Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth…” 4
In effect, God’s response was that of contingency. I AM, therefore all of this is. Period. Be careful, therefore, in placing too much trust in your particular theology.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.