WILL THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR PAST FREE US FROM THE PRESENT?

Does understanding our past relieve us of its influence? A male complained that he had consistently taken abuse from friends and acquaintances. He didn’t feel that he had the right to assert himself against their abuse. However, through psychotherapy, he saw that this had been the way he had been treated by his caregivers. He then “understood” that not speaking up for his welfare and setting boundaries were behaviors and a self-concept he had inherited and that they no longer had to dictate his life. He therefore began to set needful boundaries with his friends and acquaintances.

We don’t like seeing anyone abused, so we regard this as a “success story,” but is it? There are two problems here. For one thing, our memories can be either distorted or highly selective. Therefore, this male might not be connecting the right dots in his analysis of his past and how it impacts his present.

However, we might think, “Well, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that he is now finding relief from his feelings of unworthiness and is now setting necessary boundaries.”

This might be true, but he is left with a problem that will eventually resurface. Even if he has correctly assessed that his failure to set boundaries was a product of his past, it still fails to give him the rationale he needs to resist victimization.

Let me try to illustrate this point. If we realize that our past “nurturing” inculcated us with the idea that we should tolerate abuse, all this realization tells us is that we need not be led by our past. However, it fails to tell us what we should be led by or to give us an objective standard of behavioral and cognitive rightness. It doesn’t tell us why we shouldn’t tolerate abuse.

It is like the girl who was taught that it is wrong to abuse others. While this might help her to understand her disdain for abuse, it does not answer the question, “Is it wrong to abuse?” It would therefore be absurd for her to begin to abuse others, because she now understands that her disdain for abuse had come from her parents.

It is not enough for us to merely connect the dots and to understand our present inclinations from the perspective of the past. Instead, it is more important to have an objective standard for right behavior.

When I first began going to church, I felt strongly that everyone who came to shake my hand was a hypocrite. However, I found that it is more important to live by the guidance of the objective truths of Scripture and love others than it was to understand why I felt this way. When I began to treat others with love, miraculously my opinions of them changed.

It wasn’t enough for me to know that my feelings of self-loathing came from the way I had been treated as a child. Instead, I needed to know that I was lovable and had value. This was something that I was unable to obtain through psychotherapy. Nor did it seem to matter how many times the psychotherapist would assure me that I am a “good person.” My deeply ingrained feelings of self-loathing would just laugh at these reassurances.

What could assure me that I had value? The psychotherapist’s words were only his opinions and were unable to penetrate to the depths where my feelings were preaching their life-controlling messages.

It was only Jesus who was able to break through my deadly waves of self-loathing. I became assured that if He loved me so much that He had died for me, while I was His enemy, He would love me all the more once I became His friend (Romans 5:8-10).

This awareness didn’t come overnight. Since I had not known love as a child, it was hard for me to believe/feel that God now loved me. I had hated myself and therefore projected that everyone else, including God, hated me. And I felt sure of this. I was also sure that I had to produce a steady stream of successes in order to be worthy of anyone’s love. This, of course, caused me to envy and even hate those who had more success.

However, Scripture began to rewrite my own script. I began to experience the “love of God that passes all understanding” (Ephesians 3:19) and the assurance that He would never leave me (Romans 8:38-39). Even through suffering, the words of my Savior became more real to me:

·       “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

Jesus does give us a “yoke” and a “burden,” but these can become the instruments of freedom from many of the things that oppress us.

Transformation, Growth, and Christian Maturity

From where does growth come? It is product of God, the Spirit bearing fruit in our lives (Gal. 5:22). As the branch must be attached to the base and roots in order to bear fruit, we have to be attached to our Lord (John 15:4-5). Without Him, we can do nothing.

Nevertheless, our efforts matter. Paul described the Christians he was growing as “our letter”:

• You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, recognized and read by everyone. It is clear that you are Christ’s letter, produced by us, not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God—not on stone tablets but on tablets that are hearts of flesh. We have this kind of confidence toward God through Christ. ⌊It is⌋ not that we are competent in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our competence is from God. (2 Corinthians 3:2-5)

After declaring them “our letter,” Paul then insisted that they are “Christ’s letter, produced by us” and written by the Spirit. Well which is it? Does growth come from Paul or from the Spirit? Both! But it is the Spirit working through Paul. Paul therefore confessed that he could do nothing on his own:

• But by God’s grace I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not ineffective. However, I worked more than any of them, yet not I, but God’s grace that was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)

Paul confessed that even his strenuous efforts were the work of grace. Consequently, he could not take credit even for his labors! Instead, it was a matter of God working in him to produce His fruit (Phil. 2:13).

The Spirit uses certain means, foremost of which is the Word:

• Like newborn infants, desire the pure spiritual milk, so that you may grow by it for ⌊your⌋ salvation. (1 Peter 2:2; also Rom. 12:1; Acts 20:32; 2 Peter 1:2-3; Psalm 1) 

Paul understood that the Word of God was the tool of the Spirit. Therefore, he entrusted the Church to this Word:

• “And now I commit you to God and to the message of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all who are sanctified. (Acts 20:32) 

But this work of the Spirit does not preclude our obedience, our responsibilities. We must pray (James 4:1-3) and meditate on His Word if we want to receive (Psalm 1). Nevertheless, we thank God for nourishing our heart to accomplish these responsibilities:

• [Jesus] the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and tendons, develops with growth from God. (Colossians 2:19)

What are these “ligaments and tendons” through which God grants growth? That’s us – the Body of Christ. In order to maximize growth, we need to be connected. How?

• But speaking the truth [of Scripture] in love, let us grow in every way into Him who is the head—Christ. From Him the whole body, fitted and knit together by every supporting ligament, promotes the growth of the body for building up itself in love by the proper working of each individual part. (Ephesians 4:15-16)

If our muscles are to receive their nutrients, they must be connected to the blood vessels, and the blood vessels to the heart, and the heart to the lungs and stomach. These pull in nutrients from the outside. As the Body does its job, it channels the grace of God (the growth nutrients) to the rest of the Body. Foremost among the nutrients is the “speaking the truth in love.” Why love? If the truth is spoken in the context of love, it is better understood and received. How can we receive the message of truth when we are entrapped by bitterness! However, when we are experiencing the love of the Body, our mouths and ears are open to the next morsel of food.

Why are we not open to the brethren? Why does the food of the Word not find fertile soil among us? Perhaps we are too full.

Imagine being hunted down by ISIS and the only comfort we can find is among our brethren. How different would things be! Thank God for the trials!

Understanding Humanity and Utopia: The Great Divide

The way we conceive humanity and our problems determines the nature of our solutions. Gandhi disdained technology and thought that the return to the simple life would solve many of our problems:

• Gandhi’s idea that technology was evil and that a simple, natural life was morally superior came from British idealists like John Ruskin. Sensitive people like him had become critical of England’s Industrial Revolution because of the exploitation, oppression, and other evils associated with its “dark satanic mills.” Mahatma Gandhi brought this opposition to technology to India. (Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book that Made your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization,111)

Shakti Gawain, author of Creative Visualizations, taught that our problems arose from alienation from the inner self. Therefore, her answer consisted of learning to trust the “truth” we find within:

• “When we consistently suppress and distrust our intuitive knowingness, looking instead for external authority, validation, and the approval of others, we give our personal power away…Every time you don’t trust yourself and don’t follow your inner truth, you decreased your aliveness and your body will reflect this with a loss of vitality, numbness, pain, and eventually physical disease.” 

Meanwhile, Joseph Stalin was convinced that attaining paradise was a matter of changing the environment – the State and its economy:

• Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas, and theories, its political views and institutions. Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man’s manner of life, such is his manner of thought.

Similarly, The Humanist Manifesto II asserts that “Using technology wisely” can produce the “abundant and meaningful life”:

• “Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.” 

Many other utopian schemes rely upon the removal of the repressive or capitalistic elements. The Occupy Wall Street movement seemed to suggest that if we could simply remove the capitalist oppressors - the top one percent – we could have a better world. Other movements placed their hopes on the elimination of those deemed evil or less evolved.

Interestingly, all of these “solutions” have one thing in common – a belief in the essential goodness of humanity, or at least of their particular group, and the superficiality of our problems. Those who believe that humanity has been corrupted by society, also believe that humanity can be easily reformed by a radical change of society.

When we believe that our problems are superficial, we will generate constant flow of utopian dreams. Such dreams are usually revolutionary. They are not content to merely improve the present system but to remove it.

When confronted with the horrors of National Socialism, Communism, and ISIS – and various other utopian movements, each promising to create a better world – the “believer” will insist that these are mere aberrations, easily corrected by the right people and re-education programs. Such hope is inevitably based upon a benign assessment of humanity.

However, what if the genocides, rapes, and abductions are the result of deeper problems that social changes will not touch? What if we are not controlled by rational argumentation or the means of production but by baser instincts?

And here is related consideration. What if there is a human nature that requires a certain kind of care? Then we have to ask the question: “Is this nature best served by sexual liberation? Communism? Finding one’s own truth? Psychotropic drugs?”

This is the Mason-Dixon Line – the great polarizing divide. It depends on our understanding of humanity. How fluid and remedial is our nature? The progressive answers, “very fluid and remedial.” The conservative answers very differently, and these answers determine how readily we will pursue radical change.

The Bible testifies of the pervasive sinfulness of humanity.  According to Jesus, we are normally addicted to darkness, the denial of the truth (John 3:19-20). The veracity of His assessment is evident at every turn. One Sabbath, Jesus healed a man with a “shriveled hand.” Instead of praising God at this miraculous deed:

• The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:11)

This same hatred of the Light of God is ubiquitously evident. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the grave:

• Some of [those who saw the miracle] went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him. (John 11:46-48) 

They were unwilling to consider the implications of this great miracle. Instead, they plotted together to kill Jesus and eliminate His unbearable Light.

Jesus even prophesied that the enemies of the Light would not only eliminate Him but also those associated with Him, all the while convincing themselves that they were performing a virtuous act:

• They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. (John 16:2) 

According to the Bible, human perversity is so deep-seated that it requires radical surgery. We must be changed from above. In light of this understanding, utopianism is sheer fantasy, like building a mansion on a cesspool.

We are that cesspool. This is a truth that I had denied, disguised, and suppressed for years. It was just too unsettling! However, through the assurance of my Savior’s love and forgiveness, He granted me the courage to face the disorienting Light, and the closer I came to it, the more I was enabled to see the ugliness within.

Fire can either consume us or free us from our bonds. Rather than psychologically crippling me, the Light freed me. I no longer have to hide and put on a facade. I can non-defensively bask in the truth, knowing that my worth is unassailably buried in His love and care.

This does not represent a rejection of social change, but instead a recognition of our human limitations.

Postmodernism, Logic, Love, and Truth

As soon as you mention something about “truth,” feathers begin to fly. You’ll hear responses like:

1. The only truth is change itself.
2. Everyone’s got their own way. It’s not a matter of one-size-fits-all!
3. The idea of truth is just too rigid.
4. The only truth is what is true for you alone!

We live in a postmodern age. Consequently, these statements seem to be so well-established that they are beyond questioning. They are as acceptable as the statement, “I exist” or “I like chocolate.”

However, postmodern thinking has become so much a part of our culture that it is as familiar and unnoticeable as the ocean is for a lobster. We have become so comfortable with this worldview, we fail to see that these assertions are illogical.

For instance, if the only truth is change itself (#1), then this statement is also subject to change and therefore contradicts itself. Therefore, this assertion cannot be true, at least not for long!

Statement #2 also contradicts itself. If “everyone’s got their own way” and there is no truth that is common to all of us, then this statement also is illogical, because it too is a statement of truth that pertains to all. Meanwhile, it rejects the notion that there is any truth that does pertains to all, while asserting the “truth” that it is all simply relative.

Statement #3 is equally illogical. If “the idea of truth is just too rigid,” then this statement is also too rigid, since it too is a statement of truth.

Statement #4, while claiming that we cannot assert what is true for other people (only what is true for us), implies that this principle is true for everyone, thereby contradicting itself.

The problems of incoherence do not stop in the realm of ideas. They also infiltrate our lives like stealth ninjas. For instance, just about everything that we say is a truth statement. Just think of the following instances:

1. That was a great movie.
2. My son goes to a wonderful school.
3. Bill is really a nice guy.

All of these statements have embedded value judgments. They suggest that, according to a universal standard, there is something objectively of value about the movie, school and Bill. However, if you were to press the postmodern about these implicit objective standards, she would retreat and redefine what she had stated:

• I only meant that I really enjoyed this movie. I’m not implying that there is anything superior about this movie.

However, this is the very thing that her statement implied. In fact, we cannot but speak in terms of objective truth statements. If we instead reduce all of our statements to merely personal feelings and tastes, we also reduce life and make it unlivable.

One guy tried to do this in regards to our conversations. When I would make truth statements, he would correct me:

• You can only speak for yourself and your own feelings. You can’t speak of truth in general, because, when you do this, you are also speaking for me, and I won’t allow you to do this!

Do you see the incoherence here? While forbidding my truth statements, he invoked many of his own, even requiring us to submit to the same rules. He eventually terminated our conversation.

However, the problems don’t stop here. One postmodern young lady informed me that she had recently found the meaning of her life. She would now devote herself to loving others.

I applauded her commitment to this noble cause. However, she then reassured me that her decision had nothing to do with truth or the inherent virtue of love. Instead, it was all about what personally worked for her! Consequently, she refused to say that what she had found had any relevance for anyone else, since everyone had to find what was right for themselves.

I therefore asked her:

• Since you do not believe in any objective moral law or the inherent goodness of love, do you tell these people that your intention is not really to love them but love yourself?  After all, you stated that you committed yourself to this cause because it works for you and not because of any higher calling. Therefore, isn’t you commitment inherently selfish? And, in order to be transparent, wouldn’t you have to tell the “objects of your love” that you are merely acting out of selfish motives?

How can love be love if it is done primarily out of selfish concerns? Can I pledge myself to my wife for only as long as the marriage works for me? In a world where there is no truth, there is also no real virtue, integrity, honor, justice or anything else that we cherish. Instead, everything is reduced to whether or not it works for us.

When I contrasted her stance with my Christian orientation, she replied, “That’s just too rigid for me.”

In a sense, she is right. Truth is rigid. It makes demands on us and tells us when we go astray, but we need truth nevertheless. I need to know that, when I’ve morally failed and feel the weight of guilt, that my Lord forgives and cleanses me from all of my filth (1 John 1:9). Without this confidence, I would remain consumed by my feelings of guilt and shame.

When I share this with others, they usually respond, “Well, that’s just your faith!” I retort that it’s not a matter of blind faith but substantiated faith. I need evidential assurances that God forgives me. I cannot believe simply because it makes me feel good. For my faith to give me the joy and confidence that I need, I have to be assured of its truth.

How will this postmodern young woman be able to maintain her love commitment once it stops feeling good to her and no longer works for her? I don’t think that she will be able to! We need to not only feel that something is “right”; we also need to be convinced that it is truly right. Only this kind of conviction will carry us through! Otherwise, we retreat into the unstable and juvenile life where feelings alone reign.