Thursday, May 10, 2007
Christ and Happiness
Justin Taylor recently linked to a philosophical arguement on "eudaimonia" - that is to say, true happiness. This idea can be summed up simply - the pursuit of Christ is moving towards something good, not the restrictive constraint of an otherwise happy life. I couldn't agree more, but consider this key quote
Here is the real problem though, the church has largely recognised that the general idea of happiness is what moves people, but rather than alter the perception of happiness, they pander to it. We ask people whose understanding of what happiness is is flawed what would make them happy and then give it to them. You want church where you are not asked to do anything? - Here you go! You want a church service you could watch on TV as easily as attend? - Here you go! You want church to keep you squarely in your comfort zone? - Here you go!
The point to all this is that there ought to be a "positive" way to sell discipleship, it is after all a positive. But my experience tells me that ultimately there is not. Let's consider this by analogy.
Regular readers know of my very significant weight loss of the last few years. the inevitable and perpetual question is, "How did you do it?" Most assume bariatric surgery of some sort, but nope - 1000-1500 calories a day, that's it, that's all. "Well aren't you hungry all the time?" comes the standard retort.
"EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY," is my standard reponse. My perception of hunger is skewed. When most people feel satisfied, I remain hungry. When I allow myself to have sweets, for example, all it creates in me is a desire for more - even if my stomach is full to the point of distention. There is sacrifice and self-control involved - no way around it. I simply must retrain myself to value the ability to walk away (as opposed to roll away) from the table more than the satisfaction of continuing to eat. After three years, I can honestly say I am maybe 10% of the way through that retraining. I can feel satisfied at the end of a terribly small meal, which I couldn't when I started, but an hour later....
So, the question becomes, does my "philosopical" understanding that the lighter me is better than the fat me aid in this sacrifice? - and the answer is not a whit. the only thing that did it was the pain in my knees - I had to suffer. Philosophy is wonderful, but the church has a difficult call. That cannot be changed.
Related Tags: discipleship, happiness, sacrifice
Everyone, so Aristotle thought, agrees that in fact all human beings aim at some conception of eudaimonia as the ultimate objective of all their action. Differences in ethical views, according to Aristotle, arise because of what different people understand eudaimonia actually to consist in, e.g. pleasure, wealth, honors, or virtue. But they agree that eudaimonia is our chief aim.True enough; however, no amount of philosophy can overcome the fact the perceptively, Christian discipleship feels sacrificial. Thus to effectively build Christan disciples we must either alter perception, or demand sacrifice. In fact, I would argue that it is only through the perceived sacrifice that one's perception can be adequately altered to understand the true happiness available.
Here is the real problem though, the church has largely recognised that the general idea of happiness is what moves people, but rather than alter the perception of happiness, they pander to it. We ask people whose understanding of what happiness is is flawed what would make them happy and then give it to them. You want church where you are not asked to do anything? - Here you go! You want a church service you could watch on TV as easily as attend? - Here you go! You want church to keep you squarely in your comfort zone? - Here you go!
The point to all this is that there ought to be a "positive" way to sell discipleship, it is after all a positive. But my experience tells me that ultimately there is not. Let's consider this by analogy.
Regular readers know of my very significant weight loss of the last few years. the inevitable and perpetual question is, "How did you do it?" Most assume bariatric surgery of some sort, but nope - 1000-1500 calories a day, that's it, that's all. "Well aren't you hungry all the time?" comes the standard retort.
"EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY," is my standard reponse. My perception of hunger is skewed. When most people feel satisfied, I remain hungry. When I allow myself to have sweets, for example, all it creates in me is a desire for more - even if my stomach is full to the point of distention. There is sacrifice and self-control involved - no way around it. I simply must retrain myself to value the ability to walk away (as opposed to roll away) from the table more than the satisfaction of continuing to eat. After three years, I can honestly say I am maybe 10% of the way through that retraining. I can feel satisfied at the end of a terribly small meal, which I couldn't when I started, but an hour later....
So, the question becomes, does my "philosopical" understanding that the lighter me is better than the fat me aid in this sacrifice? - and the answer is not a whit. the only thing that did it was the pain in my knees - I had to suffer. Philosophy is wonderful, but the church has a difficult call. That cannot be changed.
Related Tags: discipleship, happiness, sacrifice
