At our first talk Eutychus had been somewhat subdued, knowing that I was going to bring up Paul’s sermon. You know, the one he slept through.
It was a different Eutychus that met me for this interview. He carried a brighter demeanor. With only slight encouragement he filled me in on his life after his fall. Basically he described the details of that night--the Apostle Paul speaking the Word of God, his dozing off under the influence of a few beers, and then waking from death to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. With the spectacle of his dying and the chiding that awaited him at home, he did some Spirit-guided reflection.
Putting the pieces together he saw this pattern: the terminal position of a lifestyle designed for pleasure – his death; the vibrant truth of the Word of God—Paul’s preaching; and the life that God offers—the sacrament of God’s reconciling love in Christ. With evangelical zeal he gave the message for living in these times…
To make sure I followed him, he reminded me of Deuteronomy 8. There God disclosed what he was doing with the Hebrew people in the wilderness. He brought hardships to them; he had caused them to hunger, all with a purpose. That purpose was to teach them not to live by bread alone but by everything that the Lord says.
That is the message. There are two ways to proceed, each with its view on these times. Are our ears tuned to what God says, or are our hands searching for more bread? Does God have a role in our world, or are we on our own? The differences are momentous. One way accepts God as the cornerstone, the other proceeds with the absence of God.
The differences show up in the way they comprehend four current issues. These are: social justice, the pursuit of happiness, the goal of progress, and the protection of freedom. These values belong to conservatives and liberals alike, but unless their foundations have God as their cornerstone, they wither in a wasteland.
The most central points of God as cornerstone are these:
God as our creator;
the reality of our sinful nature;
the responsibility to God and society;
the kingdom at the end of time;
and the purpose of life found as children of God.
With these in mind we look at the four current issues.
The Prayer Book properly frames freedom, “in whose service is perfect freedom.” This means we accept the restraints of self-serving pursuits for the greater good of serving the needs of others.
We pursue social justice as fairness for all and the removal of all that perverts justice.
The culmination of progress is the Kingdom of God. We do not shirk efforts to improve life, but we realize the limits of sin and wait for the fairness, recompense, and justice that God will bring at the end of time.
The pursuit of happiness comes with putting the needs of others before ourselves and knowing the undeserved kindness of God for us sinners.
For worldview with bread at its center, human autonomy holds the prominent position:
we are in charge of our destiny;
we define our moral boundaries;
we construct our purpose and happiness;
we build society as it ought to be;
we want freedom that removes all restraints to the way we want life.
As appealing as all that may sound, the end results paralyze what is noble and dehumanize our dignity. For analysis I turn to our Russian consultants, borrowing freely from Solzhenitsyn and his speech at Harvard in 1978 and Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov. And Benjamin Franklin, who wrote in 1779, “Tyranny is so generally established in the rest of the world that the prospect of an asylum in America for those who love liberty gives general joy, and makes our cause esteemed as the hope of mankind.” The liberty that was then enshrined in young America does not come when our highest aspirations are reduced to more bread.
Freedom. This pursuit has a resemblance to freedom, but it quickly becomes its very loss. Dostoevsky asks if bread can purchase freedom. Ivan, one of the brothers, tells his dream of the Grand Inquisitor meeting the Lord Jesus Christ. In the bleak but truthful observation the Grand Inquisitor tells the Lord, “They themselves have brought us their freedom and laid it at our feet.” People hungered for bread. If commercialism is what satisfies, then freedom is nullified.
Happiness. What appears to be the consummation of happiness becomes the enslavement to what Solzhenitsyn calls “the morally inferior definition of happiness.” More bread offers a more appealing path than the moral bondage of Christian sacrifice and mercy. With sin redefined and pleasure promised, who couldn't find happiness?
Social justice. In the vacuum of a transcendent moral order the power of this concept exposes practices of partiality and cruelty. The same Ivan who told the dream of the Grand Inquisitor also astutely observed that "Without God, everything is permissible." Is that not the quintessential temptation—to avoid the consequences of restraints and to construct life as we want it?
Progress. Those who paint the future define who we are and where we are headed. It is imperfect man, never free of pride and vanity, who places himself as arbiter of the paths of power. Those roads inevitably lead to despiritualized humanism.
Eutychus has the notoriety of dozing off during Paul's preaching. He landed well, though, and has a mature and profound message for these times. Through his insights we have taken this cursory look behind divergent worldviews.
Next week’s interview will bring in Damaris (Acts 17:32-34). She stood on Mars Hill and looked over at the statue of Athena in the Acropolis. Then she heard Paul talking about the suffering Savior. She will expand on her choice and share wisdom about the test of the plague and the hope of the promise.
Tad