Why Cultural Theology Is Not Relativistic

By Allen Yeh
Scriptorium Daily

African theology. Asian theology. Latin American theology. Aren’t all these “cultural” theologies just relativism? Why can’t we just do “pure” theology?

I encountered this question just earlier today, though phrased a little bit differently. Let me explain the background leading to this question. I am in Atlanta for the annual ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) conference. This year I decided to start a new initiative: a World Christianity consultation, in light of the fact that the center of gravity of Christianity has shifted to the non-Western world in the last 25 years. I’ve been attending ETS for many years now, and I noticed something: there is nothing about missions, World Christianity, or non-Western theology, in the entire program. In contrast, I counted how many consultations or study groups there are about systematic theology and Biblical studies: 31 and 67 sessions, respectively! Now, as Evangelicals, I find this lack of world perspective surprising. Shouldn’t we, as Evangelicals, be on the forefront of concern with evangelism/missions/contextualization?

Five years ago, the AAR (American Academy of Religion) started a World Christianity consultation. This caused me to have two reactions: 1) Disbelief at ETS. How is it that the AAR, who don’t even call themselves Christian, who are extremely liberal in a variety of matters, has keen enough insight to launch a World Christianity consultation, and the ETS is still lagging so far behind? Evangelicals should have been the first to understand this global move of God! So I decided to do something about it, to take the bull by its horns. 2) A deep frustration and dissatisfaction with the way AAR was going about their sessions. I attended the AAR World Christianity consultation several times, and it was always the same refrain: postcolonialism. This is an example of Western categories being imposed upon the non-Western world, and it doesn’t do justice to indigenous non-Western theology. This is why I wanted to do a World Christianity consultation at ETS: it is (I hope) the best of both worlds: orthodox in its theology, but also highly indigenous (which are, as is the point of this blog, not contradictory—read on for why).

Our inaugural World Christianity consultation went well this morning. I am the chair of the steering committee and I moderated the 3-hour session. We opened with Andy Peloquin (Western Seminary) talking about soteriology in China; then Ray Tallman (Golden Gate Baptist Seminary) presenting on contextualization in the Arab-Muslim world; followed by Ed Smither (Liberty University) discussing missions from Brazil; and ending with Bob Yarbrough (Covenant Seminary) lecturing on New Testament studies in Africa. We covered four major geographical areas with four solid papers, and it was as fine a kick-off celebration as I could have asked for, with quite a fair audience turnout. It was the final paper, Yarbrough’s, that prompted the “cultural theology” question. A man in the audience asked, “Why do we need to look at the New Testament from an African perspective? I mean, we don’t ask what the African perspective on gravity is, so why do we need to ask what the African perspective on Biblical theology is?”

Again, I had two reactions: 1) frustration with the ignorant presuppositions behind the question; and 2) vindication that ETS needs this World Christianity consultation, precisely to dialogue about questions like this.

Basically, the presupposition behind this man’s question is that all “ethnic” theologies are cultural, while Western theology is “pure.” That’s why he made the comparison with gravity. It wasn’t in my place to respond to the man, but I would’ve made this analogy: people have different perspectives on me, don’t they? If you ask all my acquaintances, some will know me as a scholar, some will know me as a baseball fan, some will know me as a musician, and some will know me as a world traveler. Are all of them true of me? Definitely. Does anyone have the full picture of me? No—they will all emphasize one thing over another, or be missing certain pieces of my profile. In order to fully understand me, you would have to ask everyone that knows me, and then slowly the whole picture will come together. So it is with theology (which is the study of God). A European will say one thing, an Asian another, an African another, and a Latino yet another. Nobody has the full picture of God, and though every perspective might be true, each is incomplete in and of itself, and every cultural perspective is needed to fully understand this global God.

Therefore culture, rather than giving us relativistic lenses, gives us instruments which help us see our Lord better. Non-Westerners will be able to understand agrarian metaphors and supernatural phenomenon much better than Westerners—and agriculture and spirituality are all over the Bible! Another audience member also mentioned that African culture is much more similar to Biblical culture than we in the West are—so in that sense, Africans may have a better perspective on the Biblical text than we do, because of their culture.

Not only do non-Western perspectives give us insights into God that we in the West could never get on our own, Western theology also has some serious flaws in it. For example, we are often beholden to Platonic dualism which has filtered down to us through the millennia, and it is so hard for Western Christians to shake this dichotomistic thinking about the spiritual and physical worlds (this is played out in missions in the sense that evangelism is seen as more important than social justice; non-Westerners would never make such a prioritization!). Another example is the influence of the Enlightenment on Western thought—well, we all know what the Enlightenment did to European Christianity: it killed it. Today, Europe is the most secular continent on earth, thanks to the Enlightenment and rationalism. Do we really want to export that to the non-Western world? A third example is individualism. Most cultures throughout world history have been communal, but we now have Korean Christians who come to the West to study in our seminaries, imbibe individualistic theology, then bring it back to their communal Asian contexts. It is destructive, because the pastors end up doing theology completely wrongly in their native context. A fourth example is a poverty in our Pneumatology. The rest of the world understands spiritual realities far better than the West does, and we are, effectively, “Binitarian” (rather than Trinitarian) in our theology: we have a great theology of God the Father, a wonderful Christocentrism, but very little knowledge or experience with the Holy Spirit; and the third person of the Trinity is the one that is with us today! Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing segment of Christianity in the non-Western world today for a good reason; perhaps we in the West can teach the rest of the world about Christology; but the rest of the world can teach us about Pneumatology.

In short, cultural theology is not relativistic (relativism = “truth is whatever I perceive it as”); culture is needed to more fully see this infinite God who we worship (we all have true, but incomplete, perspectives—some cultures are good at seeing God as physician; some are good at seeing God as judge; some are good at seeing God as Creator; some are good at seeing God as immanent; etc). We need Latinos and Asians and Africans and Europeans and Americans all bringing their perspective of God to the table like a potluck dinner (or, in the analogy above, like all my friends sharing stories about me). Together, all our contributions make up a fabulous cornucopia of stories, images, and theologies (perspectives on God) which start to make God a little clearer to us, we who would all have blind spots if it were not for the contributions of our Christian brothers and sisters from around the world who cover our backs in the areas where we are weakest. This is why we all need each other, and why culture helps rather than hinders!

[Appendix: World Christianity is one of the hottest topics in Christianity right now. Many publishers—such as Oxford University Press, Eerdmans, Blackwells, IVP, and Orbis—are chomping at the bit to put out books on World Christianity. However, the number of authors that are writing on the subject I can count on two hands: Andrew Walls, Lamin Sanneh, Dana Robert, Philip Jenkins, Joel Carpenter, Brian Stanley, Todd Johnson, Tim Tennent; there might be a couple of others, but that’s about it. (Even Mark Noll, the quintessential historian of American Christianity, has thrown his hat into the World Christianity ring with one of his latest books, The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith.) We need new (and younger) scholars to be contributing to this burgeoning field; it is not enough for the same ten scholars to be producing 90% of the material on the subject. This is one of my hopes for this World Christianity consultation, that it can be a catalyst for new scholarship in the field.]

On Keeping Goats

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium Daily

The Book of Proverbs says I should look after my flocks, because if I do my goats will take care of me in an economic time of trouble.

Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds, for riches do not last forever; and does a crown endure to all generations? When the grass is gone and the new growth appears and the vegetation of the mountains is gathered, the lambs will provide your clothing, and the goats the price of a field. There will be enough goats’milk for your food, for the food of your household and maintenance for your girls. (Proverbs 27:23-27)

If I take the Bible seriously, should I go buy goats?

No, because I take the Bible seriously, I will not go buy goats.

The path to liberalism is not paved with the taking the Bible in context. Instead, we take the Bible literally, when we take it in a literary manner. Genre matters. The idea that one can find science in the Psalms is foolish, because the Psalms are poetry and not science.

The Psalms no more teach a flat earth or a spherical earth, than the Charge of the Light Brigade (half a league, half a league, half a league on) gives the distances at the Battle of Baclava. To press the Psalms into scientific duty is an abuse of the Psalms.

In the same way, Proverbs is giving general advice, which is only generally true, to an ancient people group. The obvious fact that we do not live in an ancient agricultural society means that we have to contextualize the Proverb.

Goats are not the basis of wealth in our culture as they were in ancient times, though you can still get milk from them. It is obvious, of course, that the principle behind the Proverb still applies: make sure you watch after the thing that makes you money. If you are a goatherd, take care of your goats, if you are computer programmer, your code. If you program for Microsoft, your code may be figuratively goat-like, but it is not a literal beastie.

Context

This is not particularly controversial amongst Christians, but oddly I meet few secularists who understand it. If you talk about “application,” then they think you are not taking the Bible “literally” or making excuses for the Bible.

Many Bible difficulties, though certainly not all, disappear if we understand that making a book say something it could not possible be saying is abusing the book, not taking it literally. The Bible forces an ancient people to progress and we get to witness these pilgrim’s progress.

It also contains timeless truth, ancient history, and a full explication of God’s plan of fixing and repairing a broken human race. Humans do not change in essence, but they do change in important ways.
It is hard for me to remember that I lived for a long time before the Ipod and before mobiles. They are now such a part of life that it seems they must have also been there, but to my kid’s shock Dad is too old to have had a favorite video as a child.

The odd thing is it seems odd to me as well.

We must struggle to put ourselves into a mindset where the very concept of monotheism was new and difficult to understand. This is pre-philosophy, pre-theology, pre-scientific thinking. These were not barbarians, because they gave us philosophy, theology, and science, but it did not come to them in a flash. When God did come with shock and awe to His people, it did not seem to help.

The same group that saw the Red Sea part was worshipping a golden calf later.

Some new atheists believe that ancient culture was just a stinking version of modern culture. Instead, ancient culture is what produced modernity. Salvation history is a long educational program between God and humanity where human free will is preserved, but God leads ancient people to truth.

In some areas, people cannot understand or recognize a concept until they have a word for it. God had to teach His people over time the concepts of liberty, salvation, and law. Progress was not steady as we are not very good learners. Just as with technological innovation, early ideas, which seem simple now, were easier to grasp, while a combination of simple ideas would eventually lead to rapid conceptual breakthroughs.

How valid are the lessons for an agricultural people today? Some are directly valuable, since cheating your neighbor has never been good for long term business and is still bad for the soul. Some are only indirectly valuable and have to applied.

Our political leaders are not despotic kings ruling for life, so we have to contextualize the advice we are given. Our economy is driven more by ideas than things, by thought than muscle power, and this also will change the direction of the advice.

Making an appropriate application of principles is not usually very hard, but does require training. This is a good reason for seminary and for the hard work a pastor puts into his sermon. Only a fool would urge his congregation to buy goats or think there was nothing to learn from this advice.

Proverbs are, of course, only generally true. They are not “promises,” but reflections of the way things generally turn out. You should obey a proverb except when you shouldn’t! They don’t so much tell you what you should do in a particularly situation, but what you generally should do in a situation of the sort.

A proverb is valuable advice, but not an iron law telling you what to do.

Going to the Goats

So what do we learn from the goats of Proverbs?

First, we learn that a leader should tend to his core business. Though diversification can be a good strategy, if it destroys or weakens the focus of the main money maker. A family farm might fund some foreign trade, but the trade had better not put the family farm at risk.

Second, Proverbs is reminding us that times change. Nothing good lasts and so a person needs a fall back plan. This sounds obvious, but anyone who watched the churning activity in California land knows that moderns can also fall for the idiocy that good times will last forever.

Finally, goats are tangible and there is something to be said for tangible assets. A point of this passage is Proverbs seems something like this: “If all else fails, at least you can drink goat’s milk.”

This seems right.

Buy stock in a worthless company and you have paper, but land is at least land. There are many things you can do with land in a crisis. Even gold, which seems so tangible, is in a severe crisis not something you can eat, wear, or which will shelter you.

Goats, or things like goats, at least partially cover very basic human needs. In ancient times, the economy was much more fragile and a more severe “fall back” position was necessary. Americans are much less likely to starve (at least at the moment) than ancient Israelis.

One bad harvest could spell doom for ancients, but we can weather more bad weather.

Having a fall back plan for emergencies is prudent even if it need not be as severe as an ancient needed. In our culture, it might include buying life insurance for the family, having sufficient savings, and in Southern California having an earthquake preparedness kit.

Nobody needs to prepare for the apocalypse, because it is so unlikely to happen and so difficult to anticipate the particular conditions if it does.

That doesn’t begin to exhaust the advice one can get from these Proverbs, but it does get me thinking: “What are my goats? How can I tend them? What is my plan for hard days?”

Consider the Polar Bear

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium Daily

Consider the polar bear.

Really it is quite impossible not to do so, since environmental evangelism is all about us. That this is so is one of the best things about contemporary culture. As a Tolkien-nerd, I have always favored the Ents over Saruman.

Traditionalists and liberals may disagree about how to do it, but we agree that being green is good. Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor and gadfly, once noted that the best thing about community radicalism is that it had preserved Berkeley untouched in a 1950′s time warp.

While the means were regrettable, some of the ends were magnificent. Every year my family celebrates the Fourth of July in the all American city of Berkeley with buildings that the Cleavers would recognize and sidewalk hippies the Partridge Family would adore.

It is the West Coast version of Williamsburg.

Traditional Christians know that God’s creation is good and is designed with great wisdom. Fallen men and women hesitate over great changes to Creation. Our first rule as stewards of that Creation, given our vanity, is to first do no harm.

Better to save a tree and lose a strip mall, then quickly to cut down the work of centuries without counting the cost and have our grandchildren regret it.

So both traditional Christians and the rest of America have reason to consider the polar bear.

The Christian conservationist and the secular environmentalist agree that the polar bear is worth considering. While lilies of the field and the polar bears of the ice floe are worth less than a man, beauty of the field and might of the bear is surely worth more than any given gross of plastic parts.

And that agreement should give the secularist pause when he becomes too critical of the Christian God. It is a complex cosmos and God has many cares in it. God considers the lilies, the fields, the bears, and the ice flows. He must balance the needs of each against the greater good.

At the same time, God has made humankind the crown of His creation by giving to men and woman a free will. This further complicates the calculus of the goods of bears, lilies, fields, free will, and men.

Humankind has not even come close to deciding how to do this calculus, but secularists are quick to judge God for any perceived shortcoming. And yet if people concede all these competing goods, we must first know what a better world would look like if we would judge God.

How can we know that this is not the best of all possible worlds when we do not yet have a good idea of what such a world would look like?

How many polar bears does this planet need to be good? How much freedom do men need?

We value polar bears and ice fields to some extent over gadgets and strip malls, but have no real knowledge of the extent we should value them. How then can we judge the justice of God? What is the basis of comparison?

If God stopped a particular hurricane at great cost to the ecosphere, what cost would be too high for the secular environmentalist? When environmentalists are willing to ban DDT, and allow the spread of disease bearing misquotes, the same person must not too hastily judge a God balancing many environments and many goods.

The calculations are further complicated by the cosmos not being the way God made it. Humans put grit in the mechanism which complicates everything. We refuse to listen to caution and build cities where prudence would suggest we should not and then fail to take basic precautions to protect human life in those cities.

When Pompeii is destroyed by yet another volcano, will men blame God? What if volcanoes are needed to keep Italy the way it must be to support its fragile ecosystem? Why have we built a new city there and provided the people in it no adequate means to escape the volcano everyone knows will erupt?

God, and not just Al Gore, considers the polar bears, though God may value Gore more than bears. When I read the work of modern scientists studying the complexities and fragility of even one ecosystem, I recognize how hard it would be for me to see God’s actions in any particular detail of environmental history.

I can see God’s goodness overall in Creation, but the devil has room to roam in the details, cracks created by our sin. To paraphrase Saint Augustine, we can see Providence in the existence of polar bears, but strain to see it in any given day of their, or our, lives.

So consider the polar bears.

On White Collar, Covert Affairs, and the Trivial

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium Daily

Two Shows We Try to Watch as a Family

Monk is gone.

The most reliable family entertainment to appear on television disappeared last year. Occasionally (ahem!) even our family likes to watch television and when we do we wish to watch it together. Tony Shaloub knew how to keep a diverse Reynolds room engaged in a series.

He was a rare and blessed actor and producer.

At some point, the members of the culture without an Arab Christian heritage or working for Pixar decided a “General Audience” (G-rating) meant a show so stupid only a five year old could live through it. Those doubting this never sat through the Piglet Movie. Compare it to the original Disney classic, or better the books read aloud, and think what this says about the estimate of your intelligence and attention span on the part of the respective studios.

Apparently in our culture the choices are childish or gross . . . as my priest, of blessed memory, discovered when he tried to get cable. The fellow putting it in suggested he get some “adult” channels. When Father said he was a pastor, the cable guy suggested the Disney channel. That might be alright, but the Disney channel gave up on Walt’s vision of family entertainment a long time ago to pander to tweens.

Zack and Cody did not have parts written to entertain us all.

The USA Network was the home of Monk and so we have been trying out two new shows there. The first is White Collar and the second is Covert Affairs. Both shows feel like they were written by the same people with White Collar being designed as the male fantasy with a good looking guy as the lead (think Bond meets Oceans 11) and Covert Affairs empowering a woman with the type of woman networks think is good looking. My grandmother would have worried that the poor soul was starving.

Both shows are entertaining, though neither show has the mix of humor and mystery that made Monk special for most of its run. The writing at the end of Monk relied too much on formulas, but both of the new shows embrace formulaic writing from the beginning in an obvious way.

Both shows rely on the “lost love” story arc to tie together the shows from each season though most episodes contain a complete story for the week as well. Think: set up story, climax of story, conclude story, and reveal something about the series story arc.

That is it.

Formulaic television can work. When you want to rest mentally, the old Perry Mason is a great friend. Full of solid acting and some decent stories, there are rarely any surprises. Perry will win, he will not marry Della, and Paul will not get (or hardly ever get) the last word.

Covert Affairs is burdened; however, with a leading lady one dimensional enough in her acting that she makes Raymond Burr look positively emotional. A fun family game is to count her three (and there are only three) facial expressions: smirk, wounded, “sultry” . . . though sultry may only count as a combination of wounded and smirk.

On the other hand, the blinded vet is one of the more interesting characters to appear on television. He is hard to predict and shows strong range. It is easy to see him taking over the series as the Spock in the cast. The women of the house assure me that this would be no bad thing from their perspective. Also enjoyable is the married couple that works in the CIA and the dynamics of their relationship, though she always wears an evening dress to work.

Be warned: everyone not married on the show thinks sex before marriage is part of the courtship process. The shacking before packing hasn’t made anyone on the show happy and it may be the way most folk in this generation now act, but that doesn’t make it right.

Covert Affairs gets one more season to develop wit, encourage the women on the show to eat, develop a story line that is less predictable, or it will not be worth anybody’s time.

White Collar is a different, if predictable, story. It features a “white collar criminal” with Bond looks who has gone sort of straight and works for the FBI. His FBI handler and his wife are the most attractive married couple on television. They make being married romantic and she looks like an actual woman!

On this show too non-married people shack before packing and acting on your sexual orientation is the way things are. That is fertile ground for conversation in our household. I think it generally good for my (almost grown) kids to see that people who make wrong choices are not obviously “bad” and are often attractive and “good” folks.

One can accept the way some people are without condoning their actions.

The plots of White Collar are more intricate than those on Covert Affairs, have taken more risks with the series arc, and there is more genuine humor. The character chemistry is better, though the show has been on the air longer giving the actors time to develop rapport.

It is more “adult” than Monk, which in our culture means less virtuous. It isn’t obvious from the show that crime does not pay. The main character still seems willing to reap many of the wages of his sin . . . and none of them are death. He is manipulative, but an endearing part of the long line of “lovable rogues”in fiction that made Cagney and Harrison Ford stars.

It is worth a look, though it does raise an interesting question: what is the value of trivial television?

Why Bother?

There is always something better to do than watch Perry Mason or White Collar. My IPod could read the Divine Comedy aloud. There are concerts to attend and Southern California to explore. Better still I could kiss my wife. I could help the poor. Heavens, I could read my Bible and pray.

And we should do all those things, but sometimes we are not fit for the better or best. Plato deserves attention that my weary mind cannot give him and my prayers would be vain repetition if I approached God in certain attitudes. They are not bad attitudes, but they are attitudes unfit for the sublime.

In a homely mood, there must be homely activities. Great saints and sages may be able to live in an exalted state at all times, but history shows great saints and sinners are hard companions and are rare. Since I am neither a great saint nor a sage, I can at least be a gentle companion.

It is better to discuss Plato than to watch Gilligan’s Island, but sometimes I am not my best. I am fit only for the company of Gilligan. We are the men and woman God has made us to be and we do not live in Paradise quite yet. So there is a place for the lesser loves and the lesser pleasures, if only because we are less than what we could be.

Beyond this hard fact there are four good reasons to watch trivial television, read trivial books, or play some trivial board game.

First, there is rest that only comes to me when my mind is just engaged enough not to “churn,” but not so engaged that it cannot fall into a happy almost-slumber. This is a bad way to live, but it is a good way to rest. It is not sleep, which is also necessary, but it is restful.

To live in a fog is a bad thing, but to wonder about in it can be fun! This is no guilty pleasure, because there is not guilt in it, if we are exercising our minds, our hearts, and our bodies in our daily life. Living in a fog is only proper in Holmes’ London, but visiting is fine.

Second, much that is trivial acts as a good window into the rest of the culture. Much as I might wish it, most of what I enjoy is not universally consumed. My favorite book of the last week was a Dr. Thorndyke mystery and my favorite activity was listening to a lecture. These pursuits are not widely shared in American culture.

If I want to love my neighbor, I need to broaden my experiences enough to include some of them in my play. Sports helps . . . my love for the Packers has broadened my friendships considerably, though it has alienated me from folks from Chicago.

This was no great loss.

Of course, unlike the “greats” there is no duty to read or view any given piece of pop cultural ephemera. You should read John Locke if you are an American voter, but you don’t have to watch American Idol. Why? Because in another decade, if this essay is still read, most of the pop culture references in it will require an Internet search, but Locke will still be ruling our lives from his writings.

He is a constantly grave matter, but White Collar is less lively the week after an episode is aired.

This illuminates a third value of trivial things. There is almost no better window into the way most folks thought at the time it was made. My children and I love to read magazines from the 1890’s because it balances our image of that time. If your image of the 1970’s is all drawn from present stereotypes, go watch Adam Twelve.

One recent speaker at Torrey challenged us to watch Green Berets and The Graduate and realize they are the product of the same period. Watch both and you learn something about the last fifty years of history and the nature of the folk who now interpret it to you.

Finally, the trivial engages one part of self and allows other parts to shine. Playing Risk is no great pursuit in itself, but it allows a social setting where fellowship can take place. Playing the card game “hearts” was one of the great learning times of Bible College, though “hearts” should never appear in any curriculum. While we were dealing the cards, we talked about everything and somehow achieved an honesty that would have escaped us if we had nothing to do but sit and talk.

“Let’s talk” shuts many of us up, but “let’s play cards” opens up many a mouth.

Trivial television does the same thing in my family. By this I don’t mean the dreaded, “What is the philosophy behind this show?” question forced on a room by a well-meaning parent who spoils the fun. I mean the organic, often random talk that a show can inspire. In our house, this might include sartorial, soteriological, and spiritual insights. Sometimes we simply laugh at shows like Sponge Bob.

We don’t have to do anything but share a wholesome laugh to make the time well spent.

Being What We Are and Enjoying It

This could be summed up with the practical advice: Don’t ever sin, but don’t try to be more than you are.

Youth groups are constantly telling my student to try to live out the “mountain top” experience they had at camp. This is nonsense. Mountaintop experiences are precious, but they are not work-a-day ready. Students can give an intensity of attention to hard intellectual work at a camp like Wheatstone Academy and experience the deeper things of God as a result.

This intensity and commitment would be out of place in the rest of life. Camp, or the mountaintop, is no less real than the work-a-day world, but it is no more real. It is a time and place, but not every time and place.

The same principle applies to marriage. The expectation that we can have a constant honeymoon is a form of greed and a failure of love. When we marry, we marry the whole person as they are on a Monday as well as the way they are on holiday.

Holidays are good times, often the best times, but they are not the entire substance of life.

So my family will continue our trivial pursuits and hope that your family finds your own. If you are looking for a suggestion, you might try watching White Collar together.

On Letting Go

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium Daily

Some sins are easy to start doing, but hard to quit. Gluttony is like this. The more I eat, the less satisfied I am, but the harder it is to eat properly. The first three weeks of a diet are so difficult that quitting “cheating” is easier than continuing.

Even when the weight is lost, my immoderation toward food may not have changed. My self-denial might seem real given my weight, but still food is my master. I have not made real progress if I do not eat, but think always about eating. Food must return to its proper place.

This is much harder than not eating, but if I don’t change this way I will soon give up and go back to my old habits. Worse would be to never give up, but spend a life miserably longing for my false god of food while restraining myself by not eating. I would sell my birthright for cheesecake, but then not eat the treat.

This simple observation came to mind when reading Dante’s Inferno. This profound book has many deep lessons for me, but on this reading I came to a simple one. People cannot always let go of desires, even when those desires no longer make them happy.

At the bottom of Hell, there are those who feel rage against those who have harmed them. The rage is understandable, but the quest for vengeance continues long past any good. Torturing the torturer does not help the victim, but binds him.

Justice to the one who tortures others is good, but allowing bitterness and hatred to consume a man is not good. Why? Bringing justice to sinners does a man good, but trying to find vengeance will harm. It is an indulgence that begins to enslave.

Non-Christian friends often worry about the duration of Hell. Shouldn’t God let people go if they are sorry? Let’s assume this is true for moment. Nothing about human experience makes me hopeful that giving up on vice is easy in this life, let alone in the life to come. Habituation in vice eventually makes a sin part of the essence of a man.

If I will not use the grace of God to find freedom now, how will I do it in timeless eternity? If I clung to my gluttony through the moment of death, what greater shock exists that would shake me apart from this folly? I see no reason to think that the mere passage of time is likely to make a fool wiser.

Dante says the occupants of Hell have “lost the good of the intellect.” They can think, but they no longer can act on their thoughts, the very definition of repentance. Most of us have known folk who reach this point in this world, so why would we doubt that for some the problem would continue in the world to come?

This sins a needful warning chill through me. My “little vices” and the sins I so easily condone in my life are not so little if they become petty lords that keep me from proclaiming Jesus as my true Lord.

There will be no slaves in Paradise, because Paradise is a place fit only for freemen and freewomen.

An even greater cause for repentance is in the knowledge that at times all of us aid others to continue in their vice, if it is vice that our community does not find offensive. We tolerate slavery in our neighbor, if the master is one that does not offend us. We are only selective abolitionists railing against masters whose rudeness disturbs our comforts.

If it is true that most men will choose foul masters, woe to me if I introduce any man to such rulers. Another reason to seek true liberty is that this example will help others and will prevent my being Pander to the prey of demons.

Our very sins become confused with good things and make us long what we should not want.

In Dante, the lover Francesca has what she wants: her beloved, though it does her no good. If Hell was opened and she could leave, she would not go, because to go would be to “lose” her lover. She would have to be sorry for her adultery and sorry is the one thing she will not be.

Romance is good, but the goodness mixed with sin can glue us to the sin. When men will destroy careers for folly in this life why think they will not continue in their folly when only endurance is needed to continue as fools? The very pain that we cause through our sins often binds us more tightly to it.

After having suffered so much, and caused so much suffering, how can we admit that we were wrong, dreadful and wicked? The pains of Hell are more intense and the loss much greater, but if we habituate ourselves to the “joys” of the false martyr, they will only increase our desire for sin.

Eternal hell is necessary if only one soul would choose this way. It is easier to imagine billions choosing to cling to pride for all eternity, than that no man would do so. In our day, we even have an admiration for those who fight the unbeatable foe God. It may be utterly stupid, we think, but it is a hell of a thing.

Exactly.

It goes even deeper than letting go of things sinful in themselves. I must also let go of things good in themselves, lest I corrupt them by improper use. There was a time for me to be a honeymoon husband, but that time is past. I must let go of the first year of marriage, if I am to enjoy the twenty-fifth. The old goods can be a check to the enjoyment of the new goods.

Many of us may find ourselves in Hell for refusing to let go of the goods of this life. We demand Christmas in summer and long for summer fun in the winter.

God help me let go of all that stands between me and real Beauty, Truth, and the Good. God help me to desire happiness enough to let go of mere pleasure.