like to Facebook

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Indispensable Guilt

Perhaps you're familiar with the movie, Seven? It was a very dark, even outre' film, yet powerful in its emotional impact, and, I think, in the implications of its themes to modern society. In it, a mysterious serial killer is "preaching" (as Morgan Freeman, playing an older detective investigating the case, calls it) by committing a succession of grisly murders, each with the theme of one of the seven deadly sins. When Freeman's character, on the verge of retirement, finally recognizes the pattern, he researches the sins and informs his superior and the young detective he is training to take his place (Brad Pitt) that the seven deadly sins were a common topic of medieval sermons, but have long since fallen out of style. Such is the skill of the writer, director and actors that as we watch the gruesome case take its course, we find ourselves almost sympathetic to the murderer as the sordid objects of his cruelty get their comeuppance--especially the lawyer and the child-molester. In this way the film engages in some interesting, and perhaps even useful, social commentary. But in the end we are convinced that the murderer is driven mad as much by his religious impulses as by his abhorrence of the depravity of contemporary society.

The overarching message of the film--that moral outrage at sin, or guilt for one's own sin--is a mental disorder, has been a recurring theme from popular media, entertainment...and the professional mental health community in western civilization now for many decades. This is not a new idea, however. We first encounter its most primitive form in the story of the fall. The serpent's statement to Eve concerning God's prohibition of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and his warning of fatal consequences was, "You won't die. God knows that the moment you eat from that tree, you'll see what's really going on. You'll be just like God, knowing everything, ranging all the way from good to evil." (Genesis 3: 4,5 Eugene Peterson's translation, The Message) In other words, "it's all a trick; God's just 'having one over' on you. No need to feel bad about it. We're all adults here." Sound familiar? Maybe something like, "guilt is just (insert authority figure of choice here, i.e. parents, society, organized religion, etc.)'s way of controlling you,"?

This concept has been inculcated with extraordinary success in modern western culture. Over and over, from thousands of different sources, sometimes overtly, often times subtly, we are instructed that much of what the Bible calls sin is just another socially valid variety of human behavior, and that any feelings of guilt that may arise from that behavior is pathology, a form of mental disfunction that we should purge from our thoughts to be truly healthy and well-balanced. In its most advanced stages, this vision of progressive orthodoxy expresses itself in a kind of moral inversion such that any public endorsement of Biblical behavioral prohibitions is itself condemned as sin--the sin of intolerance, bigotry and hatred. Nowhere is this more prevalent than with regard to sexual behavior. Western culture has come to esteem sexual indulgence of almost every kind to the point where it is celebrated as a virtue. The Marvin Gay song Sexual Healing comes to mind.

All of this begs the question: what is sin? The dictionary definition of, "a transgression of religious or moral law" (American Heritage) seems a bit thin, although I think by looking to the Ten Commandments we can get a clue as to its most essential meaning, specifically the very first of the ten. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before (or besides) me." (Exodus 20: 2,3 ESV) And here's the crux of the matter. This very first law of God holds the key to all we must call sin. It's man's rebellion against God's right of sovereignty and the self-evident obligation to worship God that is (1) the greatest sin, and (2) the source of all other sin. This first and most deadly sin is the one that condemns us all; at the moment of our birth, innocent of all other things, with our first breath we cry out in a petulant scream of worship to ourselves as the center of the universe, a recapitulation of Eve's first sin. Eating the forbidden fruit? No, aspiring to break the obligation of worship and submission to God, to be, in effect, equal with God. Remember the serpent's words of seduction: "...the moment you eat of that tree...you'll be just like God." No need to worship your equal.

So, where does that leave us with regard to this modern secular view of guilt as pathology? If we take as a given that human existence is a spiritual battle to determine our eternal destiny (which I do because it's scriptural--see Ephesians 6:10-13); and that Christ's incarnation and death on the cross was the divine redemptive act to pay for our sin and re-establish our relationship with God; and that the spiritual forces of evil at work in this world want to keep us from accepting God's redemption--then it naturally follows that this widely disseminated view is an effective weapon in the arsenal of those forces working to keep us separated from God.

Look at it this way for a moment: sin is man's biggest problem. The smallest granule of human misery in this life is directly attributable to sin, and dooms man to eternal separation from God. Now God solved the sin problem through Jesus's incarnation and sacrificial death, but the one prerequisite to "cashing in" on that redemption is man must repent of his sin and accept the Lordship of Christ (I know that sounds like two prerequisites, but it's actually a package deal). Yet for man to repent of his sin, he must first be convinced of it. That's the role of the gospel (preaching) and the work of Holy Spirit. "God in his wisdom took delight in using what the world considered dumb--preaching, of all things!--to bring those who trust him into the way of salvation." (I Cor. 1:21 The Message), and, "...you know perfectly well that the Spirit of God would never prompt anyone to say 'Jesus be damned!' Nor would anyone be inclined to say 'Jesus is Master!' without the insight of the Holy Spirit." (I Cor. 12:3 The Message) So, if our spiritual adversary (that's the literal meaning of the word satan, by the way--"the adversary") wishes to keep us from redemption, one of his most potent tools is to persuade us that we don't need it, that sin is not a problem for us because there either is no such thing, or if there is, it's not anything that we have done.

"I've never killed anyone! I've never raped anyone! I'm basically a good person. And besides, if there is a God, he's a God of love, right? He wouldn't send me to hell. There probably is no hell anyway. That's just an archaic tribal superstition." With these and similar internal monologues the member of a modern western society can silence the voice of his conscience as the Holy Spirit tries to convince him of his sin.

"They live blindfold in a world of illusion, and are cut off from the life of God through ignorance and insensitiveness. They have stifled their consciences and then surrendered themselves to sensuality, practicing any form of impurity which lust can suggest." (Ephesians 4:18,19 Phillips translation) Muzzle the conscience for long enough, and it will go mute permanently. Guilt is more than useful, it's indispensable.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I read the opening paragraph, then skipped down to your previous post, thinking that I would rather see the movie before reading about it. But now I'm glad I peeked at what you said later. If the message, or at any rate, one of the themes, of this film is truly as you described, "moral outrage or guilt at sin is a mental disorder", it deserves to be boycotted. Disgusting.
Daniel Day

Web Foot Conservative said...

Dan, I was surprised and pleased to see your comment on my new blog. Actually, I'm not really advocating a boycott of "Seven". Despite its graphic violence, it's exceptionally well written, acted and directed; and in contrast to its morbid themes, beautifully photographed. I do think it has, contained within its morally confused, morally ambiguous conceptual vision, some useful commentary on the depravity of modern society. My critique of it, however, is from a distinctively Christian worldview. I believe it offers a viewpoint that is so common in our modern secular society that we hardly recognize it anymore; a moral emptiness and nihilism. Moral ambiguity is seen as somehow hip, even profound; moral certainty as bigoted and hateful--or at best exclusionary and intolerant.

This ideological vision has had corrosive consequences to our society. In his book, "How Should We Then Live?", Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer chronicled how law was transformed among the European nations of the Reformation when Bibles were mass produced in their native languages and the average person could now learn for themselves what Scriptural morality was, and apply it as a measuring tool against their legal systems. Art flourished (and I believe reached its zenith by the Dutch masters) under the Christian idea that God's creation was a thing of beauty, and celebrating that creation by making art as accurate and beautiful a representation of that creation as possible was an act of worship. Rodney Stark also addresses the creation of the scientific method--science as we know it--as a product of the Christian worldview in his book, "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery". I submit that as our system of law and our societal values have disconnected themselves from the basis of Judeo-Christian moral truth, they have deteriorated.

But as you've probably gathered, the real concern of my writing in this new blog deals with the more personal aspects of these moral questions--the eternal aspects, if you will. I am an evangelical Christian and as such I take the words of Jesus commonly called the "great commission" ("Go everywhere and announce the Message of God's good news to one and all. Whoever believes and is baptized is saved; whoever refuses is damned." Mark 16: 15,15 The Message) as one of the most essential of my moral obligations; not only as an obligation to God, but, considering the eternal consequences, as a moral obligation to humanity.

Thanks for checking out my blog, and especially for commenting!

Anonymous said...

This whole thing is very well written. It is refreshing to read something about moral absolutes in a world of relativism. Thanks for blogging. Iv' got you in my feed reader. Keep it up.
nathan