So while doing some research into the origins of the Pentecostal movement a few weeks ago, I came across an interesting idea. Something I was reading referenced John Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection, defined as: "the belief that it is possible to live free of voluntary sin." That is a pretty big issue: whether or not it is possible to totally overcome our sinful human nature. I was raised Catholic, so I was always taught by implication that this was impossible, otherwise why are all of the "best" Catholics the ones going to confession every week? On the other hand, by the time I started going to confession, I was past my "immature" stage, and had to be pretty creative to think up things to confess to the priest. But if I had continued going once I hit puberty in high school, that never would have been a problem again.
I am sort of conflicted on the answer to this. My brain believes it could be possible, but concedes that there is little evidence for it. My heart on the other hand is convinced that it is impossible. But there were a lot of things that appeared to be impossible in the past, that are now common occurrences, so there is something to be said for ignoring the fact that certain things are "impossible." Having the right mindset can be a powerful tool for change in the world. I am just concerned about the personal worth and validation aspects that are tied to this question. If it is in reality not possible, then the constant failure experienced from that perspective and the resulting guilt, will be magnified by that belief.
While it may be possible, especially in the short-term, that lack of sin obviously isn't the key thing God is looking for in mankind. Abraham sinned (pre Mosaic Law), King David's sin seemingly increased throughout his life (under the law), and by Paul's own admission, he continued sinning (no longer under the law). It would appear that the absence of sin is not meant to be the primary aim of our Christian lives.
Everyone always says "It not a religion, its a relationship" but what does that really mean? I get the first part, that's pretty clear. I find it amusing that I hear similar anti-religious sentiment from Christians and non-Christians alike. Religion is "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate deity" so that doesn't seem like such a bad thing. But the idea of achieving Christian perfection seems like it would be a product of the religious aspect of faith (devotion to doing the right thing) as opposed to the relationship aspect of it (loving God).
I have always maintained that my "relationship with God" is limited not by my lack of understanding of God so much as it is limited by my lack of understanding of relationships. And more specifically, my lack of Love for God is a result of the environment I was raised in. It was pointed out to me a few years ago by a perceptive outside observer, that what my family called "love," everyone else refers to as "loyalty." I pointed this out to my parents directly, and after thinking about it for a second, they conceded that it was probably accurate. There is no question that we have a reliable devotion to supporting each other when needed, but the emotional component is basically totally missing in our family. This became more apparent through the process of my parents splitting up over the last two years. So while my family is probably not going to change, it is easy to see the impact that has on my relationship with God. I am very loyal to God, but the emotional draw towards him is something I don't experience, and that is probably a problem. The concept of praise and worship is something I have gotten used to, but is not something that I have ever really embraced for its own sake. While I obviously still sin, and have not achieved Christian perfection, the idea of "following God" comes much more natural to me, and I can grasp that aspect of faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment