On Not Being Will-Full

The last post (January 12, 2009) argued against any person, group, or organization imposing doctrine, creed, or “truth” upon others. That is, one should be suspicious or stand-offish against anyone that demands 100% allegiance to the rules or laws concerning what they believe.

This position, however, opens up on the other side, the issue which is that individuals have complete freedom to choose whatever they want to, at any time they please. I call a person who takes such a position, a will-full person…a person who imposes their will upon a situation.

I find myself uncomfortable with this extreme position as well. I guess I am just wishy-washy.

There are two aspects to this issue that I believe to be very important. First, people, groups, and organizations do possess beliefs, worldviews, and other content that are helpful to one leading a better, fuller, or, more whole and alive life. These people, groups, and organizations can provide us with models and schema that allow us to make better decisions or solve more difficult problems.

To me, there is no question that this is the case. And, these people, groups, and organizations continue to provide guidance to individuals over time because, in a very pragmatic sense, a large part of what they have to offer succeeds…it truly helps others. The reason that they have “staying power” and are still around is that they do provide people with good models upon which these people make decisions or solve problems.

Where these people, groups, and organizations can go wrong, I believe, is when they either come to believe so strongly that they are “right” in their beliefs that they feel everyone should believe the same way they do, or, when they take a successful way of looking at something and use this success to build power and control for themselves. Of course, you can have situations where both occur and build upon one another over time.

The extreme of the first of these can be seen in the 16th century practice of burning people at the stake for their own good because they did not adhere to a particular form of belief. That is, these people were “going to hell” anyway, they could not be redeemed, and so they might as well get on with it…with the help of good Christians who knew of their depravity.

The extreme side of the second of these is the person who uses his or her charisma to gather followers to themselves, followers who seek certainty in one way or another. These people use their power over these people to enhance their own position and gain more and more control over others even to the point of committing mass suicide as the wish of the leader.

Variations can be found of both of these paths in highly organized clerical situations, political movements, or grass-roots assemblies. The foundation for such happenings is that there is fundamentally something positive that is offered people…whether it is hope, or certainty, or healing, or whatever. It is what happens in the evolution of the idea or ideas that corrupts the effort and turns it into something negative rather than positive.

My objection is that when the ideas, rules, laws, models, or schema start to be imposed upon individuals so that they cannot question or debate or investigate or be open to new information trouble begins. People must be free to ask questions. They must be free and open to new information. They must be at liberty to follow where their own minds lead them.

The problem with this, of course, is that people only have incomplete information about any subject. Thus, whatever questions they have or problems they face, they must go into them knowing that the answers they produce or the solutions they come up with are only uncertain and fallible. People must live with this deficiency…and this is a hard thing to do…for individuals, deep down, crave certainty. Individuals must learn to be strong and accept the fact that this is the reality of life. And some…because of life situations, of experiences, of personal weaknesses…cannot live with such uncertainty. They constantly search out those that offer a kind of shelter from the storm.

This leads into the second major aspect of the situation. There are people, groups, and organizations that do have successful worldviews, models, schema, and so forth and do not impose their ideas and beliefs on other people. These people, groups, and organizations accept the incompleteness and fallibility of their ideas and beliefs yet realize the positive aspects of their worldview, models or schema and want to share this fact with others.

I believe this to be true of those who truly follow Jesus…as argued in my post of January 12, 2009. I also believe that it is the responsibility of those that follow Jesus to share what Jesus has to offer with others. This is called “Missional” behavior and it is what we are supposed to engage in if we support the teachings of Jesus.

To go through the whole argument quickly: we argue that God is Love. Our objective is to love as God loves. First, we are to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. Second, we are to love God’s creation…ourselves, other people, and the rest of creation.

To love God and to love our neighbor…creation…we need to have some idea of what it means to love like God. This is where Jesus comes in. We who follow Jesus believe that he was an example of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation. In this, Jesus glorified God which translates into the statement that Jesus revealed the image of God in all that he did. Thus, Jesus is our model of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation.

This is what it means to be “Missional”. We are to do as Jesus did and that is reveal the image of God to others. That is…we are to “go and do likewise.”

Notice…in no way are we to force our ideas on others…in no way are we to impose on others…in no way are we to try and control the beliefs and actions of other individuals. We are to reveal what kind of life is led by those that follow the teachings of Jesus. No doctrine…no creed…no toeing the line to a specific way of thought.

The idea is, of course, that leading a life in this way will result in us being in greater unity with God, within ourselves, with others, and with creation. It will lead to greater wholeness and more aliveness. It will lead to a life that others will want to imitate.

Thus, there is no forcing…no imposing…no intimidation…no will-full-ness. We believe in a way of life that is our choice. We live that life and are able to reflect on and explain to others why we live the way we do and why, we believe, we get the results we do.

This, to me, is the way we live our lives. We believe in something. Our choices are not arbitrary. And, it is the way we help other individuals.