Tags
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to have become shorthand for the objectives the modern world places before us as being desirable: we should exercise and take care of our bodies not because they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, but because that will allow us to live longer; we want to be as free as possible because that will allow us to fulfil all our needs; and we are entitled to be happy. I don’t blame this on the Americans (although they have to answer for popularising it), it is the underpinning ethos of the liberal ideology which pervades the modern world. There is nothing in this of repentance, self-denial and self-sacrifice, let alone of obedience to the divine law as revealed to us through Christian practice and theory. We must be free to believe what we want, do what we want (as long as it is not illegal), buy what we want (with the same caveat); the accumulation of goods is a proxy for the good life; the more ‘stuff’ we have, the happier we are – as the Rolling Stones put it many years ago:
When I’m watchin’ my tv and a man comes on and tell me
How white my shirts can be
But, he can’t be a man ’cause he doesn’t smoke
The same cigarettes as me
I sometimes wonder whether the modern definition of bliss is not quite close to older definitions of a kind of hell? A raucous cacophony of the assertion of ‘my right’ to have what “i want’ when ‘I want it’, and devil take the hindermost.
Christianity is the real counter culture. We are adjured to take care of the orphan and the widow, we are told to share of our good things, and we are required to do so within God’s plan for these things – His will, not our will is what we ask to be done – not much liberty of happiness there in the world’s eyes, but for Christians this is where we find both – as well as a purpose in our lives which raises us above the ranks of apes gathering fruit in the forests. Jesus is not hot on possessions, and he is not big on self-indulgence – the parable of the Prodigal is, among other things, a commentary on where hedonism leads. We see, in the Christian communities in Acts, the way in which coming to Christ led men and women to a more generous attitude toward their fellows, and we see how the different communities would try to help each other. We know from the history of the very early church that it was this sort of community spirit which gave such a powerful witness that others came to be helped, and stayed to help others.
Christian men and women know we hold our lives on trust from God – we are stewards working for him, and to him we are responsible for the use we make of our talents; we are free to ignore these Christian imperatives, but that’s not the sort of freedom we want. Liberty to pursue our worship of God as we have come to do it is something to be valued. but our ancestors did so in private, and if we have to do so, then so be it. Our true happiness lies in service to God, and of that, the world knows and cares little.
I don’t blame this on the Americans (although they have to answer for popularising it), it is the underpinning ethos of the liberal ideology which pervades the modern world.
Yes, Yes, the Americans stole it and marketed it; however, the idea sprang forth from over the pond 😀
Christianity, I agree is the counter culture–it was so when Christ instituted his Church and the Apostles spread the Gospel. However, it seems when the Romans adopted the Church and after its fall, Europe divided into Princes of the Church that extended to the 19th century…maybe 20th century. I know in the United States, Protestantism was still living in a Golden Age up until the mid-20th century.
How would I define this Golden Age? I would simply state it’s an age that one benefited by being Christian in society. In the United States, this is no longer the case. Ironically, the mainstream culture is still producing its propaganda that it’s still the counter-culture.
It pains me to say this as an American–one who teaches American history, and I hope no colleagues of mine stumble on my comment here (hehe)– The Constitution of the United States is a liberal modernists document. The men who wrote the document purposely left out God. Only after the insistence of the anti-federalist was there a Bill of Rights added that the first freedom granted was the freedom of Religion–modern interpretation is ‘freedom from religion’. However, ask my English friends here to point to where the Supreme Court can make such decision in the document–a hint, you can not. It’s a usurped power by the court during a case called Madison v. Marbury.
So let’s further examine the phrase: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the relativist document. A protection of life, so long as society agrees you are live–see slavery and abortion. Liberty, so long as you pay the property tax, agree to our searches, and keep your religion at home (feels like the 1977 Soviet Constitution). Oh and the pursuit of happiness… what the… does that even mean. The Greeks, at least, spoke of moderation if they didn’t mean it.
I think Dave might say I described hedonism 101.
Oh, Sorry Geoff for my rant…but your post struck a cord in my soul.
LikeLiked by 4 people
*so long as society agrees you are life* Typo sorry!
LikeLike
No need to be sorry – if it produced such a good and worthy comment, I’m happy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Strangely, I don’t find myself disagreeing with you much, although it might be sensible to point out that the DofI is not a law, more of an indictment than anything else. Life, well, I agree with you, liberty, well yeah, but Washington doesn’t impose property taxes (don’t be giving them ideas!), and the pursuit of happiness well a) you can chase it, doesn’t say you’re entitled to it, however defined. and b) if I remember Jefferson’s first draft said property, which would have been better.
And yup, the Federalists were pretty statist in lots of things, although that thesis can be overdone, I think.
With reference to Marbury v. Madison I completely agree. On the other hand, it might be a necessary thing, imagine either Obama or Trump without constitutional review.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course, my rant was condensed and a bit unclear. You understood the differences between the Declaration and Constitution being an American. I shouldn’t assume it for others. However, my intent was to frame both the Declaration and Constitution as being overall modernists documents– I just got so caught up that I became unclear.
You can understand, right? hehe 😀
John Locke–the Englishman– said property for sure. At some point it was changed by Colonial land owners. Locke argued in his Second Treatise that fundamentally everyone owned their own bodies, this idea is a problem for slaveholders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did, just thought maybe we should clarify a bit. In many ways i agree, although I would likely claim they’re enlightenment based, which is (in my mind, at least) somewhat different. 🙂
Yep, happens to me all the time! Yep, and old Tom lifted that almost verbatim, and Locke’s version makes more sense, but I suspect Rutledge and others wouldn’t stand for it, for exactly the reason you cite.
LikeLike
Furthermore, I had to cover a psychology class yesterday and had to show a video on how scientists can now remove memories, your fears and implant false memories into a person. The video seemed to glorify the whole process claiming they could make people happier and cure PTSD.
I was horrified. I thought…I don’t care what the other instructor thinks, I’m going to challenge this to the class. I asked, “Does anyone think this may not be morally ethical?” They (high school students) looked at me like I was a mad man for questioning the curriculum. So I continued to pose questions and scenarios like if the government decided to take away your fear of death and makes you a soldier. Perhaps, the state could take away your love and loyalty to your family, it’s something the Soviets wanted to institute in their government. I asked, could it also be dangerous If you practice a counter culture and the government wants to make you implant false confessions to make you a terrorist or just crimes.
I might have dived into a bit of hyperbole; however, some of these kids glazed eyes turned into eyes of worry. The classroom is no longer a room for critical and challenging thinking unless a teacher goes rogue and says enough is enough.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I’ve read similar things before, and believe both them and you. And that is one of the most scary things of all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey, the problem with modern languages and their constant shifting of the meaning of words:
“US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this often forgotten sense of happiness in his 2005 lecture at the National Conference on Citizenship. Kennedy notes that while in modern times there is a “hedonistic component” to the definition of happiness, for the framers of the Declaration of Independence “happiness meant that feeling of self-worth and dignity you acquire by contributing to your community and to its civic life.” In the context of the Declaration of Independence, happiness was about an individual’s contribution to society rather than pursuits of self-gratification. While this sense has largely fallen out of use today, it’s important to keep these connotations of happiness mind when studying political documents from the 18th century.”
Origianally it was written as the ‘preservation of life’ – but ‘preservation’ was dropped and the liberals of our times has changed the meaning as well to ‘libertine or licentiousness.’ Oh dear, do they really butcher the tongue? It is like the new ‘gender-neutral’ English that we have today: as though people are not capable of understanding what was being conveyed as they had for many, many centuries.
With liberals, words mean what they want them to mean and the rest of society is forced in time to accept their definitions. I think this qualifies as ‘new speak’.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I guess I can’t get no satisfaction. I think it happened after I quit inhaling the same cigarettes that Mick smoked. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
…. so when The Stones eventually depart this life, will they go to heaven, or to hell?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It beats me partner. That depends on the state of their souls at the moment of death . . . and only God can answer it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave – yes, of course it does. Do you think they would have to repent of everything they had done as ‘The Stones’ (or at least a large chunk of it) in order to get there?
None of them have ever professed that Jesus is Lord of their lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not know what Christ will require specifically, Jock so how can I comment? We can judge their sins but not their souls. At the least, I would think that the minimum would be to believe and to beg mercy.
LikeLike
Ah, those ones – we used to call them ‘Marleys’!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amazing that Bob Marley could even remember the lyrics to a song. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
New speak indeed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Jessica, I have read your last few posts (this one and forward) and I agree with you. Although I didn’t read the comments I am sorry for the treatment it appears you have received over them. Sometimes my biggest struggle in sharing my faith is my fear of being associated with other Christians. I hope in some way my few words can be an encouragement to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are, April, and thank you. I do wonder sometimes whether we wouldn’t benefit from having more women commenting – we tend to approach things in a different, and perhaps less confrontational, way. 🙂
LikeLike