My thoughts are so complex lately, which I think is why my blogs have been mainly bullet points...I am having a hard time trying to figure out what I'm thinking, much less write something coherent. I wish I could write something coherent, and yet my thoughts are so much in flux that I don't know where to start or where to end.
One of the things I've been wrestling with lately is agency. It seems to be a rather big deal here at Western - do people have the ability to make independent choices that make a real impact? My first reaction when I first got here last September was to say, why, of course they do! The more I've thought about it, though, the more I've questioned that.
Here's the humanist/non-religious argument for no agency: everything that happens is a product of one's environment. We are who we are because of where we grow up, who we interact with, and our culture (emphasis on culture above the other things). Our beliefs and actions are a product of natural forces acting on us, and so none of our decisions can be arrived at independently. Deterministic is another way of putting it. I am the way I am because of my environment. Things are already determined for me.
Inserting my faith into this discussion makes things a little more interesting. On the one hand, I believe that I am to be held accountable for my actions. On the other hand, I believe that sin leaves me enslaved to myself, to my desires. I am unable to do good. Does that imply a lack of agency? And assuming that I am able to do something truly good, is that not because of Christ working through me? Thus, I am still not my own. It kind of reminds me of what I believe on the topic of predestination, actually. The paradox of God choosing me and me simultaneously choosing God. 100% responsibility for both parties. I am not my own - I gave up my life to God when I was saved...emphasis on the giving up? So did I choose to give up my agency? Was this decision something I can take credit for? Or was it God calling me? What role does my response play?
How does this impact the way I write history? How does sin and sinful nature enter into the discussion? After all, people are going to sin. Everything we do is tainted by sin. And yet, we are somehow called to choose to do right even when everything in us pulls us toward the wrong. And, when I'm writing history, to I give blame or praise to individuals for their choices? Do I attribute to their decisions agency? Both in making the choice and in the results of that choice? Then again, was it ever a choice in the first place? Or, what about the person who is not saved, and who does something "good" (of course all righteousness is like filthy rags)? Do I give them absolutely no agency, just because they don't have Christ working through them? After all, they are still choosing to reject God, at least in some sense.
I feel like I just puked a bunch of senseless thoughts onto this web page. Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment