The Two-Cliffs Theory of Errors

In the pursuit of truth and justice and love and all those things we aspire (or should aspire) for, I often see people fall prey to what I call "the other cliff." My analogy goes like this:

We're all hiking along this narrow path that has a cliff on either side of it. At some point, one guy steps too far to the left and falls off the cliff. A number of people notice that someone just fell off the cliff on the left, and worried about doing the same, they move towards the right and a some of them step too far and fall off the cliff on the right. This is not missed by a large number of the other hikers, many who veer left and off that cliff. Pretty soon everyone is yelling at the other side, warning them about the one cliff while at the same time backing off the cliff on their own side. The moral of the story is: Avoiding one error often leads to another.

I would point to political debate as a prime example of this. Some Fox News commentators seems to me to be especially guilty of this, accusing others are becoming Socialists and Nazis to scare you away from considering their beliefs as an option (though I may point to Fox News because I've it more than others). Liberals in turn will accuse conservatives of pandering to big business, being ungenerous, uncaring etc. I'm not really sure what the current attacks are, but it seems that many of the loud voices on TV are trying to scare you away from one of the cliffs. What they wont admit is that the only way to guarantee you are not being too liberal (or conseravive) is by being too conservative (or liberal). They ask you to flee the one while hiding the danger of the other. The answer is that we can't find the right path by avoiding wrong ones, we have to focus on figuring out what is actually right.

Or look at it this way. Imagine we are trying to get to the top of a mountain with the conservative folly on one side and the liberal folly on the other. If you are on the liberal folly side, the only way to get to the top is to get closer to the conservative folly side and vice-versa. In fact, you can never get closer to the top without also getting closer to some error.

Now, I am not suggesting that the answer is to be "moderate." Trying to avoid being extreme doesn't help avoid errors unless you happen to have a full grasp of all possible errors you could be making. Besides, "moderate" isn't really a position and aiming for it quickly becomes nonsensical. Should you try to be extremely moderate or should you instead focus on being moderately moderate?

Each issue will have to be looked at independently (ie. don't just swallow your political party's platform whole) and the correct path is always on the verge of all sorts of errors. As we are not going to walk perfectly, every mistep we make will be into some error, but we must walk the path as best we can. So whatever the dangers are (being too conservative or liberal, immodest or prudish, generous or stingy, brutally honest or diplomatic, naive or cynical, emotional or rational, etc.), you cannot believe or behave as you aught by trying to avoid error. Instead you must focus your energies on finding what is right and true without fearing the dangerous errors you must step within an inch of to get there.

Can you stand the suffering of Jesus?

It is a bit late to be bringing up the movie "The Passion of the Christ," both because it came out 6 years ago, and because it's already after Easter this year. Oh well.

I was talking with a friend and remembering how, at the time, he said that every Christian should watch it and not look away. I think it had something to do with us having an obligation to try to comprehend the sufferings of Jesus. My friend has since changed his mind on the matter, but I thought it was interesting and wanted to write up my thoughts on why this view is wrong.

My response to this is that Jesus suffered for our sins so that we wouldn't have to. Now, seeing his sufferings (in the movie in this instance) is different that being the one who suffers, but still there is a certain amount of identification that goes into watching someone suffer on film. If someone, while watching it, turns away saying, "I can't watch, it's too much for me to bear," I find that perfectly appropriate. Jesus suffered more than we can take in, and I don't think it's wrong to admit that. More importantly though, Jesus suffered, not with the purpose of forcing us to watch it, but for the purpose of relieving our suffering. I think it is good to ponder the sacrifice of Jesus and what he has done for us, but we shouldn't make everything gloomy. We must also enjoy the freedom that he paid for.

If you can take in all the sufferings of Jesus without flinching, how bad could it really have been?

Even if Piper doesn't get Ecclesiastes...

I argued here in defense of Ecclesiastes, specifically in reaction to Pipers claim that it is "bad theology."

Well, last week Piper announced that he was taking a leave of absence, specifically attempting to step back from "productivity." I had argued that, "my doing good, enjoying God's gifts and doing the work God has given me doesn't require that my efforts produce something that lasts under the sun." As I can't depend on what I am able to produce, I am freed up to alternatively rest and work hard, not being too focused on what I produce or driven to be productive. Piper mentions that he spent his last sabbatical writing a book a book, but this time he is going to actively avoid "productivity:"

In 30 years, I have never let go of the passion for public productivity. In this leave, I intend to let go of all of it. No book-writing. No sermon preparation or preaching. No blogging. No Twitter. No articles. No reports. No papers. And no speaking engagements.

So even if Piper thinks Ecclesiastes is just bad theology, I am still glad to see that he is embracing one of the main lessons I draw from it. I wish him well and that he finds delight in his rest.