Ruminations on another New Year

 
But now—apart from the law—the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.(Romans 3: 21-26, NIV)

New Year, 2018. 

My 76^th. 

If New Year with its resolutions to do better actually produced a “step up” from the previous year, I should be a pretty remarkable person by now. At least if the annual “steps up” should prove to be cumulative. 

An obvious problem in that regard is that I’ve never made New Year’s resolutions. My observations tell me that I’m not unusual in that regard. A census on New Year’s resolutions would probably be something like: New Year’s resolutions made – 100 million; New Year’s resolutions broken – 100 million minus 1, and that 1 is suspect.

There’s no arguing that most people are conscious of falling short of what they could be, or of prevailing religious, cultural, family or societal ideals. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” if you’re prone to judge yourself by Paul’s ultimate standard.

To be conscious of “measuring up,” or “falling short” or any other way you want to put this, there has to be some set of standards to which to compare our thoughts, words and deeds. Mustn’t there? Good or evil, constructive or destructive, foolish or wise, silly or sensible. There’s an old saying among moral philosophy types that “ontology precedes morality,” or more simply put, “reality dictates morality.” I don’t profess to understand that fully, but the gospels and Paul both seem to agree that morality is measured in our day to day reality, and that there are always ideals which we can strive for but cannot reach because we are HUMAN and not gods.

Although Paul tends to paint us as morally hopeless and declares that our peace with our maker is only possible because we’ve been forgiven and atonement has been made for us by a sacrificial death, I tend to understand Christ’s message less like forgiveness and more like acceptance; we are not condemned; our particular human condition is understood. It’s this understanding of reality that philosophers probably would call ontology.

Self-help books aplenty would urge us to forgive ourselves; I think we’re better off learning to understand ourselves. Begin with the creation narrative, if you like, where upon the awakening of our moral consciousness (eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) our oblivious, blissful phase ended and with no means of retrieving it (no access to the Tree of Life) we became what we now are . . . HUMAN. 

In understanding ourselves and doing our best to measure up to whatever standards we’ve identified, we have a massive amount of science to help us as well, understandings of our nature as humans to which Paul had no access. Our biology, for instance.

But if you prefer more concrete ideas, try the very scriptural, very gospelly assertion that humans thrive where love is, they wither where it ain’t. God’s love for us demonstrated in his understanding of our condition, Christ’s love for us in seeking our salvation up to and including his own crucifixion, the love we feel for one another when we strive to, and learn to, understand each other as we have been understood.

All the rest is gravy, and gravy can be very, very good.