A couple of weeks ago Dr. Lisa McMinn, a former Wheaton sociology professor, spoke in chapel about contentment. She was one of the most popular profs on campus (and one of my favorites), and her message was on the whole pretty good, with one major flaw.
Contentment, she said, is being present in the moment, even when your plans are waylaid. Being at peace regardless of your present circumstances. Being aware of the world around you and being present in it, even when you are in pain.[1] So far, so good. Except the basis of Christian contentment is that God is in control and will eventually work everything out in our favor. God will one day fulfill everything that we (or Christians, at least) long for, even if it doesn’t happen within our lifetime, so because God is constantly at work, we can/should be content in the moment. Because the future has already been decided, and there’s nothing to worry about in the long run, we should realize that present struggles are part of the process of redemption, and be fully present in them.
So I ask: what kind of contentment is that? This is the same kind of reasoning that Christians use when they talk about accepting death, which I wrote about in a previous post. Just as truly accepting death means accepting that it really is the end instead of glossing over it with heaven, true contentment is being present and accepting that things don’t always work out. Some desires and injustices will never be fulfilled, now or in the future, and we have no idea which things will or won’t turn out for good. Contentment is accepting that and being present in the moment when you have no ultimate insurance policy, and you know that some bad situations will just end up being bad. In the face of suffering or injustice, you do all you can to change it, and then you accept what you can’t change. You live with the sucky aspects of being human because that’s what we are, and in some cases neither we, nor our future descendants, nor our future resurrected spirits will get what we long for.
I’m not a pessimist by any measure; I believe quite recklessly in hope. But I also believe in facing reality. Now, believing in an ultimate redemption of all things may be quite harmless. It might help you through a tough situation, give some psychological buoyancy, to believe that every disappointment and wrong in the universe will be righted. In the long run, you’ll probably be no worse off. The main problem with the Christian approach to contentment isn’t that I think it’s based on completely false premises. The problem is that it’s not contentment at all. The challenge of contentment is being content and present when there is nothing to be content about, and the future is a big unknown. If you have a guarantee that everything will work out in the end and that by the time eternity starts, all your longings will be fulfilled, what are you actually accepting? Sure, the pain of suffering and injustice is real even if it’s temporary. But it’s far easier to be content if you have future fulfillment as a prerequisite, just as it’s easier accept death if you don’t believe it’s really the end.
I get annoyed when Christianity presents itself as having the ultimate solution to something like contentment or death. The Christian solution to these challenges is not to just man up and face it, but to say, “we can face it and truly accept the problem because we know that it’s not a real problem, or because we know that God has the solution”. That’s not facing a problem at all.
For those of us who want to face reality, there are problems to face in death and suffering and disappointment. There’s no easy way to live with these things, other than facing them for what they are. Bearing the full brunt of what it means to suffer or die or be wronged. Knowing that some disappointments or longings will never by fulfilled, that death is truly the end, that some things are just bad until the end. If you can be present in the moment while accepting those things, that is true contentment.
[1] Here’s one thing Lisa McMinn said that I agree with: “At the root of all contentment is the sense that I belong to something bigger than myself.” For Christians that something is rooted in God. For me, that something is the world, the earth, the universe– the “onion” (see this post). The never-ending beauty and complexity of the universe is what I draw from to pursue contentment. It gives no guarantees, and there’s no puppet master working in my favor on a cosmic timescale. But I take joy in natural processes and knowing that I am a product of them, a part of the living universe. What is the source of your contentment?
I’ve been lurking on your blog for a while, I enjoy reading it!
First, I wanted to point out that for the Christian, heaven is the reality. so they are facing reality – a reality which includes the ultimate redemption of all things.
Also, why is it preferable to “man up and face it” when there is not hope of a solution at the end? I often get that sense from agnostics and atheists, that its somehow inherently more heroic or superior to believe the world is not guide by a higher power. But that is analogous to the cancer patient thinking its more heroic to refuse to take the medicine that may make them feel better them simply because its the harsher reality to face. (The comparison is not meant to say that belief in God is like the medicine we need to cure us, I am just pointing out that it is not logical to argue that the harder path is necessarily the better path.)
There are times when I wish God didn’t exist because His existence puts demands on my life which at times I would be happy to do without. But unfortunately reality does not conform to suit my preferences. Being a Christian is not the easier path, at least not in my experience.
Amy,
I don’t think he is saying it is better because it is more difficult and I personally don’t think it is more difficult to be a unbeliever. But when I drifted away from Christianity it was tough to give up on heaven. You live you whole life “knowing” that when you did you will live forever in paradise. When you family members and friends die, you know you will see them again. Facing this new reality is big shift in your thinking and and can be tough to handle. I remember having similar thoughts when I first lost heaven.
I’ve been a heathen for 10 years now and I have a different outlook on life and death. I believe this life is all I have and I will never see deceased loved ones again and I’m very comfortable where I am.
Amy,
It’s not about what more difficult, it’s about what’s true. Obviously, it’s going to be harder to live life based around something that’s false… 😉
Ok, I’m sorry, that was a cheap shot, but I’m only partly joking here. How can you know what God’s demands are? It’s either an incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant claim.
But I don’t want to regress into a debate about God’s existence here. The main issue is the difference in mindsets between someone who believes and someone who doesn’t.
It’s my opinion that the difference stems from our basic outlook of humanity itself. As a believer, I thought god had all the answers, and I only needed to give my problems over to him. Now, I know that I can’t expect answers from on high, and have to deal with things for myself.
The difference is that believers thing humans can fix things for themselves, and non-believers do.
We can fix things for ourselves; we’ve been doing it for thousands of years. Modern Medicine, technology, science, ideas – these are not the products of belief in god, but the products of man’s thinking.
What has god done for us? Nothing much. As an atheist, I obviously can’t find anything he’s done for us. We do it all ourselves. That is a humbling, awe-inspiring idea in and of itself.
I dont want to get into a debate either, i dont think the existence of God can be decided by way of argument. 😉
josh – you can only know (or think you know) what God’s demands on your life are if your belief in him includes some mode of communication with him. whether it be through scripture, or through natural law, or through prayer, or whatever. it may be naive (if it isn’t true) but its not arrogant. admittedly there are some arrogant believers of all types of faiths, namely people who are of the attitude that their knowledge is somehow due to them being superior to others. but to say that you know something for sure is not necessarily arrogant, its simply reflective of your state of mind in response to the world as you have experienced it.
as far as humans fixing things for themselves – humans are capable of some pretty incredible things, no doubt. but i am not so sure i am all that impressed with human beings ability to “fix” things. i reject the notion of endless progress. the world at large is in no better state than in the past – certain problems have been alleviated and other problems are worse. we live longer lives, but the quality of those lives are often not very good. we are still violent and greedy, the only difference is now there are more of us. even if i didn’t believe in God i would not put my trust in human beings to fix everything.
The only part I disagree with is when you say, “The main problem with the Christian approach to contentment isn’t that I think it’s based on completely false premises.”
For me, that IS the problem, it’s based on a FALSE premise. If there were an afterlife, we’d be foolish to add to our own pain by pretending that death is the end.If theists are right, then death really isn’t a problem and we’re just making a bad situation appear hopeless. (I’m ignoring my eventual, and likely, relocation to Hell in this scenario)
If I follow the rationale all the way through, what you’re saying could be interpreted as: Whatever reality is, we can only be called “content” if we could face a much worse situation than that reality. It’s like saying to someone who’s content with coming through a car accident unscathed, “Ah, but would you be content if you lost a limb? If not, then you’re not really content.”
Again, this is only IF (an infinitely large “if” IMO) there’s an afterlife.
Or, maybe I’ve completely misunderstood the point.
the world at large is in no better state than in the past
How can you even begin to think that?
By any tangible measure that I can think of, your statement is patently false.
Let’s see what the world was like in the fairly recent past:
There was virtually no self-governance. People were required to pledge absolute loyalty to a “divinely appointed” hereditary monarchy or a brutal military dictator. While in places those totalitarian rulers may have been benign, in many other places they were repressive and cruel. Those who dared to rebel were executed – period.
There was very little instance of a prosperous middle class. Those born into wealth passed it along to their heirs; those without hereditary wealth or status lived subservient lives with no hope of improving their status.
Most people lived short (under 40 years), brutal lives of illiteracy, superstition and fear. They never traveled beyond 50 miles of where they were born. If children lived past the age of 5 (and not many did, thanks to childhood disease and accidents), they were typically put to work by age 6 or 7. There was no guarantee of universal education or literacy in most of the world. There was no scientific understanding of how the world functions, or how disease is spread. Those who got sick were “possessed by demons.”
I could go on and on: communication, technology, transportation, medical breakthroughs such as the germ theory of disease, vaccination. How can it be possible that the world’s “no better off” now?
What measuring stick are you using?
For those of us who want to face reality, there are problems to face in death and suffering and disappointment. There’s no easy way to live with these things, other than facing them for what they are. Bearing the full brunt of what it means to suffer or die or be wronged. Knowing that some disappointments or longings will never by fulfilled, that death is truly the end, that some things are just bad until the end. If you can be present in the moment while accepting those things, that is true contentment.
Beautifully and clearly stated – I agree. I wonder, though, whether everyone has the personality or temperament to reach that level of facing reality and finding contentment anyway. It may be, given the ubiquitousness of god-belief, that the majority of humans are not cut out to live in a purely reality-based universe. For better or worse, it seems that most people would rather accept the comfort of a belief system that can’t be proven, instead of preferring to look at the world completely objectively.
I wrote this yesterday at Friendly Atheist and I think it’s relevant here:
I highly, highly value honesty and objectivity – even bald, bleak honesty – over comfort. If life’s tough and death is the end, I’d rather acknowledge that and come to terms with it and do my best to make the world a better place while I’m here, than to adopt a happy fantasy that’s comforting.
But that’s just me. I totally understand how that’s not how a lot of people want to live.
There was virtually no self-governance. People were required to pledge absolute loyalty to a “divinely appointed” hereditary monarchy or a brutal military dictator. While in places those totalitarian rulers may have been benign, in many other places they were repressive and cruel. Those who dared to rebel were executed – period.
This was not universally true in the past, whereas it is still the case in many places today. So while things have improved on this issue for a good number of people, I wouldn’t say that people have “fixed” this problem.
There was very little instance of a prosperous middle class. Those born into wealth passed it along to their heirs; those without hereditary wealth or status lived subservient lives with no hope of improving their status.
During what time are you referring? You cannot talk about the “past” as one big block of homogeneous reality. It is true that in many places the poor of today are better off than even the rich of the past. But in other places in the world the poor still suffer as terribly as they ever have with just as little hope of escaping their status. Not to mention the fact that sheer material wealth is not necessarily a good measure of quality of life or the progress of a people.
Most people lived short (under 40 years), brutal lives of illiteracy, superstition and fear. They never traveled beyond 50 miles of where they were born. If children lived past the age of 5 (and not many did, thanks to childhood disease and accidents), they were typically put to work by age 6 or 7. There was no guarantee of universal education or literacy in most of the world. There was no scientific understanding of how the world functions, or how disease is spread. Those who got sick were “possessed by demons.”
What you say may have been true of some periods of time but not others. When are you referring to? People in the Ancient and Medieval worlds did at times travel long distances and did receive educations. Perhaps it was numerically more rare, but it still happened. True, such things are ubiquitous in prosperous nations, but the same complaint you have about the past is still true for many people currently alive. I agree, the advances we have made in education, medicine and health have been wonderful, but no one can escape disease and death forever. Human beings have yet to find a cure for death, and I doubt they ever will. And prolonging life may or may not be a preferable thing, depending on the quality of that life.
I could go on and on: communication, technology, transportation, medical breakthroughs such as the germ theory of disease, vaccination. How can it be possible that the world’s “no better off” now?
What measuring stick are you using?
Quality of life is not a easily quantifiable thing. The present time in some places may be better than the past in other places. On the other hand, the present time in some places may be worse than the past in other places. I would say that “progress” is more of an ebb and flow, rather than a continual upward slope. And it is inconsistent and spotty – not all people experience the same life. For some people life today is heaven. For others it is hell. Better health care, better toys, better education and more money do not equal a better life.
This was not universally true in the past, whereas it is still the case in many places today. So while things have improved on this issue for a good number of people, I wouldn’t say that people have “fixed” this problem.
Before the 20th century, liberal democracies were few and far between. Today, the democratic form of government is at an all-time high. NO question that we haven’t “fixed” the problem – of course there are still dictatorships like Myanmar and North Korea – but there are 121 democracies in the world today, as compared to 40 in 1972. Huge improvement.
During what time are you referring? You cannot talk about the “past” as one big block of homogeneous reality. It is true that in many places the poor of today are better off than even the rich of the past. But in other places in the world the poor still suffer as terribly as they ever have with just as little hope of escaping their status. Not to mention the fact that sheer material wealth is not necessarily a good measure of quality of life or the progress of a people.
I mentioned that I’m talking about the “fairly recent” past – let’s say 500 years. Since the Industrial Revolution, there has been enormous growth of the middle class, which was nonexistent in the Middle Ages. Capitalism, for all its faults, and mechanization, technology and communications has been a rising tide for a vast number of people to improve their lot in life – particularly in the developed world, but also in developing countries like Mexico, which is just in the past 5-10 years seeing the rise of a solid middle class. That same thing is mirrored in Latin America, South America and parts of Eastern Europe.
I agree, the advances we have made in education, medicine and health have been wonderful, but no one can escape disease and death forever. Human beings have yet to find a cure for death, and I doubt they ever will. And prolonging life may or may not be a preferable thing, depending on the quality of that life.
Of course no one can escape death and disease forever! Who ever said they could find a cure for death? Certainly not me. Heck, for all I know someday science will be able to routinely stave off death for 200 or 300 years. It’s certainly not inconceivable, given today’s rapid advances in understanding the aging mechanism. Think about this: According to Wikipedia, life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1900 was 47 years. Today’s it’s not uncommon for people to live into their 90s and even over 100. Life expectancy in India at mid-century was around 32, by 2000 it had risen to 64 years.
Again, I’m not arguing that things are perfect for every person in the world. Of course they are not. But you originally said “the world at large is in no better state than the past” and I think that statement is short-sighted and untrue.
Karen,
Let me clarify what I mean and perhaps we will agree.
The world as a whole today may be better than it was 500 years ago. But it also may be worse than it was 1000 years ago. I just dont think its something we can honestly measure. Not to mention that even if it is better today than it was in the past is by no means any kind of guarantee that it will continue to get better and better all the time (as described in Chardin’s Omega Point).
I also dont think that it is fair to lump the whole world together in a comparison. For example, Europe might be better off now than it was 500 years ago, but Africa might be worse.
And as I said, which I do not think you acknowledged, measurements of life-span and wealth do not necessarily indicate improvements on quality of life (i.e. are we happier and more morally upright).
My point is that I do not believe that human beings are creating a continual upward curve in progress and quality of life. Even if it is true that the world is better right now (and it may be, I admit I don’t have sufficient data to know), as I said I don’t see any guarantee that it will continue to get better.
The reason that this is relevant to the original post is because I do not think there is basis for trusting in humans to find the answers to our problems. Maybe we can solve some problems certainly, but not all of them and not permanently. If you do not believe in God, then thats the best you can hope for, obviously. That’s fine. I just don’t agree with overly-optimistic faith in human beings, I do not think it is based in an accurate assessment of reality.
Thank you so much for this insightful post! My wife and I found your thoughts on Death and Contentment to be very enlightening as fellow atheists.
What a complex and insightful blog. I have to disagree with one thing you said though.
“Except the basis of Christian contentment is that God is in control and will eventually work everything out in our favor. God will one day fulfill everything that we (or Christians, at least) long for, even if it doesn’t happen within our lifetime, so because God is constantly at work, we can/should be content in the moment.”
I don’t believe our contentment should be in thinking that God will work everything out in out favor. As we seek to know God and draw closer to Him, hopefully our desires begin to mirror His desires. So maybe if that happens, things could eventually work out in our favor. But ultimately our contentment is in knowing that we will one day be with God for eternity, and that He is the ultimate judge and will bring people to justice one day (even if their actual wrongs may not be righted on this earth).
I wish that meant the injustices around us were easier to bear. In Sri Lanka I saw babies dying because politicians were holding back money and food sent in to use it for political gain. I was so angry (and I believe it was a righteous anger). I still hurt for those children and their families. But I also know that sin has brought about horrible consequences for everyone in this world, and that Jesus’ death was to free us from sin. It doesn’t mean we don’t daily face its consequences, but means we have hope in a future with God.
Honestly I might sometimes (or even often) disagree with what I think God’s doing. But ultimately I know He sees a big picture that I can’t, and I trust that even if I never understand, He loves me. Because of that love, I can one day be with Him and free from the pain of sin.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings, I’ve enjoyed reading them. Anyway, just wanted to share what I think contentment is in Christ.