What torments him the most, however, is his utter inabilityto find a girlfriend...To make a long story short (as they say), the writerdiscovers that he can control the girlfriend by writing about her…Eventually,the writer becomes disillusioned with this magical phenomenon. He comes tothink of the young woman as real which, in the movie, in a sense, she is.Physically, she’s “there.” But he controls her completely. She becomes whateverhis momentary whim causes him to write about her.
Finally, he has a kind of nervous breakdown and startsfuriously writing sentences that cause her to be like a puppet—just todemonstrate his power over her. Then, in a moment of utter despair, loving herso much, he writes that she is real and free.
In his book The Providence of God Calvinistphilosopher-theologian Paul Helm says: “Not only is every atom and molecule,every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn ofeach of these is under the direct control of God.” (p. 22) Yes, of course, he goeson throughout the book to attempt to demonstrate how this is a good thing. But,in the end, it’s unsatisfying for the same reason as the writer’s control ofRuby in the movie.
Towardthe end of “Ruby Sparks,” the writer character discovers that what he is havingwith Ruby is not a relationship but a condition. Ultimately, she is not yetreal. Or, if she is real, she is not a person. What he is having with her isnot a personal relationship—from either his or her perspective. His perspectivethat he was having a personal relationship with her was an illusion. And hispower to control her was not in any way glorifying or magnifying of him (as heseemed to think at some points). It was not only unfair to her (since he couldcause her to be real and free); it was demeaning to him. What he was doing wasunethical.
Now, let’s adjust the movie, the parable, just a bit and seewhat would happen “if.” Imagine that the writer finally decided thatcontrolling Ruby was better than giving her reality and freedom. Better forwhom? Well, for both him and her. After all, he could then protect her from themany dangers of being real and free. And he could show off his magical power tohis brother (a character in the movie) and his therapist (he does reveal it toboth of them). But who would think he was “protecting” her or revealing realability? All people in their right minds, decent, reasonable people, uponrealizing what he was doing to her, would condemn him for it. (In the movie hisbrother comes to think what he is doing is wrong. His therapist never reallybelieves it.)
Here is my question to Calvinists: even if the writer in themovie treated Ruby with kindness, would you ever agree that he is doingsomething good—either morally or in terms of showing his greatness? I can’timagine it. What’s great about using a magical power to control things comparedwith using persuasion to influence them? And what’s morally good aboutcontrolling another person compared with giving them freedom and entering intoa real relationship with them?
Of course, Helm, and most Calvinists with him, goes to greatlengths to try to show that God is different. It’s okay for God to control hishuman creatures whereas it would never be okay for humans to do so (except, ofcourse for small children or hopeless imbeciles).
A ventriloquist may claim to “love” his puppet, but anyonehearing that claim would laugh or cry—considering the ventriloquist eitherjoking or crazy. That would be even more the case if the ventriloquist claimedthe puppet loved him!
Philosopher Brümmer also demonstrates, rightly, I think,that strict Calvinism (he uses the Canons of Dort as his foil) is ultimatelyincoherent insofar as it claims that God is so different, so unique, thatsomehow it’s good and right for God to control humans in such a manner thatwould never be considered right or good in human experience. If God is so“wholly other,” such that there are no analogies, then, he says, we really donot know anything about God. This is what I’ve been saying here for a longtime—almost since the blog’s beginning. Ultimately, strict Calvinism, divinedeterminism, must posit a “hidden God,” a voluntarist God who has no nature orwhose nature is so radically different from ours that we can’t even conceive ofit. And, in light of hell, such a controlling, manipulative God cannot beconceived as “good” in any meaningful way.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/11/a-movie-illustration-of-whats-wrong-with-calvinism/
i) First off, I commend Olson for pressing theboyfriend/girlfriend analogy to illustrate Arminianism. I think that’s a veryrevealing, and apt comparison. And it nicely illustrates some childishweaknesses in Arminianism.
In a healthy romantic relationship, both man and woman givesomething and get something. It satisfies a deep psychological (and physical)need.
There’s an ineluctable element of self-interest whichmotivates the relationship. Not just doing something good for another person,but how that’s good for you. We are incomplete without it.
We wouldn’t marry if there wasn’t something in it for us. Atleast, that’s the expectation going in–although reality doesn’t always turn outthat way. We marry to receive something in return. Reciprocated affection. Wewouldn’t do it if we didn’t hope to get something out of it. Although romanticlove ought to be concerned with the best interests of the beloved, it’s alsoessentially self-interested. The man wants a woman who wants him in return. Hewants her to want him as much as he wants her. And I assume most wives want a husband who desires them rather than viewing them as just a charity case.
And that’s roughly how Olson defines a “real relationship.”
Speaking for myself, I don’t seek a “relationship” with Godin that sense. If that’s what motivated God, he’d be pathetic. I don’t need aGod who needs me. I don’t worship a God who needs me (and other creatures) tocomplete what’s lacking in himself.
In Calvinism, God’s love for the elect is an act of sheerdisinterested love. God has nothing to get out of it. He does it purely for thegood of the elect.
ii) In defense of Olson, someone might say that Scriptureitself uses romantic theological analogies. But if you examine the specificexamples, they don’t intersect with Olson’s comparison.
There’s the motif of God as a jilted husband who remainsfaithful to a faithless wife (Hosea; Isa 54; Ezk 16). There’s the motif of Goddefending his bride (Rev 19). There’s the motif of God/Christ laying down hislife to save his wife (Eph 5). And there’s the motif of God marrying down (Ezk16; Eph 5).
iii) I don’t think Calvinism requires God to be “whollyother” or “hidden.” That’s just Olson’s hostile characterization.
And, yes, it is different with God. He’s the Creator, we’rethe creature. That’s a fundamental and unilateral asymmetry. Cause and effect.
That’s very different from the boyfriend/girlfriend dynamic,where they grow closer to each other, grow through each other, grow into eachother.
iv) Olson’s illustration also suffers from an inner tension.He says “Then, in a moment of utter despair, loving her so much, he writes thatshe is real and free.”
But what does it mean to say that Ruby is finally set freeto be herself? She started out as a figment of the writer’s imagination. His ideaof the perfect girl. And although she continues to evolve, it’s his idea of herthat’s evolving. She has all and only those characteristics which he investsher with at any particular moment.
So even if he frees her and reifies her at the end (a la Pygmalion),she didn’t invent herself. Everything she is she got from him. At whateverstage of the process he frees her, what he reifies is his own concept.
Now, we might speculate that after he frees her, shecontinues to develop on her own. Becomes a somewhat different person. But evenso, she didn’t make herself from scratch. She could only work with what he gaveher. Her potential for further development is limited to his creative idea. Atbottom, she can’t rise any higher than her source. A reified fictionalcharacter is still defined by the writer. By his personal vision.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder