09 March 2006

Danni Boatwright's easy faith.

Hey Poncho, nice outfit, are you going to eat that chicken?

The Faith section of last Saturday’s Kansas City Star had a puff-piece on the importance of faith in the life of Danni Boatwright, Tonganoxie native and Survivor winner.

I am not a theologian, but it is apparent Ms. Boatwright enjoys an easy faith. She believes in a loving, fatherly God that directly intervenes in our lives, and answers prayers. It is difficult to square these beliefs with any kind of introspection, but easy to spread the word to others with a million bucks in one’s pocket. How hard is it to give God credit when things go right?

In analyzing her win, Boatwright, a sportscaster and former international model, said she is convinced God was in the plan because her plan didn’t work.
“I had to get rid of my strategy and let the Lord lead me in the right direction and let God take control.”


The problem with a God that intervenes directly in human affairs on a daily basis is that we lose Free Will in the deal. If ‘Everything happens for a reason’ than that reason is not ours, but belongs to something else, a higher power. If humans cede the ability to cause the outcome of any event, then we no longer have self-agency, or any abilities to act. A God that holds us into account for our shortcomings while denying us the will to act otherwise is a monster. Ms. Boatwright needs to think her suppositions through. Christianity relies upon a believer’s Free Will, conscious choices good or bad. The thieves on the crosses next to Jesus had to be there because of their own agency, or the fatherly image of God loses some of its luster. One could argue God allows us to fail if we give in to various urges, but why would an omnipotent being do that, to be cruel? If He is our ultimate designer, than who is responsible for our faults? Likewise, we fallible humans attempt to excuse God his shortcomings:

That’s not to say her life has been rosy. Her birth father was shot while on the job as a police officer, schoolmates teased her for being “tall and skinny, and she has had to overcome attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia and a divorce after four years of marriage.

Why is there a rush to credit God for winning a million bucks, but a willingness to allow Ms. Boatwright credit for overcoming the bad breaks in her own life? Isn’t it also God’s will that she lost her father, stuck out among other kids, had a learning disability, and failed in her first marriage? Can I divorce my wife tomorrow and call that adversity two years from now? Why does she get credit in the article for challenging the will of God, who apparently wanted her fatherless, friendless, unlearned, and single?

In one episode Boatwright and two of the remaining four finalists ate a chicken that Mayan Indians had sacrificed to their gods. Boatwright said she didn’t see eating the meat as being disrespectful to their faith. . She said that was a practical matter of survival because the only food the group had was maggot-infested corn.

This quote is most galling. My wife and I wheeled out the TV cart and watched the penultimate episode, because of the local ties – we live a few miles from Tonganoxie. I could not believe it when they ate the sacrificed chicken. This came after an elaborate ceremony at the temple the contestants camped, complete with costumed priests and feathered waving of incense smoke. After the ceremony, three of the four Survivors left ate the bird despite a priest warning them not to. A thunderstorm followed, so to follow Ms. Boatwright’s lead, the Mayan Gods were not amused. It should also be noted, contrary to Ms. Boatwright’s defense, that one contestant, the red haired guy she ultimately dumped for the finals (Raef?) did not eat the chicken. It was humanly possible to resist that temptation, and survive. I guess God did not want Raef to have any chicken that day, since Ms. Boatwright apparently can read His mind. This ignorance and disrespect of other faiths runs rampant through Christianity, Islam, and probably every other monotheistic faith. Why should we, in an article on faith, take Ms. Boatwright seriously when it is obvious she doesn’t give a lick about other people’s faith? The irony is mind-bending. It is probably too much to expect the Star to call her on her obtuseness, and instead the article is a how-not-to guide to faith.

I am certain Ms. Boatwright is sincere in her beliefs, inconsistent as they are. Sincerity does not trump reality, however much we may wish it otherwise.

Comments:
"The problem with a God that intervenes directly in human affairs on a daily basis is that we lose Free Will in the deal. If ‘Everything happens for a reason’ than that reason is not ours, but belongs to something else, a higher power. If humans cede the ability to cause the outcome of any event, then we no longer have self-agency, or any abilities to act. A God that holds us into account for our shortcomings while denying us the will to act otherwise is a monster. Ms. Boatwright needs to think her suppositions through. Christianity relies upon a believer’s Free Will, conscious choices good or bad. The thieves on the crosses next to Jesus had to be there because of their own agency, or the fatherly image of God loses some of its luster. One could argue God allows us to fail if we give in to various urges, but why would an omnipotent being do that, to be cruel? If He is our ultimate designer, than who is responsible for our faults? Likewise, we fallible humans attempt to excuse God his shortcomings:"

I would respond to your above comments as follows:

If God did make us robots and then hold us accountable - I would agree God would look more like a monster. However, I believe God created humans with a good thing - it is called free will. Man chose (and chooses) to use this good thing called free-will for evil. Let me illustrate. Suppose that man A took two stones and in his anger threw them at his wife. That would not be good. However, lets say man B took those same two stones and started a fire to keep his family warm while lost in the woods. We would say that was good. In both cases there were two perfectly good rocks. What differed was how man A and man B used them. Therefore, it seems to me that the burden of responsibilty lies on the human to use the good gift of God to choose good and not evil.

-Randall
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?