The Only Binary

“Roused, readied, reaped” is uncomplicated.  I at first attributed a good deal of gravity to the notion of mankind awaking from slumber in one religious sense or another (and I might still pursue the matter) but the most important aspect of “roused, readied, reaped” is quite simple.  It is one half of a binary question that attends all religious matters.  That is, do we see existence in a comprehensive (though “mystery-shrouded”) sense (the wrong answer), or do we see existence in a viewpoint-grounded sense (the right answer)?

We are born, live, and die surrounded and limited by our circumstances.  That much ought to be plain, but one of the horrid aspects of the religions we practice is an effectual denial of those limitations.  Religion is usually understood as informing the believer of his or her place in the universe.  This is folly.  The more we challenge our presuppositions about God, the more we ought to have impressed upon us the conceptually ever-expanding gulf between our natures and that of God.  The only “place” we occupy is the smallness of ourselves, and the only destination for which we ought to yearn is the disappearing of ourselves into the un-encompassed expanse of God’s will.

Once we properly address the binary question “do we see existence in a comprehensive (though “mystery-shrouded”) sense (the wrong answer), or do we see existence in a viewpoint-grounded sense (the right answer)?”, then we can reckon rightly with the implications of our viewpoint limitations.  Honestly addressed, our comprehension (such as it is) of existence in necessarily understood in terms of vantage-point and proportion.  We look at everything from some perspective, and we weigh everything we look at.  To pretend otherwise (for example, that religion results in altered states of unmeasured awe) is to lie.

In short, we need to address the binary question of our comprehension or incomprehension of existence (settled in favor of the latter) and then we need to reckon that we must measure our experiences.  After our acceptance of the binary option (or, rather, our return to the infant’s reflexive grasping at a universe of what is graspable), then we need to address a ceaseless progression of analyzing and measuring the experiences and insights that confront us.  We are binary creatures trapped in a web of analog responsibilities.  If Adam had grasped at nothing more than fellowship with God, we wouldn’t be in this predicament.\

“Roused, readied, reaped” leads not only to religious implications, but to social implications as well.  Wrongly answering the original binary question (that is, purporting to understand existence even while prating constantly about “mysteries”) leads to an inescapable ramification of that wrong answer: conventional religion never wants to stop pretending to comprehend scenarios framed as binary.  The “sanctity of life” (framed as against a “culture of death”) is but one example.  Man is made in the image of God, that is true, but Jesus tells us only that we are worth more than many sparrows.  Much of religion, however, wants to present itself as the unique voice to the effect that each human life is of inestimable value.

So far, so good.  Many people who want to stay alive are only too glad to have it said that human life is of inestimable value.  It is worth considering, however, how much good having denominations cling to their binary-framed valuation of “the sanctity of life” has done for the security of life.  Untold horrors have been committed against the lives (or anything that makes a life truly a life) of powerless millions in two thousand short years of Christianity.  “Untold” is not a hyperbole meant to escape having to present evidence—such things are becoming more and more “told” and less “untold” all the time.  Straightforwardly attested and publicly-released admissions from the major denominations of our era often exceed the most lurid fever-dreams of anti-Christian or anti-denominational polemics of a century ago.

This is all bound up with the religious obsession with binary questions.  A person who thinks human life is valuable will try to preserve it.  A person who thinks that the sanctity of human life can only be preserved by the anointed denomination will oppress, torture, and kill in the service of that ostensibly invaluable denomination.  (Binaries, arbitrary in themselves, are—unsurprisingly—invoked even when they conflict.)  A person who thinks the divine command to tend to Creation ought to be taken seriously will try to preserve Creation.  A person who thinks that his or her religion is the only one to properly address the yes/no framing of who is and who is not a true steward of Creation is also a person who will countenance the wholesale despoiling of Creation if such is framed as necessary to preserve the ascendency of the true “stewards.”

The only enduring yes/no question is the question of whether we exist or not.  We can only answer that question in the process of being born, living, and dying.  We can spend our lives grasping into the murk and mire that surrounds us, like the infant that cries for the parent in the darkness, throwing our hopes upon the prospect of having the Father recognize us.  Or we can spend our lives contemplating the universe of our imaginings, grading ourselves against innumerable binary theology-derived standards, placing ourselves perilously at every moment in the positions of the wretched souls who will cry, “We drove out demons in your name.”

The only enduring yes/no question is the question of whether we exist or not.  The only matter of ultimate importance is whether or not the Savior will say, “I never knew you.”