Francis Berger

Man's Chief End is Not to be Saved but to Mount Up, Creatively

12/13/2025

But life is not supposed to be a wholly passive business of dealing with the experiences that life brings to us.

As each of us are Beings who existed as spirits for an eternity before we were incarnated into this life; we all bring our unique natures and possibilities into this mortal life...

In other words; just as God has an agenda, a curriculum, for each of us in this mortal life - towards which we have a formally negative and reactive role...

In a complementary fashion; we also each have a positive agenda that we bring into this life.
Because every individual Being has potential to add his own unique perspective and qualities to the growth of divine creation.

The above comes from Creative engagement is the positive purpose of this mortal life, which Dr. Charlton posted earlier today.

The title above sums up my convictions on the matter; however, as I read the post, I found myself wondering why so many Christians fail to grasp or simply reject the positive purpose of creativity.

It did not take me long to realize the inability or unwillingness to accept creativity as the positive purpose of mortal life lay deeply nestled in Christian assumptions.

More precisely, in the rejection of the assumption that “each of us are Beings who existed as spirits for an eternity before we were incarnated into this life; we all bring our unique natures and possibilities into this mortal life.”

The sort of creativity and positive purpose Bruce describes—the same sort I have done my best to describe on these pages over the years—makes no sense within the framework of traditional/conventional/orthodox Christian assumptions, in the same ways authentic freedom makes no sense. Reject the assumption of co-eternal Beings, and you reject authentic spiritual creativity and freedom.

Nevertheless, some Christian thinkers did achieve breakthroughs in this department. For example, Berdyaev ranks among the very few Christian thinkers who recognized and promoted creative engagement as the positive purpose in mortal life:

Salvation from sin, from perdition, is not the final purpose of religious life: salvation is always from something, and life should be for something. Many things unnecessary for salvation are needed for the very purpose for which salvation is necessary - for the creative upsurge of being. Man's chief end is not to be saved but to mount up, creatively.

It should be noted that Berdyaev achieved these insights while remaining faithful to a handful of orthodox assumptions he simply could not release. I am certain that his profound insights would have been even more profound had he been able to recognize that the eternal element he sought was inherent in eternal spiritual Beings and not groundless, uncreated freedom.

Unfortunately, creative engagement as a positive purpose in mortal life is largely denied or downplayed in Christianity, and it will probably remain that way until Christians begin honestly and earnestly re-evaluating some of their fundamental assumptions about reality and God.

Note: Creativity and creative engagement should not be interpreted solely as artistic endeavors. Creative engagement is a spiritual "act" that adds something new and unexpected to creation. Such newness can take many forms and can extend to any aspect of mortal life.

0 Comments

What Psychopaths Thought Up This Christmas Commercial?

12/12/2025

2 Comments

Yesterday I shared an example of a "good" Christmas-themed commercial.

Today, I present with you the opposite -- Ginger's Christmas from Dr. Oetker Baking. I would really like to meet the psychopaths who thought the following somehow reflected "the Christmas spirit" or would reflect well upon their brand.

Most of the ad is actually quite charming -- and then, well, you'll see . . .

Man oh man.

Note: If the video doesn't play, type Dr. Oetker Baking - Ginger's Christmas into You Tube.

2 Comments

Two for Two In Christmas Commercial Land

12/11/2025

3 Comments

Last year, I featured and commented on two Christmas-themed commercials that I thought were rather "good," all things considered. Erste Bank (yes, a bank) was behind one of those commercials from last year.

Interestingly enough, "Carry the Light," the Christmas commercial Erste released this year, is also quite good, at least in my humble opinion.

Note: Type "Carry the Light" Erste into YouTube if the video does not play here. Apparently, some countries are becoming quite restrictive about what their citizens can and cannot access on the internet.

3 Comments

Expedience as Justifiable Corruption

12/10/2025

5 Comments

Expedience used to have two meanings—one positive and the other negative. Of the two, the technically positive meaning of being useful, appropriate, or suitable for a specific purpose was usually overshadowed by the negative connotation of being useful for some purpose or self-interest at the expense of principles, ethics, and morals.

People seem to have retained some awareness of the negative connotations of expedience, at least in theory; however, in practice, expedience has morphed into what can only be described as a justifiable positive.

Another way of thinking about a justifiable positive is as a defensible negative, with the underlying understanding that the negative is at least partly perceived but quickly set aside and overridden by the self-serving albeit unprincipled positive that expedience helped generate. Within such a framework, the self-serving usefulness or advantages that expedience produces will always justifiably and defensibly trump all unprincipled, unethical, immoral, self-serving factors, regardless of how severe these may in fact be.

Expedience as a justifiable positive has become ubiquitous and is easily detectable. The most obvious example is the “I would have done the same thing, and so would you” attitude often expressed when people learn of a politician or businessperson who benefited immensely from some fraudulent dealing or other. The exasperated “Can you blame them?” or “He would have been stupid not to” outbursts, frequently expressed when people discuss individuals who chose self-serving advantage at the cost of principles, are other common instances of a justifiable positive.

The lauding and celebration of crafty, underhanded individuals unleashing dishonest schemes at the expense of everyone but themselves is yet another example. As are the anti-heroes of popular culture who engage in the most despicable of activities for “good” causes, like manufacturing and dealing drugs so that he can secure his family’s financial future before succumbing to a terminal illness (no, I have not seen the series, and I do not intend to). Or the ticket-takers and careerists who “understandably” sell out their integrity for the promise of financial gain or increased influence. It even extends to those who vigorously defend the blatantly unprincipled actions of organizations on purely ideological grounds, or those who simply "go with the flow" despite recognizing the wrong direction the flow has taken.

As is the case with so much these days, inversion lies at the core of expedience as a justifiable positive. In this case, the turn involved is as bold as it is blunt and brutal; it dictates that any corruption that benefits the self at the expense of principles, ethics, and morals is justifiable to the point of ceasing to be corruption at all. Expedience benefited someone, so it cannot be all bad. In this sense, expedience ceases to be a sin, and that which is not acknowledged as sin needs to be repented of.

Unsurprisingly, expedience is officially endorsed and encouraged in this time and place. Self-serving is all the rage, yet it is a double-edged sword. The self does not end up serving itself but something else entirely. It becomes a servant to something destructive outside itself. Put another way, all self-serving really does is serve up the self, or a self, to sin, under the delusion that such service is sinless or, at the very least, justifiably sinful (even worse).

Expedience as a justifiable positive aims to erode the true self for the simple reason that the true self—our spiritual self—can derive no positives from the kinds of unprincipled, unethical, and immoral self-serving purposes that expedience provides. The best it derives from expedience is negative experience—negative experience that may engender positive learning; however, such learning can only occur if the sin of expedience is consciously acknowledged and repented.

Without that, the true self remains unserved—abandoned for the sake of justifiable corruption.

5 Comments

If You Only Had . . .

12/8/2025

0 Comments

. . . one of those svelte Slavic hotties who pose enticingly in bikinis and lingerie in places like Dubai, then everything would be perfect.

Seriously.

After all, everyone knows that landing a narcissistic, self-absorbed Slavic bombshell who posts photoshopped, half-nude images of herself taken in exotic locations ultimately provides that one inexplicable “thing” missing from the lives of most contemporary men.

So, what are you waiting for, young (or old) man?

Book that flight to Abu Dhabi, the Maldives, or wherever today! Svetlana eagerly awaits!

You won’t regret it. Guaranteed.

0 Comments

The Most Christian Element In Dickens’s A Christmas Carol?

12/6/2025

2 Comments

Many cite Scrooge’s transformation and redemption through charity, selflessness, and love, particularly as it pertains to helping the poor and downtrodden, as the most Christian element in Dickens’s A Christmas Carol.

The reasoning behind this interpretation hinges largely upon Jacob Marley’s forlorn lament that, “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

That most continue to identify Scrooge’s radical embrace of the common welfare, charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence to something known as “mankind” as the most Christian element in Dickens’s slim, ghostly tale reveals much about the spiritual state of Christianity in our modern world.

There is no disputing that the common welfare, charity, forbearance, and benevolence are all Christian elements in their own right; however, they are, at best, low-level Christian elements. In many ways, they are practically indistinguishable from officially enforced and celebrated secular values steeped in what can only be described as psychotic and suicidal altruism. Yet Scrooge’s transformation from a cold-hearted miser to a warm-hearted benefactor of mankind remains the most Christian takeaway for most contemporary Christians.

I refer to common welfare, charity, forbearance, and benevolence as low-level Christian elements (re: values) for this simple reason that such elements engage shallower levels of the spirit, which perhaps helps explain how and why they can so easily be inverted and hijacked. Moreover, making charity and benevolence one’s business also depends upon the integrity of one’s deepest motivations, which, for Christians, should always be spiritual in nature.

With that in mind, for me, the most Christian element in Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol is Cratchit’s refusal to resent Scrooge.

The refusal does not stem from ignorance or a lack of acknowledgment. Cratchit is under no illusions about Scrooge’s maltreatment of him. He knows exactly who and what Scrooge is, yet he resists the temptation to resentment—despite his wife’s outbursts at the dinner table. Despite everything.

Modern and contemporary literary critics have often interpreted Cratchit’s lack of resentment as the learned helplessness of the working poor trapped within an oppressive value system fortified by unjust societal norms. Thus, Cratchit’s refusal to resent Scrooge amounts to little more than the resigned acceptance of limiting and unfair circumstances, revealing a severe lack of agency and any striving to be authentically free.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

On the contrary, Cratchit’s refusal to resent Scrooge is a monumental display of agency and the striving to be authentically free.

Moreover, it is—and in my mind shall forever remain—the most Christian of Christian elements in Dickens’s A Christmas Carol because it is the deepest element, spiritually speaking.

2 Comments

Still Alive; Just Silent (For Now)

12/2/2025

0 Comments

My lack of blogging over the past couple of weeks has more to do with enjoying the silence inherent in a little break than it does with any perceived lack of inspiration.

In any case, I shall return to these pages within the next day or two.

0 Comments

Freedom Cannot Be Ontologically Violated

11/22/2025

5 Comments

Traditional Christian “proofs” of God’s existence—be they ontological, cosmological, or teleological—do nothing for me. At best, I find them unnecessary; at worst, I think they are misguided, perhaps even harmful.

I will grant that such proofs may have served some positive purpose in the past when men chose a different mode of consciousness, but these positive purposes have since become insolvent.

My biggest issue with traditional proofs for God’s existence boils down to the assertion of divine sovereignty they contain—that God has absolute authority and total control over all of Creation because, after all is said and done, he is the ultimate source of all Creation.

Within the framework of such assumptions, the freedom God grants human beings (and other beings in Creation) is ontologically unfree. Suppose God is the source of freedom and controls all of Creation. In that case, the freedom he grants human beings and others is deterministic.

Now, philosophers and theologians have bent and continue to bend over backwards formulating a wide array of abstract word spells to explain how the freedom a divine sovereign God grants us is genuinely free rather than deterministic, but such philosophical wranglings and assertions have never led to any satisfying breakthroughs concerning the true nature of freedom. On the contrary, they tend to come off as obscurant rather than revelatory.

With that in mind, I must note that instigating prolonged and entirely useless theological/philosophical comment debates is not the chief aim of this post. If you assume God is the ultimate, absolute divine sovereign of everything and can somehow square this with authentic freedom, then knock yourself out.

As for me, I firmly believe that freedom is only authentically free if it is, always has been, and always will be something that God cannot ontologically violate.

And by cannot I mean precisely that.

God cannot infringe upon freedom because he is not its source.

Freedom lies beyond the power of God’s “divine sovereignty,” and it is in this that the true purposes of Creation can be contemplated and approached.

Note: Freedom here does not refer to the conventional Christian doctrine/concept of free will (God could not have made free creatures unless they were able to choose evil). Likewise for arguments that claim God cannot violate freedom or free will because he cannot violate his own omnipotence. Such assumptions still assert God to be the ultimate source of freedom, which is something I reject.

5 Comments

Where is Adam Piggott?

11/18/2025

5 Comments

The link to Adam Piggott's blog has not worked for well over a month, and I have lost track of him, which is shame because I enjoyed reading his posts.

I have tried to contact him personally, but I cannot find an email address anywhere. If anyone out there knows anything about what Adam is up to these days or whether he is still blogging, please drop me a comment.

Adam, if you happen to see this post, please get in touch.

5 Comments

AI in Education = Not Even Trying to Try

11/17/2025

9 Comments

Tertiary education has been nosediving for at least a century. By the looks of things, AI will be the ground into which that century-long tailspin in quality and everything else will finally crash and explode into a fiery ball, leaving nothing but a smudge of charred earth behind.

My personal experience in attempting to teach anything in this Age of AI tells me that most students have sunk far below "not even trying" and are now descending into the murky depths of "not even trying to try."

And what are our hallowed Citadels of Darkness doing to counter this egregious yet strangely self-entitled lack of effort and thinking in university education?

Well, they are forcing professors and instructors to attend workshops and conferences on how educators must harness the power and potential of AI in the lecture hall and classroom -- thereby validating and implementing "not even trying to try" as the new standard of academic excellence.

As with most things in the past hundred years or so, this is sure to end well (assuming it has not already ended).

Note added: For the sake of clarity, I should add that most profs and instructors do not oppose harnessing the power and potential of AI in the lecture hall or classroom.

9 Comments

<<Previous

Archives