The Telos Test

Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange contains a recurring refrain: “What’s it going to be then, eh?” The words linger because they refuse to let the reader remain a spectator. They demand a decision. They ask not merely what one believes, but what one intends to become.

The question came back to me while reflecting on the Greek word telos—the ultimate purpose toward which every action aims. What, then, is the telos of my fascination with the early Christian church? Why do I keep returning to the conflict between James and Paul, to the expectation shared by Jesus and Paul that the end of history would arrive within their own generation, and to the ways later editors softened those failed expectations by rendering the prophecies more elastic? What is the purpose of exposing cracks in Christian doctrine?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Emmanuel Carrère, Elaine Pagels, or Bart Ehrman successfully chip away at the church’s claim to doctrinal certainty. What then? Burgess’s refrain becomes a philosophical audit. It asks whether my scholarship has a destination beyond demolition. It is another way of asking the question posed by R.E.M.: after losing my religion, what remains?

In truth, I doubt I could ever lose my religion entirely.

Whatever label I eventually assign myself—Christian, agnostic, or something in between—I cannot silence the conviction that I will one day answer for the life I have lived. My conscience refuses to dismiss the possibility of judgment. I imagine my thoughts and deeds passing before me in merciless clarity. I see myself shrinking beneath their weight, my knees buckling, my confidence evaporating, reduced to asking not for vindication but for mercy. I do not regard this as a uniquely religious neurosis. It seems to me a universal human intuition. Religion did not invent our moral sense; it gave language, symbols, and stories to an accountability that most of us already feel lurking beneath the surface of consciousness.

That is why my ambivalence toward Paul is never merely historical. It immediately becomes personal.

“What’s it going to be then, eh?”

Am I dismantling Paul’s authority because I seek the truth, or because I seek permission?

If there is no final judgment, no resurrection, and no afterlife, do I thereby acquire a license to indulge every selfish appetite? If organized religion collapses under historical scrutiny, am I morally obligated to replace it with another vision capable of disciplining my desires?

Martin Hägglund attempts precisely this in This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom. He argues that meaning arises from our finite existence and our obligations to one another rather than from eternity. It is an intellectually serious project. Yet I wonder whether I possess Hägglund’s confidence in human nature. Do we really possess the moral resources to repair ourselves? Or is Paul correct that something within us is too deeply fractured to heal itself?

Steven Pressfield offers another alternative in The War of Art. For him, humanity’s fallen nature appears under a different name: Resistance. Salvation comes not through grace but through disciplined creative labor. The Muse replaces the Holy Spirit; artistic practice replaces spiritual formation. I admire Pressfield immensely. Yet I hesitate before turning art into a universal religion. Is artistic transcendence truly available to everyone? Is disciplined creativity sufficient to tame the darker regions of the human heart?

Then there are Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. Both drank deeply from the well of Christianity before becoming two of its most influential historical critics. Both retain profound respect for Jesus while rejecting much of traditional Christian doctrine. In their hands, Christianity often becomes less a supernatural drama than a humanitarian ethic. Hell recedes into metaphor. Divine wrath becomes a cautionary tale about human cruelty. The central question shifts from salvation to compassion.

As much as I admire their scholarship, I sometimes wonder whether they perform what I have come to call Therapeutic Transfiguration: the transformation of a demanding religious tradition into the language of emotional wellness, affirmation, and psychological flourishing.

Stephen Prothero voices a similar concern in his review of Karen King and Elaine Pagels’ Reading Judas. He writes:

I prefer to take my religious history free from demands for contemporary relevance, so whenever someone in the historical-Jesus fraternity makes Jesus mutter moral maxims that might as easily have been uttered by President Bush or Oprah Winfrey, my anachronism antenna goes up. In this case, Pagels and King massage the multicultural sensibilities of their readers by opining that the Gospel of Judas represents a “sharp, dissenting voice” against the “single, static universal system of beliefs” of official Christianity. Preaching to the “spiritual but not religious” choir, they tell us that, like other noncanonical texts they have championed elsewhere, this gospel aims to “encourage believers to seek God within themselves, with no mention of churches, much less clergy.”

What Prothero objects to might be called Oprahfication: translating historically specific and often unsettling religious claims into therapeutic affirmations about inner peace, self-discovery, and personal fulfillment. The apocalyptic prophet becomes a motivational speaker. The call to repentance becomes an invitation to embrace one’s authentic self.

I confess that Oprahfication unsettles me as well. Whenever I hear sweeping assurances about “the divine within,” I picture an Oprah Winfrey interview with Deepak Chopra dissolving into a warm bath of inspirational platitudes. Even if there is some truth in the claim that God may be encountered within, it remains a perilous proposition. For every soul who genuinely discovers humility, I fear thousands more will disappear into the funhouse mirrors of narcissism, mistaking self-absorption for enlightenment.

Of course, the opposite error is no better. Certain Puritans became so intoxicated by the doctrine of human depravity that they all but erased the possibility of salvation, imagining a universe in which nearly everyone was damned. Such despair borders on the demonic. Yet the opposite doctrine—that humanity is innately divine and naturally good—contains its own danger. If everyone already possesses effortless sanctity, then no one requires transformation. Without an exemplar who calls us beyond ourselves, goodness becomes whatever we happen to prefer, and heaven gradually dissolves into a congratulatory mirror.

Which brings me back to Burgess.

“What’s it going to be then, eh?”

That question is no longer about Paul. It is about me.

Am I searching for historical truth, or am I constructing an elegant rationale for living exactly as I please? Is my criticism an act of intellectual honesty, or an application for moral exemption?

I hope it is neither cynicism nor rebellion that drives this inquiry. I hope my quest is animated by the desire to see reality more clearly while remaining accountable to whatever goodness ultimately governs it. If I dismantle inherited beliefs, I pray it is not to clear space for selfishness but to discover a foundation sturdy enough to support a life worthy of judgment.