In this 'Critique One' I will be concerned with Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian". I will not post a point-by-point response, but will share thoughts as they come and where I feel they warrant attention. My first comments are on his opening thoughts on 'What is a Christian'.
"We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian...you must believe in God and immortality...you must have some kind of belief about Christ." Mr. Russell says that a Christian "...must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men." He also states that while he personally does not think "...that Christ was the best and wisest of men..." but that "...I grant Him a very high degree of moral goodness."
It is interesting that Mr. Russell speaks of God and Christianity here without once referencing the Bible. To what does he look for his definition of a Christian? His own ideas? Popular Culture or Opinion? Political Institutions or Committees? Isn't Christianity at least somewhat concerned with Christ? Doesn't Christ appear most often in the Bible? This is especially confusing since the definition of a Christian appears in the Bible and is quite simple. Acts 11:26 says, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Quite simply, a Christian is a disciple of Christ (which is to say he or she follows, or belongs to Christ, or is in fact a 'little Christ').
I fear Mr. Russell needs to begin by erecting this 'straw man' so that he can spend the remainder of his treatise torturing and bludgeoning it until finally all who read or hear his position will beg him to put the poor fellow out of his misery. If some fallacious 'straw man' is in fact his target, then I agree it needs to die. In fact, don't waste any more time on it at all. I'd just as soon Mr. Russell look true Biblical Christianity in the face and explain why he chooses not to be a disciple, or follower, of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Christ.
As for Jesus, Mr. Russell make more assumptions about his character and generously allows the description of "a very high degree of moral goodness." Again, we look at scripture and see that through both implication and direct answer Christ claims to be God, nothing else. C.S. Lewis says it this way in his 'Mere Christianity', "I am here trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
We Must Go Back
I listened intently to our President’s speech on health care, as did a great many throughout the nation. There have been many comments and projections made since that night. In my case, one comment caught my attention and has arrested my thoughts in these past few days. It caught my ear mainly because I no longer take things that are said at face value, but rather recognize that behind every statement there is a bundle of ideas due to which an outlook is formed. Ideas have consequences, and therefore it seems most important to me to try and determine the bundle of ideas (commonly called worldview) that precipitates, or gives rise to, the stated opinion or view. With that preface in mind, the comment was one regarding our American character (which was referenced from a letter from former senator Kennedy).
Quoting from former senator Kennedy’s letter, Mr. Obama said, “’What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country’. Later Mr. Obama stated ‘I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.’” These are statements, or propositions presented by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama. The pertinent question is: From where have the uniquely American answers to the moral issues come. In other words, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama both feel these qualities of individualism, defense of freedom and healthy skepticism of government, is something unchanging that has existed since the foundation of this country and is not dependent on the societal, political party, or societal convention of the day. I heartily agree, but what is the basis of this unchanging moral law, or principal, or driving force that is behind the United States of America?
To answer this fundamental question, we must look back at the foundation of the country. Thomas Jefferson said, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”. The moral foundation of our country is found in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. It states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Our founders understood that every human is created by his or her Creator with certain common rights. Those “inalienable rights” were not given by any governing body, nor could they be molested or taken away by any governing body. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was to protect the rights of the people to seek out Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by the dictates of their own conscious. So, we are ruggedly individual and self-reliant because we are endowed with life and liberty by our Creator, we defend freedom because we have been given freedom by our Creator, and we should have a healthy skepticism of government because the people we elect have a sinful nature which tempts them to do what they ought not to do (just like the rest of us). After all, that is why we need government in the first place, and why we the people elect, and can fire, those governing us, and why there are three branches of government that were established with a set of checks and balances. This, in brief, is the way in which the founders of this country saw the establishment of the United States of America, and the worldview behind the qualities that former Senator Kennedy and President Obama referred.
I believe that the current line of thinking, or worldview, through which many people currently see these and other topics is taking our country down a wrong road. The incontrovertible fact (borne from a study of the founding documents of this country, our state constitutions, and the men from whom our founders got their ideas for a constitutional republic, like Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke) is that the United States of America was founded on a Biblical worldview. They believed that God established the state, the family and the church, gave each a key function to perform and provided an absolute moral law (as revealed in the Bible) as a guide. Each is related and accountable to one another, and ultimately each is accountable to God. There is much disagreement about this point. Every attempt is made today to deny God’s oversight over every aspect of life. I know the basis of these attempts and have just one question in response. Why do all our delivered Presidential speeches end with, “May God bless you, and May God bless the United States of America?” To whom do our presidents refer? Are our presidents asking God to bless all of us individually and our country collectively in all matters except those of government, state, education, civil and criminal law, motor vehicle operation and any other activities on publicly owned property? Or instead is Mr. Obama petitioning the God of the Bible to continue to act in the words of Benjamin Franklin, which he uttered before the passage of our Constitution, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it’. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel.”
So what is the point? We chose to go down a road some years ago where our country has systematically attempted to remove God, the Biblical worldview and the absolute moral law from every state institution. This is not how the country was founded. Health care is just one small part of the shift in thinking that is pervading all avenues of American life. In my opinion, we need to return to how this country began, with every individual and institution accountable firstly to God and then to one another. Some today are calling themselves progressives, but to what are they progressing? In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says, “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back the soonest is the most progressive man…There is nothing progressive about being pig headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”
Quoting from former senator Kennedy’s letter, Mr. Obama said, “’What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country’. Later Mr. Obama stated ‘I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.’” These are statements, or propositions presented by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama. The pertinent question is: From where have the uniquely American answers to the moral issues come. In other words, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama both feel these qualities of individualism, defense of freedom and healthy skepticism of government, is something unchanging that has existed since the foundation of this country and is not dependent on the societal, political party, or societal convention of the day. I heartily agree, but what is the basis of this unchanging moral law, or principal, or driving force that is behind the United States of America?
To answer this fundamental question, we must look back at the foundation of the country. Thomas Jefferson said, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”. The moral foundation of our country is found in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. It states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Our founders understood that every human is created by his or her Creator with certain common rights. Those “inalienable rights” were not given by any governing body, nor could they be molested or taken away by any governing body. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was to protect the rights of the people to seek out Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by the dictates of their own conscious. So, we are ruggedly individual and self-reliant because we are endowed with life and liberty by our Creator, we defend freedom because we have been given freedom by our Creator, and we should have a healthy skepticism of government because the people we elect have a sinful nature which tempts them to do what they ought not to do (just like the rest of us). After all, that is why we need government in the first place, and why we the people elect, and can fire, those governing us, and why there are three branches of government that were established with a set of checks and balances. This, in brief, is the way in which the founders of this country saw the establishment of the United States of America, and the worldview behind the qualities that former Senator Kennedy and President Obama referred.
I believe that the current line of thinking, or worldview, through which many people currently see these and other topics is taking our country down a wrong road. The incontrovertible fact (borne from a study of the founding documents of this country, our state constitutions, and the men from whom our founders got their ideas for a constitutional republic, like Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke) is that the United States of America was founded on a Biblical worldview. They believed that God established the state, the family and the church, gave each a key function to perform and provided an absolute moral law (as revealed in the Bible) as a guide. Each is related and accountable to one another, and ultimately each is accountable to God. There is much disagreement about this point. Every attempt is made today to deny God’s oversight over every aspect of life. I know the basis of these attempts and have just one question in response. Why do all our delivered Presidential speeches end with, “May God bless you, and May God bless the United States of America?” To whom do our presidents refer? Are our presidents asking God to bless all of us individually and our country collectively in all matters except those of government, state, education, civil and criminal law, motor vehicle operation and any other activities on publicly owned property? Or instead is Mr. Obama petitioning the God of the Bible to continue to act in the words of Benjamin Franklin, which he uttered before the passage of our Constitution, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it’. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel.”
So what is the point? We chose to go down a road some years ago where our country has systematically attempted to remove God, the Biblical worldview and the absolute moral law from every state institution. This is not how the country was founded. Health care is just one small part of the shift in thinking that is pervading all avenues of American life. In my opinion, we need to return to how this country began, with every individual and institution accountable firstly to God and then to one another. Some today are calling themselves progressives, but to what are they progressing? In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says, “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back the soonest is the most progressive man…There is nothing progressive about being pig headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”
Justifiable Homicide?
There has been much in the news lately surrounding the issue of abortion, from articles on the effectiveness of the "morning-after pill" and the US Surgeon General's views to skepticism of what may or may not be included in the upcoming health care reform bill. I have thought about this issue for a long time, and struggled with many aspects of the issue. Abortion is an emotionally charged topic that has been debated at the highest levels of government for years. Even the mention of the topic provokes vehement debate and the Roe v. Wade decision is as polarizing as any that i've ever heard discussed. Perhaps this is so because something is being killed. Regardless of what position people take, each side can grant at least that starting premise because if nothing were alive and growing there wouldn't be a debate.
Each of us has different backgrounds, fundamental worldviews, experiences and biases that shape how we see any given topic under consideration. Those biases bring out different views on different topics. I will be open and honest and pre-set for everyone my biases: I am a 34 year old white male from a middle class family. I am a Christian (which is to say a disciple of Jesus Christ) who believes in the Bible as the Word of God, the existence of a triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit), and the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ as personal Savior as an exclusive requirement for salvation. I am also a husband of nine years, a father of four and an advocate of the pro-life position. I wanted to get that out in the open to begin with because in the remainder of this article I will not again invoke God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, my ethnicity or my family. Anyone’s experience, point of view or bias is only valid and meaningful if it corresponds to the truth. Abortion has to do with one question, and one question alone: what is the unborn?
The principle of biogenesis says that life only comes from pre-existing life, and that everything reproduces after its own kind, i.e. dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and elephants produce elephants. Therefore, if we want to know what something is all we have to do is determine what its parents are. Using this principle we can determine that a 2-year old child is a human being because its parents are human beings. Killing an innocent child is not an acceptable practice either morally or legally because it is a human being, so the pertinent question would be, is there any difference between a 2-year old and a human fetus? I believe there are only four differences between the two: size, location, environment and degree of development. None of these four differences represent a different level or degree of humanity; i.e. there is no difference of personhood between a 2-year old child and a human fetus, they are both unique individual human persons.
A human fetus is much smaller in size that a 2-year old but that does not mean the 2-year old is more human. I may be 6'-4" tall but certainly no more human than my wife who is nearly a foot shorter, so size is not a measure of humanity. Location is also not a measure of humanity. I spend about half my typical day at home and the other half at work. I am not more human at work than at home or vice versa. A triathlon was held recently at Lake Cammack where people spent about 20 minutes in the water and about another 60 minutes on land. None of those competitors were any less human when they were in the water, so environment does not dictate a degree of humanity. Finally, level of development cannot be a legitimate tool to show a different level of humanity. Would we suggest that those who suffer with Downs Syndrome, ALS, Parkinson's or Alzheimer’s are less human than any of the rest of us? Certainly not, in fact we struggle constantly with raising awareness so people will see those so afflicted as fully human persons.
What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person. A woman would have no more right choosing to kill a fetus than she would in choosing to kill a 2-year old. As horrific and deplorable an act as rape or incest, which is devastating to the woman who is violated in that way and deserves punishment of the perpetrator to the fullest extent of the law, still would not be sufficient grounds for the subsequent violation of the life of another innocent human being.
These are unbelievably difficult issues that go straight to the heart. Therefore they deserve serious consideration and a sometimes painful look at what is right. The truth is that our ethnicity, background, life experience, gender, level of education or any other influence on our lives is outside the central question that remains for us all to consider seriously: What is the unborn?
Each of us has different backgrounds, fundamental worldviews, experiences and biases that shape how we see any given topic under consideration. Those biases bring out different views on different topics. I will be open and honest and pre-set for everyone my biases: I am a 34 year old white male from a middle class family. I am a Christian (which is to say a disciple of Jesus Christ) who believes in the Bible as the Word of God, the existence of a triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit), and the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ as personal Savior as an exclusive requirement for salvation. I am also a husband of nine years, a father of four and an advocate of the pro-life position. I wanted to get that out in the open to begin with because in the remainder of this article I will not again invoke God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, my ethnicity or my family. Anyone’s experience, point of view or bias is only valid and meaningful if it corresponds to the truth. Abortion has to do with one question, and one question alone: what is the unborn?
The principle of biogenesis says that life only comes from pre-existing life, and that everything reproduces after its own kind, i.e. dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and elephants produce elephants. Therefore, if we want to know what something is all we have to do is determine what its parents are. Using this principle we can determine that a 2-year old child is a human being because its parents are human beings. Killing an innocent child is not an acceptable practice either morally or legally because it is a human being, so the pertinent question would be, is there any difference between a 2-year old and a human fetus? I believe there are only four differences between the two: size, location, environment and degree of development. None of these four differences represent a different level or degree of humanity; i.e. there is no difference of personhood between a 2-year old child and a human fetus, they are both unique individual human persons.
A human fetus is much smaller in size that a 2-year old but that does not mean the 2-year old is more human. I may be 6'-4" tall but certainly no more human than my wife who is nearly a foot shorter, so size is not a measure of humanity. Location is also not a measure of humanity. I spend about half my typical day at home and the other half at work. I am not more human at work than at home or vice versa. A triathlon was held recently at Lake Cammack where people spent about 20 minutes in the water and about another 60 minutes on land. None of those competitors were any less human when they were in the water, so environment does not dictate a degree of humanity. Finally, level of development cannot be a legitimate tool to show a different level of humanity. Would we suggest that those who suffer with Downs Syndrome, ALS, Parkinson's or Alzheimer’s are less human than any of the rest of us? Certainly not, in fact we struggle constantly with raising awareness so people will see those so afflicted as fully human persons.
What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person. A woman would have no more right choosing to kill a fetus than she would in choosing to kill a 2-year old. As horrific and deplorable an act as rape or incest, which is devastating to the woman who is violated in that way and deserves punishment of the perpetrator to the fullest extent of the law, still would not be sufficient grounds for the subsequent violation of the life of another innocent human being.
These are unbelievably difficult issues that go straight to the heart. Therefore they deserve serious consideration and a sometimes painful look at what is right. The truth is that our ethnicity, background, life experience, gender, level of education or any other influence on our lives is outside the central question that remains for us all to consider seriously: What is the unborn?
Declaration of Dependence
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Men of our young republic made this declaration some two hundred and thirty three years ago while living under the thumb of the English tyrannical monarchy. Men not much older than my thirty-four years with the strength and courage to recognize a stifling influence in everyday life and culture and to announce with humble authority their disapproval and intended separation from those powers that would seek to rule over them by pernicious force. Things have certainly changed much since then. I have been paying particular attention with the coming of our Independence Day this year and have seen that we are now country miles away from the intentions of our founding fathers.
Thomas Paine submitted to the public his 'Common Sense' as an apologetic to stir their thoughts of freedom and move them from their natural inclination toward indecision and sloth. He wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil… Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise... Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others…Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security.” Our government was never meant to be so complex and far-reaching that its citizens could not understand its laws or determine its boundaries. Yet today we have an ever more complex tax system, a parade of new laws, regulations and governing bodies, and government intervention into private enterprise in all facets of life, and an attempted entry into nationwide health care.
I see much similarity between this departure from the true understanding of the original intent of our government and how we govern our own lives. Almost two thousand years ago the apostle Paul wrote of man, “What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” All humankind is described in the Bible as lost, blind, dead in their sins and therefore in need of a Savior. We are now, however, being told that we are inherently good. The problem is that some have made the extension that since we are basically good, then we are also perfectible and have tried to convince us all that we can better ourselves. C.S. Lewis said in his 'Abolition of Man' “This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity…It is the magicians bargain: give up our soul, get power in return…It is in Man’s power to treat himself as a mere ‘natural object’ and his own judgments of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will…The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite…”. Similarly, but in much more pointed language, Malcolm Muggeridge challenged us to realize our current oppression when he stated, "Similarly, it has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in the process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and becomes extinct."
What Lewis and Muggeridge are trying to get us to see is that by assuming that we are good by nature, and operating within our own limits in an attempt to perfect ourselves, we are only succeeding in destroying ourselves. We have put our confidence in our own ability to solve our own problems, our thoughts and attitudes turned to our own comfort, welfare and provision; our single train of thought centered on having things our own way in an attempt to free ourselves from any and all boundaries. I’ve often thought of this struggle like a man in a slip knot, the more he struggles to free himself the tighter he is bound. We need to stop the struggle to free ourselves and look to the One who has provided the way to real liberty.
As we take time this July in remembrance of our previous Declaration of Independence from English tyranny, let us embrace a Declaration of Dependence on the Lord Jesus and thereby step out from under the oppression of our own selfish and prideful desire to have things our own way, and instead step into the light of the knowledge of the truth. We are created in the image of God but with a nature of sin and disobedience; the only way to freedom from this bondage of sin and death is through belief in Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself said in John's Gospel 14:6-7 “Jesus answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’, and in 8:35-36, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
Thomas Paine submitted to the public his 'Common Sense' as an apologetic to stir their thoughts of freedom and move them from their natural inclination toward indecision and sloth. He wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil… Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise... Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others…Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security.” Our government was never meant to be so complex and far-reaching that its citizens could not understand its laws or determine its boundaries. Yet today we have an ever more complex tax system, a parade of new laws, regulations and governing bodies, and government intervention into private enterprise in all facets of life, and an attempted entry into nationwide health care.
I see much similarity between this departure from the true understanding of the original intent of our government and how we govern our own lives. Almost two thousand years ago the apostle Paul wrote of man, “What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” All humankind is described in the Bible as lost, blind, dead in their sins and therefore in need of a Savior. We are now, however, being told that we are inherently good. The problem is that some have made the extension that since we are basically good, then we are also perfectible and have tried to convince us all that we can better ourselves. C.S. Lewis said in his 'Abolition of Man' “This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity…It is the magicians bargain: give up our soul, get power in return…It is in Man’s power to treat himself as a mere ‘natural object’ and his own judgments of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will…The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite…”. Similarly, but in much more pointed language, Malcolm Muggeridge challenged us to realize our current oppression when he stated, "Similarly, it has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in the process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and becomes extinct."
What Lewis and Muggeridge are trying to get us to see is that by assuming that we are good by nature, and operating within our own limits in an attempt to perfect ourselves, we are only succeeding in destroying ourselves. We have put our confidence in our own ability to solve our own problems, our thoughts and attitudes turned to our own comfort, welfare and provision; our single train of thought centered on having things our own way in an attempt to free ourselves from any and all boundaries. I’ve often thought of this struggle like a man in a slip knot, the more he struggles to free himself the tighter he is bound. We need to stop the struggle to free ourselves and look to the One who has provided the way to real liberty.
As we take time this July in remembrance of our previous Declaration of Independence from English tyranny, let us embrace a Declaration of Dependence on the Lord Jesus and thereby step out from under the oppression of our own selfish and prideful desire to have things our own way, and instead step into the light of the knowledge of the truth. We are created in the image of God but with a nature of sin and disobedience; the only way to freedom from this bondage of sin and death is through belief in Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself said in John's Gospel 14:6-7 “Jesus answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’, and in 8:35-36, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
A Challenge for Fathers
Father’s Day has been a bit different for me this year. Throughout my developmental years Father’s Day was a time in June to recognize my father and grandfather for the love they showed me, and the examples of what I wanted to be when I grew up. My first son was born almost six years ago and at that time I was still thinking mostly of the family patriarchs, which now included another great example in my wife's father. Now, two more sons later my focus has shifted more toward myself, and being a father in my own right. My thoughts had been swirling for some time on the issue, but recent societal and cultural trends coupled with my reading of a book by Blaise Pascal have provided some clarity.
Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for his mathematical work with conic sections and atmospheric pressure, but he was also a proficient thinker of his day and wrote several works that provide some dramatic insight into culture that is relevant today. Pascal wrote "The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet it is the greatest of our miseries. For that is what prevents us principally from thinking about ourselves, and which, without our being aware of it, bring about our ruin". At some point in all our lives we begin to search for some important answers to life. Some have said that truth, purpose and fulfillment in life can best be described by finding coherent answers to questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny; or stated otherwise: Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave? What will happen to me when I die? What Pascal is saying is that when we begin to look seriously at those questions, we figure they are just too hard to deal with so we willingly seek out things that will divert our attention. Just a quick look at our culture today and it is easy to see that life for fathers in particular, and for men in general, is rife with possible diversions. I took five minutes and generated the following list of things to which we give our time: work, television, sports (watching and participating), internet, time out with friends, vehicles, hobbies, lawn and garden and travel (with work or vacations) just to name a few. I am not suggesting that these things are in and of themselves a bad thing; but as Pascal states so simply and eloquently, "we run heedlessly over the edge of the precipice, after placing something before our eyes to keep ourselves from seeing it." As fathers our diversions are devastating because our sons and daughters will be the next ones to ask questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny and we will have allowed ancillary distractions to completely take the place of the conveyance of truth and meaning in their lives. A recent promotion on the largest sports network challenged men to protect their “fanhood”. According to the associated commercials, a man could commit no more egregious mistake than to be asked a question about the local sports team and not be able to come up with the correct answer. The message was conveyed with total clarity: knowledge of the physical attributes, histories, and statistics of your favorite sports team was a more important use of time than contemplation of issues of truth, morality or the nature of God and man.
Perhaps the most pertinent question of our day is what possible explanation could there be that sufficiently links those four questions of life? I have spent the last 3 or so years seriously reading and studying to try to come up with my own answer. I am absolutely convinced that a Biblical worldview in general, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in particular, is the only way to answer these most serious of questions in a non-contradictory way. In addition to being a great mathematician and thinker, Pascal was also a committed follower of Christ. He wrote, "…if there is one true religion on earth the course of all things must direct them toward it as toward their center…that true religion must be so definitely the goal and center toward which all things gravitate that whoever knows its principles can comprehend fully the nature of man in particular and the course of the world in general…the Christian religion which consists essentially in the mystery of the Redeemer (Christ) who, uniting in himself the two natures, human and divine, has drawn men out of the corruption of sin to reconcile them with God in his divine person." Meaning in life comes from the existence of an overarching purpose. The Bible provides this overarching purpose in the form of worship. Archbishop William Temple describes worship this way: "Worship is the submission of all of our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love, and submission of will to His purpose. All this gathered up in adoration is the greatest of all expressions of which we are capable." In short, God created us so He would receive glory, and when everything we think, feel, do and say is with the directed intention of bringing Him glory then it is also filled with meaning.
Psalm 16:9-11 says, "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand." Romans 12:1-2 says, "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." All fathers pass something on to their children. My challenge is for all fathers, for all men (as some may some day be fathers), to spend more time considering those things most important in life; to think about our origin, the meaning in life, what morality really is and where it comes from, and what will happen after we are gone. These are questions our children will inevitably ask. We can either help them answer those questions by passing along a coherent framework of truth, or we can teach them to shirk the consideration of those questions in lieu of diversions. I, for one, have a lot of work to do.
Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for his mathematical work with conic sections and atmospheric pressure, but he was also a proficient thinker of his day and wrote several works that provide some dramatic insight into culture that is relevant today. Pascal wrote "The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet it is the greatest of our miseries. For that is what prevents us principally from thinking about ourselves, and which, without our being aware of it, bring about our ruin". At some point in all our lives we begin to search for some important answers to life. Some have said that truth, purpose and fulfillment in life can best be described by finding coherent answers to questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny; or stated otherwise: Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave? What will happen to me when I die? What Pascal is saying is that when we begin to look seriously at those questions, we figure they are just too hard to deal with so we willingly seek out things that will divert our attention. Just a quick look at our culture today and it is easy to see that life for fathers in particular, and for men in general, is rife with possible diversions. I took five minutes and generated the following list of things to which we give our time: work, television, sports (watching and participating), internet, time out with friends, vehicles, hobbies, lawn and garden and travel (with work or vacations) just to name a few. I am not suggesting that these things are in and of themselves a bad thing; but as Pascal states so simply and eloquently, "we run heedlessly over the edge of the precipice, after placing something before our eyes to keep ourselves from seeing it." As fathers our diversions are devastating because our sons and daughters will be the next ones to ask questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny and we will have allowed ancillary distractions to completely take the place of the conveyance of truth and meaning in their lives. A recent promotion on the largest sports network challenged men to protect their “fanhood”. According to the associated commercials, a man could commit no more egregious mistake than to be asked a question about the local sports team and not be able to come up with the correct answer. The message was conveyed with total clarity: knowledge of the physical attributes, histories, and statistics of your favorite sports team was a more important use of time than contemplation of issues of truth, morality or the nature of God and man.
Perhaps the most pertinent question of our day is what possible explanation could there be that sufficiently links those four questions of life? I have spent the last 3 or so years seriously reading and studying to try to come up with my own answer. I am absolutely convinced that a Biblical worldview in general, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in particular, is the only way to answer these most serious of questions in a non-contradictory way. In addition to being a great mathematician and thinker, Pascal was also a committed follower of Christ. He wrote, "…if there is one true religion on earth the course of all things must direct them toward it as toward their center…that true religion must be so definitely the goal and center toward which all things gravitate that whoever knows its principles can comprehend fully the nature of man in particular and the course of the world in general…the Christian religion which consists essentially in the mystery of the Redeemer (Christ) who, uniting in himself the two natures, human and divine, has drawn men out of the corruption of sin to reconcile them with God in his divine person." Meaning in life comes from the existence of an overarching purpose. The Bible provides this overarching purpose in the form of worship. Archbishop William Temple describes worship this way: "Worship is the submission of all of our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love, and submission of will to His purpose. All this gathered up in adoration is the greatest of all expressions of which we are capable." In short, God created us so He would receive glory, and when everything we think, feel, do and say is with the directed intention of bringing Him glory then it is also filled with meaning.
Psalm 16:9-11 says, "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand." Romans 12:1-2 says, "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." All fathers pass something on to their children. My challenge is for all fathers, for all men (as some may some day be fathers), to spend more time considering those things most important in life; to think about our origin, the meaning in life, what morality really is and where it comes from, and what will happen after we are gone. These are questions our children will inevitably ask. We can either help them answer those questions by passing along a coherent framework of truth, or we can teach them to shirk the consideration of those questions in lieu of diversions. I, for one, have a lot of work to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)