Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
I Peter 2:18.
This is one of the more maligned verses in the Bible. Slavery is evil. The Bible purports to be good. Why doesn’t the Bible condemn slavery? In fact, not only does the Bible fail to condemn this evil, but it seems to justify it and perpetuate it by telling slaves to submit to their masters. Would it not have been better if Peter had instead told masters to free their slaves or the emperor to end slavery? There are five things which help explain this oft misunderstood verse.
First, Peter is writing to a small group of believers with absolutely no political power. Christianity at this time was scorned by the upper classes and received primarily by the lower classes. He does not tell masters to free their slaves simply because there are not many in his intended audience. Peter is not writing to everyone. He prefaces his book by saying that he writes to the church. Moreover he writes to a specific group of believers in a specific time in history. These believers were powerless at this time to end the institution of slavery. But indeed it was their quiet witness as believing slaves that converted their masters and spread Christianity to every strata of society.
Second, he is writing to people living in the Roman Empire. These are not people who elect their leaders. There is an emperor over whom the people have no say. The only way one could change policy in the empire was to assassinate the emperor. At a time when Christianity was being accused of being a subversive political movement, Peter did not want to get caught up in such affairs. Yes things of this earth are important, but they pail in comparison of the life to come. Peter did not want people getting involved in political movements that would hinder the spreading of the gospel.
Third, slavery was not as brutal as the modern American form we associate with the word. Yes slavery was harsh, but the slavery of American south was of far greater horror. There slaves were locked into slavery for successive generations, unable to ever free themselves or their offspring. They had no rights and were given the worst jobs. In the Roman Empire most slaves had been captured during war. According to the global understanding of warfare of that time, the losing side forfeited their lives. The Romans believed they were being gracious by sparing captured enemies and allowing them to work toward their freedom. And indeed many did. Many slaves were able to win their freedom in a matter of three years. Though slaves had fewer rights than citizens, they did have some rights and many people in high levels of society were slaves (doctors, philosophers, professors, etc). Furthermore slaves had permanent employment and lifelong care. This put them in a far better position than free workers of their day and even free workers today in many parts of the worlds. Many were viewed as part of the family. During civil wars and rebellion, many died on behalf of their masters rather than join ranks against them. Though slavery was harsh, it was of an entirely different nature than we conceive of it due to our own different experience.
Fourth, slavery constituted so large a part of the economy, that if it were to end abruptly so many fields would go unsown that there would be widespread famine. Death and suffering would be far greater for master and slave alike than under the other system. Often times when we face a corrupt system our reaction against it produces unforeseen results of a magnitude far worse than the evils we had sought to remedy.
Finally, and I think this is the most important point, Peter was not trying to tell the church how to create the ideal, perfect world, he was telling them how to live in the real, imperfect world. Man is fallen. That is a fact. There will always be exploitation and oppression. We want to minimize these, but sometimes we can’t. Peter writes to those who are being exploited and can’t end it. He tells them to submit.
There were slave uprisings; all of them failed. Peter could have told the church to rise up and so doomed it to obscurity. Instead he told them to suffer as Christ did. They did. And their witness converted their masters, and in a few generations, the world. As men came to Christ slavery changed and died of its own accord.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Sober Thoughts
Anyone with only a week to live will not find it in his interest to believe that all this is just a matter of chance. Now, if we were not bound by our passions, a week and a hundred years would come to the same thing.
-Blaise Pascal
What more can be added to this?
We live how we live because we expect to live forever. But the fact of the matter is we will all die. We must not allow our passions to cloud us from this truth. Rather we live rationally with our mortality always in mind.
-Blaise Pascal
What more can be added to this?
We live how we live because we expect to live forever. But the fact of the matter is we will all die. We must not allow our passions to cloud us from this truth. Rather we live rationally with our mortality always in mind.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Political Thoughts
What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it into heaven.
-F. Holderlin
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. Is that true? If so, equal in what sense?
Yes all men are equal in worth for all men are created in the image of God. But equal in ability? Are not some taller and stronger? Are not others quicker? And still others more intelligent? And when we look at intelligence are there not some more skilled with the pen while others remain more gifted with the tongue? And do not some have a way with animals while others have a way with money?
We are not clones. We are different. Each man has different abilities; different strengths and weaknesses.
In regards to man’s differences, what is the role of government? Is government to allow men to develop to their utmost potential? If it does, given man’s differences in ability, there will be unequal results—there will be winners and losers. Some, because of ability or will, will succeed to a greater degree than others. We can remedy this only by treating people unequally. Only by disadvantaging the strong, or as is more common, taking from the strong to give to the weak.
Both systems honor equality, the question is in what form. Do we prefer equality in fact? That is, allowing everyone to equally develop their gifts with the full knowledge that this will produce unequal results. Or do we prefer equality in effect? That is, limiting some and encouraging others—treating men unequally and different—in hopes of attaining an equal result.
We are a society infatuated with equality and we have been moving toward the latter. But what are the effects?
To begin with, God made men differently and gave them the liberty to develop the talents He has given them. We should be slow to take away something that God has given.
Second, who defines equal results? The two most ambitious projects of creating equality in effect, the French and Russian Revolutions, failed miserably. Those that attained power to create equality decided that they themselves would rather ‘be first among equals’ than to distribute power evenly.
Third, every governmental intervention in the economy to produce equal results has unexpected consequences. For example, say there are too many farms. Because there are too many farms they are producing more milk than people want—the supply outweighs the demand. The price of milk drops to the point that farmers become unable to make money off of their milk. Instead of some picking a new line of work as the market dictates, the farmers ask for help. The government subsidizes them by artificially raising the price of milk. The farmers are ok, but now that the price of milk is artificially high parents cannot afford to buy enough milk for their kids. Child nutrition suffers and now parents ask for governmental aid.
But the government is in a dead-lock. Some want to help the farmers, others the children. In a democracy there is no easy answer, so no one answers. The people tire of their inefficient democracy and ask for a ‘decisive leader’ who will get things done. Before we know it the government controls every aspect of the economy, for there is no such thing as selective economic intervention. Governmental control of the economy washes away checks on government and before long we are in a full blown despotic state.
What are the lessons from this example? First, there are always winners and losers regardless of whether or not the government interferes. The problem with the government picking winners and losers is that this ultimately ends in dead-lock in a democratic state. In the 1920’s and the Germans and Italians asked their respective governments to intervene in the economy and answer questions that no democratic government could answer. The result was that both states shed democracy in order to answer said questions.
If the role of government is not to create equality in effect, what is it? In the Book of Romans St. Paul wrote that God gave governments the sword in order to restrain evil. This was the classic conception of government: to restrain evil rather than to proactively create good. It followed naturally from the classical notion of man.
The classical idea is that man is created in the image of God; therefore man has almost boundless potential. But all men are fallen. So while this potential can be used for good or for evil, it is generally used for the latter. The goal of government then is to restrain the evil in men to allow the good to flourish.
The modern notion of man is first found in John Locke. In 1690 Locke wrote that man is a tabla rasa, that is, a blank state. Man is neither born good nor evil. But there are many good and evil men throughout the world. How did we come to this state? According to Locke men are the products of their environments and educations. Good environment and education does not allow a man to be good, rather it compels him to be good. Since man can be made either good or evil it is the responsibility of the government to create perfect education and society in order to make perfect men.
This has lead to a great expansion of the state and a great diminishment of the liberty of man.
But some may object, is not Locke right? Are we not a product of education and environment?
We certainly are influenced by both but to say that either compels us is to deny man’s free will. The ancients thought that the gods or the stars controlled man. Calvin said God foreordained all that we do. Scientists today say our genes control us. Others say we are bound by the school we attend or the neighborhood to which we belong.
Yet despite all these attacks on free will every society has praised or blamed men in response to their action. They have in fact viewed this as the very essence of justice. In other words, though there have been doubts about free will, every society has treated men as if they are free. This is strong evidence that man is in fact free.
God punishes men for their actions. If men do not freely choose their actions then God is unjust. For one cannot hold one accountable for act that one is bound to make.
Since man is free man is free to choose evil. We must resign ourselves to this fact. Given this fact the government should focus its energy not on creating perfect men, but rather on restraining the evil within men.
-F. Holderlin
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. Is that true? If so, equal in what sense?
Yes all men are equal in worth for all men are created in the image of God. But equal in ability? Are not some taller and stronger? Are not others quicker? And still others more intelligent? And when we look at intelligence are there not some more skilled with the pen while others remain more gifted with the tongue? And do not some have a way with animals while others have a way with money?
We are not clones. We are different. Each man has different abilities; different strengths and weaknesses.
In regards to man’s differences, what is the role of government? Is government to allow men to develop to their utmost potential? If it does, given man’s differences in ability, there will be unequal results—there will be winners and losers. Some, because of ability or will, will succeed to a greater degree than others. We can remedy this only by treating people unequally. Only by disadvantaging the strong, or as is more common, taking from the strong to give to the weak.
Both systems honor equality, the question is in what form. Do we prefer equality in fact? That is, allowing everyone to equally develop their gifts with the full knowledge that this will produce unequal results. Or do we prefer equality in effect? That is, limiting some and encouraging others—treating men unequally and different—in hopes of attaining an equal result.
We are a society infatuated with equality and we have been moving toward the latter. But what are the effects?
To begin with, God made men differently and gave them the liberty to develop the talents He has given them. We should be slow to take away something that God has given.
Second, who defines equal results? The two most ambitious projects of creating equality in effect, the French and Russian Revolutions, failed miserably. Those that attained power to create equality decided that they themselves would rather ‘be first among equals’ than to distribute power evenly.
Third, every governmental intervention in the economy to produce equal results has unexpected consequences. For example, say there are too many farms. Because there are too many farms they are producing more milk than people want—the supply outweighs the demand. The price of milk drops to the point that farmers become unable to make money off of their milk. Instead of some picking a new line of work as the market dictates, the farmers ask for help. The government subsidizes them by artificially raising the price of milk. The farmers are ok, but now that the price of milk is artificially high parents cannot afford to buy enough milk for their kids. Child nutrition suffers and now parents ask for governmental aid.
But the government is in a dead-lock. Some want to help the farmers, others the children. In a democracy there is no easy answer, so no one answers. The people tire of their inefficient democracy and ask for a ‘decisive leader’ who will get things done. Before we know it the government controls every aspect of the economy, for there is no such thing as selective economic intervention. Governmental control of the economy washes away checks on government and before long we are in a full blown despotic state.
What are the lessons from this example? First, there are always winners and losers regardless of whether or not the government interferes. The problem with the government picking winners and losers is that this ultimately ends in dead-lock in a democratic state. In the 1920’s and the Germans and Italians asked their respective governments to intervene in the economy and answer questions that no democratic government could answer. The result was that both states shed democracy in order to answer said questions.
If the role of government is not to create equality in effect, what is it? In the Book of Romans St. Paul wrote that God gave governments the sword in order to restrain evil. This was the classic conception of government: to restrain evil rather than to proactively create good. It followed naturally from the classical notion of man.
The classical idea is that man is created in the image of God; therefore man has almost boundless potential. But all men are fallen. So while this potential can be used for good or for evil, it is generally used for the latter. The goal of government then is to restrain the evil in men to allow the good to flourish.
The modern notion of man is first found in John Locke. In 1690 Locke wrote that man is a tabla rasa, that is, a blank state. Man is neither born good nor evil. But there are many good and evil men throughout the world. How did we come to this state? According to Locke men are the products of their environments and educations. Good environment and education does not allow a man to be good, rather it compels him to be good. Since man can be made either good or evil it is the responsibility of the government to create perfect education and society in order to make perfect men.
This has lead to a great expansion of the state and a great diminishment of the liberty of man.
But some may object, is not Locke right? Are we not a product of education and environment?
We certainly are influenced by both but to say that either compels us is to deny man’s free will. The ancients thought that the gods or the stars controlled man. Calvin said God foreordained all that we do. Scientists today say our genes control us. Others say we are bound by the school we attend or the neighborhood to which we belong.
Yet despite all these attacks on free will every society has praised or blamed men in response to their action. They have in fact viewed this as the very essence of justice. In other words, though there have been doubts about free will, every society has treated men as if they are free. This is strong evidence that man is in fact free.
God punishes men for their actions. If men do not freely choose their actions then God is unjust. For one cannot hold one accountable for act that one is bound to make.
Since man is free man is free to choose evil. We must resign ourselves to this fact. Given this fact the government should focus its energy not on creating perfect men, but rather on restraining the evil within men.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Shack, A Book Review
There are two types of falsity: the absurd and the dangerous.
The absurd claims something that is not primarily impossible, but rather something that is first and foremost irrelevant. Whether it is true or not matters not for it does not and will not affect the way we think or live. The claim that Mary, the mother of Christ, ascended to Heaven is an example of an absurd falsity. It is something that likely did not happen, but believing that it did happen does one no harm for either way it does not affect the way one thinks or acts.
A dangerous falsity is one that, when believed, significantly impacts one’s life in a negative way. The belief that man’s sin is against Mary, the mother of God, and that only she can forgive him is an example of a dangerous falsity. For this falsity, when believed, perverts and misdirects one’s faith.
The Shack, a recent best seller by William Young, is a book full of much good. Young does a superb job of portraying the intense love that God has for man. He also deals with the problem of pain in a compelling manner. Most of all, in my opinion, he does a brilliant job of portraying the merriment and mirth that God has simply in being God.
In writing this book Young took a few controversial artistic licenses, most notably in portraying God as a woman. I do not believe this is the most significant problem of the book. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, God has not a physical body and God contains within Him both sexes. He is portrayed primarily as a male in the Bible (and indeed incarnated as a man), but God is God and there seems nothing wrong in Him representing himself to a man as a woman. If this is a falsity, it is at worst an absurd falsity.
However, this book does contain a couple of dangerous falsities. These falsities are even more dangerous because they are subtle and embedded and in agreement with the false spirit of our age. In other words, since they are hard to recognize and they are so prevalent in our culture they push us further into an error that we desperately need to be pulled out of. These errors are primarily a belief in classic anarchic theory, a doubt in objective morality and its inherent goodness, and a depreciation of the unique revelation of God in the Christian religion.
On page 66 Young tips his hat to views on Christianity and ethics that he will develop further. I apologize for the lengthy quotes and paraphrased sections, but I want to deal with this as fairly as possible and that can only be done by allowing Young his say.
On page 66 the narrator Mack, or Mackenzie, states to the reader: “It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” He goes on to say that religion, hymns, and the social club have not cut it, needs something more is needed to bring change in his life.
-Indeed, one cannot read the Bible without coming to the conclusion that God wants to have interaction with people. And this relationship with man does indeed change men. But Young seems to find the revelation of God primarily outside of the Bible, while Christian tradition insists that God is revealed most fully and truly within the Bible.
Young sees the transformation that comes from being with God to be something mystical, even magical. He discounts prayer, fasting, sacrifice, confession, and all other classic spiritual disciplines that were viewed by Christians as the most effective means of bringing change to one’s life. He seems to be saying, through the narrator, that all attempts to practice virtue have failed and that relationship with God, as traditionally conceived, is no relationship at all.
On pages 122-124 Young lays out his theory of anarchy. Mack asks about authority within the trinity. He receives the following response and conversation ensues.
“Chain of command? That sounds ghastly!” Jesus said.
“At least binding,” Papa [God the Father] added as they both started laughing, and then Papa turned to Mack and sang, “Though chains be of gold, they are chains all the same.”
God explains that the three persons of the trinity live in unity, with no need for power for they always do for one another what is best. But men are so lost it is almost incomprehensible for them to live or work without someone being in charge.
-First, the declaration that no power is needed because they all do what is best for the other is false. Power can serve a purpose even when people are good natured and giving to one another and in fact power is often given for the primary purpose of service. A husband can love his wife and want her best, but that does not mean he is not the authority of the family.
Second, he fails to deal with the fallen nature of man. All men have sinned and therefore the will of every man is bent, perverted, not what it should be. Is it not for this reason that God instituted authority among men? Yes, if man had not fallen maybe something would be different. But we cannot play the ‘what if’ game and treat a fallen race as if it is unfallen, that is only to invite chaos.
The conversation continues. Mack replies: what about government, business, marriage, etc, every institution has authority.
“Such a waste!” said Papa.
“It’s one reason why experiencing true relationship is so difficult for you,” Jesus added. “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and your end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.”
-This is straight out of an anarchic text book. All authority is seen as an evil that corrupts the soul of man. It is seen as unnatural and an impediment to life as it should be. Anarchy is the least defensible of all conceived governmental institutions; it does not become less indefensible when one adds the word Christian to it. And to put this nonsense in God’s mouth, nonsense that is nowhere to be grounded in God’s Word, is quite dishonest.
God continues to explain that though man has adapted to hierarchy, it was never the intent. Then Sarayu [the Holy Spirit] explains, “When you choose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want.”
-Now, there is no doubt that authority has been abused. Every good thing in this world has been abused, that is the nature of evil. But what should we expect? The world is fallen after all. But just because something has been abused it does not follow that the thing is inherently evil. Sex is abused in the form of lust and adultery, does it follow that we are we to swear that off as well?
Mack asks: “Isn’t it [authority] helpful in keeping people from fighting endlessly or getting hurt?”
“Sometimes.” Sarayu replies. “But in a selfish world it is also used to inflict great harm.”
-To say that authority is only sometimes helpful in preventing fighting is, in the very least, completely ignorant. Open any history book and view the state of men when authority breaks down: the Russian time of troubles, the German peasant revolts, the French reign of terror, the emergence of the Klan at the end of the American Civil War—a brief and honest look at any of these ages will inform one at once that when there is no authority the lives of men are ‘poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
Men, being fallen, need authority to restrain their evil impulses, to restrain them from destroying each other. Think of children that grow up without rules: they become monsters! But anarchist theory believes that authority, and not sin, makes men evil. This is the cause of all that is bad and if all authority is simply removed men will be perfected. But history proves this to be quite foolish thinking.
Papa continues the explanation: “We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them. Creation has been taken down a very different path than we desired. In your world the vale of the individual is constantly weighed against the survival of the system, whether political, economic, social, or religious—any system actually. First one person, and then a few, and finally even many are easily sacrificed for the good and ongoing existence of that system. In one form or another this lies behind every struggle for power, every prejudice, every war; and abuse of relationship . . .”
-This brings us to the biggest problem with Young’s thought: what do we make of the fact that God instituted government for the Hebrews? If authority is the cause of all evil, why did God institute it within His chosen people? And why did He not say in any point of His Word (which is quite long indeed) that He detests authority and wants us to transcend it? Where does Young get the idea that hierarchy is behind all wars? What about greed or plain old evilness and the devil?
This is the weak point of Young’s argument and I think it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that God Himself instituted a government among the ancient Hebrews must be dealt with if one is to claim, putting words in the mouth of God no less, that government is evil and contrary to God’s will. But Young makes no mention of this fact. Are we to assume that things have changed since then, that the laws of ethics are mutable? Are we to assume that the Bible is not inspired and God did not in fact institute that government? What conclusion are we to draw from his silence, from the fact that he never deals with the strongest arguments against his theory? While it is true that God still speaks, He never contradicts that which He has already said. Young puts words into the mouth of God that contradict God’s revealed truth in the Bible and never once tries to reconcile them.
Mack asks, is not authority normal. God responds: “It is the human paradigm. It is like water to fish, so prevalent that it goes unseen and unquestioned. It is the matrix; a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped even while completely unaware of its existence.”
-Again, what are we to make of this? Hierarchy is a diabolical scheme? What are we to make of Kingship in Israel? Of Moses and the law and the creation of a government? Of the Proverbs that tell children to obey their parents? Of Paul’s instruction for wives to submit to their husbands? This theory is not Biblical, yet, apparently in Young’s mind God holds it nonetheless.
Jesus next says: “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.”
-But this is false for authority existed even before the fall. God commanded the first couple to not eat of a certain tree. There is nothing in the Bible from which we may infer that authority would have ended had they obeyed that command.
God further explains that whenever we protect ourselves with power we yield to the matrix and not to God.
-To this I say, poor Paul! If only he had read Young’s book he would have realized his folly! For he used his power, his status as a Roman citizen, to get a fair trial and to keep himself from unjust flogging.
Young further asserts that God does not relate to us through hierarchy.
-Let’s test this belief. How far do we need to read into the Bible before we have a reference to God relating to man by means of a hierarchical or authoritative relationship?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . . one, two, three, four words! For the word for God in that verse is Elohim, the Hebrew word for Lord. Lord is precisely a title of authority. How can Young say God does not relate to us within a hierarchy when God calls himself King of King and Lord of Lords? And when God first reveals himself to man in His Word as man’s Lord?
Now the idea that we don’t recognize authority (the hidden matrix) and that it remains unnatural nonetheless is false. Death is unnatural, the curse of our fall. To this we can never reconcile ourselves. We mourn it and a part of us dies with those we love. The same goes with time. Are we not constantly saying how time flies? We will not always live with death and time and for that reason they seem odd to us. But we do not notice the oddness of authority. That is because we will always be under authority. We don’t notice it precisely because it is natural.
There are indeed abuses of authority, but there is also beauty in it that Young ignores. To humbly submit to a leader; to sacrificially serve those who you lead—these are not possible without authority. To patiently teach the lesser; to eagerly learn from the greater—these are not possible without authority.
On page 126 Young further fleshes out his ethical theories. Sarayu states: “Mackenzie, you cannot produce trust just like you cannot ‘do’ humility. It either is or is not. Trust is the fruit of a relationship in which you know you are loved. Because you do not know that I love you, you cannot trust me.”
-Trust, faith is a choice. We can choose to trust or not based on the character of God as revealed in the Bible. Young’s theory is akin to Socrates’ notion of virtue from knowledge—one cannot be good without knowledge and once one has knowledge one is compelled to virtue (here knowledge being experiential or mystical knowledge of God). If this is true then no one is to be blamed or praised based on their faith or lack of faith for one cannot be blamed or praised for what they have no control over. We cannot know God, so we cannot trust. Only if we know God (and not the traditional way, through the Bible, but by experience) can we have saving faith. But God does commend people for their faith, therefore faith must be, to some degree, an act of our will.
On page 132 Young again discusses his ethics. The Holy Spirit tells Mack in regard to a ‘bad,’ poisonous plant that: “There are times when it is safe to touch, and times when precautions must be taken.”
Mack asks: “If you had not told me this was safe to touch, it would have poisoned me?”
To which he is told by the Holy Spirit: Of course!
–The implications of this are deep and dark. Like Kierkegaard, morality becomes static depending on God. God can suspend the moral and direct us to do something normally wrong, but have it be good all the same. In other words, what would be poison, or sin, without God’s personal direction is safe and good if God tells one to do it.
How many have thought they were to murder because God commanded it! How many fornicate now because they think God has no problem with it? God declares what is sin in His Word and never does He contradict His Word and tell us to sin.
On page 133 and the following few pages Young continues to develop his ethics. God declares that humans have a great capacity for declaring something good or evil, without truly knowing. Young states this by assuming that there is nothing but the subjective to ground ethics.
God asks Mack: how do you determine what is good and evil? Mack responds, in so many words, good is what I like, evil is what I don’t like. To this God says, well then you cannot confidently know good and evil.
-The fact is that most men at most times have grounded morality in the objective. Societies and cultures are nearly uniform in their notions of what is good and evil. Further God reveled to mankind what is good and what is evil in His Word. Why Young makes no mention to the existence of objective morality I have no idea. It is indeed intellectually dishonest to only mention subjective grounding for morality and then show how it fails (for it is indeed a weak grounding) and then go on to argue that since this is the only possible grounding and it fails, all that is left is a direct relationship with God that determines, day to day, what is evil.
Mack responds: “I tend to sound justifiably angry when somebody is threatening my ‘good,’ you know, what I think I deserve.”
-Of course because there is no objective notion of morality or justice one is left with no objective rights. Instead one is only left only with rights one thinks they deserve. Since we only think we have rights and we cannot ground them in the subjective, it follows we have no rights.
Ironically, this theory, when applied to the political, leads to the type of domination that Young is so up in arms about. Respect for individual rights is the only thing that prevents oppression. But by saying there is only subjective morality, it follows there are only subjective rights. Which is to say there is no true morality or rights. If individuals have no rights, then the government is not limited in its domination over them.
Mack continues: “But I’m not really sure I have any logical ground for deciding what is actually good or evil, except how something or someone affects me. All seems quite self-serving and self-centered, I suppose.”
-This brings us to the crux of the argument: it is he, we, that are determining what is good and evil and this determination, this judgment of what is good and evil, is a cause of great misery. But can’t we figure out what is good and evil? There is amazing agreement between cultures as to what constitutes morality. Indeed Paul says so much in the first chapter of the Book of Romans. We all (at least imperfectly) know good and evil and therefore Pagan and Jew alike are justly judged by God. We are incapable of doing good, but we all know what is good and what is evil. Indeed, if we did not, how could God justly judge us? And repentance would have no meaning, for how could one repent from sins if one had no conception of sin? Why Young again refuses to deal with the existence of objective reality is hard to understand.
But Sarayu says that we each determine our own good and each fight with one another over it and our own conceptions change over time, leading to much war.
-This is of course very ironic for men only determine their own good when there is no authority over them to determine it for them. This undermines the whole theory for anarchy: it states, quite rightly, that when there is no objective good instituted over men they determine their own good and fight with one another.
From there Sarayu falls into the inexplicable post-modern conclusion that since men disagree over the meaning of good and evil these words lose all meaning.
Mack says that he’s spent most of his energy seeking good while avoiding evil. He is told he should lay down his rights (true indeed). But he is also told that giving up his rights means that cancer, loss of income, or even death could be good.
-This is simply not true. Evil is evil. These things are not good in themselves. By God’s redemption He can make good out of evil, but evil is never good itself—there is a clear divide between good and evil.
On page 149 God says that power is always the opposite of relationship.
-This is nothing that has not been said multiple times in the book. But what we must remember, that this idea that authority negates the possibility of relationship, is a thoroughly modern one. No one thought like that before Marx; all other ages lacked our fetish with equality. Instead of trying to correct this error by finding ways to heal relationships within power structures (for power is necessary in a fallen world), Young tries to circumvent power all together, and thereby further propagates the false notion that there can be no relationship unless there is complete equality between the parties.
On page 178 Mack says to Jesus: You’re not too fond of religion and institutions?
Jesus replies: “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will. That’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big on religion and not very fond of politics or economics either. And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?”
-What about death? That is a cause of turmoil that originated outside of those systems. Didn’t God institute the government and religion in the Old Testament? Yet Young insists God doesn’t deal with those sorts of things. But the ancient Hebrews had festivals, sacrifices, a priesthood—sure seems like a religion to me! Nonetheless Young has Jesus criticize religion without dealing with the obvious fact that God instituted religion!
To prevent revenge killings, to protect children from rape: is this not good? This is the role of government. To create wealth and plenty—is this not good? This is the role of economics. To give men morals by which to live by and give them hope in another world and to create belonging in this one: is this not good? This is the role of religion. So how are these a trinity of terrors?
Jesus continues: “Put simply, these terrors are tools that many use to prop up their illusions of security and control. People are afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the future. These institutions, these structures and ideologies, are all a vain effort to create some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false!”
-Just because something can be used for bad does not mean it is inherently bad. Indeed in a fallen world all that is good can and is used for evil.
On page 182 Jesus says that none need to become Christian: “for those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation.”
-From this it follows that Christians have no unique claim on the truth. Men can reach God in any way. There seems to be no need for the Bible; all we need can be found in direct communion with God. Each can reach God in his own way! This does lots to open the door to a one world religion. For if Christianity is not unique, then there is no means by which men should come to God. They can be baptized and repent, or they can follow Buddha’s path, completive Hindu prayer, or the five pillars of Islam. For Young mystical communion with God is the basis of salvation, rather than any sort of faith, creed, or objective truth found outside of the individual.
On page 197 Mack declares that relationships are messier than following rules. The Holy Spirit asks: what rules? The one’s from the Bible is Mack’s response. To this the Holy Spirit asks: and how is that working for you? The Holy Spirit goes on to explain that the Bible does not teach men to follow rules.
-How is this true? What about the use of the death penalty for breaking rules in the Old Testament times? What about Christ saying if you love me you’ll obey me? What about the letters of Peter and his focus on obedience? What about Paul’s warnings that the lawless are destined for destruction?
On page 203 Jesus says all is lawful and men are under no law. In fact, trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control. That is why men like the law so much.
-Does our culture suffer from an excessive love of the law? Five minutes of television viewing should cure one of that delusion. Gone from Young is the classic notion of the law being the objective roadmap to the good. Sin enslaves. If we obey the law and develop habits of self-control we can become free from it (temporally that is, for only Christ frees us from the eternal consequences of it).
In general there is a subtle changing in the meaning of repentance. Jeremiah 4:14 states: O Jerusalem, wash you heart clean of wickedness so that you may be saved. Notice, they are to repent not from their hurt or repent solely by turning to God, but to repent in turning from sin. There is no notion of turning from sin in this book—indeed if one can continue being a Muslim and be bound by no law, it seems to imply one need not turn from sin.
Also, the picture of God holding the gun far away from himself, like it is evil in itself, is very telling. All that is seen is the abuse of any type of power and not how it can be used for good. Guns can be used to murder, but also to fight for freedom and to protect the innocent.
It has been argued by some that this is a work of fiction and we should not attempt to pull theological arguments from it. I think this is false. Young pulls from such thinkers as Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Bonhoeffer. He develops his political and theological theories in a series of dialogues and puts his opinions in the mouth of God no less. Yes it is not in essay format, but neither are Plato’s dialogues.
Does God want to interact with man? Yes, and in this Young’s book is right. But God has given us his revelation in the Bible and if He talks to us today it will always be in agreement with what He has said. Young’s book ultimately fails because Young puts words into the mouth of God that contradict God’s revealed truth as found in the Bible. The Bible is our plum line, our absolute by which we must judge all other claims to the truth. When lined up with God’s Word, Young’s book is found to be wanting in the least and dangerously misleading at the worst.
The absurd claims something that is not primarily impossible, but rather something that is first and foremost irrelevant. Whether it is true or not matters not for it does not and will not affect the way we think or live. The claim that Mary, the mother of Christ, ascended to Heaven is an example of an absurd falsity. It is something that likely did not happen, but believing that it did happen does one no harm for either way it does not affect the way one thinks or acts.
A dangerous falsity is one that, when believed, significantly impacts one’s life in a negative way. The belief that man’s sin is against Mary, the mother of God, and that only she can forgive him is an example of a dangerous falsity. For this falsity, when believed, perverts and misdirects one’s faith.
The Shack, a recent best seller by William Young, is a book full of much good. Young does a superb job of portraying the intense love that God has for man. He also deals with the problem of pain in a compelling manner. Most of all, in my opinion, he does a brilliant job of portraying the merriment and mirth that God has simply in being God.
In writing this book Young took a few controversial artistic licenses, most notably in portraying God as a woman. I do not believe this is the most significant problem of the book. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, God has not a physical body and God contains within Him both sexes. He is portrayed primarily as a male in the Bible (and indeed incarnated as a man), but God is God and there seems nothing wrong in Him representing himself to a man as a woman. If this is a falsity, it is at worst an absurd falsity.
However, this book does contain a couple of dangerous falsities. These falsities are even more dangerous because they are subtle and embedded and in agreement with the false spirit of our age. In other words, since they are hard to recognize and they are so prevalent in our culture they push us further into an error that we desperately need to be pulled out of. These errors are primarily a belief in classic anarchic theory, a doubt in objective morality and its inherent goodness, and a depreciation of the unique revelation of God in the Christian religion.
On page 66 Young tips his hat to views on Christianity and ethics that he will develop further. I apologize for the lengthy quotes and paraphrased sections, but I want to deal with this as fairly as possible and that can only be done by allowing Young his say.
On page 66 the narrator Mack, or Mackenzie, states to the reader: “It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” He goes on to say that religion, hymns, and the social club have not cut it, needs something more is needed to bring change in his life.
-Indeed, one cannot read the Bible without coming to the conclusion that God wants to have interaction with people. And this relationship with man does indeed change men. But Young seems to find the revelation of God primarily outside of the Bible, while Christian tradition insists that God is revealed most fully and truly within the Bible.
Young sees the transformation that comes from being with God to be something mystical, even magical. He discounts prayer, fasting, sacrifice, confession, and all other classic spiritual disciplines that were viewed by Christians as the most effective means of bringing change to one’s life. He seems to be saying, through the narrator, that all attempts to practice virtue have failed and that relationship with God, as traditionally conceived, is no relationship at all.
On pages 122-124 Young lays out his theory of anarchy. Mack asks about authority within the trinity. He receives the following response and conversation ensues.
“Chain of command? That sounds ghastly!” Jesus said.
“At least binding,” Papa [God the Father] added as they both started laughing, and then Papa turned to Mack and sang, “Though chains be of gold, they are chains all the same.”
God explains that the three persons of the trinity live in unity, with no need for power for they always do for one another what is best. But men are so lost it is almost incomprehensible for them to live or work without someone being in charge.
-First, the declaration that no power is needed because they all do what is best for the other is false. Power can serve a purpose even when people are good natured and giving to one another and in fact power is often given for the primary purpose of service. A husband can love his wife and want her best, but that does not mean he is not the authority of the family.
Second, he fails to deal with the fallen nature of man. All men have sinned and therefore the will of every man is bent, perverted, not what it should be. Is it not for this reason that God instituted authority among men? Yes, if man had not fallen maybe something would be different. But we cannot play the ‘what if’ game and treat a fallen race as if it is unfallen, that is only to invite chaos.
The conversation continues. Mack replies: what about government, business, marriage, etc, every institution has authority.
“Such a waste!” said Papa.
“It’s one reason why experiencing true relationship is so difficult for you,” Jesus added. “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and your end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.”
-This is straight out of an anarchic text book. All authority is seen as an evil that corrupts the soul of man. It is seen as unnatural and an impediment to life as it should be. Anarchy is the least defensible of all conceived governmental institutions; it does not become less indefensible when one adds the word Christian to it. And to put this nonsense in God’s mouth, nonsense that is nowhere to be grounded in God’s Word, is quite dishonest.
God continues to explain that though man has adapted to hierarchy, it was never the intent. Then Sarayu [the Holy Spirit] explains, “When you choose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want.”
-Now, there is no doubt that authority has been abused. Every good thing in this world has been abused, that is the nature of evil. But what should we expect? The world is fallen after all. But just because something has been abused it does not follow that the thing is inherently evil. Sex is abused in the form of lust and adultery, does it follow that we are we to swear that off as well?
Mack asks: “Isn’t it [authority] helpful in keeping people from fighting endlessly or getting hurt?”
“Sometimes.” Sarayu replies. “But in a selfish world it is also used to inflict great harm.”
-To say that authority is only sometimes helpful in preventing fighting is, in the very least, completely ignorant. Open any history book and view the state of men when authority breaks down: the Russian time of troubles, the German peasant revolts, the French reign of terror, the emergence of the Klan at the end of the American Civil War—a brief and honest look at any of these ages will inform one at once that when there is no authority the lives of men are ‘poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
Men, being fallen, need authority to restrain their evil impulses, to restrain them from destroying each other. Think of children that grow up without rules: they become monsters! But anarchist theory believes that authority, and not sin, makes men evil. This is the cause of all that is bad and if all authority is simply removed men will be perfected. But history proves this to be quite foolish thinking.
Papa continues the explanation: “We carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them. Creation has been taken down a very different path than we desired. In your world the vale of the individual is constantly weighed against the survival of the system, whether political, economic, social, or religious—any system actually. First one person, and then a few, and finally even many are easily sacrificed for the good and ongoing existence of that system. In one form or another this lies behind every struggle for power, every prejudice, every war; and abuse of relationship . . .”
-This brings us to the biggest problem with Young’s thought: what do we make of the fact that God instituted government for the Hebrews? If authority is the cause of all evil, why did God institute it within His chosen people? And why did He not say in any point of His Word (which is quite long indeed) that He detests authority and wants us to transcend it? Where does Young get the idea that hierarchy is behind all wars? What about greed or plain old evilness and the devil?
This is the weak point of Young’s argument and I think it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that God Himself instituted a government among the ancient Hebrews must be dealt with if one is to claim, putting words in the mouth of God no less, that government is evil and contrary to God’s will. But Young makes no mention of this fact. Are we to assume that things have changed since then, that the laws of ethics are mutable? Are we to assume that the Bible is not inspired and God did not in fact institute that government? What conclusion are we to draw from his silence, from the fact that he never deals with the strongest arguments against his theory? While it is true that God still speaks, He never contradicts that which He has already said. Young puts words into the mouth of God that contradict God’s revealed truth in the Bible and never once tries to reconcile them.
Mack asks, is not authority normal. God responds: “It is the human paradigm. It is like water to fish, so prevalent that it goes unseen and unquestioned. It is the matrix; a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped even while completely unaware of its existence.”
-Again, what are we to make of this? Hierarchy is a diabolical scheme? What are we to make of Kingship in Israel? Of Moses and the law and the creation of a government? Of the Proverbs that tell children to obey their parents? Of Paul’s instruction for wives to submit to their husbands? This theory is not Biblical, yet, apparently in Young’s mind God holds it nonetheless.
Jesus next says: “As the crowning glory of Creation, you were made in our image, unencumbered by structure and free to simply ‘be’ in relationship with me and one another. If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.”
-But this is false for authority existed even before the fall. God commanded the first couple to not eat of a certain tree. There is nothing in the Bible from which we may infer that authority would have ended had they obeyed that command.
God further explains that whenever we protect ourselves with power we yield to the matrix and not to God.
-To this I say, poor Paul! If only he had read Young’s book he would have realized his folly! For he used his power, his status as a Roman citizen, to get a fair trial and to keep himself from unjust flogging.
Young further asserts that God does not relate to us through hierarchy.
-Let’s test this belief. How far do we need to read into the Bible before we have a reference to God relating to man by means of a hierarchical or authoritative relationship?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . . one, two, three, four words! For the word for God in that verse is Elohim, the Hebrew word for Lord. Lord is precisely a title of authority. How can Young say God does not relate to us within a hierarchy when God calls himself King of King and Lord of Lords? And when God first reveals himself to man in His Word as man’s Lord?
Now the idea that we don’t recognize authority (the hidden matrix) and that it remains unnatural nonetheless is false. Death is unnatural, the curse of our fall. To this we can never reconcile ourselves. We mourn it and a part of us dies with those we love. The same goes with time. Are we not constantly saying how time flies? We will not always live with death and time and for that reason they seem odd to us. But we do not notice the oddness of authority. That is because we will always be under authority. We don’t notice it precisely because it is natural.
There are indeed abuses of authority, but there is also beauty in it that Young ignores. To humbly submit to a leader; to sacrificially serve those who you lead—these are not possible without authority. To patiently teach the lesser; to eagerly learn from the greater—these are not possible without authority.
On page 126 Young further fleshes out his ethical theories. Sarayu states: “Mackenzie, you cannot produce trust just like you cannot ‘do’ humility. It either is or is not. Trust is the fruit of a relationship in which you know you are loved. Because you do not know that I love you, you cannot trust me.”
-Trust, faith is a choice. We can choose to trust or not based on the character of God as revealed in the Bible. Young’s theory is akin to Socrates’ notion of virtue from knowledge—one cannot be good without knowledge and once one has knowledge one is compelled to virtue (here knowledge being experiential or mystical knowledge of God). If this is true then no one is to be blamed or praised based on their faith or lack of faith for one cannot be blamed or praised for what they have no control over. We cannot know God, so we cannot trust. Only if we know God (and not the traditional way, through the Bible, but by experience) can we have saving faith. But God does commend people for their faith, therefore faith must be, to some degree, an act of our will.
On page 132 Young again discusses his ethics. The Holy Spirit tells Mack in regard to a ‘bad,’ poisonous plant that: “There are times when it is safe to touch, and times when precautions must be taken.”
Mack asks: “If you had not told me this was safe to touch, it would have poisoned me?”
To which he is told by the Holy Spirit: Of course!
–The implications of this are deep and dark. Like Kierkegaard, morality becomes static depending on God. God can suspend the moral and direct us to do something normally wrong, but have it be good all the same. In other words, what would be poison, or sin, without God’s personal direction is safe and good if God tells one to do it.
How many have thought they were to murder because God commanded it! How many fornicate now because they think God has no problem with it? God declares what is sin in His Word and never does He contradict His Word and tell us to sin.
On page 133 and the following few pages Young continues to develop his ethics. God declares that humans have a great capacity for declaring something good or evil, without truly knowing. Young states this by assuming that there is nothing but the subjective to ground ethics.
God asks Mack: how do you determine what is good and evil? Mack responds, in so many words, good is what I like, evil is what I don’t like. To this God says, well then you cannot confidently know good and evil.
-The fact is that most men at most times have grounded morality in the objective. Societies and cultures are nearly uniform in their notions of what is good and evil. Further God reveled to mankind what is good and what is evil in His Word. Why Young makes no mention to the existence of objective morality I have no idea. It is indeed intellectually dishonest to only mention subjective grounding for morality and then show how it fails (for it is indeed a weak grounding) and then go on to argue that since this is the only possible grounding and it fails, all that is left is a direct relationship with God that determines, day to day, what is evil.
Mack responds: “I tend to sound justifiably angry when somebody is threatening my ‘good,’ you know, what I think I deserve.”
-Of course because there is no objective notion of morality or justice one is left with no objective rights. Instead one is only left only with rights one thinks they deserve. Since we only think we have rights and we cannot ground them in the subjective, it follows we have no rights.
Ironically, this theory, when applied to the political, leads to the type of domination that Young is so up in arms about. Respect for individual rights is the only thing that prevents oppression. But by saying there is only subjective morality, it follows there are only subjective rights. Which is to say there is no true morality or rights. If individuals have no rights, then the government is not limited in its domination over them.
Mack continues: “But I’m not really sure I have any logical ground for deciding what is actually good or evil, except how something or someone affects me. All seems quite self-serving and self-centered, I suppose.”
-This brings us to the crux of the argument: it is he, we, that are determining what is good and evil and this determination, this judgment of what is good and evil, is a cause of great misery. But can’t we figure out what is good and evil? There is amazing agreement between cultures as to what constitutes morality. Indeed Paul says so much in the first chapter of the Book of Romans. We all (at least imperfectly) know good and evil and therefore Pagan and Jew alike are justly judged by God. We are incapable of doing good, but we all know what is good and what is evil. Indeed, if we did not, how could God justly judge us? And repentance would have no meaning, for how could one repent from sins if one had no conception of sin? Why Young again refuses to deal with the existence of objective reality is hard to understand.
But Sarayu says that we each determine our own good and each fight with one another over it and our own conceptions change over time, leading to much war.
-This is of course very ironic for men only determine their own good when there is no authority over them to determine it for them. This undermines the whole theory for anarchy: it states, quite rightly, that when there is no objective good instituted over men they determine their own good and fight with one another.
From there Sarayu falls into the inexplicable post-modern conclusion that since men disagree over the meaning of good and evil these words lose all meaning.
Mack says that he’s spent most of his energy seeking good while avoiding evil. He is told he should lay down his rights (true indeed). But he is also told that giving up his rights means that cancer, loss of income, or even death could be good.
-This is simply not true. Evil is evil. These things are not good in themselves. By God’s redemption He can make good out of evil, but evil is never good itself—there is a clear divide between good and evil.
On page 149 God says that power is always the opposite of relationship.
-This is nothing that has not been said multiple times in the book. But what we must remember, that this idea that authority negates the possibility of relationship, is a thoroughly modern one. No one thought like that before Marx; all other ages lacked our fetish with equality. Instead of trying to correct this error by finding ways to heal relationships within power structures (for power is necessary in a fallen world), Young tries to circumvent power all together, and thereby further propagates the false notion that there can be no relationship unless there is complete equality between the parties.
On page 178 Mack says to Jesus: You’re not too fond of religion and institutions?
Jesus replies: “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will. That’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big on religion and not very fond of politics or economics either. And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?”
-What about death? That is a cause of turmoil that originated outside of those systems. Didn’t God institute the government and religion in the Old Testament? Yet Young insists God doesn’t deal with those sorts of things. But the ancient Hebrews had festivals, sacrifices, a priesthood—sure seems like a religion to me! Nonetheless Young has Jesus criticize religion without dealing with the obvious fact that God instituted religion!
To prevent revenge killings, to protect children from rape: is this not good? This is the role of government. To create wealth and plenty—is this not good? This is the role of economics. To give men morals by which to live by and give them hope in another world and to create belonging in this one: is this not good? This is the role of religion. So how are these a trinity of terrors?
Jesus continues: “Put simply, these terrors are tools that many use to prop up their illusions of security and control. People are afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the future. These institutions, these structures and ideologies, are all a vain effort to create some sense of certainty and security where there isn’t any. It’s all false!”
-Just because something can be used for bad does not mean it is inherently bad. Indeed in a fallen world all that is good can and is used for evil.
On page 182 Jesus says that none need to become Christian: “for those who love me come from every system that exists. They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation.”
-From this it follows that Christians have no unique claim on the truth. Men can reach God in any way. There seems to be no need for the Bible; all we need can be found in direct communion with God. Each can reach God in his own way! This does lots to open the door to a one world religion. For if Christianity is not unique, then there is no means by which men should come to God. They can be baptized and repent, or they can follow Buddha’s path, completive Hindu prayer, or the five pillars of Islam. For Young mystical communion with God is the basis of salvation, rather than any sort of faith, creed, or objective truth found outside of the individual.
On page 197 Mack declares that relationships are messier than following rules. The Holy Spirit asks: what rules? The one’s from the Bible is Mack’s response. To this the Holy Spirit asks: and how is that working for you? The Holy Spirit goes on to explain that the Bible does not teach men to follow rules.
-How is this true? What about the use of the death penalty for breaking rules in the Old Testament times? What about Christ saying if you love me you’ll obey me? What about the letters of Peter and his focus on obedience? What about Paul’s warnings that the lawless are destined for destruction?
On page 203 Jesus says all is lawful and men are under no law. In fact, trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control. That is why men like the law so much.
-Does our culture suffer from an excessive love of the law? Five minutes of television viewing should cure one of that delusion. Gone from Young is the classic notion of the law being the objective roadmap to the good. Sin enslaves. If we obey the law and develop habits of self-control we can become free from it (temporally that is, for only Christ frees us from the eternal consequences of it).
In general there is a subtle changing in the meaning of repentance. Jeremiah 4:14 states: O Jerusalem, wash you heart clean of wickedness so that you may be saved. Notice, they are to repent not from their hurt or repent solely by turning to God, but to repent in turning from sin. There is no notion of turning from sin in this book—indeed if one can continue being a Muslim and be bound by no law, it seems to imply one need not turn from sin.
Also, the picture of God holding the gun far away from himself, like it is evil in itself, is very telling. All that is seen is the abuse of any type of power and not how it can be used for good. Guns can be used to murder, but also to fight for freedom and to protect the innocent.
It has been argued by some that this is a work of fiction and we should not attempt to pull theological arguments from it. I think this is false. Young pulls from such thinkers as Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Bonhoeffer. He develops his political and theological theories in a series of dialogues and puts his opinions in the mouth of God no less. Yes it is not in essay format, but neither are Plato’s dialogues.
Does God want to interact with man? Yes, and in this Young’s book is right. But God has given us his revelation in the Bible and if He talks to us today it will always be in agreement with what He has said. Young’s book ultimately fails because Young puts words into the mouth of God that contradict God’s revealed truth as found in the Bible. The Bible is our plum line, our absolute by which we must judge all other claims to the truth. When lined up with God’s Word, Young’s book is found to be wanting in the least and dangerously misleading at the worst.
Friday, July 11, 2008
On Morality (Article Eight), Whether Man May Be Moral Without God?
EIGHTH ARTICLE
Whether Man May Be Moral Without God?
Objection 1. The Prophet Isaiah wrote, (Isaiah 64:6) we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Within a man there is no good thing. Try as he may there is no way for a fallen man to be moral.
Objection 2. Jean-Paul Sartre argues that we need not God to be moral. Everyman is to make his own way, paint his own portrait—create his own reality. We are made in the image of God and like God we create our own worlds. Within our worlds we determine what is good and what is evil. Therefore man may be moral, but he need not God to do so.
On the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas says, Everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it.
I answer that, In man’s fallen state a man may know the laws of morality though he knows not God. He may do so in the same way a scientist understands the laws of physics without knowing the Creator of those very laws. A man may work very hard to follow those laws, as many have tried, however, though a man may know the laws of morality his will is fallen and apart from the grace of God he may not perfectly conform to those laws.
Reply Obj. 1. In Isaiah God declared that no man may be moral apart from him. But since the time of Christ man no longer lives apart from God. God Himself clothed Himself in humanity. Our Creator took on man’s shame, guilt and sin and gave to man His righteousness. Therein lies the mystery of man’s goodness and morality. Certainly man may not be good in and of himself, but man does not exist in and of himself. Man may exist within God and when he does so he takes upon himself the justification of Christ.
In the justification of Christ a man is freed from the eternal consequences (for indeed there is only one eternal sin: to reject the offer of the Holy Spirit to relationship with Christ) of his sin though he may continue to sin on this earth and suffer temporal consequences for his sin (in other words though a Christian soul is not damned because of his drunkenness, neither is his body freed from hangovers).
The question must be asked: how may a man be freed from his temporal sin? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The alcoholic must be restrained from alcohol; the glutton from excessive amounts of food. Both must be restrained by use of fear or physical restraint, if necessary. After sometime they will develop the habit of virtue. In this time of binding they will find freedom in the restraint from their sin. For once this virtue is developed the place that once was occupied with sin may now be filled with love. The man who began his obedience out of a fear of God may come to obey God out of love and desire. This is our sanctification and in it lies ultimate earthly morality.
God’s will and man’s liberty are not at odds—on the contrary God made man to be free and in so far as man conforms to God’s will man becomes free. God’s Law is not a set of restrictions that keep man from liberty, but rather a roadmap by which man may attain complete freedom and happiness. The path towards this freedom begins with the restrictive fear of God that keeps us from sin and ends in eager, joyful, and loving obedience to God’s will.
Reply Obj. 2. Sartre is most certainly mistaken because morality exists not within, but apart from, man. As was discussed earlier (Article Two), morality is objective—it exists outside of man. We must not be like the modern man who seeks to manipulate morality to his desires. Rather we must be like the ancients who sought to conform their soul to reality by means of virtue, for therein lies man’s freedom.
All men will come to understand the objective nature of reality. All men in one way or another will ultimately obey God’s laws.
Consider a man walking on an icy side walk. If he disobeys the law of prudence (and walks to fast) he will quickly find himself obeying the law of gravity (as he falls to the hard ground). Though he thinks he is his own man and that he makes his own law, he cannot escape the Law of God. In the same we have the opportunity to willingly obey God’s Law in this life. If we refuse to come under this Law willingly in this life we will painfully find ourselves under a much harsher law in the life to come.
Whether Man May Be Moral Without God?
Objection 1. The Prophet Isaiah wrote, (Isaiah 64:6) we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Within a man there is no good thing. Try as he may there is no way for a fallen man to be moral.
Objection 2. Jean-Paul Sartre argues that we need not God to be moral. Everyman is to make his own way, paint his own portrait—create his own reality. We are made in the image of God and like God we create our own worlds. Within our worlds we determine what is good and what is evil. Therefore man may be moral, but he need not God to do so.
On the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas says, Everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it.
I answer that, In man’s fallen state a man may know the laws of morality though he knows not God. He may do so in the same way a scientist understands the laws of physics without knowing the Creator of those very laws. A man may work very hard to follow those laws, as many have tried, however, though a man may know the laws of morality his will is fallen and apart from the grace of God he may not perfectly conform to those laws.
Reply Obj. 1. In Isaiah God declared that no man may be moral apart from him. But since the time of Christ man no longer lives apart from God. God Himself clothed Himself in humanity. Our Creator took on man’s shame, guilt and sin and gave to man His righteousness. Therein lies the mystery of man’s goodness and morality. Certainly man may not be good in and of himself, but man does not exist in and of himself. Man may exist within God and when he does so he takes upon himself the justification of Christ.
In the justification of Christ a man is freed from the eternal consequences (for indeed there is only one eternal sin: to reject the offer of the Holy Spirit to relationship with Christ) of his sin though he may continue to sin on this earth and suffer temporal consequences for his sin (in other words though a Christian soul is not damned because of his drunkenness, neither is his body freed from hangovers).
The question must be asked: how may a man be freed from his temporal sin? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The alcoholic must be restrained from alcohol; the glutton from excessive amounts of food. Both must be restrained by use of fear or physical restraint, if necessary. After sometime they will develop the habit of virtue. In this time of binding they will find freedom in the restraint from their sin. For once this virtue is developed the place that once was occupied with sin may now be filled with love. The man who began his obedience out of a fear of God may come to obey God out of love and desire. This is our sanctification and in it lies ultimate earthly morality.
God’s will and man’s liberty are not at odds—on the contrary God made man to be free and in so far as man conforms to God’s will man becomes free. God’s Law is not a set of restrictions that keep man from liberty, but rather a roadmap by which man may attain complete freedom and happiness. The path towards this freedom begins with the restrictive fear of God that keeps us from sin and ends in eager, joyful, and loving obedience to God’s will.
Reply Obj. 2. Sartre is most certainly mistaken because morality exists not within, but apart from, man. As was discussed earlier (Article Two), morality is objective—it exists outside of man. We must not be like the modern man who seeks to manipulate morality to his desires. Rather we must be like the ancients who sought to conform their soul to reality by means of virtue, for therein lies man’s freedom.
All men will come to understand the objective nature of reality. All men in one way or another will ultimately obey God’s laws.
Consider a man walking on an icy side walk. If he disobeys the law of prudence (and walks to fast) he will quickly find himself obeying the law of gravity (as he falls to the hard ground). Though he thinks he is his own man and that he makes his own law, he cannot escape the Law of God. In the same we have the opportunity to willingly obey God’s Law in this life. If we refuse to come under this Law willingly in this life we will painfully find ourselves under a much harsher law in the life to come.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
On Morality (Seventh Article), Why God Gave Man Two Distinct Revelations?
SEVENTH ARTICLE
Why God Gave Man Two Distinct Revelations?
Objection 1. God gave man two distinct revelations (the law of Moses and the prophets and the Law of Christ and the Apostles) because God changed the law and He desired that man may know and understand these changes. In one point in time justice consisted of an eye for an eye (Exodus 21:24), but Christ revealed a new law to man when he said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mathew 5:39). The Law of Moses was binding on man for some period of time, but with Christ man was freed from that law and a completely new law was introduced.
Objection 2. There were not two distinct revelations of God. The Old and New Testaments are one. The New Testament does not change or add anything to the revelation that preceded it.
On the contrary, St. Thomas says, (Summa Theologica, Book Two, Question 91, Article 5) The difference between laws of the Old and New Testaments is not that between an ox and a horse, but of that between a boy and a man. One is imperfect, the other perfect.
I answer that, As it is with many things, errors come in pairs. On the one hand some claim there is an absolute and complete difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, while others claim there is no difference at all. The truth lies somewhere between these erroneous extremes.
There is no difference in kind between the two revelations of God, but there is certainly a difference in degree. The old and new law both had the same end: God, but they differ in their means. The old law was based in fear and restrained the actions of man—do not kill, steal, or commit adultery, etc. While the new law directs the mind of man by means of love—we are to not call a man a fool in our hearts nor lust after a woman in our thoughts. All of this obedience is to flow naturally out of our love for God, for Christ says (John 14:23) if you love me, you will obey me.
It is natural and expected that the revelations of God should come to man in this order. Only when a man is free from his passions and sin may he be free to voluntarily love and obey God.
Reply Obj. 1. Christ said, (Mathew 5:17) do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. If God has changed the law, then the authority of the law rests on God’s power alone. But law cannot rely on power alone, for if it did the law would be arbitrary. Justice must be more than a mere changing opinion of God, for if it was it would be nothing than utter folly to praise God for his goodness and justice in conforming to the law (Fifth Article). Therefore the revelation of Christ cannot be a completely new and distinct from the revelation that God gave Moses.
Reply Obj. 2. God is not arbitrary and He would not have given man a second revelation if He had nothing new or different to say. This is a matter of common sense: if God told man all he needed to know in His first revelation He would not have given mankind another. From the fact that God gave man a second revelation we may know that there is something new or different within this revelation that man needs to know.
Why God Gave Man Two Distinct Revelations?
Objection 1. God gave man two distinct revelations (the law of Moses and the prophets and the Law of Christ and the Apostles) because God changed the law and He desired that man may know and understand these changes. In one point in time justice consisted of an eye for an eye (Exodus 21:24), but Christ revealed a new law to man when he said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mathew 5:39). The Law of Moses was binding on man for some period of time, but with Christ man was freed from that law and a completely new law was introduced.
Objection 2. There were not two distinct revelations of God. The Old and New Testaments are one. The New Testament does not change or add anything to the revelation that preceded it.
On the contrary, St. Thomas says, (Summa Theologica, Book Two, Question 91, Article 5) The difference between laws of the Old and New Testaments is not that between an ox and a horse, but of that between a boy and a man. One is imperfect, the other perfect.
I answer that, As it is with many things, errors come in pairs. On the one hand some claim there is an absolute and complete difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, while others claim there is no difference at all. The truth lies somewhere between these erroneous extremes.
There is no difference in kind between the two revelations of God, but there is certainly a difference in degree. The old and new law both had the same end: God, but they differ in their means. The old law was based in fear and restrained the actions of man—do not kill, steal, or commit adultery, etc. While the new law directs the mind of man by means of love—we are to not call a man a fool in our hearts nor lust after a woman in our thoughts. All of this obedience is to flow naturally out of our love for God, for Christ says (John 14:23) if you love me, you will obey me.
It is natural and expected that the revelations of God should come to man in this order. Only when a man is free from his passions and sin may he be free to voluntarily love and obey God.
Reply Obj. 1. Christ said, (Mathew 5:17) do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. If God has changed the law, then the authority of the law rests on God’s power alone. But law cannot rely on power alone, for if it did the law would be arbitrary. Justice must be more than a mere changing opinion of God, for if it was it would be nothing than utter folly to praise God for his goodness and justice in conforming to the law (Fifth Article). Therefore the revelation of Christ cannot be a completely new and distinct from the revelation that God gave Moses.
Reply Obj. 2. God is not arbitrary and He would not have given man a second revelation if He had nothing new or different to say. This is a matter of common sense: if God told man all he needed to know in His first revelation He would not have given mankind another. From the fact that God gave man a second revelation we may know that there is something new or different within this revelation that man needs to know.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
On Morality (Sixth Article), Whether we may know moral truths without God?
SITH ARTICLE
Whether we may Know Moral Truths Without God?
Objection 1. According to the skeptic, man may not know any moral truths with any amount of certainty. Heracleitus, for example, said there is nothing static in the universe, only endless transformations. Nothing is; everything becomes. No condition persists unaltered, even for the smallest moment; everything is ceasing to be what it was, and is becoming what it will be. Because of this endless transformation there is a unity of opposites. Good and bad are the same, so are life and death. They are merely stages in a fluctuating movement. Given the changing nature of all things, the distinction between good and evil is to man an impenetrable mystery to man. Ergo, man in no way may know any moral truths.
Objection 2. According to Martin Luther, reason is a whore. It is dishonest and not to be trusted for it is generally used by evil powers. In other words, during the fall man’s reason became so corrupted and depraved that it cannot lead us to any truth. The only truth that we may know is the truth that God revealed to us, in His great mercy, in the Bible.
Objection 3. By our reason we may know all moral truths. Just as we may know mathematical truths fully and completely we may know moral truths. There was no reason for God to give us the Bible for all that we need to know we may discover by means of our natural faculties.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says that in the fall man’s reason was corrupted, but not to the point where man lost the ability to know good from evil. Indeed this could not be. For if man could know not how to act it would be unjust of God to hold all accountable and punish those who act in evil ways.
I answer that, as with many things, the truth lies in the middle of two extremes. It is true that by means of our reason we may discover moral truths. St. Paul discusses this in the beginning of his letter to the Romans. All men know the difference between right and wrong. In the fall man did not lose his ability to know the difference between these things, the lost his ability to do them. All men know the difference between right and wrong, but no man is able to do only good. It was the will of man that was bent in the fall.
However, though man may know good and evil, man may not know them absolutely. Because man cannot perfectly discover moral truth God revealed the entire moral law to man in the Bible. Ultimately our knowledge rests on the merciful revelation that God provided to us in His Word.
Reply Obj. 1. If the skeptic is right, what is the point of anything? If we cannot know good from evil, what is the point of trying to do good? And what is the point of punishing crime? If evil is only an illusion it is unjust to punish people for their crimes. But this is all nonsense. Each one of us knows the difference between good and evil; each one of us knows the necessity of punishing those who do evil. There is a knowable difference between good and evil.
Reply Obj. 2. Man’s reason is not so corrupted as to prevent him from knowing mathematical or scientific truths; if man may know these truths by means of his reason how can we assume he may know not moral truths by means of his reason? Indeed Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Hammurabi and many others came to understand and recognize moral truths contained in the Bible without ever having read any part of God’s Word themselves. This agreement of many wise men regarding moral truths with the Bible shows that man may discover moral truths without reference to the Bible.
Reply Obj. 3. As St. Thomas Aquinas says (Sum. Theol. I, II Q. 91, A. 4), even though all law is knowable by reason, there was and is a need for Divine law. Man’s end is eternal happiness. If man’s end was natural, no Divine law would be needed, but since his end is eternal and divine, this law is needed.
Further, human judgment is uncertain. Though all men may know morality, no man may know it perfectly. The wise men of history agreed on the essentials of morality, but disagreed on a few minor particulars. All men have reason by which they may discover moral truths; but all men have sinful passions within them which corrupt their reason and prevent them from perfectly reaching the truth. It was for this reason that God revealed the perfect moral truth. It is our plum line, our absolute by which we may measure our imperfect thought and action. It is by God’s revelation as revealed in the Bible that we may have certainty in the moral, that we may know things beyond a doubt.
Whether we may Know Moral Truths Without God?
Objection 1. According to the skeptic, man may not know any moral truths with any amount of certainty. Heracleitus, for example, said there is nothing static in the universe, only endless transformations. Nothing is; everything becomes. No condition persists unaltered, even for the smallest moment; everything is ceasing to be what it was, and is becoming what it will be. Because of this endless transformation there is a unity of opposites. Good and bad are the same, so are life and death. They are merely stages in a fluctuating movement. Given the changing nature of all things, the distinction between good and evil is to man an impenetrable mystery to man. Ergo, man in no way may know any moral truths.
Objection 2. According to Martin Luther, reason is a whore. It is dishonest and not to be trusted for it is generally used by evil powers. In other words, during the fall man’s reason became so corrupted and depraved that it cannot lead us to any truth. The only truth that we may know is the truth that God revealed to us, in His great mercy, in the Bible.
Objection 3. By our reason we may know all moral truths. Just as we may know mathematical truths fully and completely we may know moral truths. There was no reason for God to give us the Bible for all that we need to know we may discover by means of our natural faculties.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says that in the fall man’s reason was corrupted, but not to the point where man lost the ability to know good from evil. Indeed this could not be. For if man could know not how to act it would be unjust of God to hold all accountable and punish those who act in evil ways.
I answer that, as with many things, the truth lies in the middle of two extremes. It is true that by means of our reason we may discover moral truths. St. Paul discusses this in the beginning of his letter to the Romans. All men know the difference between right and wrong. In the fall man did not lose his ability to know the difference between these things, the lost his ability to do them. All men know the difference between right and wrong, but no man is able to do only good. It was the will of man that was bent in the fall.
However, though man may know good and evil, man may not know them absolutely. Because man cannot perfectly discover moral truth God revealed the entire moral law to man in the Bible. Ultimately our knowledge rests on the merciful revelation that God provided to us in His Word.
Reply Obj. 1. If the skeptic is right, what is the point of anything? If we cannot know good from evil, what is the point of trying to do good? And what is the point of punishing crime? If evil is only an illusion it is unjust to punish people for their crimes. But this is all nonsense. Each one of us knows the difference between good and evil; each one of us knows the necessity of punishing those who do evil. There is a knowable difference between good and evil.
Reply Obj. 2. Man’s reason is not so corrupted as to prevent him from knowing mathematical or scientific truths; if man may know these truths by means of his reason how can we assume he may know not moral truths by means of his reason? Indeed Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Hammurabi and many others came to understand and recognize moral truths contained in the Bible without ever having read any part of God’s Word themselves. This agreement of many wise men regarding moral truths with the Bible shows that man may discover moral truths without reference to the Bible.
Reply Obj. 3. As St. Thomas Aquinas says (Sum. Theol. I, II Q. 91, A. 4), even though all law is knowable by reason, there was and is a need for Divine law. Man’s end is eternal happiness. If man’s end was natural, no Divine law would be needed, but since his end is eternal and divine, this law is needed.
Further, human judgment is uncertain. Though all men may know morality, no man may know it perfectly. The wise men of history agreed on the essentials of morality, but disagreed on a few minor particulars. All men have reason by which they may discover moral truths; but all men have sinful passions within them which corrupt their reason and prevent them from perfectly reaching the truth. It was for this reason that God revealed the perfect moral truth. It is our plum line, our absolute by which we may measure our imperfect thought and action. It is by God’s revelation as revealed in the Bible that we may have certainty in the moral, that we may know things beyond a doubt.
Friday, June 20, 2008
On Morality (Fifth Article), From Where does Morality Originate?
FIFTH ARTICLE
From Where does Morality Originate?
Objection 1. It would seem that, as Descartes believed, morality originates in the power of God. Because of God’s power 2+2=4. But if God willed it, 2+2=5 could be true instead.
In the same way murder is only wrong because God wills it. God could just as easily will that murder be good and generosity evil. Indeed it must be so. God is all powerful, so he cannot be bound by any laws. He cannot be told what is good and evil; He alone must determine and create what is good and evil. Therefore morality originates in the power of God.
Objection 2. Morality exists in its own right. It is an eternal truth. 2+2=4. Plato said this truth is the same for all men in all ages and would apply in every conceivable world. Leibniz agreed. He said 2+2=4 on Heaven just as it does on earth and to God just as it does to men. This is an eternal, universal and changeless truth. In the same way that mathematical truths exist moral truths exist. They are eternal and universal, applicable to God and man.
Objection 3. Morality is no more than convention. Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that we create objects by means of our words. A rock is not a rock until we decide, by social compact, to call it a rock. But the sounds we use to create words are arbitrary and since objects do not pre-exist our understanding of them but are only created by our understanding (we create all order for all that precedes us is chaos) all objects are arbitrary. In the same way that we create words for physical objects we create words for mental ideas. Since the words that signify ideas are arbitrary the ideas themselves are arbitrary. Just as we could have called a rock something else we could have cowardice good or generosity bad. All our understanding of the physical world is based on arbitrary words, in the same way all our ideas are based on arbitrary words and are therefore arbitrary in themselves. They are nothing more than concepts we have agreed upon—morality is no more than social convention.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says (in "The Poison of Subjectivism"), God is good. Goodness is a part of Him and true law flows out of Him like water from a spring. Goodness is uncreated. God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.
I answer that, Morality cannot be convention, for if it was there would be no God. If morality were based on God’s power alone we would praise God for his goodness in vain—it would make no sense to praise God for being good if goodness was merely whatever God willed it to be at any particular moment. But if morality existed above and beyond God, God would not be all powerful and not God in the sense that He claims to be.
Jesus says (Mark 10:18), no one is good except God alone. God is not bound by the moral law, nor is He the creator of it. God is not reduced to the moral law, for God is far more than a mere concept. God is good. Notice Christ does not say God does good, but rather that God is good.
Creatures have attributes (Peter is alive), but God is His attributes (God is life). We as men do good acts, but God as God is goodness. He is not merely goodness just as He is not merely life or beauty, mercy or power: but He is the eternal spring, the one self sufficient being from which all life, goodness, beauty, mercy, and power naturally flow.
Reply Obj. 1. If, as Leibniz noted in "On the Common Concept of Justice," morality originates in power, then the more power one has the more moral one would be. But this is contrary to reason. Often times the powerful one is the more they abuse their power and the more immoral they end up being; morality does not lie in power.
Reply Obj. 2. If there was an eternal, uncreated moral law that even God was bound to then God would not be God. Rather, the Law that bound God would be God. It would be the controlling and guiding force of the universe. But we know that God is a person for we are people and we were created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27). Therefore God cannot be a concept; God cannot be mere moral law.
Reply Obj. 3. Imagine you have fallen into a pit. You cannot escape the pit on your own accord and if you are left there you will starve to death. There is a rope lying next to the pit. A man walks by and you ask him to throw you the rope. He refuses and simply answers ‘I don’t want to.’ ‘This is unjust,’ you say, ‘you can provide a great and necessary good for me at no harm or inconvenience to yourself.’ He replies, ‘there is no law requiring me to do good.’ Nonetheless you argue that his inaction is unjust. For if he was in the pit he would rightly ask the same good of you.
No man truly believes that morality is convention. The response of all men to injustice, even legal or socially accepted injustice, is to complain that it is unjust. All men appeal to a notion of justice above and beyond mankind’s social and legal standards when they are they are wronged in a socially acceptable way. This common response proves that no man truly believes that morality is mere convention.
From Where does Morality Originate?
Objection 1. It would seem that, as Descartes believed, morality originates in the power of God. Because of God’s power 2+2=4. But if God willed it, 2+2=5 could be true instead.
In the same way murder is only wrong because God wills it. God could just as easily will that murder be good and generosity evil. Indeed it must be so. God is all powerful, so he cannot be bound by any laws. He cannot be told what is good and evil; He alone must determine and create what is good and evil. Therefore morality originates in the power of God.
Objection 2. Morality exists in its own right. It is an eternal truth. 2+2=4. Plato said this truth is the same for all men in all ages and would apply in every conceivable world. Leibniz agreed. He said 2+2=4 on Heaven just as it does on earth and to God just as it does to men. This is an eternal, universal and changeless truth. In the same way that mathematical truths exist moral truths exist. They are eternal and universal, applicable to God and man.
Objection 3. Morality is no more than convention. Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that we create objects by means of our words. A rock is not a rock until we decide, by social compact, to call it a rock. But the sounds we use to create words are arbitrary and since objects do not pre-exist our understanding of them but are only created by our understanding (we create all order for all that precedes us is chaos) all objects are arbitrary. In the same way that we create words for physical objects we create words for mental ideas. Since the words that signify ideas are arbitrary the ideas themselves are arbitrary. Just as we could have called a rock something else we could have cowardice good or generosity bad. All our understanding of the physical world is based on arbitrary words, in the same way all our ideas are based on arbitrary words and are therefore arbitrary in themselves. They are nothing more than concepts we have agreed upon—morality is no more than social convention.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says (in "The Poison of Subjectivism"), God is good. Goodness is a part of Him and true law flows out of Him like water from a spring. Goodness is uncreated. God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.
I answer that, Morality cannot be convention, for if it was there would be no God. If morality were based on God’s power alone we would praise God for his goodness in vain—it would make no sense to praise God for being good if goodness was merely whatever God willed it to be at any particular moment. But if morality existed above and beyond God, God would not be all powerful and not God in the sense that He claims to be.
Jesus says (Mark 10:18), no one is good except God alone. God is not bound by the moral law, nor is He the creator of it. God is not reduced to the moral law, for God is far more than a mere concept. God is good. Notice Christ does not say God does good, but rather that God is good.
Creatures have attributes (Peter is alive), but God is His attributes (God is life). We as men do good acts, but God as God is goodness. He is not merely goodness just as He is not merely life or beauty, mercy or power: but He is the eternal spring, the one self sufficient being from which all life, goodness, beauty, mercy, and power naturally flow.
Reply Obj. 1. If, as Leibniz noted in "On the Common Concept of Justice," morality originates in power, then the more power one has the more moral one would be. But this is contrary to reason. Often times the powerful one is the more they abuse their power and the more immoral they end up being; morality does not lie in power.
Reply Obj. 2. If there was an eternal, uncreated moral law that even God was bound to then God would not be God. Rather, the Law that bound God would be God. It would be the controlling and guiding force of the universe. But we know that God is a person for we are people and we were created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27). Therefore God cannot be a concept; God cannot be mere moral law.
Reply Obj. 3. Imagine you have fallen into a pit. You cannot escape the pit on your own accord and if you are left there you will starve to death. There is a rope lying next to the pit. A man walks by and you ask him to throw you the rope. He refuses and simply answers ‘I don’t want to.’ ‘This is unjust,’ you say, ‘you can provide a great and necessary good for me at no harm or inconvenience to yourself.’ He replies, ‘there is no law requiring me to do good.’ Nonetheless you argue that his inaction is unjust. For if he was in the pit he would rightly ask the same good of you.
No man truly believes that morality is convention. The response of all men to injustice, even legal or socially accepted injustice, is to complain that it is unjust. All men appeal to a notion of justice above and beyond mankind’s social and legal standards when they are they are wronged in a socially acceptable way. This common response proves that no man truly believes that morality is mere convention.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
On Morality (Fourth Article), Whether we Owe the Same Duty of Morality to All Men?
FOURTH ARTICLE
Whether we Owe the Same Duty of Morality to All Men?
Objection 1. Moses says (Deuteronomy 23:20), You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite. Morality need not be given equally to all men. We do not owe the same duty of morality to members of other nations as we owe to our countrymen.
Objection 2. Moses says (Deuteronomy 9:23), be assured today that the LORD your God is the one. God is the source of all morality and justice. God is one and unchanging. Therefore we owe the exact same duty of morality to all men.
Objection 3. Before Christ a godly man could say (Psalm 3:7) Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. A man did not owe the same duty of morality to his enemies as his friends. But Christ says (Mathew 5:46), if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? In the church age we have a equal duty to all. We may not treat friends or family better than we treat strangers or enemies.
On the contrary, Jesus said to the Pharisees (Mark 7:9-13), You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that. We have a duty to give charity and be generous to all; this is a part of morality. But though this morality is owed to all, it is owed in a greater degree to one’s parents. One may must take care of his parents before he gives charity to the strangers.
I answer that, A man asked Christ to whom the duty of morality extended. Christ replied to his neighbor. In response to this reply the man asked (Luke 10:29) who is my neighbor? Christ replied in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that every man is our neighbor. The stranger, the man who is most different and distant to us is our neighbor and it is to him that we owe the same duty of morality that we owe to our friends and family. However, though we owe the same duty of morality to every man, we owe it to a greater degree to our family, friends, and countrymen.
God has placed with in us greater degrees of affection corresponding another’s closeness to us. We feel a greater degree of affection for our countrymen than the foreigner, a greater degree for a friend than an unknown countryman, and still yet a greater degree of affection for a spouse, child, sibling or parent than we feel for the closest friend. As David Hume explains, this is natural and to be expected. We would call a mother wicked or insane if she did not prefer her child and love him more than she loved the stranger. If every parent looked after their children and every child took care of their parents, and every friend was loyal, and every citizen patriotic and every government served on behalf of its citizens, the world would be a utopia.
The truth lies in the middle way. One can prefer their family and friends to the point that they do harm to strangers in order to promote the well being of those they love. This is the morality of Thrasymachus and the Sopranos. Others, in their desire to love all mankind equally, abandon their family and friends. This is an equal and opposite error. As with many things, the truth lies in a balance between two extremes. For example, though we should be generous to all men, we must be sure we take care of our family first and foremost. We owe the same duty to morality to all men, we must never be immoral or unjust to any man, but we owe a greater degree of this morality to our family, friends, and countrymen.
Reply Obj. 1. To only be moral to one’s countrymen is the error of nationalism. Hitler believed that men ought to be generous and kind and that they ought to refrain from harm. All moral men agree with this. But said this morality only applied to the German people (Volk) and that it need not be extended to non-Aryans. We may judge the error of this philosophy by its ill outcome.
Reply Obj 2. The fifth commandment is to honor thy father and thy mother. One is not to honor all men equally, but rather to give greater honor to his parents. The standard of morality to be given to one’s family is higher than that which is owed to a stranger; the duty of morality differs in degree.
Reply Obj. 3. But Paul says (I Timothy 5:3-4) Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The church age did not end familial duties. Though the moral code is one and we must obey it always, no matter who we deal with, we have a greater duty of morality, even within the church, to family and kin.
Whether we Owe the Same Duty of Morality to All Men?
Objection 1. Moses says (Deuteronomy 23:20), You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite. Morality need not be given equally to all men. We do not owe the same duty of morality to members of other nations as we owe to our countrymen.
Objection 2. Moses says (Deuteronomy 9:23), be assured today that the LORD your God is the one. God is the source of all morality and justice. God is one and unchanging. Therefore we owe the exact same duty of morality to all men.
Objection 3. Before Christ a godly man could say (Psalm 3:7) Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. A man did not owe the same duty of morality to his enemies as his friends. But Christ says (Mathew 5:46), if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? In the church age we have a equal duty to all. We may not treat friends or family better than we treat strangers or enemies.
On the contrary, Jesus said to the Pharisees (Mark 7:9-13), You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that. We have a duty to give charity and be generous to all; this is a part of morality. But though this morality is owed to all, it is owed in a greater degree to one’s parents. One may must take care of his parents before he gives charity to the strangers.
I answer that, A man asked Christ to whom the duty of morality extended. Christ replied to his neighbor. In response to this reply the man asked (Luke 10:29) who is my neighbor? Christ replied in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that every man is our neighbor. The stranger, the man who is most different and distant to us is our neighbor and it is to him that we owe the same duty of morality that we owe to our friends and family. However, though we owe the same duty of morality to every man, we owe it to a greater degree to our family, friends, and countrymen.
God has placed with in us greater degrees of affection corresponding another’s closeness to us. We feel a greater degree of affection for our countrymen than the foreigner, a greater degree for a friend than an unknown countryman, and still yet a greater degree of affection for a spouse, child, sibling or parent than we feel for the closest friend. As David Hume explains, this is natural and to be expected. We would call a mother wicked or insane if she did not prefer her child and love him more than she loved the stranger. If every parent looked after their children and every child took care of their parents, and every friend was loyal, and every citizen patriotic and every government served on behalf of its citizens, the world would be a utopia.
The truth lies in the middle way. One can prefer their family and friends to the point that they do harm to strangers in order to promote the well being of those they love. This is the morality of Thrasymachus and the Sopranos. Others, in their desire to love all mankind equally, abandon their family and friends. This is an equal and opposite error. As with many things, the truth lies in a balance between two extremes. For example, though we should be generous to all men, we must be sure we take care of our family first and foremost. We owe the same duty to morality to all men, we must never be immoral or unjust to any man, but we owe a greater degree of this morality to our family, friends, and countrymen.
Reply Obj. 1. To only be moral to one’s countrymen is the error of nationalism. Hitler believed that men ought to be generous and kind and that they ought to refrain from harm. All moral men agree with this. But said this morality only applied to the German people (Volk) and that it need not be extended to non-Aryans. We may judge the error of this philosophy by its ill outcome.
Reply Obj 2. The fifth commandment is to honor thy father and thy mother. One is not to honor all men equally, but rather to give greater honor to his parents. The standard of morality to be given to one’s family is higher than that which is owed to a stranger; the duty of morality differs in degree.
Reply Obj. 3. But Paul says (I Timothy 5:3-4) Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The church age did not end familial duties. Though the moral code is one and we must obey it always, no matter who we deal with, we have a greater duty of morality, even within the church, to family and kin.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
On Morality (Third Article), What Constitutes a Moral Act?
THIRD ARTICLE
What Constitutes a Moral Act?
Objection 1. All that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the moral law. In His Law (Leviticus 18:4) God says, you must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. What is required of us is to obey the law. Therefore all that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the law.
Objection 2. Soren Kierkegaard says that there have been honest pagans honestly worshipping a false god and hypocritical Christians worshipping the true God in a false spirit. According to him the former are better off and closer to the truth than the latter. Therefore all that is needed to perform a moral act is good and honest intent.
Objection 3. What we call morality is mere social custom. In my country a woman may dress however she wishes, but in another country a woman is deemed immoral and unchaste if her head is left uncovered. What is considered moral changes from place to place, therefore what constitutes a moral act is relative to the situation.
On the contrary, Christ says (John 4:24), God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Good intentions alone (the spirit of an act) are not enough, nor is the good act itself (the truth) enough to constitute a moral act—both are needed.
I answer that, An act must be the true and right act, done with noble intent, in the proper situation to be moral.
I may want to make love. If I do so out of marriage it is the wrong act and therefore immoral. If I do so in marriage, but with the intent to harm or humiliate my wife it is also immoral. I may do it within marriage because I love my wife and thereby do the right act with the right intent, but if I do so when it is medically dangerous for her, it is still an immoral act for it is not proper to do that act given the situation. Act, intent, and situation all must be good and true for an act to be moral.
Reply Obj 1. To obey the letter of the law and no more, this was the error of the Pharisees. They thought that a moral act lay in an act alone. But Christ said, (Mathew 23:25-26) woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. An act is not good without good intent; an act is not good in and of itself. For an act to be moral more is needed than a moral act alone.
Reply Obj. 2. This is the error of subjectivism. Subjectivists believe in the supremacy of intent. I may intend to take a savage as a slave in order to civilize him, but this good intention does not excuse the wrong I do when I deprive him of his freedom. I may love my girlfriend and attempt to do her good, but my good intent does not excuse the sin of fornication. Hitler intended to make Germany a better place by exterminating the Jews, but his good intentions did not excuse his murder. Our intentions can be misguided and misinformed. People do evil acts all the time while attempting to do good; their good intentions do not excuse them from their behavior. A moral act is contains more than a good intention alone.
Reply Obj. 3. This is the error of relativism. According to relativists what is moral is completely dependant on the situation or culture in which the act takes place. Julius Caesar said that the Germanic tribes did not consider theft an evil. Some would say that if they did not think theft was wrong, theft was not wrong for them. But this is false. An act must not be judged by it culture, for if it were no act could be bad so long as society condoned it. This is contrary to common sense. None of us accept genocide, hate or rape simply because it occurs within a society that calls them good.
Leo Tolstoy said in his youth he was encouraged to have an affair with an older woman. In St. Petersburg society this was considered a good. Yet he said this was an evil despite his society. The fact that his society condoned a wrong gave no excuse for him to commit it.
Today it is acceptable in many parts of the world to beat one’s wife and mutilate the gentiles of daughter at birth. In other times at history it was acceptable to sacrifice children. No right minded person condones these acts; therefore no right minded person is truly a relativist. These acts are always wrong for morality is objective and eternal, transcending all cultures and ages.
When wronged we cry ‘that’s not fair’ and thereby appeal to a standard beyond our culture. We do so even when the wrong done to us is condoned by our culture. One can only be a relativist in theory; in practice no one is a relativist. Relativism is illogical and impractical therefore the morality of an act is not merely relative to the situation in which it was committed.
What Constitutes a Moral Act?
Objection 1. All that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the moral law. In His Law (Leviticus 18:4) God says, you must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. What is required of us is to obey the law. Therefore all that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the law.
Objection 2. Soren Kierkegaard says that there have been honest pagans honestly worshipping a false god and hypocritical Christians worshipping the true God in a false spirit. According to him the former are better off and closer to the truth than the latter. Therefore all that is needed to perform a moral act is good and honest intent.
Objection 3. What we call morality is mere social custom. In my country a woman may dress however she wishes, but in another country a woman is deemed immoral and unchaste if her head is left uncovered. What is considered moral changes from place to place, therefore what constitutes a moral act is relative to the situation.
On the contrary, Christ says (John 4:24), God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Good intentions alone (the spirit of an act) are not enough, nor is the good act itself (the truth) enough to constitute a moral act—both are needed.
I answer that, An act must be the true and right act, done with noble intent, in the proper situation to be moral.
I may want to make love. If I do so out of marriage it is the wrong act and therefore immoral. If I do so in marriage, but with the intent to harm or humiliate my wife it is also immoral. I may do it within marriage because I love my wife and thereby do the right act with the right intent, but if I do so when it is medically dangerous for her, it is still an immoral act for it is not proper to do that act given the situation. Act, intent, and situation all must be good and true for an act to be moral.
Reply Obj 1. To obey the letter of the law and no more, this was the error of the Pharisees. They thought that a moral act lay in an act alone. But Christ said, (Mathew 23:25-26) woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. An act is not good without good intent; an act is not good in and of itself. For an act to be moral more is needed than a moral act alone.
Reply Obj. 2. This is the error of subjectivism. Subjectivists believe in the supremacy of intent. I may intend to take a savage as a slave in order to civilize him, but this good intention does not excuse the wrong I do when I deprive him of his freedom. I may love my girlfriend and attempt to do her good, but my good intent does not excuse the sin of fornication. Hitler intended to make Germany a better place by exterminating the Jews, but his good intentions did not excuse his murder. Our intentions can be misguided and misinformed. People do evil acts all the time while attempting to do good; their good intentions do not excuse them from their behavior. A moral act is contains more than a good intention alone.
Reply Obj. 3. This is the error of relativism. According to relativists what is moral is completely dependant on the situation or culture in which the act takes place. Julius Caesar said that the Germanic tribes did not consider theft an evil. Some would say that if they did not think theft was wrong, theft was not wrong for them. But this is false. An act must not be judged by it culture, for if it were no act could be bad so long as society condoned it. This is contrary to common sense. None of us accept genocide, hate or rape simply because it occurs within a society that calls them good.
Leo Tolstoy said in his youth he was encouraged to have an affair with an older woman. In St. Petersburg society this was considered a good. Yet he said this was an evil despite his society. The fact that his society condoned a wrong gave no excuse for him to commit it.
Today it is acceptable in many parts of the world to beat one’s wife and mutilate the gentiles of daughter at birth. In other times at history it was acceptable to sacrifice children. No right minded person condones these acts; therefore no right minded person is truly a relativist. These acts are always wrong for morality is objective and eternal, transcending all cultures and ages.
When wronged we cry ‘that’s not fair’ and thereby appeal to a standard beyond our culture. We do so even when the wrong done to us is condoned by our culture. One can only be a relativist in theory; in practice no one is a relativist. Relativism is illogical and impractical therefore the morality of an act is not merely relative to the situation in which it was committed.
Monday, May 26, 2008
On Morality (Second Article), Whether Morality is Objective?
SECOND ARTICLE
Whether Morality is Objective?
Objection 1. Thomas Hobbes says that morality is mere subjective preference. What we like we call good, what we don’t like we call evil. For example, we like honesty and courage so we call them good, but we dislike dishonesty and cowardice so we call them bad. We do this in the same way we judge food. What we like (ice-cream) we call good, what we don’t like (asparagus) we call bad. Moral preferences are subjective personal preferences therefore morality is not objective.
Objection 2. It is wrong to lie for one’s own selfish gain. But it is not wrong to lie in order to save the life of another. If a friend was being pursued by a murderer and sought refuge in your home and the murderer asked you where your friend was, it would not be wrong to lie in order to save his life, in fact in this case it would be wrong to tell the truth. Morality is relative to the situation and not objective.
Objection 3. Men at different times and different ages lived by different moral codes. Therefore there is no objective Moral Code.
On the contrary, Leibniz says that moral truths are analogous to mathematical truths. Moral truths are fixed, necessary and eternal truths which must be the same everywhere.
I answer that, Math indeed provides the best analogy to ethics. 2+2= 4. This is objectively true for all possible men at all possible times whether or not men understand and recognize this truth. From the discovery of one mathematical truth we may infer that there is an entire field of mathematical truths containing laws which we may discover.
In the same way there are moral laws that are objectively true for all men possible men at all possible times whether or not all men understand and recognize these truths. It is always wrong to torture children for entertainment. This is an objective moral law that reason, feeling, experience, and authority all agree upon. From the discovery of this moral truth we may infer that there is an entire field of moral truths containing laws which we may discover.
Reply Obj. 1. David Hume says that all regularly constituted men have the same tastes. These tastes allow a man to not only subjectively determine what he likes and dislikes, but also objectively determine what is good and what is bad. A normal man’s tastes will allow him to decide what flavor of ice-cream or soda he subjectively likes best, but they will also allow him to objectively tell the difference between fresh and spoiled milk. In the same way a normal man can objectively tell the difference between a good and rotten act.
Reply Obj. 2. Indeed, in most situations one ought to tell the truth, while in other situations one ought not to tell the truth. This does not take away from the objective nature of morality. A man ought not steal. But a man may steal in order to save the life of a starving child. The life of a human is more valuable than property. Therefore a man may break the moral law of property on behalf of the moral law of honoring human life. A man ought to obey all the moral laws, but when they conflict he ought to obey the higher.
Morality is objective; it is not completely reducible to the relativity of a situation. It is completely objective in that a man ought to obey the whole Law, but when two provisions are in conflict, the Law dictates that we obey the higher provision. We are to honor animal life, but human life is greater than animal life. We ought to obey the government and God, but if their laws are in conflict, we are to obey God and not man. In that way morality is completely objective though its applications may vary with differing situations.
Reply Obj. 3. As mentioned above (Article 1), there is much more agreement than disagreement among men regarding the Moral Code. Second, just because a certain culture has not discovered a certain moral truth does not mean that truth lacks existence. Only the ancient Mayans, Indians, and Babylonians discovered zero. This did not mean that the truth of the concept of zero did not apply to the ancient Chinese or Romans, only that they failed to discover this truth. In the same way, the fact that a culture does not recognize a moral truth does not mean that truth lacks existence; it only means they have failed to discover it.
Whether Morality is Objective?
Objection 1. Thomas Hobbes says that morality is mere subjective preference. What we like we call good, what we don’t like we call evil. For example, we like honesty and courage so we call them good, but we dislike dishonesty and cowardice so we call them bad. We do this in the same way we judge food. What we like (ice-cream) we call good, what we don’t like (asparagus) we call bad. Moral preferences are subjective personal preferences therefore morality is not objective.
Objection 2. It is wrong to lie for one’s own selfish gain. But it is not wrong to lie in order to save the life of another. If a friend was being pursued by a murderer and sought refuge in your home and the murderer asked you where your friend was, it would not be wrong to lie in order to save his life, in fact in this case it would be wrong to tell the truth. Morality is relative to the situation and not objective.
Objection 3. Men at different times and different ages lived by different moral codes. Therefore there is no objective Moral Code.
On the contrary, Leibniz says that moral truths are analogous to mathematical truths. Moral truths are fixed, necessary and eternal truths which must be the same everywhere.
I answer that, Math indeed provides the best analogy to ethics. 2+2= 4. This is objectively true for all possible men at all possible times whether or not men understand and recognize this truth. From the discovery of one mathematical truth we may infer that there is an entire field of mathematical truths containing laws which we may discover.
In the same way there are moral laws that are objectively true for all men possible men at all possible times whether or not all men understand and recognize these truths. It is always wrong to torture children for entertainment. This is an objective moral law that reason, feeling, experience, and authority all agree upon. From the discovery of this moral truth we may infer that there is an entire field of moral truths containing laws which we may discover.
Reply Obj. 1. David Hume says that all regularly constituted men have the same tastes. These tastes allow a man to not only subjectively determine what he likes and dislikes, but also objectively determine what is good and what is bad. A normal man’s tastes will allow him to decide what flavor of ice-cream or soda he subjectively likes best, but they will also allow him to objectively tell the difference between fresh and spoiled milk. In the same way a normal man can objectively tell the difference between a good and rotten act.
Reply Obj. 2. Indeed, in most situations one ought to tell the truth, while in other situations one ought not to tell the truth. This does not take away from the objective nature of morality. A man ought not steal. But a man may steal in order to save the life of a starving child. The life of a human is more valuable than property. Therefore a man may break the moral law of property on behalf of the moral law of honoring human life. A man ought to obey all the moral laws, but when they conflict he ought to obey the higher.
Morality is objective; it is not completely reducible to the relativity of a situation. It is completely objective in that a man ought to obey the whole Law, but when two provisions are in conflict, the Law dictates that we obey the higher provision. We are to honor animal life, but human life is greater than animal life. We ought to obey the government and God, but if their laws are in conflict, we are to obey God and not man. In that way morality is completely objective though its applications may vary with differing situations.
Reply Obj. 3. As mentioned above (Article 1), there is much more agreement than disagreement among men regarding the Moral Code. Second, just because a certain culture has not discovered a certain moral truth does not mean that truth lacks existence. Only the ancient Mayans, Indians, and Babylonians discovered zero. This did not mean that the truth of the concept of zero did not apply to the ancient Chinese or Romans, only that they failed to discover this truth. In the same way, the fact that a culture does not recognize a moral truth does not mean that truth lacks existence; it only means they have failed to discover it.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
On Morality, (First Article) Whether Morality Transcends Time and Place?
This is the first in what will be a series of posts on ethics. I will discuss, among other things, whether morality transcends time and place, whether morality is absolute, what constitutes a moral action, whether we owe the same duty of morality to all men, where the moral law originates, if we may know morality without God, why there are two revelations in the Bible, whether man is compelled to obey the Law of God, whether man may be moral without God, and how man may be moral in God.
In my discussion of this topic I will use the scholastic method popularized by St. Thomas Aquinas.
FIRST ARTICLE
Whether Morality Transcends Time and Place?
Objection 1. It would seem that morality differs in every culture. The ancient Scythians ate the dead, the ancient Greeks burned their dead, and today we bury our dead. The Scythians would have been as horrified to bury the dead as we would be to eat the dead. Every culture has its own costumes regarding disposal of the dead. These differ and are in constant conflict therefore morality constantly changes from time to time and place to place.
Objection 2. Moral practices differ from time to time and place. Rates of murder may be higher in the United States than in Italy, but rates of adultery are lower in the United States than in Italy. Because nations’ moral practices differ morality differs from time and place there is no morality that transcends time and place.
Objection 3. There may be agreement on such things as respect for property or human life across the ages, there is no such agreement as to what constitutes sexual morality. In Canaan, sex with a cultic prostitute was the means by which man knew God. But the Hebrews condemned prostitution. In some ages a man is allowed only one wife, in another he may have many. Because notions of sexual morality differ so greatly between different cultures there is no morality that transcends times and place.
On the contrary, The Apostle Paul says (Romans 2:14-15) when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law . . . they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. There is but one Law written in the hearts of all men. This law transcends both time and place.
I answer that, There is great agreement among wise men across ages and times on what constitutes morality. Hammurabi, Confucius, Isaiah, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, and St. Thomas Aquinas agree on all the essentials. All would have us be generous and hospitable, refrain from violence, respect our neighbor’s property, and not take what is not ours.
Expectations of hospitality and notions of property change from time to time. When they do change the application of these principles will change as well. But the moral principles that underlie our actions do not change from time to time or place to place.
Reply Obj. 1. Often an act may change from culture to culture while the virtue remains the same. One culture may indeed burn the dead, another may bury the dead, while yet another may eat their dead but all do so to honor their dead. The act of burning or eating may differ, but the morality, to honor the dead, remains unchanged.
Reply Obj. 2. We are all hypocrites. Not one nation, not even one man save the Man, was able to live perfectly moral. We all aspire to that which we cannot attain. No culture is ever able to live up to its moral goals. We all know what sin is, yet we all remain sinners nonetheless. Just because a nation has a higher rate of murder or adultery does not mean it condones those actions. It simply indicates that it does a worse job of living up to its principles.
Reply Obj. 3. Of all moral acts sexual practices are the most divergent. Sexual desire, being the strongest of all appetites, is most able to corrupt the reason and virtue of men. Being that it is such a strong desire we should expect men to deviate farthest from this truth in order to satisfy their passions. But even though sexual practices differ greatly, there still exists an underlying unity within them. Some tribe may engage in debauchery and orgies, but they still must have a system to raise children otherwise they would die out. Though cultures differ on sex all agree that they must protect and raise their children to avoid extinction.
In my discussion of this topic I will use the scholastic method popularized by St. Thomas Aquinas.
FIRST ARTICLE
Whether Morality Transcends Time and Place?
Objection 1. It would seem that morality differs in every culture. The ancient Scythians ate the dead, the ancient Greeks burned their dead, and today we bury our dead. The Scythians would have been as horrified to bury the dead as we would be to eat the dead. Every culture has its own costumes regarding disposal of the dead. These differ and are in constant conflict therefore morality constantly changes from time to time and place to place.
Objection 2. Moral practices differ from time to time and place. Rates of murder may be higher in the United States than in Italy, but rates of adultery are lower in the United States than in Italy. Because nations’ moral practices differ morality differs from time and place there is no morality that transcends time and place.
Objection 3. There may be agreement on such things as respect for property or human life across the ages, there is no such agreement as to what constitutes sexual morality. In Canaan, sex with a cultic prostitute was the means by which man knew God. But the Hebrews condemned prostitution. In some ages a man is allowed only one wife, in another he may have many. Because notions of sexual morality differ so greatly between different cultures there is no morality that transcends times and place.
On the contrary, The Apostle Paul says (Romans 2:14-15) when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law . . . they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. There is but one Law written in the hearts of all men. This law transcends both time and place.
I answer that, There is great agreement among wise men across ages and times on what constitutes morality. Hammurabi, Confucius, Isaiah, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, and St. Thomas Aquinas agree on all the essentials. All would have us be generous and hospitable, refrain from violence, respect our neighbor’s property, and not take what is not ours.
Expectations of hospitality and notions of property change from time to time. When they do change the application of these principles will change as well. But the moral principles that underlie our actions do not change from time to time or place to place.
Reply Obj. 1. Often an act may change from culture to culture while the virtue remains the same. One culture may indeed burn the dead, another may bury the dead, while yet another may eat their dead but all do so to honor their dead. The act of burning or eating may differ, but the morality, to honor the dead, remains unchanged.
Reply Obj. 2. We are all hypocrites. Not one nation, not even one man save the Man, was able to live perfectly moral. We all aspire to that which we cannot attain. No culture is ever able to live up to its moral goals. We all know what sin is, yet we all remain sinners nonetheless. Just because a nation has a higher rate of murder or adultery does not mean it condones those actions. It simply indicates that it does a worse job of living up to its principles.
Reply Obj. 3. Of all moral acts sexual practices are the most divergent. Sexual desire, being the strongest of all appetites, is most able to corrupt the reason and virtue of men. Being that it is such a strong desire we should expect men to deviate farthest from this truth in order to satisfy their passions. But even though sexual practices differ greatly, there still exists an underlying unity within them. Some tribe may engage in debauchery and orgies, but they still must have a system to raise children otherwise they would die out. Though cultures differ on sex all agree that they must protect and raise their children to avoid extinction.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Sins of our Fathers
You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers' sins into the laps of their children after them.
Jeremiah 32:18
This isn’t fair. Children do not choose their parents; why should they be punished for the actions of their parents? In the Law of Moses God told Moses that children must not be punished for the crimes of their parents. Why this discrepancy in Jeremiah?
I think the best way to read this verse is not as a God imposed curse, but rather as a prophecy or an astute observation.
I recently started working at a district attorney’s office. In my short time there I have found this statement to be all too true.
Kids who grow up with lazy, selfish, alcoholic, infidelities or abusive parents suffer for the sins of their parents.
Children with lazy and selfish parents lack the opportunities of other children. They are passed on from their parents to grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friends. Often they lack the discipline necessary to help break them of bad habits. Frequently they become delinquents and criminals themselves.
The same could be said about children with alcoholic parents or those involved with drugs and other minor crimes.
Children that are abused are more like to be violent and engage in perverted or abusive behavior towards others.
What is to be done? All too often we are slow to punish a man for abusing his spouse or kids because he was abused by his parents before him. Repeatedly we excuse a young man’s petty crime and refusal to work because he lacked opportunity growing up because his dad would not work, but rather engaged in petty crime himself.
In Catch-22 Joseph Heller wrote:
It was a man’s world, and she and everyone younger had every right to blame him and everyone older for every unnatural tragedy that befell them; just as she, even in her grief, was to blame for every man-made misery that landed on her kid sister and on all other children behind her. Someone had to do something sometime. Every victim was a culprit, every culprit a victim, and somebody had to stand up sometime to break the lousy chain of inherited habit that was imperiling them all.
We need to make a break. We need to give our children a chance and protect them from the consequences of the sins of their parents. But how do we do this? If the state interferes too deeply in an attempt to create better environments for children it could harm the structure of the family too deeply and become the defacto parent of children. This has already happened to a large degree. Our children learn not only arithmetic and grammar at our schools, but their values and morality. This has no worked thus far and there is no indication that if the state took more authority away from parents it could do a better job than them. And besides this has and would continue to take children away from good parents.
The first thing we can and should do is attach greater penalties on crime. Too often kids grow up without discipline or consequences for their action and think they can get away with it as an adult. They get a couple of theft violations here, a few battery violations there and maybe a couple of drug offenses on the side. The state, wanting to give them a second chance allows them to go to anger and drug counseling. Too often they are not given one chance, but dozens. Their belief that they can do whatever they want without consequence is not changed. It is not uncommon to see a convicted murderer or rapist have 25 or 30 prior convictions. They were given all the chances in the world to change and they used every one of those chances to bring further harm.
If the individual will not voluntarily bind his conscience and teach it to do what is good and right, the state must bind it for him. The state must show him, very clearly, that actions have serious consequences. If they do this with more minor crimes maybe they can help him learn this before he commits a more serious crime.
If we were to do this would things change? I believe to some degree they would. We can socialize people to a large degree to make good decisions. But we must not kid ourselves and pretend that the state can make a perfect society. If have learned anything from my new job it is that there are some people who are beyond hope and redemption. They are so messed up that no human institution could ever save themselves from the hell they’ve created in their lives.
Ultimately, all our hope of redemption lies in God alone. It is as true of us as it is for them; we simply see it more clearly in some than in others. Should we try to help the hopeless? Of course. God tells us to love because He loves, not because it will reap any particular result. But we must not pretend that we can save them. Salvation lies in God alone.
Jeremiah 32:18
This isn’t fair. Children do not choose their parents; why should they be punished for the actions of their parents? In the Law of Moses God told Moses that children must not be punished for the crimes of their parents. Why this discrepancy in Jeremiah?
I think the best way to read this verse is not as a God imposed curse, but rather as a prophecy or an astute observation.
I recently started working at a district attorney’s office. In my short time there I have found this statement to be all too true.
Kids who grow up with lazy, selfish, alcoholic, infidelities or abusive parents suffer for the sins of their parents.
Children with lazy and selfish parents lack the opportunities of other children. They are passed on from their parents to grandparents, aunts and uncles, and friends. Often they lack the discipline necessary to help break them of bad habits. Frequently they become delinquents and criminals themselves.
The same could be said about children with alcoholic parents or those involved with drugs and other minor crimes.
Children that are abused are more like to be violent and engage in perverted or abusive behavior towards others.
What is to be done? All too often we are slow to punish a man for abusing his spouse or kids because he was abused by his parents before him. Repeatedly we excuse a young man’s petty crime and refusal to work because he lacked opportunity growing up because his dad would not work, but rather engaged in petty crime himself.
In Catch-22 Joseph Heller wrote:
It was a man’s world, and she and everyone younger had every right to blame him and everyone older for every unnatural tragedy that befell them; just as she, even in her grief, was to blame for every man-made misery that landed on her kid sister and on all other children behind her. Someone had to do something sometime. Every victim was a culprit, every culprit a victim, and somebody had to stand up sometime to break the lousy chain of inherited habit that was imperiling them all.
We need to make a break. We need to give our children a chance and protect them from the consequences of the sins of their parents. But how do we do this? If the state interferes too deeply in an attempt to create better environments for children it could harm the structure of the family too deeply and become the defacto parent of children. This has already happened to a large degree. Our children learn not only arithmetic and grammar at our schools, but their values and morality. This has no worked thus far and there is no indication that if the state took more authority away from parents it could do a better job than them. And besides this has and would continue to take children away from good parents.
The first thing we can and should do is attach greater penalties on crime. Too often kids grow up without discipline or consequences for their action and think they can get away with it as an adult. They get a couple of theft violations here, a few battery violations there and maybe a couple of drug offenses on the side. The state, wanting to give them a second chance allows them to go to anger and drug counseling. Too often they are not given one chance, but dozens. Their belief that they can do whatever they want without consequence is not changed. It is not uncommon to see a convicted murderer or rapist have 25 or 30 prior convictions. They were given all the chances in the world to change and they used every one of those chances to bring further harm.
If the individual will not voluntarily bind his conscience and teach it to do what is good and right, the state must bind it for him. The state must show him, very clearly, that actions have serious consequences. If they do this with more minor crimes maybe they can help him learn this before he commits a more serious crime.
If we were to do this would things change? I believe to some degree they would. We can socialize people to a large degree to make good decisions. But we must not kid ourselves and pretend that the state can make a perfect society. If have learned anything from my new job it is that there are some people who are beyond hope and redemption. They are so messed up that no human institution could ever save themselves from the hell they’ve created in their lives.
Ultimately, all our hope of redemption lies in God alone. It is as true of us as it is for them; we simply see it more clearly in some than in others. Should we try to help the hopeless? Of course. God tells us to love because He loves, not because it will reap any particular result. But we must not pretend that we can save them. Salvation lies in God alone.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Pursuit of Happiness
To cease thinking about or attending to a woman is, so far, to cease loving; to cease thinking about or attending to a dreaded thing is, so far, to cease being afraid. But to attend to our own love or fear is to cease attending to the loved or dreaded object. In other words the enjoyment and the contemplation of our inner activities are incompatible. The surest way means of disarming an anger or a lust is to turn your attention from the girl or the insult and start examining the passion itself. The surest way of spoiling a pleasure is to start examining your satisfaction.
Pleasure is a byproduct, not an end. Pleasure is what we receive from reading a good book or watching a beautiful sunset. When we focus not on the book or the sunset but the pleasure they produce we at once lose all pleasure.
This is from where addictions arise. Addiction is the pursuit of a pleasure. But when we pursue pleasure we grasp at phantoms and chase after wind. We seek after something that, in itself, can never be found.
Only by looking to other things and people beyond ourselves can we love or enjoy anything at all.
Pleasure is a byproduct, not an end. Pleasure is what we receive from reading a good book or watching a beautiful sunset. When we focus not on the book or the sunset but the pleasure they produce we at once lose all pleasure.
This is from where addictions arise. Addiction is the pursuit of a pleasure. But when we pursue pleasure we grasp at phantoms and chase after wind. We seek after something that, in itself, can never be found.
Only by looking to other things and people beyond ourselves can we love or enjoy anything at all.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Pain
A good God would want us to be happy. Happiness is a life lived without pain. An all powerful God would be able to provide us with a life without pain. There is pain in life therefore God is either not good or not all powerful.
What is a life lived without pain? Certainly it is a life without correction or punishment. It is a life where we may do what we desire to do without any consequence: we may get drunk without a hangover, have sex without disease, and break the law without fine or jail time. We say if God was able and really loved us we would have this type of a life. Maybe our concept of love needs changing.
Christ said that bastard kids are spoiled or left alone and that kids that are loved are corrected. It is people we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms. With friend and lovers we are exacting. We would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes. I know no parent who would prefer their child went through a period of pain and became a generous and kind person rather than remain a greedy, vengeful, impatient, selfish, but happy person. In the same way God gives us endless trouble because He loves us. When we ask that God leaves us alone we ask for less love, not more.
Love wants the best and suffering has the ability to purify, therefore love accepts suffering. God’s goal is that we become His children—that we become objects in which the Divine love may rest well pleased. In our better moments we agree with this truth. We don’t want God to be content with our sins any more than a beggar or whore that the king wants to marry would want the king to be content with her poverty or filth. In our better moments we want to suffer and be made pure for the behalf of our beloved.
The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. Our God is a consuming fire. At times we will be burnt, but our God is something real, our God is reality. When we want a God who will leave us alone we want a God that is less real and less personal. We want more of ourselves and we curse the interference that a real God brings our quest for self-satisfaction.
In the end we all obey God. If we disobey proper laws we will be bound by lower laws: e.g. if you disobey the law of prudence and walk too quickly only slippery pavement you will find yourself suddenly obeying the law of gravitation. In the end we all do God’s will. Judas and John both carried out God’s will but there was a great difference in the way which they did this.
We need God, but all too often we will turn to God as a last resort. God, in His mercy, often takes away all our other options leaving Himself as the last resort. It is poor to treat God as the last lifeboat on the sinking ship of life, but God, in His humility allows us to come to Him even on those terms.
The slowest descent into Hell is a gradual one. Our greatest danger is falling into such minor sins that we fail to recognize their sinfulness. We may not murder, but Satan need not tempt us to murder if impatience will do the trick. That is why in the Gospels Christ is hardest on the self-righteous and easiest on the prostitutes. The former may find satisfaction in this life without God while the latter most certainly will not. The latter is filled with pain and pain is often God’s merciful reminder that not all is well.
There is a difference between forgiveness and condoning. To condone an evil is to ignore it. To forgive requires a man to admit his fault—the man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. The ancient pagan and Jew alike knew their sin and their need for forgiveness. Man today knows of no such need; under the influence of humanism man today thinks he is good and that any evil he may do is caused by his environment or genetics—whatever causes him to do evil it is certainly not his fault. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to preach the dreadful prognosis before we may share the most glorious cure. A doctor may be able to perform a life saving operation, but you won’t consent to it if you don’t think you are sick and in need of it. In the same way Christ brings salvation to sinners, but sinners won’t accept it before they are made aware of their sin.
Pain is a symptom of our disease. True happiness lies in God alone. It would be unmerciful for God to allow us to think we could find happiness without Him. Pain is a constant reminder that we cannot.
What is a life lived without pain? Certainly it is a life without correction or punishment. It is a life where we may do what we desire to do without any consequence: we may get drunk without a hangover, have sex without disease, and break the law without fine or jail time. We say if God was able and really loved us we would have this type of a life. Maybe our concept of love needs changing.
Christ said that bastard kids are spoiled or left alone and that kids that are loved are corrected. It is people we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms. With friend and lovers we are exacting. We would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes. I know no parent who would prefer their child went through a period of pain and became a generous and kind person rather than remain a greedy, vengeful, impatient, selfish, but happy person. In the same way God gives us endless trouble because He loves us. When we ask that God leaves us alone we ask for less love, not more.
Love wants the best and suffering has the ability to purify, therefore love accepts suffering. God’s goal is that we become His children—that we become objects in which the Divine love may rest well pleased. In our better moments we agree with this truth. We don’t want God to be content with our sins any more than a beggar or whore that the king wants to marry would want the king to be content with her poverty or filth. In our better moments we want to suffer and be made pure for the behalf of our beloved.
The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. Our God is a consuming fire. At times we will be burnt, but our God is something real, our God is reality. When we want a God who will leave us alone we want a God that is less real and less personal. We want more of ourselves and we curse the interference that a real God brings our quest for self-satisfaction.
In the end we all obey God. If we disobey proper laws we will be bound by lower laws: e.g. if you disobey the law of prudence and walk too quickly only slippery pavement you will find yourself suddenly obeying the law of gravitation. In the end we all do God’s will. Judas and John both carried out God’s will but there was a great difference in the way which they did this.
We need God, but all too often we will turn to God as a last resort. God, in His mercy, often takes away all our other options leaving Himself as the last resort. It is poor to treat God as the last lifeboat on the sinking ship of life, but God, in His humility allows us to come to Him even on those terms.
The slowest descent into Hell is a gradual one. Our greatest danger is falling into such minor sins that we fail to recognize their sinfulness. We may not murder, but Satan need not tempt us to murder if impatience will do the trick. That is why in the Gospels Christ is hardest on the self-righteous and easiest on the prostitutes. The former may find satisfaction in this life without God while the latter most certainly will not. The latter is filled with pain and pain is often God’s merciful reminder that not all is well.
There is a difference between forgiveness and condoning. To condone an evil is to ignore it. To forgive requires a man to admit his fault—the man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. The ancient pagan and Jew alike knew their sin and their need for forgiveness. Man today knows of no such need; under the influence of humanism man today thinks he is good and that any evil he may do is caused by his environment or genetics—whatever causes him to do evil it is certainly not his fault. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to preach the dreadful prognosis before we may share the most glorious cure. A doctor may be able to perform a life saving operation, but you won’t consent to it if you don’t think you are sick and in need of it. In the same way Christ brings salvation to sinners, but sinners won’t accept it before they are made aware of their sin.
Pain is a symptom of our disease. True happiness lies in God alone. It would be unmerciful for God to allow us to think we could find happiness without Him. Pain is a constant reminder that we cannot.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Beauty of Death
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
-Romans 8:28
Is this true? If so, do we believe it? To investigate the validity of this statement let us consider the two greatest evil this world has known: the passion of Christ and the curse of death.
God, the creator of all living things, became man and lived perfectly amongst his creation. Perfect light filled the darkness, but the darkness hated the light because its deeds were evil. In the greatest crime of all history the men of earth killed their creator on a cross. Truly there has never been such a great evil.
And yet, in the ashes of this evil arose good. God used this evil to provide salvation for mankind. In this great evil lies the greatest example of sacrifice and love. In it lies our hope.
What about death? Surely death is an evil; it is the curse for our sin. It separates loved ones and brings more pain than any other event on earth. How can any good come out of this?
In one sense death is a gift. We have sinned, we are not whole men. We are filled with rage, depression, hate, and lust. All too often we make this world a hell for ourselves and others. Death protects us from evil men. Think if Hitler, Napoleon, and Caesar were immortal? What mischief would be beyond their power? Death opens the door for redemption and new life. Our disease is that we live disconnected with God and our fellow man; woe to us if this existence was eternal! God in His grace cursed us with death so that we might live a life whole and complete, redeemed and free from the consequences of sin.
The fairy tales of old demonstrate the finite power of evil. A witch comes and curses a princess. The curse is evil and brings much pain. But the evil is temporary and always brings about the exact result the witch had hoped to prevent—it was an evil that Sleeping Beauty slept for one-hundred years, but had she not she would have never met her prince charming.
The power of evil works the same way in real life. Satan motivated evil men to kill Christ to prevent Him from carrying out His mission. But God used His death as a means for the salvation of men. Satan did this evil, but in doing it brought about the precise result he hoped to prevent. In the same way our deaths are evil, but they free us from a fallen world in which we would otherwise be trapped for all time.
Romans 8:28 is truer than we realize: there is nothing evil on this earth that God will not redeem and use for good.
-Romans 8:28
Is this true? If so, do we believe it? To investigate the validity of this statement let us consider the two greatest evil this world has known: the passion of Christ and the curse of death.
God, the creator of all living things, became man and lived perfectly amongst his creation. Perfect light filled the darkness, but the darkness hated the light because its deeds were evil. In the greatest crime of all history the men of earth killed their creator on a cross. Truly there has never been such a great evil.
And yet, in the ashes of this evil arose good. God used this evil to provide salvation for mankind. In this great evil lies the greatest example of sacrifice and love. In it lies our hope.
What about death? Surely death is an evil; it is the curse for our sin. It separates loved ones and brings more pain than any other event on earth. How can any good come out of this?
In one sense death is a gift. We have sinned, we are not whole men. We are filled with rage, depression, hate, and lust. All too often we make this world a hell for ourselves and others. Death protects us from evil men. Think if Hitler, Napoleon, and Caesar were immortal? What mischief would be beyond their power? Death opens the door for redemption and new life. Our disease is that we live disconnected with God and our fellow man; woe to us if this existence was eternal! God in His grace cursed us with death so that we might live a life whole and complete, redeemed and free from the consequences of sin.
The fairy tales of old demonstrate the finite power of evil. A witch comes and curses a princess. The curse is evil and brings much pain. But the evil is temporary and always brings about the exact result the witch had hoped to prevent—it was an evil that Sleeping Beauty slept for one-hundred years, but had she not she would have never met her prince charming.
The power of evil works the same way in real life. Satan motivated evil men to kill Christ to prevent Him from carrying out His mission. But God used His death as a means for the salvation of men. Satan did this evil, but in doing it brought about the precise result he hoped to prevent. In the same way our deaths are evil, but they free us from a fallen world in which we would otherwise be trapped for all time.
Romans 8:28 is truer than we realize: there is nothing evil on this earth that God will not redeem and use for good.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Myth Becomes Fact
What are we to make of the mythical elements in the Bible? It takes no scholar to notice that there are many stories (like the creation or the flood) that have mythical elements. Does this mythical element make the stories any less true?
In The Everlasting Man G.K. Chesterton wrote that Christianity is the fulfillment of all that was true in Pagan philosophy and art. C.S. Lewis expounded further. He noted this and added that Christianity itself was a myth. However, there was one aspect about the myth of Christianity that made it differ from all other myths—it was the one true myth.
The fact that other myths hint at the truth of Christianity is demonstrated clearly by looking at a couple Greek myths.
The Greeks believed there was one great God above all other gods. The lower and bad gods filled the waters; the most terrible under the earth. The worst of all gods was Hades, the god of the dead, a fearful snake.
The Greeks knew of the fall of man. According to Hesiod the first humans lived happily for many centuries. The earth fed and nourished them and they never aged. But the first woman introduced evil into the world by seeking knowledge through disobedience.
Like all other cultures, Greece had a flood story (the oldest and best preserved is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh). According to the ancient Greeks the iniquity of the human race provoked Zeus to overwhelm humanity with a flood. Only one man and his wife (Deucalion and Pyrrha) were saved in an ark that came to rest on top of a mountain. Ancient Greek scientists found evidence in this in the many marine fossils they found on the tops of mountains.
The fact that these stories are shared among every oral culture is strong proof that these events actually occurred. The Israelites were no different than other ancient nations in having a mythology; the difference lay in the fact that theirs was divinely inspired and without error.
Not only did the Greeks have knowledge of past truths, their religion foreshadowed truths to come.
In the story of Heracles (Hercules), the beloved son of god came to earth and suffered for mankind. He died, descended into Hades, then as raised to life and ascended to heaven.
Similarly, in the myth of Adonis we have the traditional vegetation theme—the annual death and resurrection of the soil. The corn dies to bring life. Acted out with this yearly planting was the story of a son of god dying to save mankind and bring it life. Man found holy communion with this god by drinking his blood and eating his flesh.
According to historian Will Durant, the age old question: is religion created by a priest, is settled by a careful examination of Greek religion. He states it is incredible to believe a conspiracy of primitive theologians should have begotten such a complex religion.
500 years before Paul and the apostles wrote the New Testament Xenophanes wrote, “There is one god, supreme among gods and men; resembling mortals neither in form nor in mind. The whole of him sees, the whole of him thinks, the whole of him hears. Without toil he rules all things by the power of his mind.”
Out of 1,000 religions I could not believe that 999 were totally false and only one was true. I could not believe that all these men were so completely wrong on the most essential question. What I would expect to find is exactly what I see: fallen men imperfectly striving toward a God they cannot reach on their own. They would grasp hold of some truths, while remaining completely wrong in others. God in His grace allows all men to know Him through nature (Romans 1). But since man is fallen all men know him incompletely. Yet their partial grasp of the truth allows them to fully recognize and accept the full truth when it is presented to them.
A man who observed that the higher a mountain is the longer snow remains on its slopes would not be surprised if he saw a mountain so high that snow never left its peak. That would be the fulfillment of the thing he knew to be true. In the same way Plato saw in Socrates’ death the reaction an evil world has towards goodness. He would not at all be surprised that the world killed Perfect Goodness (Christ) when it entered the world. In fact, given his observation and the principles they entailed, it would be exactly the result he would have expected.
The Greeks, in their myths, understood core principles. When the True Myth occurred many were able to grasp the fact that it was a fulfillment of all the truth they had known.
In The Everlasting Man G.K. Chesterton wrote that Christianity is the fulfillment of all that was true in Pagan philosophy and art. C.S. Lewis expounded further. He noted this and added that Christianity itself was a myth. However, there was one aspect about the myth of Christianity that made it differ from all other myths—it was the one true myth.
The fact that other myths hint at the truth of Christianity is demonstrated clearly by looking at a couple Greek myths.
The Greeks believed there was one great God above all other gods. The lower and bad gods filled the waters; the most terrible under the earth. The worst of all gods was Hades, the god of the dead, a fearful snake.
The Greeks knew of the fall of man. According to Hesiod the first humans lived happily for many centuries. The earth fed and nourished them and they never aged. But the first woman introduced evil into the world by seeking knowledge through disobedience.
Like all other cultures, Greece had a flood story (the oldest and best preserved is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh). According to the ancient Greeks the iniquity of the human race provoked Zeus to overwhelm humanity with a flood. Only one man and his wife (Deucalion and Pyrrha) were saved in an ark that came to rest on top of a mountain. Ancient Greek scientists found evidence in this in the many marine fossils they found on the tops of mountains.
The fact that these stories are shared among every oral culture is strong proof that these events actually occurred. The Israelites were no different than other ancient nations in having a mythology; the difference lay in the fact that theirs was divinely inspired and without error.
Not only did the Greeks have knowledge of past truths, their religion foreshadowed truths to come.
In the story of Heracles (Hercules), the beloved son of god came to earth and suffered for mankind. He died, descended into Hades, then as raised to life and ascended to heaven.
Similarly, in the myth of Adonis we have the traditional vegetation theme—the annual death and resurrection of the soil. The corn dies to bring life. Acted out with this yearly planting was the story of a son of god dying to save mankind and bring it life. Man found holy communion with this god by drinking his blood and eating his flesh.
According to historian Will Durant, the age old question: is religion created by a priest, is settled by a careful examination of Greek religion. He states it is incredible to believe a conspiracy of primitive theologians should have begotten such a complex religion.
500 years before Paul and the apostles wrote the New Testament Xenophanes wrote, “There is one god, supreme among gods and men; resembling mortals neither in form nor in mind. The whole of him sees, the whole of him thinks, the whole of him hears. Without toil he rules all things by the power of his mind.”
Out of 1,000 religions I could not believe that 999 were totally false and only one was true. I could not believe that all these men were so completely wrong on the most essential question. What I would expect to find is exactly what I see: fallen men imperfectly striving toward a God they cannot reach on their own. They would grasp hold of some truths, while remaining completely wrong in others. God in His grace allows all men to know Him through nature (Romans 1). But since man is fallen all men know him incompletely. Yet their partial grasp of the truth allows them to fully recognize and accept the full truth when it is presented to them.
A man who observed that the higher a mountain is the longer snow remains on its slopes would not be surprised if he saw a mountain so high that snow never left its peak. That would be the fulfillment of the thing he knew to be true. In the same way Plato saw in Socrates’ death the reaction an evil world has towards goodness. He would not at all be surprised that the world killed Perfect Goodness (Christ) when it entered the world. In fact, given his observation and the principles they entailed, it would be exactly the result he would have expected.
The Greeks, in their myths, understood core principles. When the True Myth occurred many were able to grasp the fact that it was a fulfillment of all the truth they had known.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Unity and Truth
With death at His doorstep Christ prayed for the unity of the church (John 17:23). Likewise, Paul instructed the churches of Rome and Ephesus (Romans 15:15 and Ephesians 4:3) to be unified with one another.
Are we as a church unified today? We have a number of denominations—in this country alone there are too many to count. Churches split over disagreements about what type of music to play during worship or what color the padding on the pews should be. Certainly this is not the unity Christ prayed for and Paul instructed us to keep.
But in our quest for unity we must not react too far the other way and fall into ecumenicalism. When one is a driving a car and they begin to skip left the most common mistake is to turn right too far and in that way crash one’s car. Though we may wrongfully lack unity we must not seek unity at the cost of truth.
We must keep in mind what Jesus said in John 4:23. There he told the Samaritan woman at the well that the Father’s goal is to have people who worship in spirit and in truth. We are to be one in spirit with God and with one another, but this unity must be anchored in the truth. There can be no unity outside of the truth.
Paul wrote that our bodies are temples of God (I Corinthians 6:19). How can we unite what is holy with that which is base? How can we unite our physical bodies with a prostitute, Paul asks. In the same way the church as a whole is the body of Christ. How can we unite what is true and holy with that is false and base? How can we unite the body of Christ with a false church, with a false God, a doctrine of the devil?
Luther and Calvin broke from the Catholic Church because they believed it had moved so far from the truth that it had ceased being the church. The Medieval Catholic Church preached a false gospel; a gospel of works. In Paul’s day men preached this gospel. In Galatians 5 he demonstrated the falsity of this belief and condemns those who hold it. He would have no unity with such men.
In I Timothy 6 Paul warned Timothy to be on guard against men who preach false doctrine. He instructed Timothy to be on guard and hold firm to the truth. Yes we should seek greater unity, but we must be cautious. We are to worship God in truth and we must not exchange the truth of God for a falsehood in order to have unity with others.
It is true that no one has a perfect conception of God. But there are a number of things that the Bible makes perfectly clear: God created man, man sinned, man needed salvation, God provided salvation to man by means of the death of His son Jesus. And this salvation is offered to all freely. If a group claims to come in the name of Christ and rejects any of these central tenants of our faith (and many do) no such unity can be possible. As for other more minor disagreements—disagreements over things which the Bible lacks clear instruction, like type of music, there is no excuse for disunity. In these cases we must sacrifice our pride for the sake of unity. But while doing so we must be careful that we never sacrifice the truth.
Are we as a church unified today? We have a number of denominations—in this country alone there are too many to count. Churches split over disagreements about what type of music to play during worship or what color the padding on the pews should be. Certainly this is not the unity Christ prayed for and Paul instructed us to keep.
But in our quest for unity we must not react too far the other way and fall into ecumenicalism. When one is a driving a car and they begin to skip left the most common mistake is to turn right too far and in that way crash one’s car. Though we may wrongfully lack unity we must not seek unity at the cost of truth.
We must keep in mind what Jesus said in John 4:23. There he told the Samaritan woman at the well that the Father’s goal is to have people who worship in spirit and in truth. We are to be one in spirit with God and with one another, but this unity must be anchored in the truth. There can be no unity outside of the truth.
Paul wrote that our bodies are temples of God (I Corinthians 6:19). How can we unite what is holy with that which is base? How can we unite our physical bodies with a prostitute, Paul asks. In the same way the church as a whole is the body of Christ. How can we unite what is true and holy with that is false and base? How can we unite the body of Christ with a false church, with a false God, a doctrine of the devil?
Luther and Calvin broke from the Catholic Church because they believed it had moved so far from the truth that it had ceased being the church. The Medieval Catholic Church preached a false gospel; a gospel of works. In Paul’s day men preached this gospel. In Galatians 5 he demonstrated the falsity of this belief and condemns those who hold it. He would have no unity with such men.
In I Timothy 6 Paul warned Timothy to be on guard against men who preach false doctrine. He instructed Timothy to be on guard and hold firm to the truth. Yes we should seek greater unity, but we must be cautious. We are to worship God in truth and we must not exchange the truth of God for a falsehood in order to have unity with others.
It is true that no one has a perfect conception of God. But there are a number of things that the Bible makes perfectly clear: God created man, man sinned, man needed salvation, God provided salvation to man by means of the death of His son Jesus. And this salvation is offered to all freely. If a group claims to come in the name of Christ and rejects any of these central tenants of our faith (and many do) no such unity can be possible. As for other more minor disagreements—disagreements over things which the Bible lacks clear instruction, like type of music, there is no excuse for disunity. In these cases we must sacrifice our pride for the sake of unity. But while doing so we must be careful that we never sacrifice the truth.
Jesus and the Church
I have heard quite a few times that the people loved Jesus, but hate the church. If only we were like Jesus the people would flock to the church as they flocked to Jesus. But this is false.
First people did not embrace Jesus completely. Though he fed 5,000, at the very end of his ministry he appears to only 500. The people asked for him to be crucified! Far more rejected him than embraced him to the point that their rejection of him lead to a change in mission.
Second, of those who followed him at one time, many followed him for wrong reasons. He rebukes the crowd (John 6:26) saying they followed him for the wrong reason: they got their fill of bread. He does not encourage false belief, but confronts them with the truth. He tells them that he is the bread of life. He uses this analogy despite the fact that it offends them. It seems that throughout his ministry he drove far more people from him than to him for he would not have people follow him outside of the truth.
How too often do we think the church must bend over backwards to avoid offending and be seeker friendly? Yes we should try to be all things to all men like Paul did, but no compromise on the truth in the process. John 3 tells why people reject Christ, not because they are too smart and God doesn't make sense, not because the gospel was not presented in a perfect, but because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)
I think it is false and dangerous for the church to blame itself for those that reject Christ. I know what you are talking about, that belief that if there is perfect presentation people will always accept Christ. The burden then is not to proclaim the gospel, but to proclaim it perfectly for every rejection is our fault and not the fault of the rejecter.
The scripture obviously rejects this claim. Christ was rejected to the point of death and he told us we should expect the same. Second, it can lead to burn out or despair. We ask ourselves: what are we doing that is causing them to reject God? Third, it leads to the temptation to change things that ought not be changed. We seek to be seeker friendly and go out of our way to not offend. But the gospel is offensive! We are sinners! We cannot save ourselves! We must start here in a humble recognition of our depravity before we can accept Christ's saving act of grace. But this offensive and too often we bypass it. But in losing this we lose an essential aspect of the Bible. Finally we change things that we need not. We chase after relevance and in doing so become irrelevant. If the church embraces the fashions of the world will it not be discarded as fashions change? The church must begin with timeless truths. That, and not contemporary music or casual dress, is the key to its relevance. It is not wrong to seek to make the church adapted to one's culture, but this should occur naturally and not be the focus. For when we put things of secondary importance above the things that should be first, we lose them both.
So oddly enough by worry is not so much the emptying pews, but the filled mega-churches. It is good that men hear the gospel, but are they hearing it? Christ, Paul, Peter: all of them died because they said things people didn't want to hear. I worry not when the world rejects the church, but when it embraces it. Christ said the world would reject us, for we are not of this world. When we are embraced I think we must soberly ask what we doing differently to provoke this change. We must not sacrifice the truth for numbers.
First people did not embrace Jesus completely. Though he fed 5,000, at the very end of his ministry he appears to only 500. The people asked for him to be crucified! Far more rejected him than embraced him to the point that their rejection of him lead to a change in mission.
Second, of those who followed him at one time, many followed him for wrong reasons. He rebukes the crowd (John 6:26) saying they followed him for the wrong reason: they got their fill of bread. He does not encourage false belief, but confronts them with the truth. He tells them that he is the bread of life. He uses this analogy despite the fact that it offends them. It seems that throughout his ministry he drove far more people from him than to him for he would not have people follow him outside of the truth.
How too often do we think the church must bend over backwards to avoid offending and be seeker friendly? Yes we should try to be all things to all men like Paul did, but no compromise on the truth in the process. John 3 tells why people reject Christ, not because they are too smart and God doesn't make sense, not because the gospel was not presented in a perfect, but because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)
I think it is false and dangerous for the church to blame itself for those that reject Christ. I know what you are talking about, that belief that if there is perfect presentation people will always accept Christ. The burden then is not to proclaim the gospel, but to proclaim it perfectly for every rejection is our fault and not the fault of the rejecter.
The scripture obviously rejects this claim. Christ was rejected to the point of death and he told us we should expect the same. Second, it can lead to burn out or despair. We ask ourselves: what are we doing that is causing them to reject God? Third, it leads to the temptation to change things that ought not be changed. We seek to be seeker friendly and go out of our way to not offend. But the gospel is offensive! We are sinners! We cannot save ourselves! We must start here in a humble recognition of our depravity before we can accept Christ's saving act of grace. But this offensive and too often we bypass it. But in losing this we lose an essential aspect of the Bible. Finally we change things that we need not. We chase after relevance and in doing so become irrelevant. If the church embraces the fashions of the world will it not be discarded as fashions change? The church must begin with timeless truths. That, and not contemporary music or casual dress, is the key to its relevance. It is not wrong to seek to make the church adapted to one's culture, but this should occur naturally and not be the focus. For when we put things of secondary importance above the things that should be first, we lose them both.
So oddly enough by worry is not so much the emptying pews, but the filled mega-churches. It is good that men hear the gospel, but are they hearing it? Christ, Paul, Peter: all of them died because they said things people didn't want to hear. I worry not when the world rejects the church, but when it embraces it. Christ said the world would reject us, for we are not of this world. When we are embraced I think we must soberly ask what we doing differently to provoke this change. We must not sacrifice the truth for numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
