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.
Monday, May 26, 2008
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)
