Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category
« Older Entries |
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010
Oscar Wilde was easily one of the finest brains ever to grace the British Isles. Not only was his mastery of the English language supreme, but his clarity of thought and ability to gauge the ‘reasons behind the reasons’ was second to none.
Of course I cannot agree with Wilde’s conclusions, that no external source could be the basis for the authority of the individual, “But whether it be faith or agnosticism, it must be nothing external to me. Its symbols must be of my own creating.” These words point (as put perfectly by Imogen Black) “to an existentialist crisis, a man coming to realise that he has nothing but his own perceptions for truth who has made a god of himself.” Yet at the same time, despite this relativising of truth, which the Christian worldview cannot abide, I’m not sure that Wilde’s preferred vision of religion was so far removed from the kind of religion that Christ actually produced. Today I came upon this gem:
When I think of religion at all, I feel as if I would like to found an order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless, one might call it, where on an altar, on which no taper burned, a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling, might celebrate with unblessed bread and a chalice empty of wine. Everything to be true must become a religion. And agnosticism should have its ritual no less than faith. (De Profundis, letter written in 1905)
If we unpack this statement, it proves to be quite revealing. Let us examine each statement in turn and compare it to the religion imagined by Jesus
- Wilde: “I would like to found an order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless”
Christianity: The basic prerequisite of a Christian is not someone who has accomplished something great by believing but someone who has failed to trust in God their whole life and has only come to Jesus when they realised how ‘faithless’ they really are. In Christianity, since faith is a gift given only to those who have realised just how faithless they really are, the phrase “confraternity of the faithless” is basically – and uniquely – describing true Christianity. In fact, to call Christans ‘the faithful’ is a complete misnomer; they are not the faithful, they are the faithless who have received the faith of Christ as a free gift. There is no other religious system (and in Wilde’s mind, all frameworks are religious systems, including the secular one) that resembles Wilde’s suggestion here apart from Christianity. Modern secularism is hardly a ‘confraternity’; it is rather a selection of individuals who are united less by their system than by other factors.
- Wilde: “on an altar, on which no taper burned”
Christianity: This is where it really starts to get interesting. The reason why Christianity does/should not have altars (of course this is in line with my personal unease at the presence of ‘altars’ in most Anglican/Orthodox/Catholic churches) is because the fire has already been spent. On the cross, Jesus passed through the fire of God’s judgement so that those who turn to him would not have to. The sacrifice has been offered on the altar that is the cross of Calvary. What this means is that – in stark contrast to every other religion, both secular and non, Christianity is the only religion where its followers are not in the business of the daily grind of justification. The altar and the sacrifice upon it denotes just this grind, where people are constantly engaged in the struggle to justify their existence, their actions, their place in this world. When Christ passed through that fire, he made it possible for his followers to have ‘an altar on which no taper is burned’
- Wilde:: “a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling”
Christianity: Jesus is called the great High Priest in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. This great High Priest, before going to the cross, states, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death”. Then, on the cross, he uttered a fateful cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” This, more than any other, was the cry of “a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling.” On the cross, Jesus suffered the utter desolation of his soul, so that peace everlasting could come into the hearts of those who trust in him. On the cross, he gave up his peace and perfect relationship with God the Father, so that it might be given to mankind as a free gift by faith. This is the religion Christ created, a religion whose great high priest became a man in whose heart peace had no dwelling.
- Wilde:: “might celebrate with unblessed bread and a chalice empty of wine”
Christianity: The only reason that a Christian believer has to celebrate is through the cursing of Christ, in his body, on the cross. Christ’s body – the bread he speaks of – was the most ‘unblessed bread’ in all of history, so that those who trust in him would be able to celebrate in the new creation with the blessed bodies that he won for them through the cursing of his own. The resurrection is confirmation that this was done in the power of God and that the power that warred against the body had been defeated. Similarly, the chalice of wine (symbolising God’s judgement) is empty because Jesus drank it all on the cross – every last drop. The Christian is able to celebrate because the wine he or she drinks speaks of life when it should speak of death. We deserved to drink this chalice, but Christ drank it instead; that is why the chalice is ‘in remembrance’ and always pointing to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; not our own offering to God, but that which he offered in our place.
The Wildian ‘ritual of agnosticism’, born out of the general existential crisis common to all humanity, at the final analysis is simply a yearning for the kind of religion that only Jesus Christ provides.
In the end, we see that Oscar Wilde’s desired “alternative religion for the faithless” is actually describing the Christian faith. Perhaps he realised this before he died, perhaps not. The question is: do you?
Tags: Cultural Temperature, Oscar Wilde, Provocative Thoughts, Religion
Posted in Christianity | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
I watched “The Invention of Lying” a few months ago and didn’t really know what to make of it at the time. Of course it goes without saying that I’m a huge fan of Ricky Gervais’ comic genius so it was inevitable that I would find the film fairly amusing and clever at times (although not as good as “Ghost Town”)… but the film also clearly had a strong agenda; what to make of its final message?
Now that I’ve had a bit of time to reflect, it seems that the only conclusion I can come to is that the premise of the film is not actually very inventive. Ironic.
So what is the premise? Gervais makes no attempt to hide the fact that the film is based on one main idea: that the stories behind religion in general and the Christian faith in particular are little more than ‘invented’ fairytales. The conclusion is that even though the reality of this world amounts to nothing more than the bare facts of science, people actually need made up stories (aka. ‘lies’) to give them hope, meaning, excitement, purpose and expectation. (Another subtext was that fat guys need this kind of world, that goes beyond the bare facts of science, or else they would have no hope of getting beautiful women – but I guess that was just part of Gervais’ brilliantly self-deprecating humour!).
In the context of the film, the ‘fairytale’ that Gervais’ character makes up which signals the advent of lying is basically a religious system concerning a place in the sky ruled by a man in the sky who can provide a hope beyond death. This is what the people buy into with the result that it creates excitement, gives him power and initially leads to a more pleasant atmosphere, although this eventually breaks down (the implication being that belief in God is not actually beneficial for society or human flourishing).
Ultimately the thing that disturbed me most about the premise of the film was not so much the thinly veiled dig at Christianity; that is not really a novelty anymore. Neither was it the fact that Gervais has typically misrepresented most of the essential facts of Christianity; ideas such as God creating the world already full of evil and suffering and Christianity as a system of works-based salvation are completely alien to the Bible yet this too was to be expected from an atheist lobby that knows only how to caricature and misrepresent Christianity…
The message that disturbed me most was rather the one which emerged out of Gervais’ own secular framework. It was the message that promoted a ‘correct’ picture of reality where there are no (ultimate) happy endings and neither is there any real and ultimate justice, as in these ‘fairy stories’. In order to comfort his dying mother, Gervais’ character invents heaven, giving her the hope of a future, a purpose for her existence and a happy ending. Even though he ‘knows’ that there is no such thing as heaven and that her death will swallow up any meaning her life ever had, he retreats to the use of made up fairytales to help her in her final hour.
There are three problems here for the secularist:
- First of all, the surgical removal of future hope and ultimate purpose leaves the secularist with only one philosophical system to provide meaning: existentialism (whether this be hedonistic or nihilistic). Such a self-limiting worldview, while not necessarily wrong, is problematic
- Secondly, this scenario, rather than undermining Christianity, only ends up lending credence to the plausibility of the Christian narrative. For whether they like it or not, secularism is a historical novelty and flies in the face of human experience. This world is a world of fairytale and myth… human culture has always been built on myth-based narratives. And, just so this word, ‘myth’ is not misunderstood here, anyone who has studied literature will tell you that fairytale and myth do not necessarily mean ‘unfactual stories’ but rather they are the depiction of certain realities that transcend what we see before our eyes, but that we can nonetheless sense. In other words, just as science has revealed to us that our eyes often deceive us as to the reality of the physical world (optical illusion, etc), so literature speaks of a similar dimension that is accessible to us on some level, yet not visible. Out of this dimension, every culture and society in human history has produced beautiful and fantastical myths and fairytales and all speak of ultimate happiness and ultimate justice – things which require an ultimate benefactor and an ultimate judge, basically a relationship with an ultimate being. Gervais may have written off this dimension completely, but he finds himself in the position of a numerical minority and a historical novelty. While we are not agreed as to who or what this ultimate being exactly is, humanity in general has always agreed that his hand at work in our world – and indeed in our very minds and hearts – is evident. Now one option is to shrug off this historical witness and just claim that all people before the Enlightenment were needy and ignorant. Despite the historical arrogance of such a position, it is an increasingly difficult one to hold as more people are realising that the only people denying any kind of reality beyond the bare facts of science are essentially fundamentalists and have thrown out decent scholarship in favour of diatribe and ‘religious’ rhetoric. Just note how many reviews of “The God Delusion” by secularists themselves have been dismissive and/or disparaging…
- Thirdly, while the secularist may claim to have heard this many times before, it by no means lessens the force of this point: such a narrative as portrayal as the ‘correct version of reality’ in the film is simply not existentially satisfying. The biggest criticism (and a fair one at that) that is levelled against Christianity is that of hypocrisy – why do people who speak of love so often fail to be unloving… Behind this question is a fundamental existential concern – why should I follow something that doesn’t work, that doesn’t provide eternal love and unconditional value and ultimate meaning in my life? So why should a similar charge not be levelled at the ‘atheist paradise’? If a world needs to be built on lies in order for it to work, then why should I take it seriously? The fact of the matter is that Gervais’ atheist paradise is based on the idea that people need to be trained to see beyond the bare facts of science – this entails lying. Isn’t this exactly what Christianity teaches? Except that in the case of the Christian message, the solution is not a lie but the truth…
The fundamentalist secular gospel – that there are no ultimate happy endings – might be coherent with the facts of science. But Gervais, in pointing us to a reality beyond the bare facts of science only ends up reinforcing the plausibility of the Christian narrative.
So how does the plausibility of the Christian narrative lead to faith in the Christian God?? And I will close with this.
C.S.Lewis put it best when he wrote that in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, “myth became fact”… All the myths and fairytales of human history could only ever have been seen as dim shadows and uncertain estimations of the nature and workings of the ultimate being who must be both benevolent and just. Yet in the person and work of Jesus Christ, the expectations of these myths were finally realised. The cross sees the ultimate dispensation of justice as well as the ultimate bestowal of love. Each person who trusts in this God is guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ that their relationship with the ‘man in the sky’ is assured. How? Because the ‘man in the sky’ became a man of flesh and died to redeem us and the world.
The film ends up being not very inventive at all, since the dreary, unimaginative world of bare facts is put forward as the real one and the world of myth, meaning and purpose as the false one.
Tags: Atheism, Cultural Temperature, Fairytales & Mythology, Films, Hollywood, Provocative Thoughts, Ricky Gervais
Posted in Christianity | 1 Comment »
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
There are many who say, “Who will show us some good?” (Psalm 4v6)
We are all familiar with the countless stories of killers getting away scott-free because there was insufficient evidence to convict them. Here is an interesting take on this theme from our favourite tv series. Consider the quote below:
House: The universe always settles the score.
Dr. Cuddy: Does it?
House: No, but it should.
The idea of justice, the righting of wrongs and balancing of misdeeds – portrayed here as karma – is present in every major worldview and belief system.
Yet it is also a concept that has failed us in spectacular fashion. House puts it best here. Justice should exist. It is ’supposed’ to exist and work to settle the score… but this is not what we see happening.
Enter Dexter, the tv show about an amoral serial killer, Dexter, who has been trained by his foster father to channel his sociopathic serial killer urges using a special ‘code’. According to “Harry’s Code”, only people who deserve to die are killed. So if you haven’t killed anyone in a premeditative way then you are safe from Dexter’s blade.
The series has been a runaway success. And I don’t think that it is just the tongue-in-cheek humour that creates this affection for Dexter. There is something disturbingly reassuring about the existence of such a character (even in the fantasy world of the small screen).
Take the average left-of-centre agnostic/atheist for instance (basically most educated people in London/Athens under 40):
-
Since they either don’t believe or struggle to believe in the existence of God, they cannot hope for a final calling in of accounts where perfect justice will one day be meted.
-
If they are left of centre, they are also against the death penalty as a solution, so they can’t rely on the state.
-
Taking matters into one’s own hands is not condoned and vigilantes are a unsavoury and misguided solution at best.
So Dexter is the perfect solution to the problem faced by the atheist. Dexter settles the score on behalf of the universe without obliging the viewer to condone what he is doing, as it is already established that what he is doing is wrong. Yet our delight in such a ‘neat’ solution is always a secret delight that we dare not admit. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and still fails miserably at providing an ultimate answer as well anyway.
Even traditional religion cannot provide a solution to House’s problem. For it simply claims that one day all those nasty people will get their comeuppance. House’s words resonate with us because we too need to witness this principle of justice in action, to give us a hope that evil will not always be the status quo, that wrong will not win the day simply by its continued existence, let alone its escaping justice.
The only place this is even claimed by anyone to have happened is on the cross of Jesus Christ. A faultless man taking the place of guilty and evil men and satisfying the full demands of justice… This is what happened on the cross. Justice once and for all, for every deed. This might sound barbaric, but my hunch is that it only sounds barbaric to us because we have sanitised sin so much as to have effectively banished its ugliness from the vista of our lives. But this does not remove it… and nor it does make us any less liable to face justice for our own deeds.
For a world(view) without Christ, Dexter is not just a guilty pleasure, he is the final hope for any kind of justice. He is the disturbing solution to House’s question for those who reject God. No wonder House’s mouse is gagged – he asks all the most inconvenient questions.
Posted in Christianity | 1 Comment »
Monday, October 19th, 2009
If you are not currently a follower of Jesus Christ there are only two possible reasons:
1) You have not heard the Gospel
(this includes those who think they have heard but what they have heard is not actually the gospel of Jesus. ie. social gospel, prosperity “health and wealth” gospel, man-centred gospel etc.)
2) You have heard the Gospel and rejected it
(this would include all who hear a faithful exposition/explanation of the gospel and yet reject it – both those who reject what they are actually hearing and those who ‘think’ they are rejecting what they are hearing but are actually rejecting something else ie. they have – willfully or not – misunderstood it.)
I would just like to address this second group for a moment. You see, if accepting or rejecting the Gospel was purely a matter or rational engagement with the Gospel then we would say that the cleverer you are, the more likely you are to grasp it and accept it. This is patently not the case, either in terms of what we see happening or what the Bible actually says about how people become Christians.
Of course, the gospel ‘does’ contain a rational set of arguments. The Christian faith is not a leap in the dark since it ‘is’ based on certain facts that are established through investigation of the evidence and following certain data to its logical conclusion. But to reduce the gospel down to this is not only misleading regarding its content, it is also misleading regarding its purpose. The aim of explaining the gospel is not to ‘test’ people’s intelligence, so that the rational people pass and those of less mental capabilities fail. The content of the gospel, while historical and factual, is particularly concerned with the divine nature of one man, Jesus of Nazareth and the work he accomplished which transcends history itself… while the purpose of the gospel, though entailing a rational appeal, is particularly to do with bringing people into a relationship with a real, living God. This means that Christianity must be engaged with concurrently on two levels – one rational and one metaphysical.
Such a separation has already been suggested in the form of NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria), posited by atheistic evolutionist, Dr Stephen Jay Gould. It is dismissed by Professor Richard Dawkins, however, who argues that certainly no supernational religion can be established without miracles violating the laws of physics. He then goes on to argue pointedly people of faith are either not rational or else schizophrenic.
This brings me us back to the issue of rejecting the gospel. If we are not satisfied with Dawkins’ explanation, that people who believe what the Bible says are either stupid or somehow separating their brain from their heart, then how are we to explain the fact that when presented with the gospel some people (both intelligent and less so) accept it and others (both intelligent and less so) reject it. Is there another parameter that we need to consider?
I believe that there is and we can see it in the words of this beautiful hymn written by Bob Kauflin (you can hear/buy the song by clicking here – iTunes link):
I was blinded by my sin
Had no ears to hear Your voice
Did not know Your love within
Had no taste for heaven’s joys
Then Your Spirit gave me life
Opened up Your Word to me
Through the gospel of Your Son
Gave me endless hope and peace
Here we see both aspects of someone’s engagement with the Gospel:
(1) We have listed for us such faculties as eyes and ears, taste and the Word – the rational aspect. These are not just metaphors here, we need to use all of these things in order to engage with the gospel and to determine its whys and wherefores
(2) We also have listed for us ideas such as spiritual blindness and deafness, distaste for the things of God and inability to comprehend spiritual truth – the metaphysical aspect.
If you are rejecting the gospel today, you need to understand that you are rejecting it on both of these levels.
In other words, you cannot rest assured in the knowledge that you have ‘really’ rejected Christianity if you have rejected it (apparently) on the basis of rationality alone. Until you have also ruled out the possibility that you are ‘wilfully’ rejecting it at the same time, you must at least curb your smugness. For the will is not just influenced by the mind but also by the affections. Therefore, it is irresponsible to be smug about having ‘worked out all the holes in Christianity’ if you are overlooking the fact that your heart just might have had more to do with it than your head. If this is the case then it could even be that you are misrepresenting the facts to yourself and wilfully misunderstanding what you are hearing (assuming that the misunderstanding doesn’t stem from a failure of the person explaining it).
One of the oft-repeated phrases of Jesus in the Gospels is the following:
“He who has ears to hear let him hear.”
What does this cryptic declaration mean? It means simply that you might be ‘hearing’ and engaging with Jesus’ words but it is possible to grasp the rationale and yet still be deaf to the true meaning. Anyone can hear the claim that Jesus died for their sins. They can even repeat it themselves as a mantra. But it is only someone who has truly heard it as for themselves who can then say it with conviction as applying to them.
Just imagine that you are in love. It is reported to you by a mutual friend that this other person requites this love. Yet you are bitter inside from past rejection and even though you repeat this fact back to others, you do not say it with conviction or any kind of excitement because you do not believe it, even though it has been reported back to you reliably by others. You do not believe it, that is, until you hear it yourself and understand that it truly is for you. This might even be after the second or third time that you hear it from the person yourself… the bottom line is that with such matters, it will never be the facts alone that lead you to believe. Your heart must be persuaded as well as your head; true truth must be impressed upon your affections… Then you will find the difference in your vision to be so stark that it were as if you had been blind before.
Posted in Christianity | No Comments »
Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
“My sin – O the bliss of this glorious thought – my sin – not in part but in whole is nailed to the cross; and I bear it no more; praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul.” (Horatio G. Spafford)
It is certainly unfair and probably uncharitable to claim – as many evangelicals do – that Christianity is the only system that offers redemption. It may come in many forms and have many names; release from sin, from slavery, from the material world, from the ’self’, from being unhappy, from being poor, from the body, from guilt… but redemption is the basic currency of the whole of metaphysics. It is not an invention of Christianity; rather, it has always been around and it has always been central.
That said, the fact that we have always felt the need for redemption does not mean that this need has ever been met. Why else would we still be looking? The problem with redemption is not that it is not being offered; ‘everyone’ is offering it. The problem is that it has never been offered in a complete form.
We must confess that, in contrast to the writer above, we do not find bliss in our own religion; instead we tend to find anxiety and failure coupled with exhortations to do better. If we are honest with ourselves, we ‘all’ find this to be the case regardless of whether our philosophy is theistic in nature or even completely secular.
This is what makes the work of Christ in history so astounding… and so glorious.
Being redeemed a little gives some relief, for sure. It may even bring some genuine hope for a season… but it always ends with despair. Why? Because being redeemed a little is not a gift, it is a curse – it is a curse to do the rest yourself. It lifts you up to imagine that you have what it takes and then dashes you to pieces as you realise that you can never do it. It is the sort of humiliation that inflates rather than neuters your pride, much like the harlot who leads a man on, then denies him the very thing she has led him to believe is his; the thing in which he has been led to invest his very soul. In doing so, she has turned him into a beast, wandering the moors like a cursed-animal, never able to accept being denied that which he had no right to claim in the first place.
This is what man-made religion does to us. It is an unfulfilled promise and it curses us to such an existence.
In stark contrast to this, the work of Jesus Christ fills us with bliss because it is a completed work that offers full – not in part but in whole – the redemption that we so crave. If redemption is the currency of metaphysics then Christ’s work, credited to us, makes Bill Gates (in analogous terms) look like a pauper compared to the Christian believer. Yet, please note in closing that the bliss does not come from the currency/redemption itself, as if this were a new source of pride, but from the Lord who gave it.
Considering Christ – his person and his work – fills a person with bliss of untold depth as they come to understand, and know, the glorious gift they have received by his grace. Consider Christ today. O the bliss of this glorious thought.
Posted in Christianity | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009
What though th’accuser roar
Of ills that I have done
I know them well, and thousands more;
Jehovah findeth none.
His be the Victor’s name
Who fought our fight alone;
Triumphant saints no honour claim;
Their conquest all his own. (more…)
Tags: Christocentricity, hymns, songs, tradition
Posted in Christianity | 1 Comment »
Saturday, March 14th, 2009
No one likes a snob. However, I would like to argue that in some areas – especially in the internet age – it is vital that we do become more snobbish.
I was inspired yesterday by a review of a new book (http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/2009/03/why-johnny-cant-preach-1.html). Based on the review (I have not read the book yet myself) one of the main theses appears to be that we have abandoned excellence and true culture in favour of sound bites and low culture. It is addressing the facebook generation who get excited by the gibberish (for one would scarcely call it English) that appears on their friends’ status updates or photo comments, yet have never written a real letter; the generation who have vigorous, lively and completely uninformed debates, yet do not possess either the language to articulate their arguments, nor the knowledge to insert compelling content; the generation who consider culture to be youtube knowledge yet have never read a poem or an Oscar Wilde play to be delighted truly.
I am not saying these ‘low-culture’ things should be rejected. I’m not saying this at all. But we should turn our nose up at them – ‘as we use them’ and consider them to be what they are – BENEATH US. We should not be content for the sum total of our education and culture to be the malformed ideas and brutalised language of the facebook culture.
Facebook, YouTube and the like are fantastic, useful tools – but tools they are and tools they will remain. We must use them, love them but keep them in their place… and pursue concurrently and with far greater passion and expectation the ‘higher things’.
It is no coincidence that those with things to say are also those who have maintained a healthy level of snobbishness throughout their life. And just a caveat as I close – snobbishness, in the sense it is being discussed now – in no way should be equated with pride (always an ugly thing). It is quite possible to be a humble snobb… for your snobbishness has led you to sit under the instruction of those greater, more informed, more eloquent, more holy than yourself…
Tags: Kevin DeYoung, Language, Oscar Wilde, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | 3 Comments »
Thursday, January 15th, 2009
(Continuing in the vein of various objections I have to philosophical naturalism / secularism / materialism as a worldview…) While waiting in the airport departure lounge this morning, I couldn’t help overhearing a conversation between two businessmen. One of the phrases struck me. He simply said,
“I don’t deserve this kind of treatment…”
I wonder what Richard Dawkins would make of this?
I mean, just what kind of treatment does a randomly-come-together collection of molecules actually deserve? To be deserving of a certain level of treatment presupposes some kind of inherent worth. Where does this worth come from. If our whole purpose of existence is reduced down to such a cruel, pitiless fact that we exist merely to help replicate a string of molecules, then meaning, purpose, ‘deservedness’ and the like are neither here nor there; they should not even come into matters of life. However frequently human conscience and philosophical inquiry attempts to bring them to the fore, they are simply categories that shouldn’t exist.
Dawkins attempts to explain this troubling idea away logically by saying that he feels privileged to be able to understand the world… but the very definition of privilege is that it is granted by someone. Who granted this privilege? And why is it even such a privilege when it will all lead to nothing in the end anyway? Even the sun will die one day…
Not only do Dawkins and his followers fail to subvert the foundations of theism, they are unable even to justify their own existence without borrowing the categories and terms of a Judaeo-Christian system that is utterly based on God’s existence, his sovereignty and his benevolence.
When the most fundamental questions are all greeted with deafening silence, surely you need to start questioning the very foundations upon which you stand…?
Tags: Atheism, Bitesize Ideas, Dawkins, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | No Comments »
Thursday, September 25th, 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6505691.stm (This is kind of following on from my post about feminism & gender-targeted abortion. It’s making a similar point but one no less important.)
Having recently celebrated 200 years since the abolition of slavery I think that there probably aren’t many people left in the world who support the idea of slavery – of having another human being as ‘property’ and being in control of their life and actions.
So, reader, if I were to ask you today if you supported slavery, I can’t imagine you saying yes and I wouldn’t insult you by implying that this answer was anywhere near your thoughts. However, if you said ‘yes’ AND happened to ascribe to philosophical naturalism (ie. you’re an atheist/agnostic who bases this belief largely in evolutionary biology), then I would have to respond with, “Really…??”
It’s quite a simple and obvious point but philosophical naturalism does not allow for any fundamental distinction between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom (at least not in terms it would be proud of – it’s not the most pleasant thought to tell something you have more rights than it because you “got there first”, which would be the only justification we have for any such distinction between us and animals, by virtue of us being higher up the evolutionary ladder). In terms of rights, privileges and responsibilities to the world and other creatures this system does not and cannot prescribe such things to one kind of animal and not to another (and when it does, we have eugenics and ‘Brave New World’ scenarios); its best bet is to remain neutral and plead ignorance. What this means is that while it is all very well to speak out against slavery… in order to be consistent with this belief (that slavery is wrong) then the principles of human dignity and human rights must be extended to other animals too. So, no killing animals, keeping animals, farming animals for their fur or milk or eggs – nothing.
In saying this, I don’t think I am being offensive or preposterous. There are more and more people who do feel that they need to be consistent on this point. So, vegans (although not all people are vegans for this reason necessarily) and those advocating equal rights for all primates are just a couple of examples.
What’s my point. I’m not trying to make anyone look silly for their beliefs or even ridicule any beliefs in particular. What I am trying to highlight once again is rather the inadequacy and poverty of the secular, naturalistic wordview when faced with these rather important issues. Science might be great at describing how things work and evolution certainly provides a reasonable explanation of certain processes… but they cannot touch these areas that are so important to our society, our sensibilities and our very well-being and future.
There is no mechanism in science – or any other secular framework for that matter – to make the kind of distinctions we need between humans and other animals that lead to declarations of independence and human rights. How would you define ‘dignity’ if you do not believe in a personal, higher authority who vests it on others. And, crucially, how do you decide who deserves dignity? We may ask for bigger pens for the animals we plan to kill and eat but it is still undignified to exist in order to be eaten with no hope of reprieve. We must understand that the only way the founding fathers of the USA could say “we hold these truths [ie. pertaining to human liberty and dignity] to be self-evident” is because of a theistic framework. Apart from this framework, who am I to say that non-human animals should or shouldn’t have their liberty reduced or removed? It comes down to a matter of power and ‘dog-eat-dog’. And neither should I interfere with other people’s choices. What about when it comes to humans? What reason do I have to object to paedophilia and bestiality when science cannot provide any kind of distinction between animals and humans or grown-ups and children that would tell me that such things are wrong? Consensus is one option but that just leaves me open to the tyranny of the masses. A million lemmings can’t be wrong…
Do you believe in slavery? Ultimately, before we look at the animals, we must look at ourselves. We may have abandoned the enslavement of Africans but I guess this was inevitable largely because it was too obvious. Under the radar in the 21st century, slavery is well and truly alive, through pornography and trafficking of women and children and the economic slavery of the third world - which we are all complicit in, either through looking at porn (blokes, just try and deny it), thereby perpetuating it in all its forms, legal and illegal, or by showing our indifference in how thoughtlessly we spend our money, choosing to buy another pair of jeans rather than giving a tenner towards wells in Africa or sponsoring a little kid’s education.
It is a credit to the secular liberals that they stand up on these issues more than most but as well as standing up with them, I would like to challenge them on what I hope to persuade you is the most significant form of slavery that needs to be addressed (since it is the root of all others), which is our slavery to ourselves. I would challenge the secularists on this because what I am talking about is the very klaxon call of secularism itself – that we should be ‘free’ to follow our hearts, unencumbered by any God and his dictates. But look where our hearts lead us! Surely all forms of ‘blatant’ slavery can be traced back to the original slavery – the one we all individually have sold ourselves to as we put ourselves daily before other people and ultimately, before God. Kierkegaard’s definition of this kind of slavery (the Bible calls it sin) is that it is ‘building my identity on anything but God’ (Sickness Unto Death) – this is what leads us to put ourselves before others, because anything that gets in the way of this and ‘denies’ us must be pushed aside, or else we lose our identity. But when your identity is in God, nothing can rock it; it is secure. And can I just say, if you believe that you are not enslaved in this way to yourself and your identity building (whatever that might look like), then you are the first person since Jesus of Nazareth even to make such a claim. The fact is, we all demonstrate our slavery to ourselves when we perpetuate slavery in the world.
So what about a solution….? Some people look at the third world debt and think to themselves – “why should we help them when they have mostly brought it on themselves…?” The fact is that the west is taking steps to clear the debt of the third world – at great cost to itself. The only difference is that they are doing it largely out of expediency – when God considered our debt and sent his son to free us from our slavery, he didn’t do it out of expediency, he did it out of love.
Tags: Current Affairs, Human Interest, Provocative Thoughts, Values
Posted in Christianity | No Comments »
Sunday, September 14th, 2008
“The gospel [of Jesus Christ] produces people who do not disdain those whom they disagree with.” (Dr. Tim Keller)
The neo-secular orthodoxy today has a mantra. It goes something like this (and I’ll put it into a scene so you can picture it better). This is something I was actually viewing on YouTube yesterday. We are in a chat-show setting. Richard Dawkins has been invited as the guest of honour but there are also representatives from all the different social groups and categories. At one point, the rather tactless charismatic, pentecostal prophetess turns around to the gay-rights activist next to her and tells him politely but firmly and in no uncertain terms that his ‘lifestyle choice’ is wrong and that he certainly had a mother. Immediately (and here is the mantra), before he even considers what his response to this will be, he replies with the following words:
“I would defend Betty’s right to hold those views…”
This caveat is inserted every time an advocate of philosophical naturalism or secularism encounters someone they disagree with. I have no doubt that both the ideas and the person of Betty King were deeply objectionable – and even hateful – to Peter Tatchell since, from his point of view, they would have sounded ‘intolerably’ intolerant and bigoted. But because the greatest value for him is tolerance, he must not show his disdain and certainly not act out any of his hostility to her and her ideas.
This mantra is the best way to couch contempt in cordiality.
And he most certainly was cordial; to his credit, whatever Peter was really thinking and feeling at that moment did not come out.
But that is only as far as it goes – and this is the problem. Since there is no mechanism – and certainly no motivation – within the secular system to transform disdain into anything else, all the feelings of disdain, frustration and anger are suppressed and stifled. You have heard of repressed sexuality – well the God of secular tolerance is producing a monster of repressed disdain and anger that is potentially far more destructive. I guess the vented rage of Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest is a testimony to this (certainly Hitchens’ take is that he is fed up with having to be polite to Islamists who want to kill his values and probably him too). So the secularist is left with a great need to ‘beautify’ the disdain he or she automatically feels when they encounter objectionable views. Tolerance, after all, must be upheld in some way.
Viewed purely in human, materialist terms, secularism fails abysmally at providing any solution to inter-personal and social disharmony and hostility; it can only cover it up and keep it at bay.
Since the source and god of secular morality is man himself, there is also no hope for finding a way around this impasse. The natural impulses of man do not lead him to such counter-intuitive acts as loving his enemy and sacrificing himself (even his life) for his persecutor. Just to preempt at this point a common – and valid – objection, I would agree that the attitude and behaviour of many – if not most – evangelical Christians towards practising homosexuals historically has been clumsy and inappropriate at best and evil at worst. And this, sadly, continues to a large degree to this day. But Christians though they may be… this – most assuredly – is not the attitude of Christ. I’m sure most Christians would tell you that they are a work in progress as God works in them to change them by his power…. and any conscientious Christian I know would certainly reel in horror at being shown the reality of their behaviour in many areas – attitude towards gays being just one of these. I would want to argue, however, that intolerance towards gay people from Christians has less to do with their Christian convictions and more to do with the prevailing culture (Christians tend to be a few years behind always – they haven’t really noticed that everyone else has stopped persecuting gays). This is no excuse but I’m not trying to excuse them; rather, to direct you towards the real reason for their inappropriate and wrong behaviour, which has nothing to do with Christ and his message (the gospel).
The fact that the homosexual act itself is not part of God’s plan for creation has been used by too many Christians to excuse them of the even greater sin of failing to love their neighbour as themselves when they act in a bigoted way towards gay people.
And so we get to the heart of the issue. The reason Dr. Keller’s words are so important for us to take seriously is because they reveal the inability of the secular system to provide a solution. They do this by providing a contrast. The gospel DOES HAVE the power to produce people who genuinely do not disdain those they disagree with. Christians who persecute gays are not behaving as Christians. The model of the gospel of Jesus transforms you – counter-intuitively and inexplicably – into someone who genuinely has a change of heart and attitude towards those whose views you find reprehensible and whose acts you find to be dissolute.
The ultimate example of this, of course, is Jesus himself…
…he was someone who not only preached it but practised it, even as he prayed for the forgiveness of the Roman soldiers nailing him to a cross. This was not just some minor disagreement – it was the complete humiliation and sadistic degradation of another human being, and yet not only did Jesus not curse the people attacking him, he did not even open his mouth. Funnily enough, this was how God’s special chosen servant was described around 800 years before Jesus was born – “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” (Isaiah 53v7, The Bible). And just to say, it was certainly not for lack of power that Jesus did not resist – his resurrection put to rest that issue.
The reason he did not speak is because his sacrifice was transforming ‘disdain’ into deliverance and devotion.
It is impossible for a secularist to transform disdain into anything that is essentially different – that is genuinely conciliatory; there is nothing in their system that has the power to do this. But the death of Jesus does have this power. It tells me that my disdain for God himself – and for my fellow human beings along with it – is now on the cross with Jesus, so I am free to love genuinely and show mercy bountifully, as it has been shown to me.
I am no better than you. I was probably worse and in many/most ways still am. But I am forgiven. And this frees me to love even the person I would naturally despise and loathe. The power of Christianity gets in your face most of all (in the most gentle and intimate, albeit startling, way) when you see it bringing two people together who should be enemies and the only explanation is ‘the cross of Jesus’. Is this good news (the gospel) really worthy of rejection? Is there anything else in the world that has the power to do this? Ponder these words.
Tags: Cultural Temperature, Dawkins, Keller, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | 3 Comments »
« Older Entries |
