toliveischrist.info
Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category
« Older Entries | Newer Entries »The uniqueness of the work of Christ
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 | Comments Off
The uniqueness of the gospel
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 »
The importance of being snobbish
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 »
Airport philosophy
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 | Comments Off
Do you support slavery? Really…?
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 | Comments Off
Turning ‘disdain’ into devotion
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 »
Fritzl & Obama
Friday, May 9th, 2008
“I knew that I was hurting her. It was like an addiction…
“I knew the whole time that what I was doing was not right… but… it became completely matter-of-fact for me that I had a second life, which I led in the cellar of my house.” (Josef Fritzl)
Apart from the shocking details of cases like the Fritzl case, these cases simply add an extra nail to the lid on the coffin of the ‘Obama worldview’ that man is essentially “good at heart” and “able to change in his own strength”.
Fritzl is not a monster – although his actions have certainly turned him into one ‘practically speaking’. This may seem like a contradictory and/or nonsensical statement so let me explain. Fritzl is not a monster ‘in the sense that he is perceived’ in the popular media. Hard as it might be to accept, he is actually no different “in nature” to anyone else, he is only different in practice.
The issue here is the human heart. Believers in philosophical naturalism (ie. atheists) have no reason to believe in a human heart or soul in any ‘metaphysical’ sense so they must hope for a better future based on man’s (potential) ability to change through working towards better social structures (cue classic Obama speech). The words of Fritzl are not the words of a madman – his clear, rational statements to date make it impossible to write him off as a lunatic; it is clear from his words that this behaviour was something he struggled with… although spectacularly unsuccessfully.
The question here is what makes more sense when we are confronted with the reality of someone like Fritzl? To say that he is essentially good at heart (a nonsensical statement if made by a philosophical naturalism anyway) but led astray by circumstances/dna/upbringing/experiences? Or simply to agree with Jesus of Nazareth when he says to us, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” (John 8:34)?
Jesus’ point is that sin is something in our hearts from which we cannot escape once it has entered in. Our immoral actions are simply the evidence for this state of heart. Since there is nobody (apart from Jesus) who has ever even ‘claimed’ – let alone accomplished – a life free of sin, this would put us all into this category of being slaves of sin. We demonstrate that Jesus’ statement applies to us even with the slightest moral failing (and we all know that our own, personal moral failings are not ‘slight’ in any way – but that, dear reader, I leave for you to judge…).
Immoral desires in our lives reflect the natural state of our hearts.
What this means is that you, Obama, a new-born baby and I are only separated from Fritzl by a matter of degree. Our hearts are no less enslaved to sin than his – they are the same; it is only our respective acts which differ. The potential to be a Fritzl resides within us all.
Someone who has begun to comprehend the horror of the reality of this situation – which is the very human condition itself – has also begun to understand their need of grace. And this is what makes the Christian message stand apart from every other system, social, political or religious. For the stuff of Christ is the stuff of grace. No other message offers both redemption and change as a free gift.
We may never be like Fritzl in this life, or even close… but if we do not recognise the common plight we share with him, that we are similarly enslaved to immoral desires, then we are just as lost as he is…
Tags: Current Affairs, Politics, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
Shining Forever
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008
The combination of watching the fairytale movie “Stardust” and being introduced to this song have led me to put finger to keyboard this evening…
Just in case you are not clued up with the plot of Stardust, it concerns a young man – a nobody – who ends up not only defeating the witch, getting the girl and becoming king but he also lives forever in a perfect relationship with her because she happens to be a star and has given her heart to him in love, so when he grows old they ascend to the sky to shine together forever.
The ultimate ‘feel-good’ movie…
I have one question though.
Why are films like this viewed so cynically by most people today? You can just imagine in Blockbuster (or whatever your preferred dvd rental establishment may be), your eye passing it by as an appealing choice (“for the wife/girlfriend/kids maybe”) but certainly not to be preferred above Die Hard, Michael Clayton or The Libertine. Why? Because they are a little bit more ‘rooted in the real world’, more for grown-ups. Soppy girls and children can go with these droll, fairy-tales but sensible men and women are just not convinced.
Yet if this is the sentiment associated with it (and this is certainly the feeling I automatically had when looking at the selection on offer at one of Kozani’s local dvd rental shops this evening), then why do we call it a feel-good movie in the first place?
Isn’t it because we view the situation it describes not so much as fantastical but as ideal?
It is how both our mind and our heart would prefer for things to be but we see that life is not like this so the whole scenario is rejected – often scornfully (but perhaps more often than we’d like to admit, wistfully) – as unrealistic. If you just think about it, we don’t think of X-Men or even Shrek as feel good movies. They are certainly fantastical but they are not an ‘ideal’ that deep down we actually want. Obviously Shrek does an excellent job of getting to the heart of both the genuine struggles of life and some of the deepest common values like unconditional love, but – almost cruelly – it is still remarkably earthbound. However much we agree with the ‘greater’ ideal of true love’s form being found not in external appearance but in the personal love between two souls, no one’s aim is to end up as an ugly, smelly ogre living on a swamp with all of life’s problems still present; this is what the heaven of humanism looks like. ‘Happily Ever After’ is a cruel joke in Shrek.
With a film like Stardust, however, you don’t have to be sentimental to see that it has everything that deep down we all long for. The story of someone being raised up from less than nothing in the eyes of others to an inheritance that is imperishable and glorious forever and this happening not for the purpose of personal glory and pride but for the purpose of a relationship of deep, interpersonal love and eternal intimacy… well, I don’t think I need to say any more. It is incomparably more desirable than any earthbound fantasy scenario. And yet this was a story written by a human and it is one that echoes throughout human history. It is a dream within all of us. Where does it come from? Michael Vaughn, the director of the film, comments that it is not a film that will affect anyone’s life or change the world but I beg to differ. The scorn expressed by someone for such a story always hides behind it a bitter, half-forgotten longing for this story to be true, for someone else, if not them. It’s almost as if they have been trying to forget a parallel dream of their own and you have reminded them and made them hope once more.
Well, somewhere, there is a cruel joke going on. Either the universe is playing a cruel joke on us by vesting us with these desires that neither have any rational origin nor hope of fulfilment (if materialism is the ultimate reality)… or the cruel joke is on those of us who choose to listen to the barking of Polly Toynbee and Richard Dawkins over and above the whole of human history which bears witness to these dreams of men as a consistent (and persistent) feature of the human condition.
It must be said that the dreams do not prove anything on their own, but their very presence obliges us to do something about them and simply barking at them is not going to make them go away. Neil Gaimon, the writer of the story behind Stardust, found an outlet in pen and ink. But this is hardly a satisfactory outlet or conclusion.
Indeed, the Toynbees and Dawkins of this world would remind us of the fact that they are simply being realistic – no one has ever ‘imagined themselves’ into a different state, place or condition; nature simply does not work this way. There is no point in losing oneself in unrealistic visions as if we could ‘make’ them reality just by believing in them and living as if they were true. They would claim that this is actually dangerous…
Yet just watch their ‘friendly bark’ turn into snarls, gnashing of teeth and shaking of fists (literally) when they are confronted with the historically-attested event of the death and resurrection of Jesus. They know that this is something from which they cannot escape because it is part of their own recent, human history. We do not know what the first humans looked like but we have numerous eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death and resurrection with their accounts transcribed and cross-referenced; in a court of law there is only one winner here – the eyewitness evidence – and yet we are supposed to accept ape-man theories and reject the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection? They know this and so they do not waste their breath attacking the historicity of Jesus and the events surrounding his death and resurrection so they resort to emotional arguments in an attempt to undermine the interpretation of these events. Yet this is an even more foolish endeavour as the interpretation of these events is laid out over 1500 years of the Bible writers all writing about things they did not fully understand at the time but which are now crystal clear to us in the light of the person of Jesus. The story was already told and complete – it just needed the hero to appear.
“Saccharine” (sweet) and – ironically – “earthbound” are the words used respectively by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins when confronted with these events.
We are back in the dvd rental shop here! I’m not trying to undermine the latent hostility in their retorts but, essentially, they are looking at this scenario and not struggling so much with the events but with the interpretation of them – the interpretation which would allude to reality having any kind of relationship with ‘fairytale endings’, with true and everlasting love and with brilliance and glory shining forever with pride completely banished. Hitchens attempts to demolish the resurrection simply by calling it ‘sweet’ and Dawkins tries to reinterpret it, calling it ‘earthbound’ when any idiot can see that it is the complete opposite of this; if someone has truly been raised from the dead then it is the one true hope that answers the call of our hearts – to be free of the chains of the curse of death. And not only does it sound the klaxon call of freedom but it also speaks of the deepest love that no Shrek could ever even contemplate – an eternal, interpersonal relationship where you shine as do the stars in the brilliance of true glory (ie. not ‘vain-glory’) forever…. saccharine I think not.
At one point of the film, Yvaine – the star – asks the young hero if he is not tempted to kill her and eat her heart so he can live forever. He responds by asking her why would he want to live forever without this existence being in the context of a loving relationship. Conversely, the witch, Lamia, at the end, embodies the secular response to this sentiment by attempting to do exactly that – live forever without any loving relationships after her sisters have been killed. This is not even Shrek’s skewed version of heaven, it is the fundamentalist atheist’s version and it is a horrific thought; even if they could ‘live’ forever, they would still want to cut themselves off from the source of life, love and laughter; this is actually a pretty good description of hell, defined for us over and over by every article they write and every retort to God they snort out (I must add here that they are not all ‘snorters’ – at the best of times, Christopher Hitchens is a paragon of propriety and congeniality and in a kind of paradoxical way I am a great admirer of him).
Their constant refrain is that even if a perfect God was there, they would still reject him.
Which leaves us with the longings of our own heart. Obviously I am not lumping everyone who is not a Christian believer in together with Richard and Polly but sometimes seeing the extremes helps us find where we fit in. I hope you have noted, whether through your own observations or what I have been saying here that, at the end of the day, the ‘logical’ reasons to trust in Jesus’ death and resurrection are almost by-the-by. They can be checked out by anyone. What stops many – and here please take note – is their attitude to the scenario being presented to them (think of the dvd rental shop). They are indignant that anyone, even God himself, would ‘seriously’ seek to spoil the ‘grown-up’ (just another word for bitter) world they have built. They know it is not ideal; it is not even pleasant; in fact it is rather ugly and lonely, but it is theirs and no ‘sweet longings’ and fairytale endings placed in front of them should disrupt this. Their cry for freedom has long been stifled by patterns of thought and behaviour designed for survival and carving out a little corner for themselves in this cruel, unforgiving world and any tender thoughts (yes, I do believe even Polly has tenderness of this kind in her heart somewhere) harboured for any kind of ‘shining forever’ style ending has been covered over by a hardened and, ultimately, a proud heart.
My question for you is how much of this kind of person are you today or are you in the process of turning into….?
Please read the words of this song – it is the perfect companion to the fantastical scenario of Stardust because it speaks of a parallel scenario, but a true one.
Tags: Films, Movies, Provocative Thoughts, Values
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
The most desirable value?
Friday, June 9th, 2006
Tolerance. It’s one of the bywords of our modern society. But what does it really mean… and why is it used so frequently nowadays?
The dictionary defines it as: willingness to accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
Well I ask you… is the world really so full of disagreeable people that “this” should be seen as the great value in today’s society?
How did people live together ‘before’ this word became “the most desirable value”? An in-depth historical analysis could be conducted but I think that the more pressing questiong for us should be: “just why exactly is this word taking over today?”
The attitude today is that the only thing that will not be tolerated is an intolerant person.
All other things and people must be endured. This has created a somewhat schizophrenic attitude in most people. They know that they are supposed to be tolerant, but this means that, more and more, they are putting up with people and practices that their conscience and values would normally find wrong or even repulsive. This situation cannot continue indefinitely – eventually either your tolerance will run out and you will be forced to comment on the repulsiveness of the behaviour, or your views on the behaviour itself will simply change to conform to your public facade. So, for instance, if I am a person who believes, for whatever reason, that ‘cohabitation’ (as it is now called) is wrong, yet I continually find myself defending such people – for the sake of tolerance – against others who find it morally unacceptable, then eventually I will find myself first sympathising with them, then agreeing with them and, eventually, perhaps even identifying with them. I will begin not only to argue that they be left alone but also that what they are doing is ‘right’. Perhaps I may even try it out myself.
This kind of toleration more often than not brings conformity, in opinion if not practice.
Of course, there are certain practices that are still regarded by the majority of people as ‘morally reprehensible’ – and therefore not to be tolerated under any circumstance. The only problem with this is that the boundaries regarding which practices fall into this category are continually being moved. This is particularly obvious when it comes to both sexual and medical ethics. Not so long ago sodomy was illegal in most countries around the world – now it is both legalised and encouraged (if you ‘feel’ it is right for you).
At what point did it stop being ‘tolerated’ (as deviant) and start being accepted (as normal) and then promoted (as good)??
Not so long ago, euthanasia of any form would have been treated as something out of a movie script; a horror scenario that hopefully would never come true. Now it is debated and being put forward as a potential standard practice. Even last month, there were strong calls to progress straight on to ‘involuntary euthanasia’… At what point did these views stop being ‘tolerated’ and start becoming mainstream?
At present, there is generally a huge furore over paedophiles – these are the people who are regarded as having committed the worst and most depraved acts… but how long will it be before this too is seen as ok, as long as the child is consenting or something like that? It would be very easy to scoff at this prediction but whoever would have thought just a few years ago that sodomy would be regarded as normal and natural. The ancient Greeks certainly didn’t seem to have a problem with engaging in sexual practices with young boys…
…when the boundaries are constantly being moved then, in the end, anything can be ‘tolerated.
Which brings us onto the greatest paradox about today’s society. Apparently, the only thing that is actually morally reprehensible is to comment on someone else’s behaviour and voice an absolute opinion. The action of the person should not be called into question at all – they are to be tolerated at all costs. Only bigots and fundamentalists have the audacity to be so ‘intolerant’. But is this fair?
By saying that a person must be tolerated ‘along with’ their actions rather than ‘in spite of them’, one is effectively separating this person from their actions, but this is impossible. You cannot separate a person from their deeds; we do not act within a moral vacuum. Our actions affect ourselves and others and we are therefore accountable to one another for those actions. If someone does something that I regard as immoral then that means that I must also call the person immoral (recognising, of course, that I am also immoral, lest I be accused of hypocrisy). You cannot separate a person from their actions.
So actually then, society today, by asking us to endure all these unpleasant things and unpleasant people is creating exactly the right circumstances for these undesirable practices to be perpetuated. If my misdeeds are no longer being sanctioned I will only be encouraged to carry on doing them. We see this most plainly with little children. There is no such thing as ‘telling off a deed’; you always tell off a person. If you do not tell of the person then they understand that they are getting away with it. By encouraging us to tolerate people ‘together with’ their unpleasant behaviour rather than ‘in spite of’ it, we are effectively being told to condone what they are doing. We affirm them in their ‘evil’ practices. But surely true toleration must be about accepting the person ‘despite’ their deviant behaviour? And this brings us to the heart of tolerance.
Tolerance was never supposed to be the solution…
It is merely a stepping stone to the real aim: reconciliation. What does genuine tolerance look like? Well, surely it involves accepting and enduring someone despite the fact that many things about them and many things they do are intrinsically wrong. And this is the major problem for the atheist; he is unable to label anything as ‘intrinsically’ wrong. Due to his or her worldview that excludes God from the moral plane, morality itself must be dealt with in terms of expediency and utility. Tolerance then becomes not a matter of sanctioning evil or deviant practices but simply about maintaining some semblance of order amidst a plurality of conflicting and contrasting values. Tolerance itself is seen as the ultimate solution but this begs the question… solution to what? The real problem that toleration addresses is not some vague idea of it being inconvenient that people have different views and practices, it is the concrete and horrific problem of evil; the fact that people lie, cheat and kill. But if there is no God then there is no truth, just different perspectives; if there is no God then there is no cheating or killing, just practices that favour my survival over another person’s (survival of the fittest). Suddenly the modern approach to tolerance becomes understandable; it is simply the logical outworking of the atheist’s worldview. Circular and hopeless though it may be (toleration is both the means and the end), it is consistent with the rest of the atheistic worldview.
This cannot be right, though. The real problem is one of broken relationships. Human beings are out of fellowship with each other; even our romantic relationships are full of cheating, lies and murder – this is a fact that is painfully obvious through just a cursory glance at our world; even the atheist can see this. We don’t need just a peaceful life.
What we need is reconciliation!
Toleration is simply the stepping stone to reconciliation. It not about ‘putting up with each other’, it is about restoring relationships that have been broken. When someone who knows that I regard their behaviour and views as being evil and wrong, according to God’s perfect standard sees that I nevertheless accept them completely (tolerate) and in doing so also offer them love (reconciliation) when what they deserve is condemnation and judgement for what they are doing… then they have been introduced to true toleration.
And of course the greatest argument for doing it this way is that, even if I know the correct standard, I have no right to condemn and judge anyway because I am no better. Jesus shows us very clearly that we have ALL broken ALL of the ten commandments so that none of us have a leg to stand on. This puts things in a very different light… when the only person who has the right to condemn and judge us finds us all guilty then the question stops being one of whether we will tolerate each other or not and turns into one of wonderment at just…
..how on earth has God tolerated us lawbreakers for so long?
The answer is again found in the true nature of toleration; it was never supposed to be an end in itself – it points to reconciliation. The Bible tells us clearly that God was tolerating our sin because it was always his plan to reconcile people to himself. When the apostle Paul was preaching to the multicultural people of Athens, he said these words: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Jesus’ resurrection means two things – it shows us that God’s tolerance was being exercised for a reason (so that all people everywhere could have the chance to turn and repent and be reconciled to God) and it also shows us that his toleration of us will not continue indefinitely. Jesus demonstrated through his resurrection who he was: the living God who has the right and the power to judge our wrongdoing and rebellion against him and one day he will judge all people.
This means that if I haven’t yet repented (turned away from sin in my heart and turned to Jesus) then God is being tolerant towards me at the moment. But his offer doesn’t last forever. God’s tolerance is being exercised for the purpose of me having the opportunity to accept his offer of reconciliation. When that offer ends then so will God’s tolerance and I will receive the fair wages for my rebellion: judgement. Notice, however, the repetition of the word, “all”. God is an ‘all’ kind of God. All are facing judgement but God is showing tolerance to all. All have rejected God but God is offering reconciliation to all. All who repent will receive this offer and all who don’t will be judged eventually.
What are the implications of this to our idea of tolerance? Well, surely it means that our toleration must also be exercised in exactly the same all-encompassing manner? This means that I don’t just tolerate vegetarians and villains, but also gays and gangsters, not just blacks and bolsheviks but also perps and paederasts. There is no ‘choosing’ of what I tolerate or not. All evil deeds are ‘morally reprehensible’ to God; there are no different categories. The argument is simple: God has shown tolerance to even the worst offender amongst us so we have no right not to show tolerance to all people, whoever they may be, whatever they may have done. But that tolerance must be of the kind that points towards an offer of reconciliation. We must offer reconciliation ourselves and, above all, point to the source of all reconciliation; to Jesus Christ in whom we can be reconciled to God, the key to God’s toleration of us. There can be no lasting reconciliation outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Once again, you are left with a choice
Do you choose the toleration of this world; one in which the boundaries are constantly changing, where you could one day find yourself on the wrong side of the lines of toleration, where toleration is seen as an end in itself leading to a cycle of hopeless stalemate, where resentment festers and where the evil practices are accepted along with the person? Or do you choose the genuine toleration of God, who exercised complete toleration over all people in order that his Son, Jesus Christ, might appear to reveal the true purpose of his toleration: reconciliation.
Tags: Apologetics, Provocative Thoughts, Values
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
“Thou shalt not disagree”
Sunday, October 16th, 2005
The latest EU slogan that we are hearing bandied about is ‘Unity in diversity’, a testament to the values of tolerance and acceptance that the EU is proud to espouse. The general idea is that although we all may come from different backgrounds and have different ideas on various issues, we believe that it is more important that we are united rather than opposed to one another. Therefore, we have made a commitment to celebrate those differences rather than use them as weapons against one another. We are completely inclusive and tolerant of people and ideas that are divergent and contrary to our own. In fact, the only view that is unacceptable is the view that another view is unacceptable. Of course, this is postmodernism (see next entry to come for more on PM) at its finest; with the foundations being laid for the past decade or so in society, it has now come to full maturity in this vision statement of the European Union.
You can probably sense it coming… Surely I’m not going to attack this too, you may be thinking… Oh yes I am ☺ Once again, we have a really great idea – encompassing great values such as inclusivity, equality and tolerance – and once again we have an example of something that I could not disagree with more heartily. Is it that I don’t believe in these values? By no means. Let’s break down this statement a bit more to see what it really means…
I have already laid out the basic premiss of ‘unity in diversity’; basically, unity is achieved through celebrating our differences and making sure that everyone’s voice is heard, no matter how outrageous, new or different that view is. The only heresy is somehow to suggest that someone may be wrong – the unity would then be broken. The golden rule is that someone’s right to be different (diversity) must never be violated and must always be accommodated (result=unity). Whilst engaging in an intellectual debate with someone who has embraced this philosophy, you are very likely to be greeted with a retort that looks something like:
“I may disagree with your view, but I will defend to the death your right to voice it.”
…which, loosely translated, basically means – ‘I think you’re wrong and probably think less of you for holding those views but that’s ok because I have managed to convey exactly that without offending anyone or violating your right to be different.’ This person has somehow contrived to celebrate your diversity and maintain unity with you whilst managing never actually to engage with your argument. He has both soundly rejected and incorporated your views into his worldview. You feel affirmed. Unity in diversity has been achieved.
Ok, so it sounds a bit superficial, you may say – people don’t say anymore what they really think -, but surely it’s a good thing if people are getting on more and more and falling out less and less…? Is it, though? As a free-thinking human being, surely my most basic right (which can never be taken away from me) is the right to come to my own conclusions. I am free to choose what I think and believe and obviously a good education and an abundance of information is important in this process but ultimately it is a path which I must be allowed to trace myself and any infringement that amounts to a dictation of terms in this area would constitute nothing other than slavery or indoctrination. I cannot be told what to think. It is not only through my own personal research, education and reading, however, that I shape my views, but also through discussion and debate with other well-informed people. So… with that in mind, just picture any scenario in which two people who are both well-read and well informed about the subject they are talking about, but with very different views, attempt to have a discussion. With a UiD approach, every time they come to a contentious point, they simply retreat into their respective corners having traded no intellectual blows. They may have heard what the other person believes but because it is their a priori intention to accommodate the other person’s view, they have neither challenged it, nor received a challenge to their own view. So, rather than having gained anything from the discussion, they leave even more smug in the correctness of their own view and (quite possibly) disgusted at the closed-mindedness of the other person but affirmed in having maintained the peace. If they had engaged, however, they may have found a few surprises; had some of their own preconceptions about the other person’s view overturned or corrected; and their own understanding, whether their view changed or not, would ultimately have been furthered. This approach is actually fostering more ‘closed-mindedness’ than free-thinking. I will find that I can not say what I actually think on various issues because if my view is absolute I would be implying that the other person is wrong. At the very least I tone down my view. My intellectual integrity is whittled away and my understanding is cuccooned by tolerance and obscured by a haze of political correctness and ‘progressive values’.
Now, what I am not trying to do here is to pick holes in the postmodern process. While I have highlighted a few problems in the postmodern approach, (or at least those captured by the ‘unity in diversity’ philosophical statement), I’m am sure at the same time that it IS actually quite possible to have a robust intellectual interaction with someone who follows this philosophy [it sounds like I’m adding the same disclaimer here myself now, doesn’t it... 
]. It would be unfaithful to this process but it would be possible. What I am trying to show, really, is that the unity that ‘unity in diversity’ creates is a false unity. It is a unity that is held together by a lie. I don’t ‘actually’ agree with the other person but I will dress up my disdain/disagreement with a ‘celebration’ of his right to say what he thinks and all for the purpose of keeping the peace and making me appear to be a jolly good fellow for being so tolerant and inclusive. I’m not ‘actually’ being tolerant and inclusive because I probably think he’s a idiot for thinking in the way he does, but I must needs give the impression that I am not rubbishing his ideas because unity is an absolute value. But hold on, there are no absolute values… er, well, never mind about that. Unity is good, yeah!
Ok, so I’ve started to mock… but it really is no laughing matter. When this unity collapses (and it will, especially if all that is holding it together is disagreement), it will expose all the resentment and ill-will that it currently is concealing. So, as we can see, this great manifesto statement that captures the ethical worldview of today’s Europe, is actually not so great. ‘Progress’ has never been so deceitful.
But let’s look at an idea of unity that does work… and it’s a simple matter of switching two words around. How about if our statement changed from ‘unity in diversity’ to ‘Diversity in unity’? What if the unity we so desperately sought after already existed and our task was simply to work out how to deal with the differences in a responsible and mature way, bringing them out into the open rather than concealing them? Can you see how diametrically opposed such an idea would be to the whole concept of ‘unity in diversity’ that we have explored above…? In UiD, the onus is on us to try to ‘create’ unity (which ultimately proves to be false and inherently unstable), whereas in DiU, the unity already exists. In UiD, we conceal our differences with a facade of tolerance but in DiU, we confront the differences directly with a view to dealing with them, not accommodating them. So how on earth would I go about trying to gain such a unity? If it doesn’t originate in us (in that it is created by an outside agent) then surely it is beyond our grasp and purely a conceptual dream??
Well, alongside the promise of forgiveness and eternal life that Jesus, the Christ and Son of God, offers us, he also offers us this unity. You see, when someone puts their trust in Jesus for salvation and life in both now and the hereafter, Jesus has already promised to unite all such people in a manner that is not only perfect but supremely powerful – with his own presence. When someone becomes a Christian – a decision not to be taken lightly (no life and death decision is) – Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, the fullness of God himself, to live in us and with us. All Christians are ‘united in Christ’. They are members of one body. A body does not fight against itself, it will only attack a foreign body; a body has many parts which are all different (diverse!) but they all belong to one body (united). They are also inherently ‘already’ united – they cannot exist apart from the body. The physical body is the best example of ‘Diversity in unity’. The Christian fellowship of believers (the holy catholic church in the Creed – not to be confused with ‘Roman Catholic’) are described in the Bible as the Body of Christ and they are all those followers of Christ worldwide – regardless of denomination – who believe and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, sanctification and redemption (three words that are [v.important] Christian ‘jargon’ but you can look them up for their meaning and the theological weight attached to them if you are interested in exploring further – no time to explain them here).
Do you see the significance of this unity? No work at all needs to be done to achieve it since it is created by the Holy Spirit – God himself – and no pretence needs to be adopted since we cannot do anything to earn or create it; we simply come as we are and receive it, just as we receive the promise of life in Jesus’ name (indeed, we receive both at the same time). No Christian can ever subscribe to ‘unity in diversity’ because it goes against everything that they stand for. Hence I am making a stand now, trying to expose UiD for the fraud that it is (even when applied in a Christian context – maybe especially so) and hoping to point you in the direction of the only place where true unity can ever exist: in a relationship with the Creator of the universe and Maker of each and every one of us, Jesus Christ.
[He also died and rose again, by the way, so that anyone who puts their trust in him can be reconciled with their Maker and spend eternity with him. Oh, and I do find it horrendous that I am including the main gospel message here simply as a ‘postscript’ but the main point of the piece does not discuss it so, in the interest of remaining faithful to the main point of the entry I have alluded to it only but, make no mistake, while not directly coming into the argument, it is the key to everything I have just said! ☺]
So, to conclude: Which unity do you prefer? The false peace of ‘unity in diversity’ or the iron-clad stability found in a relationship with Christ, through his sacrifice then and Lordship now, resulting in ‘DIVERSITY (many members of every tribe, tongue and race) IN UNITY (the body of Christ)’…?
Tags: Politics, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
