toliveischrist.info
Posts Tagged ‘Provocative Thoughts’
« Older Entries |Charity and the Trinity
Sunday, May 30th, 2010
We demonstrate our true attitude towards God by our attitude towards the idea of charity.
On the surface, we all love the idea of charity. We give to charity, we claim to believe in it, we hold high hopes for it… but we find it very difficult to receive. And this demonstrates our real attitude not only towards charity, but towards God. Both practically in our lives and spiritually in our souls, we are simply too proud to accept help when we are down.
Perhaps we should revisit briefly the basic concept of Charity. For a start, charity is not just about giving money and offering practical assistance to organisations that help people who are downtrodden; neither is it merely about random acts of kindness by individuals. Although these things are certainly part of charity and flow from it, as the sum total of its meaning, they are no more than a caricature – a utilitarian reduction of charity to its lowest common denominator.
Yet somehow, even with this word being denuded of most of its meaning, we still understand the basic concept when we hear it – that it involves a kind of concern within the person offering the help that is not swayed in any way by the circumstance, loveliness, value or virtue of the one being helped… If we are to go deeper into the history of charity, we realise that this ‘concern’ is actually a kind of ‘love’. C.S.Lewis in his book ‘The Four Loves’ explains to us about the different kinds of love. There is στοργή (affection), φιλία (friendship), έρως (‘being in love’, as distinct from mere sexual fulfilment) and αγάπη (charity). The first three were recognised by the ancient Greeks, but charity, a self-giving love regardless of circumstance or the ‘loveliness’ and worthiness of the beloved, is a kind of love that is peculiar to the God of the Bible and is exemplified supremely in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who gave the greatest ever demonstration of charity when he – as God in the flesh – came to people who had rejected God and rescued them, while they were still rejecting him, by paying in his own body for their rebellion and wrongdoing as he died on the cross. The cross is the ultimate act of charity; it is the ultimate act of love given to the undeserving, unlovely and unworthy.
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-7)
And this is why we reject it! We don’t mind talking about the cross as an act of love – this sounds relatively harmless – but as an act of charity??? Who does God think we are?! Some poor, helpless souls who couldn’t help themselves…? What we don’t realise when we happily affirm that the cross is about God’s ‘love’ is that the love of God given to us in Christ on the cross IS charity; it is exactly the same thing to say that the cross is an act of charity as it is to say it is an act of love, for this is what God’s love (read: charity) looks like.
Yet by our reaction to hearing that the cross is ‘charity’, we display the true attitude of our hearts to God. For while we are perfectly happy to offer charity to others, we hate having to accept it, which means that we don’t actually believe in it. Charity for most of us is something that makes us look good; it is something that most of us ‘do’ but none of us actually ‘have’. When we hear that the ultimate act of charity is something that WE need, it makes our blood curdle, our toes curl and our hackles rise – and we hate God for presuming us to be so undeserving and lacking of our own merit, so unable to help ourselves… (Ironically, we tend to refer to our own acts of charity towards others to justify rejecting God’s charity towards us).
This all just goes to show how unlike Jesus we really are.. and how nonsensical it is for people like us to ask the question ‘what would Jesus do’. We might possibly be able to ascertain on a meagre few occasions what it is that Jesus would do, but because charity is not something we have, we could never actually do what Jesus did, even if we found out what it was, so it becomes a futile question for us to ask. At the end of the day, we demonstrate that charity is always something we force ourselves to do without ever really believing in it – for if we did believe in it we would have no problem accepting it for ourselves.
Yet somehow, the Bible calls Christians to exercise this kind of love – the assumption being that they can ‘possess’ this kind of charity love within themselves. How is this possible?!
Today being Trinity Sunday, I thought, I would attempt to offer a defence of charity as a specifically Christian virtue by highlighting its unique source – the Trinity – and showing how it is given to Christian believers to exercise authentically.
As Dan Hames brilliantly noted a few days ago love is neither a feeling, nor a choice in the first instance, but a way of being. We love sexually because chemically and biologically it is how we are made; it is part of who we are, not just what we feel or do. Similarly, we love our friends and family because “we are social animals by nature” (Plato) and friendship and family is the fabric which makes up our social structures. Apart from social structures, filial and familial love cannot exist.
But how about Charity love? Where does self-giving, no-strings-attached love spring from? The only answer that exists is The Trinity. Only the triune God of the Bible is a being who has existed, within his being, as a communion of three persons who have always, consistently and infinitely given themselves to one another. The one God, Father-Son-Spirit, is the only being whose charity can be witnessed as a way of being, meaning that his charity-love is not a choice or feeling or action imposed on himself, but it is who and what he is and always will be.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)
A human receives this kind of love by being united to Jesus Christ, through faith in his death and resurrection.
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4)
What does it mean to ‘participate’ in the divine nature? It certainly doesn’t mean that our human nature fuses with God’s divine nature. This didn’t even happen in the incarnation! Rather, it means that through faith in Jesus we are adopted by God the Father and brought by the Holy Spirit into the communion of the Trinity. Once this happens, we too, like God, will exist in love as a way of being. This is what Jesus died to accomplish and rose to life to bring to fruition. He alone can bring us into the fellowship of the Trinity, that we may have a relationship with God that transforms who we are. As sons and daughters, existing in a fellowship with the only being for whom love is a way of being, we also produce this same love, since it flows from our new identity and our union with Christ.
Charity is what makes every other kind of love possible. 1 Corinthians 13 is read out at weddings, which usually means that people miss that it is not talking about eros love but about charity, the love which makes eros-love possible.
Next time you give to an organisation or commit an act of kindness (random or not), remember that charity is what reminds you of both God’s unique love and your own rebellion against it. We all need charity, on an infinite level for the infinite transgression of denying God and abusing his creation. Only when you admit that you are the kind of person who needs charity on this cosmic level will you have a hope of truly reproducing it yourself. And this will only happen once you accept Christ’s charity through his paying for your sin by his blood on the cross and as a result are brought into the fellowship of the Trinity where you can become someone who can truly give charity, for you have truly received.
As ever, three verses and a chorus are able to express all this more than my many words ever could. This is “Love of God” by Stuart Townend:
LOVE OF GOD, revealed in wonder
By the works of a maker’s hand;
Seas that roar with thunderous splendour,
Fields that whisper at His command.
All the joys of life we cherish
Are God’s gracious sign
We are children of His promise,
Heirs of mercy and grace divine.
Unfailing love from heaven’s throne,
That sought me out and brought me home.
My song of praise shall ever be:
The Father’s love for me.
Love of God, revealed in frailty,
Through the gift of a servant King;
Joy of heaven robed in humility,
Prince of Peace crowned with suffering.
Oh, what love, that calls humanity
To kneel at the cross
And exchange our sin’s futility
For the joy of a father’s love.
Love of God, what priceless treasure
Over all this world affords:
To be His and His forever,
This my glory and my reward!
May this love beyond all knowing
So capture my soul,
That I’m filled to overflowing
With a passion for Him alone!
Tags: charity, Provocative Thoughts, The Gospel, Trinity
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
The Tanning Gods
Thursday, May 27th, 2010
More and more people today are recognising that the word, “atheism”, is the greatest misnomer of them all. For in ‘real’ terms, all people have an object of worship. A-theism means to be ‘without God’ but an atheist is not without a God as such; he/she has simply rejected a particular God or selection of Gods. (more…)
Tags: Beauty, Cultural Temperature, Human Interest, Provocative Thoughts
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
Nick Clegg (almost) on the Gospel
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
After watching the election debate on immigration last night, it struck me that Nick Clegg’s policy on immigration is the perfect illustration of our attitude to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Why did Clegg have to backtrack on his rhetoric of ‘amnesty’ for illegal immigrants? (more…)
Tags: amnesty, Cultural Temperature, Current Affairs, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, Politics, Provocative Thoughts, ukelection
Posted in Christianity | Comments Off
Oscar Wilde’s “alternative religion”
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 | Comments Off
The uninventiveness of lying
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 »
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
