As America gets increasingly secular, there has been much public debate about whether God is necessary when it comes to morality. Since this topic has wrought much confusion, I should be very careful and first define what I mean by morality. I do NOT mean that the debate is over whether or not people can be good without God. People generally agree, on both sides of the fence, that people can do good acts and hold strong moral convictions regardless of what your particular belief system is. Instead, the debate is over whether or not any system of morality can be objectively grounded without God. If a moral value is objective, it means that it is definitively true even if people do not personally believe in it or act on it.
For example, Hitler thought that what he was doing was moral. Historians have a fairly broad consensus that Hitler was firmly convicted that his actions were in the best interest of the world. Rather than being a madman, or a nihilist, Hitler was a social Darwinist who thought that the concept of "survival of the fittest" applied to Germany and the Aryan race. It was for the good of the world for the Nazis to conquer everyone and impose a Third Reich; Hitler envisioned a global utopia that would be stable for millenia.
Now, nearly everyone today believes that Hitler was immoral. But what if Hitler had won the war, and killed everybody who disagreed with him? It is at least plausible that under this bleak scenario, there could have instead been a world where Hitler's ethos was universally viewed as morally sublime. So when it comes to discussions about morality, you cannot simply refer to people's beliefs or the current moral landscape. For a moral value to be truly binding, it has to be true regardless of what various people actually believe. In the words of the classic rock band Boston: "it's more than a feeling."
Traditionally, secular scholars such as Neitzsche or Burtrand Russell who denied God considered objective morality to be impossible. They were amoralists, "Beyond Good and Evil." Recently, however, a host of secular thinkers have been propounding that science, not God, is the true basis for objective morality. For example, the secular neuroscientist Sam Harris published a book called 'The Moral Landscape' that establishes science as the best basis for morality.
But CAN science define morality? Over the next few posts, I will examine the claims made by secular scholars that science can define an objective morality. Since today's post is already getting long, I will begin with an easy one.
There was recently an article on CNN entitled "Face It: Monogamy is Unnatural." In this post, the columnist argues that because mammals in nature have been well observed to exhibit infidelity, humans should not be expected to maintain their monogamy either. This viewpoint of looking to nature for morality is also held by scientists such as Lawrence Krauss, who argues that homoxesuality is moral because mammals in nature exhibit homosexuality.
The idea that we can look at the natural world and animal kingdom to determine what is allowable behavior is what I term "Naturalistic Morality." Here are my two glaring logical issues with Naturalistic Morality:
1) Simply to argue that human morals can be deduced from animal behavior is itself a moral statement. Even plenty of secular people do not share this moral philosophy, as they consider humans to be a unique category of animal life due to our consciousness and highly evolved brains. What is the foundational basis for claiming that because monkeys or mice perform a certain behavior, so can humans? The very foundation of this philosophy is extremely subjective and arbitrary.
2) Perhaps even worse, even people who argue for Naturalistic Morality do not fully believe it. Let me give two examples: the very same people who argue that polygamy is acceptable for humans because bears exhibit polygamous behavior would never argue that it is moral for humans to eat their babies live, as male bears are well known to do. Here is another example: gorillas in the Congo are known to attack rival camps of gorillas and viciously beat them to death. Yet is anyone arguing that this morally justifies the tribal genocide that happened in Rwanda or Germany?
Unless anybody can offer a sound defense for these two objections, it would seem that any basis for an objective moral system requires a foundation besides "Monkey see, monkey do." The very basis of human society and civilization rests of the ideal that humans are distinct from other animals. We do not have to act on our natural impulses, we can deny them for the sake of a higher cause and to selflessly love each other. To take away this dignity of the human race would only serve to erode the very morals that have elevated us far above the naturalistic brutality of the animal kingdom.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Miconception about Christianity #1: Being good
And finally, in my opinion the #1 most common misunderstanding about Christianity is......drumroll please.....that Christianity is about being a good person!
Until my sophomore year of college, my understanding about Christianity was that it was all about being good. Being good was the only way to avoid a descent into an unrighteous life. Being good was the only way to get into heaven. Being good was everything!
In college, I was kindly invited to a Bible study on the book of Romans by the captain of my water polo team. This was the first time that I actually read and studied the Bible on my own, rather than just hearing a random fragment of it out of context before sermons on Sundays. I must confess that it became rapidly apparent that I had everything wrong about what I thought the Bible was saying!
Turns out, none of us can live a righteous life by being a good person. Why not? Because earning righteousness in God's eyes would require being perfectly good, and none of us are perfect! The Bible is unambiguous about this fact:
"There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:10)
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10)
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20)
Ouch! So if nobody can be good by their own efforts, is it all hopeless? Not at all, for this is where the 'Christ' of 'Christianity' comes into play. The entire point of Christ's perfect life and willful sacrifice was that he was gracing all of us with his righteousness, while taking our sin upon ourselves. It's the ultimate switcheroo: we assume Christ's righteousness, while Christ assumes our sinfulness.
"But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes from faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace and through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 4:21-24)
The implications of this statement are endless, but in closing, here are 3 of my favorite:
1) Equality: grace makes us all equally righteous. Think about it: if we judged our merits on how good we were, then we would look down on those less good than us, and feel inferior to those who were better people than us. Under the Gospel, we are all equally sinful and all equally saved by grace.
2) Removes selfish intentions. Too many people think that you get to heaven by being good, but there is a HUGE problem with this philosophy. If doing good works is really the path to heaven, then people who are being good are not really doing it out of genuine love, but just being good to claim their eternal reward. It transforms charity into selfishness! By grace, on the other hand, all who believe in Christ are already assured of heaven, so every good deed that we now perform is a genuine act of love, performed out of the gratitude and inspiration of how God loved us first. There is no selfish agenda whatsoever for our sacrificial acts of love.
3) Gives us hope. Another problem with the "being good" philosophy is that this tends to lead to despair when we mess us. And we all mess up. Under grace, there is never an excuse to lose hope. You can never fall too low to stop trying to love God, others, and yourself. You are always valuable in God's eyes, and your life will always have purpose.
Until my sophomore year of college, my understanding about Christianity was that it was all about being good. Being good was the only way to avoid a descent into an unrighteous life. Being good was the only way to get into heaven. Being good was everything!
In college, I was kindly invited to a Bible study on the book of Romans by the captain of my water polo team. This was the first time that I actually read and studied the Bible on my own, rather than just hearing a random fragment of it out of context before sermons on Sundays. I must confess that it became rapidly apparent that I had everything wrong about what I thought the Bible was saying!
Turns out, none of us can live a righteous life by being a good person. Why not? Because earning righteousness in God's eyes would require being perfectly good, and none of us are perfect! The Bible is unambiguous about this fact:
"There is no one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:10)
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10)
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20)
Ouch! So if nobody can be good by their own efforts, is it all hopeless? Not at all, for this is where the 'Christ' of 'Christianity' comes into play. The entire point of Christ's perfect life and willful sacrifice was that he was gracing all of us with his righteousness, while taking our sin upon ourselves. It's the ultimate switcheroo: we assume Christ's righteousness, while Christ assumes our sinfulness.
"But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes from faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace and through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 4:21-24)
The implications of this statement are endless, but in closing, here are 3 of my favorite:
1) Equality: grace makes us all equally righteous. Think about it: if we judged our merits on how good we were, then we would look down on those less good than us, and feel inferior to those who were better people than us. Under the Gospel, we are all equally sinful and all equally saved by grace.
2) Removes selfish intentions. Too many people think that you get to heaven by being good, but there is a HUGE problem with this philosophy. If doing good works is really the path to heaven, then people who are being good are not really doing it out of genuine love, but just being good to claim their eternal reward. It transforms charity into selfishness! By grace, on the other hand, all who believe in Christ are already assured of heaven, so every good deed that we now perform is a genuine act of love, performed out of the gratitude and inspiration of how God loved us first. There is no selfish agenda whatsoever for our sacrificial acts of love.
3) Gives us hope. Another problem with the "being good" philosophy is that this tends to lead to despair when we mess us. And we all mess up. Under grace, there is never an excuse to lose hope. You can never fall too low to stop trying to love God, others, and yourself. You are always valuable in God's eyes, and your life will always have purpose.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Misconception about Christianity #2: Happiness
While perhaps not always explicitly stated, a lot of people seem to think that the purpose of faith is happiness. This notion goes something like this: if somebody believes in God and does their best to be a good Christian, the reward is a happy and prosperous life on Earth.
I think that a lot of this "health and wealth gospel" comes from Western culture, where we have become entitled to comfort and accustomed to material prosperity. But the Old Testament can also contribute to this worldview. In the Old Testament, God more or less enters into a theocracy with the Jewish people, and gives them worldly success when they are obedient. Examples are abundant: Moses' faith brings freedom to his people, Joshua's faith brings miraculous military victories, David has faith and slays Goliath, and so on. The message is clear: have faith in God and do right, and God will bless your ambitions in the world.
But does any of this apply to Christians? Even a cursory glimpse at the New Testament yields a resounding 'no'! What happens to people of faith in the New Testament?
So why the shift? Like many difficult questions of faith, an understanding of Covenant Theology is necessary. A primary purpose of the Old Testament was for God to establish Israel as an earthly metaphor for heaven and God's loving provision. To establish this idea of a metaphorical heaven on earth, God created a Theocracy where his faithful people were rewarded with the promised land and familial prosperity. Under this framework, it makes sense for people of faith to be rewarded in this life, in the 'here and now'. God was using this life as an example of how He desires to give justice and joy to people who submit to His purposes.
But in the New Testament, this metaphorical heaven yields to the real deal. John the Baptist sets the tone by declaring to people to "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 3:2). This shift from the earthly paradise of Israel to the eternal Kingdom of Heaven is dramatic indeed, and is a primary cause for the Jews to object to this new message. There can be no doubt that this "Kingdom of Heaven" is quite distinct from the Kingdom of Israel, as Jesus talks about eternal life and how "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
In short, the New Testament affirms that God's ultimate plan for us will not be fulfilled in this life, but in the eternity that follows death. After death, people of faith in Christ's grace will have an eternity of spiritual restoration and perfect fulfillment, while the unrepentantly wicked will face justice in Hell. But none of this applies to this world any longer: the correlation between faith and worldly prosperity has been severed. Indeed, Jesus and Paul speak numerous times of how people of faith will find persecution and hardship during their earthly lifetime. Jesus said: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" (John 15:18).
There are profound consequences to these teachings that are often ignored. Here are just but a few examples:
This sounds hard, and it is, but Christians should face such sufferings with joy. How? Paul says it best:
"Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." (Romans 8:18)
I think that a lot of this "health and wealth gospel" comes from Western culture, where we have become entitled to comfort and accustomed to material prosperity. But the Old Testament can also contribute to this worldview. In the Old Testament, God more or less enters into a theocracy with the Jewish people, and gives them worldly success when they are obedient. Examples are abundant: Moses' faith brings freedom to his people, Joshua's faith brings miraculous military victories, David has faith and slays Goliath, and so on. The message is clear: have faith in God and do right, and God will bless your ambitions in the world.
But does any of this apply to Christians? Even a cursory glimpse at the New Testament yields a resounding 'no'! What happens to people of faith in the New Testament?
- John the Baptist faithfully prepares the way for the coming of Jesus, and gets beheaded as a result.
- Jesus Christ lives the only perfect life in the history of the world, and gets publicly scorned, beaten, and crucified.
- When Stephen joyfully proclaims the gospel to a hateful mob, he gets stoned to death.
- Peter devotes his life to spread the gospel, and also gets crucified.
- Paul travels around the world to spread the gospel, and gets tortured, stoned, shipwrecked, and executed in a Roman prison.
So why the shift? Like many difficult questions of faith, an understanding of Covenant Theology is necessary. A primary purpose of the Old Testament was for God to establish Israel as an earthly metaphor for heaven and God's loving provision. To establish this idea of a metaphorical heaven on earth, God created a Theocracy where his faithful people were rewarded with the promised land and familial prosperity. Under this framework, it makes sense for people of faith to be rewarded in this life, in the 'here and now'. God was using this life as an example of how He desires to give justice and joy to people who submit to His purposes.
But in the New Testament, this metaphorical heaven yields to the real deal. John the Baptist sets the tone by declaring to people to "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 3:2). This shift from the earthly paradise of Israel to the eternal Kingdom of Heaven is dramatic indeed, and is a primary cause for the Jews to object to this new message. There can be no doubt that this "Kingdom of Heaven" is quite distinct from the Kingdom of Israel, as Jesus talks about eternal life and how "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).
In short, the New Testament affirms that God's ultimate plan for us will not be fulfilled in this life, but in the eternity that follows death. After death, people of faith in Christ's grace will have an eternity of spiritual restoration and perfect fulfillment, while the unrepentantly wicked will face justice in Hell. But none of this applies to this world any longer: the correlation between faith and worldly prosperity has been severed. Indeed, Jesus and Paul speak numerous times of how people of faith will find persecution and hardship during their earthly lifetime. Jesus said: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" (John 15:18).
There are profound consequences to these teachings that are often ignored. Here are just but a few examples:
- Being open and honest about the gospel and God, even at the expense of social derision or rejection from peers and family.
- Remaining faithful and loving to a spouse even if you are unhappy in the marriage.
- Giving your money and time to others in need even at the expense of your own comfortable lifestyle.
This sounds hard, and it is, but Christians should face such sufferings with joy. How? Paul says it best:
"Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." (Romans 8:18)
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Misconception about Christianity #3: Hell
A common objection to Christianity is that Hell seems cruel. How could a loving God condemn people to eternal suffering without any chance of redemption?
In my opinion, this objection is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the theology of Heaven and Hell. Many people, especially those who have not carefully studied the Bible, mistakenly assume that God forces people into Hell against their will. But is this true?
It is understandable why many assume that nobody goes to Hell of their own accord. Who would choose to spend an eternity being tortured in flames by a red monster with a pointy stick? But viewing Hell in this way seems more informed by cartoons and pop culture than by actual Biblical theology. To answer the question of whether Hell is involuntary, we have to really examine the Biblical meaning of Heaven and Hell.
Heaven is God's kingdom, where God will "wipe away every tear" and "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" (Revelation 21:4). So why wouldn't everyone choose Heaven if it sounds so perfect? Because it requires complete surrender to God and a humble reverence of His holiness, which a lot of people are not willing to do! This is not an appealing concept to people who would rather be their own master in life. It is also not appealing to those who have not understood the unconditional love of the Gospel, but instead perceive God to be wrathful and judgmental.
It would be cruel indeed for God to force people to worship Him in heaven, in the same way that it would be cruel for a parent to physically force their teenage children to listen to their wisdom. For people who hate God or find His commandments oppressive, Heaven would actually feel more like a Hell! Indeed, I have heard many non-Christians joke that they would rather go to Hell if they couldn't get drunk or have sex in heaven. The challenges of accepting Heaven go far beyond simply abandoning a hedonistic lifestyle, it also requires people to let go of their self-righteousness and their anger, which is extremely difficult. I know many people who will never be able to forgive people who have wronged them, yet this hatred would have to be abandoned to enter God's Kingdom.
Like many aspects of Christianity, the best analogy is marriage. In many ways, marriage is a metaphor for Heaven and divorce is a metaphor for Hell. Please do not take this to mean that all people who get divorced are going to Hell, this is not what I am saying. Rather, Heaven is like marriage because both involve a voluntary intimacy and submission to somebody who loves you. God wants to surround you with His love and provision in the same way that a loving spouse does. And like Heaven, marriage cannot be entered into forcefully, it has to be desired. Many people do not want to get married for the same reasons that they would not want to go to Heaven.
It comes down to this: Hell is a voluntary divorce from God's presence. Just as many people would rather live alone than remain in submission to their spouse, there are many people who would rather live their own way than remain in submission to God. CS Lewis phrased it perfectly:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”
In my opinion, this objection is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the theology of Heaven and Hell. Many people, especially those who have not carefully studied the Bible, mistakenly assume that God forces people into Hell against their will. But is this true?
It is understandable why many assume that nobody goes to Hell of their own accord. Who would choose to spend an eternity being tortured in flames by a red monster with a pointy stick? But viewing Hell in this way seems more informed by cartoons and pop culture than by actual Biblical theology. To answer the question of whether Hell is involuntary, we have to really examine the Biblical meaning of Heaven and Hell.
Heaven is God's kingdom, where God will "wipe away every tear" and "there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" (Revelation 21:4). So why wouldn't everyone choose Heaven if it sounds so perfect? Because it requires complete surrender to God and a humble reverence of His holiness, which a lot of people are not willing to do! This is not an appealing concept to people who would rather be their own master in life. It is also not appealing to those who have not understood the unconditional love of the Gospel, but instead perceive God to be wrathful and judgmental.
It would be cruel indeed for God to force people to worship Him in heaven, in the same way that it would be cruel for a parent to physically force their teenage children to listen to their wisdom. For people who hate God or find His commandments oppressive, Heaven would actually feel more like a Hell! Indeed, I have heard many non-Christians joke that they would rather go to Hell if they couldn't get drunk or have sex in heaven. The challenges of accepting Heaven go far beyond simply abandoning a hedonistic lifestyle, it also requires people to let go of their self-righteousness and their anger, which is extremely difficult. I know many people who will never be able to forgive people who have wronged them, yet this hatred would have to be abandoned to enter God's Kingdom.
Like many aspects of Christianity, the best analogy is marriage. In many ways, marriage is a metaphor for Heaven and divorce is a metaphor for Hell. Please do not take this to mean that all people who get divorced are going to Hell, this is not what I am saying. Rather, Heaven is like marriage because both involve a voluntary intimacy and submission to somebody who loves you. God wants to surround you with His love and provision in the same way that a loving spouse does. And like Heaven, marriage cannot be entered into forcefully, it has to be desired. Many people do not want to get married for the same reasons that they would not want to go to Heaven.
It comes down to this: Hell is a voluntary divorce from God's presence. Just as many people would rather live alone than remain in submission to their spouse, there are many people who would rather live their own way than remain in submission to God. CS Lewis phrased it perfectly:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”
Monday, May 27, 2013
Misconception about Christianity #4 - Straightjacket
Another common objection I hear regarding Christianity is how it stifles people's freedom and individuality. Here is the basic logic flow:
1) I have strong personal convictions about my lifestyle and about what is right and wrong.
2) The Bible condemns some of these personal convictions.
3) Therefore, Christianity would be a straightjacket to my personhood.
The crux of this logical flow is that it assumes that our personal convictions about how to live are unquestionably correct. If this were so, I would agree that Christianity is a straightjacket, but there is a second possibility. What if God has a fuller, better idea of the kind of person we are supposed to be? Jesus strongly advocates this:
"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." -John 10:10
This notion is also prevalent in Proverbs, with the following verse being mentioned several times:
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
From these verses, and several others like them, we can see that God does not intend for faith to come at the expense of a full life here on Earth. But then why does what God wants often seem undesirable from a human perspective? I would argue that this conflict of desires is largely due to our selfishness and our shortsightedness.
A superb analogy is parenting: a mother is constantly correcting her toddler's actions and not letting him do things that he desires to do. The child desires to play with the electrical outlet, to drink the drain cleaner, or to play at the top of the stairs, but the mother condemns these activities in favor of others that seem less desirable. What is the mother's motive here? To stifle her child's individuality? On the contrary, from an adult perspective it is perfectly obvious that the mother is fully supportive of her child's individuality and personal interests, but has to regulate and refine them for the sake of the child's safety and well-being. The mother is helping her son to fulfill his true potential in a way that he would be incapable of doing on his own terms.
It is the same with God. He is not trying to restrict us, but rather protect us and harness our fullest potential. Let's use the common objection of sexual repression as a case study. From the perspective of many non-believers (and sometimes even believers), God and the Bible can be a straightjacket regarding our sexual desires. But what is God's real desire in prohibiting extra-marital relations? To make us repressed and miserable? Obviously not, for the Bible teaches that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). This verse is clearly stating that God desires for us to be sexually satisfied and does not desire for us to be repressed. But why can we only have sex within marriage, isn't that also repressive? Perhaps from a primal and shortsighted perspective, but multiple studies have revealed that married people have more sex and are more sexually satisfied compared to singles. There are also many other factors which could be articles to themselves, but in brief:
1) People who wait to have sex until they marry have a higher level of communication and romance during their courtship that builds a better emotional base for their marriage.
2) Waiting until marriage will prevent any sexual baggage with prior partners that can cause significant marital and sexual difficulties.
3) Waiting until marriage prevents any sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy
4) Not allowing sex outside of the marriage will remove possible temptations to have an affair, which can destroy entire families from the inside-out.
I could list many more, but the point is that God does not require us to wait until marriage to somehow punish us or restrict us, but rather to give us the fullest possible quality of marriage and sexual intimacy.
Actually, marriage itself is a great analogy for how God is not a straightjacket when viewed with the proper context. Marriage has a great number of prohibitions and restrictions, yet the vast majority of people on Earth desire marriage as a positive thing. Why is this? Because only by operating within these restrictions can you fully commit and love your spouse for the rest of your life. Take away the restrictions, take away the commitment, and you have lost much of what makes love and marriage so special in the first place! It is the same with God, the commitments and the restrictions that He requires for a relationship with Him are there to maximize the impact of our relationship. He only prohibits things that affect our spiritual, emotional, or physical well-being, while at the same time giving us the unconditional love and emotional security needed to be able to live our lives to the fullest.
1) I have strong personal convictions about my lifestyle and about what is right and wrong.
2) The Bible condemns some of these personal convictions.
3) Therefore, Christianity would be a straightjacket to my personhood.
The crux of this logical flow is that it assumes that our personal convictions about how to live are unquestionably correct. If this were so, I would agree that Christianity is a straightjacket, but there is a second possibility. What if God has a fuller, better idea of the kind of person we are supposed to be? Jesus strongly advocates this:
"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." -John 10:10
This notion is also prevalent in Proverbs, with the following verse being mentioned several times:
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
From these verses, and several others like them, we can see that God does not intend for faith to come at the expense of a full life here on Earth. But then why does what God wants often seem undesirable from a human perspective? I would argue that this conflict of desires is largely due to our selfishness and our shortsightedness.
A superb analogy is parenting: a mother is constantly correcting her toddler's actions and not letting him do things that he desires to do. The child desires to play with the electrical outlet, to drink the drain cleaner, or to play at the top of the stairs, but the mother condemns these activities in favor of others that seem less desirable. What is the mother's motive here? To stifle her child's individuality? On the contrary, from an adult perspective it is perfectly obvious that the mother is fully supportive of her child's individuality and personal interests, but has to regulate and refine them for the sake of the child's safety and well-being. The mother is helping her son to fulfill his true potential in a way that he would be incapable of doing on his own terms.
It is the same with God. He is not trying to restrict us, but rather protect us and harness our fullest potential. Let's use the common objection of sexual repression as a case study. From the perspective of many non-believers (and sometimes even believers), God and the Bible can be a straightjacket regarding our sexual desires. But what is God's real desire in prohibiting extra-marital relations? To make us repressed and miserable? Obviously not, for the Bible teaches that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). This verse is clearly stating that God desires for us to be sexually satisfied and does not desire for us to be repressed. But why can we only have sex within marriage, isn't that also repressive? Perhaps from a primal and shortsighted perspective, but multiple studies have revealed that married people have more sex and are more sexually satisfied compared to singles. There are also many other factors which could be articles to themselves, but in brief:
1) People who wait to have sex until they marry have a higher level of communication and romance during their courtship that builds a better emotional base for their marriage.
2) Waiting until marriage will prevent any sexual baggage with prior partners that can cause significant marital and sexual difficulties.
3) Waiting until marriage prevents any sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy
4) Not allowing sex outside of the marriage will remove possible temptations to have an affair, which can destroy entire families from the inside-out.
I could list many more, but the point is that God does not require us to wait until marriage to somehow punish us or restrict us, but rather to give us the fullest possible quality of marriage and sexual intimacy.
Actually, marriage itself is a great analogy for how God is not a straightjacket when viewed with the proper context. Marriage has a great number of prohibitions and restrictions, yet the vast majority of people on Earth desire marriage as a positive thing. Why is this? Because only by operating within these restrictions can you fully commit and love your spouse for the rest of your life. Take away the restrictions, take away the commitment, and you have lost much of what makes love and marriage so special in the first place! It is the same with God, the commitments and the restrictions that He requires for a relationship with Him are there to maximize the impact of our relationship. He only prohibits things that affect our spiritual, emotional, or physical well-being, while at the same time giving us the unconditional love and emotional security needed to be able to live our lives to the fullest.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Misconception about Christianity #5: Exclusivity
I thought it would be engaging to talk about the five most common misconceptions concerning Christianity that I often hear from people and read in books. Please note that this particular series is not intended to argue why Christianity is true, but rather to clarify some aspects of Christian theology that are too frequently misunderstood. Let's start with the #5 most common misconception that I hear:
Misconception #5: Christianity is arrogant because it makes an exclusive truth claim
It is not obvious why this is a misconception, because Christianity DOES make many exclusive truth claims. Perhaps the best example is when Jesus says that he is the only path to eternal life with God:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
So what is the misconception then? The mistake is in thinking that making truth claims is arrogant. What most people don't realize is that EVERYONE makes exclusive truth claims, no matter what you believe. Even somebody who argues that there is no exclusive truth is actually making an exclusive truth claim! Think about it: if you argue that there shouldn't be any exclusive truth claims, you are excluding those who DO think that there are exclusive truth claims. Therefore saying there is no one truth is just as exclusive as people who say that there is only one truth.
An excellent example of this is Vanderbilt University, who recently banned all organized groups from requiring their leaders to have specific beliefs. For example, Christian organizations that require their members to have specific Christian beliefs are no longer allowed to meet on campus. You can see the inescapable irony: in trying to prevent anyone from being exclusive, they had to exclude a great number of groups and people!
It comes down to this: there is either one correct truth or there is no such thing as truth, but regardless of which one you believe you are excluding the beliefs of others. Therefore the existence of exclusive truth claims should not deter people from considering Christianity, as people have to live by such claims no matter what!
Misconception #5: Christianity is arrogant because it makes an exclusive truth claim
It is not obvious why this is a misconception, because Christianity DOES make many exclusive truth claims. Perhaps the best example is when Jesus says that he is the only path to eternal life with God:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
So what is the misconception then? The mistake is in thinking that making truth claims is arrogant. What most people don't realize is that EVERYONE makes exclusive truth claims, no matter what you believe. Even somebody who argues that there is no exclusive truth is actually making an exclusive truth claim! Think about it: if you argue that there shouldn't be any exclusive truth claims, you are excluding those who DO think that there are exclusive truth claims. Therefore saying there is no one truth is just as exclusive as people who say that there is only one truth.
An excellent example of this is Vanderbilt University, who recently banned all organized groups from requiring their leaders to have specific beliefs. For example, Christian organizations that require their members to have specific Christian beliefs are no longer allowed to meet on campus. You can see the inescapable irony: in trying to prevent anyone from being exclusive, they had to exclude a great number of groups and people!
It comes down to this: there is either one correct truth or there is no such thing as truth, but regardless of which one you believe you are excluding the beliefs of others. Therefore the existence of exclusive truth claims should not deter people from considering Christianity, as people have to live by such claims no matter what!
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Book review: The Dark Tower series by Stephen King
"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."
So begins what was perhaps the most epic literary experience that I have ever digested. For those not in the know, 'The Dark Tower' is a fantasy/western/sci-fi/horror series by Stephen King, which he considers to be his magnum opus. Over the past year and finishing today, I have read through the entire series, which is comprised of 8 books and 4,250 pages!!! Along with Roland, the main character, I have journeyed all the way from a remote desert to the top of the tower, and after peering inside the utmost room can say that it was a journey worth taking. Since this series was largely inspired by Clint Eastwood's westerns, I thought it would be fun to briefly recount 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' concerning the Dark Tower series. Some (minor) spoilers ahead for those who have not yet read it!
THE GOOD:
1) Original. I mean, come on, how many books can truly claim to be a fantasy/western/horror/sci-fi adventure, dealing with everything from philosophy to man-eating spiders? I can honestly say I have never read anything like this series before, and for the most part that was a good thing.
2) Epic. Most of the books in this series gave an unprecedented sense of scale and peril to the proceedings. Particularly in the best books (rankings to follow), there was a sense of mystery and certain doom lurking around every corner. You never quite knew what danger was around the bend, but somehow it was (almost) always logical how the characters got out of these sticky situations.
3) Roland. The main character was difficult to like, especially at first, but it was interesting to see his increasingly humanized side as he formed his crew over the course of the series. Perhaps even more fascinating was watching him gradually return back to his hardened, loner self near the end as the quest for the Tower once again took away much of what was making him human again.
4) Oy. Not quite a dog, Oy was an animal called a Bumbler who had the loveable ability to mimic back people's conversation. What raised Oy above the grade of a mere parrot was his ability to genuinely understand the importance of what he was saying. I was surprised to find, by the end of the final book, that I felt more connected to Oy than any of the human characters, and the end of his story was genuinely moving.
5) Ka. A primary theme in the series was 'Ka', which was their word for 'fate'. Perhaps more than any other work I have read, this book investigated all the ups and down with the notion of fate. Is it right to chalk something up to fate that was a selfish action? Or should one take responsibility for one's own choices? Is this even possible, do we have free will? All of these questions were explored, particularly in the fascinating ending which I will not ruin here.
THE BAD:
1) Uneven. When I was watching a documentary on the works of Beethoven, there was an intriguing analysis by a musicologist on Beethoven's famous 9th symphony. This scholar was essentially saying that because Beethoven's work was so completely original and unprecedented, it was extremely uneven in tone and execution (dare he even say it: flawed!). His point was not that the 9th symphony was bad, of course it was brilliant. His point was that when anyone breaks completely new ground and invents a fundamentally new paradigm, that almost by definition it must be flawed and uneven because there is nothing to compare it to for a quality check. I felt that same way about this series, it's biggest strength was its profound originality but this also resulted in a lot of inconsistency. Some examples to follow below.
2) Pacing. Some books were gripping and tense all the way through, but most were way too bloated for the amount of actual plot they contained. Books 4-6, I'm looking at you!
3) Rules. A key necessity for any fantasy series is that there is a consistent set of rules governing the fantasy universe. Otherwise, there's sort of a sense that "anything goes", which ruins the sense of peril and believability of the universe. This was a huge problem here. It seemed like there were any number of ways that magical events could occur or parallel universes could do funny things, but it was so random that it often ruined the world's sense of reality.
4) Villains. What a missed opportunity!!! The main villains: Walter, Marten, and the Crimson King, are entirely underdeveloped, one-dimensional, and curiously almost entirely absent from any actual proceedings despite playing crucial roles in the story.
THE UGLY:
Stephen King's imagination. A warning for the squeamish: there is some truly gross stuff in this series! I have been told it's not as bad as his straight-up horror books, which I have never read, but yeah there is some dark and messed up crap. I can definitely tell he has some repressed daddy issues, that's for sure.
THE RANKING:
As I mentioned, there were 8 books, here is my final ranking from best to worst:
1) Book 7 - The Dark Tower
2) Book 2 - The Drawing of the Three
3) Book 3 - The Waste Lands
4) Book 4 - Wizard and Glass
5) Book 1 - The Gunslinger
6) Book 5 - Wolves of the Calla
7) Book 4.5 - The Wind Through the Keyhole
8) Book 6 - The Song of Susannah (yuck, what a mess!)
So begins what was perhaps the most epic literary experience that I have ever digested. For those not in the know, 'The Dark Tower' is a fantasy/western/sci-fi/horror series by Stephen King, which he considers to be his magnum opus. Over the past year and finishing today, I have read through the entire series, which is comprised of 8 books and 4,250 pages!!! Along with Roland, the main character, I have journeyed all the way from a remote desert to the top of the tower, and after peering inside the utmost room can say that it was a journey worth taking. Since this series was largely inspired by Clint Eastwood's westerns, I thought it would be fun to briefly recount 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' concerning the Dark Tower series. Some (minor) spoilers ahead for those who have not yet read it!
THE GOOD:
1) Original. I mean, come on, how many books can truly claim to be a fantasy/western/horror/sci-fi adventure, dealing with everything from philosophy to man-eating spiders? I can honestly say I have never read anything like this series before, and for the most part that was a good thing.
2) Epic. Most of the books in this series gave an unprecedented sense of scale and peril to the proceedings. Particularly in the best books (rankings to follow), there was a sense of mystery and certain doom lurking around every corner. You never quite knew what danger was around the bend, but somehow it was (almost) always logical how the characters got out of these sticky situations.
3) Roland. The main character was difficult to like, especially at first, but it was interesting to see his increasingly humanized side as he formed his crew over the course of the series. Perhaps even more fascinating was watching him gradually return back to his hardened, loner self near the end as the quest for the Tower once again took away much of what was making him human again.
4) Oy. Not quite a dog, Oy was an animal called a Bumbler who had the loveable ability to mimic back people's conversation. What raised Oy above the grade of a mere parrot was his ability to genuinely understand the importance of what he was saying. I was surprised to find, by the end of the final book, that I felt more connected to Oy than any of the human characters, and the end of his story was genuinely moving.
5) Ka. A primary theme in the series was 'Ka', which was their word for 'fate'. Perhaps more than any other work I have read, this book investigated all the ups and down with the notion of fate. Is it right to chalk something up to fate that was a selfish action? Or should one take responsibility for one's own choices? Is this even possible, do we have free will? All of these questions were explored, particularly in the fascinating ending which I will not ruin here.
THE BAD:
1) Uneven. When I was watching a documentary on the works of Beethoven, there was an intriguing analysis by a musicologist on Beethoven's famous 9th symphony. This scholar was essentially saying that because Beethoven's work was so completely original and unprecedented, it was extremely uneven in tone and execution (dare he even say it: flawed!). His point was not that the 9th symphony was bad, of course it was brilliant. His point was that when anyone breaks completely new ground and invents a fundamentally new paradigm, that almost by definition it must be flawed and uneven because there is nothing to compare it to for a quality check. I felt that same way about this series, it's biggest strength was its profound originality but this also resulted in a lot of inconsistency. Some examples to follow below.
2) Pacing. Some books were gripping and tense all the way through, but most were way too bloated for the amount of actual plot they contained. Books 4-6, I'm looking at you!
3) Rules. A key necessity for any fantasy series is that there is a consistent set of rules governing the fantasy universe. Otherwise, there's sort of a sense that "anything goes", which ruins the sense of peril and believability of the universe. This was a huge problem here. It seemed like there were any number of ways that magical events could occur or parallel universes could do funny things, but it was so random that it often ruined the world's sense of reality.
4) Villains. What a missed opportunity!!! The main villains: Walter, Marten, and the Crimson King, are entirely underdeveloped, one-dimensional, and curiously almost entirely absent from any actual proceedings despite playing crucial roles in the story.
THE UGLY:
Stephen King's imagination. A warning for the squeamish: there is some truly gross stuff in this series! I have been told it's not as bad as his straight-up horror books, which I have never read, but yeah there is some dark and messed up crap. I can definitely tell he has some repressed daddy issues, that's for sure.
THE RANKING:
As I mentioned, there were 8 books, here is my final ranking from best to worst:
1) Book 7 - The Dark Tower
2) Book 2 - The Drawing of the Three
3) Book 3 - The Waste Lands
4) Book 4 - Wizard and Glass
5) Book 1 - The Gunslinger
6) Book 5 - Wolves of the Calla
7) Book 4.5 - The Wind Through the Keyhole
8) Book 6 - The Song of Susannah (yuck, what a mess!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)