We ought

"To each his own."  I guess now even that is not generic enough, maybe "To each its own." would be even more fitting to the post-modernist' view. Now, this phrase can refer to individual taste, in which sense I could not argue with it.  But more often of late I have heard it applied to matters of principle and governing philosophy.  No one who says this actually believes it - it's kinda the "we're for world peace, uh, but we'll hold onto all our nukes and make a few 1000 more if you don't mind - and possibly bomb you in the near future" mentality.  We proclaim "to each his own" but don't really settle the conflict between our ideologies - it's a cease fire of sorts for the philosophically weak or morally lazy.  Whether knowingly or not, we all reserve the right to take someone else's "own" at a convenient moment.  Don't believe me?  Please read on.

The human social dynamic is not in equilibrium, so the expectations and demands we place on one another are always active.  Let's test this in light of some seemingly opposing doctrines.   A pertinent example for the suum cuique creed as applied in moral philosophy is this idea that we cannot tell another adult what he or she may or may not do with his or her body.  Sounds fair, right?  What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine.  What business of mine is it what you do behind closed doors?  Maybe it is none of my business, but isn't our collectives business?  Check out this fun piece.

In case you did not watch it let me summarize if for you.  If you were to hit play you would have experienced a nauseating intro from our former speaker of the house - and then a very heart felt testimony from Sandra Fluke, a then Georgetown University Law Student.  Paraphrased she is saying "while you cannot tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body; I am here to tell you exactly what you are going to do with your money in terms of providing for me."

Was that summary I gave a tad unfair?  No, I don't think so.  That is what's going on here.  There seems to be a counterpoint of type going on between the morally loose and the fiscally tight at all times; as if the sonata of right vs. left thinkers is independent for the most part and crosses when one has to pay for the others mistakes.  This is a partial allegiance to both philosophies, with a forced choosing of sides when trouble strikes.

We all hold that others ought to behave in a particular way.  Even extreme cases of the morally repugnant have a system of expectations for other people.  None of us truly believe that everyone may do as he pleases as long as it does not intersect me.  We don't believe that because we live in a world where that is not possible, we are connected to one another and thus must seek to understand and define that connection.

In doing so we place demands on one-another.  The artificial structure of so many modern interactions reduce the likelihood of having to face the reality that we must have some moral law to appeal to in order to get along.

The climatologist believes we ought to curb greenhouse gasses, the oilman believes we ought to relax environmental regulations, the feminist believe men ought to change their minds about the preconceived notions about women, the traditional family advocate thinks society ought to stop their onslaught about the traditional roles of the sexes.

It is not one-sided all the time.  Often one noble group will advocate laws and regulations that work their detriment in service to a higher cause as well.  I invite us all to listen closely to the news this week.  It is replete with examples of framing a particular action as morally repugnant because a certain standard of behavior was expected but not delivered. 

Listen to pop culture, the whining of protestors, the post of culture warriors, the tone of new age media.  It is a work of amazing contrast.  Against the tapestry of no right and wrong they beg for justice against a new set of self-defined grievances.

What convinces each and every person that others ought to act in a particular way?  It is a uniting belief that we all share and a small majority exhibit the true "anything goes" spirit despite a much larger population that professes it.  There is a since of right and wrong inscribed in every thinking person's psyche.  It is well worth our while to know where it comes from, and to know which way (for they are all conflicting) is the correct one.

Cause and Effect

It is not so remarkable to hear a very spiritual person blame some fortunate or even unfortunate happenstance on an unseen force.  Superstition has always been commonplace.  This sort of behavior is usually based either on fear, the innate desire to appeal to something beyond our understanding, or a shared human feeling that there is more to our world than meets the eye.  Man's understanding has always seemed to be tethered to how much he can see, and things unseen have always given rise to fanciful stories that observation would either later refine or completely replace.  When telescopes and microscopes increased our ability to see; they also increased our ability to know.

I believe this demonstrates that man's own thoughts are inadequate for understanding without the constant feedback which comes from observation.  It is our nature to ask and to seek to know how things work.  We count our knowledge correct when we can repeatedly predict an outcome with cause under control.  Our desire to know meets our destiny to know when what is real is revealed to us - and the correction that ensues steers us ever towards our goal.

Take the understanding of light itself as an example.  Light travels very fast - something like 671,000,000 miles per hour.  Past a small threshold, big numbers are meaningless to humans, because we cannot easily appreciate the difference between 100,000 miles per hour or 1,000,000 miles per hour and 671,000,000 miles per hour in everyday terms.  All those speeds make the time for a trip to the grocery store something smaller than we can perceive (unless you live in Houston).

Knowing what we know now, it's easy to chuckle at Galileo's attempt to measure the speed of light using a mile of separation, an assistant, and two lanterns.  But the speed of light can be measured, and it comes out to some number that's quite easy to express on paper.  It is limited.  You just need the correct scale to measure it upon.  Later a Danish astronomer named Ole Roemer found a more appropriate scale upon which to gauge the speed of light - the massive scale of our solar system.  Using measurements of the observed timing of the movement of Jupiter's moons he was able to get the first good approximation for the speed of light.


Take a look at the this submerged object to the right.  Now, I want to test what you believe about this object.  You may have read about it, you may know its history, someone may have told you about it, or you may be seeing it for the first time.  What I would like to know is, what do you believe about it's origins?  This thought experiment would be even better if you hadn't known anything this object previously and further valid if you had little knowledge about how fluid flow may affect a metallic structure and produce patterns of any kind (also if you couldn't google it either.)

So what do you believe?  Did the sea's currents shape this piece of bronze, or did bio-erosion from the coral reef's attached to it?  Did a human once shape it and then dump it into the sea?  Some submerged statues we know are very old.  How old do you think this one is?  How would you tell?

If I told you that the waves did so happen to shape this object and there was nothing more to it, would you believe that?  No thinking person could settle for that.  The drive to resolve coincidence and look for a cause would not leave my shallow explanation alone.

This common human longing for knowing cause and effect, for being able to reason out why things happen, this common suspicion that purpose has origins, that images have objects from which they are derived, this longing for unity, is itself a unifying factor through which all humans can relate to one another.

Some things are too far or too small for us to see sometimes.  Without the recorded knowledge that we have modern man would be just as pitiful with some of his assumptions about how the world really operates.  But there is truth.  Sometimes we don't have the vision to see that truth, and even other times even if we can see it we reject it.  We reject it because we already gave up on that question long ago - and we have settled for our substitute answer.

Have you ever studied mythology?  It's confusing.  Our stories, when untethered from reality, go in every which direction.  But I will often appeal to this - that there is only one truth.  There are many varieties of things that may be said about that one truth - a variety that is celebrated by the diverse landscape of people we find in our world.  However, variety must be tethered to what's real to be veracity.  Adding to the belief that there is a single truth, it is true that we have a desire to obtain it.  Though at times we settle for something less; our own actions betray an underlying belief that the rational mind demands a logical cause and effect relationship.  Finally, we embrace this belief in cause and effect when we look for the answers to who we are and what we are doing here.  Though at times settling for an inferior explanations, our decisions and professions betray that we know more about the nature of our origins than we let on.  Not that we see it clearly, we do not.  It must be illuminated for us.  But deceived or not, we all bear this burdening question that we must answer in one way or another: why?

What we believe - "we" being all humans

James 2:19 says "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." 

I've heard that shortly after the term "Christian" was coined, it would be applied to anyone who followed the teachings of Christ in the new peculiar groups meeting in homes and secret places from Jerusalem, Galilee, and Capernaum all the way to the Rome itself.  The distinction could be loosely applied to someone who simply was showing interest, and perhaps at times to those who did not truly come to a saving faith yet.  Certainly an early distinguishing belief unique to these early saints would be that, unlike the secular belief in the myriads of pagan gods, they believed that there was only one true God.  But from this passage, it seems to me to indicate that the author wanted there to be no confusion over the fact that a monotheistic belief system alone was not enough to save.

Indeed it's not enough just to believe.  WAIT!!!  Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto to him as righteousness, right? 

It's with this thought that I am beginning today a series of post about what unbelievers and Christians alike believe.  Quite often in recent conversation in my life I've heard people profess that they believe in Jesus, then turn around and proclaim how their goodness is getting them to heaven.  It has become evidenced to me through everyday life to back up scriptural teachings that what we do with what we believe is just as important as what we believe.  Faith without works is dead.

This statement always draws some passionate discussion, and certainly much deliberation on the interplay between faith and works.  Some will pretend that they have mastered the subject, but I have not.  I think understanding all the dynamics and applications is still something I'm learning. 

I will take some time to go through what I believe to be similar beliefs between Christians and non-Christian alike.  In that context I hope to extend the study also to where I believe they disagree by understanding the fine lines between beliefs on a more fundamental level.  To truly understand a disagreement, you must know whether your suppositions are common or not.  If you want to start an argument about whether a car is red or orange, you have to first know whether you are talking about the same automobile.  Sounds simple?  One would think.

That word argue sounds like a bad thing.  Why start an argument at all?  Following the recent Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye creation debate a few of my friends were quick to repost articles and blogs citing its futility.  I think they miss the real audience - the believer whose faith is strengthened through ministries such as Ken Ham.  What a shame that we are so quick to declare defeat, especially when we are already victorious.  It's not the unbeliever we are truly debating; we are being obedient and proclaiming truth.  The real battle is in the spiritual realm, and it has already been won.

So to all my brothers and sisters who enjoy dissecting and examining the scriptures - I'm so thankful for you.  You probably are well aware that you do what you do out of obedience, and as an act of worship.  God bless you - I pray you never cease.

The good life

An old wager (Pascal's wager) I used to hear in Sunday School and Children's church went like this: "If you choose not to believe in Jesus and you are wrong, you will be forced to spend an eternity in hell.  However, if you choose to believe in Jesus and it turns out the Bible is a myth, you still would have lost nothing.  You will have lived a good life." 

I believe people can come to a saving faith through a variety of circumstances and outreach scenarios - since it is God that does the pursuing and saving, thankfully we don't have to be right in order for God to be faithful to the chosen to bare His name.  So I suppose an unbeliever could possibly hear this message, and, after processing it realize he cannot afford to be wrong about the afterlife.  I can see how this may be a mechanism for the unbeliever to turn to Christ.

Setting that aside, the anecdote is 100% wrong.  It's another pitch that following Christ is just a "good" life.  In this hypothetical if we use history as a guide, and then suppose one follows Christ's teachings on a superstitious hunch, we could surmise that one would be in for a very uncomfortable life.  One should expect to be mocked, possibly tortured, demoted, passed over, imprisoned, denied rights, subject to unrepaid wrongs, deprived of justice, marginalized, looked down upon, and impoverished, to name a few.  All the while you would be denying yourself all the creature comforts of conforming and following the crowd.  Your super bowl parties may be emptier, your boss may despise you because you convict him of immorality and your raises will be skinnier, society with castigate you because you are intolerant and your social circle will be smaller, and you may starve to death because one day you may not be allowed to even buy food without "playing ball" with the world so your modernly opulent lifestyle will be compromised.  After all, the Jesus who we hypothetically wager to follow promised that the world would hate us in Matthew 10:22.  I think we're ok with the world hating us, as long as it is the parts of the world we feel we're better than and desire nothing from.

If one "came to Christ" under the guise that "this is a good idea regardless if that Jesus turns out to be real", he would be rejecting any real experience with the savior.  He would, under his own power, try to rid himself of vices that, although pleasurable, seemed to be inconvenient to his self-seeking purpose.  Asking for "fire insurance", he may find himself getting hell here on earth, and possibly even thereafter.  So by wagering to avoid one hell, he may find two.

Can fire insurance really give you eternal assurance?  I propose that if you had assurance, you would not need the insurance.  This week I'm taking the "it's a good life" card out of my playing deck.  Perhaps I'll replace it with the freedom I believe in when we put aside serving ourselves and take up serving someone who's purposes are much higher.  Now I am not saying you cannot characterize the believer's life as "good", just that it would not be good if it weren't for the absolute certainly of tomorrow.  If it "turns out" not to be true, it was a really bad idea.

My prayer this week is that I stop prizing a Christian life that is good in the eyes of the conveniently pious, and start prizing one that is hard, but of lasting value, to our wonderful and very near Savior.

Good News

I've decided to start writing about the good news, and how it has influenced my life and also shaped my worldview.  I am an amateur at very best so I do not even pretend to speak authoritatively (except where I directly quote from scripture!)  I am inspired every time I read, or more likely for me, every time I  listen to the audio of, a book that classically defends the tenets of our faith.  As one voice among many, these are my thoughts about the ancient, already won duel between God's word, and the confusion that arises from "alternatives" to it.

Recently a coworker and I went to lunch and the question came up "what did you do last Saturday?"  Without thinking twice I responded that I had played softball with my church, and began to mention some other things I had going on.

A few seconds after I began to notice his very visible agitation over something.  He seemed distracted and was making several subtle gestures that would lead me to believe he was uncomfortable to remain in the conversation.  Somewhere amidst the aggravation he commented "well, I was going to show you some jokes but they're pretty crude, you might be afraid you'll go to hell or something if you read them."

As it turns out, I was in fact not afraid of going to hell, so I told him to let me take a look.  The jokes were probably not what I would show a seven year old before Sunday School, but I had seen worse.  You can probably guess what they were about - it's never anything original.  To my co-worker, Christians are people who are superstitiously afraid of going to hell, so they abstain from "naughty" things that might tip the scales against them.  They don't know what the balance sheet will read at the end of their lives, so they try to just be good and stay away from off-color jokes.

How is that the "do more good than bad to stay out of hell gospel" is so prevalent?  Especially since it is the exact opposite of the actual message and philosophy that Jesus and the apostles conveyed.  It amazes me that in our society the gospel is so misunderstood.  It reminds me of a much more important blog post in which a very well known preacher called Jesus "the most misunderstood man in history."

Yesterday I attended a food shelter service event where those who would stop by would hear the salvation message before they were given food and other basic items like clothes and whatever else they may find on the shelf of donations.  I was invited to join in the evangelism as part of a training so I could do the same.  Again, I was amazed at what I heard and the unity of the responses. Time after time the people professed that they were already Christians.  When asked what they would tell Jesus if asked why He should let them into heaven, they said "well I'll tell Him I've tried my best to be good."  After they delivered the wrong answer, the gospel would be explained in a way that more closely ties to something you would find in, say, the Bible.  The more puzzling thing is most of them also professed to regularly attend church!

God bless those who with boldness and patience day-in and day-out plea with people to make the only decision that will ever do any lasting good for them.  Lately, I've been looking more into Biblical examples of sharing the gospel, and often I see a different example set from what I commonly have been taught to use.  As a friend reminded me though, the Bible is very clear that people would be saved by the same savior through different life situations and ways of realizing their need for Him.  So I say that not in any way to promote one technique, I just wanted to share what I find in the word to strengthen me about how to share the experience that has changed my life.

I also desire to share what I find in scripture and how it contrasts with "post-modernism."  What I refer to when I use that word is an ever changing (for the worse) set of politically correct morals located somewhere between complete insanity and the shadow of what used to be called truth.   I believe I'll find two things: 1) There is nothing modern about post-modernism and 2) the same cannon of scriptures used throughout the ages are just as useful for correction regarding this topic as they were confronting the worshipers of Artemis.

I look forward to getting some thoughts out of my head and out on virtual paper, and also learning along the way and coming to understand my own need to grow more clearly!