Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for Religion and Spirituality

Truth Whack a Mole

Posted on Written by 10 Comments

Whack-a-moleIn reading the “new” atheists, I see confirmation of the Apostle Paul’s assertion that their unbelief is not due to the lack of evidence but the suppression of it. There is a large difference between those who are truly seeking answers to difficult questions and those who are unwilling to believe no matter what the data suggest.

At times Jesus gave some hard answers to seekers (i.e. “go and sell all your possessions”) but was willing to engage them in a loving manner. He reserved his anger for those who came with certainty about their grasp of the truth. Every believer who pauses to reflect on the issues of life has moments of doubt and questions about what he has been taught and questions about what he observes in the culture around him. Contrary to what some think, doubts and questions are not condemned in Scripture, nor are they outside the experience of believers through the ages.

I have come to realize that those who refuse to believe (it is a will issue, first and foremost) have to spend a lot of energy whacking down those truth moles as they pop up. How are you going to respond to the claims Jesus made about himself? How could the complexity we see in biology happen by chance? Can you really live as though there are no absolute truths? Why is it that so many believe in the supernatural? These are examples of questions, like moles, that pop up and must be swept aside to remain antagonistic to belief. Those who are truly wrestling with these questions are more open to dialog.

Perhaps this is why the tone of several of the recent popular atheist manifestos is so angry. Maybe they’re tired of whacking those moles . . . .

Technorati Tags: Atheism,Christianity,truth,Jesus,Christ

Wanted: A Point of Reference

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Traffic LightWhen you are sitting at a stop light in your car and see motion out of the corner of your eye, there are two responses. The first is to push harder on the brake pedal and the second is to look at a lamp post, building or some other stationary object to see if your car moving.

To gauge your own movement requires a fixed object as a point of reference.

In the same way, ethics or morality are only valid if there is some point of reference by which behaviors can be compared. There can be no discussion about ethics if there is not a shared moral code by which to judge.

If you start with the premise that there is no God and all that we see is a result of time plus chance, then statements about morality and ethics can only be expressions of preference since there is no basis on which to declare any particular behavior right or wrong.

It appears that a majority of those who espouse the mantra that “there are no absolute values” have not thought through the implications of this belief. If there are no absolute values, then there can be no real discourse to solve conflict. Conflict would then be resolved by the stronger dominating the weak. Do moral relativists really want to live by the evolutionary code of survival of the fittest? If this premise is true, on what basis would the Columbine shooters or the Virginia Tech shooter be condemned? Were they not doing what their DNA told them to do? Were they not pursuing what they thought was the best course of action? On what basis would Hitler or Stalin be condemned? Were they not doing what they thought was best for their respective countries?

Thankfully, these men have been almost universally condemned, but on what basis?

Tim Keller makes the point that if you start with a premise and the results are not in accordance with observed reality, the premise should then be reexamined. We can observe that a majority of people do not live as though there are no absolute values. We collectively value human life. We define some behavior as criminal and punish those who pursue it. Observed reality is that we do define some behavior as wrong, therefore the premise must be wrong.

There is something in humanity that seeks to know where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Naturalism cannot explain this, nor can it provide a means of drawing that line.

But, if we start with the premise that we are here as a result of a creator God and that He has revealed to us universal principles by which we should live, then we have no problem explaining the desire for standards. In addition, such a God provides the point of reference by which the standards can be established. The premise of a creator God seems to better explain observed human behavior.

Miscommunication Hurts

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

CommunicationThe inability of the gelateria cashier to understand English (real or feigned) and my inability to speak Italian cost me an extra 4 Euros.

I tried to order three small gelatos, a decaf cappuccino, and two regular cappuccinos. What the attendant thought I ordered was three small gelatos, two medium gelatos and a decaf cappuccino.

The guy at the counter was nice enough to give us what we thought we ordered, but not nice enough to refund us the difference.

This story illustrates that miscommunication carries a cost. Four Euros will be little missed in the grand scheme of things. But what about the cost associated with miscommunication, through words or actions, of the Gospel of Jesus?

I need to be sure that my words and my living are not a stumbling block to those who need the Truth to set them free.

Am I living as though the veil is torn and I am in constant communion with a Holy God? Am I living as one who has been crucified with Christ? Do I live as though God is the only important preoccupation for me? Are my thoughts and words full of grace and truth?

Sometimes these things are true, but not often enough. I pray that what John the Baptist said would be true of me: “He must increase and I decrease.”

If it is spoiled, throw it out

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

SpoiledThis evening I read 1 Kings 9 where God answers Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the Temple. In 1 Kings 9:8 God tells Solomon that the Temple will become a heap of ruins if Israel and her kings go after other gods and serve them.

The thought struck me this evening that the Temple, as opulent as it was, only had value if it helped the Israelites focus on their God. The Temple was a symbol to remind the nation of the God they were to serve and worship.

Contrary to what the Israelites may have thought, God did not value the building, he valued the response that the Temple was supposed to elicit in the worshippers. God wanted their hearts fully tuned to himself. When the Israelites no longer were affected by the Temple in this way, the Temple had to go. At best it then became a distraction. At worst, it gave a veneer of legitimacy to their spiritual misdeeds.

In the same way, we in the Church, have struggled to throw out the practices that no longer bring us closer to God. We cling to types of music, styles of dress, hair styles, programs and even Bible translations as though we loose a piece of God if we let these things go. I doubt that God cares about the style of music or dress with which we approach him; he wants our hearts, and he wants them in their entirety.

In business there is a proverb, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” When our methods and traditions no longer deepen our relationship with God and no longer assist us in our commission to make disciples, then they should be tossed. To keep repeating the same action and expecting a different result is insane. Let us choose sanity.

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama