Last night, I partook in an inadvertently tense conversation. Somehow, as our community group meandered through the serious and the hysterical, the topic of conversation turned to the display of Dixie flags and Southern identity in general. One friend from Indiana was somewhat taken aback to discover that she was a "Yankee". This was not a label she applied to herself, nor was it something derisive where she was from. Yet upon moving to Kentucky and being surrounded by transplanted Southerners, she found that she was a damn Yankee "who just couldn't understand." She seemed confounded and almost taken aback by the casual attitude many Southerners (mostly from Alabama, Georgia, [panhandle] Florida, or Virginia) took toward the display of the Confederate flag--to say nothing of the nostalgia for the Confederacy or the exclusivity of being Southern. The room seemed divided quickly between the vocal Southerners and mostly silent (and presumably Yankee). Explanations fell on deaf ears going both directions and the tension cooled only when I explained the history of the flag and when it moved from a symbol of a region to carrying racist connotations (Southern protests against the Brown v. Board decision in 1956).
My friend never thought of herself as a Yankee. She is first and foremost herself, no more tied a unique historical or geographic identity than any one in most states north of the Mason-Dixon. There's not as much of a tribal--even adversarial--concept among the many Northerners I've met in Louisville. They don't even much consider themselves "Northerners" (with the exception of a friend from New Hampshire, though is identity is more "New England" than "New Hampshire" and that only because he is in a quasi-Southern setting now).
Yet even among young people from the South, I have observed a tendency away from Southern pride. Many young, sophisticated professionals in Atlanta would even prefer to do public-relations damage control, going above and beyond to mock Southern ignorance on racial and social issues. Finding a conservative "good ol' boy" under thirty in Atlanta is easier than finding one in many cities, but much harder than in small Southern cities like Montgomery, Chattanooga, or Columbus. To their credit, these millennial cosmopolitans are doing much to raise awareness of latent racial and social injustices (though I think they overplay the problem; racism is no worse in Montgomery than it is in New York or Chicago these days). Yet they too are struggling to identify themselves as individuals rather than as Southerners.
The movement of higher education, according to Peter Lawler in chapter 3 of Modern and American Dignity, is no longer toward teaching students to live in light of their natural condition. Instead, college is now based on two premises: productivity and autonomy. Productivity is the thrust of twentieth-century bourgeoisie values represented by practical majors like engineering, hard sciences, and business. Autonomy is the 1960s bohemian response, usually embodied in majors like psychology, the "soft sciences" (sociology, anthropology, etc.), and anything ending in "-studies" (Native American studies, African American studies, women's studies, etc.) These are, in the minds of modern sophisticates, the two venues for displaying real individual dignity and significance.
Let's break those two down some more. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes said that people demonstrate their dignity through their productivity. This means that traditional understandings of dignity--birth or pedigree, race, gender, religion, means--are false and useless. The only adequate and legitimate measure of a man or woman is what results he or she can get. So the hard sciences are what you wanna study. Engineers build stuff and make money. Managers lead big companies and make money. Scientists invent stuff or save lives and make money. Very pragmatic and useful definition, just like the stereotypical 1950s dad.
And autonomy? This comes from the philosopher Immanuel Kant (among others). He taught that your dignity can't come from what you can do. It's crass! So instead, your dignity comes from asserting your individuality against the principles of nature and behavior. You are at your individual best when you are distinguishing your values and identity over and against whatever society prescribes to you. You are not first and foremost a son, a wife, a student, a Christian, an employee, an American, even a Southerner. You are an individual and the more you distinguish yourself from any natural limitations or societal roles, the more dignified you are. That's why many social sciences (sometimes eschewing the earlier and more medieval term "humanities") are all about empowering yourself against the constraints of a society out to define you. At my college, there was even a women's studies group called "Empower" for this very reason. The thrust of this idea is very free-spirited and unique, just like the stereotypical 1960s hippie.
Today we have fused these two principles together. Millionaires are no longer stuffy and WASPy like Cornelius Vanderbilt or John D. Rockefeller. Now they are button-down, casual, even whimsical like Steve Jobs or the executives of the laid-back and fun Googleplex. David Brooks called these nouveau riche "bobos"--bourgeoisie bohemians. They display their individuality as much as they can... so long as it doesn't interfere with their productivity. Even the funhouse that is Google headquarters will fire you if you spend too much time in the onsite swimming pools or volleyball courts.
And what has all this to do with Dixie?
As the family, the church, and the social state weaken, colleges ought to be filling in the gap. My time in college ministry showed me that many students don't know who they are or what they should be doing. They have been raised on 90s pop-psychology of self-esteem. Since "everyone's a winner" and "you can be whatever you want to be", the immediate questions to arise in each student are: "Then who am I?" "And what should I be?" Parents, pastors, educators, and community leaders who drank deeply of the feel-good Kool Aid have no answer. So many will distract them with money and material needs or will resort to empowering them against the ills of society. But who are they?
Proud Southerners, with our tribal mentality and our sometimes-irrational devotion to our region and culture, find better grounding than the Atlanta-style sophisticates or the Yankees because Southern is part of the identity. Our devotion to God, guns, and glory (or college football, fried chicken, and "Bless Your Heart"s if you prefer) is finally impossible to explain. It is a part of being Southern and it something greater than any individual Southerner. It's part of a larger realization of our natural roles given to us by the God of the Bible or the philosophers' God of nature. It is a part we are given as a part of our tribe, just as we are all sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, citizens of our nation, servants of Jesus Christ. Call them roles, call them labels, call them duties, whatever you want; they give us our identity. As Walker Percy says in Lost in the Cosmos, we just don't have the words for ourselves. We ultimately can't define ourselves because there's no words we can formulate to fully encapsulate who we are as individuals. To do so is futile. We must ground ourselves from the outside with the roles we have been given.
When we recognize the futility of self-definition, will we finally cry out for help from beyond?
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Should Christians Vote? (Part 2)
Others, such as Cal Thomas[1]
and John MacArthur[2],
argue that Christians ought not to worry about politics and instead focus on
evangelism. Thomas states this position
well:
No matter how hard they try to protect
the gospel from corruption, ministers who focus on politics and politicians as
a means of redemption must minimize their ultimate calling and message. The road to redemption does not run through
Washington, D.C. Politicians can’t
redeem themselves from the temptations of Washington. What makes anyone think they can redeem the
rest of us?[3]
Whether the law [concerning government
restrictions on political statements from the pulpit] is repealed, or not,
churches and ministers would do better to keep their attention focused on the
things above, rather than the things below, because politics can be the ultimate
temptation and pollute a far superior and life-changing message.[4]
For
adherents to this position, while there is no active prohibition on Christians
voting or participating in politics, the real focus of Christians should be on
evangelism and gospel-preaching.
Ministers are not first and foremost political theorists, and Christians
should not be first and foremost political advocates but preachers and servants of transformative gospel. The world will not be changed by political rallies, they argue, but by the spread of Christianity to all the earth.
Grudem contends that this position is too disparaging of Christian political involvement because it demonstrates too narrow a view of the gospel and of Biblical teaching. He argues that the gospel is not limited to salvation but is rather “God’s good news about all of life!”[5] Since the whole Bible is part of God’s good news, it follows that the entire Bible must be considered as part of what Jesus charged the church to go forth and teach. Thus, we must consider Christian political activism to be worthwhile “if it is part of what God teaches us in Scripture, then of course it does spiritual good, because it is something that pleases God.”[6] Grudem also says that this “do evangelism, not politics” view is wrong because the gospel includes life transformation as a fundamental aspect of it. If the gospel changes individual lives, it ought to change them throughout and entirely, including their social and political lives. It is not as though God only cares about spiritual things, Grudem writes, but also their physical lives. Christians ought to let the gospel inform their voting just at is it informs the way they do business, maintain friendships, and serve in their communities.
Grudem contends that this position is too disparaging of Christian political involvement because it demonstrates too narrow a view of the gospel and of Biblical teaching. He argues that the gospel is not limited to salvation but is rather “God’s good news about all of life!”[5] Since the whole Bible is part of God’s good news, it follows that the entire Bible must be considered as part of what Jesus charged the church to go forth and teach. Thus, we must consider Christian political activism to be worthwhile “if it is part of what God teaches us in Scripture, then of course it does spiritual good, because it is something that pleases God.”[6] Grudem also says that this “do evangelism, not politics” view is wrong because the gospel includes life transformation as a fundamental aspect of it. If the gospel changes individual lives, it ought to change them throughout and entirely, including their social and political lives. It is not as though God only cares about spiritual things, Grudem writes, but also their physical lives. Christians ought to let the gospel inform their voting just at is it informs the way they do business, maintain friendships, and serve in their communities.
Scripture has powerful words on the subject of stewardship. Perhaps the most relevant are 1 Peter 4:10-11 which read, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” These verses tell us that God has given us all gifts—and not just in the context of money as stewardship is usually discussed—for edifying each other and glorifying God. Peter says that those who speak should talk like God. Those who serve should serve through God’s power and in God’s name. All that man has God has given him and he should use it all to glorify God. As people who live in a historically-unique situation, one in which the average person has at least some level of political choice and voice, shouldn’t Christians use the political gift they have been given to glorify God? Can Christians who abstain from voting really be said to have “made the most of every opportunity because the days are evil”?[7] Instead, those who take a hard-separation view seem to believe that Christians ought to abstain from some opportunities because the days are evil. This kind of attitude reminds one of the ostrich that sticks its head in the ground, keeping its conscience unsullied while the world may be crumbling around it. Christians should vote, keeping in mind the God they must account unto for their vote, while they still have a chance. Universal suffrage is, as aforementioned, a historical anomaly which may not last forever.
***
The paper ended here but let me supplement some additional thoughts.
I do not intend to advocate for some sort of kingdom of Heaven here on earth. In fact, the early Evangelicals of the 1950s and 1960s were very much against political involvement. In their day the mainline denominations had wed themselves fully to the social gospel and progressivism. Thus, men like Martin Lloyd-Jones or Karl Barth denounced political advocacy and political philosophy as aberrant distractions from preaching and teaching the Bible (though granted Barth had Nazism AND liberalism in mind). It wasn't until Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979 that Evangelicalism began its passionate love affair with the Republican Party. Jimmy Carter still hasn't recovered from that bitter divorce, given that he announces his departure the Southern Baptist Convention every year.
Now we young Evangelicals can blog our hearts out about how cranky we are at our parents for engaging in culture wars that left us and all our gay friends jaded and disillusioned. There's actually quite a lot to be said for this sentiment. At some point the Reagan-Falwell wedding spawned a generation of dysfunction, some being the Ron-Paul-leaning Neo-Reformed, some obedient and stalwart Republicans, some compassionate-if-naive moderates, and more than a couple rebellious, "look-how-NOT-my-conservative-parents-I-am!" political liberals. And of these simplistic yet all-too-common archetypes, all would seize upon the label "Evangelical", even if not always the heritage. All these reactions are understandable, particularly as Christians became a bit too wed to the Republican platforms of the '90s and '00s. I remember hearing more about welfare and terrorism in church than I did about predestination. Regeneration and a solid doctrine of the Kingdom (both Here and Not-Here-Yet) were things I missed until college! That's a damning thing to realize; all three of those have more biblical basis than civic marriage policy or national defense. No really.
It would be easy at this point to conclude that we Christians should leave our religion out of voting. After all, we don't want other people forcing their religion on us (like sharia law, a legal code universally bad if you believe in individual rights). And yet I, being a reckless and self-important bloggerist, have chosen to navigate a rockier, nuance, and I believe ultimately truer course.
If we Christians truly believe what we say we do, namely that the Bible offers a true account of the universal human condition, then we cannot pretend it doesn't exist in civic life. Our politics must be informed by the narrative we espouse. It's for this reason that I openly reject John Locke and Thomas Jefferson's assertion that politics is a necessary evil. I reject wholesale the notion that government is a contractual agreement between citizens. I reject that a law is just simply because the parties under contractual obligation have assented to the terms of the agreement. Instead, I affirm that our laws must match a natural standard, something which exists beyond all legislation and predates it. All our laws are a reflection of this Natural Law, an unwritten, decidedly unscientific account of our souls. The fulfillment of Natural Law is human flourishing, namely when man begins to live corporately in such a way that he finds his deepest longings and desires satisfied according to his individual and communal nature. Is the Bible right when it teaches Imago Dei and the Fall? Is that true even for people who don't believe it? And--most importantly--can we construct our laws in such a way to counter or even roll back the Fall? If the gospel of Jesus Christ brings life to all things it touches, why do we regard secular law as the exception?
Or I'll put it plainly: to leave religion out of our voting is to make relative the truest account of our mortal condition. This is not to say that we should institute Levitical law or ban gay marriage. It is to say that we oughtn't check our faith at the door just because we don't want to be perceived as fighting the culture war. I agree with Aristotle that the end goal of all legislation is justice. Further, the end goal of earthly justice is human flourishing, not fairness or equality (as though all men were the same in faculty or virtue). So the question on a given issue--like gay marriage, to chose a timely example--is not "Is this fair to homosexuals as compared with heterosexuals?" but rather is "Which leads to greater human fulfillment? What is best for men individually and corporately (aka 'the state')? What best fits the purposes of man and the longings of his soul?" The answer to the flourishing question may be the same as to the equality question, or it may be entirely different. Such is the nature of particular justice.
[1] Cal Thomas, “Pulpit Bullies,”
Tribute Media Services (October 2, 2008). www.calthomas.com/index/php?news-2381. Accessed May 7, 2012.
[2] John MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You: An
Alternative to Political Activism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).
[3] Thomas, “Pulpit Bullies”.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, 45, (italics original).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ephesians 5:16.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Should Christians Vote? (Part 1)
The church and the state have had a
convoluted relationship throughout Christian history. Jesus himself was killed by the authority of
a secular political governor. This same
Roman Empire which crucified him as a disruptive threat would eventually give his
church official sanction. In the
medieval period, the head of this Roman church would intervene in political
affairs both between nations and within their borders. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin entwined their
reform movements with their local governments.
The Anabaptists took a radically different tack, preaching hard pacifism
and eschewing any political involvement.
Even “Christian” governments persecuted other religions and
denominations throughout this time, from the Jews in medieval Europe to the Baptists
in colonial Massachusetts. In the
twenty-first century, many Christians live in liberal democracies which have
universal suffrage. They have the option
to vote for Christian candidates and choose their own leaders from among the
regular populace and not the ruling elite.
But is a Christian engaging in political life entwining the church and
the state? Worse still, is Christian
political involvement distracting them from the Great Commission to preach the
gospel to the ends of the earth? Not at all;
rather, Christians ought to engage in politics with no burden of conscience
because they are stewards of the vote and political voice God has given them in
modern democracies.
Some believe that Christians should have nothing at all to do with civil government—including voting—because government is evil and demonic. They argue that Satan is the god of this world and governments are wicked, fallen manifestations of his power. Therefore, Christians should have nothing to do with them. Is he not after all the ruler of the powers and principalities of this world? This is essentially the argument Greg Boyd makes in Myth of a Christian Nation. There he argues from Luke 4:5-6[1] that Satan is the authority over the dark powers of the world. In this verse, Satan is tempting Jesus to bow down and worship him. He entices him by claiming that the kingdoms of the world have been given over to him; if Jesus will worship, Satan will give him authority over the world. Thus, Boyd concludes that Satan is the ruler of the governments of the world.[2] Christians should have nothing to do with government because it is fundamentally wicked and destructive.
Wayne Grudem addresses this argument in his book God and Politics. He writes that the mistake of this proof-text is that Satan is probably lying to Jesus. First, he notes that Jesus calls Satan “the father of lies”. Christians are falling into Satan’s deception when they give him more credit than they actually should. Second, he notes that there are specific verses which say that civil government is a gift from God and is subject to his authority, not Satan’s. He gives the examples of Daniel 4:17, Romans 13:1-6, and 1 Peter 2:13-14 and notes that they all indicate that God is sovereign over all creation. Even further, Grudem notes that these verses teach that worldly governments are tools of God to further his ends on earth.[3]
Daniel 4:17 teaches that God is the ultimate source of all political authority and therefore Christians should not be shy about political involvement. The verse reads, “‘The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.’” In context, the speaker is God in a vision to King Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar saw a great tree which shaded the animals, provided nests for the birds, and fed all men on the earth. Then a watchman from heaven orders that the tree be cut down and his mind reduced to madness. The prophet Daniel interprets this dream to mean that the great Nebuchadnezzar will be brought low and driven to madness for a time by the King of Kings. Thus, this verse clearly teaches that God is sovereign over all civil government.
Romans 13 is an even more explicit text on the relationship of Christians and political life. Verses 1 through 5 read, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
From these verses it may be seen first that God establishes and grants authority to governments. This means that all governments have their authority ultimately derived from God. Therefore executive decisions are carried out using power delegated to them by God. Governments cannot be fundamentally Satanic because they were created by God. They act to execute his will. Second, governments rule for the sake of punishing wrong behavior and promoting good behavior. These verses indicate that it is not wrong for the government to punish its own citizens, even using violent means (“for he does not bear the sword in vain”) to do so. In fact, since the governor is God’s servant and is avenging God’s wrath, it would be wrong for him not to do so. Since he is bearing the sword for God and God has given it to him to execute judgment, a pacifist official who would refuse to punish lawbreakers would be a sinner himself! Third, the government official is God’s servant for the good of the citizens. Therefore, Christians should have minimal conflict with governors or government officials under normal circumstances. Both Christians and governors, even if they are wicked governors, are servants of God and have more in common in their duties than distinct. This concept also informs how Christians should view governing. Good government exists to serve God and the citizens, not the stated ends of a superior or the self-interest of the governor himself or the interests of a particular faction within in the state. The good governor must regard the good of all within the political community.
Peter agrees with Paul that government is not Satanic but divine. 1 Peter 2:13-14 reads, “Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” At the end of this paragraph Peter notes one thing which Paul already did in Romans—governors are sent by God to punish evil and praise good on his behalf. The first part of this verse is instructive; Christians must submit to the government for the sake of the Lord. Here obedience to governmental officials is commended as obedience to God. If those who equate government with Satanic authority are correct, how can they explain this passage? How can a Christian be obedient to God while also being obedient to Satan?
Some believe that Christians should have nothing at all to do with civil government—including voting—because government is evil and demonic. They argue that Satan is the god of this world and governments are wicked, fallen manifestations of his power. Therefore, Christians should have nothing to do with them. Is he not after all the ruler of the powers and principalities of this world? This is essentially the argument Greg Boyd makes in Myth of a Christian Nation. There he argues from Luke 4:5-6[1] that Satan is the authority over the dark powers of the world. In this verse, Satan is tempting Jesus to bow down and worship him. He entices him by claiming that the kingdoms of the world have been given over to him; if Jesus will worship, Satan will give him authority over the world. Thus, Boyd concludes that Satan is the ruler of the governments of the world.[2] Christians should have nothing to do with government because it is fundamentally wicked and destructive.
Wayne Grudem addresses this argument in his book God and Politics. He writes that the mistake of this proof-text is that Satan is probably lying to Jesus. First, he notes that Jesus calls Satan “the father of lies”. Christians are falling into Satan’s deception when they give him more credit than they actually should. Second, he notes that there are specific verses which say that civil government is a gift from God and is subject to his authority, not Satan’s. He gives the examples of Daniel 4:17, Romans 13:1-6, and 1 Peter 2:13-14 and notes that they all indicate that God is sovereign over all creation. Even further, Grudem notes that these verses teach that worldly governments are tools of God to further his ends on earth.[3]
Daniel 4:17 teaches that God is the ultimate source of all political authority and therefore Christians should not be shy about political involvement. The verse reads, “‘The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.’” In context, the speaker is God in a vision to King Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar saw a great tree which shaded the animals, provided nests for the birds, and fed all men on the earth. Then a watchman from heaven orders that the tree be cut down and his mind reduced to madness. The prophet Daniel interprets this dream to mean that the great Nebuchadnezzar will be brought low and driven to madness for a time by the King of Kings. Thus, this verse clearly teaches that God is sovereign over all civil government.
Romans 13 is an even more explicit text on the relationship of Christians and political life. Verses 1 through 5 read, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
From these verses it may be seen first that God establishes and grants authority to governments. This means that all governments have their authority ultimately derived from God. Therefore executive decisions are carried out using power delegated to them by God. Governments cannot be fundamentally Satanic because they were created by God. They act to execute his will. Second, governments rule for the sake of punishing wrong behavior and promoting good behavior. These verses indicate that it is not wrong for the government to punish its own citizens, even using violent means (“for he does not bear the sword in vain”) to do so. In fact, since the governor is God’s servant and is avenging God’s wrath, it would be wrong for him not to do so. Since he is bearing the sword for God and God has given it to him to execute judgment, a pacifist official who would refuse to punish lawbreakers would be a sinner himself! Third, the government official is God’s servant for the good of the citizens. Therefore, Christians should have minimal conflict with governors or government officials under normal circumstances. Both Christians and governors, even if they are wicked governors, are servants of God and have more in common in their duties than distinct. This concept also informs how Christians should view governing. Good government exists to serve God and the citizens, not the stated ends of a superior or the self-interest of the governor himself or the interests of a particular faction within in the state. The good governor must regard the good of all within the political community.
Peter agrees with Paul that government is not Satanic but divine. 1 Peter 2:13-14 reads, “Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” At the end of this paragraph Peter notes one thing which Paul already did in Romans—governors are sent by God to punish evil and praise good on his behalf. The first part of this verse is instructive; Christians must submit to the government for the sake of the Lord. Here obedience to governmental officials is commended as obedience to God. If those who equate government with Satanic authority are correct, how can they explain this passage? How can a Christian be obedient to God while also being obedient to Satan?
[1] These verses read, “And the
devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of
time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory,
for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.” This and all subsequent Scripture quotations
are taken from The ESV Study Bible,
(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008).
[2] Greg Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005),
21-22.
[3] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 37-38.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Jelly Minds
"And [Jesus] said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'"-Matt. 22:37 (ESV)
I remember my very first college class was Intro to Psychology at 11 AM every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on the third floor of the Cook Building. It was the class where I sharpened my academic teeth, took my first college exam, got my first C on a test, and learned that college isn't like in the movies where glorious adventures and wild stories await around every corner. The adventures are what you remember, the main thing is the work. This class paled in comparison to work loads I would have later, yet it was uniquely draining since it was a class over which I had expected to more or less gush. Unfulfilled expectations can really punch a hole in motivation.
I remember my very first college class was Intro to Psychology at 11 AM every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on the third floor of the Cook Building. It was the class where I sharpened my academic teeth, took my first college exam, got my first C on a test, and learned that college isn't like in the movies where glorious adventures and wild stories await around every corner. The adventures are what you remember, the main thing is the work. This class paled in comparison to work loads I would have later, yet it was uniquely draining since it was a class over which I had expected to more or less gush. Unfulfilled expectations can really punch a hole in motivation.
One concept which always bothered me was the Nature/Nurture debate. It wasn't because I was very strongly in the biological/cognitive or behavioral camp. Rather, it stemmed from how the debate was framed. After all, we had been told on the second day of class that psychology came from the Greek meaning "study of the soul". It was also supposed to be the fusion of philosophy and science. However, the discipline quickly shed any such "pretensions" to the soul or philosophy because the soul is not scientifically demonstrable. Therefore, the only legitimate realm of discussion within psychology was between those two positions. Had there existed a branch of psychology dubbed "philosophical psychology" as there do "cognitive psychology" and "behavioral psychology", perhaps I would not have been so perturbed. After all, what if people aren't just a product of their society nor of their genes? Could not some fundamentally immaterial thing remain which is the true source of what man is? As Aristotle said, "The whole is more than the sum of the parts." "Maybe so," answers the academic psychologist, "but that question is not appropriate for scientific discourse. And what is psychology but a science?"
I was so bothered by this that I remember bringing it up with a young psychology major a couple of years later. She was a believer and I thought maybe she could shed light on the deplorable lies of her favored discipline. It was a casual conversation and perhaps I was expecting too much, yet I was even more disappointed by her response than by the original dilemma. She replied that she hadn't much thought about it; she simply disagreed, took the notes, and passed the next test.
The troubling thing about this response is not that she didn't freak out and remember it for years to come like I did. The bothersome fact is that she never dealt seriously with the argument presented to her. Rather than dealing with a potential challenge to her faith, she just ignored it. She blew off all the credibility of her instructor and his ideas--whether or not she agreed with him--simply because she found it unpalatable. It wasn't that she had a reason to disagree; it simply made her faith in Christ uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, a lot of Christians are guilty of having jelly minds. Like a jellyfish, when they encounter some kind of intellectual opposition or challenge, they just drift right past it like no obstruction were there at all. If an answer or resolution to the problem is not immediately forthcoming, they forget about it and drift on with the currents of shallow faith. They don't take it home and wrestle with it. They don't meditate on what a critical impact this might have on their lives as followers of Jesus. They just drift on with their feel-good spirituality. Oddly enough, this isn't how Jesus was.
Jesus found opposition coming from men who had years more experience mastering a subject than He did. In Luke 20:27-40, the Sadducees come to Jesus and try to lay a theological trap. These are men who don't believe the whole Bible, only the Five Books of the Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy). Jesus takes the whole Old Testament (Genesis-Malachi). This means that He disagrees with them on a fundamental level. Particularly in the book of Daniel, there are sections which overtly talk about the afterlife--something the Pharisees didn't believe in at all. Yet Jesus, with little formal education compared to theirs, bests them.
Some will immediately say, "Yeah, but He wrote the thing. And He's God! Of course He knows it better than them. But I'm not God, so how can I be expected to tango with people who know their stuff better?" They're wrong. Jesus is our Christus Exemplar, Latin for "Christ the example" (more or less). That means we're supposed to be like Him. There's huge sections of a decent-sized book of the Bible talking about it (Hebrews). My point is that Jesus didn't do something that we can't do without the Holy Spirit.
So what did Jesus do? First, He met those guys on their level. Rather than quote from Daniel or Psalms or Job or some other book the Sadducees wouldn't agree with, He reasoned from a portion of Scripture that they did believe (that is, Exodus). This is why Christians are wasting plenty of good oxygen by simply pointing at the Bible and saying, "Read this! It has all the answers you need!" If I'm the naturalist arguing that man is just an animal, I'm thinking, "Thanks for ignoring my point. I guess you want me to take and read a book I don't really care about to further convince me how ignorant you are." So don't do that.
Second, He took their charge seriously. He didn't say He'd get to it later. He didn't say that He didn't care. He didn't even say, "Oh well, agree to disagree," without explaining Himself. Instead, He challenged their ideas in a very open-minded yet succinct way. Jesus heard the Sadducees out and then explained why they were wrong. Even though their motives were sinful (since Jesus denounces them just after this), He still addressed their ideas as legitimate.
Finally, Truth can stand up to scrutiny. If you believe that Scripture, right philosophy, and/or just plain common sense teach that man has an eternal soul, then don't retreat! Don't brush aside challenges you shall face in the classroom or in difficult books or from jerkwads on the street with more degrees than intelligence. Because no matter how smart or sophisticated or all-encompassing any explanation of life apart from Truth is, it will fail if it isn't true. Anything that cannot withstand the critical eye isn't Truth at all. Sift through it all and keep what's good.
Like I said when Artery Bloggage started, Truth is personal: the Person Jesus Christ is Truth. A Christian's faith in Him should be steadfast for He shall save us. So don't worry if you're challenged. You might find that you were wrong about something all along. That's what makes learning such a humbling experience and why teachers CRAVE teachable spirits. Be like Jesus; be humbly teachable and eternally dedicated to seeking Truth.
I was so bothered by this that I remember bringing it up with a young psychology major a couple of years later. She was a believer and I thought maybe she could shed light on the deplorable lies of her favored discipline. It was a casual conversation and perhaps I was expecting too much, yet I was even more disappointed by her response than by the original dilemma. She replied that she hadn't much thought about it; she simply disagreed, took the notes, and passed the next test.
The troubling thing about this response is not that she didn't freak out and remember it for years to come like I did. The bothersome fact is that she never dealt seriously with the argument presented to her. Rather than dealing with a potential challenge to her faith, she just ignored it. She blew off all the credibility of her instructor and his ideas--whether or not she agreed with him--simply because she found it unpalatable. It wasn't that she had a reason to disagree; it simply made her faith in Christ uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, a lot of Christians are guilty of having jelly minds. Like a jellyfish, when they encounter some kind of intellectual opposition or challenge, they just drift right past it like no obstruction were there at all. If an answer or resolution to the problem is not immediately forthcoming, they forget about it and drift on with the currents of shallow faith. They don't take it home and wrestle with it. They don't meditate on what a critical impact this might have on their lives as followers of Jesus. They just drift on with their feel-good spirituality. Oddly enough, this isn't how Jesus was.
Jesus found opposition coming from men who had years more experience mastering a subject than He did. In Luke 20:27-40, the Sadducees come to Jesus and try to lay a theological trap. These are men who don't believe the whole Bible, only the Five Books of the Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy). Jesus takes the whole Old Testament (Genesis-Malachi). This means that He disagrees with them on a fundamental level. Particularly in the book of Daniel, there are sections which overtly talk about the afterlife--something the Pharisees didn't believe in at all. Yet Jesus, with little formal education compared to theirs, bests them.
Some will immediately say, "Yeah, but He wrote the thing. And He's God! Of course He knows it better than them. But I'm not God, so how can I be expected to tango with people who know their stuff better?" They're wrong. Jesus is our Christus Exemplar, Latin for "Christ the example" (more or less). That means we're supposed to be like Him. There's huge sections of a decent-sized book of the Bible talking about it (Hebrews). My point is that Jesus didn't do something that we can't do without the Holy Spirit.
So what did Jesus do? First, He met those guys on their level. Rather than quote from Daniel or Psalms or Job or some other book the Sadducees wouldn't agree with, He reasoned from a portion of Scripture that they did believe (that is, Exodus). This is why Christians are wasting plenty of good oxygen by simply pointing at the Bible and saying, "Read this! It has all the answers you need!" If I'm the naturalist arguing that man is just an animal, I'm thinking, "Thanks for ignoring my point. I guess you want me to take and read a book I don't really care about to further convince me how ignorant you are." So don't do that.
Second, He took their charge seriously. He didn't say He'd get to it later. He didn't say that He didn't care. He didn't even say, "Oh well, agree to disagree," without explaining Himself. Instead, He challenged their ideas in a very open-minded yet succinct way. Jesus heard the Sadducees out and then explained why they were wrong. Even though their motives were sinful (since Jesus denounces them just after this), He still addressed their ideas as legitimate.
Finally, Truth can stand up to scrutiny. If you believe that Scripture, right philosophy, and/or just plain common sense teach that man has an eternal soul, then don't retreat! Don't brush aside challenges you shall face in the classroom or in difficult books or from jerkwads on the street with more degrees than intelligence. Because no matter how smart or sophisticated or all-encompassing any explanation of life apart from Truth is, it will fail if it isn't true. Anything that cannot withstand the critical eye isn't Truth at all. Sift through it all and keep what's good.
Like I said when Artery Bloggage started, Truth is personal: the Person Jesus Christ is Truth. A Christian's faith in Him should be steadfast for He shall save us. So don't worry if you're challenged. You might find that you were wrong about something all along. That's what makes learning such a humbling experience and why teachers CRAVE teachable spirits. Be like Jesus; be humbly teachable and eternally dedicated to seeking Truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)