The empty self and loss of thinking

What psychologists call ‘the empty self’ continues to emerge in epidemic proportions in western societies. The empty self is constituted by a set of values and behavioural patterns that eliminates the life of the mind and makes maturation almost impossible. I think most people would agree that adolescent personality traits are staying with people longer today than in earlier generations. In some cases, well into the thirties and forties. The empty self is controlled by infantile cravings and constantly seeks to be filled up and made whole by food, entertainment and consumer goods. Such a person is often materialistic, preoccupied with sex, physical appearance and body image. Hard work, delayed gratification, endurance and sacrifice are all enemies. For the empty self, pleasure is all that matters and it had better be available at the press of a button! Television has a lot to do with this (and I do not think this is one of those cases where someone mindlessly uses the media or the American government as a scapegoat). Studies indicate that widespread television viewing induces mental passivity, retards motivation, negatively affects reading skills, weakens the ability to stay focused and encourages an overall passive withdrawal from life. This has lead to a loss of thinking in the wider society. People do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct words. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion and substance to slogan. Now granted, we don’t all have to read to the point of Paul of whom it was said, “As he continued to make his defense, Festus shouted, “You’re out of your mind, Paul! Too much education is driving you crazy!” (Acts 26:24). But remember this, you will be the same person you are five years from now, save two things – the books you read and the people you meet. Let’s grab a book more often instead of that remote…shall we?

Jesus’ teaching and Islam

In his essay Jesus in Islam, Principal of the Muslim College in London, Zaki Badwi begins, “Muslims do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God.” He goes on, “The Qur’an argues, however, that having no father is not proof of divinity – in the case of Jesus – any more than having no parents at all is evidence of Adam’s divinity. The rigorous monotheism enshrined within Islam has no place whatever for any Trinitarian doctrine.” But listen to Jesus teaching Nicodemus in (John 3:16-18), “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” It says, “only begotten Son” for a very important reason. When you beget, you make something of the same kind as yourself. Humans beget humans. Birds beget birds. What God begets is God. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. God created Adam, so of course Adam has no divine nature. Jesus was not created but begotten of God and therefore is divine in nature. Muslims say they regard Jesus as ‘a great teacher and one of the prophets’. But Jesus taught, “You must be born again”. How can you regard someone as a great teacher and not accept the most important thing in their teaching? Just a question.

After the recent bombings in London, most people will understandably have questions about Islam on their minds. The best thing I can do is to point interested persons to the online Christian/Muslim dialogue, Answering Islam. This article is particularly interesting. Persons can decide for themselves.

Same-sex marriage and liberalism

Western states seem to be under assault from the supporters of same-sex “marriage”. This assault though has to do with much more than “a piece of paper”. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, “They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else.” Same-sex “marriage” is a radical attempt to bully Western states into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature and socially destructive.

Ironically, many Western liberal states now seem to be pinned in by their own logic. The champions of “tolerance” and “human rights”, are not so sure about this issue. Edward Skidelsky in the January 2002 issue of the British left-liberal magazine Prospect, painted a pretty grim picture concerning modern liberalism. He wrote, “Classical liberalism, as exemplified by Tocqueville, Mill and Isaiah Berlin, was discursive and philosophical. It tried to engage its opponents, to appeal to their reason and humanity. It could afford the luxury of argument, because it rested securely on an idea of human nature as benevolent and reasonable. Modern liberalism does not rest on any such conception. What is left is a set of legal claims, advanced in peremptory fashion, with no appeal to common reason. In the absence of any positive ideal to support it, the liberal proclamation of individual freedom looks increasingly like a mere license to selfishness.”

Modern liberalism, having severed itself from its Christian roots, is now up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. With non-Christian minorities living within their borders, Western states will now find it increasingly difficult to return to the Christian confession. At least without remaining true to their “liberal” and “tolerant” doctrine. Skidelsky follows this logic, “It [liberalism] must sever itself from its historic roots in Christianity, yet in doing so it severs itself from the source of its own life. Liberalism must follow a course that leads directly to its own atrophy. It must extirpate itself.”

Upon reflection, the same-sex “marriage” debate might actually be a blessing in disguise. It was said once that you should never argue with a fool, for they will first drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Let the liberal “marriage radicals” follow their logic to its bitter end. If we ask, “What will they think of next?” The answer is probably, “If it is ok to marry individuals of the same sex, why not animals…who is to say sex and maybe even a union between the species is wrong?”. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. With the underlying naturalistic assumption being, we Homo Sapiens are just animals; people are already arguing for the acceptance of sex between species. If you disagree with them, you are accused of speciesism; which they consider to be in the same category as racism and sexism. Maybe only when we reach that stage, will we at last realize that the teaching of Genesis about humanity is as realistic and sensible as it always has been. Only time will tell I suppose.

The inherent flaw in dualism

Dualism is a belief in two supreme gods or powers, both existing independently and ad infinitum, which are in opposition to each other. Depending on the specific dualistic philosophy these two powers are called different things, for example, “Anabolic/Catabolic”, as one writer put it. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis when he said, “Next to Christianity, Dualism is probably the most sensible and manliest creed on the market”. Christianity goes closer to Dualism than most people think. The New Testament often talks about a dark power in the universe who is behind death, disease and sin. The difference is, that Christianity thinks this dark power was created by God. It was originally created good, but rebelled and turned evil. Christianity agrees with Dualism that the universe is at war. But we do not think it is a war between two independent powers. It is more of a civil war, a rebellion. Dualism is sensible to a point, but there is a catch. To be effective, this dark power or force, must still have attributes which are good. Therefore, the question arises, “From whence did this dark power get these good attributes?” The powers which enable evil to carry on, are powers borrowed or stolen from his opponent. This is why Christians believe the devil is a fallen angel. This is not merely a childish fable. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. Everything which enables a bad man to be really good at being bad, are in themselves good things – intelligence, free will, good looks, charm and so on. Therefore, this dark power could not have existed ad infinitum independent of God. That is why no dualistic philosophy makes sense. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties and leads us to a knowledge of God; confirming our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful. While pleasing men’s fancies, it hinders their faith. The Lord reminds you, we are all “sheep” in a sense. The wise ones, choose the care of the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

The Problem Of Pain

Any attempt to justify pain will invariably evoke a bitter response towards the writer. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear from the outset. I am not arguing that human pain and suffering are not painful. I am however arguing, that those hurts are both necessary and inevitable in this fallen world. No matter which system of thought you believe, it must answer this question, “How do you explain the source of evil and suffering in the world?” If you believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God, the question becomes even more troubling, “How do you reconcile this pain and suffering in the world with this concept of God?”

The problem of reconciling an all-loving, all-powerful God with human pain is insoluble, if we do not accept the truth about the fall of man. Not only are we imperfect creatures because of the fall, we are inherently rebellious towards God. The rebellious human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender itself, provided all is well. Both error and sin have this characteristic. The deeper they are, the less their victim suspects their existence. Pain however, is unmasked and everyone knows that something is wrong when they are being hurt (unless they are a sadist). As C.S. Lewis put it, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world”. Most people know how hard it can be to turn their thoughts toward God when all is well. Why ask for your daily bread, when you own the bakery, right? To say we “have all we want” is a terrible statement when that “all” does not include God.

The problem becomes even more insoluble, if we do not understand fully what it means to have free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without outside coercion or pressure. When God created human beings He gave them free will. This of course means that we can choose either good or evil. There is no such thing as creating a free creature that has no possibility of choosing evil. You may attribute miracles to Him, not nonsense. If a thing is free to be good, it also has to be free to be evil. Someone will probably ask, “Well was it better to create or not to create given this possibility of evil? Why create in the first place if He knew people like, say, Hitler would exist?” I do not know what the best theologians or philosophers would say to that, but this is what I think. We are here, so obviously He thought it was worth the risk. Free will, even though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes life worth living. Try to exclude the possibility of evil (which the existence of free wills involve), and you very quickly find that you have excluded life itself. When children do bad, are their parents responsible? Parents are not morally responsible because human beings are free moral agents not robots. If we do not haul parents before the law courts to answer the charge of “bringing someone into the world who chose to break the law”; then we should not point an accusing finger at God because He created people who chose to do evil.

Another important point to understand about free will is that a thing can be in accordance with your will one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a parent to tell their child, “I’m not going to make you do your homework, you have to do it on your own”. Then they realize that the child is not doing the homework. This is against the will of the parent. They would prefer if the child did its homework. But on the other hand, it is their will which has left the child free to be delinquent. It is the same in the universe. God has not willed evil, but His will (that we have free will), has made evil possible. It is men, not God, who are responsible for slavery, genocide and every unspeakable evil that one can imagine. The gift of free will then is like a two-edged sword. Not by nature of the giver, but by the nature of the recipient.

The problem remains insoluble so long as we define “love” from a purely human standpoint. We attach an extremely trivial meaning to the word “love”, compared to Divine love, which is how God loves. As Traherene in Centuries of Meditation put it, “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive…but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object…He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” The restoration process, albeit painful, is for our own good and ultimately His glory.

In this fallen world that is still under the dominion of sin, everyone will be rejected and hurt in some way. The beauty about God’s goodness is that, even when we are wounded He can still use it for our good and the advancement of His redemptive purposes. So that we can all say to those who choose to serve like Judas, rather than John, what Joseph told his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good…” (Genesis 50:20).

Consequences Of Darwinian Morality

It seems that Darwinian fundamentalism is on the verge of spilling over from biology into almost every sphere of life. If your are into politics there is “Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom”. Is economics your thing? Then you might want to consult, “Economics as an Evolutionary Science”. Lawyers, you are also covered with titles such as, “Evolutionary Jurisprudence” or “Law, Biology and Culture: The Evolution of Law”. Today, Darwin’s disciples are touting evolution as all-encompassing. Culture can no longer be separated from biology they tell us, for culture itself is merely the product of evolutionary forces. If that is true of culture, it is also true of morality. If any society embraces this all-encompassing evolutionary system of thought, the results will be devastating. Especially in the area of morality. Hear what some of the most “learned” Darwinists think about certain moral issues.

First up is Steven Pinker of MIT, considered by many to be one of the leading thinkers in the field of cognitive science. He wrote an article in the New York Times applying his brand of evolutionary psychology to the issue of infanticide. This was around the time the story broke in New York about a teenage girl, who delivered her baby at a school dance and then dumped it in the trash. He began talking about how, “we must understand teenagers who kill their newborns”, because infanticide “has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history”. His reasoning was that since it was so ubiquitous, it must have been preserved by natural selection, which therefore means it must have an adaptive function. He went on, “if a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favour the healthiest in the litter or try again later on”. Lest the reader be misled, Mr. Pinker is still speaking about human babies, not cats. Because of natural selection he goes on, “a capacity for neonanticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions”. These remarks should not come as a total surprise though. At a symposium studying infanticide among animals, many of the participants agreed that “infanticide can no longer be called ‘abnormal’. Instead it is as ‘normal’ as parenting instincts, sex-drives and self-defense,” and may even be a beneficial evolutionary adaptation.

On the matter of rape, it gets even worse. In a book titled, “The Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion”, the authors (two university professors), made the claim that rape is not a pathology, biologically speaking. Instead they “reassured” us it is an evolutionary adaptation for maximizing reproductive success. The book even goes so far as to call rape, “a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage”. At this point, the dangers of higher “education” become glaringly obvious. It is quite possible to be highly educated, but yet still be a fool. One of the biggest problems in the world today is that the educated fools are so sure of themselves whilst the wiser people are so full of doubt (but that is another story).

A local writer commenting on the issue of homosexuality asked what would be next. Would people be soon arguing to remove the taboo on sex with animals? Well, if Princeton University professor Peter Singer gets his way, the answer to that question is yes. In his article titled “Heavy Petting”, he makes it clear from the get go that he is attacking biblical morality (at least give him points for barking up the right tree). He writes, “in the West, we have a Judeo-Christian tradition” which teaches “humans alone are made in the image of God”. “In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals”. He however maintains that, “we are animals” therefore “sex across the species ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings”. This sick mentality is not restricted to academia. In 2002 a play opened on Broadway called “The Goat, or, Who Is Sylvia?”. It featured a successful architect who confesses with his wife that he has fallen in love with someone else. The someone else is, you guessed it, a goat named Sylvia. With a culture already desensitized to adultery, the playwrights apparently decided to probe the waters of beastiality.

Picture for a moment a culture driven by this kind of Darwinian logic. Even though this way of thinking is fatuous, it is still very popular, why? Because it promises some kind of morality based on science instead of religion. The logical flaw in such a system of morality however, is that it cuts its own throat, philosophically speaking. Philosophically speaking, it is a self-defeatist or self-referentially absurd (or quite simply, it is dumb). For if all of our ideas are products of evolution, then so is the idea of evolution itself. At the pinnacle of this fatuity, is the presumption that only other people’s views have evolved, and are not objectively true or right, whilst the evolutionary view, somehow magically immune from this same process, alone remains true and objective. God help us all, if Darwinian fundamentalism spills over from the biology lab into other areas of public life.

Keeping Religion In Her Place

Since most secularists are too “intelligent” to directly attack religion, they put it in the values realm. Case in point. A recent writer started began by stating, “Mathematics and certain sciences can provide definite answers. Politics, religion and everything under the heading of “ideas” are ephemeral and there is no end to arguments on topics which are simply ‘opinion’.” Many of the problems in western society is the direct result of such thinking. Thinking that is locked in the past of the Enlightenment period. As a result religion is trapped in the private values realm, where relativism reigns supreme. This is where people say, “What might be true for you, is not true for me. That’s just your opinion.” Secularists tout their ideas as rational and unbiased whilst implying that religious views are subjective “ideas”. Quite apart from anything else, this is a lie. We all come to the table with prior experiences, personal beliefs and other interests. A popular slogan in the philosophy of science is, “All facts are theory-laden”. Secular humanism, materialism, modernism and post-modernism now masquerade in the public square under the guise of “facts”. It is impossible to think, period, without some prior philosophical commitment. Our minds are influenced by the spiritual stance we take, whether it be for God or against Him. We are inherently religious beings, created to be in a relationship with God. If we reject Him we do not stop being religious, we simply find some other ultimate principles upon which to base our lives – Science/Reason for some, boys’ philosophies for others. The question is not which view is religious and which is purely rational. The real question is, which view is true and which is false? It is when we honestly answer this question, we will realize what Francis Schaffer said is so true, “Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T”. Truth about total reality, not just about religious things.” Once these false ideas are rooted out, people will be able to run the country better.

Old Testament Miracle A Historical Fact

There is a writer who of late seems to take great pride in mocking the account given in the book of Jonah (1:17). Unbelievers, and false teachers in the church have for years rejected this miracle, calling it fiction. However, Jesus Himself regarded it as a historical fact. He used the incident of Jonah and the great fish (a whale according to our Lord), to illustrate His own death, burial and resurrection (Matthew 12:39-41). Skeptics who deny this miracle should keep in mind that they have to reckon with the very words of Jesus. Perhaps though, these most learned skeptics are wiser than Jesus. The same writer also hinted sometime earlier that the Bible was written during the time when men thought the earth was flat. Most people would have probably read that the men of the Middle Ages thought that the earth was flat and the stars near. Actually, this is a lie. Ptolemy had told them that the earth was a mathematical point without size in relation to the distance of the fixed stars. A distance which one ancient text estimates at 117 million miles. As to how what Ptolemy said then became, “the earth was flat”, I do not know. Those who read their “little” Bibles do not leave their brains at the door and come in and praise the Lord, as some would like to mislead. Chesterton indeed got it right when he said, “The Christian faith has not been tried and found wanting. It has rather been found difficult and left untried”. Maybe Christendom is better off that way.

When Government Help Hurts

SOCIAL COUNCIL SOON was the headline of The Barbados Advocate on Saturday June 11, 2005. Later in the article it stated, “…that governments must begin to see their social protection policies and programmes as developmental, rather than concentrated in the welfarism aspect of the programmes”. This is good news. In the early 1990s, America had a radical shift in their approach to welfare. A shift we should take note of. Although welfare had done some good, it had also created a permanent underclass – the chronically poor. With this permanent underclass also came related social pathologies such as alcohol addiction, drug abuse and crime. America’s welfare system was in dire need of reform. Marvin Olasky discovered the answer. He discovered it by analyzing the traditional Christian approach to charity. In researching the numerous Christian charities in the nineteenth-century, often dubbed the Benevolent Empire, he found that churches specialized in personal assistance that literally fulfilled the meaning of compassion – “suffering with” others. These charities didn’t just hand out money, they helped people to change their lives, focusing on job training and education. They required that those receiving aid do useful work. This gave them a chance to rebuild their human dignity whilst simultaneously making a worthwhile contribution to society. They built social networks, reconnecting the needy with family and the church for continuous support and accountability. Most importantly, they addressed the moral and spiritual needs that lie at the root of all dysfunctional behaviour. If there is one area where government help can hurt, it is in the area of welfare. The American government realized that by handing out welfare cheques to all who qualify, without addressing the underlying behavioural problems, they were in essence “rewarding” antisocial and dysfunctional behavioural patterns. And we all know, that any behaviour the government rewards will tend to increase. The churches’ successful approach was outlined in Olasky’s book, The Tragedy of American Compassion. This book impacted former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich so much, he distributed it to all incoming freshmen in Congress. Olasky then became an advisor to President Bush, who promised to create a special office to support faith-based initiatives. A lesson we would do well to take note of.

Genetic Determinism and Free Will

In a book titled Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, the authors attacked the biblical teaching of “original sin”. They insist that the September 11 attacks had nothing to do with moral “evil”. They maintain that a predisposition to violence “is written in the molecular chemistry of DNA”. The genes made them do it. This raises the obvious question, are we solely the by-product of our genes? To my mind, genetic determinism makes no sense in humans. Even if a genetic link is established, it can only mean we have a tendency to act in a certain way. There are too many factors, both biological and social, between a gene and a type of behaviour to justify any claim that one completely determines the other. The discovery of genes for physical traits, tends to reinforce the idea that we are merely by-products of our genes. In reality, it is not that simple. Genes act within a particular context and depend largely on what else is going on. Molecular biologists – who study the chemical activities of genes – quickly point out that it is not the genes alone. Genetic determinism cannot eliminate human freedom. A proper grasp of what we are and how we function is foundational to any well-ordered society. Human beings are the unity of two distinct realities – body and soul. “Scientific” talk (which is really naturalistic philosophy masquerading as true science) about genetic determinism can be misleading. Unless the limitations of genetic research are made clear, we will set a dangerous precedent in the long run. If we believe the gene myth that, “it is all in the genes”, we could as well absolve ourselves of all moral and social responsibility. The more we accept responsibility for who we are – body and soul with the freedom of choice – the more honest we become. To attribute everything to genetics only diminishes what it means to be human. It diminishes what it means to be created in the “likeness” and “image” of God (Genesis 1:27).

Reflections on Life

The two greatest certainties are death and the second coming of Christ. This ancient tale makes the point about death. A slave travels with his master to Baghdad. Early one morning, while milling through the market place, the slave sees Death in human form. Death gives him a threatening look. The slave recoils in terror, convinced that Death intends to take him that day. The slave runs to his master and says, “Help me. I have seen Death, and his threatening look tells me he intends to take my life this very day. I must escape him. Please, master, let me leave now and flee on camel so that by tonight I can reach Samara, where Death cannot find me.” His master agrees, and the terrified servant rides like the wind for the fifteen-hour journey to Samara. A few hours later, the master sees Death among the throngs in Baghdad. He boldly approaches Death and asks him, “Why did you give my servant a threatening look?” “That was not a threatening look,” Death replies. “That was a look of surprise. You see, I was amazed to see your servant today in Baghdad, for I have an appointment with him tonight in Samara.”

As for the second coming? Jesus, speaking to his disciples, makes the point. (John 14:3) “And if I am going away to prepare a place for you, I will come again and will welcome you into my presence, so that you may be where I am.” Whether we are rich or poor, believer or unbeliever, high or low in status, the fact remains: we all die and Jesus will return. Why do we sometimes live then as though we are invincible and we hold our future in our hands? Perhaps, men are fools. But certainly not as foolish as that?

None Are Perfect

No one is perfect. God has so ordained it, that we bear one another’s faults and burdens. For there is no one without fault or burden. Therefore, until God ordains otherwise, we should bear patiently the faults of others, whatever they may be, because we also have many faults; with which others must endure. Do not be self-sufficient but place your trust in God who helps the humble and humbles the proud. No one is perfect.

To Err is Human

Most of us have heard this before – to err is human. This quote also brings to mind a common attack on the Bible. It goes something like this – Man wrote the Bible. Man is imperfect. Therefore, the Bible is imperfect. So why should we believe the Bible? This argument is not a valid one. The issue really is whether man is responsible for the Bible or whether God worked through men and inspired the Bible. It does not follow that if man is capable of error, then he always commits errors. If that was true for the Bible then it is also the case that your argument, offered by you, a man. And if your point of view is flawed, then why should anyone believe it?

Everyone Did As He Saw Fit

What could modern day Barbados possible have in common with ancient Israel? The commonality is found in Judges 21:25, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’ The lawless attitude prevalent in Micah’s day also exists today in our country. With little respect for God, fellow citizen or even self; this should come as no surprise. People want to do their own thing; and they resent being told what they can or cannot do. Human opinions have usurped the law of the land, as well as God’s Word, as a guide for our lives.

We should be careful though. As Proverbs points out, human thoughts and opinions are a poor judgement of what is right. Human history is replete with examples of this lesson – people who do what is right in their own eyes, inevitably do what is evil in God’s eyes. Two kinds of people exist. Those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done.’ Then there are those who say to Him, ‘No, my will be done’. To which he says something to the effect of ‘Alright then, have it your way.’

Disregarding God’s absolute standard, in favour of humanistic wisdom (an oxymoron if ever there was one), results in chaos. It results in chaos spiritually, morally and socially. We could learn a lot from Israel’s mistakes as recorded in the book of Judges. Somehow though, it seems that the only lesson we learn from human history, is that we are doomed to repeat it. No wonder it is written, ‘For just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be when the Son of Man comes.’ People will be doing what is right in their own eyes. That's how it will be when the Son of Man comes.

Building a 'NISE' Society

The National Initiative for Service Excellence is a very noble idea. We can train people and expose them to the best motivational speakers on the planet. We can repeat a million and one customer-centric slogans, until we turn blue in the face. They will not be carried out though, until we learn to love our neighbour as ourselves. We cannot learn to love our neighbours, until we learn to love God. And, it is only in loving God that we will obey Him. The quest to build a ‘NISE’ society, begins with the relationship between man and God. We can spend tons of money on training and campaigns and still be subjected to poor service, simply because at the end of the day…we do not love our neighbours as ourselves. If we did, we would treat them accordingly. Think about this: If someone does not care one iota about obeying their Creator, who gives them life, what makes you think they will treat you any better? It is common sense really: No genuine respect for God, no genuine respect for fellow man.

The Greatest Sin

With all of the furore over issues of sexual morality, one would think this area is the one with the worst vices. However, most Christian teachers would tell you that the utmost evil, is Pride. Other vices comes from the devil working on us through our animal nature. But Pride does not come from our animal nature, it is purely spiritual and consequently far more subtle and deadly.

Pride is the chief cause of misery since the world began. It always means enmity: not only between man and man, but enmity to God. With God, you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. As long as your are proud you cannot know God. The proud are always looking down on things and people. As long as you are looking down, you cannot see that which is above you.

The Bible has much to say about pride, none of it good. For example take Proverbs 16:5, “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.” Luckily, we have a test where Pride is concerned. You can have no greater confirmation of Pride, that to think that you are humble enough. Be careful, lest this spiritual cancer find its way into your heart.

Out of Context

Anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. We see this practice in debates and discussions all the time. Someone lifts a verse out of its context and makes it seem as though the Bible and God are anything but good and Holy. Whenever someone quotes you a Bible verse that seems contrary to the goodness of God or seems to contradict another part of the Bible, read the paragraph in its entirety, never read just the verse. Read what comes before the verse and what comes after it. The numbers in front of verses are some what illusory. They might lead you to think that the verses stand alone in their meaning. The numbers were added hundreds of years later and are not in the original manuscripts. So ignore the numbers, in order to get the big picture. This works because of one of the basic rules of communication. Meaning always flows from the top down, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any Bible quotation comes from the paragraph, not just the individual words. You also have to consider: Who was speaking? Who was being addressed? What was the cultural and historical context within which the verse was given? What idea is being developed?

A Bible verse lifted from the Scriptures which does not convey the message of the text lacks Biblical authority even when the quote comes right out of the Bible. Only when you are properly informed by God's Word, in its context, can you be transformed by it.

On philosophy, reason and faith

Consider Tertullian’s rhetorical question, ‘What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?’. In other words, what does faith (Jerusalem of Jesus) has to do with reason (the Athens of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle). In contemporary western thought, belief in God is considered irrational and infantile, primarily for two reasons: lack of evidence and evidence contrary to God’s nature (usually stated as ‘What sort of God would allow...’). The roots of this objection can be traced to the Enlightenment period. During the Enlightenment, all beliefs were demanded to be subjected to the searching of criticism and reason. If a belief could not survive the scrutiny of reason, it was dismissed as irrational. As Kant put it, “Dare to use your reason.” This objection is not offered as a disproof of the existence of God, indeed one cannot disprove God, for God is Truth. It however argues that, even if God were to exist, it would not be reasonable to believe in God. According to such objections the rational belief in God hinges on the success of theistic arguments. This view is held by the majority of modern western thinkers. So you may ask: Why does this view require the support of evidence or argument?

This is because the evidentialist objection is rooted in a theory of knowledge known as Classical Foundationalism. Classical Foundationalists take a pyramid, or a house, as metaphors for their conception of knowledge or rationality. A secure house or pyramid must have secure foundations sufficient to carry the weight of the subsequent floors properly attached to that foundation. They argue that a belief in God is neither self-evident or evident to the senses. Therefore, such a belief is irrational. Very few philosophical positions, and this is a major understatement, enjoy the kind of evidential support that Classical Foundationalism demands of belief in God, yet most of these demands are treated as rational. This raises another question: Why is belief in God held to a higher evidential standard than other philosophical beliefs?

In a view called reformed epistemology, some modern thinkers have argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove everything there would be an infinite regress of provings. Belief in God is more like the belief in a person than the belief in a scientific hypothesis. If belief in God is more like belief in other persons than belief in atoms, then the trust that is appropriate to persons will be appropriate to God. Beliefs are therefore innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent, as the classical foundationalists believe. This is an example of the Augustinian view of faith and reason: fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding.

The one place where term philosophy appears in the New Testament (Colossians 2:8), the best advice is given for all humanity, at all times: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men’s fancies, hinders their faith. Unfortunately, western civilization is dominated by, and paying dearly for the domination of, the vain and deceitful kind.

Social Morality

There has been a lot of talk about morality recently. In the various discussions however, certain people only want to look at the part of morality dealing with relations between man and man. I’m sure we have all quoted, ‘Do unto others…’, at one time or the other. The other two parts of morality are often swept under the carpet and if they are introduced, the jeers begin. The other two parts of morality are the relations between the things inside each man and the relations between man and the power that made him. When issues involving the relations between man and the power that made him surface, the disagreements become more serious. Some people even make very silly statements implying that one should not drag religion into such discussions. The very attempt if you think about it, is absurd (but I do concede that such statements have great rhetorical force). The philosopher of science Michael Polanyi has shown that no truth is arrived at without the scientist assuming (or having faith) in a particular worldview. Knowledge about anything (including morality), is always held by someone as a commitment. So the faith component whether revealed implicitly or explicitly, is always present. There is no getting away from it. There is no such thing as discussing moral issues without ‘dragging religion into it’. Moral knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, it is held by people with commitments to one worldview or another. Those who preach separation of Church and State are indulging in fantasy. Be kind to these people and pray for them, but whatever you do, don’t take them seriously.

Faith and Medicine

I would like to share some of the thoughts coming out of a brief essay by Dale Matthews titled, Is Religion Good for Your Health? Mr. Matthews is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine (we will therefore assume he knows what he is talking about).

Mr. Matthews writes, ‘The medical benefits of faith are a matter not just of faith but also of science. More than three hundred scientific studies demonstrate the medical value of religious commitment (including worship attendance, prayer, Scripture study, and active participation in a spiritual community). These benefits include enhanced prevention and treatment of mental disorders (e.g. heart disease, cancer, sexually transmitted diseases), and addictions; reduced pain and disability; and prolonged survival. In addition, spiritual treatment (e.g. prayer, religiously based psychotherapy) enhances recovery.

He goes on to say that patients are demanding more from medical professionals. ‘They want more compassion and less dispassion, more listening and less lecturing; they seek healers of the mind and spirit, not just mechanics of the body. According to recent scientific studies and polls, two out of three individuals would like to address spiritual issues with their doctors, and half would even like their doctors to pray with them.’ He later adds, ‘while come clinicians may develop particular expertise in handling spiritual problems, physicians will not replace clergy; each role is unique, and both are needed in the care of the sick.’ As he puts it, ‘we need prayer and Prozac, clergy and clinicians, faith and medicine’.

I conclude on this note. The physical body is important, yes. But we have very few atoms in our bodies that were there five years ago. We are more than a collection of molecules. We also have a soul. Do not neglect it. Find a good Bible believing, Bible teaching Church and get some good ‘soul food’. As Jesus said, ‘…or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?’ You tell me.