I got an email from a reader arguing that rational thought could be an evolutionary development, which came about because it enabled species to survive more successfully. While I've always had difficulty imaging the short-term survival advantage of sentience, I thought I'd consider the idea of evolution giving rise to rational thought in more detail. I developed this in response to his email, but I thought it might be useful as its own post.
I'm not sure I can accept the proposition that a non-rational universe gives rise to rational creatures. I'm not sure I understand how that could be possible.
Naturalism proceeds from the assumption that natural processes are all that exist, essentially that everything that happens proceeds according to cause and effect. I can accept this with respect to animals. When a dog learns a lesson, such as "don't go on the couch," he does so because some sort of negative reinforcement indicates that something bad will happen if he goes on the couch. He doesn't understand the reasoning behind this rule, only the cause and effect. He may avoid couches altogether, because he is unable to make a logical connection, only a cause and effect relation between being on the couch and pain.
When we consider things rationally, we assume that we are operating outside the bounds of cause and effect. We must be, because we make claims about what is true, not simply about what we're thinking -- the theory of naturalism itself makes claims about truth. If we were not operating outside the bounds of cause and effect, our thoughts could still be useful, but they could make no claim to being true, being non-rational effects of physical processes. The dog's association of couch and pain is useful, but it is not true that couches cause pain or that pain will always follow being on the couch. We are able to make the logical leap that the dog cannot. The "understanding" we see in creatures that are not sentient is useful, but not rational. It is an "understanding" born of trial and error and has utility, but it has no real relationship to truth.
On the other hand, humans use reason to draw a conclusion that must be true, regardless of observation; we can draw a conclusion about truth that we have not yet observed, or in some cases may not be able to observe. For example, we can use physics equations to anticipate what we will see when we carry out an experiment. This sort of thought, rational thought following logical implication, is of a different kind than the way animals are able to think.
I can't accept that rational thought is a byproduct of a non-rational universe. It's like a painting giving birth to a real person: the painting simply does not contain anything which could give rise to such a byproduct. A universe of cause and effect cannot give rise to rational thought because rational thought operates outside of cause and effect, and must do so to be what it is. If our minds operated exclusively inside the universe, if thought was exclusively the output of non-rational physical inputs, then it would be enslaved by the non-rational inputs that generated it. Thought cannot rise above what feeds it, any more than a stream can rise above its source. Non-rational inputs can generate random outputs in some cases, so the output need not be exactly the same every time, but non-rational inputs cannot generate an output which can act freely to defy what generated it. In any configuration I can imagine, thought would still be the effect of a non-rational cause, and must therefore be non-rational itself.
As far as I can conceive, in order for thought to be unconstrained by the cause and effect relationship which we observe everywhere else in nature (a requirement for it to be capable of discerning truth), the rational mind must contain a component which does not exist within the physical universe. Each consciousness must have an element which is not a part of the physical universe, but rather utilizes the physical component of the human brain to manifest in the physical world. C.S. Lewis describes this relationship as a voice coming through a speaker: if the speaker is damaged, the quality of the transmission will be reduced; but there must be a person speaking on the other end, or else the voice would not come through at all. It is this element, unconstrained by cause and effect because it does not exist in the physical world, which allows us to use reason and act outside the otherwise universal reach of cause and effect. If there were not a component which was exempted from the laws of cause and effect, we would be cursed to think only what we must due to the physical state of the atoms which compose our brains.
That, at any rate, is what I think on the subject. I should note that all of this draws heavily from the C.S. Lewis book Miracles, in which a much smarter man than I makes the case in a more logically sound way, though I hope my version is a bit easier to understand. I highly recommend that book if this topic is of interest to you.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Naturalism: Only Natural?
Atheism has been both more widespread and more vocal in our society recently. I'd like to take some time to consider one of the primary versions of atheism, known as naturalism. The assertion of naturalism is that the elements which are within nature compose the whole of reality -- that there is nothing outside of nature, defined as the observable universe.
As an engineer, my immediate reaction to such a theory is to see if it works all the way out. If we assume this theory is correct, can it explain everything we know about the universe? Does it fit with our observation of the world?
Naturalism would seem to explain most everything within the universe. As far as we can tell, everything in nature operates according to the laws that apply to it. There's no obvious and irrefutable evidence of intrusion from outside, and what circumstantial evidence we have to that effect we can explain away. We can explain most things which suggest an influence from outside our universe as random occurrence, and what's left after that we can ignore because the quantity of such events is relatively small.
The primary problem we run into when we try to accept naturalism is ourselves. I can explain a rock in terms of the materials which compose it -- but human beings contain something more than our atomic materials, a spark which seems to set us apart both from inanimate matter and from the animals.
We may consider life in terms of biological processes and evolution; for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a full explanation for how life came about and operates. What remains as a stumbling block to naturalism is our own ability to think, our own ability to consider theory at all. In the end this inflicts a fatal wound on the theory of naturalism, as I will seek to explain.
Consider the structure of an argument. In order to be persuasive, an argument must consist of a chain of linked statements which connect to some foundational proposition which is accepted by all. Here's an example:
Argument: The minimum wage should be raised.
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. A higher minimum wage will raise the incomes of workers who currently make minimum wage, and therefore
3. Lower-paid workers will make more money total, therefore
4. These workers, with more money, will have a higher quality of life.
All can agree that workers having a higher quality of life is a positive thing. Therefore this argument is constructed in a logical chain, starting at that foundational proposition. The argument may not be persuasive for other reasons (and in this case I believe it is not persuasive), but in order to have logical coherence, the argument must link logically from a foundational proposition. Consider the following:
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. Someone on the street just told me that the minimum wage should be raised.
This argument cannot be persuasive. It does not rest on a chain of logic, but rather on top of an event. The fact that someone on the street made a certain statement has no bearing on whether it makes sense or not. In this case my argument is based on an event, rather than logic.
The difference here is in the kind of connection between the supporting information and the argument. In the first case, the relation is logical implication: everyone agrees that A is true, A implies B, B implies C, therefore C is true. The second case is merely cause and effect: someone said A, therefore A is true.
Everyone would recognize cause and effect as an invalid method to reach a logical conclusion. Causes are inherently non-rational, that is they occur not due to some specific rational reason, but simply because they happen. They are based on the laws of nature occurring, not on any sort of logic. Any conclusion which is merely the effect of a cause is similarly non-rational.
However, we consider logical implication to be of a different class than cause and effect. Logical arguments can be constructed from logical implication because it is a different kind of relationship than cause and effect, and it is rational. It is here where naturalism runs into problems.
Naturalism states that the human mind is nothing but the atoms of which it is composed. According to naturalism, logic and reason must be an illusion, because everything that happens in the universe merely represents the laws of nature being applied to the matter and energy in the universe. I'm thinking of this topic only because the atoms in my brain are in a particular state, and if the atoms are in that particular state, I couldn't be thinking of anything else.
This is the problem: if thought is only the product of the atoms in my brain being in a particular state, then all thought is the effect of a physical cause. The physical cause is non-rational, therefore my thought is also non-rational, being only the effect of a non-rational cause. However, I used rational thought to come up with the idea of naturalism! Thus, I cannot rationally conclude that naturalism is true, as it has undercut the very possibility that I can come to a rational conclusion.
We end up in a "stopped clock" scenario. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it, because we would lack the capacity to rationally draw that conclusion. We might be right to believe in it, but only in the sense that a stopped clock is sometimes right -- not because the correct answer was chosen, but because the arbitrarily chosen answer happened to be correct.
In the end, we can see that it is meaningless to believe in naturalism. Even if naturalism were true, it claims that its adherents lack any rational way to come to the correct conclusion, meaning that believing in it is essentially irrational.
Often, naturalism is presented as "obvious" and "rational," as opposed to religious belief. However, looking deeper we can see that the theory of naturalism can't even explain the rational thought required to believe in it, and indeed denies its existence. Whatever this theory may be, it is neither "obvious" nor "rational." It is useful to keep in mind that these theories are far less effective at explaining our world than religion, and require just as much faith to believe in.
As an engineer, my immediate reaction to such a theory is to see if it works all the way out. If we assume this theory is correct, can it explain everything we know about the universe? Does it fit with our observation of the world?
Naturalism would seem to explain most everything within the universe. As far as we can tell, everything in nature operates according to the laws that apply to it. There's no obvious and irrefutable evidence of intrusion from outside, and what circumstantial evidence we have to that effect we can explain away. We can explain most things which suggest an influence from outside our universe as random occurrence, and what's left after that we can ignore because the quantity of such events is relatively small.
The primary problem we run into when we try to accept naturalism is ourselves. I can explain a rock in terms of the materials which compose it -- but human beings contain something more than our atomic materials, a spark which seems to set us apart both from inanimate matter and from the animals.
We may consider life in terms of biological processes and evolution; for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a full explanation for how life came about and operates. What remains as a stumbling block to naturalism is our own ability to think, our own ability to consider theory at all. In the end this inflicts a fatal wound on the theory of naturalism, as I will seek to explain.
Consider the structure of an argument. In order to be persuasive, an argument must consist of a chain of linked statements which connect to some foundational proposition which is accepted by all. Here's an example:
Argument: The minimum wage should be raised.
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. A higher minimum wage will raise the incomes of workers who currently make minimum wage, and therefore
3. Lower-paid workers will make more money total, therefore
4. These workers, with more money, will have a higher quality of life.
All can agree that workers having a higher quality of life is a positive thing. Therefore this argument is constructed in a logical chain, starting at that foundational proposition. The argument may not be persuasive for other reasons (and in this case I believe it is not persuasive), but in order to have logical coherence, the argument must link logically from a foundational proposition. Consider the following:
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. Someone on the street just told me that the minimum wage should be raised.
This argument cannot be persuasive. It does not rest on a chain of logic, but rather on top of an event. The fact that someone on the street made a certain statement has no bearing on whether it makes sense or not. In this case my argument is based on an event, rather than logic.
The difference here is in the kind of connection between the supporting information and the argument. In the first case, the relation is logical implication: everyone agrees that A is true, A implies B, B implies C, therefore C is true. The second case is merely cause and effect: someone said A, therefore A is true.
Everyone would recognize cause and effect as an invalid method to reach a logical conclusion. Causes are inherently non-rational, that is they occur not due to some specific rational reason, but simply because they happen. They are based on the laws of nature occurring, not on any sort of logic. Any conclusion which is merely the effect of a cause is similarly non-rational.
However, we consider logical implication to be of a different class than cause and effect. Logical arguments can be constructed from logical implication because it is a different kind of relationship than cause and effect, and it is rational. It is here where naturalism runs into problems.
Naturalism states that the human mind is nothing but the atoms of which it is composed. According to naturalism, logic and reason must be an illusion, because everything that happens in the universe merely represents the laws of nature being applied to the matter and energy in the universe. I'm thinking of this topic only because the atoms in my brain are in a particular state, and if the atoms are in that particular state, I couldn't be thinking of anything else.
This is the problem: if thought is only the product of the atoms in my brain being in a particular state, then all thought is the effect of a physical cause. The physical cause is non-rational, therefore my thought is also non-rational, being only the effect of a non-rational cause. However, I used rational thought to come up with the idea of naturalism! Thus, I cannot rationally conclude that naturalism is true, as it has undercut the very possibility that I can come to a rational conclusion.
We end up in a "stopped clock" scenario. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it, because we would lack the capacity to rationally draw that conclusion. We might be right to believe in it, but only in the sense that a stopped clock is sometimes right -- not because the correct answer was chosen, but because the arbitrarily chosen answer happened to be correct.
In the end, we can see that it is meaningless to believe in naturalism. Even if naturalism were true, it claims that its adherents lack any rational way to come to the correct conclusion, meaning that believing in it is essentially irrational.
Often, naturalism is presented as "obvious" and "rational," as opposed to religious belief. However, looking deeper we can see that the theory of naturalism can't even explain the rational thought required to believe in it, and indeed denies its existence. Whatever this theory may be, it is neither "obvious" nor "rational." It is useful to keep in mind that these theories are far less effective at explaining our world than religion, and require just as much faith to believe in.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Global Warming: not settled science; possibly science fiction.
The BBC has posted an article on this subject here. This is the first time I can recall citing a BBC article, but the fact that one of the most liberal news media outlets on the planet is questioning the merits of global warming - well that is news.
My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling." What that means, is up for debate. To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends. Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature. We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit. God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par. To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.
My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling." What that means, is up for debate. To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends. Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature. We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit. God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par. To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.
Friday, October 9, 2009
And the award ... means nothing? The death of the Nobel Prize.
Apparently the Nobel prize is no longer a noble prize. Even the Associated Press is questioning the committee's motives. Check out this article they published on Yahoo! news.
Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views. That is not the point I am after here. My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award?
We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this? Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders. Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama. Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.
I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all. What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes. If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle. An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda. Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.
But that's just me. Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.
Be blessed.
Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views. That is not the point I am after here. My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award?
We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this? Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders. Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama. Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.
I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all. What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes. If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle. An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda. Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.
But that's just me. Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.
Be blessed.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
God really does help those who help themselves...
I have often heard the expression, "God helps those who help themselves," and recently I heard another believer say this is not Biblical. I beg to differ.
Granted, the foregoing expression is not a Bible quote, but, depending on how you interpret that old saying, it is largely true. Just read this passage from Galatians 6 (ESV), which I am so fond of quoting:
"1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.
"6One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
It is true that Christ called us to share each others' burdens (verse 2), but that does not undo personal responsibility, and, ultimately, we must all be responsible to bear our own burdens (verse5). God not only will not be mocked, this passage teaches us that He cannot be mocked.
What does that mean? It means that, if we make no effort at all to carry our own load and to fulfill our own obligations (sowing good things), then God will not cause us to reap something entirely different than what we have sown (verse 7). However, if we keep doing (sowing) good, and if we do not grow weary (enduring in faith), then we reap our harvest in "due season" (God's time - not ours) (verse 9).
I read today about a set of parents who were part of the "faith healing" crowd and who, accompanied by their pastor, allegedly prayed over their sick infant for 30 hours without seeking medical attention. Click here to read the article. Now, I do believe that healing comes by faith in the Lord, and I do believe the Lord performs miracles. However, I do not believe that means the Lord wants us to ignore the wordly treatment options available to us (remember, Luke was a doctor).
Instead, I believe the Lord wants us to sow our efforts into doing all we reasonably can to resolve our own problems, trusting Him to bless our efforts. In my own life, when I have had a problem or been confronted to the obstacle, I prayed hard for God to take care of it. Sometimes, with no more sowing than a prayer, the Lord took care of the issue, but most of the time he required me to put some effort in. I call this reaping/sowing principal "no deposit; no return."
God doesn't need our pitiful efforts - He is the all-powerful creator of the universe. However, he does require our efforts, no matter how insignificant they may seem to us. God designed the universe to work a particular way, and we are mocking both that creation and the nature of our God when we expect to reap something without sowing something (but our efforts to mock will fail when we inevitably reap what we sow). That doesn't mean God cannot perform miracles, which is His right. However, we do not get to dictate to Almighty God how he performs miracles, including the miracle of healing.
I once had a large, non-malignant mass/tumor on my spine show up in x-rays. My family and friends, in a tremendous show of faith, love, and support, prayed corporately for me. By the time my MRI results came back, the mass was gone. It didn't shrink: it was gone. Some have said the x-rays were wrong - whatever. I say, and I always will, that God had other plans for my spine. Praise Him! He healed me, and I believe the faith of my family and friends made a huge difference.
But I went to the doctor...
That's right: I didn't sow nothing. I prayed (a LOT), and I went to see a doctor. I didn't sit around with excruciating, unnatural back pain for months on end begging God to heal me without taking any actions myself to pursue treatment. I prayed, I went to the doctor, and God blessed those efforts with a harvest of healing, in His time, not in mine.
"Faith healing," is something I whole-heartedly believe in, but I don't see that as an excuse to avoid sowing our efforts toward the healing for which we are petitioning the Lord. Going to the doctor is not a sign of lacking faith - it is a practical measure that the Lord can bless. We go to the doctor, and we pray to the Lord, who will decide how to heal us - through an overt display of divine power, or through the doctors hands, or via whatever other mechanism He deems wise, in His time.
If you are sick - seek medical attention, but don't stop praying. Also, don't pray that the doctors heal you. That is a sign of lacking faith. I suggest this prayer:
"Lord, I am not feeling well, and I know something is wrong. Normally I would be afraid, but I am stepping out in faith and trusting you with my future. I pray that you heal my broken body according to your Will. In the name of Jesus I pray this, amen."
Say it. Pursue it. Believe it. Receive it. Just don't skip the pursuing - it is an essential element.
Granted, the foregoing expression is not a Bible quote, but, depending on how you interpret that old saying, it is largely true. Just read this passage from Galatians 6 (ESV), which I am so fond of quoting:
"1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.
"6One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
It is true that Christ called us to share each others' burdens (verse 2), but that does not undo personal responsibility, and, ultimately, we must all be responsible to bear our own burdens (verse5). God not only will not be mocked, this passage teaches us that He cannot be mocked.
What does that mean? It means that, if we make no effort at all to carry our own load and to fulfill our own obligations (sowing good things), then God will not cause us to reap something entirely different than what we have sown (verse 7). However, if we keep doing (sowing) good, and if we do not grow weary (enduring in faith), then we reap our harvest in "due season" (God's time - not ours) (verse 9).
I read today about a set of parents who were part of the "faith healing" crowd and who, accompanied by their pastor, allegedly prayed over their sick infant for 30 hours without seeking medical attention. Click here to read the article. Now, I do believe that healing comes by faith in the Lord, and I do believe the Lord performs miracles. However, I do not believe that means the Lord wants us to ignore the wordly treatment options available to us (remember, Luke was a doctor).
Instead, I believe the Lord wants us to sow our efforts into doing all we reasonably can to resolve our own problems, trusting Him to bless our efforts. In my own life, when I have had a problem or been confronted to the obstacle, I prayed hard for God to take care of it. Sometimes, with no more sowing than a prayer, the Lord took care of the issue, but most of the time he required me to put some effort in. I call this reaping/sowing principal "no deposit; no return."
God doesn't need our pitiful efforts - He is the all-powerful creator of the universe. However, he does require our efforts, no matter how insignificant they may seem to us. God designed the universe to work a particular way, and we are mocking both that creation and the nature of our God when we expect to reap something without sowing something (but our efforts to mock will fail when we inevitably reap what we sow). That doesn't mean God cannot perform miracles, which is His right. However, we do not get to dictate to Almighty God how he performs miracles, including the miracle of healing.
I once had a large, non-malignant mass/tumor on my spine show up in x-rays. My family and friends, in a tremendous show of faith, love, and support, prayed corporately for me. By the time my MRI results came back, the mass was gone. It didn't shrink: it was gone. Some have said the x-rays were wrong - whatever. I say, and I always will, that God had other plans for my spine. Praise Him! He healed me, and I believe the faith of my family and friends made a huge difference.
But I went to the doctor...
That's right: I didn't sow nothing. I prayed (a LOT), and I went to see a doctor. I didn't sit around with excruciating, unnatural back pain for months on end begging God to heal me without taking any actions myself to pursue treatment. I prayed, I went to the doctor, and God blessed those efforts with a harvest of healing, in His time, not in mine.
"Faith healing," is something I whole-heartedly believe in, but I don't see that as an excuse to avoid sowing our efforts toward the healing for which we are petitioning the Lord. Going to the doctor is not a sign of lacking faith - it is a practical measure that the Lord can bless. We go to the doctor, and we pray to the Lord, who will decide how to heal us - through an overt display of divine power, or through the doctors hands, or via whatever other mechanism He deems wise, in His time.
If you are sick - seek medical attention, but don't stop praying. Also, don't pray that the doctors heal you. That is a sign of lacking faith. I suggest this prayer:
"Lord, I am not feeling well, and I know something is wrong. Normally I would be afraid, but I am stepping out in faith and trusting you with my future. I pray that you heal my broken body according to your Will. In the name of Jesus I pray this, amen."
Say it. Pursue it. Believe it. Receive it. Just don't skip the pursuing - it is an essential element.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A wise man seeks wise counsel (no.3).
"Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed."
-Proverbs 15:22, NIV.
This verse came to me in my email devotional, and I find it to be one of the best verses in the Bible when it comes to decision-making and dealing with confusion. Frankly, in my own life, I have often been convicted with the reality that I cannot do everything myself.
As an example, I broke my foot last week playing tennis. Try as I might, I couldn't take care of myself, and I needed someone to nurse-maid me until I was back on my feet again. I am pleased to report that I am recovering quickly, and I am even able to walk normally for brief periods with the crutches (as opposed to using only my good foot). In a short time, I will be right as rain. In the beginning, however, my wife was a God-send. Were it not for her, I'd have had to hire a nurse or stay in the hospital until I was able to function again.
Similarly, we should not make important decisions all alone without seeking some wise counsel first. I will not waste time rehashing previous posts dealing with the question of when to seek help and from whom (you may find the first two posts in this series here and here; you may also find the post "No Man an Island" to be relevant, which you can find here). Instead, I just want to focus on the wisdom of the verse quoted at the top of this post.
My wife and I have a wonderful, happy marriage. However, we do occasionally differ, and sometimes the decision of when to seek advice is an area in which we differ. My wife is a very private person, and she would often prefer that we make important decisions alone (after consulting the Lord, of course). I, on the other hand, feel like the best decision is made only after consulting others whom I consider wise and knowledgeable. Is my wife wrong to want to keep matters private? Not at all, and some decisions really do require discretion, especially in a marriage.
All the same, the desire for privacy is often related more to one's pride than to a desire for discretion. My advice to you, believers, is to strike a good balance. Seek not only wise counselors, but discreet counselors. In my view, an advisor is not a very wise person to begin with if that person does not appreciate the value of discretion. Certainly, we know that discretion and wisdom go hand in hand (see Prov 3:21, 5:2, and 11:22).
Remember: the Bible teaches us that our plans fail for lack of counsel (lack of wise advice), but our plans often succeed if we have many advisors. Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to get or take the advice of a drunkard or fool, but when a knowledgeable person offers you advice, I suggest that you consider it as a gift rather than a burden.
How often do we hear advice from parents or other elders and disregard it as outdated or as another "lecture?" Don't be a fool: if you have wise parents or elders, then listen to their advice. It is worth more than gold. As an example, if you are experiencing marital difficulties, don't shrug off the advice of a happily married couple and tell them it is none of their business. Perhaps you are right that it is not their concern, but if that couple is genuinely trying to help you, then making your business their concern is a sign of friendship, not intrusion. The secrets to happiness in their own marriage may very well be the secret to happiness in your own. That is just an example.
Businessmen, for another example, I advise you not to hastily shirk the advice of your more successful colleagues. Successful business models are often reproduceable, and for a successful businessman to share his insight with you, well that is invaluable. Seize the opportunity! Don't let pride be your downfall.
And remember, ultimately every decision that confronts you is your right and responsibility to make, but, knowing the every decision has consequences, would you not prefer your decisions to be informed decisions? Having many advisors means understanding the facets of the situation with insights beyond/in addition to your own. Listening to advisors is no excuse to refuse the ultimate responsibility for the decision. You cannot sacrifice your judgment without making a choice to do just that. Wisdom is about listening and discerning. There is middle ground between ignoring good advice and jjust taking whatever advice comes your way. I advise you (wisely I hope) to find that balance.
Be blessed.
-Proverbs 15:22, NIV.
This verse came to me in my email devotional, and I find it to be one of the best verses in the Bible when it comes to decision-making and dealing with confusion. Frankly, in my own life, I have often been convicted with the reality that I cannot do everything myself.
As an example, I broke my foot last week playing tennis. Try as I might, I couldn't take care of myself, and I needed someone to nurse-maid me until I was back on my feet again. I am pleased to report that I am recovering quickly, and I am even able to walk normally for brief periods with the crutches (as opposed to using only my good foot). In a short time, I will be right as rain. In the beginning, however, my wife was a God-send. Were it not for her, I'd have had to hire a nurse or stay in the hospital until I was able to function again.
Similarly, we should not make important decisions all alone without seeking some wise counsel first. I will not waste time rehashing previous posts dealing with the question of when to seek help and from whom (you may find the first two posts in this series here and here; you may also find the post "No Man an Island" to be relevant, which you can find here). Instead, I just want to focus on the wisdom of the verse quoted at the top of this post.
My wife and I have a wonderful, happy marriage. However, we do occasionally differ, and sometimes the decision of when to seek advice is an area in which we differ. My wife is a very private person, and she would often prefer that we make important decisions alone (after consulting the Lord, of course). I, on the other hand, feel like the best decision is made only after consulting others whom I consider wise and knowledgeable. Is my wife wrong to want to keep matters private? Not at all, and some decisions really do require discretion, especially in a marriage.
All the same, the desire for privacy is often related more to one's pride than to a desire for discretion. My advice to you, believers, is to strike a good balance. Seek not only wise counselors, but discreet counselors. In my view, an advisor is not a very wise person to begin with if that person does not appreciate the value of discretion. Certainly, we know that discretion and wisdom go hand in hand (see Prov 3:21, 5:2, and 11:22).
Remember: the Bible teaches us that our plans fail for lack of counsel (lack of wise advice), but our plans often succeed if we have many advisors. Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to get or take the advice of a drunkard or fool, but when a knowledgeable person offers you advice, I suggest that you consider it as a gift rather than a burden.
How often do we hear advice from parents or other elders and disregard it as outdated or as another "lecture?" Don't be a fool: if you have wise parents or elders, then listen to their advice. It is worth more than gold. As an example, if you are experiencing marital difficulties, don't shrug off the advice of a happily married couple and tell them it is none of their business. Perhaps you are right that it is not their concern, but if that couple is genuinely trying to help you, then making your business their concern is a sign of friendship, not intrusion. The secrets to happiness in their own marriage may very well be the secret to happiness in your own. That is just an example.
Businessmen, for another example, I advise you not to hastily shirk the advice of your more successful colleagues. Successful business models are often reproduceable, and for a successful businessman to share his insight with you, well that is invaluable. Seize the opportunity! Don't let pride be your downfall.
And remember, ultimately every decision that confronts you is your right and responsibility to make, but, knowing the every decision has consequences, would you not prefer your decisions to be informed decisions? Having many advisors means understanding the facets of the situation with insights beyond/in addition to your own. Listening to advisors is no excuse to refuse the ultimate responsibility for the decision. You cannot sacrifice your judgment without making a choice to do just that. Wisdom is about listening and discerning. There is middle ground between ignoring good advice and jjust taking whatever advice comes your way. I advise you (wisely I hope) to find that balance.
Be blessed.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Dating: Experience and Regret
Many people oppose the concept of dating because of the likelihood of heartache and pain it can cause. Often, people think that they will regret all their dating experiences later in life, after and perhaps even before they actually get married.
In my life, I've certainly had cause to regret things that happened while I was dating. However, when I really take a look at what I regret, it's not the fact that I dated a particular person (except when she was not a Christian). What I regret are my own actions -- actions that were sinful, regardless of the context. Dating certainly provides special opportunities to "fall short of the glory of God," but so do most other activities in our lives.
More recently, as I've made more effort to submit this area of my life to the Lord, I've had experiences that I can look back on fondly. I've had the opportunity to enjoy time spent with women, and even after parting company I can see that it was the right thing and I don't feel regretful over that time.
It's difficult to shake the mindset that every time we break up or stop seeing someone, we have somehow failed. But the Lord has much to teach us, and sometimes He brings us together with someone to learn from them, either about others or ourselves. With this in mind, the most important thing is to date in a lighthearted spirit, enjoying the opportunity to get to know another creature precious to God. Perhaps He will guide you to share your lives, perhaps not; but in all, He is in control. Make sure that everything you do while with that person is pleasing to Him, and there will be no need for regret.
In my life, I've certainly had cause to regret things that happened while I was dating. However, when I really take a look at what I regret, it's not the fact that I dated a particular person (except when she was not a Christian). What I regret are my own actions -- actions that were sinful, regardless of the context. Dating certainly provides special opportunities to "fall short of the glory of God," but so do most other activities in our lives.
More recently, as I've made more effort to submit this area of my life to the Lord, I've had experiences that I can look back on fondly. I've had the opportunity to enjoy time spent with women, and even after parting company I can see that it was the right thing and I don't feel regretful over that time.
It's difficult to shake the mindset that every time we break up or stop seeing someone, we have somehow failed. But the Lord has much to teach us, and sometimes He brings us together with someone to learn from them, either about others or ourselves. With this in mind, the most important thing is to date in a lighthearted spirit, enjoying the opportunity to get to know another creature precious to God. Perhaps He will guide you to share your lives, perhaps not; but in all, He is in control. Make sure that everything you do while with that person is pleasing to Him, and there will be no need for regret.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Antagonistic Axioms
In my previous post, I talked about situations where we let rules which do not come from God's law govern our thoughts and actions. I wanted to expand on that point here.
In mathematics, there are statements known as "axioms" which represent statements of truth. These axioms are typically propositions which could not be arrived at in any way other than assuming they are true. For example, in solving some equations and axiom might be provided stating that "x = 7".
Once this has been established, it can be treated as always true, and can be used in other statements. Often in abstract math assignments an axiom of this nature is simply provided. No explanation for why the variable x is equal to 7 is provided, nor is it typically asked for. Once this statement has been accepted, many consequences will follow, but the time for considering whether x is truly equal to 7 is over.
Axioms have great effect on everything that relies on them. They can be the key to deciphering a complicated equation. Our lives don't rely on equations, but they are guided by axioms of another kind -- moral axioms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a rule which can necessarily be derived, it must be given. However, once it is accepted as truth, it has a profound effect on all that follows it.
Since axioms are so powerful, we must guard ourselves against accepting the wrong things as axiomatic. Our culture is constantly trying to establish new axioms in the minds of the people, some of which are good but many of which are profoundly wrong.
When we approach a situation, our minds tend to look for an axiomatic solution first, relying on logic and reason only if one cannot be found. For example, consider whether it would be acceptable for a private company to refuse to hire non-Caucasians. When I consider this issue, my mind does not contemplate the possible merits of such an arrangement, it immediately reaches the conclusion that this is an unacceptable thing to do. This conclusion is reached before I have weighed any arguments, because non-discrimination is axiomatic in my mind.
The trouble here is that if we accept the wrong axiomatic propositions, then we will make wrong moral choices consistently, even if we know the Scripture which disproves the axiom. Cultural, worldly propositions have a tendency to get into our thought processes before Scriptural ones.
Consider this situation. A candidate comes up for consideration to be an elder at your church. He is a strong Christian, a good leader, a good man, and a good husband. However, his high school-aged children are unruly and rebellious, rejecting God and living according to the world's standards. Would we reject such a man for consideration? How about if he already was an elder, and his children only then became rebellious?
Not only would most of us suggest that the man above should be made an elder, we probably cannot conceive of a church which would remove him from his position due to the actions of his high school- or middle school-aged children. I can hardly imagine any other answer. Yet in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, we read this about an elder in the church: "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?"
My point is not necessarily that we should be removing more elders from their positions, but that I can hardly bring myself to recommend that it should ever be done. Propositions I have accepted from society as a whole make it nearly impossible for me to submit to the authority of Scripture in this area.
The world has been working very hard to push new axiomatic statements onto the population, and having pushed them, it then attempts to make them "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" to make those who disagree with these statements seem like outsiders or outliers. Some examples are: "Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality"; "Marriage is just a societal acknowledgment of two or more people who love each other, has no sacred element, and can be redefined as we see fit"; "Women are the same as men"; "Religion is a primitive relic of the past"; "Science disproves faith"; "Religious faith is irrational"; "Christians are judgmental and hateful"; etc.
As Christians, our full set of axioms should come from Scripture. God has provided all the foundational propositions we need to live righteous lives in His service. It's important that we not allow worldly propositions into our minds, because of the power that axioms have to distort our thinking. When I consider the elder mentioned above, I did not use God's standards to decide how I should act with respect to that situation, I used the world's standards. I didn't consider God's standard, because I had already found an axiom which covered the situation. It wasn't necessary to consider the situation against Scripture, even though I knew the relevant passage, because I already had an answer before I got that far in my thought process.
As Proverbs states and John discussed below, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Proverbs 4:23) We must fill our hearts with God's righteousness, then guard them against infiltration by ideas such as the ones above which will lead us astray.
Thankfully for all of us, we don't have to listen to any worldly wisdom, because God has given us everything we truly need in the form of His holy Word.
In mathematics, there are statements known as "axioms" which represent statements of truth. These axioms are typically propositions which could not be arrived at in any way other than assuming they are true. For example, in solving some equations and axiom might be provided stating that "x = 7".
Once this has been established, it can be treated as always true, and can be used in other statements. Often in abstract math assignments an axiom of this nature is simply provided. No explanation for why the variable x is equal to 7 is provided, nor is it typically asked for. Once this statement has been accepted, many consequences will follow, but the time for considering whether x is truly equal to 7 is over.
Axioms have great effect on everything that relies on them. They can be the key to deciphering a complicated equation. Our lives don't rely on equations, but they are guided by axioms of another kind -- moral axioms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a rule which can necessarily be derived, it must be given. However, once it is accepted as truth, it has a profound effect on all that follows it.
Since axioms are so powerful, we must guard ourselves against accepting the wrong things as axiomatic. Our culture is constantly trying to establish new axioms in the minds of the people, some of which are good but many of which are profoundly wrong.
When we approach a situation, our minds tend to look for an axiomatic solution first, relying on logic and reason only if one cannot be found. For example, consider whether it would be acceptable for a private company to refuse to hire non-Caucasians. When I consider this issue, my mind does not contemplate the possible merits of such an arrangement, it immediately reaches the conclusion that this is an unacceptable thing to do. This conclusion is reached before I have weighed any arguments, because non-discrimination is axiomatic in my mind.
The trouble here is that if we accept the wrong axiomatic propositions, then we will make wrong moral choices consistently, even if we know the Scripture which disproves the axiom. Cultural, worldly propositions have a tendency to get into our thought processes before Scriptural ones.
Consider this situation. A candidate comes up for consideration to be an elder at your church. He is a strong Christian, a good leader, a good man, and a good husband. However, his high school-aged children are unruly and rebellious, rejecting God and living according to the world's standards. Would we reject such a man for consideration? How about if he already was an elder, and his children only then became rebellious?
Not only would most of us suggest that the man above should be made an elder, we probably cannot conceive of a church which would remove him from his position due to the actions of his high school- or middle school-aged children. I can hardly imagine any other answer. Yet in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, we read this about an elder in the church: "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?"
My point is not necessarily that we should be removing more elders from their positions, but that I can hardly bring myself to recommend that it should ever be done. Propositions I have accepted from society as a whole make it nearly impossible for me to submit to the authority of Scripture in this area.
The world has been working very hard to push new axiomatic statements onto the population, and having pushed them, it then attempts to make them "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" to make those who disagree with these statements seem like outsiders or outliers. Some examples are: "Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality"; "Marriage is just a societal acknowledgment of two or more people who love each other, has no sacred element, and can be redefined as we see fit"; "Women are the same as men"; "Religion is a primitive relic of the past"; "Science disproves faith"; "Religious faith is irrational"; "Christians are judgmental and hateful"; etc.
As Christians, our full set of axioms should come from Scripture. God has provided all the foundational propositions we need to live righteous lives in His service. It's important that we not allow worldly propositions into our minds, because of the power that axioms have to distort our thinking. When I consider the elder mentioned above, I did not use God's standards to decide how I should act with respect to that situation, I used the world's standards. I didn't consider God's standard, because I had already found an axiom which covered the situation. It wasn't necessary to consider the situation against Scripture, even though I knew the relevant passage, because I already had an answer before I got that far in my thought process.
As Proverbs states and John discussed below, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Proverbs 4:23) We must fill our hearts with God's righteousness, then guard them against infiltration by ideas such as the ones above which will lead us astray.
Thankfully for all of us, we don't have to listen to any worldly wisdom, because God has given us everything we truly need in the form of His holy Word.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Unexamined Life
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
Over time, I have come to find that there are many unexamined assumptions in my thinking, assumptions which are already in place before I start to logically consider an issue. Everyone has unexamined assumptions, and they can often get in the way, but they're especially problematic when it comes to our faith.
American culture has many norms and values which vary significantly from those espoused in the New Testament. To see the effect the culture can have on our thinking, we need only to look at earlier Western civilizations.
The Greeks and Romans had no problem with slavery. Many Romans doubted that a modern society could work without their labor. Women were not only not equal to men, they were far inferior -- they could not participate in the political process, and typically could not own property. In Roman society, marriage and family were not especially important elements in a man's life. A Roman man focused his efforts on his work, valuing his family life to a significantly lesser degree.
Today, we see these views as ranging from abhorrent to misguided, but we feel a strong instinctual distaste for them. Yet these values were held by many of the people who founded Western civilization, and we retain and greatly value much of their legacy. Our modern culture has taught us that the above views are wrong, and we tend to disagree with those views reflexively. We rarely take the time to consider why slavery is wrong, or why women should be considered equal to men. Given time we could formulate an argument, but we don't see any need -- our culture believes these practices wrong, and we can rely on the assumption that others who share in that culture will believe the same things we do.
The trouble is, of course, that there were Christians in Roman times who had no trouble with slavery because their culture taught them that it was okay. We must be on our guard to see if our cultural assumptions are interfering with our perception of God's law.
I was struck by the illustration of this point that I once saw in a TV show. In the show, the (woman) President had started as essentially a strong political liberal but had grown deeply in touch with her religious beliefs, relying on her faith and holy book to guide her policy as commander-in-chief. So strong was her faith that she undertook a mission which risked many thousands of lives entirely based on her beliefs. However, in a subsequent episode the subject of abortion was raised. The religious leaders she talked to, the same ones with whom she had previously consulted for her faith-based operation, were all strongly opposed to any form of abortion. However, the President immediately dismissed out of hand the idea of banning abortion, angrily stating that she had "fought for women's reproductive rights for my whole career" and would not restrict them now. Her tone made it clear that the topic was not up for discussion, as the idea was not one she would consider.
I think the writers had intended to make a very different point through the situation, but what I drew from it was this: Here was a woman who claimed to believe; indeed, who had just risked her own life and the lives of others based exclusively on the assumption that her beliefs were true. And yet when that same faith asked her to give up one of her cherished ideas, one of her cultural values, one of her unexamined assumptions, she would not. Not only did she not want to, she wasn't even open to the possibility of following her faith and not her long-held political stance. The idea of "reproductive rights," a cultural value, had become so deeply ingrained in her thinking that she let it stand directly between her and her faith.
To me, this seems profoundly irrational; if her faith is true, as she claimed to believe, why listen to it some of the time and not all the time? But people do the same thing every day. There are the homosexuals who want to believe in everything the Bible says except the part about homosexuality being wrong, the women who believe in everything except (biblically-defined) submissiveness, those who claim to believe in Christian teachings but don't acknowledge Christ as the only Way to the Father, those who believe in Christ as a great moral teacher but not as the Incarnate God, and on and on.
We all have a tendency to let our unexamined assumptions keep us from adhering to the truth. Often we do it even though we know better -- I've read the parts of the Bible about forgiving others so that I'll be forgiven, yet I still want to hold grudges at times. I know that God tells us not to worry about what we'll wear or what we'll eat, but I still worry about those things.
I think what happens in these instances is that we do not allow ourselves to consider these issues, instead relying on the same cultural assumptions which prove to us, without a need for argument, that slavery is wrong or that women should be equal to men. While these cultural values can be good, as in those examples, they also allow us to skip the whole process of considering whether certain ideas or behaviors are consistent with biblical truth -- we just "know" that certain things are acceptable, so we don't need to consult with our knowledge of the Bible. If we did, however, we might realize that the thing we "know" is untrue.
I think the important element is to stop and consider, when we find our behavior or thinking at odds with biblical truth, what our reasoning is. If I stop to consider why I'm worrying about money, I have to start drawing up an argument which explains why I should be allowed to do something which God has told me I need not do. As I attempt to do so, I see that any argument I could make is flimsy and insubstantial. I don't really have a good reason to be worrying about money, except that American culture has inculcated the idea in me that I should. One would hope that the fictional president discussed above would realize, as she tried to make an argument as to why she should oppose the teachings of her own faith, that she was letting her cultural assumptions interfere with adherence to her religious beliefs.
I think the best thing we can do is try to be aware when we consider a course of action which is contrary to biblical teaching. In the future, if such a course seems right, it would be good to try to square it with Scripture. Does this action really comply with Scripture, or oppose it? If it opposes Scripture, is there any justification which could objectively explain it? Could I convince a disinterested person that my reasoning is sound, and not rationalization?
For my part, I hope that in the future an awareness and consideration of the assumptions which inform my thought process will help me to make decisions which are better and more grounded in the truth of Scripture.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sense & Insensibility: Jane Austen
My wife recently expressed to me that she thinks Jane Austen may be a bad influence on women. I have limited exposure to Austen's writings, though I have enjoyed many of the films based off her novels, including Emma. I have less to say on the matter than my wife might, but I have to agree that it is discouraging that a woman who spent so much time writing about relationships and marriage never found a man she deemed worthy to marry.
Many times, I have made the point that we should look for a spouse first that God would approve of, and second that meets our own list of characteristics/priorities/desires. To the extent our list contradicts that of the Lord, we are surely doing something wrong. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, there were many men in Jane Austen's life. Nevertheless, she never married.
Many Christians read Austen's books and so come under the influence of her philosophies regarding marriage, in the way people might read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and find her hyper-laissez-faire notions for government to be compelling (I know it has a certain appeal to me, at least). Of course, any glimmer of truth can make a unique brand of philosophy compelling when laced so subtly into entertaining fiction, but to the extent Austen makes the point not to marry without love or affection, I offer the following points:
Why is it so difficult to find someone worthy of our love and affection? There are no perfect people in this world that objectively qualify as "Mr. or Mrs. Right," only imperfect people who need desperately to be loved in spite of, and perhaps all the more for, their inherent flaws. I am awful at loading the dishwasher to my wife's satisfaction, for instance, but she seems to find that as a point of affection and humor - not a deal-breaking flaw that makes me less than an exciting fictional male lead (this is good, because I am no Cary Grant, who would certainly be capable of making even dish duty charming).
Similarly, I remind you all that if you are waiting/looking for the perfect mate, then you will wait a very long time. If you never abandon that way of thinking, then you will likely die unmarried (sorry -harsh reality). Is it really better to live without a spouse perpetually than to share your life with someone you're not 100% certain is "the one?"
You want a fictional example? Scarlett O'Hara chased her precious Ashley (I think) and completely missed Rhett Butler (sp?), who got tired of waiting. Was she better off alone? Eventually she didn't seem to think so, but by that time Butler was tired of playing second fiddle. No man or woman wants to be someone's second choice, after all. So Georgia burns, Butler leaves, and O'Hara is alone. Serves her right? I think so - Butler deserves a woman with sense enough to appreciate his efforts, but I digress...
Austen is considered a realist (according to Wikipedia at least), but it seems that she was more and idealist than a pragmatist when it came to marriage in her own life. Certainly affection and love are important in a marriage, but affection and love are gifts and commitments: not buried treasure to be found and searched for over an entire lifetime. Want to find your soul mate? Then learn to be more giving of your soul (metaphorically speaking). The key to true love lies in generosity, not life-long pursuits of endless waiting for some special destiny that awaits you. Effort is always required to obtain a loving and marriage, but that effort should be 90% self sacrifice and 10% searching (see 1 Cor 13 re the sacrificial nature of love). Believe it or not, if you want to really live, then you must die to yourself.
Just a thought. And now the inevitable waive of attacks on my ignorance of Jane Austen (which I admit)... Of course, attacking Austen really isn't my point, is it? Don't bother defending Austen's honor: it is not my intent to impeach it. Rather, I hope to impeach the idea that there is a cosmic destiny that you should put your life on hold waiting for when perfectly good opportunities for love surround you. Trust me, if you open your heart, there are people all around you that would cherish your love - so what if they are not perfectly what YOU want? Do you think perfect is waiting just off the horizon? Best of luck with that...
As for my wife and me, we will continue enjoying each others' imperfections, entirely committed to loving each other no matter what. I wish you all such a wonderful, imperfect marriage.
Many times, I have made the point that we should look for a spouse first that God would approve of, and second that meets our own list of characteristics/priorities/desires. To the extent our list contradicts that of the Lord, we are surely doing something wrong. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, there were many men in Jane Austen's life. Nevertheless, she never married.
Many Christians read Austen's books and so come under the influence of her philosophies regarding marriage, in the way people might read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and find her hyper-laissez-faire notions for government to be compelling (I know it has a certain appeal to me, at least). Of course, any glimmer of truth can make a unique brand of philosophy compelling when laced so subtly into entertaining fiction, but to the extent Austen makes the point not to marry without love or affection, I offer the following points:
Why is it so difficult to find someone worthy of our love and affection? There are no perfect people in this world that objectively qualify as "Mr. or Mrs. Right," only imperfect people who need desperately to be loved in spite of, and perhaps all the more for, their inherent flaws. I am awful at loading the dishwasher to my wife's satisfaction, for instance, but she seems to find that as a point of affection and humor - not a deal-breaking flaw that makes me less than an exciting fictional male lead (this is good, because I am no Cary Grant, who would certainly be capable of making even dish duty charming).
Similarly, I remind you all that if you are waiting/looking for the perfect mate, then you will wait a very long time. If you never abandon that way of thinking, then you will likely die unmarried (sorry -harsh reality). Is it really better to live without a spouse perpetually than to share your life with someone you're not 100% certain is "the one?"
You want a fictional example? Scarlett O'Hara chased her precious Ashley (I think) and completely missed Rhett Butler (sp?), who got tired of waiting. Was she better off alone? Eventually she didn't seem to think so, but by that time Butler was tired of playing second fiddle. No man or woman wants to be someone's second choice, after all. So Georgia burns, Butler leaves, and O'Hara is alone. Serves her right? I think so - Butler deserves a woman with sense enough to appreciate his efforts, but I digress...
Austen is considered a realist (according to Wikipedia at least), but it seems that she was more and idealist than a pragmatist when it came to marriage in her own life. Certainly affection and love are important in a marriage, but affection and love are gifts and commitments: not buried treasure to be found and searched for over an entire lifetime. Want to find your soul mate? Then learn to be more giving of your soul (metaphorically speaking). The key to true love lies in generosity, not life-long pursuits of endless waiting for some special destiny that awaits you. Effort is always required to obtain a loving and marriage, but that effort should be 90% self sacrifice and 10% searching (see 1 Cor 13 re the sacrificial nature of love). Believe it or not, if you want to really live, then you must die to yourself.
Just a thought. And now the inevitable waive of attacks on my ignorance of Jane Austen (which I admit)... Of course, attacking Austen really isn't my point, is it? Don't bother defending Austen's honor: it is not my intent to impeach it. Rather, I hope to impeach the idea that there is a cosmic destiny that you should put your life on hold waiting for when perfectly good opportunities for love surround you. Trust me, if you open your heart, there are people all around you that would cherish your love - so what if they are not perfectly what YOU want? Do you think perfect is waiting just off the horizon? Best of luck with that...
As for my wife and me, we will continue enjoying each others' imperfections, entirely committed to loving each other no matter what. I wish you all such a wonderful, imperfect marriage.
Friday, September 18, 2009
No spirit of fear...
Given the topic of yesterday's post, it is ironic that my dailybibleverse today (which I get every day via email) was 2 Timothy 1:6-7:
"For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."
Paul had, according to the New Testament, a gift: he placed his hands on a believer, and then that believer was imbued with a flaming overdose of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure precisely what the impact of this was, but Paul felt it necessary to remind Timothy to stoke that flame and remember that the spirit Timothy had received from the Lord was not one of timidity.
I cited this passage in my post about guarding your heart, and I received it back today via email. That fans my flame a bit, so I want to share with you the commentary I received with that verse:
-Dave Whitehead, Senior Pastor, GraceNYC.org.
There is a lot to take away from this verse, but I think Whitehead points to an important truth: Christian boldness is not a personality issue. God calls all personality types to his service, and being a timid person (like Moses was, at least in the beginning) is no cause for rejecting the calling the Lord has given you. It's not our temperament but our faith that causes us to live boldly according to what we believe, and, for that reason, fear alone is not a good basis for any decision you make as a Christian.
"For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."
Paul had, according to the New Testament, a gift: he placed his hands on a believer, and then that believer was imbued with a flaming overdose of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure precisely what the impact of this was, but Paul felt it necessary to remind Timothy to stoke that flame and remember that the spirit Timothy had received from the Lord was not one of timidity.
I cited this passage in my post about guarding your heart, and I received it back today via email. That fans my flame a bit, so I want to share with you the commentary I received with that verse:
The apostle Paul pulls no punches with his young protégé, Timothy. Even though Timothy was a timid man, Paul is reminding him that Christian leadership should
not be based upon a personality type, but upon reliance upon the Spirit of God. Each of us has gifts from God that He wants to use. Whether you are timid or aggressive, our hope doesn't come from our temperament, but from a gifting that is waiting to burst forth into flames as we take the time to fan it.
-Dave Whitehead, Senior Pastor, GraceNYC.org.
There is a lot to take away from this verse, but I think Whitehead points to an important truth: Christian boldness is not a personality issue. God calls all personality types to his service, and being a timid person (like Moses was, at least in the beginning) is no cause for rejecting the calling the Lord has given you. It's not our temperament but our faith that causes us to live boldly according to what we believe, and, for that reason, fear alone is not a good basis for any decision you make as a Christian.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Guarding your heart: it doesn't mean what you might think it means...
The following paragraphs are excerpts from a book I am writing, priumarily discussing dating, courting, and relationships from a Christian perspective. Indirectly, I touch on the issue of "guarding your heart," which is, perhaps, the finest example of Biblical misinterpretation one could find. I tthought that they might find a nice home here in this blog about truth.
The phrase “guard your heart,” while Biblical in its origins, provides a hint of truth upon which Satan has forged numerous lies concerning ourselves and how we relate to others. Certainly, Jesus (who is himself the Word of God), never advised use to hide from the world to guard our hearts. In fact he commanded us to go out into the world and bring the light to it (see Matt 28:18-19, the “Great Commission”).
I believe that the phrase “guard your heart,” much like the phrase “don’t settle,” is a tired and lonely expression that damages Christian relationships today. Quite frankly, this scripture has nothing to do with dating or relationships, and it is taken out of context more often than any other scripture with which I am familiar. Churches have been using this phrase, for years, to advise young men and women from engaging in activities that might cause hurt feelings, with dating being the chiefly prohibited activity.
Proverbs chapter four is a message from a father to his son concerning the need to get wisdom and live a life of light without straying from the path of righteousness and into a wilderness of evil. Verse 23, in the ESV, says, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” However, in the (less literal) NIV translation, it reads, “Above everything else, guard your heart. It is where your life comes from.”
This is great advice, but it is not advising Christians to hide from situations where our feelings might get hurt, and neither does it justify hiding from people we think might hurt us. It is certainly not attacking dating, courting, or relationships. The goal is to live our lives Biblically in those situations, to guard our hearts FROM EVIL and SIN. Even in the NIV, which is a less than literal translation (and therefore a less desirable translation in my opinion), the purpose for which this father advised his son to “guard your heart” can be concretely discerned by examining the verses that immediately follow. Here it is, in more detail:
“Above everything else, guard your heart. It is where your life comes from. Don't speak with twisted words. Keep evil talk away from your lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead. Keep looking right in front of you. Make level paths for your feet to walk on. Only go on ways that are firm. Don't turn to the right or left. Keep your feet from the path of evil” (Prov 4:23-27, NIV) (emphasis supplied).
What wonderful advice this is, and what a shame it is that so many misuse this chapter to advance agendas other than what the inspired author intended. No one will argue the merits of the author’s words, but he was not advising us to avoid interacting with the opposite sex or to hide in a hole from the things in this world that might hurt our feelings.
Christianity merits boldness, not fear. In fact, our slogan should be: "Fear not!" Remember 2 Timothy 1:7:, "For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control." The Bible, in advising us to vigilantly keep our hearts (guard them) is referring to protecting them from sin, not from emotional suffering. In fact, to do God's work, sometimes we have to risk heartache. That's part and parcel of being bearers of the truth.
The phrase “guard your heart,” while Biblical in its origins, provides a hint of truth upon which Satan has forged numerous lies concerning ourselves and how we relate to others. Certainly, Jesus (who is himself the Word of God), never advised use to hide from the world to guard our hearts. In fact he commanded us to go out into the world and bring the light to it (see Matt 28:18-19, the “Great Commission”).
I believe that the phrase “guard your heart,” much like the phrase “don’t settle,” is a tired and lonely expression that damages Christian relationships today. Quite frankly, this scripture has nothing to do with dating or relationships, and it is taken out of context more often than any other scripture with which I am familiar. Churches have been using this phrase, for years, to advise young men and women from engaging in activities that might cause hurt feelings, with dating being the chiefly prohibited activity.
Proverbs chapter four is a message from a father to his son concerning the need to get wisdom and live a life of light without straying from the path of righteousness and into a wilderness of evil. Verse 23, in the ESV, says, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” However, in the (less literal) NIV translation, it reads, “Above everything else, guard your heart. It is where your life comes from.”
This is great advice, but it is not advising Christians to hide from situations where our feelings might get hurt, and neither does it justify hiding from people we think might hurt us. It is certainly not attacking dating, courting, or relationships. The goal is to live our lives Biblically in those situations, to guard our hearts FROM EVIL and SIN. Even in the NIV, which is a less than literal translation (and therefore a less desirable translation in my opinion), the purpose for which this father advised his son to “guard your heart” can be concretely discerned by examining the verses that immediately follow. Here it is, in more detail:
“Above everything else, guard your heart. It is where your life comes from. Don't speak with twisted words. Keep evil talk away from your lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead. Keep looking right in front of you. Make level paths for your feet to walk on. Only go on ways that are firm. Don't turn to the right or left. Keep your feet from the path of evil” (Prov 4:23-27, NIV) (emphasis supplied).
What wonderful advice this is, and what a shame it is that so many misuse this chapter to advance agendas other than what the inspired author intended. No one will argue the merits of the author’s words, but he was not advising us to avoid interacting with the opposite sex or to hide in a hole from the things in this world that might hurt our feelings.
Christianity merits boldness, not fear. In fact, our slogan should be: "Fear not!" Remember 2 Timothy 1:7:, "For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control." The Bible, in advising us to vigilantly keep our hearts (guard them) is referring to protecting them from sin, not from emotional suffering. In fact, to do God's work, sometimes we have to risk heartache. That's part and parcel of being bearers of the truth.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A date with my wife.
Not to belabor the subject of dating, but I want to encourage all those men out there whose whose wives are nagging them for more "dates." Lesson learned: it doesn't matter so much what you do, so long as you plan it for them and make it fun.
I like to read, so I took my wife out for fast food and a trip to the bookstore across the street. We drank overpriced coffee and read in each others' presence. I even read to her a bit from one of my favorite detective novels. She had a good time, and so did I. It wasn't a horribly trying experience, even if I usually prefer to rest after getting home from work, and I actually think I enjoyed it.
The point: consider planning a date to do something with your wife that YOU BOTH will enjoy (she won't be happy if you're whining all night about how boring it was). It can be win-win if you have a good time and if she is satisfied. It is also a lot better to make the small effort than to have a sad or bored wife. Depression and boredom breed nagging, so nip it in the bud: take her out.
I like to read, so I took my wife out for fast food and a trip to the bookstore across the street. We drank overpriced coffee and read in each others' presence. I even read to her a bit from one of my favorite detective novels. She had a good time, and so did I. It wasn't a horribly trying experience, even if I usually prefer to rest after getting home from work, and I actually think I enjoyed it.
The point: consider planning a date to do something with your wife that YOU BOTH will enjoy (she won't be happy if you're whining all night about how boring it was). It can be win-win if you have a good time and if she is satisfied. It is also a lot better to make the small effort than to have a sad or bored wife. Depression and boredom breed nagging, so nip it in the bud: take her out.
No deposit; no return...
In an effort to remember that this blog is primarily oriented on the Truth as applied to all areas of life (as opposed to just dating and relationships), I want to offer something different. First let me offer a confession to you:
I am not perfect. I do not give advice on this blog from a position of perfection. I have sinned many times already today, I am sure. If you are looking for advice or counsel from someone who has it all together, then you has better stick with the words of Christ. You won't find even the apostles to have been perfect or sinless, though that is the entire point of Christianity: none of us deserve mercy. God preserve us from justice. Praise God for grace.
That said, if you will listen to some advice from an imperfect man, then consider that you get a return, in this life, based primarily on what you invest. That is how God designed this world to work:
"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap" (Gal 6:7).
If you want to reap a harvest, then you must sow a seed. I don't know about you, but I feel as though I am not sowing enough good seeds in my life. I sowed seeds in the area of dating, and I reaped an amazing wife worth more than gold or jewels, but in so many areas of my life I fail to sow enough seeds to reap the harvest I am seeking. Why is that? We, as humans, are wont to let our emotions and flesh govern our thinking rather than our logic, reason, or, most importantly, the Holy Spirit.
Guess what? If you want to reap that job: start sowing some applications and networking. If you want to reap an excellent wife, then start sowing some seeds in dating and relationships. If you want to reap good friendships, sow some time in that area.
God controls and delivers the harvest, but he calls us to plant the seeds. What are you planting in your life, and what are you not planting that you should? This simple verse is universal in its application. It is probably the basis for that old saying, "You can't get something for nothing." Though God occasionally blesses us with absolutely no effort on our part, He usually requires some effort on our part - not to earn a blessing, but to please Him and to work within His design for this world.
I am going to make a concerted effort to sow more, and I hope that you will all do the same in all the areas of your lives.
I am not perfect. I do not give advice on this blog from a position of perfection. I have sinned many times already today, I am sure. If you are looking for advice or counsel from someone who has it all together, then you has better stick with the words of Christ. You won't find even the apostles to have been perfect or sinless, though that is the entire point of Christianity: none of us deserve mercy. God preserve us from justice. Praise God for grace.
That said, if you will listen to some advice from an imperfect man, then consider that you get a return, in this life, based primarily on what you invest. That is how God designed this world to work:
"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap" (Gal 6:7).
If you want to reap a harvest, then you must sow a seed. I don't know about you, but I feel as though I am not sowing enough good seeds in my life. I sowed seeds in the area of dating, and I reaped an amazing wife worth more than gold or jewels, but in so many areas of my life I fail to sow enough seeds to reap the harvest I am seeking. Why is that? We, as humans, are wont to let our emotions and flesh govern our thinking rather than our logic, reason, or, most importantly, the Holy Spirit.
Guess what? If you want to reap that job: start sowing some applications and networking. If you want to reap an excellent wife, then start sowing some seeds in dating and relationships. If you want to reap good friendships, sow some time in that area.
God controls and delivers the harvest, but he calls us to plant the seeds. What are you planting in your life, and what are you not planting that you should? This simple verse is universal in its application. It is probably the basis for that old saying, "You can't get something for nothing." Though God occasionally blesses us with absolutely no effort on our part, He usually requires some effort on our part - not to earn a blessing, but to please Him and to work within His design for this world.
I am going to make a concerted effort to sow more, and I hope that you will all do the same in all the areas of your lives.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Dating revisited: a testimony of post-marriage benefits, coping with heartache, and sowing your efforts.
Many of you know that I am now married. Ironically, "dating" is never far from my mind. That may seem odd, but let me explain.
Living with a member of the opposite sex is difficult. For all the feminist garbage out there trying to make people believe that men and women are the same creation, the truth is that men and women, while of equal value to the Lord and the world, are vastly different creations, that think in vastly different ways. The most difficult part of being married, for me, has been learning to communicate effectively with my wife and in learning to cope with the reality that, as a woman, my wife has needs that I do not have.
To resolve these marital difficulties, I draw heavily upon my experiences in dating. I cannot tell you how useful even my failures in dating have been. As an example, I will share with you that many of my relationships ended because I got tired of listening to a woman whine about her problems while ignoring my practical advice for potential solutions. After a while, I realized that all women need release their emotional build-up, and they desire a patient, listening ear to assist them in getting that release.
My experience with dating and relationships taught me to see "venting" as more than just "whining." True, eventually venting becomes whining, but there is a time to suggest potential solutions to a women that is hurting, and there is a time to shut up and let her get something off her chest. This is an insight that has really been useful to me in marriage. I gained many other insights in dating that I use to understand and to "decode" my wife's words and behaviors.
I don't know if people really appreciate just how foreign women are to men, and vice versa. She says, "Is your breakfast okay," and she means, "Do you appreciate that I made you breakfast?" He says, "I liked your hair better when it was long," and she hears, "You're ugly." Neither is really understanding the other. We try so hard to understand members of the opposite sex based on our own way of thinking, but dating helped me realize the differences that reveal what is really going on in her mind.
Remember, dating, for purposes of this blog, is just the process of spending time alone with a member of the opposite sex. See the official ATI definition here. Suffice it to say, I am not suggesting that people date to practice the sort of physical intimacy that is Biblically reserved for marriage, and I encourage you all to abstain from sexual immorality. You cannot, however, learn about how to effectively interact and communicate with the opposite sex, one-on-one, in group settings. People behave differently in crowds than they do one-on-one. Protocol and good manners require different conduct in group conversations, for instance, versus one-on-one conversations. For those not willing to engage in one-on-one dating, you might consider group dating.
I don't see much difference between group activities and group dating except that, with group dating, there is an understanding that people are attending in pairs our couples. That understanding fosters and environment where people can pair off in separate conversations without being rude to the others that are being excluded, while retaining the accountability of a group presence. It's hard to go "too far" when you're with a group of Christian friends. As a side note, I don't advise Christians to date, or even group date, non-believers. For one thing, doing so is counter-productive (even if it goes really well, do you want to commit to someone with no faith in the Lord?).
An understood "group date" also means that no one is left alone. On a group date, everyone has someone else to focus on, and no one ends up being the "loser" or "third wheel." Especially for men, I know it is painful and discouraging to be alone in a group setting where you are the only guy not connecting with one of the ladies. I'd wager women feel the same way, but I can't really say. Even when I was making good connections with women in a group setting, it was always hard to watch a buddy sitting by on the sidelines, ignored. On a group date, everyone (ideally) knows who they are "with." That avoids a lot of unnecessary heartache.
At any rate, I promise that those of you who do date, even if it is a painful experience, will find that experience to be of great value, especially when you are married. I always say that, "Ideally, only one date ever leads to marriage." That means every date that fails to go anywhere brings you one step closer to the one that does!
I dated a lot before I met my wife in 2006, and when I met her we didn't immediately get married. In fact, I dated many other women after meeting her, and I even got engaged once before we reconnected in 2008. My engagement fell apart, but rather than despairing, I decided to "get back on the horse" and start dating again after a month or so of solitary time with the Lord. My engagement was broken around late January, 2008. I started dating again in March that same year, after realizing that I couldn't let despair and depression rule me forever, even after losing a very close relationship with a woman I loved. The human heart has a tremendous capacity for love, though, and that capacity is rarely used 100%.
For those of you who are bitter with dating, courting, relationships, or failures with the opposite sex generally, let me encourage you: just when you think you've fallen off a cliff, when things seem as though they cannot get any worse, that is the time to act! God LOVES to see His children pick themselves up and move forward in the faith and security that He is with them. If you fall down, then pick yourself up, because in those most disabling, painful moments of our life, when we have done all that we can think to do to no success, when we realize finally that we cannot do it alone, that is when God moves.
The months of January and February of 2008 were among the most painful in my entire life. My heart was shattered, and I felt at times as though my existence was utterly devoid of meaning and value - Jehovah God begged to differ. As I prayed through my pain and studied the Word, I begged God to either: (a) heal my broken heart and immediately send me a loving wife to end my loneliness; or (b) to bring me to be with Him in Heaven. God chose option "C," which is His prerogative.
The Lord doesn't have to answer prayers, but He does. The thing is, the Lord isn't bound or required to answer our prayers in the way(s) that we think He should. The Lord spoke to me in many ways during that darkest of hours, when I was hiding alone at home from the entire world, but the message was clear: "GET UP" and "GO NOW."
God is a loving, heavenly parent. Sometimes His love is tough. I asked God, in my despair, to solve my situation for me. God impressed it upon my heart that: (1) He had not abandoned me; (2) He loved me; (3) He appreciated my efforts in seeking a spouse; and (4) that my work in this area was not finished - there was a bit more left to do before my work was done.
The Lord didn't promise to drop Mrs. Right in my lap, especially if I continued to despair, grovel, and do nothing to pursue her. That's Biblical, by the way: prolonged despair and depression are not befitting a Christian, and they demonstrate a lack of faith (though that is an entire blog entry of its own). Instead, God wanted me to show continued faith by exerting further effort, which He blessed immensely. I reluctantly left my house one Wednesday night and went back to the singles group at church, began chatting again on Facebook, etc.
Inside of a week of leaving "my hole," I was asked out on a date by a nice girl (talk about Naomi-and-Ruth-style courage on her part). We went on two dates that never went anywhere, really (she and I just had differnet goals). Then I scheduled a date with a nice girl from my church. That date never happened because my wife-to-be flew in from out of state that same week to visit mutual friends. I seized the moment to ask her out to dinner, and I was never single again. We met in March, and we were married in August of 2008 (yes - we just had ourone-year anniversary, thank you).
I kept on knocking at the door, and, after years of dating, God opened one. Now I have friends who envy my amazing wife who is faithful, beautiful, artistic, classy, sensitive, supportive, and who makes me breakfast every single morning, even though I never asked. That last part still blows my mind. I never used to eat breakfast when I was single, but what man turns down the world's greatest sausage-egg-cheese muffins?
You reap what you sow, so I urge you all to plant as many seeds as you can in this area. Next to your relationship with God, marriage is the single-most important relationship/commitment that you, as a Christian, will ever make. Whether it is dating, group dating, courtship, or something else: get moving! Eternity in Heaven is promised to us, but eternity on Earth is not, so time here is limited. If you don't want to be alone in this life, then start making plans now to meet the man or woman you will one day marry. You may meet and marry someone with very little effort, or (like with me) it may take a lot, but some effort is necessary, and the more effort you sow before you are married, the more benefits you will reap afterwards.
God loves you, and unless He told you to spend your life alone, it's not His plan for your life (Gen 2:18). God doesn't want you to be lonely, but He may need you to learn some things before He blesses you with a loving spouse. I know that, being hard-headed, God used dating as an opportunity to teach me, through multiple failures, how to be a husband worthy of the wife He wanted to bless me with. Praise to God for not answering my prayer before I was ready to receive the blessing! My wife would have hated the man I was before I learned these things, but thanks to God's wisdom and timing, I am a different man now than I was.
I pray that you all find the happiness in marriage that I am so blessed with. Praise God!
Living with a member of the opposite sex is difficult. For all the feminist garbage out there trying to make people believe that men and women are the same creation, the truth is that men and women, while of equal value to the Lord and the world, are vastly different creations, that think in vastly different ways. The most difficult part of being married, for me, has been learning to communicate effectively with my wife and in learning to cope with the reality that, as a woman, my wife has needs that I do not have.
To resolve these marital difficulties, I draw heavily upon my experiences in dating. I cannot tell you how useful even my failures in dating have been. As an example, I will share with you that many of my relationships ended because I got tired of listening to a woman whine about her problems while ignoring my practical advice for potential solutions. After a while, I realized that all women need release their emotional build-up, and they desire a patient, listening ear to assist them in getting that release.
My experience with dating and relationships taught me to see "venting" as more than just "whining." True, eventually venting becomes whining, but there is a time to suggest potential solutions to a women that is hurting, and there is a time to shut up and let her get something off her chest. This is an insight that has really been useful to me in marriage. I gained many other insights in dating that I use to understand and to "decode" my wife's words and behaviors.
I don't know if people really appreciate just how foreign women are to men, and vice versa. She says, "Is your breakfast okay," and she means, "Do you appreciate that I made you breakfast?" He says, "I liked your hair better when it was long," and she hears, "You're ugly." Neither is really understanding the other. We try so hard to understand members of the opposite sex based on our own way of thinking, but dating helped me realize the differences that reveal what is really going on in her mind.
Remember, dating, for purposes of this blog, is just the process of spending time alone with a member of the opposite sex. See the official ATI definition here. Suffice it to say, I am not suggesting that people date to practice the sort of physical intimacy that is Biblically reserved for marriage, and I encourage you all to abstain from sexual immorality. You cannot, however, learn about how to effectively interact and communicate with the opposite sex, one-on-one, in group settings. People behave differently in crowds than they do one-on-one. Protocol and good manners require different conduct in group conversations, for instance, versus one-on-one conversations. For those not willing to engage in one-on-one dating, you might consider group dating.
I don't see much difference between group activities and group dating except that, with group dating, there is an understanding that people are attending in pairs our couples. That understanding fosters and environment where people can pair off in separate conversations without being rude to the others that are being excluded, while retaining the accountability of a group presence. It's hard to go "too far" when you're with a group of Christian friends. As a side note, I don't advise Christians to date, or even group date, non-believers. For one thing, doing so is counter-productive (even if it goes really well, do you want to commit to someone with no faith in the Lord?).
An understood "group date" also means that no one is left alone. On a group date, everyone has someone else to focus on, and no one ends up being the "loser" or "third wheel." Especially for men, I know it is painful and discouraging to be alone in a group setting where you are the only guy not connecting with one of the ladies. I'd wager women feel the same way, but I can't really say. Even when I was making good connections with women in a group setting, it was always hard to watch a buddy sitting by on the sidelines, ignored. On a group date, everyone (ideally) knows who they are "with." That avoids a lot of unnecessary heartache.
At any rate, I promise that those of you who do date, even if it is a painful experience, will find that experience to be of great value, especially when you are married. I always say that, "Ideally, only one date ever leads to marriage." That means every date that fails to go anywhere brings you one step closer to the one that does!
I dated a lot before I met my wife in 2006, and when I met her we didn't immediately get married. In fact, I dated many other women after meeting her, and I even got engaged once before we reconnected in 2008. My engagement fell apart, but rather than despairing, I decided to "get back on the horse" and start dating again after a month or so of solitary time with the Lord. My engagement was broken around late January, 2008. I started dating again in March that same year, after realizing that I couldn't let despair and depression rule me forever, even after losing a very close relationship with a woman I loved. The human heart has a tremendous capacity for love, though, and that capacity is rarely used 100%.
For those of you who are bitter with dating, courting, relationships, or failures with the opposite sex generally, let me encourage you: just when you think you've fallen off a cliff, when things seem as though they cannot get any worse, that is the time to act! God LOVES to see His children pick themselves up and move forward in the faith and security that He is with them. If you fall down, then pick yourself up, because in those most disabling, painful moments of our life, when we have done all that we can think to do to no success, when we realize finally that we cannot do it alone, that is when God moves.
The months of January and February of 2008 were among the most painful in my entire life. My heart was shattered, and I felt at times as though my existence was utterly devoid of meaning and value - Jehovah God begged to differ. As I prayed through my pain and studied the Word, I begged God to either: (a) heal my broken heart and immediately send me a loving wife to end my loneliness; or (b) to bring me to be with Him in Heaven. God chose option "C," which is His prerogative.
The Lord doesn't have to answer prayers, but He does. The thing is, the Lord isn't bound or required to answer our prayers in the way(s) that we think He should. The Lord spoke to me in many ways during that darkest of hours, when I was hiding alone at home from the entire world, but the message was clear: "GET UP" and "GO NOW."
God is a loving, heavenly parent. Sometimes His love is tough. I asked God, in my despair, to solve my situation for me. God impressed it upon my heart that: (1) He had not abandoned me; (2) He loved me; (3) He appreciated my efforts in seeking a spouse; and (4) that my work in this area was not finished - there was a bit more left to do before my work was done.
The Lord didn't promise to drop Mrs. Right in my lap, especially if I continued to despair, grovel, and do nothing to pursue her. That's Biblical, by the way: prolonged despair and depression are not befitting a Christian, and they demonstrate a lack of faith (though that is an entire blog entry of its own). Instead, God wanted me to show continued faith by exerting further effort, which He blessed immensely. I reluctantly left my house one Wednesday night and went back to the singles group at church, began chatting again on Facebook, etc.
Inside of a week of leaving "my hole," I was asked out on a date by a nice girl (talk about Naomi-and-Ruth-style courage on her part). We went on two dates that never went anywhere, really (she and I just had differnet goals). Then I scheduled a date with a nice girl from my church. That date never happened because my wife-to-be flew in from out of state that same week to visit mutual friends. I seized the moment to ask her out to dinner, and I was never single again. We met in March, and we were married in August of 2008 (yes - we just had ourone-year anniversary, thank you).
I kept on knocking at the door, and, after years of dating, God opened one. Now I have friends who envy my amazing wife who is faithful, beautiful, artistic, classy, sensitive, supportive, and who makes me breakfast every single morning, even though I never asked. That last part still blows my mind. I never used to eat breakfast when I was single, but what man turns down the world's greatest sausage-egg-cheese muffins?
You reap what you sow, so I urge you all to plant as many seeds as you can in this area. Next to your relationship with God, marriage is the single-most important relationship/commitment that you, as a Christian, will ever make. Whether it is dating, group dating, courtship, or something else: get moving! Eternity in Heaven is promised to us, but eternity on Earth is not, so time here is limited. If you don't want to be alone in this life, then start making plans now to meet the man or woman you will one day marry. You may meet and marry someone with very little effort, or (like with me) it may take a lot, but some effort is necessary, and the more effort you sow before you are married, the more benefits you will reap afterwards.
God loves you, and unless He told you to spend your life alone, it's not His plan for your life (Gen 2:18). God doesn't want you to be lonely, but He may need you to learn some things before He blesses you with a loving spouse. I know that, being hard-headed, God used dating as an opportunity to teach me, through multiple failures, how to be a husband worthy of the wife He wanted to bless me with. Praise to God for not answering my prayer before I was ready to receive the blessing! My wife would have hated the man I was before I learned these things, but thanks to God's wisdom and timing, I am a different man now than I was.
I pray that you all find the happiness in marriage that I am so blessed with. Praise God!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Movie Review: The Third Man (1949)
- Joseph Cotten: Holly Martins
- Alida Valli: Anna Schmidt (as Valli)
- Orson Welles: Harry Lime
- Trevor Howard: Major Calloway
- Bernard Lee: Sergeant Paine
- Directed by Carol Reed
"Arriving in Vienna, Holly Martins learns that his friend Harry Lime, who has invited him, recently died in a car accident" (source: imdb.com).
SCORE
-4 out of 5-
CREDITS
STORY
Holly Martins is an out-of-work pulp fiction novelist, which is a unique background for for the star character in a mystery. We've all seen savvy private eyes, policemen, and even lawyers "working cases" before, but an unemployed, naive fiction writer is a first on me, as it probably was for the original audience back in 1949, when the movie premiered. Martins, who is travelling to Europe to visit his lifelong friend, Harry Lime, unlike Sam Spade or Phillip Marlowe, isn't exactly what you would call quick. It would be unfair to call him dumb, but when he arrives in Vienna just in time to attend Harry's funeral, Martins is more than just a little slow in realizing that something is fishy. Witness accounts conflict concerning what happened after Harry was run down in a "hit and run" accident. In particular, Martins can't seem to get a straight answer to the simple question of whether only two men carried Harry's body off the street, or whether there was a third man assisting them.
What Holly Martins lacks in intelligence, however, he more than makes up for with stubborn determination and a sense of curiosity strong enough to kill ten cats. Throughout the international streets of Vienna, Martins pursues the mystery of the "third man," who may be the only one who really knows what happened to Harry Lime.
REVIEW
This movie was recommended to me by a friend. We at ATI don't make recommendations as a matter of policy, but I will say that I found this movie to be entertaining with a rather low cost on the spirit. Given that it premiered in 1949, the movie is shot entirely in black and white, but that medium has always worked well for the mystery genre. My favor B&W mystery is still, and will always be, "The Maltese Falcon," and "The Third Man" follows a lot of the same filming techniques. The camera angles are often shot from the ground looking up at the characters, casting their bodies in interesting, mood-setting shadows. The cinematography creates a sense of intrigue and suspense that the film actually delivers on, with the story resolving itself in what, perhaps, is the only way it could.
Many films since "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Third Man" have tried to mimic the genre, with various degrees of success. Certainly "Chinatown," "LA Confidential, and, to a lesser extent, "Devil in a Blue Dress" carry forward that same mood, dark sense of foreboding, and shadowy cinematography, but the introduction of colour into those pictures seems to have taken more than it gave. I cannot imagine "The Third Man" in anything other than its gritty, eerie black and white, yet modern audiences rarely have the patience for any movie without colour. It's a shame, because that reality has deprived the world of an entire niche of mystery/suspense films.
"The Third Man" really isn't an amazing feat in technology, and I doubt anyone will remember it for its special effects, but it's real treat, like so many older movies, lies in the story. The dialogue, at times, isn't quite believable, perhaps intentionally, but it fits. The story is original in both plot and in the execution. I can't really say more without giving too much away (perhaps a reason why people so rarely recommend mysteries these days - you can't safely explain what makes them entertaining without revealing the twists and endings), except that this movie departs entirely from the usual "whodunit" conventions to deliver something new. Without revealing too much, it is safe to say that the butler didn't do it.
PROS: With an utter lack of nudity and overt sexual content, relatively benign language by today's standards, and very mild violence, this movie probably won't tax your spirit. It's not exactly light-hearted, but the humor is witty and entertaining without creeping into crudeness. The true B&W noir style of cinematography displayed in the film is not in common modern use, giving it a certain anecdotal quality that movie buffs will appreciate. The film's historical setting has a certain educational value. The hero's dogged loyaty to his deceased friend is heart-warming, and the fact that he is not a naturally gifted detective makes his efforts all the more noble, and interesting. Amazing performances by both Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles.
CONS: The movie's setting might not make sense to someone unfamiliar with the relevant period of history or the international significance of Vienna. Also, the theme of murder is alawys a dark one, and the noir film style might actually scare young children. The film is dated in many ways, which hurts it as a period piece in a age of films like Peter Jackson's "King Kong." The period dialogue, which is a bit sub-par against the likes of "The Maltese Falcon," moves at a lightning pace, which may make the film difficult to follow for those under the age of thirteen.
FINAL THOUGHT: The dialogue is slightly less punchy than your typical noir, which I regard as only a minor flaw. If the plot piques your interest, and if black and white noir movies appeal to you, then "The Third Man" is a fine example of the genre that simultaneously delivers unique story elements never seen before or since.
BOTTOM LINE: 4/5
A real toughie...
This verse is convicting for me: "A fool shows his annoyance at once,but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Prov 12:16, NIV).
I've been slow in posting during my first year of marriage, partly because my life has so radically changed (for the better to be sure). Regardless of how much I love my family and friends, this verse encapsulates the very heart of my problems when it comes to conflict: how quickly do I let my annoyance, anger, and other negative emotions show?
One of the things that makes a marriage (or any relationship) work, is learning to overlook an insult. When that isn't possible, it is at least pragmatic to keep our emotions internal? When does showing others our anger and annoyance truly improve the situation? It might help you win the argument by discouraging your opponent, but that discouragement will cost you the war at the expense of the battle: winning an argument is worthless if, in doing so, the relationship is damaged.
This verse should compel us all to be more patient with our loved ones. After all, who wants to be a fool?
I've been slow in posting during my first year of marriage, partly because my life has so radically changed (for the better to be sure). Regardless of how much I love my family and friends, this verse encapsulates the very heart of my problems when it comes to conflict: how quickly do I let my annoyance, anger, and other negative emotions show?
One of the things that makes a marriage (or any relationship) work, is learning to overlook an insult. When that isn't possible, it is at least pragmatic to keep our emotions internal? When does showing others our anger and annoyance truly improve the situation? It might help you win the argument by discouraging your opponent, but that discouragement will cost you the war at the expense of the battle: winning an argument is worthless if, in doing so, the relationship is damaged.
This verse should compel us all to be more patient with our loved ones. After all, who wants to be a fool?
A reply to Jessica on dating.
This post is a reply to the comments made by Jessica regarding our previous post on dating, all of which you can read here.
Hey Jessica,
First, there's really no need to apologize for the length of your comments - I enjoyed reading them, and I like writing long comments myself. Blogger really needs to get over these space limits.
Also, I think you've mistaken the point of this blog entry, which isn't to bash Josh Harris, but to define "dating" and to question the animosity that I have personally witnessed toward "dating" in the Christian community. The point is that dating has a lot of merits, and it's not the evil institution that many leaders make it out to be. I think Harris approach, which lacks consistency and is, therefore, hard to define, analyze, or to follow, has many elements similar to dating. On the whole, I believe his approach shelters people way too much, though Harris' approach might be practical for minors (this blog is typically directed at an 18+ crowd) who may be too young to date safely, maturely, and purely.
This blog is free to read, and I am not selling anything (though I have considered one day writing a book on this subject)On the whole, for adults, I believe dating is an opportunity worthy of investigation. It will not harm me if people read this entry on dating and completely disregard it, but I hope they at least consider it. So often wisdom is contrary to our human, fleshly nature (e.g. you must die to live), and isn't the easy path typically the wrong path? Dating is NEVER easy, and it requires a lot of courage.
This blog entry is not about me claming that dating is Bible-mandated. The point I am making is that dating is a wise, logical approach not prohibited by the Bible. I believe that dating is a very difficult and often scary enterprise, filled with risks of rejection and setbacks, but also I believe that the benefits far outpace the costs. I don't advise anyone to try it without a lot of prayer, time in the Word, and conscious goal-planning, but in my experience, and the experience of others I know, dating gets positive results. The vast majority of the happily married Christian couples I know dated before they got engaged, even if they already knew each other. I am blissfully married because God blessed my efforts in dating and relationships: I tried, then I failed, then I learned, then I changed, then I tried again. I repeated that process hundreds of times before meeting an marrying my wife. Others I know have found the process much less arduous, and many of my friends only went on a couple of dates before meeting their spouses. I think the timing often has a lot to do with God using the dating process to teach us how to better interact with members the opposite sex before getting married to one. As a happily married man, I can tell you that the experiences I gained dating other women have helped me immensely in learning how to better love my wife and how to be a better husband, generally.
You will never regret the experience you accummulate dating after you are married unless you sinned while dating. Dating brought me positive experience in understanding women and how to relate to them. It helped me learn how to be affectionate during a heated argument rather than shouting. It helped me learn not to take my wife for granted. The most important experience was in learning how to communicate more effectively with women, which experience paid dividends when I got married. Also, my dating experience taught me just how many of Satan's lies our culture has boought into, especially when it comes to our perceptions of the opposite sex, love, relationships, and especially marriage.
You seem a bit tense in your words, Jessica, if not with me, then maybe with dating or relationships - I don't know. Your comment seemed to reply to things I have not said. For instance, I never called anyone "silly," I only indicated that something my wife's friend said was silly. We all say silly things at times, but that does not make us "silly people." That may seem like a minor point, but I want it to be clear that my judgment was of this girl's statement, not the girl herself. She's a believer with a good heart, and I certainly meant no offense to her.
Also, you wrote, "Why not, instead, invite both girls along out to eat, as well as another guy or two..." In my entire article, I never made the case that group activities were a bad. Obviously, we must meet people before we can date them. I think group activities, especially those organized by a Bible-believing church, are an excellent way to meet and get to know members of the opposite sex BEFORE dating them. Also, I don't distinguish between group outings and group dates, except possibly to say that the latter involves an interest that the former possibly does not. I am only opposed to group activities as an absolute alternative to dating, because I really do believe that eventually two people of the opposite sex need to spend time alone together before making any commitments. That's just good, practical advice: don't commit to someone you don't really know. You don't really know someone you've never spent time alone with. Trust me: men and women act differently in group settings. However, that said, Jessica, meeting a man in a group environment is a good idea if only for safety sake. I would never advise you to spend time alone with a man you only barely know (unless it was in a public place with proper precautions).
The question is, where does your animosity to dating really come from? If the answer if fear of rejection or emotional hurt, then I advise you to consider whether you really want to make decisions based out of fear. So often in life, nothing ventured truly is nothing gained. Dating requires a degree of boldness that doesn't come easily to everyone. I think an sxcellent case can be made for dating. Is dating right for everyone? I am not prepared to go that far, but it seems that more people avoid dating out of silly reasons or fearful reasons than Biblical or logical reasons. What do I define as silly? Well, for one thing, outcome determanitive reasonins. You made the point that, if my friend remains single, that God must have wanted her to be single.
That same, flawed logic is used to blame God for a host of problems that plague this world. Just because God has the power to manipulate and micromanage the world, doesn't mean he actually does take affirmative action to cause every bad thing that happens. If a man smokes all his life then dies from lung cancer,is God to blame? Of course not: he reaped the results of the bad setwardship over his body. Now, God may decide to intervene to save that man from lung cancer, but it is ridiculous to think that God preordained that man to die simply by refusing to work a miracle.
Similarly, I don't believe God does causes people to be alone (at least not in most cases) - people suffer the consequences of their own decisions to act or to refrain from acting, and loneliness is a consequence of failing to make an effort to find someone to spend your life with. In my life, God has worked more miracles in areas where I was making an effort than in areas where I was doing nothing to change my problem. God does not appreciate laziness.
If you take nothing else away from this entry, then I suggest that you consider this: if dating doesn't work for you, then that's fine and dandy, but don't play the "waiting game." Find an alternative approach to dating and pursue it. I have a lot of friends and family (adults) who have never been married that want to be married, and the first question I ask them is what are you doing to pursue that goal? Most of them don't know what to say - they're waiting on God to perform a miracle, I suppose. Doing something is far better than doing nothing.
I doubt any farmer waits on God to make crops grow in his field if he never planted any seeds. Similarly, unless God actively tells you to wait for him to deliver a spouse, you had better be confident that waiting is a Biblical mandate. God will not be mocked, and We reap what we sow (Gal 6:7-8). If we sow nothing, then we shall reap nothing.
Hey Jessica,
First, there's really no need to apologize for the length of your comments - I enjoyed reading them, and I like writing long comments myself. Blogger really needs to get over these space limits.
Also, I think you've mistaken the point of this blog entry, which isn't to bash Josh Harris, but to define "dating" and to question the animosity that I have personally witnessed toward "dating" in the Christian community. The point is that dating has a lot of merits, and it's not the evil institution that many leaders make it out to be. I think Harris approach, which lacks consistency and is, therefore, hard to define, analyze, or to follow, has many elements similar to dating. On the whole, I believe his approach shelters people way too much, though Harris' approach might be practical for minors (this blog is typically directed at an 18+ crowd) who may be too young to date safely, maturely, and purely.
This blog is free to read, and I am not selling anything (though I have considered one day writing a book on this subject)On the whole, for adults, I believe dating is an opportunity worthy of investigation. It will not harm me if people read this entry on dating and completely disregard it, but I hope they at least consider it. So often wisdom is contrary to our human, fleshly nature (e.g. you must die to live), and isn't the easy path typically the wrong path? Dating is NEVER easy, and it requires a lot of courage.
This blog entry is not about me claming that dating is Bible-mandated. The point I am making is that dating is a wise, logical approach not prohibited by the Bible. I believe that dating is a very difficult and often scary enterprise, filled with risks of rejection and setbacks, but also I believe that the benefits far outpace the costs. I don't advise anyone to try it without a lot of prayer, time in the Word, and conscious goal-planning, but in my experience, and the experience of others I know, dating gets positive results. The vast majority of the happily married Christian couples I know dated before they got engaged, even if they already knew each other. I am blissfully married because God blessed my efforts in dating and relationships: I tried, then I failed, then I learned, then I changed, then I tried again. I repeated that process hundreds of times before meeting an marrying my wife. Others I know have found the process much less arduous, and many of my friends only went on a couple of dates before meeting their spouses. I think the timing often has a lot to do with God using the dating process to teach us how to better interact with members the opposite sex before getting married to one. As a happily married man, I can tell you that the experiences I gained dating other women have helped me immensely in learning how to better love my wife and how to be a better husband, generally.
You will never regret the experience you accummulate dating after you are married unless you sinned while dating. Dating brought me positive experience in understanding women and how to relate to them. It helped me learn how to be affectionate during a heated argument rather than shouting. It helped me learn not to take my wife for granted. The most important experience was in learning how to communicate more effectively with women, which experience paid dividends when I got married. Also, my dating experience taught me just how many of Satan's lies our culture has boought into, especially when it comes to our perceptions of the opposite sex, love, relationships, and especially marriage.
You seem a bit tense in your words, Jessica, if not with me, then maybe with dating or relationships - I don't know. Your comment seemed to reply to things I have not said. For instance, I never called anyone "silly," I only indicated that something my wife's friend said was silly. We all say silly things at times, but that does not make us "silly people." That may seem like a minor point, but I want it to be clear that my judgment was of this girl's statement, not the girl herself. She's a believer with a good heart, and I certainly meant no offense to her.
Also, you wrote, "Why not, instead, invite both girls along out to eat, as well as another guy or two..." In my entire article, I never made the case that group activities were a bad. Obviously, we must meet people before we can date them. I think group activities, especially those organized by a Bible-believing church, are an excellent way to meet and get to know members of the opposite sex BEFORE dating them. Also, I don't distinguish between group outings and group dates, except possibly to say that the latter involves an interest that the former possibly does not. I am only opposed to group activities as an absolute alternative to dating, because I really do believe that eventually two people of the opposite sex need to spend time alone together before making any commitments. That's just good, practical advice: don't commit to someone you don't really know. You don't really know someone you've never spent time alone with. Trust me: men and women act differently in group settings. However, that said, Jessica, meeting a man in a group environment is a good idea if only for safety sake. I would never advise you to spend time alone with a man you only barely know (unless it was in a public place with proper precautions).
The question is, where does your animosity to dating really come from? If the answer if fear of rejection or emotional hurt, then I advise you to consider whether you really want to make decisions based out of fear. So often in life, nothing ventured truly is nothing gained. Dating requires a degree of boldness that doesn't come easily to everyone. I think an sxcellent case can be made for dating. Is dating right for everyone? I am not prepared to go that far, but it seems that more people avoid dating out of silly reasons or fearful reasons than Biblical or logical reasons. What do I define as silly? Well, for one thing, outcome determanitive reasonins. You made the point that, if my friend remains single, that God must have wanted her to be single.
That same, flawed logic is used to blame God for a host of problems that plague this world. Just because God has the power to manipulate and micromanage the world, doesn't mean he actually does take affirmative action to cause every bad thing that happens. If a man smokes all his life then dies from lung cancer,is God to blame? Of course not: he reaped the results of the bad setwardship over his body. Now, God may decide to intervene to save that man from lung cancer, but it is ridiculous to think that God preordained that man to die simply by refusing to work a miracle.
Similarly, I don't believe God does causes people to be alone (at least not in most cases) - people suffer the consequences of their own decisions to act or to refrain from acting, and loneliness is a consequence of failing to make an effort to find someone to spend your life with. In my life, God has worked more miracles in areas where I was making an effort than in areas where I was doing nothing to change my problem. God does not appreciate laziness.
If you take nothing else away from this entry, then I suggest that you consider this: if dating doesn't work for you, then that's fine and dandy, but don't play the "waiting game." Find an alternative approach to dating and pursue it. I have a lot of friends and family (adults) who have never been married that want to be married, and the first question I ask them is what are you doing to pursue that goal? Most of them don't know what to say - they're waiting on God to perform a miracle, I suppose. Doing something is far better than doing nothing.
I doubt any farmer waits on God to make crops grow in his field if he never planted any seeds. Similarly, unless God actively tells you to wait for him to deliver a spouse, you had better be confident that waiting is a Biblical mandate. God will not be mocked, and We reap what we sow (Gal 6:7-8). If we sow nothing, then we shall reap nothing.
Friday, August 14, 2009
No man an island...
"If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!"
-Ecclesiastes 4:10, NIV.
More than anything, we men love to believe that we can be an island unto ourselves, independent and self-reliant, but maybe that isn't so good a thing as it sounds:
"Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment" (Prov18:1).
We buy into the illusion, or perhaps the delusion, of our own independence, as if it is within our power to plan for every calamity and disaster. When we are relying on ourselves to succeed, then so often we fail to avail ourselves of the help God intended and purposed for us. Pride makes accepting help so difficult, but then pride precedes the fall does it not?
"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud, but humility comes before honor" (Prov 18:12, NIV).
We are living in a day when the pride of men is constantly being dashed by economic hardship, unemployment, depression, and failure. It is an awful feeling to fail at something, especially when you are trying so hard to be an island, refusing help from anyone or from anywhere that is offered.
It is foolish pride, though, to refuse the help the Lord sends our way. "Pity the man who falls and has no man to help him," the Bible tells us. Why do men have no one to help them when they fall? It seems pride is at least one major reason.
The best way to apply this truth is to consider yourself blessed when others
genuinely offer assistance. Sometimes assistance comes in the most obvious form: money. Other times, a man falls not from financial hardship but due to his own ignorance or foolishness, in which case his assistance may come in the form of wise advice/counsel or even a supportive ear. Sometimes reproof is the assistance we most need, but when it comes, do we cherish it or rebuke it?
You will most quickly find yourself standing again, following calamity, when you accept the help the Lord provides rather than looking for solutions from within yourself. Watch for genuine offers of assistance, and try to make the most of them. You can't do it alone, and, as a believer, you don't have to anymore. The Lord gave us each other, and the Lord gave us the Holy Spirit. Don't send them away then they arrive with your life line.
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!"
-Ecclesiastes 4:10, NIV.
More than anything, we men love to believe that we can be an island unto ourselves, independent and self-reliant, but maybe that isn't so good a thing as it sounds:
"Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment" (Prov18:1).
We buy into the illusion, or perhaps the delusion, of our own independence, as if it is within our power to plan for every calamity and disaster. When we are relying on ourselves to succeed, then so often we fail to avail ourselves of the help God intended and purposed for us. Pride makes accepting help so difficult, but then pride precedes the fall does it not?
"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud, but humility comes before honor" (Prov 18:12, NIV).
We are living in a day when the pride of men is constantly being dashed by economic hardship, unemployment, depression, and failure. It is an awful feeling to fail at something, especially when you are trying so hard to be an island, refusing help from anyone or from anywhere that is offered.
It is foolish pride, though, to refuse the help the Lord sends our way. "Pity the man who falls and has no man to help him," the Bible tells us. Why do men have no one to help them when they fall? It seems pride is at least one major reason.
The best way to apply this truth is to consider yourself blessed when others
genuinely offer assistance. Sometimes assistance comes in the most obvious form: money. Other times, a man falls not from financial hardship but due to his own ignorance or foolishness, in which case his assistance may come in the form of wise advice/counsel or even a supportive ear. Sometimes reproof is the assistance we most need, but when it comes, do we cherish it or rebuke it?
You will most quickly find yourself standing again, following calamity, when you accept the help the Lord provides rather than looking for solutions from within yourself. Watch for genuine offers of assistance, and try to make the most of them. You can't do it alone, and, as a believer, you don't have to anymore. The Lord gave us each other, and the Lord gave us the Holy Spirit. Don't send them away then they arrive with your life line.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Decoding Destiny
I've noticed an interesting, and oddly consistent, thread that runs through nearly all stories, movies, television shows, and books. That thread is destiny.
The concept of "destiny" affects everything from tragedies ("star-crossed lovers") to silly romantic comedies. It was such a romantic comedy which drew me to this subject. In particular, I want to discuss the popular idea that destiny leads us to good things, or the things we're meant to have or do.
In the film, the female lead learns at a young age the name of the man who is to be her true love, essentially informing her of her destiny (via a ouija board, as obvious a means for destiny to speak to her as could be devised). Later in life, as she nears her wedding to someone else, she is reminded of this prediction and learns of a man by the name given by "destiny". So strong is her belief in destiny that she travels to Europe to meet this man, to see if perhaps destiny's choice would be better than her own.
What could possibly account for the strength of the woman's faith in destiny? The idea of destiny, brought to the forefront in this film, can be seen throughout a large number of the stories told. I think we even sympathize, if lightly, with the heroine's desire to see if her destiny may after all be right for her, better even than the non-destined choice she had already made.
What really intrigues me about this, however, is the practicality of it. What is destiny? What force creates and enforces it? What motivations does that force have?
In order to believe so strongly in destiny and behave as she does, the heroine must have several underlying, if unstated and unexamined, assumptions. In the film, there is absolutely no mention of any religion, and the heroine appears to be the typical Hollywood American, with no religious affiliation whatsoever. We can guess this implies an agnostic who gives no thought to religion but nevertheless has a vestigial belief in the western Judeo-Christian moral tradition, since this is the typical Hollywood model.
Among the assumptions which are required for destiny to make sense, let's take a look at a few.
1) A supernatural world exists.
For destiny to be real and meaningful, there must be a spiritual or mystical aspect to reality which cannot be measured or explained by standard scientific means. The physical reality we understand does not allow for the possibility of knowing things before they happen, and contains no concept that an event "should happen" or was "supposed to happen." The reality we experience only notes that an event "could happen" or "could not happen," and then that it "did happen" or "did not happen."
The concept of destiny also indicates that our minds are able to tap into this mystical or spiritual realm in a way that we can't describe or explore through the tools of science. Somehow, and for some reason, our minds are connected with the notion of destiny and can observe it and in some cases understand it.
2) An omnipotent (or nearly omnipotent) God-like entity exists.
Whether we're talking about the concrete Jahweh of Judaism and Christianity (and arguably Islam), one of the powers (either good or bad) from Dualism, or the vague deity of pantheism, there must be some sort of great force at work in the world. This force must either be able to see the future (to plan things), or be able to alter the future in order to cause things to happen. Given omnipotence these may amount to the same thing.
Some have believed that destiny can operate independently of some sort of god (see the Greek concept of the Fates, who had authority over even the gods themselves). However, in order for destiny to make sense, there must be some sort of intelligence guiding events -- the very notion of destiny is that things happen as they should happen, or as they have been planned to happen. A plan requires a planner. Some also seem to think that a non-personal (or sub-personal) force could cause events, but this is meaningless. Even if it were true, there would be no way to know. The influence from an impersonal force would be indistinguishable from the impersonal forces already applied by nature generally. Destiny is defined by an intelligent plan, which in turn requires a personal or super-personal entity to form and implement it.
3) The God-like entity desires good for people.
The heroine pursues her destiny because she assumes that it will be better than the non-destined life she would otherwise live. She presumes that the intelligent, planning force in the universe not only has the power to predestine events in her life, but that the force wants what's best for her. If there was even a possibility that her destiny would be bad for her or worse than the life she would otherwise live, then it would not make sense for her to pursue it so vigorously.
This is an interesting assumption. It's consistent with a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but not with many other possibilities. If Dualism is true, then it seems just as likely that the bad power has predestined bad things for a given person than that the good power has predestined good things. Similarly, in pantheism everything in the universe is a part of the deity, including the bad things -- therefore there's no reason to expect a deity composed of both good and evil to necessarily predestine only good. Only in the Judeo-Christian tradition does the ultimate authority desire only good for people.
We can see that the very concept of destiny presupposes some sort of god, and a realm beyond the physical world that we observe which can affect the reality we experience. Thus we find the underpinnings of religion in a vast range of stories. Moreover, we find that perhaps the only religious system which actually fits the assumptions necessary for destiny to be real is the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Judging by the various stories which assume destiny is true but do not acknowledge Christianity or its God, it is apparently much easier to believe in destiny than Christianity. However, belief in destiny but not in Jahweh implies that it's possible to believe in one and not the other. While destiny may not specifically require the Judeo-Christian God, it seems as though destiny requires a God who shares nearly all properties with the God of the Bible, and seems to preclude nearly all other possibilities. At the very least, it makes little sense to remain an agnostic who believes that nothing of importance can really be known about God, while at the same time believing in a concept which demands that God have many very specific properties.
I find the concept of destiny so intriguing because it appears to be a way in which society unintentionally acknowledges the existence and sovereignty of God, in what seems to be the societal equivalent of a message from the unconscious mind. This concept, which presupposes nearly all the properties of the Christian God, finds its way into nearly every story we tell. I hope that in the future, when people find themselves believing that destiny is a real thing in the world, that they'll consider what that really means.
The concept of "destiny" affects everything from tragedies ("star-crossed lovers") to silly romantic comedies. It was such a romantic comedy which drew me to this subject. In particular, I want to discuss the popular idea that destiny leads us to good things, or the things we're meant to have or do.
In the film, the female lead learns at a young age the name of the man who is to be her true love, essentially informing her of her destiny (via a ouija board, as obvious a means for destiny to speak to her as could be devised). Later in life, as she nears her wedding to someone else, she is reminded of this prediction and learns of a man by the name given by "destiny". So strong is her belief in destiny that she travels to Europe to meet this man, to see if perhaps destiny's choice would be better than her own.
What could possibly account for the strength of the woman's faith in destiny? The idea of destiny, brought to the forefront in this film, can be seen throughout a large number of the stories told. I think we even sympathize, if lightly, with the heroine's desire to see if her destiny may after all be right for her, better even than the non-destined choice she had already made.
What really intrigues me about this, however, is the practicality of it. What is destiny? What force creates and enforces it? What motivations does that force have?
In order to believe so strongly in destiny and behave as she does, the heroine must have several underlying, if unstated and unexamined, assumptions. In the film, there is absolutely no mention of any religion, and the heroine appears to be the typical Hollywood American, with no religious affiliation whatsoever. We can guess this implies an agnostic who gives no thought to religion but nevertheless has a vestigial belief in the western Judeo-Christian moral tradition, since this is the typical Hollywood model.
Among the assumptions which are required for destiny to make sense, let's take a look at a few.
1) A supernatural world exists.
For destiny to be real and meaningful, there must be a spiritual or mystical aspect to reality which cannot be measured or explained by standard scientific means. The physical reality we understand does not allow for the possibility of knowing things before they happen, and contains no concept that an event "should happen" or was "supposed to happen." The reality we experience only notes that an event "could happen" or "could not happen," and then that it "did happen" or "did not happen."
The concept of destiny also indicates that our minds are able to tap into this mystical or spiritual realm in a way that we can't describe or explore through the tools of science. Somehow, and for some reason, our minds are connected with the notion of destiny and can observe it and in some cases understand it.
2) An omnipotent (or nearly omnipotent) God-like entity exists.
Whether we're talking about the concrete Jahweh of Judaism and Christianity (and arguably Islam), one of the powers (either good or bad) from Dualism, or the vague deity of pantheism, there must be some sort of great force at work in the world. This force must either be able to see the future (to plan things), or be able to alter the future in order to cause things to happen. Given omnipotence these may amount to the same thing.
Some have believed that destiny can operate independently of some sort of god (see the Greek concept of the Fates, who had authority over even the gods themselves). However, in order for destiny to make sense, there must be some sort of intelligence guiding events -- the very notion of destiny is that things happen as they should happen, or as they have been planned to happen. A plan requires a planner. Some also seem to think that a non-personal (or sub-personal) force could cause events, but this is meaningless. Even if it were true, there would be no way to know. The influence from an impersonal force would be indistinguishable from the impersonal forces already applied by nature generally. Destiny is defined by an intelligent plan, which in turn requires a personal or super-personal entity to form and implement it.
3) The God-like entity desires good for people.
The heroine pursues her destiny because she assumes that it will be better than the non-destined life she would otherwise live. She presumes that the intelligent, planning force in the universe not only has the power to predestine events in her life, but that the force wants what's best for her. If there was even a possibility that her destiny would be bad for her or worse than the life she would otherwise live, then it would not make sense for her to pursue it so vigorously.
This is an interesting assumption. It's consistent with a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but not with many other possibilities. If Dualism is true, then it seems just as likely that the bad power has predestined bad things for a given person than that the good power has predestined good things. Similarly, in pantheism everything in the universe is a part of the deity, including the bad things -- therefore there's no reason to expect a deity composed of both good and evil to necessarily predestine only good. Only in the Judeo-Christian tradition does the ultimate authority desire only good for people.
We can see that the very concept of destiny presupposes some sort of god, and a realm beyond the physical world that we observe which can affect the reality we experience. Thus we find the underpinnings of religion in a vast range of stories. Moreover, we find that perhaps the only religious system which actually fits the assumptions necessary for destiny to be real is the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Judging by the various stories which assume destiny is true but do not acknowledge Christianity or its God, it is apparently much easier to believe in destiny than Christianity. However, belief in destiny but not in Jahweh implies that it's possible to believe in one and not the other. While destiny may not specifically require the Judeo-Christian God, it seems as though destiny requires a God who shares nearly all properties with the God of the Bible, and seems to preclude nearly all other possibilities. At the very least, it makes little sense to remain an agnostic who believes that nothing of importance can really be known about God, while at the same time believing in a concept which demands that God have many very specific properties.
I find the concept of destiny so intriguing because it appears to be a way in which society unintentionally acknowledges the existence and sovereignty of God, in what seems to be the societal equivalent of a message from the unconscious mind. This concept, which presupposes nearly all the properties of the Christian God, finds its way into nearly every story we tell. I hope that in the future, when people find themselves believing that destiny is a real thing in the world, that they'll consider what that really means.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Movie Review: The Hangover (2009)
SCORE
-2/5-
CAST
CAST
- Bradley Cooper: Phil Wenneck.
- Ed Helms: Stu Price.
- Zach Galifanakis: Alan Garner.
- Justin Bartha: Doug Billings.
- Directed by Todd Phillips.
STORY
"A Las Vegas-set comedy centered around three groomsmen who lose their about-to-be-wed buddy during their drunken misadventures, then must retrace their steps in order to find him" (source: imdb.com).
REVIEW
Never before have I wanted more to give a movie 0/5 in score, but I have to admit that this film qualifies, on our objective scale (which you can read here), warrants a 2: "the movie has some value, but it fails to accomplish 1 or more of its goals."
The Hangover meets its basic goal of providing crude humor to those who appreciate it. Occasionally, it even provides a few brief moments of non-crass humor. I laughed at this movie, and, in restrospect, I am not proud of this.
The premise is clever enough: a bunch of groomsmen lose the groom following his bachelor party: they just can't seem to remember what happened the night before, and they have but mere hours in which to figure it out and get the groom to the altar. That might have been the start of a hilarious movie all can enjoy. Instead, the movie fell to a level of crassness and crude humor that degrades its audience more than it entertains. In this respect, the movie fails to offer a comedy that will entertain many members of its intended audience not deterred by the R-rating. This movie, by the way, should have been rated NC-17, which I found to be deceptive. Shame on the MPAA - it has lost all sense of morality and ethics.
PROS: Funny premise and clever dialogue, with competent performances by all actors. Well directed, technically speaking. The solution to the mystery of what happened to the groom is also unique and, in many ways, genuinely funny without being crass or crude.
CONS: Nudity, foul language, violence, pornographic content, drug use, glorification of prostitution, and a dark display of amorality that will leave you wishing you could forget having ever seen it.
FINAL THOUGHT: Do NOT take minors to see this film. Do NOT see this film if you are offended by any of the above. We do not make recommendations that people go see any given movie or refrain from going to see any given movie, but, trust me, as a Christian, you will be embarrassed and ashamed to have seen this piece of garbage. I know that I am. So, just short of telling you not to go see this movie, I encourage you to read this review and make the right decision on your own.
BOTTOM LINE: 2/5.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The self-righteous don't need a doctor...
What is the one greatest thing that I have going for me spiritually?
I know that I am a sinner. I confess that I have messed up each day of my life in some way and that, often, I am unaware of many more sins that I commit.
Like the allegation levied against the blind man by the Pharisees, I was steeped in sin from birth. Unlike the Pharisees, however, I admit it. I believe it, and I recognize that I need forgiveness. This confession is not a weakness but a strength. A sick man can get help only after admitting to himself that he needs to seek it.
"On hearing this, Jesus said, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick'" (Matt 9:12, NIV) (emphasis supplied) .
The Pharisees could not understand why Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners because they were self-righteous, convinced in their mastery of the old law. They were so convinced of their own righteousness, attained through their own work and efforts, that they could not see the point in associating with anyone unlike themselves. They could not see the great commission because they were interested in ministering only to those like themselves.
The difference between the Pharisees and the sinners Jesus was eating with was that the sinners were not convinced of their own righteousness. For that reason alone, they could received treatment from the master physician.
How many reading this are proud or think that they know all the answers? How many are too quick to point a fingers at the faults of others rather than pointing a finger at their own sins? Will you point an accusing finger at yourself? If you cannot do that, then you are not prepared to receive all that Christ has to offer for your life.
Yes, we all mistakes. Yes, we all sin. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner Jesus can get to work performing his soul-saving medicine.
None of us are righteous by our own efforts. Only by the blood of Jesus are we made righteous.
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Phil 3:9, ESV).
I know that I am a sinner. I confess that I have messed up each day of my life in some way and that, often, I am unaware of many more sins that I commit.
Like the allegation levied against the blind man by the Pharisees, I was steeped in sin from birth. Unlike the Pharisees, however, I admit it. I believe it, and I recognize that I need forgiveness. This confession is not a weakness but a strength. A sick man can get help only after admitting to himself that he needs to seek it.
"On hearing this, Jesus said, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick'" (Matt 9:12, NIV) (emphasis supplied) .
The Pharisees could not understand why Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners because they were self-righteous, convinced in their mastery of the old law. They were so convinced of their own righteousness, attained through their own work and efforts, that they could not see the point in associating with anyone unlike themselves. They could not see the great commission because they were interested in ministering only to those like themselves.
The difference between the Pharisees and the sinners Jesus was eating with was that the sinners were not convinced of their own righteousness. For that reason alone, they could received treatment from the master physician.
How many reading this are proud or think that they know all the answers? How many are too quick to point a fingers at the faults of others rather than pointing a finger at their own sins? Will you point an accusing finger at yourself? If you cannot do that, then you are not prepared to receive all that Christ has to offer for your life.
Yes, we all mistakes. Yes, we all sin. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner Jesus can get to work performing his soul-saving medicine.
None of us are righteous by our own efforts. Only by the blood of Jesus are we made righteous.
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Phil 3:9, ESV).
Monday, May 18, 2009
White pride? Race & Politics revisited...
I recently was forwarded an email that made the point that only white people can be racists. That's right - whites have a monopoly on racism. The email, rather poorly, made a few points that have always seemed logical to me. Lets see if I cannot restate them coherently:
Point One
Point One
- There are African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans, Pacific Islander Americans, Latin Americans, and so on, but there are no white Americans.
- Instead, white Americans are just plain "Americans."
- Is this because white people are not allowed to acknowledge that they are part of the same race?
- Is it racist just to be white?
Point Two
- Whites are not permitted to use racial slurs, but racial slurs used against whites are permitted.
- For example, a white person may not use the following words: spic; chink; nigger; towel-head; porch-monkey; camel-jockey; gook; or black (I was once personally dressed down for referring to African Americans as "blacks").
- On the other hand, the following words are used almost daily in reference to whites without any fear of reprisal or even a reaction: whigger; honkey; cracker; whitey; caveman.
- In law we have a term called "equity" implying that different people should be treated by the law and society equally, regardless of race, nationality, or ethnicity. Is this difference in standards equitable?
- Speaking in terms of Christianity, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28 NASB).
- Yet how many Christians would berate a white person for using a racial slur? How many would be offended by a racial slur used against a white person?
Point Three
- Black history month, Cesar Chavez day, and other holidays/days of national significance that focus on one or more people groups segregates those people groups from others and divides us.
- Don't believe it? What would happen if a politician proposed a white history month?
- Why is it we can't just teach history? You know - for all people groups.
Point Four
- The National Association For the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Black Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and other such organizations focusing on one people group and excluding others (I call that "voluntary segregation") are permissible in our society, assuming you do not create such an organization to promote the white race or culture.
- Consider that the plain, ordinary Chamber of Commerce takes all races.
- Now, why would we need a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce?
- Assuming you can find a good reason to have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, why then can whites not have a white chamber of commerce?
- Did you read that and think it was a racist idea?
- What about a national association for the advancement of white people?
- Is that racist too?
Point Five
- If blacks can give out scholarships only to blacks, then can whites do the same?
- What about a United Caucasian Scholarship Fund?
- Is that racist?
- Is it right for any one people group to "earn" a scholarship, even in part, because of the colour of his/her skin?
- How many "black only" universities and colleges are in the U.S.?
- How about a "white only" university or college - is that racist?
- Is it not racist, or at least discriminatory, to treat one people group differently from the other?
Point Six
- The Miss America pageant accepts women of all races, and a black woman can be Miss America.
- No white woman can participate in the Miss Black America pageant or be Miss Black America.
- A "Miss White America" pageant would, logically, ensure that both black and white women receive the same opportunities, but we'd label that racist too.
- Would getting rid of pageants targeting specific people groups be racist?
Point Seven
- Black pride is okay.
- White pride is racist.
- People can be proud to be black, yellow, red, or any colour they like (so long as that colour isn't white).
- So, white people should be ashamed of their colour and heritage?
I did not come up with these points. I just put them together in one place for discussion. I did, however, omit a few points that I thought showed the author's own racial bias. This is the problem: people who go to great lengths to attack others' racism often fail to see their own. I believe the author of that email made some great points, but s/he also demonstrated the very same racial bias of which s/he complained.
People want to know why America cannot move beyond race and colour? It is because we live in a voluntarily segregated society where whites are increasingly portrayed as oppressors and "minorities" as beggars. I, however, have met both oppressive and distressed people from every people group. Visit a big enough city and, sooner or later, you'll see homeless people of every background. You could also find wealthy people from every background.
At the inauguration of our nation's first black president, the Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered what was surely one of the most racist benedictions ever made, and it was endorsed by the White House. You can read more about that here. He spoke of a day when "black will not be asked to give back," when "brown can stick around," when "yellow will be mellow," when "the red man can get ahead, man," and when "white will embrace what is right."
President Obama's landmark presidency began with those words, and they represent to me a sign of the times we live in. Rather than Jim Crow laws, we voluntarily segregate ourselves into different people groups in our mind. Our society blames the white race for its many problems instead of looking for realistic solutions to them.
My black friends did not choose to be black, and my Asian friends did not choose to be Asian any more than I chose to be white. God made me white, and he made my friends as they are. We don't need to waste time discussing which race is "right." Instead, I hope we focus on treating each other equally and fairly as brothers and sisters in Christ, focusing on Gal 3:28, not on skin colour. Until we have the mind of Christ, that all men truly are equal in the eyes of the Lord, the Rev. Lowery's unique brand of racism will continue to dominate our society and politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)