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.

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.

What is "stewardship" really?

Most of us have heard sermons and received instruction that we should be good stewards, but what is a "steward," and how does one become a good one? We all have some idea that stewardship relates to how we manage our property, but what is the Truth about good stewardship? What do all the sermons and instructions mean? Is this just another way for the pastor to get more of our money away from us during this financial crisis, or is this stewardship business really commanded by God?

First, lets take a look at a law from the Old Covenant (testament) that I recently received via email:

"And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:10).

Obviously, God is commanding property owners, especially those with crops, to use them in a certain way that cares for the poor and travellers, presumably accomplishing His will that they receive care/support/food from believers. Though it may sound like a sinful question, many believers might ask themselves, "What right has God to tell us how to use our property?"

"1The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers" (Psalms 24:1-2).

"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you" (1 Chronicles 29:14).

The answer is that God owns the world and everything in it, including the people. He owns it because he created it. God invented the world, and so he has, essentially, a holy patent that never expires. Like a craftsman who builds a house on his own land with his own materials and labour, who can tell such a man what to do with the house or anything in it? Does the craftsman not own that house completely?

You may have worked all your life for your savings, your possessions, and your material wealth, but you did it using God's creations. At most, we have a license to use these things, but, ultimately, they all belong to God. Take our craftsman example: assume that such a man has a child, a son, and that he provides that son with a bedroom in the house he built. We call that room the son's room, but really it belongs to the craftsman. The craftsman, also a father, has given his son charge over that room and holds him accountable for his use, care, maintenance, and general management of the room he provided. What father has never told his son, "Clean your room!"? Also, what father gives his son $500 and says, "Son go buy a lollipop,"? The father wants his son to use what he is given wisely.

In the same way, God owns everything that he has created, and he grants us a license (or "permission" if you prefer) to use it. However, God has retained the right to govern how we use the material wealth and possessions that He has created. Like the craftsman, God will require us to give an account of our use, care, maintenance, and general management of the wealth and possessions that He has provided us. For us to ask what right God has to instruct us in the use of our material wealth and possession, this is no different than the son asking his father, the craftsman, what right he has to force him to clean the room. How completely ungrateful.

The Lord has instructed us that "true religion" is caring for those in need (see this post for scriptural evidence and citations). The Lord made caring for travellers and the poor a part of His covenant with the Jewish people (Lev 19:10). The Bible makes no secret that we are, as believers, "stewards" of God's possessions rather than the true owners of our own, and the Lord, as the master of those possessions, shall require us all to give account:

"1And he [Jesus] said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed" (Luke 16:1-3; KJV).

I cited the KJV because it uses "steward" where the ESV uses "manager." However, the two words can mean the same thing (they also can have different connotations). I have heard that, historically, the first recorded uses of the English word “steward” are from the 11th century, referring to an official who controlled the domestic affairs of a household. I do not have a citation that I trust as evidence for this, but it holds true with the Biblical usage. The root words stig and ward mean "house" and "keeper," respectively, which combined suggest that a steward is the "keeper of the house" (hence my example of the craftsman/father, his son, and the craftsman's house).

That is what we are - the keeper of our father's house. The Lord's house is this world, which he crafted himself with aid of no man. There was no man to offer aid. We are also a part of the Lord's house, created to be his stewards. After all, Adam was given charge over the Earth from the beginning, was he not? In Genesis 2:15, God put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it". In Genesis 2:19-20, God gave Adam leave to name every animal and beast. Adam was the first steward, but he did break the one commandment of the master: do not eat of this specific tree. When Adam was required to give account for his stewardship of the garden, God asked Adam whether had eaten of the tree. When Adam admitted this, God could no longer trust Adam to remain in Eden and refrain from eating more forbidden fruit. For that reason, both Adam and Eve were cast out (Gen 2:23-24).

Good stewardship is listening and obeying the will and commands of the master/owner. It does not end with money or material possessions. All that is belongs to God - even our bodies. Will we be good stewards? Praise God for Jesus Christ, that there is mercy and grace, because none of us perfectly listen or obey. Therefore, there are no perfect stewards. But neither mercy nor grace relieves us from our responsibilities.

If I leave you readers with only one thought, then it is this: no matter how wealthy or poor you may believe that you are, nothing belongs to you: stewardship is about how you use what you are given, not how much you have. In Luke 16:10, Christ himself said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."

Remember, in Mark 12:41-44, the widow gave more out of her poverty than the rich who gave out of their abundance. If you are rich and keep your money and wealth all to yourself, then you are a bad steward. If you are poor an give only the little you have to the Lord's service, then you have given much. In the same way, a believer who uses his/her talents only for personal gain has been a very poor steward of those talents, which also belong to the Lord! A person who strives to use his/her talents serve the Lord has been a good steward of them.

I will end this post by asking you to read Matthew 24:45-51. In those verses, Christ talks about the "good and faithful servant" as opposed to the "wicked servant" who watches over the master's household. I only realized very recently that the servant, as a master of the household, is a steward. When our master returns, will he put us in charge of many things, or will he "cut us to pieces" and assign us a place with the hypocrites? Salvation may be by grace, but Christ makes it clear that, in some fashion, our works, as stewards, will be judged. We will have to give an account to Christ upon his return.

Sinners as Leaders: Follow-Up

I had some thoughts on John's post from the other day that I thought I'd write down.

The reaction of society at large to Christian leaders' sins when they're revealed publicly is often to think that, if every Christian is not better than every non-Christian, then Christianity must not be true. An agnostic coworker of mine saw this as a major reason not to believe in Christianity: its adherents claim to be in communication with an all-powerful, perfectly good God, but most of them don't seem particularly better or worse than others around them. If it makes no difference in their lives, if it doesn't make them remarkably different than everyone else, then what good is it? How can it be so powerful if its effects are so invisible?

This is a subtle logical fallacy that I would address with an analogy. Let's say James and Rick are both in the same field. James goes to college for a degree in the field, and Rick does not. Rick, without a degree, is more knowledgeable about the field than James is with his degree. Therefore, college is not valuable: people who did not go are still smarter than people who did go.

The false implication here is that in order for college to be acknowledged as valuable, every college graduate must be smarter than every person who did not go to college. This is an improbable condition to meet: Rick could be a genius, and no amount of education would elevate James over him. In this light we can see that this is not a necessary condition for college to be valuable. In what way is college valuable, then, if James is not smarter than Rick at the end of it?

The answer is this: college's value is not about making James smarter than Rick. Its value is solely in improving James. Its value can only be measured in terms of how much smarter the college experience made James than he himself was beforehand. Rick's intelligence is irrelevant and distracts us from what's truly being measured.

Christianity works the same way. Jesus doesn't promise to make you objectively better than the best non-Christian: if you let Him, He promises to make you better than you are. Thus, Christianity can have tremendous value without meeting our arbitrary standard of making every Christian better (in some objective sense) than every non-Christian. It would certainly be a momentous change for a murderer to be brought to the point where he is as good a man as his neighbors!

Returning to John's post, I have perhaps more reservations than John about those who have sinned publicly continuing to lead. I want very much to forgive them their sins; if we as Christians can't forgive each other then we don't really know our faith. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Nor is it easy to show forgiveness while revoking a leader's position; fair or not, necessary or not, it will feel like a punishment to the individual and may make him feel that his church does not truly forgive him. For instance, it feels very cruel to remove a pastor from his position because he's getting divorced. It feels like kicking him when he's down, wounding him when he needs support the most.

However, there are some kinds of sin which to me would seem to preclude the possibility of effective leadership. It's important to consider the circumstances. There are a few situations which could be outside the pastor's control -- his wife has decided to leave regardless of whether he grants a divorce, or she has committed adultery. On the other hand, what of the ever popular "irreconcilable differences"? What if he simply feels that "it isn't working anymore" and that both parties should move on, as is common in society at large?

I don't cite this example to indicate that those who divorce are the worst of sinners, or any such thing. "The wages of sin is death," big or small, public or private. However, some sins lead us into a place where everything we do is sinful; where simply leaving things as they are for another day takes us farther from God; where we cannot draw close to Him. We cannot be washed clean when we're standing in the mud.

If a man divorces his wife without Biblical cause, every step he takes which is not a step towards reconciliation with her in recognition of his sin is a step away from God. There can be no neutrality: everything he does, he does instead of doing what's right. In this state, how can he lead God's church?

We must forgive those who repent; our God commands it, and He knows I've needed that forgiveness many times and will again. I simply think it's important to recognize a man who has fully turned away from his sin and has turned back toward the light from one who has simply walked away from the sin. Leadership of God's church is too important not to consider it.