Author Archive
« Older Entries |Are Christians Narrow-Minded?
Monday, August 23rd, 2010
I want to begin by stating unambiguously that I am convinced that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and that there is salvation in no one else. I’m fully aware of the fact that for me to say something like that is to invite accusations of everything from “hate” to “intolerance”, “bigotry”, “narrow-mindedness”, and “arrogance.” I suppose that one of the reasons that people react this way is because so many people have bought into the idea that truth is “relative”- that everyone “has their own truth.” Another reason has to do with the fact that in today’s world, the term “tolerance” has been radically redefined to suggest that everyone’s view is correct and that no one can ever say that someone else’s view is wrong. As a result of such confusion, whenever someone comes along and suggests that some views are wrong and that some ideas are more true than others, that person is immediately labeled as narrow-minded. Given that such misguided views of truth and tolerance are so pervasive in our culture today, how do we, as Christians, respond to such charges without compromising the truth of the Gospel?
I believe that there are at least three points that need to be made when addressing this accusation of narrow-mindedness. First of all, it’s important to point out that we are not the ones who came up with the idea that Jesus is the only way. Jesus is the one who made that claim. So, whenever someone asks me if I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, I often tell them that I am convinced, after looking at the evidence, that Jesus was telling the truth when he made the claim that he is the only way to God. Stating it this way makes it clear that their struggle is not really with us, it’s with him. If they feel that such a claim is arrogant, narrow-minded, and intolerant, then they’re going to have to take that up with him, since he is the one making the claim.
Secondly, when someone accuses us of being narrow-minded on this issue, it’s important for us to point out that if they are not willing to give an open, honest, unbiased examination of the evidence supporting Jesus’ claim, then they are being closed-minded themselves. Interestingly enough, it is often those who are the most vocal about open-mindedness and tolerance who turn out to be the most intolerant and closed-minded people of all!
Thirdly, it is extremely important for us to understand and to point out to our critics that truth, by definition, is narrow and exclusive. It always is. For example, suppose that I make the truth claim that my keys are in my right front pocket. If that really is the case, then that statement is absolutely true. And not only is it true, but that truth is also narrow and exclusive. Think for a moment about just how narrow that truth really is. Out of all of the infinite possible locations in the entire universe where they could have been or may have been, we have narrowed it down to only ONE location that is true. Furthermore, not only is that truth extremely narrow, it’s exclusive as well, because in telling you where the keys are, it’s also telling you where the keys are not. It is excluding all of the other locations as false. As I said, truth, by definition, is always narrow and exclusive.
One final point. If anyone is going to accuse Christianity of being exclusive, it’s only “exclusive” in the sense that it’s making a truth claim. But, as we’ve just seen, this is the case with any truth claim. On the other hand, Christianity is NOT exclusive with regard to the extent of its invitation and to whom it is offered. This becomes clear as we consider a few of the passages of Scripture referring to God’s offer of salvation. Jesus said, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.” (John 7:37). “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16). “(God is) not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9b). “(God) wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4).
The message of the Gospel is clear. God is offering his salvation to anyone and everyone who is willing to come to him. Our refusal to do so and our insistence that God should have come up with a plan that meets our approval, only goes to show that we are the ones who are being narrow-minded, not God.
Tags: Christian, Christianity, intolerance, Jesus, narrow-minded
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 1 Comment »
Chimp vs Human DNA- The “Ninety-Eight Percent” Myth
Monday, August 9th, 2010
As we enter the month of August, it’s time once again for students to head back to school. That being the case, there’s a good chance that in science classes all across the country, as teachers cover the topic of evolution, sooner or later they will make mention of the “98 percent similarity” between human DNA and chimpanzee DNA, thus implying common ancestry. Over the past several years, this idea of 98 percent similarity has been repeated so many times that it is now widely accepted by most people as a “scientific fact.” But is that really the case?
To begin with, it’s really important to understand that this whole idea of comparing DNA can be rather tricky business and we must exercise a great deal of caution when it comes to the conclusions that we draw from the data and how we interpret that data. For example, compare the two sentences below:
“You are going on an all-expense-paid trip to the Caribbean aboard a luxurious cruise ship.”
“You are NOT going on an all-expense-paid trip to the Caribbean aboard a luxurious cruise ship.”
Even though these two sentences have 98 percent homology (similarity), they have opposite meanings- the difference between going and not going! In a similar way, since DNA is all about information, a high degree of similarity between two DNA sequences does not necessarily mean that they have the same meaning or function.
Another pitfall that we must avoid in comparing DNA is that we have to be careful not to assume that genetic similarity necessarily points to some sort of ancestral-descendant relationship or relatedness. After all, some studies have shown that humans and daffodils share a 35 percent genetic similarity. But I don’t think that anyone is prepared to interpret that data to mean that humans are “related to daffodils” or that humans are “over one-third daffodil.”
Getting back to the claim that humans and chimps are 98 percent similar, the most damaging evidence of all was revealed in more recent studies as reported a few months ago in the journal Nature. (see Nature. 463 (7280):536-539) The article’s title alone speaks volumes about what researchers found: “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content.” In other words, chimp and human Y chromosomes are surprisingly different. The results of this more recent research contradicts the initial findings from the 2005 chimpanzee genome project which ultimately led to the idea of 98 percent similarity. As it turns out, one of the underlying problems with the 2005 study was that it was extremely biased toward an evolutionary view. Rather than trying to determine whether or not chimps and humans are related, researchers in the 2005 study began with the assumption that chimps and humans are related. When they began the process of assembly and orientation of the sequences gathered from the chimpanzee genome, they did so based on a map of the human genome rather than basing it on a map of the chimpanzee genome. Taking this approach allowed their evolutionary bias to influence the outcome of the study.
So, the long and short of all of this is that the idea of “98 percent similarity” is a myth. According to the latest, more accurate study, the overall similarity turned out to be 70 percent or less. It will be interesting to see whether or not this latest information is mentioned at all in our high school science classes this year. If not, it should be a reminder to all of us that those who knowingly disallow such information are more interested in pushing their ideology than they are about doing good science.
Tags: 98 percent similarity, chimp vs human, DNA, Science
Posted in Science | 2 Comments »
Can We Be Good Without God?
Monday, July 26th, 2010
The sign on a New York City subway read, “A million New Yorkers are good without God.” In Boston, there were signs on the city buses and subways that read, “Good without God? Millions of Americans are.” Billboards in Chicago carried the same message. During the Christmas season, buses in Washington D.C. carried posters that featured someone dressed as Santa Claus with the message, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” These were all part of a bold advertising campaign in 56 cities and 29 states that was launched back in 2007 by organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Their campaign included many other slogans such as, “Imagine No Religion,” suggesting that America would be much better off if we could somehow remove religion (Christianity in particular) from our culture.
For my purposes here, I want to focus specifically on their message that it’s not necessary to believe in God in order to be a good person. In fact, I’m finding that more and more people in the public square are proudly proclaiming that, as an atheist, they can be good without God. When I engage someone in conversation and they tell me that they can be a good person without believing in God, they are usually surprised to hear me say that I agree with them! I realize that it’s not necessary to believe in God in order to be a good person. In fact, I know of some people who do not believe in God who I would consider to be more moral than many so-called “Christians”. So, what’s the problem? The problem is that the person who denies God’s existence cannot make sense out of morality. It’s important to keep in mind that the question is NOT whether one can be good without believing in God, but rather, can we be good if, in fact, there is no God.
A friend of mine who teaches Philosophy and World Religions in a local community college had invited me and a pastor from my church to come answer some questions regarding Christianity. One of the students was a lady who identified herself as a practicing Buddhist. Keep in mind that Buddhists do not necessarily believe that God exists. During the Q&A, she had commented in a somewhat sarcastic tone of voice, “Look, I am a good person who does good for my community, and I don’t have to believe in your God in order to be a good person!” In response, I said, “May I ask you a question? You just used the word ‘good’ three times. I need to point out to you that as soon as you did that, you immediately introduced into this conversation some standard by which to measure what ‘good’ is and what it isn’t. In order for that standard to make any sense, it must be an objective standard. That is, it must exist outside both of us, and both of us must be accountable to that standard. Since you’re the one who brought this standard into the conversation, I have to ask you: 1) What is that standard? and 2) Where did it come from- what is it based on?”
After a long, awkward silence, she replied, “I don’t know.” A student sitting behind her attempted to help her out. This gentleman had leaned forward and whispered something in her ear, after which she confidently smiled and said, “I get my morality from Buddhism.” As I was attempting to reply, another student began to speak, so I’m not sure if she (the Buddhist) could hear my next comment. I had said to her that I’m pretty sure that if I were to ask her if Buddhist morality is better than Nazi mortality, she would most likely say, “Yes.” But to say that one is “better” than the other is to measure both of them by some “higher” standard that exists outside both of them. To compare the two and to say that one is better than the other is to say that one comes closer to meeting that standard than does the other. But to acknowledge some “Ultimate Standard” is to say that there exists a supreme moral law- this requires a supreme Lawgiver.
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason makes an insightful observation about this. He points out that when someone says that they don’t have to believe in God in order to be a good person, it’s like saying that they don’t have to believe in authors in order to read books. While that may be true, they certainly cannot make sense of books existing apart from authors, nor can they make sense of an objective moral law existing apart from a moral Lawgiver.
Tags: atheism, Christianity, logic, moral issues, morality, what is right?
Posted in Ethics | 114 Comments »
Christianity 101
Monday, July 12th, 2010
Recently, I had the privilege of speaking to a classroom full of bright, young students at one of the local community colleges. The invitation had come from a good friend of mine who teaches a class on Philosophy and World Religions. As he covered various world religions, he would invite speakers representing those religions to come and field questions regarding their particular belief system. On the day that his class was covering Christianity, he had asked me and one of the pastors from my church to come participate in the Q&A sessions.
In-between sessions, he said something to me that was very troubling. He said that he had asked some of the Christian students in his class if they knew what the Gospel was, and if they could explain it, but no one responded. I would certainly hope that the students who remained silent were just reluctant to do so because they were uncomfortable speaking up in front of the class. I would hate to think that they really did not know nor understand the Gospel, although I wouldn’t be too surprised by that. Sadly, it’s getting much harder these days to find a church that is in the habit of regularly presenting the Gospel. In fact, my friend had further commented to me that many of those same Christian students had remarked that in their church they had never heard their pastor explain the Gospel. If that’s true, it is worse than tragic, it’s shameful! To further complicate things, when well-meaning people do attempt to present the Gospel, they often make the mistake of presenting it as if it was merely some means by which we can “become a better person.” But, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias has pointed out, “Jesus did not come to make bad people good, but dead people alive.” Furthermore, when the Gospel is presented, it is often couched in terminology that most people cannot understand or cannot relate to in today’s world. With this in mind, the following is the manner in which I explained the Gospel to his class that day.
It all begins with God. This God really does exist. I’m not simply saying that I have a “personal belief” in God or that I have a “personal faith” in God. I’m saying much more than that. The latest discoveries in science affirm the fact that this God really does exist, whether people choose to believe it or not. Secondly, this God is absolutely holy and just. This is crucial to understand especially in today’s world where people have tried to invent a “god” of their own liking by reducing Him to an image that they, personally, find much more convenient and much more comfortable. They’ve imagined a god who is all-loving, who never judges anyone. But a god who is so “loving” that he never judges evil is not a just judge. To say that God is holy is to say that there is absolutely no trace of evil or imperfection anywhere in His character. He is the embodiment of absolute justice.
The bad news is that you and I have rebelled against God by knowingly, willingly, daily, repeatedly violating His Laws. Therefore, all of us are lawbreakers- we are all guilty and we know it. The other bad news is that each one of us has an expiration date stamped on us. The time will come when you and I must die- but it doesn’t end there. You and I will survive the grave to someday appear before God, the One Who is the final Judge over all that He has created. As our case is brought before Him, every thought, word, and action that we’ve lived out will testify against us. As we stand before Him, there will be no doubt in our minds that we deserve His justice. We stand there as condemned criminals- He knows it and we know it. That’s the bad news.
The good news (“Gospel”) in all of this is that out of His unimaginable love, as a supreme act of grace on His part, God, from the beginning of time, set forth a plan whereby we could be pardoned. When God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into this world to die on the cross, something of enormous consequences was taking place, such that my mind cannot fully grasp it. When Jesus died on the cross, it’s as if God had reached out and dipped His pen in the blood of His Son and wrote out a contract with the human race. As with any contract, there are terms of agreement and they are as follows: Anyone who is willing to turn away from their rebellious behavior and acknowledge God’s authority by surrendering their life to His Son will be found “not guilty” when they are brought before God. This offer will not be made to anyone after they die. Only those who were willing to enter into this contract with Him on His terms will be pardoned of their crimes against Him. Their case will be dismissed, all charges will be dropped, and they will be acquitted of every offense they’ve committed against Him. But there’s more. Not only will they be pardoned, but God has made the magnanimous offer of granting them eternal life and they will be given the incredible privilege of spending eternity with Him in His kingdom.
That, my friends, is the Gospel. And now you know why the Gospel is not just “good news”, it is the greatest news that has ever fallen on human ears.
Tags: Christianity, Eternal Life, Good News, Good vs Evil, Gospel, Jesus, Theology
Posted in Theology | 12 Comments »
The Question of God’s Existence- Why Does it Matter?
Monday, June 28th, 2010
Several years ago, I wrote the following words in the flyleaf of my Bible: “If there is no God, then nothing really matters. If there is a God, nothing else matters.” I don’t recall where I heard it, but as far as I’m concerned this one statement covers all the bases in very few words- it really is the bottom line. Notice that the question is not whether one believes in God, but rather, is there really a God? Does He really exist? This is the ultimate question, isn’t it? It has to be the ultimate question because absolutely everything about your life and mine depends upon the answer to that question, whether the answer is “yes” or “no.” All of the important, relevant questions that we ask about our lives are ultimately grounded in that question. Where did we come from? How did we get here? Are we here by the purposive act of a Creator Who made us, or are we simply the product of random, blind forces of nature? What is the purpose and meaning of life? IS there any purpose or meaning to life? What is the basis for ethics and morality? On what basis do we determine what is right or wrong? What about truth? Is truth relative, or is there absolute truth? If so, is there any way that we can discover it? What happens to us when we die? Does life simply terminate at the grave or will we survive the grave? If we survive the grave what will become of us? Where will we go after we die? As I said, the question of God’s existence is the ultimate question.
When it comes to this question, there are many today who would tell us that it’s rather pointless for us to even ask such a question since there’s no way that we can ever really know. Others would insist that such a question is a complete waste of time since we cannot know anything about God. But to say that we can’t know anything about God is not only a cop-out, it’s self-contradictory. After all, the person who says that we can’t know anything about God is actually claiming to “know” a lot of things about God!
For instance, they may be assuming that God is some “impersonal force” that lacks the ability to communicate with us. Either that, or they are assuming that even if God is a personal Being Who can communicate with us, He is either too distant to do so, or else He simply doesn’t care to do so. They are assuming that none of the world’s religions nor any of the religious texts within those religions could ever be seriously considered as the means by which God has attempted to communicate with us. And finally, they are assuming that God has not taken the initiative to reveal Himself to us in any way through the physical, material world that He created.
As I said, the question of whether or not God really exists is, by far, the most important question that anyone could ever ask. With so much at stake, we dare not brush it aside or ignore it on the assumption that we “cannot know”. Not only can we know, I am convinced that the answer to that question has been clearly revealed to us and is available to anyone and everyone who is willing to approach the evidence with an open mind.
Tags: creation, God's Existence, is there a God?, morality, the ultimate question
Posted in Theology | 51 Comments »
Does the Problem of Evil Disprove God?
Monday, June 14th, 2010
It has been noted by some historians that later in his life Albert Einstein expressed the view, based upon his observations of the universe, that there must be a God Who initially set the universe into motion. However, those same historians go on to point out that Einstein ended up backing away from a Judeo-Christian concept of God and settled for more of a deistic view of God, similar to a watchmaker who creates the watch, winds it up to get it going, but then walks away, never to be heard from again. Apparently, one of the biggest reasons that drove Einstein to this conclusion was the problem of evil that he observed in the world. He could not reconcile in his thinking a “good” God Who would allow evil to exist in His creation. Similarly, historians who have studied the life of Charles Darwin have pointed out that his quest to find a purely naturalistic explanation for everything, without any reference to a Creator, all began with the death of his beloved daughter, Annie. These, of course, are only two examples out of countless others who have come to the conclusion that since our world is so full of evil and suffering, there either isn’t a God, or if there is, it cannot be the God of the Bible. But is that the case? Does it logically follow that the existence of evil either “disproves” God or is inconsistent with the idea of God’s existence?
On more than one occasion, I’ve had someone say to me, “I can’t believe in God because I see a world that is full of evil and suffering.” I often respond to them by saying, “Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me as if you’re really saying that when you look around the world, you see a world that is not the way it’s supposed to be- that things are not as they should be.” Of course, such a comment only makes sense if there really IS a way things are supposed to be, referring to some original plan or purpose. To put it another way, how does one know what evil is unless they know what good is? And how do they know what good is unless there is some objective standard outside of us, by which to differentiate between the two? According to C.S. Lewis, this same observation regarding evil was instrumental in leading him out of his atheism. As he puts it, “(As an atheist) my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
So, as it turns out, rather than disproving God, the question of the problem of evil actually requires God’s existence in order to make any sense. Without Him, our observations and objections to “the problem of evil” become meaningless and irrelevant.
Tags: atheism, atheists, Einstein, Evil, Problem of evil
Posted in Evil | 20 Comments »
Playing the Hate Card
Monday, May 31st, 2010
I’ve always had a fascination with magicians and illusionists. When I was a kid, my father would order magic tricks from a mail-order novelty company and I was always anxious to impress the kid next door with my “prowess” as a magician. Although I never pursued it as a serious career or hobby, I am still impressed when I have the opportunity to watch some skilled magician who does so professionally. One thing that’s clear is that in order to become a successful illusionist, one must master the ability to divert people’s attention away from the very thing that they were supposed to be watching.
Diverting people’s attention away from the important thing is something that is certainly not limited to the world of magicians and illusionists. For example, in debate there is a fallacy known as a “red herring” where someone introduces something that has little or nothing to do with the subject being discussed, in an attempt to divert the other person’s attention away from the main issue or topic.
Of all of the diversionary tactics that people use these days, there is one in particular that I wish to focus on at this time. I call it “playing the hate card.” By that, I’m referring to any situation where someone FALSELY accuses another person of being “hateful” or “spreading hate.” No doubt, there are times when this accusation is made in a legitimate way. But more often than not, people who falsely accuse others of hate are using it as a diversionary tactic to draw people’s attention away from the real issue at hand. Worse yet, it is now being used by many as a bullying tactic intended to intimidate or to silence others from merely stating their view. If you watch closely, you will notice that people often accuse others of hate for the simple fact that the other person happens to disagree with them.
Of course, there are a number of problems that arise when someone begins to illegitimately accuse others of hate or “hate speech.” For one thing, they are often being inconsistent from a moral standpoint. Those who play the “hate card” are oftentimes the very same people who claim to believe that when it comes to matters of right and wrong, each person should be allowed to “decide for himself.” But clearly they don’t believe that each of us should be allowed to decide whether or not hate is wrong. They believe that spreading hate is morally wrong for everyone- that it’s absolutely wrong.
Another thing that’s tricky about falsely accusing others of hate is that the knife cuts both ways. In other words, if someone labels you as “hateful” just because you happen to disagree with their view, then by their own definition of “hate”, it makes them just as hateful since they obviously disagree with your view! Furthermore, when someone falsely accuses you of hate, they are encouraging others to hate you for something that you’re not even guilty of.
When it comes to this recent redefining of the word “hate”, I think that the most dangerous thing of all is that it is now being used to silence or punish Christians for sharing the Gospel and for speaking out on social issues. If you don’t believe me, just ask Swedish pastor Ake Green. A few years ago, pastor Green was arrested and charged with violating one of Sweden’s “hate crimes” laws. His crime? During a Sunday morning message, within the privacy of his own church, he made mention of the fact that
God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual depravity. What happened to pastor Green is not an isolated incident and it’s already beginning to happen here in America as well.
The bottom line is that “playing the hate card” is usually nothing more than name-calling, labeling, bullying, and intimidation. It is often used by those who are unwilling to engage in open, honest discussion on important issues that impact our lives. It is unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and contributes nothing towards any real social progress- especially when it comes from those who pride themselves on being known as “progressive.”
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 7 Comments »
Undermining the Basis for Science
Monday, May 17th, 2010
A few years ago, a close friend of mine invited me to join him in attending an afternoon lecture at ASU that was open to the general public. The speaker was a professor of zoology who also happened to be a staunch evolutionist. His lecture that day was dealing with the topic of Intelligent Design. For those who may not be familiar with the term, Intelligent Design (I.D.) is basically the scientific investigation of living systems that reveal striking examples of design, thus implying a designer behind it. Proponents of I.D. do not make any claims as to who the designer is, only that evidence of an intelligent designer is clearly present. As those attending the lecture were about to find out, not only was this professor absolutely closed-minded to the possibility of I.D., he was a cynical opponent to the very notion of a designer.
Throughout the entire lecture, in various ways, he continued to drive home the point that “no REAL scientist would ever allow for the possibility of a designer behind the design.” His presentation included political cartoons that portrayed I.D. scientists as inept, ignorant, ‘pseudo-scientists’ not worthy of serious attention. By the time he was finished, he had left the students with the impression that there are two distinct categories of people when it comes to the origins debate. On one side, you have those who are bright, intelligent, educated people who are smart enough to know that evolution is a ‘fact’ and that there is nothing outside of the material world- especially God. On the other hand, you have those who dare to question evolution, but they only do so because they are ignorant, uneducated, pitiful, superstitious types, most of whom are only pretending to be real scientists. That was his overall message, but the scenario he had presented that day is a false dichotomy.
During the question and answer time, my friend and I pointed out to the professor that if we are expected to take his claims seriously, then what are we to make of someone such as the late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, professor and lecturer, who held three doctorates and authored or co-authored over seventy scientific publications and thirty books that included such topics as the scientific problems with evolutionary theory and the scientific case in favor of a Creator. Furthermore, what are we to make of the growing list of scientists who have recently signed on to a document openly stating their dissent from Darwinism?
Had time allowed, there were many other things that we could have said that afternoon to point out that “the emperor has no clothes”, but the most telling thing of all occurred to me as we were leaving the building after his lecture. As we stepped outside, I looked back and noticed that on the front of the very building that we had just exited, there were several names engraved across the top of the building for all to see. The list included such notable names as Pasteur, Newton, and Kepler. It is no accident that the architect intended for those names to appear on that building because those names represent some of the ‘Founding Fathers’ of science. More importantly, those very same scientists all shared something in common- they all held the view that there IS a Creator behind the creation and that He has revealed Himself through that which He has made. More than that, they also felt that through scientific investigation of His creation they would be able to understand more about Him.
Maybe it’s a good thing that we didn’t get a chance to bring this to the attention of the professor. Had we done so, he may very well have demanded that the university plaster over those names in an attempt to expunge their memory from science’s ‘Hall of Fame’. But, try as he may, that professor will never be able to blot out the enormous contributions that they have made in laying the very foundation of modern science- the same science of which he has been a beneficiary as well.
Tags: and Kepler, ASU, creation, creationism, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, evolution, Intelligent Design, Newton, Pasteur, Science, scientist
Posted in Science | Comments Off
Why NOT Discuss Politics and Religion?
Monday, May 3rd, 2010
It’s election time again which means that it’s time for voters to begin the process of weighing out the candidates as well as the issues that are up for discussion. Once again, friends, family members, and co-workers will engage in discussions that tend to come up during a political year. Unfortunately, conversations of that nature have a tendency to stir up people’s emotions and before long, what started out as a civil discussion often turns into a heated argument. Eventually, some well-meaning person listening in will try to ‘put out the fire’ by saying, “You see? That’s exactly why I say that you should never discuss politics and religion!” But even though people often say such things, there is a very real sense in which everyone brings politics and religion into their normal, day-to-day conversations and they don’t even realize it.
Take religion, for example. I often hear ‘unbelievers’ say, “Don’t bring religion into this!” (By that, they usually mean “Don’t bring Christianity or Christian values into this!”) But the fact of the matter is that even those who would consider themselves “non-religious” have a ‘religious’ view of their own. The reason that they may not think so is because most people today think of religion as ‘a belief in God’, but such a simple definition is inadequate because there are some religions (such as Buddhism) that do not necessarily believe in God. So, that brings us back to the question, “What is a religion?” A religion is fundamentally a worldview, a perspective, a set of assumptions, a ‘lens’ if you will, through which a person looks at everything in life in order to try and explain how all of life fits together in a coherent and comprehensive way. It is a ‘framework’ through which a person is trying to make sense of the world around them. This is extremely important to understand because it tells us that everyone, whether they realize it or not, is operating on a set of beliefs (a worldview). This means that everyone, including the atheist, is ‘religious’ in that sense. Furthermore, it tells us that ALL views expressed are ‘religiously motivated’ because they are an expression of that person’s worldview. In other words, any time an individual gives their perspective on a matter in almost any conversation they are, in fact, bringing their religion into the conversation just as much as anyone else!
Even political discussions are not entirely avoidable. Why? Because political issues are ultimately about moral principles. They have to be. If you don’t believe me, think for a moment about the kind of issues that we typically refer to as ‘political issues’. Most political issues involve that which is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, fair or unfair- all of which are moral issues. Even the questions of how and why people should be treated equally are moral questions. In other words, by what objective moral standard did we determine that it is right (morally) to treat people equally and that it would be immoral to not treat people equally?
So, just as with religion, everyone has a moral point of view and they are asserting their moral point of view every time they use words such as ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘fair’, ‘unfair’, ‘just’, ‘unjust’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘should’, ‘shouldn’t’, ‘ought’, ‘ought not’, (etc.). It’s unavoidable. So, the next time you hear someone insist that people shouldn’t get into discussions about politics and religion, you may want to point out to them that they just did!
Tags: election, moral issues, morality, Politics, Politics and Religion, Religion, Right or wrong, worldview
Posted in Christianity and Culture | 6 Comments »
Being Hypocritical About Hypocrisy
Monday, April 19th, 2010
Once again, the Catholic Church is in the news and, once again, it involves allegations of priests within the Church sexually abusing minors. As would be expected, it has been a feeding frenzy for the media, with each news outlet rushing to outdo the other when it comes to breaking the big story. There’s really nothing unusual about the media jumping all over a sensational story- we’ve come to expect that. What I do find unusual is that they seem to get a certain pleasure out of covering any sort of scandal, particularly those that involve the Church, religious leaders, televangelists, and the like. I suppose it is because the media and, in fact, most people in our culture today have expressed a real disgust for hypocrisy. But while most people today feel that ‘hypocrisy’ is a term that applies only to those within the religious community who act inappropriately, the truth of the matter is that the term ‘hypocrite’ actually applies to anyone and everyone who behaves in a way that is inconsistent with their particular worldview. As a result of this misunderstanding, what is often overlooked is the hypocrisy of those outside of the Church who are quick to condemn the hypocrisy of those within the Church.
Keep in mind that, according to recent surveys, the majority of the big players in the media proudly admit that they are humanists, atheists, or agnostics. Given that they are looking at the world through the “lens” of atheism, etc., it logically follows that most of them would view matters of truth and morality as being “relative”. Therein lies their hypocrisy. For example, think for a moment how all of this relates to their reporting of the recent Church scandals. The very same media that is so quick to tell us how wrong it is to judge others, find themselves doing exactly that- passing judgment on the Catholic Church. Secondly, the same media that claims that there is no such thing as absolute truth, end up contradicting themselves by accusing the Church of covering up the scandals through deception and lies. Perhaps someone should point out to the media that a lie, by definition, is the denial of something that is absolutely true! Lastly, the very same editors, writers, and news anchors who insist that it’s wrong to force your morality on others, find themselves in the position of forcing their morality on the Church by condemning the immorality of its sex offenders as well as condemning the Church for its hypocrisy.
I don’t want anyone to miss the main point here. I am not, in any way, making excuses for those within the Catholic Church who have committed these terrible offenses. It is imperative that the truth is pursued and that the offenders be brought to justice just like anyone else. Still, there is a lesson in this for all of us. For those within the Church, it is a painful reminder that actions really do speak louder than words. Jesus reserved his strongest condemnation for religious leaders who acted hypocritically. That alone should be enough to motivate any Christian to live consistently with their message. But there is also a message in all of this for those outside of the Church- you can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to insist that there is no truth, that it’s wrong to judge others, and that it’s wrong for someone to impose their morality on someone else, then you must remain silent on this issue, because to do otherwise would be hypocritical on your part… and I know how much you hate hypocrisy.
Tags: christian ethics, Christianity, church, Hypocrisy, Hypocritical, Hypocritical about Hypocrisy, Jesus
Posted in Ethics | Comments Off
-
In today's world, there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to matters of truth, meaning, morality, our origin, and our destiny. The purpose of Renewed Thoughts is to bring clarity to such issues by examining them in light of a Biblical worldview, using the tools of science, philosophy, and critical thinking.