The other night NJ asked me one of the hardest questions he could ask, "Am I good?" He followed it up by, "Are people who don't love Jesus bad?" There may not be two questions with more potential pitfalls than those two.
If I were to tell NJ that he was good that would lead to doctrinal problems later. Why is the Gospel good news if I am already good? That sounds minor, but it is the lynchpin that holds the entire Christian faith together. If I am already good I do not need Christ's righteousness, and if that is the case Christ died in vain.
If I were to tell NJ that he was not good that would lead to behavioral problems later on. Kids live up to or down to the expectations placed on them. If NJ was told that he was bad he could just fit his behaviors to the standard of being bad. He has already asked in the past why he was not allowed to be bad, so I know he would like an excuse to lower the standards he has to live by.
I discussed this with Golden, and we are going to teach our kids that there are two types of good. This is a bit nuanced for early elementary-aged kids, but it is something they will need to understand at some point anyway.
The first type of good is righteous good. Neither Golden nor I are righteous good, NJ is not righteous good, CD is not righteous good. Our only hope is to rely on Jesus, and his righteous good is credited to us as our own righteous good, even though we are not good in and of ourselves. Technically, believers are concurrently not righteous good (of their own works), and are righteous good (through the work of Christ) at the same time.
The second type of good is behavioral good. NJ and CD are deep-down behavioral good because they are generally obedient and respectful. One does not need to love Jesus to be behaviorally good because apparently good behavior can come from all sorts of motivations. A lot of people mistake this kind of good, which is really too superficial to mean much morally, for the other kind of good because the word "good" is ridiculously broad.
So, I am hoping that as the kids grow they are able to have a better sense for what "good" is than I had. I think that would be good.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
torture is wrong
I include the video below only because I started thinking about this topic due to watching this tonight.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
a different means of encouragement
I am sorry that I have been away a while. Things pile up and a lot of things do not get done. I did have a quick thought that I wanted to share, however.
For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews. The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.
Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution. This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).
The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach. While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.
Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government? The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this. Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18). So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement. The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.
Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10). If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.
I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine. People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real." People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement. Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.
For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews. The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.
Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution. This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).
The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach. While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.
Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government? The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this. Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18). So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement. The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.
Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10). If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.
I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine. People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real." People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement. Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.
Friday, August 22, 2014
kids' independence
This is the first year that both of our kids are in elementary school. That in itself is quite a change, as we have had four years of having a kid in preschool leading up to this year. For whatever reason, something that happened today is as significant in grasping that our kids are growing up.
The elementary school that our kids attend is laid out in a confusing way. The primary hallway is circular, but there is also a branch off that circle that leads to further classrooms. As such, Golden had walked NJ (whose classroom is difficult to find) to his classroom a couple of times and CD to her classroom for the past week. While NJ has been walking to his class alone for several days, today was the first day that CD walked to her classroom without Golden. NJ passes that classroom on the way to his classroom, so he was supposed to help her get to where she needs to be.
I was thinking about that this morning. As a parent I am used to my youngest child at all times being under the direct supervision of an adult. In this case she was under the direct supervision of her eight-year-old brother (obviously, in a setting where there are responsible adults). The idea that our youngest is now at the age where there can been short periods of time where she has that sort of independence gives me pause.
As a dad, this is all exciting. I think that it is more difficult for Golden as a mom. We both know that our kids are growing up.
The elementary school that our kids attend is laid out in a confusing way. The primary hallway is circular, but there is also a branch off that circle that leads to further classrooms. As such, Golden had walked NJ (whose classroom is difficult to find) to his classroom a couple of times and CD to her classroom for the past week. While NJ has been walking to his class alone for several days, today was the first day that CD walked to her classroom without Golden. NJ passes that classroom on the way to his classroom, so he was supposed to help her get to where she needs to be.
I was thinking about that this morning. As a parent I am used to my youngest child at all times being under the direct supervision of an adult. In this case she was under the direct supervision of her eight-year-old brother (obviously, in a setting where there are responsible adults). The idea that our youngest is now at the age where there can been short periods of time where she has that sort of independence gives me pause.
As a dad, this is all exciting. I think that it is more difficult for Golden as a mom. We both know that our kids are growing up.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
forgiving the well-known
Most people like to be righteously indignant about someone else's objectively bad behavior. I am no different. The question I have is at what point do we need to let that indigence go and allow for someone to move on with their lives.
A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness. It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God. This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians. We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.
The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West. For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra. This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.
Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind. These are just the well-known ones, though. In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power. None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?
My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed. I don't think I am alone in that. It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings. As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals. That is my struggle.
A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness. It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God. This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians. We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.
The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West. For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra. This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.
Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind. These are just the well-known ones, though. In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power. None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?
My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed. I don't think I am alone in that. It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings. As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals. That is my struggle.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
contentment
Last week I completed a six month read through the Bible which ate up more of my spare time than I anticipated it would. This has been enlightening, but it has solidified my belief in something that causes me a great deal of concern. God promises a lot of things in the life to come, but in this life we are promised little more than fulfillment and faith.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
"I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles."- Philippians 4:10-14To summarize, Paul understood relative wealth and poverty. In all of these circumstances he had learned the secret to contentment. The implication is that this is found in the Lord. The challenge to my faith lies in the fact that we are not promised easy lives. We are only promised that Christ's strength can give us contentment in the middle of difficult times.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
toy cars and fireworks
Last week we visited my parents' house for the Independence Day holiday. There were two noteworthy things about the visit.
First, my mom pulled out some of my old toy cars for the kids to play with. I did not expect CD to get excited about playing with them, but she found some Micro Machines that she liked. Her statement to me was that the were cute, and she asked if I thought they were cute when I was a kid. I told her that is not the word I would have used.
Second, I do not recall being anywhere where there were more fireworks being set off by random people in the neighborhood than this last weekend in the town in Nebraska where my parents currently live. Every July Fourth brings some fireworks no matter where I am, but I was not used to half the neighborhood in their driveways setting off fireworks at once. I think this is due to the official display being on the night before the Fourth.
First, my mom pulled out some of my old toy cars for the kids to play with. I did not expect CD to get excited about playing with them, but she found some Micro Machines that she liked. Her statement to me was that the were cute, and she asked if I thought they were cute when I was a kid. I told her that is not the word I would have used.
Second, I do not recall being anywhere where there were more fireworks being set off by random people in the neighborhood than this last weekend in the town in Nebraska where my parents currently live. Every July Fourth brings some fireworks no matter where I am, but I was not used to half the neighborhood in their driveways setting off fireworks at once. I think this is due to the official display being on the night before the Fourth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
