Being Good, for Goodness Sake

If you would ask most people about their spiritual condition they would respond in a way that was related to the goodness they perceive within themselves.  Generally speaking, everyone ranks themselves as being a fairly good person.  On the grand measuring scales of "Walking Old Ladies Across the Street VS Tripping Old Ladies" most people feel that things are heavily weighted in favor of them being quite good people.  And SHOCKINGLY most people rarely would stack the cosmic karma scales of their life to be heavier on the "Not Good" side.

Now we all know someone(or many ones) who are themselves not in any way a "good person".  But when it comes to ourselves, we consider it a fairly cut and dry case of being quite good indeed.  Sure, we did that one thing that one time, but...there was a good reason for it...and we won't do it again.   And if God exists he must surely be measuring and evaluating us by the very standards we have accepted on our own behalf...and therefore....we are good to go!

This self-assured self-rigtheousness is a natural philosophical outflow of the moral autonomy of our age.  If WE are the final arbitrers of what is right and good then we can set the standards and provide the weights and measures of evaluation and however it is we set it we obviously will find ourselves on the good side of things.  How illogical would it be for us to create our own self-defined system of morality that we didn't personally agree with and line up with??  Our personal preferences rule the day.  And when we feel "righteous anger" at immoral people it is based upon the standards that we have agreed to as being what is and isn't morally appropriate.

But are we truly morally autonomous?  Is morality simply a constructed and flexible system that bends to the wills of the individuals and groups who seek to employ its paradigm for preferential reasons??

While other, much more smarterer people than I, have delved deep into this topic I will only simply say that if morality is self, or even culturally, constructed, than it is not an absolute morality in any meaningful sense.  What is good today is only perhaps going to be good tomorrow.  If morality is not an immaterial absolute that we can count on then we all just have little self-created kingdoms of preferences and opinions.

So back on the treadmill you go, running hard after that elusive ill defined concept of morality and being good for the sake of being "good" without any promise that it has any actual significance beyond the reach of your own experience.

Philosophically speaking one must hope to no small degree that there really isn't God out there.  If we honestly recognize that we are not able to self-discern absolute morality, yet feel driven to care about morality, we recognize that morality is a burden set upon us.  And the God who is Himself absolute(by definition) assuredly has more stringent standards of morality than that which you place upon yourself.

Recall how you easily recognize the moral failings of those who aren't you, how much more so will an infinite God recognize within yourself?

In response to that we have two popular forms of addressing this disconnect.

Secular Moralism and Religious Legalism

They are basically different sides of the same coin.  An attempt made by the effort and the will to jump through enough hoops to be "good enough".  We set forth tasks and rules by which we can rank how succesful we have been at accomplishing the important task of being as good as we need to be.  But even that "need to be" is hard to pin down.....how good really is good enough????

The easiest way we deal with this internal struggle is finding more and more faults in others.  Because, if we are obviously better in our moral choices, lifestyle, and religious practices, than THOSE people, then we must surely be "ok".

But is that really the whole story and our hope?



14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 
  - Colossians 2:14-17

The message of the Good News is that there IS truth, morality, ethics, value in choices, etc.  AND that we are all falling short.  Now, instead of Jesus offering new and better ways to just be good enough to be good enough, He takes our sin and failures to the cross and nails them there.  The morality that yous sense, and the rules you try to follow, all exist to point to the hope that we have in the finished work of Christ.

Our hope is not found in how good we can be, but in Jesus.  God's love for you is not dependent on how honestly you try to be really good person.  But in Christ, and Christ Alone, you have been made Good for His Goodness' Sake!

Everything else is a promise of new ladders to climb and treadmills to run on.  Christ invites you to stop trying to make yourself good enough, but to rest in His goodness.  Everything flows out of that.

Are you good because you are trying to earn something, or, are you good because He was good to you?  It's a difference that makes all the difference.

It's The End of the World and I Feel Fine

Once upon a time there was a little chicken, and everybody called him-- Chicken Little.

And one day while he was out walking, up in the sky a bird flew over and it dropped an acorn, and the acorn fell down and-- bip-- bopped him on his head. Chicken Little said “AWK! ” and looked up, and didn’t see anything, and he looked down and didn’t see anything.

So he said “Help, help the sky is falling! Help, help the sky is falling! I have to tell the King!” And he went running down the road, looking for the King.

Did you know that Christianity is dying?  While Time magazine asked the question about God's death a bit early(1966) , it seems that we we have finally caught up to their prophetic words...well not prophecy if these isn't a God,...so...good guess???..... This past week the Pew Forum published the results of their survey concerning the religious affiliations of Americans.  The big take away?  Self-identified Christians have shrunk as a representation of the population quite precipitously.  

If you are a believer, the sky seems to be indeed falling.  If you, on the other hand, have been praying(I mean wishing to science) that religious sentiments would go the way of the DoDo bird, the report was an encouraging affirmation of personal bias and hopes.

Is the sky really falling?  Are we on the precipice of the end of Christianity as we know it?  

Not exactly.

Ed Stetzer wrote a response to the Pew data and points out a glaring missing point.  Evangelical Christianity has GROWN nearly 3 million during the time period of the survey.  What the Pew survey shows is not actual numbers, but the share of the population.  During the time of the survey we have seen a rapid population growth from many regions of the world where Evangelical Christianity is far behind Catholic identification(though Catholocism shrank noticeably within their survey data).  And so while Evangelical Christianity clearly grew, it didn't grow as fast as the total population growth...THEREFORE...they shrunk as a portion of the population.

Something DID land on our heads.  It just wasn't the whole sky.  

What are we supposed to make of all of this?  How should we respond?  Should we be worried.

Let's make a couple of important broad points clear;

1- Truth is not a popularity contest.  Even if Evangelical Christianity was shrinking, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other about its veracity.  Conversely, its growth, in and of itself, doesn't prove anything either.  

2-  The goal of the Gospel is not to have the largest voting bloc and strongest political influence of other groups.  If anything, that is a distraction that has lead, historically, to terrible compromises and destructive behaviors.  

Within this there is something that we SHOULD be glad of.  And let me be clear, I don't mean glad in the sense of this being something great because of what it means in an eternal sense.....  

NO MORE PRETENDING!

For a long time Christianity has been synonymous with social/political order.  Meaning, without any personal thought or conviction, people would just identify as Christians without any concern of whether or not it really meant anything.  As the cultural pendulum has swung away from this there is no longer artificial social pressures to continue to identify with that which you do not really take seriously.  

Look at the "mainline" denominations today and you will see what the results of generations of nominal Christians have created.  One of the largest historical denominations in the US is the Presbyterian Church of The USA.  About a decade ago guess what they took out of their doctrine?  That Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.  He is now listed as "unique to our faith tradition".  

For those who are not nerds for etymology like myself....the term, "Christian" is rooted in identifying with, and proclaiming, Jesus Christ(hence Christian) as the Son of God and the one and only hope for Salvation for all man kind.  You may disagree with this statement, BUT, that is the definition in a nutshell of what a Christian is and believes.  

Why do I think the mainline denominations are hemorrhaging members over the last decade?  Because they have become social clubs that don't make any claims to Truth, nor claims that that Truth has a claim on YOU.  At the end of the day, if what we do in "this" group is interchangeable with any other group, it becomes easy to become disengaged.  

The modern church has become what we were warned about in 2 Timothy 4:3---people gathering around teachers to tell them exactly what they want to hear.  And lets be honest, deep down inside, we don't really want(or NEED) an echo chamber affirming our self-centerdness.  We are desperate for Truth. We are desperate for conviction.  Accountability.  ETERNITY.  And talking about things that are nothing special, just "unique" to us, ain't cutting it.

So they sky IS falling.  But not in the way some people are going to tell you.  And before your sky starts to collapse on you make sure you are building towards eternity in Christ and Christ alone, because that is the foundation that will never fall.

Jesus, the Demon

My son has a pretty arbitrary standard for whether or not he likes you....Do you do what HE wants.....  He is a very opinionated and strong willed child(clearly from his mother...) and he has little patience for things that aren't exactly what he wants.  Everything that goes in opposition to his desires creates the most dramatic responses. 

If he does not get what he wants he will go to the nuclear option immediately.  Phrases that he uses way too often are, "You're the worst", or, "I don't want you as a daddy anymore".  While we work on correcting this behavior, it is a very insightful look into our own hearts. 

I know that you probably don't tell people they are the worst if they won't give you a piece of candy....but you do get angry and reject people who do not live up to your arbitrary standards.  We view the worth of a person by the degree to which they please us.  When we honestly examine our emotional responses to people, negative and positive, they are deeply interwoven with how we perceive their actions and their affects on us. 

Ultimately, this heart attitude is a defining characteristic of our response to God, the Bible and Christ.  We ask ourselves, "How does this make me FEEL?"  When we perceive something being in contradiction to how we feel, or, what we want, we become belligerent towards God.  Or, we just ignore Him all together.  While we generally like the concept of a Holy Deity who loves us and has a plan for us, we want that love and plan to be shaped by our desires.  And when it conflicts with those self-centered priorities we say, "you're the worst".

Often the core issue for people's rejection of the claims of Christ and the reliability of Scripture comes from a place of strong personal disagreement and rejection of Truth claims that are in opposition to personal preferences.  I can't count the number of times I have heard the argument against God and the Bible based upon a personal disagreement on "this" issue.  Never is there a willingness to engage in the possibility that a finite, subjective and personal preference is potentially incorrect and mistaken in contrast to the possibility of a perfect and Holy creator King of all the universe. 

My son doesn't yet concede the possibility that it is likely NOT a good thing for him to have MORE candy.  He wants what he wants, and I am his enemy(even though briefly) for being an obstacle to him obtaining his selfish desires. 

In John 8 Jesus finally throws down the gauntlet.  First, he has spent the last few days telling everyone that all their hyper-religious behavior is of no real value, then he calls them children of the devil, and finally, strike three, he claims to be the great, "I AM".  And at this point they decided that it was time to kill this offensive fellow.(vs 58-59) 

As Jesus is doing and saying all of this they respond by saying that Jesus is clearly demon possessed.(v 48)  They don't like what they hear, they don't appreciate that he calls them on their behavior that they are selfishly convinced is the "right" and "righteous" way to behave.  So they become antagonistic towards him.  Their rejection is based upon a purely emotional response to being told that what they like and what they want isn't "ok".  Who is he, they think, to tell us that there is a right way to come to God, and that OUR way is not it??

Either Jesus is who He claims to be(The Great I AM) or he is not.  If He is, we need to humble ourselves, because no matter how firmly we hold onto our preferences and beliefs we are standing in opposition to the Most High.  You might REALLLLY want that piece of candy right now, but at what cost?

Reality; we are like toddlers who are told "no". 

  

Group Think and Peer Pressure

We lack the strength of our convictions.  In so many ways, in so many places, we substitute individual thinking(and risk taking) for the safety of "group think".  When instead of personally defended facts and figures we lean on the ambiguous concept of "consensus" we are abdicating our responsibility to be independent moral agents and thinkers.  And here is the great inherent risk in such cowardice; Agreeing with the group will not protect you when your individual choices come home to roost. 

If everyone says that drinking bleach is good for you, there is no healing to be found when you lie in a hospital bed and say, "But but but, the "experts" said it was ok". 

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living".   How much of life today is not worth living!  Sitting in our comfortable bubbles we expect others to do our thinking for us.  If something a bunch of people say sounds good to us, it is good enough.  Whether scientifically, politically, personally, religiously, we are in a constant tension of trying to pretend that truth is created by trending hashtagged phrases on social media.

And it is killing us.

Internally and externally. 

Here is the thing about truth;  It has no problems with being questioned!  If you question someone, or, something, and the response is mockery, ridicule, and general offendedness, then it should be a red flag that truth may not be found in such claims.  Stop asking yourself, "What do others believe?" and start asking, "What is true?"

In John 7:48 the Pharisees are furious that people are listening to Jesus.  Does one of their leaders stand up and say, "Here is my 5 point argument, with Torah footnotes, that show in detail why Jesus is a crazy person, feel free to critique my points!" ?  No, they say, "Do any of us leaders believe him??  Of course not!!!" 

No one is willing to put their individual name on the line.  They just hide behind their group think.  They never seem to want to respond to anything Jesus specifically states, they just keep arguing that the "consensus" by those who "know better" is that Jesus is a crazy person. 

We are made as individuals.  We are responsible to respond to truth claims as individuals.  Either Jesus is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and rose again, or, He is not.  There is no arguing about what other people might think.  Too often we defer our personal responsibilities by arguing about peripheral details.  Like, "What about aborigine Joe from 4000 BC?", or, "But 'those' people don't act very nice(in my opinion)". 

You, and you alone, have to address who Christ is.  Or, not.  Again, it is you and you alone who is responsible.

Don't drink bleach because someone else said it was ok.  And, don't avoid bleach because someone else said you should.  The double edge sword is if you make any decision because someone told you to, you will eventually question the reasoning.  If a friend tells you to not drink bleach and that is the only reason you don't, what if you find out that friend is a liar?  You might throw out his reasonably good point of not drinking bleach.

Make your own decisions.

 

Compromising Compromise

Compromise is the name of the game.  The rules are; If you are going to be a good person who isn't criticized by others, you must compromise your position to accommodate someone else's perspective. 

Politicians are criticized when they refuse to compromise.  Regardless of how far apart a position may be from yours, the fact that you won't bend your idea/conviction to mesh with an arguably diametrically opposed position you are an "obstructionist".  If you are part of a Church or religious organization that boldly states "This is in alignment with Biblical truth, THIS is not" you are fundamentalist wackos that hopefully will implode and cease to exist. 

Rarely is there every a thoughtful interaction with the position you are refusing to compromise on.  By virtue of your lack of compromise, you are to be discounted, mocked, criticized and ostracized. 

When we are kids we learn about this concept in a much more negative context.  We call it peer pressure.  And, peer pressure is rarely used to describe a positive influence.  Instead, we teach our kids that regardless of what other people say, you need to stick to what is right.  You know the cliché....if all your friends jumped off a bridge......

As we age we morph the negative connotations of peer pressure and dress it up as the virtue of "compromise".  Oddly, compromise rarely indicates raising standards, but lowering them.  You never hear about peer pressure that forced some poor teenager into doing their homework.  Or, a compromising politician who leaves some aspect of abortion "rights" on the table for the sake of compromise.  It nearly always requires moving from higher moral and ethical standards to lower ones.

¹⁴ Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?   -- 2 Corinthians 6:14

What does it mean to be unequally yoked?  Does it mean to completely disavow a relationship with unbelievers, to ostracize them, to cut them off from fellowship?

No.

It indicates that we are not to give "equal" footing to that which is evil(darkness) with that which is light(God's truth).  Compromise demands that we treat all opinions as equally valid, therefore, it should be completely acceptable to give a bit on your position because, Hey, there is no real difference. 

If someone had a position that they wanted to kill you, and your position was to not be dead.  What is the compromise that you should find?  That only your arm is shot?  Don't be obtuse.  There is no compromise in this scenario.  What that person wants you to accept(being dead) is unacceptable regardless of the circumstances.

Compromise is too often nothing more than peer pressure with facial hair and a 401k.  If something is true and right, don't compromise.  Stand for truth.  

PS---Clearly there are scenarios where compromise is good.  For example;  My wife wants Chinese for dinner, and I want Mexican.  So we compromise by getting Chinese......When I talk about compromise here, I am referring to moral and ethical issues, not where you are going to eat tonight. 

Who Do You Think Jesus Is?

One of the neatest toys from childhood is Mr Potato Head.  A simple little toy with hundreds of options.  When I was a kid my favorite thing was to make the potato head into a creature straight from a nightmare...Eyes where the arms go, arms out of the eyes, nose on top of the head.  It just wasn't as fun to just make him look normal.

That attitude of remaking everything to suit our own needs/desires is a pretty common one.  We try to remake our spouses, our friends, our jobs, our kids, etc.  Too often we don't want to accept things and people the way they are, we want to remold them after our own images. 

And this attitude influences our relationship with God.

God and Jesus have been through quite a makeover the past few decades.  Amazingly the makeover has less to do with God Himself, and more with culture.  The God of scripture has always stood over cultural trends and eras, but lately it would appear that an "evolving" society is tired of a God who draws us to Himself and out of our selves, but instead is looking for a god that will follow and affirm where we have already decided to go.

I was recently reading an article about someone's problems with the bible and church.  An actual statement was that the bible needs to be updated and revised to be more in alignment with our new society.  This is the sort of god that is no longer an "embarrassment" to those with more nuanced and modern sensibilities.  It is a god that is a fancy designer handbag to wear as a philosophical accessory.

The response by orthodox believers and the church has sadly been unhelpful.  It's not that they don't try to speak truth when issues arise, but that they are spending all their time running from fire to fire desperately trying to put it out, without ever addressing the problem of what is starting all of these fires.

¹⁵ “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
¹⁶ Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
                  Matthew 16:15-16

At the heart of all of these debates is that we are not asking and answering the fundamental question....Who IS Jesus. 

When Jesus becomes nothing more than an accessory to add and remove depending on our current whims, than we can manipulate him to fit into any box we desire.  Don't like what he has to say about sin, pop out that interchangeable part and pop in some "love" instead.  Worried that his statements about sex and marriage are too antiquated, pop that out, pop in some affirming philosophical mumbo jumbo that makes you feel better. 

If the answer to the question of who do we say He is, is that He is the Messiah, then all of that changes radically.  The son of the Living God, the King of Creation, the Risen Messiah, is not some childish toy that we manipulate and adapt to be more appealing to our current thought processes.  Instead of demanding He adhere to our standards, we are forced to recognize that it is us that must adhere to His.

Timothy Keller wrote that if the God we are following seems to always agree with how we feel, then we are not following God at all, just an idealized idolatrous image of ourselves.  If Jesus is the Messiah, than there is a implied correlating truth;  You are NOT the messiah.  This means that our own opinions and thoughts on a matter should be held skeptically.  The goal is not finding a way to shoe horn God's opinion into alignment with our own, but to be willing to submit our thinking to His Truth. 

As long as we do not address this fundamental issue, "Who IS Jesus??", we will always be putting out fires.  Should we speak truth in the face of falsehood?  Sure.  But if we do not address the heart of the matter, there will always be another fire to put out. 

What good is a Church?

We Americans love our individualism.  No one to tell us what to do, no one to tell us we are wrong.  One of the reasons entrepreneurship is so high in the good ole US of A is that so many people don't like working for/with other people.  And we like our "religious" life like we like our jobs.  Our own!

A friend of mine from my former ministry world was married to a great gal who I enjoyed highly.  On the outside they seemed like a loving God fearing couple who enjoyed serving in ministry together.  Not long after they left their ministry "jobs" they stopped attending church all together.  They were looking to do something more "organic" and felt the structured formality of the "church" was a hindrance to real ministry. 

A few years after that my friend decided he just wasn't interested in marriage anymore and since he knew God just wanted him to be happy he called it quits on his wife and young child.  A few of us went to confront him about it and it was the most odd conversation I remember ever having with someone.  He had always had some fringe theological beliefs but his new positions were completely unhinged from scripture.  When we asked him what Christian men he was involved with who he would allow to speak into his life he claimed he didn't need it because he had the Holy Spirit....which was continuing to confirm for him everything he wanted to do anyways....

Today he refuses to talk to any Christians, and not even his own parents, because everyone in his life stood up against his crazy and self-serving viewpoints.  He wanted to define Christianity through the lens of himself and was completely unwilling to be challenged on any of his viewpoints. 

I read a great quote by Timothy Keller the other day.  "If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself."

Today we worship ourselves, rarely do we worship the one true Living Creator God of all the Universe.  Who became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and who came to Earth, died on the cross, and rose again.  What is the most obvious way we show that we are worshipping self?

We leave the Church.

I don't mean you stopped attending the local First Liberty Baptist Methodist Living Water Tabernacle that your grandma went to.  I mean we have decided that we get to decide by ourselves what Christianity looks like and we don't want anyone getting in the way of interpreting God as high fiving us as we leave our wives and kids.....

Our favorite misquoted Bible Passage to support this travesty is Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” 

See?!?!?  I don't need a Church, just 2 of us and "BOOOM!!"  Church!! 

Yay proof texting.

As a reminder....Read more than a single sentence to understand the Bible. 

What is the full context of Matthew 18's claim of "2 or 3"?  It is about dealing with sin WITHIN the Church.  First you go privately, then you go with a few friends, then you go get the CHURCH.  Did you catch that?  This whole passage is written in the assumption that an individual is actively involved in their local Church.

I am not going to bore you with details here...But read for yourself.  The entirety of the New Testament is written in the context of believers tightly woven into the life of a local Church.  The assumption is that a Christian is WITHIN the local Church.  And what is the local church tasked with?  Holding firm to the faith, teaching truth, correcting sin, supporting their members, preaching the Gospel. 

Are many of the commands written to the Church able to be appropriately translated into the lives of individuals?  Of course.  But they are not distinctly separate from the community of believers.  There is no Biblical precedence for autonomous individuals creating their own version of Christianity outside of the life of the local body. 

So what good is the Church?

First:  Jesus established the Church and his disciples(apostles) established local churches to be the functioning and visible picture of the Universal Church.  The New Testament is written in the context of this community.  So before you talk about anything else, we have to recognize that being grafted into a local body of believers is the expected normal state of being for a Christian.

Second:  What about my friend I told you about?  The Church has a role in our lives to stand up for truth and call us to the carpet when we sin.  And not just private sin, but sin that harms others.  If we separate ourselves from the body, who will support you and call you out on your bologna?  I can theorize why he left the church....its quite simple really...he wanted to do what HE wanted to do, and didn't want anyone to call him out. 

The Church is the central and visible practice of the Christian life.  Sitting alone on a mountain top contemplating deep theological thoughts is not why Christ died for you.  

We like to think our individualism makes us so unique.  Instead, we are often just selfish and think we are better than others

 

Is it Illogical to Believe in God

I came across an interesting question on a Yahoo philosophy thread and thought I would respond...Hope you enjoy....

A being cannot be all powerful because they cannot create a rock which has the definition of being unliftable by that being. Which would imply that they cannot create something, or cannot lift something.

1st point: Are we right about what it means to be all powerful/omnipotent? Could an all powerful being create a rock they cannot lift and then proceed to lift it?

Assuming I am right about not being able to be all powerful:

One cannot be all knowing either. Because being all knowing would require the knowledge of knowing how to become all powerful, but that's not possible, so one cannot be all knowing:

2nd point: If something is impossible, can one know it? Does that fall inside the definition of knowing all things, even the impossible ones?

That's the end of the question, just one more bonus question for those who enjoy logic puzzles.

Can being all knowing be proven impossible because that would require the knowledge gained from experience of being eternally ignorant?

Thank you for your time and patience.

Update : I'm trying to generalize this a little more. Using my logic, assuming it is correct, can ANYTHING be all powerful, or omipotent if you prefer that term. And hence omniscient.

Update 2: Ok. I came here to discuss the logic, not what I am applying it to. If I wanted to talk about god, I'd be in the religious section, where I spend a part of my time anyways.

My Answer

The "flaw" in your logic is quite simple.  You are debating ideas/concepts that are not rooted in the Biblical revelation and nature of God. 

For example; If I was to tell you that cats are the worst pets and my "logic" for claiming that is due to their incessant barking my argument against cats would be invalid.  While it may be true that cats are a terrible pet, my argument against them is actually an inaccurate premise.  To appropriately argue against cats I have to actually address real facts about cats. 

To argue against the existence of God in this case(and I am assuming that you are addressing your concept of the Judeo-Christian view) you have to have a more complete understanding of what it is that this viewpoint contends is a true representation of God.  What you are contending in your "logical" question is not actually logical in the sense that you are interacting with a viewpoint of God that is not represented in scripture. 

Let me address why this particular argument is a flawed misrepresentation.

1)  You are beginning with the assumption that the Orthodox view of God is a deity who can "do" anything.  This leads you to then set up the impossible hypothesis.  A more contemporary and funnier example of this question would be, "Could Jesus heat up a burrito so hot he couldn't hold it??"

Why it's wrong: 

Scripture reveals constantly that there are "things" that God cannot do.  Specifically, He does not contradict Himself.  To put it simply, God is revealed in scripture as being Righteous.  (important to note, he doesn't ACT righteously, He is Himself righteous).  This means that His actions are at all times "Righteous".  It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to be Unrighteous.  This doesn't mean we always immediately grasp how a specific act we observe is Righteous.  But to logically argue against God(as you are attempting to do) requires recognizing what it is actually claimed about God.

To follow the Biblical logical understanding of God when addressing the "heavy boulder" question we have to first recognize that God(as described in the Bible) is "limited" in the sense that He will not act in contradiction to His nature.  Inherent in this understanding is that God is Himself logical, AND, the source for which logic is derived(you don't have to agree with this personally, but again, it is what God is actually described as, and that is the what you have tasked yourself with arguing against).  Therefore, if God is incapable of acting "illogically" creating silly hypotheticals that demand that He act against His nature and then using His inability to act against Himself as proof of His non-existence is an illogical position.

The only thing these sorts of questions reveal is that Truth and Logic are consistent and unbreakable. 

2)  You question the general concept of "all-knowing" and use your personal understanding/definition to undermine the possibility of a deity being all knowing.

Why it's wrong:

If there is someone/something that is all knowing we can also assume that you and I are not that person.  So, simply put, to try to conceptualize the idea of a being immeasurably beyond ourselves becomes a practice of the absurd. 

To be more specific towards your question we have to first go back to the original idea of God as described in Scripture and to also identify what we even mean by "knowledge".

If we are going to try to conceptualize God's knowledge we have to again deal with what it is we are actually interacting with.  The Biblical view of God details how God is not bound by time, space, existence in the same capacity we are.  He is described (to paraphrase) as being "outside" of time.  When we then take our limited and linear concept of acquiring knowledge and in some way try to apply a similar form of knowledge to the Biblical God we are going to be wildly off the mark. 

So while you and I experience knowledge as the ongoing process of "discovering" new truths and then also acquiring the appropriate knowledge required to accurately apply this new knowledge, this is not how the Biblical God is described.  Because of this linear and increasing process of seeking and acquiring knowledge that we experience, we have developed a notion that around every new corner we will discover new knowledge(we may not say so explicitly but we behave as if this is so).  This fundamental approach to knowledge develops within us a sense of with enough time and research we can always discover something new. 

In an indirect way you are applying and trying to retrofit this temporal idea of knowledge to the Biblical concept of God.  When we ask, can He have enough knowledge to know how to do something that is logically impossible(lifting an impossibly heavy boulder), we are assuming that there is no "end" to the process of acquiring knowledge.

Returning to point 1; God is Logic, and limited by His very nature.  It would be theologically and biblically incorrect to discuss God as learning new things.  Especially things that are inherently illogical.  This would be a direct contradiction to Himself. 

Let me use a silly analogy to illustrate the illogicalness(?) of this argument:

 

Could you plug an extension cord into itself and therefore provide yourself with unlimited and free energy?  Of course not.  Physics/electricity/nature are limited by their fundamental laws and realities.  No matter how much we study, and how many ways we learn to reconstruct the workings of the extension cord, we will never create a self-powering extension cord.

Knowledge, by definition, is limited to things that are actually knowable.  You can't "knowledge" your way into things that don't exist.  So could God, as described as being "all-knowing, have knowledge of things that contradict actual reality and Himself?  No, because logic dictates that knowledge is limited to things that are actually true.

Ultimately, while your questions are interesting, they are inherently illogical because they are arguing against an idea of God that is incomplete and not rooted in the description of God in the Bible.  If you are instead arguing; So, if someone said "this" kind of deity exists, here is why it is impossible....then your argument would be logical.  But you do not do that. 

 

Theology Vs. Love

This post is borrowing elements and insights from John Pipers book, "Think:  The Life of the Mind and the Love of God"(specifically chapters 5-7).  It is a good and challenging read that I encourage anyone to pick up for themselves.

Matthew 22:36-40
³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^{[a] 38} This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^{[b] 40} All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If the blogs are to be believed there is a great war within Christendom about the heart and future of the Church.  Heated exchanges between multiple camps draw distinct lines that say, "If you do not agree with this, you are out!"  Every public utterance has a response.  Each response receives a response.  And each response to a response receives a.....response. 

For most Christians who are not well versed in Scripture and Theology they are left to throw up their hands and say, "What about love?"  And even more difficult to understand is the perception of the damage to the Church's witness all the infighting seems to create. 

So, what do we do?  Do we step out of the debates and focus on Love?  Do we create new coalitions and draw bolder lines that all who step outside are no longer a part of the Church proper? 

Let me contend with you.  To avoid important theological debates is diametrically opposed to Love, AND, it may be important to draw more distinct lines of what it means to be a Christian.  And, to not do so is to bastardize beyond recognition the whole concept of Love.

Perhaps you find this confusing or offensive.  The whole idea that "dry and sterile" theological debate is a primary source for proper love is difficult for you to swallow.  Is not Jesus' greatest command to Love God and Love your Neighbor?  How do theological debates fit into that framework?

It fits perfectly.

How can you actually love someone when you do not know anything true about them?  You might love the "concept" or the "idea" about them, but you do not love THEM.  If my wife would ask me, "Why do you love me?"  It would be hurtful and ridiculous if I began to describe things that I love about her that are the actual opposite of who she is.  If I would tell her that one of the things I love about her is her dark straight hair, she would probably wonder what woman I was really describing because she is a natural curly headed blonde!  Or, what if I described the color of her eyes wrong, or had no actual idea what her favorite book/movie/date etc are?  Each wildly incorrect statement would be a dagger to her heart because it would tell her that I haven't really taken the time to actually know her and love her for her.

How can we love God, and love others, if we do not know what is true about them? Or, if we deny that which is true about them and only love them in the way WE want them to be?   The heart of sin starts in the garden with, "Did God REALLY say that?"  And from there we begin to craft God after our own image, instead of being shaped into His. 

So what about the greatest commandment?  It says its all about Love, right?  Well, yes and no.  Yes, because Loving God is at the heart of repentance and redemption.  No, because we do what I just described, love on our own terms, not His.  Which is no real love at all.

To understand this passage when it comes to loving our neighbors we cannot miss an important point.  The second command is LIKE the first.  Not the same as.  Not a perfect copy.  But like.  The way it is constructed is that it indicates that loving your neighbor is an outflow of the first commandment.  When you fulfill the first, you will be able to fulfill the second.  Conversely, if you do not fulfill the first, you cannot fulfill the second.

The first commandment is very important to grasp in its entirety as well.  It says to love the Lord your God with all of your Heart, Mind and Strength.  But what we miss in the English is the Greek verb usage in this passage.  The primary outflow of love is FROM our Heart.  The mechanism's by which we love in our heart is our Mind, AND we are to do so with great vigor(strength).  Meaning, to love God with all of our heart REQUIRES the work of the mind.  And to do so with commitment and dedication. 

This means that to fulfill the second command we must first love God out of an outflow of thinking truthfully and rightly about Him as a discipline of the use of our intellect.   How can we love truthfully when we desire to create our own truth and characteristics about Him and even deny those truths that He Himself has stated about Himself?

We cannot.

You do not have to agree with any position that the Bible gives.  But do not deny what the Bible says and say you are loving God.  They are intellectually diametrically opposed.  How can you say to your spouse, "I love you, as long as you are the opposite of what you really are?"

This is why, as troubling as it can be currently, the debates about Theology are essential.  To know and defend the truth about God is at the heart of Loving God, and therefore, Loving others.  Perhaps you disagree on some point or another, and that is ok.  Let's go to the Word and figure it out.  Because being right about Truth is of the utmost importance.  For both of us.  But let us have no more of this criticism of peoples criticism.  it is right and good to correct that which is incorrect FOR the sake of Love.

 

Arrogance, Sin, and Self-Centered Individualism; The Path to Loneliness

Sin is alienating in its natural state.  It will not share the spotlight with anyone or anything else.  When we embrace sin, in any form, we are creating a space between us and others...and ultimately God.  The choice to sin is rooted in a false perception that whatever this particular behavior is will show our "independence" and freedom from being told what to do.  This lie we tell ourselves also convinces us that WE are the ones in control.  Sinning is the active manifestation of a heart that wants to prove to itself that it really is in the drivers seat of life. 

Let me use an extreme example to illustrate this falsehood of "being in control"....

A young man wants to be independent from the oppressive and old fashioned rules of his parents/school/boss so he decides to try cocaine.  While there probably was not a moment where this young man thought, "I'll show them who is really in charge by doing coke!", at the very heart of this choice is this subconscious rebellion.  At first the experience feels liberating, power creating, and exciting.  So he does it again...and again....and again.   Before long(if not immediately as in some cases) this young man is hooked.  Who is really making choices in the addicts life?  The addiction...NOT the addict.  The desire to prove "independence" actually leads to debilitating DEPENDANCE. 

Addicts don't have many friends.  They can only be with people who are at the same place as them.  Addicted and destructive.  And those relationships only last as long as they are the "same place".  When the other person either can support, justify, or, participate in the addiction you can be with them.  When, for any reason, they no longer support your particular behavior, the relationships ends.  Addicts do not want to spend time with people who are not addicts(creates a sense of guilt), or, people who are worse addicts then themselves(so they can self-righteously judge how bad THEY are).  Relationships get narrowed down to only those who are exactly as messed up as you.

If you have ever watched the show, "Intervention"(about confronting addicts) there are a few common statements and mindsets that the addicts exhibit. 

1)  They don't have a problem(unless talking about their problem will get them something)

2)  It is in someway someone else's fault; parents, friends, boss, spouse

3)  Whatever problem they might have could simply be solved by the people in their life being more supportive. 

4)  They are fiercely protective of their "independence".  The thing that makes them the most angry is how they perceive everyone trying to "control" them.  As if they are currently the ones in control.....


In Malachi 3, starting in verse 13 God calls out Israel for this very sort of heart attitude and behavior.  After spending a big chunk of the book detailing how horrible Israel's sin has been, He points out that they are sitting around blaming God for their choices.  Their argument is basically, what's the point of being good, 1) You can't tell us what to do, and, 2) It's not like you are going to do anything about it anyways.....Bad people are clearly having all the fun, we are tired of all these boring rules.

In verse 16 we get an interesting juxtaposition from the words and attitude from verse 13.  "Then those who feared the Lord talked with each other".  The language and paragraph structure would make the case that those described in verse 16(God fearers) were part of the bunch of people complaining to God in verse 13.  But with a very important difference....

While their initial response(seemingly) was to go along with everyone else's sinful attitude, they moved past that and THEN(used to indicate a progression of the timeline to show that it is directly following the previous event) talked amongst themselves.  The passage doesn't give any specifics about what they did talk about, but it does have an interesting statement.  God noticed this behavior and their names were written in the scroll of remembrance and God would keep them as His.

So what's the big difference and deal here?  How does just 'talk amongst yourselves" lead to being God's?!?!

The key difference between the sin of verse 13(speaking out against God and embracing sin) is that the people described in verse 16 took that temptation to follow everyone else to selfish sin, moved past it, and found God fearing friends to talk through their struggle and have it be shaped by God's truth, not personal desires. 

The path of sin is one where we remove ourselves from fellowship.  We want to be mad and self-righteous about our behavior.  To blame everyone and everything else.  The only people we want around are those who are going to agree with us.  Anything else is offensive and annoying. 

The path of healing and righteousness is through God centered truth that is encouraged and challenged by those in your life.  It requires laying down self-centeredness and, together, seeking God centered truth.  This leads to deeper fellowship and friendship because the whole premise of the relationship is built upon not individual desires, but Godly desires.  Since it isn't about us in the first place, it creates a space where we can also be about others. 

Today we tell people that the only way to be a good friend to someone else is by accepting them just as they are.  Which becomes translated as, "Celebrate whatever they do, and, never say anything negative about their choices......"  The only people in Malachi that are shown in fellowship(friendship) with each other are those who are talking about God's truth together.  Everyone else in Malachi is just presented as selfishly complaining to God and ignoring their sin.....NEVER with someone else...just alone....

You and I need friends who do not accept and encourage sin.  Those are the friendships that lead to loneliness.  When we are encouraged to be selfish, we are ultimately going to be selfish...and friendless.  True friendship are those who will not accept sin in your life, but will stand right with you no matter how dirty it might be and talk to you about God's truth. 

Tired of being lonely.  Stop looking for people who don't love you enough to speak truth.   

     

Start asking yourself, are the people in your life really friends, or, are they "enemies"

My Problems

I know two things that are completely and inarguably true:  1)  I have problems.  2)  They are because of me.  Actually, I know a third thing that is also true: 3) You are exactly like me concerning the first two truths.

Whoa whoa whoa!  I hear you yelling at the screen you are reading this on(assuming you don't print out my blog and read it at your leisure, which I assume many of you do...).  But Adam(you again), I agree, I have problems.  But they are rarely MY fault.  So and so did "this" and so and so did "that".  My job(or lack of one) causes "this".  Don't forget my "disease" was out of my control.  I am offended that you are "blaming the victim"!!

I see the disconnect you and I are having.  Let me define what I mean by "problems".

A problem is not your circumstances.  Circumstances are just events that have happened.  In and of themselves they are valueless.  Our perspective and reaction TO the circumstances are the problems. 

Explain yourself!!(you again)

Have you ever noticed that people in the exact same circumstances can have a profoundly different response and outcome?  One person loses a child and goes into a tailspin of depression and self-destruction, while another person starts a charity/organization that positively impacts and serves thousands of people who are going through the same thing.  The initial pain response to the circumstances is the same, but the reaction is radically different.  One person becomes defined and controlled by the "problem" they perceive, while the other defines themselves by who they will choose to be in the midst of that pain.

When we make the choice to be controlled by our perception of the problem we create an environment in which we will be constantly anxious, angry, resentful, depressed, etc.  This mindset is often coupled with aggression towards the original source of those negative circumstances.  If we are angry at someone, we blame them for MAKING us angry.

Guess what?  No one can make you do anything.  How you choose to respond is completely up to you.  Sure, sometimes responding in a healthy way can be extremely difficult based on some of our circumstances, but it is still up to us.  We refuse to take personal responsibility for the choices we make and continue to make.  It is always someone else's fault.

For the past few weeks I have been teaching through the book of Malachi.  It is quickly becoming one of my favorite books in the Bible.  Every word in it seems to speak right to me.  The heart of the book is that Israel is suffering in a myriad of ways and they cry out to God to complain about their perception that He has abandoned them and does not love Him.

How does God respond?

I love you, I love you, I love you.  But guess what?  The reason you feel the way you do, the reason you have this "problem" in your lives, is due to your choices and your behavior.  And why am I letting you suffer through the consequences of your choices?  Because I love you, I love you, I love you. 

Yes, bad things have happened to Israel.  But their despair is not about those circumstances, it is about their self-righteous indignation towards those they blame.  Never willing to ask what part they may have played to get where they are.

Right in the middle of Malachi, as God is patiently detailing the many terrible and sinful choices Israel has made, is the most important line in all the text;  Return to me, and I will return to you.(3:7)  He is saying, you are your own source of your problems.  Your choices, your responses, your heart.  That is all on you.  Yet I stand here, patiently, lovingly, gracefully, inviting you to a place where your "problems" will be healed.

How do we stop having "problems"?  By making the choice to allow God to change our response to our circumstances.  When we lay down our pride, our self-centeredness, our own choices, we are finally able to come to a place that says, "I cannot do this, take my heart and change it."

Bad things are going to happen to you.  People will hurt you and frustrate you.  There will be death, disease, pain.  But we do not have to be defined by them.  Be defined by the one who can make all things new. 

If you make the choice to have a velociraptor as a pet,

you only have yourself to blame.....

Jesus Wants To Take You Somewhere Better

Matthew 9:9
Jesus told him, "Follow Me"

There once was a man on a journey.  He was going from where he was, to where he needed to be.  For most of the journey the path he had chosen was easy.  After a while, though, he found himself at a large swamp that did not have an easily discovered route or much in the way of safe footing.  Not long after he had taken his first step to get through to the other side he discovered that he was quite stuck.  The mud and grime had covered his feet past his ankles. 

Each time he tried to move forward he found himself lodged ever more deeply into the swamp.  And each try to dislodge himself was exhausting.  Seeing that he had plenty of food, and the water of the swamp was at least potable enough for drinking, he resigned himself to staying right where he was.

It was lonely and dark where he was.  But he was alive and that was at least valuable enough to not give up completely.  After some time he saw another man walking towards the spot that he had found himself stuck.  This man seemed to have a masterful sense of where to safely place his feet and kept moving forward.  Soon this man had arrived at the exact spot our friend had found himself.

He said, "I thought you might be stuck.  This journey can be treacherous.  Here is my hand, allow me to pull you out.  I know the way, if you follow my steps we will safely arrive on the other side and we can journey the rest of the way together."

The man who was stuck contemplated the offer with suspicion.  Perhaps this traveler only meant to help him so that he could take what food he did have.  Or, maybe he didn't know the rest of the way out, and would only lead him to even deeper mud without the comforts he was making due with in his current place.  It may be bad here, but who knows where I could end up?

So he replied, "Thank you sir for your offer.  While I do not particularly enjoy where I am, it is possibly much better than where we may end up.  Instead of continuing on, can you just stay and sit awhile.  It isn't a lovely place to be, but if you were to join me here, we may find it to be a much more enjoyable experience than being in the swamp alone." 

The new traveler looked sadly at the man who was stuck.  With a deep sigh he replied, "I am sorry, but I cannot stay where you are.  This swamp is not where I intend on dwelling.  My home is on the other side, and I have come from there and know the path back.  I would be gladdened to have you join me.  It is likely that there are others, who like yourself, have found themselves stuck here.  If I were to stop my journey home, there would be no one to show them the way."

After hearing the reply the stuck man replied, "I appreciate what you say, friend, but I don't know you well enough to trust where you are going.  Perhaps if I continue to wait someone else will come along who will be my companion to pass the time"

With a sad look in his eyes, the new traveler faced back in the direction he was heading and continued on.

Saddest Moment in Cinematic History

There is a damaging lie that we have decided to embrace and live by;  Jesus wants to hang out with you right where you are.  Where does it come from?  We start with the truth that Jesus loves us right where we are, that grace is free, that we are loved because we are His.  This is all true.  God is not afraid of our problems, grace is not for those who have cleaned up their act.

But we stop there.  God loves me right where I am.  Christ died for me while I was still his enemy.  I am so blessed that He has come to my place to hang out and make things better......

When Jesus approaches Matthew, the tax collector, we need to see two essential truths that are not mutually exclusive. 

1)  Jesus DOES go right to where Matthew is.  He is not afraid to talk to a man who is doing that which is sinful and hurtful to others.  Boldly He approaches Matthew in the midst of his sinful behavior.

2)  Jesus THEN tells Matthew to follow Him.  And Matthew gets up from his table, the place where his sin is put into practice, and follows Jesus.

Today it is so common to hear the refrain that we should just "affirm" people right where they are.  If it makes them happy, if it is what they want, if it is what they believe...then it is perfectly fine.  To say otherwise is hurtful, intolerant, hateful.  The name of Jesus is invoked often in these claims.  Don't judge, err on the side of love...LIKE CHRIST...etc etc.

The problem, the damning problem, that is inherent in this view, is that it tells us a lie that we are all, at our core, just fine.  The troubles in our life aren't "sin", or, "being wrong", they are just not being loved enough, or, loving enough.  If we just had a bit more love then everything would be ok.

But our problem is not a lack of love, it is a lack of honesty about our sin.  We don't like to hear the ugly truth that there is something wrong inside of us, something that we can't just change or fix by adding more "positive" stuff.  The Jesus we want is one who just comes into our lives to make everything better.  To be the icing on the cake of the life we want.

So, when things are rough, and things don't get "better" in the way our soul cries out for.  Our approach is just to try to get more of it that we think will make it all better.  And, for the pseudo-Christian spirituality of this age, that means adding more "Feel Good and Affirming Jesus"(tm). 

Jesus talked a lot about unconditional love, he lived a life of grace, he gave lavishly to those who did not deserve it(me!).  But He was unapologetic about our problem.  Sin.  And unapologetic about the solution.  Repentance.

Repentance is not saying, "I'm sorry".  It is the daily act of turning away from self and aligning ourselves with God.  To stop moving inward towards our selfishness, and outward towards His Truth.  You cannot have the loving Jesus without the Jesus who preached, "Go and Sin no more, Follow me, Put down your nets" etc.  They are not mutually exclusive Christs. 

You and I find ourselves in swamps.  We are stuck.  Unable to move forward without help.  Incapable of finding the next safe footing.  Jesus walks right through the mud and grime to find us right where we are.  The dirt doesn't deter him.  The risks do not frighten him.  And when He arrives he says, "Follow me".

Are we going to follow Him out to where we need to be?  Or, are we going to expect Him to give up home to dwell in our mud?  Who are we to demand that Jesus has to give up heaven and dwell in our own hell?  He is offering you more than you can get where you are.  Get up and follow where His feet may lead.

Absolute Morality? Absolutely!

"If I am convinced that the highly educated Nazis are wrong, and that we highly educated English are right, what is it that validates our values and invalidates theirs?  The English intellectuals who now cry to Heave against the evil incarnated in Hitler have no Heaven to cry to.  The whole trend of liberal thought has been to undermine faith in the absolute.  It has tried to make reason the judge.  But since life is a changing process the attempt to find human space for keeping a promise leads to the inevitable conclusion that I can break it whenever I feel it convenient.  Either we serve the Unconditional, or some Hitlerian monster will supply an iron convention to do evil by."
    -Poet W.H. Auden 1907-1973

I recently read this quote in a book by Timothy Keller, "Encounters with Jesus".  In it, Keller was making a case for the "skeptical student" regarding the reasonable argument for a system of absolute morality. 

Auden was a man who had walked away from faith as a younger man, but the rise of Nazism caused him to rediscover the essential need of a non-subjective system to be able to make any claim of "right" or "wrong".  And that the God revealed in Scripture is the only reasonable and trustworthy answer to that which is written onto our very souls.

My intent is to not post a air tight philosophical case for absolute morality.  Many others do a much better job than I would be capable of doing.  Personally, quotes like Auden's are powerful enough on their own, in my opinion, to illustrate the absurdity of subjective ethics and morality.

Instead, I want to speak to those who would agree that there IS an absolute and objective morality, yet are inconsistent in their application.

When I say inconsistent, I mean it something like this: 
1) I believe in objective morality.
2) I believe that objective morality is knowable.
3) I believe that the God of scripture is the unmoveable author and source of this objective morality.

And here is the illogical "break"

4) I don't believe "this" choice is really subject to that objective standard....

Let me put some flesh to that idea....  Someone can very readily admit to the objective standard of morality when it comes to murder, or, stealing.  Basically, any really obvious "no no" that can be personally offensive to the party standing firmly on that solid foundation.  But, when it is time to evaluate the choices of their personal life, objectivity goes out the window. 

We are comfortable applying objectivity to others behaviors, but refuse to apply it to ourselves.  And, we become offended by those who may hold us accountable to such behaviors.

Murder is wrong.  But sex outside of marriage is...uhh....you know...not recommended.....but...umm...who am I to say?  Whatever makes you happy right?

See, this is where the problem comes from.  Either objective morality comes from a source outside of our own personal reasoning, or it is unknowable and ultimately always up for debate.  So, if we are to be opposed to murder at all times for all reasons, then we have to point to a source for that Objective Truth to be founded in.  All things that are not eternal and unchangeable, will, by definition....change.

If the source of murder is wrong, is not from the Author of Life, then where does it come?

And here is where the rubber meets the road for my challenge to those who would already agree on this point....

If we trust God's truth about murder, stealing, etc...why do we mistrust His truth on subjects that we feel more inclined to?  No one sits around and debates whether God told us not to murder.  But we do love to debate whether there is something such as sexual sin, anger issues as a sin, greed as a sin, and a whole host of others.

So here is my challenge.  Do you believe in God's truth as absolute?  Absolutely in all things?  Or just the things that are convenient for you to agree with? 

Because, if you began to negotiate away Objective Morality for your personal preferences, then you have accepted the logical progression that even the Truths you hold dear will eventually be washed away.

The truth, the whole truth, but nothing of Truth

My four year old has a really odd sense of "fairness".  Basically, anything that he doesn't agree with is an indication of being unfair.  Time to eat dinner?  "You're not being fair".  Time to go to bed?  "You're not being fair".  Another common one is the argument about who gets to pick out a tv show between his little sister and himself. By a wide margin my son watches more of "his" shows.  But, let her watch one show that she requests and he is upset about it not being fair.

Clearly this is a problem and we are addressing it.  It has gotten to the point that he has been instructed to not even utter the phrase, "It isn't fair" at all.  He misuses and abuses it.  Here is the real issue though;  He emotionally feels as if what he is claiming is valid and right.  There is no self-introspection or willingness(yet) to accurately measure what is going on.  The feelings he feels are all the argument he needs to declare a statement of "Truth". 

The concept of Truth used to mean something to everyone.  Namely, that Truth was a non-negotiable and reliable claim about observable conditions and reality.  Seeking the Truth was a process of carefully and honestly appraising competing claims against the backdrop of known reality.  With each subsequent discovery of Truth becoming the building block and lens of which following observations must be weighed by.

Now truth has become a fluid and ever changing concept that is redefined daily based upon the desires and perception of those making the statements.  And to disagree with someone's personal statements of truth is the height of impropriety. 

The key factor in determining the truth of something(today) is how the statement effects you emotionally.  Facts, figures, logic, data points, etc, are all secondary in importance behind the emotional resonance of a particular truth claim.  And once you have emotionally made a decision on truth, the facts must be manipulated and conformed to that decision.

This is tyranny.

The prophet Jeremiah reminds us that, "The heart is deceitful above all things"(Jeremiah 17:9)  If you are honest with yourself, and I with myself, we will admit to the constant fluidity of our "feelings" on almost all subjects.  Our hearts and emotions are easily manipulated and rarely do those feelings find themselves safely rooted in non-negotiable truths. 

How would you like your spouse to make the marriage declaration to love you for better or for worse.....as long as they feel then like they do now.....

We need consistency and non-negotiability to safely navigate our relationships, jobs, cultures, physics, and, life in general.  When we become prisoners to the ever changing fickle nature of emotional reactionism we are truly under tyranny. 

But Adam, you say, our hearts and emotions aren't that terrible for making life decisions!!  You're being too critical.

No.  No I am not.

According to the CDC, half of all Americans will suffer at some point in their adult life from mental disorder issues of some sort.  Depression, bi-polarism, PTSD, addiction, etc.  So, in other words, half of every one you know and deal with will have at least some period of time in their lives where they could literally be incapable of making healthy decisions.  If someone is suffering from clinical depression, body dysmorphic disorder, PTSD, and any other number of deep seated issues that reside in chemical imbalances and other brain issues(that are OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL) they are INCAPABLE of even being able to accurately evaluating the reality around them. 

So, how is basing "truth" on unreliable emotions not tyranny?

We need to stop being tossed around and reevaluating truth and our lives through the lens of finite emotional moments.  The hope we have is to root ourselves in absolute Truth.  And then, allowing our emotions to be shaped by Truth, instead of the other way around.

If you are a Christian, let me challenge you.  You aren't called to be "authentic" in your emotional responses and behaviors.  You are called to have integrity to live according to Truth, EVEN WHEN YOU AREN'T FEELING THAT WAY!!!

If you are not a Christian, let me challenge you.   What is Truth.  Big T, non-negotiable, set your clock by it Truth?  What dictates reality for you?  I am convinced that God is reliable and True, and that the Bible is Reliable and True.  Big T True.  It is a bulwark against fickle emotion based reality and a shelter from the storms of life.  If you have any questions, any thoughts, go ahead and ask!!!

Which will you choose?