I am a history buff. Always have been. I am also one of those people who is fascinated by dates and what happened on certain days. For example, I am writing this on Friday, March 18, 2016. On this date in history in the year A.D. 37 the Roman Senate proclaimed Caligula as Emperor. (Something they would come to regret!) In 978 King Edward of England was murdered, joining thousands of other Christian martyrs in the roll call of faith. In 1852 the Wells Fargo Company was founded. In 1922 Mohandas Gandhi was sentenced to six years in prison for civil disobedience. In 1961 the Pillsbury Dough Boy made his debut.
Tag Archives: Truth
Raindrops Keep Falling On Our Heads
One of the premier events for Christian young people in this country is the Urbana conference. This event is sponsored by Intervarsity Christian ministries and is held every three years. It is one of the largest Christian youth events in the world. The most recent conference was December 27-31, 2015 and was held in St. Louis, MO. Advancing Native Missions had a display there, with a number of staff representing ANM.
Back in our offices in Virginia, we received regular reports about what was happening at the conference. One of these reports noted that social media from the conference was very interesting. There were a number of posts to Facebook and Twitter commenting on the fact that the LGBT community was not represented at the conference. Fascinating. Would you really expect the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender community to be a part of this conference? For some, apparently yes. Continue reading
Have We Lost Our Souls?
Years ago I remember reading a science fiction short story about the depletion of the stock of human souls. I can’t remember the author or the title… wish I could. But I do remember that the gist of the story was that God (or fate or nature or whatever) had only created a certain number of souls. As the population of the earth grew to the abundance we see today, the quantity of available souls was completely reached. Doctors and midwives, parents and childcare workers, all began to notice that they were seeing children who were alive, but had only a vacant stare and no intellectual response. They seemed happy, in a sort of mindless bliss, but were missing the vital component that would make them fully human. What was missing? They had no souls. The reservoir of souls had all been used up. According to the story, the world had reached a stage where all beings genetically identifiable as Homo sapiens were only soulless human-appearing creatures. We had come to the end of humanity as true human beings.
This story came to mind today because I have been pondering C. S. Lewis’s critically important book The Abolition of Man. At Advancing Native Missions we currently have four interns working in the office. As part of their program, they are reading this Lewis work. George Ainsworth, an ANM staff member, is leading them in their study. Knowing my devotion to Lewis, George asked if I wanted to join their discussion. I jumped at the chance. Thus prompted by this opportunity, I have reread The Abolition of Man for the first time in many years. What a book! Some believe that this may be Lewis’s most important work. It certainly deserves attention as an amazingly prescient writing.
In this book Lewis takes to task a grammar book which he calls The Green Book. Beyond just discussing grammar, the authors of The Green Book were attempting to change students themselves. As Lewis observed, the authors were clearly redefining not only the use of language but values and fundamental beliefs. Basically they rejected the objective nature of truth and the idea of universal absolutes and mores. Lewis rightly asserts that these matters (call them first principles, natural law, human conscience, or just plain ol’ right and wrong) are foundational in all of Western philosophy and civilization. We built our culture upon them. To abandon these building blocks of our society has tremendous consequences not only for the individual students who read this work, but for society as a whole.
In the 1940’s, when Lewis wrote his book, he was seeing the beginnings of this move to jettison such fundamentals. The idea of a postmodern culture was still decades in the future. Now, what Lewis saw in a nascent form, we see full grown and endemic in our society. We are daily witnessing what Lewis “prophetically” saw in 1943.
One of the main points of The Abolition of Man is that by rejecting natural law, what Lewis calls the Tao, the natural way of things, we are rejecting what makes us truly human. When we remove first principles, absolute truth, we reduce man to something less than human. We create what Lewis calls “men without chests.” By this he means there is a disconnect between our intellect and our passions. And without the mediating human factor, we become either thinking mechanisms or brute beasts.
For example, we may have intellects, thinking minds, but without a proper spiritual basis as a responsible beings created in God’s image, we are simply organic machines. Thinking is reduced to electrical pulses between synapses in our brains—nothing more. We are only fleshly computers. This is the position asserted by Francis Crick in his final major work, The Astounding Hypothesis. Crick was co-discoverer with James Watson of the structure of the DNA. For this he was awarded a Nobel Prize. However, with all his intelligence, Crick rejected the idea that we possess souls, something external to our material physiology. For him, our minds are only physical realities. The mind consists of nothing beyond electrical and chemical processes. We are organic super-computers, if you will. This is the same position held by many in our culture today.
At the other end of the spectrum we may be “men without chests” who are ruled by our physical urges. We are slaves to our passions, those barking dogs in the lower recesses of our psyches that Dostoyevsky wrote about. What is a human being? According to this perspective, we are only animals dominated by instinct, feelings and hormonal desires. There are no moral absolutes, no certainty in ethical matters. What is right is what I want to be right. Generally, the attitude is more like this: What is right is what I enjoy, what gives me pleasure. Humans are nothing but evolved, reasoning primates. We are not made a “little lower than the angels.” Instead, we are only one step above gorillas.
The point is this: It is not our intelligence that makes us human. Nor is it our physical form. It is what is found in our chests—our values, our beliefs, our spiritual nature. What makes us human is our soul. And the evidence of our soulish nature is seen in the reality of natural law (absolutes, first principles, conscience). If we deny the existence of natural law, we deny what it is that makes us human. To deny what fills our “chests,” to dismiss the existence of the soul, is to reject the very essence of what it means to be a human being. We abolish mankind en masse.
Think this too far-fetched? Then consider the modern world. How do you explain gross immorality being promoted as simply “alternative life-styles”? How do you understand all the crime, violence, war, hatred, and terror of contemporary life? How do you deal with the slaughter of untold millions of unborn babies? Every year over 800,000 teens become pregnant out of wedlock in this country. Why is this happening? We kill each other over drugs, the very drugs that we use as an escape from the tedium and pain of life itself. Religious faith has become either something to be mocked or an excuse to justify our immoral behavior. God is ignored, or blamed for the mess we have created. In other words, the world is totally fouled up. And we have made it so. What we are experiencing is a society of “men without chests.”
“That’s Not Nice.” Good!
With the advent of an amoral, ethically apathetic, and increasingly characterless society—which we are now experiencing—we have correspondingly seen an epidemic spread through our land. There is moral disease that is robbing us of convictions, values, and truthfulness. It is draining off our integrity, killing our sense of righteousness, and undermining the proclamation of truth. It is a sickness that rots the very fiber of our being as a nation, as a people. It is nothing less than a plague of NICENESS. Continue reading
Forgive Me, O Great Gaia!
Okay, so here is my beef. If you are going to believe in evolution, then be consistent about it. Don’t say you believe in the evolution of species—which generally presupposes God as either nonexistent or irrelevant, and blind chance as the motivating force of reality—and then use theistic and creationist terminology.
What am I talking about? Well, some time back I saw one of those nature programs on PBS. Now I like PBS. I find many of its programs interesting and informative. But I have to take their worldview with a grain of salt. (Should I say “lump”? How about enough salt to make soup in Lake Superior?) Their programs that deal with nature and science always have an evolutionary bias. I have come to expect it, and can usually choose to ignore it. (“Liar!” I get somewhat upset every time.)
But this one program sticks in my mind, and I can’t just forget it. I am watching this program on birds and wetlands. Most of you know how much I like birds, so I am really enjoying this program.
Well, suddenly this nice nature walk turns into a lecture on conservation. No problem—except that in the middle of this treatise on evolution and the competition of species, with a good dose of environmental concern thrown in, we start hearing about “man’s role,” “mankind’s responsibility,” and our “stewardship of the earth.”
Hello! Does anybody out there understand the concept of stewardship and responsibility? Stewardship means you are holding something in trust for someone else. Responsibility means we will answer to someone else for our actions. If we are stewards of the earth, to whom are we responsible? Doesn’t saying we are stewards of the earth assume that there is someone (some One?) to whom we will answer for how we treat this earth?
By the way, while we are talking about this stuff—there was another thought that occurred to me while watching this program. As is typical with such PBS fare, humanity got the rap as being the bad egg in the universe’s Easter basket. I guess you could say, we are the thorn in Gaia’s side.
But let us assume for a minute that the philosophical bias of this PBS program is true—that we all arrived here on the evolutionary highway. Isn’t evolution essentially amoral and ethically neutral? If evolution is true, there is no good or bad involved—just what is, i.e., what has evolved. No one faults foxes for eating rabbits, or lady bugs for eating aphids. So why does mankind, only an evolved primate, become the pimple on evolution’s face? (A face that had its cosmetics applied randomly, I might add.)
It seems to me that if man has developed the intelligence to learn how to exploit the environment, to rape the land, to wantonly kill and destroy animal and plant species—well, who is to complain? (And to whom?) Evolution, along with the chaotic blind goddess Chance, has brought homo sapiens to this point. We are the top competitors in the field, the masters of natural selection. So what if we kill off spotted owls or dodo birds or Bengal tigers… we have evolved to the point of being able to do so. Who is to say we are wrong? Who’s to say there is such a thing as wrong?
Unless…
Unless, evolution is a bunch of bunk, and random acts of nature did not bring us to this point…
Unless creation is a fact, and there is a Moral Agent who started the whole shebang going…
Unless there is a Creator, and HE did make us, and we are going to answer to HIM one day!
Then you do have stewardship
And responsibility
And moral choices
And right and wrong—including how we treat the environment!
You can’t have your cake (of moral responsibility) and eat it too (i.e., have it devoured by blind, random chance).
Sorry, Darwin.
