Out of Darkness

Approximately 1,000 calls a day come in to the ministry where I once worked as a prayer counselor. I was on the midnight shift, so we heard from the night owls, the insomniacs, the lonely and distressed. There were prank calls, crank calls, and downright obscene calls, of course, but most were heartfelt and some were gut-wrenching ones: The widow whose husband and father-in-law both died this year; still grieving and wrestling with probate issues, she recently lost her job and is about to lose her house. The alcoholic who just accepted Christ and wanted us to know he’s been clean and sober for an entire week for the first time in his adult life. The distraught woman, alienated from her one and only child, cut off from all contact with her grandchildren; she doesn’t even know where they live now. The Christian who’s literally lost everything, who has nothing left except $2 to his name, and figured: what the heck, might as well give that $2 to God.

There is something deep in the human psyche that makes us call out to God, sometimes in joy and thanksgiving and even more frequently in our pain and fear. This is a universal phenomenon, cutting across all cultures, ethnicities, and geopolitical boundaries. Differing religions tell us how to do it, differing schools of psychology hypothesize why we do it, only atheists say we don’t really need to do it. But assuming there is objective reason to reach out to God – and, admittedly, some would say this is a huge assumption – it naturally follows we are under obligation to God. We have a duty to obey the divinely inspired moral standards.

If, however, this is a false assumption – if there isn’t even a God or god or gods at all – are we under any kind of obligation to anything other than our own individual whims? Is there any “real” right or wrong at all? As Francis Schaeffer asked, how should we then live?

Interestingly, there are hints of cause-effect relationships that could, just possibly, support a godless morality which is both workable and universal (i.e., applicable to all humanity). Recently, researchers Leslie Martin and Howard Friedman at UC Riverside did a longitudinal study 1,500 individuals who were over 80 years of age in hopes of discovering the underlying causes of longevity. In the process they inadvertently discovered a consistent trend: individuals who were on a consistent basis characterized as both “thoughtful” and “kind” turned out to be the happiest and healthiest, while conversely those who were not were much more likely to have engaged in addictive behaviors, performed poorly at work, had failed marriages, and were overall less happy and less healthy. This pattern was found to be true regardless of income level or intelligence. To a theist, this reinforces the idea the Creator designed a reward mechanism into creation; the atheist would say this mechanism was selected as an evolutionary advantage.

On the basis of this study alone both Believers and non-believers could argue “thoughtfulness” and “kindness” are behaviors – virtues – that can and should be promoted across society. And yet … what if members of society aren’t persuaded by the latter’s appeal? There is no ring of “Thou Shalt;” it is merely advice: act this way because it’s good for you. And if we have learned anything from prohibition, anti-smoking campaigns, and US obesity levels now at epidemic proportions, it is that huge numbers of people do precisely what they know is not good for them.

When atheists propose a concept of morality, they are undercut by their own presuppositions. Sam Harris, for example, attempted to come up with a godless morality a few years back when he published The Moral Landscape. His attempt fails, of course, for the very reason (this he readily admits) scientists and ethicists before him abandoned the effort to come up with irreligious principles of behavior. In the absence of a deity – an objective third party, so to speak – there are no virtues or values which are not purely subjective.

Harris tries to appeal to utilitarianism – what works for us should be “moral” and what does not work is “immoral.” But what if lying and stealing work for you? The only appeal is to the majority. The majority of Americas (for now) object to child brides and genocide, for example, but majorities in other societies heartily approve of those things, and irreligious people can’t say they’re wrong for doing so. And on what reasonable basis can anyone claim the majority is right? There isn’t one! At the individual level, there is no rational, consistent way to say a serial killer or child molester is wrong.

How can anything be definitively right or wrong? If, after all, we are merely the result of a purely random chain of events, not only is there no absolute standard for human behavior, there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, or value to human life – or art, beauty, love, or anything else, for that matter. As Dawkins put it,

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

In other words, who you are and what you do matter not at all. You are an accident of nature, and the universe – existence itself – is fluid, defined purely by what you personally think and feel at any given moment. Moreover, everything you think and feel – everything that makes you “you” – will be forgotten within a few generations.

If Harris and Dawkins are correct, you do not matter. If they are wrong, you do. That’s it. There is either God or nothing. Hope or despair. There is no middle ground. If God does not exist, then this universe, for all its wonder and mystery, is little more than a cage, and, ultimately, a mausoleum. If there is no God, then Eugene O’Neal was correct when he wrote,

“Life’s only meaning is death.”

Ah, you say, but WHICH deity is the right one, you ask. Which of the various religions has got it right? Whom do I follow? These are fair questions, and I assure you the Deity in question is smart enough and competent enough to get through to you. But you have to pursue him.

“You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the LORD. – Jeremiah 29.13-14a

Picture this: You are standing on the edge of a crumbling precipice projecting above a vast black pit (atheism). Behind you is a guard rail (agnosticism), and beyond that, a road (faith). Back away from the ledge and cling for dear life to that fence – but only long enough to catch your metaphorical breath. Don’t stay there; get down from that fence and walk the road until you find where it leads. That’s what I did, many years ago, and you can, too.

 

WEDNESDAY WISDOM

from Valley of Vision, an anonymous 16th century Puritan prayer:

“Of all hypocrites, grant that I may not be
An evangelical hypocrite,
Who sins more safely because grace abounds,
Who tells his lusts that Christ’s blood cleanseth them,
Who reasons that God cannot cast him into hell, for he is saved,
Who loves evangelical preaching, churches, Christians,
But lives unholily.”

Nice People go to Hell

The first week of Lent has passed; six and a half more to go. Since the object of Lent is to prepare to celebrate Easter properly, it begs the question: what exactly is the proper way to celebrate? It’s not bunnies and eggs; it’s not a nice brunch after sleeping in; it’s not dressing up for your annual (or your biannual, nor even your several-times-a-week) trip to a church service. It’s about change.

“The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.” – Carl Jung

No offense to Dr. Jung, but it’s a safe bet he knew a bit more about psychology than me, and I know a bit more about chemistry than he. One could say that transformation is the point of chemistry, but there are reactions where one substance is transformed while the other – the agent causing the change – remains unchanged. Those of the latter group are called catalysts.

Still, Jung was writing about humans, not compounds, and he has a point. When we interact with other people at any significant level, change does take place in both parties. It may not be much, it may not be obvious, but there will be something different: perhaps a new idea will be planted, or instead, an established opinion still more deeply entrenched. It may be an opportunity to put into practice (and therefore strengthen, like exercise to a muscle) one’s values, such as patience or tolerance, or conversely a chance to hone one’s argument for or against the other person’s worldview. The possibilities of the type of change that will occur are as limitless as the human experience.

God, however, does not change. He is the catalyst of change. We can, and do, and should interact with him, but only we will come away transformed from the event. It may not be immediately visible to anyone but God, but transformation must occur. If there is no change, there has been no interaction with the divine.

Unmerited favor cannot, by definition, be earned. It is not deserved. Even believing in God or trusting God is a gift, according to Ephesians 2.8 – but such a gift, if it is unmatched with a change in character, attitude, lifestyle, and behavior, has never, in fact, been accepted by the supposed recipient. It is dead, according to St. James.

Once I was asked to minister to a man facing an emotional and existential crisis. He identifies himself as a Christian, but when encouraged to draw strength from his faith, he waved his hands dismissively saying, “I took care of that a long time ago – that’s behind me.” His profession of Christianity, evidently, was no more than something checked off his to-do list, never to be revisited again. A woman who has long enthused about her church to any who will listen recently learned of a serious, life changing event, and sought my help. In addition to pragmatic assistance, I pointed her to prayer; after all, she’s been involved in church since before I was born. “I don’t pray,” she bluntly admitted, “I don’t know how.” Another man I know, a church Elder, repeatedly lied to and about a friend, ruining their relationship. That now-former friend, who has felt compelled by Scripture to attempt reconciliation, he has repeatedly rebuffed, despite being reminded that Jesus commands reconciliation with a fellow Christian as a priority even higher than worship (Matthew 5.23-24). He stands before his congregation, Sunday after Sunday, leading them in song, and all the while is defying God. He knows this, and doesn’t care.

These are just three examples. I could provide dozens more, and undoubtedly you could, too. Are these people evil? No, except in perhaps the most banal sense. Are they going to hell? It’s easy to believe hell is populated with Hitlers and Lenins, Jeffery Dahmers and Adam Lanzas. But ordinary people go to hell. Nice people go to hell. People who go about their business, not bothering anyone, not stealing, not murdering, not engaged in wanton lasciviousness, not standing out for anything in particular except for persistently ignoring their Maker. Do not be fooled; lack of outward sin does not necessarily mean inward transformation has taken place.

“But a man must examine himself …. if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.” – 1 Corinthians 11.28-31

St. Paul’s admonition is equally true when inverted. If we do not examine ourselves, if we do not judge ourselves rightly, we are in danger of judgment. That is not something to be taken lightly.

I have no idea who is or who is not hellbound. It is not mine to know. I do know that after a quarter of a century in vocational ministry this much is true: place no confidence in professions of faith, commitment cards, baptisms, or walking an aisle. Look for change. We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.

How are we to properly celebrate Easter? Be transformed. Encounter the Living God – not once, but daily.

You can lead a horse to water …

Not quite ten years ago, I was sipping tea at an outdoor café in one of the largest cities in Central Asia. Across the table from me sat a person undergoing a remarkable transformation. When we first met, he was grudgingly but cautiously friendly to me, the first and only Evangelical he personally knew. This young man was Muslim, and proud of it. Our talks, at first, were filled with stories and lectures about the superiority of his faith to mine. But as time passed and he grew to trust me, this religious veneer began to crack; more and more he voiced his discontent with what he’d been raised to believe, and his growing intrigue with what I believed. On this fateful day, he burst out, “Christianity isn’t like Islam at all! Islam is about rules – rule, punishment, rule, punishment – that’s all! But Christianity is about love! It’s about relationship! It’s not just a way of life, it’s a philosophy! In order to become a Christian, you have to think! You can’t be a Christian and not think!”

Fast forward to not quite two years ago. I was working mid-week in the nursery of the congregation I pastored at that time. With me was a woman who was a pillar of the church, in manner of speaking. She was influential, and wealthy … and hard, manipulative, and controlling. Her tone was increasingly angry and bitter as she hit me with several years’ worth of pent-up complaints. The one comment I’ve never forgotten was, “Your sermons make me think! I don’t want to think about my faith! I just want to be told what to do!”

Her comment stunned me, and made me think of an editorial in the Washington Post from twenty years ago which described Christians as

“largely poor, uneducated and easily led.”

That silly, elitist attitude bears a grain of truth. Christianity has always had a large number of poor followers because it appeals to the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, the despised of this world. As to being “easily led,” that is a vice only if we are being led around by wicked people. To be led by the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is a virtue – in fact, it is proof of being adopted by God (Romans 8.14).

Ah, but ‘uneducated’ – is that a valid criticism? Not in God’s eyes! There are highly educated Christians. There are those who never attended any kind of school. Both types can be good Christians, because scholarship impacts socioeconomic status but not spirituality. When it comes to matters of faith, however, education is critical. To learn is righteousness; to consciously choose to be ignorant is sin. Upon hearing the gospel the people of Berea (northern Greece) eagerly listened and then did some research to find out if what they were hearing was accurate. As a result, the Bible calls them “noble.” This idea is reinforced by the Apostle Paul’s command to his protégé,

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. – 2 Timothy 2.15

The young man in the café had never once been to church. The woman in the nursery had been a churchgoer her entire life. He wanted to learn; she did not. He was “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12.34); she was. If the Church in America is to thrive, it needs fewer people like that woman and more like that man.