We expect God to conform to our cultural biases and personal
preferences. When we find that He doesn’t – He truly has His own agenda – we
reject Him. I had recently met a lovely woman at a senior citizen’s center who
expressed as much:
- If God is entirely loving, why doesn’t accept everyone? Why instead does He condemn most people to hell?
I had heard this same question – I think that it was really an
accusation – expressed in many ways, and therefore knew that I wouldn’t be able
to offer a satisfactory answer, but this didn’t stop me:
- Doesn’t the One who created everything have the right to set forth a condition? Why shouldn’t He insist that we repent of our sins?
I was surprised by her flippant answer:
- Well, we do what we do – the best we can! I’d think that a God would be more understanding of His creations.
He does understand! He understands that we are at fault and
need to confess as much. King Solomon put the onus on us, where it belongs:
- This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." (Eccles. 7:29)
This is the source of the great divide – the nasty
polarization cutting apart the fabric of the West – our understanding of God
and of humankind. Secular thought regards us as perfectible. If our basic needs
are met, we will just naturally morph into good and moral people. And if our
thinking is just sharpened a bit, we’ll better realize our dreams and become a
contented source of “warm fuzzies” to those around us.
In contrast, the Judeo-Christian worldview is committed to
the understanding that we are such a mess that we thoroughly need God. We are
so mired in denial and self-righteousness that we have blinded ourselves to our
moral deceit, rationalizing away our moral failures.
Anna seemed to partake of this self-righteous,
self-justifying human tendency. But I couldn’t look down on her. If it wasn’t
for the fact that God had intervened in my life, I’d have been far worse! I
tried to explain God’s requirement in terms of human relationships:
- What if your friend spreads false stories about you and this jeopardized both your job and friendships. Meanwhile, she continues to buy you expensive gifts? Will these gifts adequately address the offense? Isn’t it true that only a humble confession will address the real problem? Don’t relationships depend upon dealing directly and humbly by taking full responsibility for our offenses? Why then should God demand any less?
Anna was visibly annoyed and told me she didn’t want to talk
about God anymore. There were other things that I had wanted to say. We also
have a duty to pay homage to our Creator and Sustainer. We do so with our
parents, recognizing our responsibility towards the ones who have raised us.
Sadly, we reject the One who has given us life.
Yes, Darwin
has made it easier to do so today. According to this thinking, we owe God
nothing, because we had been raised upon the breasts of pure chance. Although
this naturalistic view is respectable today, according to evolutionist Richard
Dawkins, naturalism failed to make it respectable enough! It can’t even begin
to even pose a credible answer for the origins of DNA, the cell, life, the laws
of physics, freewill, consciousness, and the incredible fine-tuning of the
universe. All of these observations laugh in the face of mindless, powerless naturalism.
We can simply deny the forcefulness of these questions, but
there are other realities that impact us even more directly and persistently.
Unless we are confident that our Lord has forgiven our sins, we carry around an
unshakable sense of inadequacy and unworthiness.
I knew that Anna also struggled against His accusing finger.
Although she had questions about religion, once the conversation triggered her
suppressed aching, she had to terminate the conversation, as if I had forced my
finger into her open wound.
However, termination of the conversation is not termination
the aching. It was there and would remain so. Our conversation had merely
exposed it. It was an open wound deep within that evidently hadn’t healed after
her many years.
Various psychotherapies have tried to cope with this wound
in a variety of ways. The promotion of “positive affirmations” is one very
popular. Just tell yourself that you are a good and worthy person. Relax
yourself and repeat a certain set of words – “Forgive yourself…Love yourself…Accept
yourself…Visualize yourself…Embrace yourself.” I think that Anna resorted to a
similar affirmation: “I am a good person!”
However, all of these recommendations/techniques are based
on the idea that the problem is purely subjective – just a product our
chemical-electrical neural reactions – and has no independent reality of its
own.
This type of thinking is bizarre. I think that an example
might illustrate its absurdity. What if my wife is devastated after learning
that I’ve had an affair, and I treat my guilt as if it’s no more than a
subjective feeling? She will not be impressed to find that I’m dealing with my
guilt through positive affirmations. Instead, she’d prefer that I’d regard my
behavior as a real and objective violation of my commitment to her.
Similarly, she would remain unsatisfied if I told her that I
had a pill that would permanently remove all of her feelings of betrayal. This
is because she intuits that there is a core moral issue – a serious violation that
a pill cannot address - that needs to be addressed.
Likewise, when we sin, we sin against the Lawgiver and His
Law. It is totally unacceptable to affirm, “I am a good person.” This is no
more than denial and self-righteousness. Instead, God wants the truth – the confession
that we are not at all righteous and that we stand guilty before God. We need
to recognize that our only hope is in His mercy – a mercy that He is ready and
able to give us. It’s a gift He has already paid for on the Cross, and who
purchases a gift to only bury it in the ground!
However, as I state these words, I am reminded of the
Israelite nation standing before their God at Mt. Sinai.
His proximity was so troubling that the Israelites pleaded with Moses:
- "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." (Exodus 20:19)
Anna’s response wasn’t at all unusual. She too was an
Israelite who couldn’t bear the sound of God’s voice. When I talk about God,
the response is usually fight or flight. It is rarely, “This question is so
foundational to our entire worldview and lives. I really need to know more!”
The wound is deep, even incurable without our Savior. Sadly,
it’s a wound that rejects the only Doctor who can heal it.



The initial question expressed by your dialog partner is a simple statement of the problem of evil - something that Christian theism has no decent response to, and is a good reason to think that the personal God that you believe in does not actually exist.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of your blog post seems to be vacant rationalisations trying to justify what seemingly cannot be justified.
You also manage to put in a dig at one of your favourite bugbears - psychology. If you actually looked into things you would see that positive affirmations do not make up a part of the scientific understanding of how the mind/brain works, and there is actually evidence to show that they do not work. They are a part of the psuedo-scientific and often fraudulently negligent "self help" industry.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, you already knew that, right? :-)
I guess we agree about "positive affirmations." Nevertheless, they are still popular about psychotherapists!
DeleteIf they're still popular it is because those therapists are not keeping up to date with their field.
DeleteAnd we don't actually agree on the substance of afirmations - you don't like them because they run counter to your beliefs. I understand that they don't actually work and can make things worse :-)
To find fault with an entire field simply because some practitioners are not evidence based is somewhat ridiculous (like those who still practice Freudian Analysis).
Daniel Mann, This is a strange space you inhabit. Those that comment seem to disagree with you because they think they stand on solid ground. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteHavok, While you are correct that I have grave differences with this field, you are wrong about this:
ReplyDelete• “To find fault with an entire field simply because some practitioners are not evidence based is somewhat ridiculous.”
I don’t think that any of it is evidentially based, although they might, in a pinch, produce some evidence showing temporary improvement according to certain indicators. They also suffer from making similar values assumptions as you do – values I don’t necessarily accept.
Mann: I don’t think that any of it is evidentially based, although they might, in a pinch, produce some evidence showing temporary improvement according to certain indicators.
DeleteYou contradict yourself in this statement Daniel.
Mann: They also suffer from making similar values assumptions as you do – values I don’t necessarily accept.
Such as valuing methodological rigour and favouring reality over wishful thinking?
Surely those 2 ought to be valued in any investigation into reality, correct?
I really don't have time to respond to your cheap-shots.
DeleteHavok, I am not posting your other response. It is both vacuous and condescending. It is not adequate to charge that you have given perfectly good responses in the past and I've simply ignored them.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the best posts you've ever written!
ReplyDeleteThe God-honoring attempts at evangelism with your friend was encouraging. Even if she never repents, never turns to Jesus as her Lord and Savior, and goes to a Christless eternity, you were faithful. That's all you can do.
Much thanks for a wonderful post.
Huh? Well, by His mercies alone!
Delete