Gandhi’s idea that technology was evil and that a simple, natural life was morally superior came from British idealists like John Ruskin. Sensitive people like him had become critical of England’s Industrial Revolution because of the exploitation, oppression, and other evils associated with its “dark satanic mills.” Mahatma Gandhi brought this opposition to technology to India. (Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book that Made your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization,111)
Shakti Gawain, author of Creative
Visualizations, taught that our problems arose from alienation from the good
inner self. Therefore, her answer consisted of learning to trust the “truth” we
find within instead of others:
“When we consistently suppress and distrust our intuitive knowingness, looking instead for external authority, validation, and the approval of others, we give our personal power away…Every time you don’t trust yourself and don’t follow your inner truth, you decreased your aliveness and your body will reflect this with a loss of vitality, numbness, pain, and eventually physical disease.”
Meanwhile, Joseph Stalin was convinced that attaining
paradise was a matter of changing the environment – the State and its economy:
Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas, and theories, its political views and institutions. Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man’s manner of life, such is his manner of thought.
Similarly, The
Humanist Manifesto II asserts that “Using technology wisely” can produce
the “abundant and meaningful life”:
“Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.”
Many other utopian schemes rely upon the removal of the
repressive or capitalistic elements. The Occupy
Wall Street movement claimed that if we would simply remove the capitalist
oppressors - the top one percent – we could have a better world. Similarly, other
movements placed their hope on the elimination of those deemed evil or less
evolved – the conservatives or the progressives.
Interestingly, all of these “solutions” have one thing in
common – a belief in the essential goodness of humanity, or at least of their
group, and the external nature of our problems – society. Therefore, the answer involved a radical change of society.
To believe that our problems are superficial is to generate
constant flow of utopian dreams, instead of looking within and first taking
responsibility for our own flaws and misconduct. After all, if we cannot change
ourselves, how can we hope to change others, let alone society. Nevertheless,
we find it easier to point the finger at external problems rather than into our
own cavernous semi-conscious ills.
When confronted with the horrors of National Socialism,
Communism, and ISIS – and various other utopian movements, each promising to
create a better world – the “believer” will insist that these are mere
aberrations, easily corrected by the right people and their re-education
programs. Such hope is inevitably based upon a benign assessment of humanity
and its malleability.
However, what if the genocides, rapes, and abductions are the
result of deeper problems, which social changes will not touch? What if we are
not directly controlled by rational argumentation or the means of production
but by baser instincts?
This leads us to a greater question. What if there is a
human nature that requires a certain kind of care? Then we have to ask the
question: “Is this nature best served by sexual liberation? Communism? Finding
one’s own truth? Psychotropic drugs?”
This is the Mason-Dixon Line – the great polarizing divide.
It depends on our understanding of humanity. How fluid is our nature? Are we
born as a blank slate, which can be successfully programmed in a multitude of
different ways? The progressive answers that we are very fluid and highly
amenable to change. The conservative answers differently, and these answers
determine how readily we will pursue radical change.
The conservative tends to look towards the lessons of
history and their many costly revolutions. The Progressive tends to discount
these lessons in favor of the modern lessons of technological change. One progressive
explained:
·
We must look beyond past failures. Before, we could
never think that a TV, radio, airplane, or a computer were possible. But some people
had dreamed big, and these commodities became realities. There is no reason
that such changes are not possible in the human condition.
This brings us back to our original question – “Is human
nature as changeable as the nature of our technology?” Perhaps we can derive an
answer from the vast array of human societies. Some people still survive by
hunting, while others by holding a nine-to-five in corporate America. Some live
communally and others surrounded by armed guards. Yet, they all experience the
same struggles with fear, jealousy, hate, lust, revenge, and the ever-present
desire of more.
How can we account for these commonalities across such
diverse cultures and economies? There seems to be a common thread that ties us
all together – our common humanity. But of what does our humanity consist? The
Bible testifies to our pervasive hatred of the truth:
·
“An appalling and horrible thing has happened in
the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their
direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end
comes?” (Jeremiah 5:30-31)
According to Jesus, we are normally addicted to darkness,
the denial of the truth (John 3:19-20). The veracity of His assessment is
evident at every turn. One Sabbath, Jesus healed a man with a “shriveled hand.”
Instead of praising God at this miraculous deed:
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:11)
This same hatred of the Light of God is ubiquitously
evident. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the grave:
Some of [those who saw the miracle] went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him. (John 11:46-48)
They were unwilling to consider the implications of this
great miracle. Instead, they plotted together to kill Jesus and eliminate His
unbearable Light.
Jesus even prophesied that the enemies of the Light would
not only eliminate Him but also those associated with Him, all the while
convincing themselves that they were performing a virtuous act:
They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. (John 16:2)
According to the Bible, human perversity is so deep-seated
that it requires radical surgery. We must be changed from above. Considering
this understanding, utopianism is sheer fantasy, like building a mansion on a
cesspool, which will eventually undermine it.
We are that cesspool. This is a truth that I had denied,
disguised, and suppressed for years. It was just too unsettling! However,
through the assurance of my Savior’s love and forgiveness, He granted me the
courage to face the re-orienting Light, and the closer I came to it, the more I
was enabled to see the ugliness within.
Fire can either consume us or free us from our bonds. Rather than psychologically crippling me, the Light freed me. I no longer must hide and put on a facade. I can non-defensively bask in the truth, knowing that my worth is unassailably buried in His love and care.
his truth does not represent a rejection of social change, but instead a recognition of our human limitations and our need to take cautious baby-steps.
You might reject this portrayal of the human condition but consider yourself. Do you welcome criticism? Are you willing to have friends who will tell you the truth about yourself? Is your first impulse to seek to blame others for your failures. Are you jealous when others receive the praise and attention instead of you? I hope that you will answer affirmatively to some of these questions. The answers point to the fact that there is something radically the matter with us. If so, these need to be addressed before we can begin to address social change. Otherwise, these needs will pollute everything we think and do.
In this book, I will try to address the enormity of our problems and the adequacy of the Solution – our receiving the love and forgiveness of the Savior Jesus. It is the consistent association between the problem and the solution which serves to validate this book. It is like the association between thirst and the water that satisfies it. They constitute an apparent fit. Is this a fitting analogy? I hope to show that it is!
******
You might ask, “If your solution is able to address the problems of humanity, why are so many rejecting this solution after trying it?” There is no easy answer, but several possibilities. Perhaps they never did try Jesus. Instead, what they tried was something that resembled it – a moralism, which attempts to buy the love of Jesus through self-righteous deeds and even beliefs.
Perhaps the best explanation comes from Jesus. He told a parable about seeds (the Words of God) and the soils, those who heard the message of the seeds, and which received the seeds, but some only temporarily, as long as it yielded some benefits. Then He explained it to His disciples:
· “Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
The problem hadn’t been the seed but the “soils” which heard the Word but would not persevere to understand it through the temptations and hardships. However, for those who truly persevere to understand, they will eventually bear fruit. They eventually discovered how sweet it is and how it addressed the central problems of their lives, even as they had to endure persecution and other hardships.
No comments:
Post a Comment