Whom Do You Trust, Part II
A while back, I wrote, questioning the willingness to trust the government and politicians. I challenged people not to trust anyone blindly, but especially the largely socialist perspective and the secular progressive ideology behind it. The alternative I offered was not an opposing ideology but a preference for individual freedom and free market capitalism. I have a healthy mistrust of people and institutions, and I doubt we should ever trust any of them without reservation, even the ones that seem to hold our values and convictions. Instead, I suggested that we stop depending so much on government and live as free people, capable of accomplishing good for the greatest number of people, controlling our own resources directly rather than entrusting them for government bureaucrats to manage, often badly and inefficiently, on our behalf.
My pastor began a series of messages in response to several highly popular atheists who have a different kind of suspicion; they question faith itself, particularly religious faith, in books like The God Delusion and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. In doing so, they review the history of religious faith and associated evils from the Christian Inquisition to the apparently Muslim-inspired 9/11 attacks among numerous others. I could easily add to the list of Christendom’s failings, such as the excesses of the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, and the internecine conflict in Northern Ireland. I also argue that most of those responsible for the worst evils were not really Christians, whatever name they used. Instead, I will ask again, “Whom do you trust?” and similarly “What do you trust?”
A long time ago, Fritz Ridenour wrote a little book called How to be a Christian without Being Religious. Since discovering it, I have usually contrasted religion and Biblical Christianity as works from grace. Religion depends on man’s efforts to please God, whether by religious rituals, obedience, or cultic practices. Christianity relies on God’s efforts on man’s behalf, because men and women aren’t good enough to satisfy a holy God. No matter how much or what kind of things people do, religious activities are not the answer, according to the gospel, or “good news,” of Jesus Christ. Instead, since all are sinners, imperfect and incapable of self-perfecting, God gives, through the sacrificial death of His perfect Son, salvation from sin, redemption by grace to those who believe. He forgives cleanses the redeemed from sin, it, gives believers a new life, and adopts them forever into His family. In grace, believers trust God rather than themselves and the things that they think to do to please God, including acts of violence.
Only this kind of faith is incapable of evil, and this is “saving faith.” Unfortunately, even genuine Christians, by this definition, may still do evil. The Apostle Paul struggled with the issue of Christians who sin, despite their new relationship to God. So, what is the nature of “sin” that inspires evil in unbelievers, the followers of other religions, and even the legitimate children of God? In whom or in what, do people put their faith that causes them to rationalize the evil that so many have done? One answer if “being right.”
Being right is something everyone generally wants to be and usually thinks they are. Is anything more ordinary that people arguing about what they think is right? Sports fans argue about the right way to play and the right way to coach. People argue about the best way to do their jobs and often disagree with their bosses, managers, and owners. Both parents and child-rearing experts differ over how best to teach and discipline children. Husbands and wives quarrel about their beliefs and expectations of marriage and divorce about half the time. People have disagreed so much about politics and religion that many consider it best to forbid their discussion at social occasions. Today, many talk shows, campaigns, and even sporting events put aside courtesy as they struggle to prove who is best and who is right. Furthermore, church strife is so common that some seem to consider division a doctrine of the church; Christians seem to know more about how to fight than how to get along with each other, all for the sake of being right…for God?!
A compilation of letters reveals an interesting progression in the thinking of Francis Schaeffer, a popular theologian of the 20th Century. In his earlier years, he fought for the purity of the Presbyterian denomination. Like many other fundamentalists[1], he had been aggressive in opposing the forces in the Church he believed were threatening its purity in both doctrine and in moral virtue. However, he began to question the methods he and others were using, as he sought to understand his own spiritual dissatisfaction. From that point forward, he began to affirm a more loving and devotional attitude that caused many of former allies to condemn him. The shift in his thinking and the reaction of others is a clear example of the dilemma for Christians in their desire to be right.
I once struggled over the question of why so many apparently good Christians disagreed. I wrestled with that issue throughout most of my college years, and my search for an explanation provided a great education. Later went to seminary, still trying to solve the puzzle, even though I had changed from the denomination of my family and still found myself at odds with my professors and fellow students. Later, I discovered Christian peacemaking and finally found an answer to the problem that had vexed me for so long.
What many think is a desire for truth or purity is often merely a naturally arrogant desire to be right. I regarded truth and love to be critically important for most of my spiritual life, but I finally realized that, according to Jesus himself, love was the first and highest priority. Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” In this He encouraged an individual’s search for the truth and provided a reliable source and effective method. However, he also said, “Love one another. By this, all people will know that you are my disciples because you love one another.” The proof of legitimacy, or as Schaeffer called it, the “mark of the Christian,” is love. This supports His earlier statements that the “greatest commandment” is to love God with the whole of one’s being and also to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The proof of orthodoxy is loving, not being right. The most important responsibility of a believer is not proving wrong and opposing others, but loving them—fellow believers, neighbors, family members, even enemies—and, when necessary, humbly, patiently, kindly, correcting them.
Paul, in Ephesians 4, said that we should “speak the truth in love,” or to be right in the right way. Regrettably, far too many people just want to be right, and many of them will do just about anything to demonstrate their superiority. I have found this to be the biggest barrier to resolving conflict at any level, from various kinds of interpersonal disputes to ethnic war. I find the religious variety to be especially insidious, something I call “dogmatizing” conflict. By this I mean that people take a very normal sort of misunderstanding or dispute and justify their own stubbornness by giving it theological implications: “If God is on their side, then they aren’t being stubborn.” In their view, they are being holy when, in fact, they are wholly wrong!
Before I continue with some of the more notable applications of this to religious bigotry and misconduct, I want to refute the idea that some sort of non-faith or secular-based wisdom is the answer to abuses rooted in religion. The problem I have identified is certainly not exclusive to people of religious convictions, but to people with convictions of any kind, people who generally want to be and assume themselves to be right, people who are, in my view, self-centered sinners. Being dogmatic and self-righteous is equally common among atheists, who often think themselves to be objective. The near religious certainty and fervor by which people support views on evolution and the progress of life, global warming and environmentalism, ideas that favor animal rights and vegetarianism, and views on war and peace demonstrate that “religious extremism” is not the exclusive failure of those who believe in God. Indeed, some of these “true believers” are every bit as dogmatic, condescending, and adversarial as the most ardent of the spiritually devout.
The real questions, then, are these: Into whom or what do you put your faith? Then, what will you do to support your position? Those who reject belief in God seem to trust human nature, evolution and progress, scientific knowledge, experts of various kinds, or the inherent goodness of humans. Yet, secular governments have demonstrated inhuman cruelty equal to, if not greater than, any sectarian brutality. Evolution seems to oppose progress. Experts are often vulnerable to manipulation by the rich and powerful, and even supposedly objective scientists cheat. Despite technological and economic progress, evil still seems to find abundant expression. Look at the most secular societies and governments; evil still shows its ugliness in both neglect and wanton cruelty. I stand by my earlier commitment not to trust blindly any person, organization, or ideology to look out for me or for my best interests.
If anything, I am more suspicious of those who demand my allegiance by virtue of their position or authority. I don’t reject them because they are authorities or organizations; I am cautious because the powerful are sinful, capable of sinning powerfully. While so much of the world seems inclined to want an ever more powerful United Nations or even a world government, I would prefer to take power away from governments wherever we can. Where people seem content to place more and more money into fewer and fewer hands, I would prefer to allow more people to keep most of their own money and use it to solve their own problems. I have studied both science and religion, and I see no evidence that science alone is capable of solving our worst human problems, for what good will it be if we live longer, eat well, and enjoy abundant time and technology, if we cannot solve the problems of sin, despair, loneliness, bigotry, hatred, and purposelessness?
Sadly, I believe Lord Acton was correct; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bible says the same to the religious, “ ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the Lord.” No one on earth is trustworthy enough to trust absolutely. I disagree with those who attack religious faith because I don’t believe that evil arises from faith in God, but in choosing not to trust Him. The religious are the worst, in a sense, in that they imagine they must do for God, as if He cannot do for Himself. He wants us to be conduits of His love and teachers of His truth; He doesn’t need us to execute His wrath. Except for some Old Testament instances from a far different time, the Bible is clear in saying so. As for Islam and the Q’ran, the justification of violence against infidels is rather clear, causing me to give it little credence.
Among the non-religious and pseudo-religious, abuse of power is horrifying. The Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, and northern Sudanese killed millions. The latter is nominally religious, but their actions are rooted in racism and greed, hardly religious values; the killing in Darfur is Muslim killing Muslim[2]. Saddam Hussein murdered many of his own people to stay in power, as have untold tyrants, and religion is rarely even visible as a factor.
So, whom do you trust? Personally, I prefer to entrust as little power to anyone as possible. Being right so easily become righteous cause, and there is no tyranny to match such as those, religious or not, who believe their cause justifies murder or oppression. Many who condemn religion seem willing to trust secular powers; I see little difference without the genuine compassion of those who commit themselves to the Great Commandment. Even then, I would prefer to carry out my own commitment, in that regard, rather than entrust it to others, as much as possible. I favor government that we limit to defending our land and policing our neighborhoods. Given that kind of security, I believe creative and hard-working humans can take care of the rest.
[1] Originally, the modernists who were rejecting many of the traditional, Biblical doctrines of Christianity, used the term “fundamentalist” as an epithet for those opposing them who favored the historic fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith, such as a literal Christian, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement. The traditionalists accepted the label and took it up, proudly, as their own. They were neither anti-intellectual nor extreme in their thinking, except in the view of their modernist adversaries. Today, however, people use the word fundamental for nearly anyone they regard as fanatical, regardless of their religion.
[2] The use of suicide bombing is virtually incomprehensible to most of us, whether we’re speaking of the Japanese kamikaze bombers or the 9/11 terrorists. The combination of an incitement to hate the perceived enemy combined with the naïve trust of the young people who kill themselves is the most twisted abuse of trust. I consider the imams, today, the most reprehensible of evil men, commanding the faithful to do what few if any of them will do themselves. I grieve for the eternal destiny of those who trust such as these, for I am confident there are no virgins waiting for them. That “promise” is itself another proof of a moral inconsistency in promising after death what is condemned as evil before it.
My pastor began a series of messages in response to several highly popular atheists who have a different kind of suspicion; they question faith itself, particularly religious faith, in books like The God Delusion and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. In doing so, they review the history of religious faith and associated evils from the Christian Inquisition to the apparently Muslim-inspired 9/11 attacks among numerous others. I could easily add to the list of Christendom’s failings, such as the excesses of the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, and the internecine conflict in Northern Ireland. I also argue that most of those responsible for the worst evils were not really Christians, whatever name they used. Instead, I will ask again, “Whom do you trust?” and similarly “What do you trust?”
A long time ago, Fritz Ridenour wrote a little book called How to be a Christian without Being Religious. Since discovering it, I have usually contrasted religion and Biblical Christianity as works from grace. Religion depends on man’s efforts to please God, whether by religious rituals, obedience, or cultic practices. Christianity relies on God’s efforts on man’s behalf, because men and women aren’t good enough to satisfy a holy God. No matter how much or what kind of things people do, religious activities are not the answer, according to the gospel, or “good news,” of Jesus Christ. Instead, since all are sinners, imperfect and incapable of self-perfecting, God gives, through the sacrificial death of His perfect Son, salvation from sin, redemption by grace to those who believe. He forgives cleanses the redeemed from sin, it, gives believers a new life, and adopts them forever into His family. In grace, believers trust God rather than themselves and the things that they think to do to please God, including acts of violence.
Only this kind of faith is incapable of evil, and this is “saving faith.” Unfortunately, even genuine Christians, by this definition, may still do evil. The Apostle Paul struggled with the issue of Christians who sin, despite their new relationship to God. So, what is the nature of “sin” that inspires evil in unbelievers, the followers of other religions, and even the legitimate children of God? In whom or in what, do people put their faith that causes them to rationalize the evil that so many have done? One answer if “being right.”
Being right is something everyone generally wants to be and usually thinks they are. Is anything more ordinary that people arguing about what they think is right? Sports fans argue about the right way to play and the right way to coach. People argue about the best way to do their jobs and often disagree with their bosses, managers, and owners. Both parents and child-rearing experts differ over how best to teach and discipline children. Husbands and wives quarrel about their beliefs and expectations of marriage and divorce about half the time. People have disagreed so much about politics and religion that many consider it best to forbid their discussion at social occasions. Today, many talk shows, campaigns, and even sporting events put aside courtesy as they struggle to prove who is best and who is right. Furthermore, church strife is so common that some seem to consider division a doctrine of the church; Christians seem to know more about how to fight than how to get along with each other, all for the sake of being right…for God?!
A compilation of letters reveals an interesting progression in the thinking of Francis Schaeffer, a popular theologian of the 20th Century. In his earlier years, he fought for the purity of the Presbyterian denomination. Like many other fundamentalists[1], he had been aggressive in opposing the forces in the Church he believed were threatening its purity in both doctrine and in moral virtue. However, he began to question the methods he and others were using, as he sought to understand his own spiritual dissatisfaction. From that point forward, he began to affirm a more loving and devotional attitude that caused many of former allies to condemn him. The shift in his thinking and the reaction of others is a clear example of the dilemma for Christians in their desire to be right.
I once struggled over the question of why so many apparently good Christians disagreed. I wrestled with that issue throughout most of my college years, and my search for an explanation provided a great education. Later went to seminary, still trying to solve the puzzle, even though I had changed from the denomination of my family and still found myself at odds with my professors and fellow students. Later, I discovered Christian peacemaking and finally found an answer to the problem that had vexed me for so long.
What many think is a desire for truth or purity is often merely a naturally arrogant desire to be right. I regarded truth and love to be critically important for most of my spiritual life, but I finally realized that, according to Jesus himself, love was the first and highest priority. Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” In this He encouraged an individual’s search for the truth and provided a reliable source and effective method. However, he also said, “Love one another. By this, all people will know that you are my disciples because you love one another.” The proof of legitimacy, or as Schaeffer called it, the “mark of the Christian,” is love. This supports His earlier statements that the “greatest commandment” is to love God with the whole of one’s being and also to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The proof of orthodoxy is loving, not being right. The most important responsibility of a believer is not proving wrong and opposing others, but loving them—fellow believers, neighbors, family members, even enemies—and, when necessary, humbly, patiently, kindly, correcting them.
Paul, in Ephesians 4, said that we should “speak the truth in love,” or to be right in the right way. Regrettably, far too many people just want to be right, and many of them will do just about anything to demonstrate their superiority. I have found this to be the biggest barrier to resolving conflict at any level, from various kinds of interpersonal disputes to ethnic war. I find the religious variety to be especially insidious, something I call “dogmatizing” conflict. By this I mean that people take a very normal sort of misunderstanding or dispute and justify their own stubbornness by giving it theological implications: “If God is on their side, then they aren’t being stubborn.” In their view, they are being holy when, in fact, they are wholly wrong!
Before I continue with some of the more notable applications of this to religious bigotry and misconduct, I want to refute the idea that some sort of non-faith or secular-based wisdom is the answer to abuses rooted in religion. The problem I have identified is certainly not exclusive to people of religious convictions, but to people with convictions of any kind, people who generally want to be and assume themselves to be right, people who are, in my view, self-centered sinners. Being dogmatic and self-righteous is equally common among atheists, who often think themselves to be objective. The near religious certainty and fervor by which people support views on evolution and the progress of life, global warming and environmentalism, ideas that favor animal rights and vegetarianism, and views on war and peace demonstrate that “religious extremism” is not the exclusive failure of those who believe in God. Indeed, some of these “true believers” are every bit as dogmatic, condescending, and adversarial as the most ardent of the spiritually devout.
The real questions, then, are these: Into whom or what do you put your faith? Then, what will you do to support your position? Those who reject belief in God seem to trust human nature, evolution and progress, scientific knowledge, experts of various kinds, or the inherent goodness of humans. Yet, secular governments have demonstrated inhuman cruelty equal to, if not greater than, any sectarian brutality. Evolution seems to oppose progress. Experts are often vulnerable to manipulation by the rich and powerful, and even supposedly objective scientists cheat. Despite technological and economic progress, evil still seems to find abundant expression. Look at the most secular societies and governments; evil still shows its ugliness in both neglect and wanton cruelty. I stand by my earlier commitment not to trust blindly any person, organization, or ideology to look out for me or for my best interests.
If anything, I am more suspicious of those who demand my allegiance by virtue of their position or authority. I don’t reject them because they are authorities or organizations; I am cautious because the powerful are sinful, capable of sinning powerfully. While so much of the world seems inclined to want an ever more powerful United Nations or even a world government, I would prefer to take power away from governments wherever we can. Where people seem content to place more and more money into fewer and fewer hands, I would prefer to allow more people to keep most of their own money and use it to solve their own problems. I have studied both science and religion, and I see no evidence that science alone is capable of solving our worst human problems, for what good will it be if we live longer, eat well, and enjoy abundant time and technology, if we cannot solve the problems of sin, despair, loneliness, bigotry, hatred, and purposelessness?
Sadly, I believe Lord Acton was correct; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bible says the same to the religious, “ ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the Lord.” No one on earth is trustworthy enough to trust absolutely. I disagree with those who attack religious faith because I don’t believe that evil arises from faith in God, but in choosing not to trust Him. The religious are the worst, in a sense, in that they imagine they must do for God, as if He cannot do for Himself. He wants us to be conduits of His love and teachers of His truth; He doesn’t need us to execute His wrath. Except for some Old Testament instances from a far different time, the Bible is clear in saying so. As for Islam and the Q’ran, the justification of violence against infidels is rather clear, causing me to give it little credence.
Among the non-religious and pseudo-religious, abuse of power is horrifying. The Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, and northern Sudanese killed millions. The latter is nominally religious, but their actions are rooted in racism and greed, hardly religious values; the killing in Darfur is Muslim killing Muslim[2]. Saddam Hussein murdered many of his own people to stay in power, as have untold tyrants, and religion is rarely even visible as a factor.
So, whom do you trust? Personally, I prefer to entrust as little power to anyone as possible. Being right so easily become righteous cause, and there is no tyranny to match such as those, religious or not, who believe their cause justifies murder or oppression. Many who condemn religion seem willing to trust secular powers; I see little difference without the genuine compassion of those who commit themselves to the Great Commandment. Even then, I would prefer to carry out my own commitment, in that regard, rather than entrust it to others, as much as possible. I favor government that we limit to defending our land and policing our neighborhoods. Given that kind of security, I believe creative and hard-working humans can take care of the rest.
[1] Originally, the modernists who were rejecting many of the traditional, Biblical doctrines of Christianity, used the term “fundamentalist” as an epithet for those opposing them who favored the historic fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith, such as a literal Christian, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement. The traditionalists accepted the label and took it up, proudly, as their own. They were neither anti-intellectual nor extreme in their thinking, except in the view of their modernist adversaries. Today, however, people use the word fundamental for nearly anyone they regard as fanatical, regardless of their religion.
[2] The use of suicide bombing is virtually incomprehensible to most of us, whether we’re speaking of the Japanese kamikaze bombers or the 9/11 terrorists. The combination of an incitement to hate the perceived enemy combined with the naïve trust of the young people who kill themselves is the most twisted abuse of trust. I consider the imams, today, the most reprehensible of evil men, commanding the faithful to do what few if any of them will do themselves. I grieve for the eternal destiny of those who trust such as these, for I am confident there are no virgins waiting for them. That “promise” is itself another proof of a moral inconsistency in promising after death what is condemned as evil before it.
Comments