WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? 1/5

Preface

What do you believe? It’s a question I feel almost everybody has asked themselves at some point in their lives. For some, the question may have only needed to come up once for it to be satisfied with whatever answer was provided them in their early years. For others, it will be a question they wrestle with throughout their lifetime, and one whose answer will shape every significant season of their life. Whatever priority we give it, it's a question that demands an answer—even if that answer is a decidedly emphatic, “I don’t know.”

As for me, I take the obsessive route. It seems like not a day goes by without my mind venturing into the question of my existence, the chief purpose of Man, the character of God, or the actualities of Good and Evil. One of my favorite conversations to have with myself is the argument for or against the existence of God, and the implications therein. (If I had even a fraction of these internal conversations with actual people, I’d be a much more productive member of society.) Through these internal dialogues, I've come across an interesting realization which has become the reason for my writing this series of articles. That realization is this: Though many people claim atheism or agnosticism in creed, their behavior often says otherwise. 

In the following collection of essays, I will attempt to explain how I think that most of us are acting in a way—whether consciously or unconsciously—that submits to the existence and authority of God. Specifically, I see such evidence in the way that we treat the concepts of Justice, Truth, Faith, Happiness and Love. And though, in their very nature, such concepts still glow as bold and bright as ever, the words themselves have, in a sense, become faded and diluted in meaning through over-use and loose application. Thus, many minds have divorced them from their source; which I believe to be God Himself. 

Now before we go any further, I just want to say up front that I am a believer in the God that Christianity proclaims, and that is the perspective from which I am writing these articles. So, whenever I mention God, I am referring to the God of which Christianity professes. I am doing this because I hold the beliefs of Christianity to be true and right in their approach to reality. I am not doing this because of some blind religious or political obligation or guilt. I really do believe the creed of Christianity, and it’s my suspicion you may also. You just may not realize it yet. When opportunities allow, I will attempt to explain my reasoning behind my belief in a rational, carefully thought-out manner. And yes, it is my hope that all who read this may come to know the transforming love and truth found through Jesus Christ alone. It would be very cruel of me to believe something is truly life-changing yet withhold it out of fear of stepping on toes. All I ask of you, the reader, is to be open to what I have to say, removing any prejudices you may have about Christianity, and to be honest with yourself about what your thoughts and actions actually reveal about your beliefs. 

My hope is that these topics are starting points for future conversations. I am open to any further discussions, for this is a learning opportunity for myself as well. I want to get better at having deep, meaningful conversations that actually exist outside of my own head, and I want to learn how to better love my neighbor through the simple acts of speaking and being spoken to. I hope these writings bless you in some way and I look forward to hearing from you! 

The Problem with Justice

The first point of evidence I want to discuss is extremely relevant for our day.  In an age where atrocities committed by groups such as ISIS and Boko Harem plaster our television screens seemingly every morning, there has been an ever-increasing cry for this thing called justice.  However, justice—which I am defining as the righting of something deemed wrong—is the very same claim of the radicals behind these acts that we deplore. Both parties decry the actions of the other and believe themselves to be appealing to some authoritative sense of rightness. Imagining my audience, I assume you, like I, fall into the category of despising the work of terrorists groups such as ISIS and Boko Harem, so I will continue on with this example under that assumption. 

Now, I want you to think about the sense of injustice you feel when you hear about a mass shooting, a bombing or a kidnapping committed by ISIS. Why do you call such an act “wrong” or “evil?”  Your answer will tell you a lot about where you place the authority of right and wrong.  

My guess is that you had some variation one of three answers: 

1.)  It goes against some universal truth from which we get our morality; some truth that says human life is precious and should be protected.  

2.)  It goes against the “morals” of our herd-mentality; a sense of right and wrong derived from an instinct centered on what’s best for the species’ survival.  

3.)  I don’t know. It just feels wrong.

For those of you in the first group, congratulations! You’ve found God. I’ll get to you all in a second, but first I want to address the other two groups in the room.

Group Two

I just want to say that you have a cohesive argument. But for all of our sakes, I hope to God you are wrong. The stance you take is centered around what is best for the herd (read: human race).  Well, what if those ascribing to ISIS's creed become the majority of the herd? Are you prepared to do what’s best for the herd then? 

See, this prescribed model of survival requires that the fittest survive, and that “fitness,” as we observe in nature, is determined by power. Those that adapt the quickest and have the greatest access to resources dictate what the herd mentality is. It’s beat ‘em, join ‘em, or else. Now, I am open to a scenario in which intelligence, compassion, and tolerance one day become the new “fitness,” but how would that be enforceable? There would still need to be some way of suppressing those that value conquest, greed, and fear-mongering, lest the current ideology be overrun. No matter how peace-loving the idea of the day is, a certain level of power is required to maintain it’s reign. 

Group Two’s thinking presents a world constantly stuck in transition between warring ideologies, one where lasting peace would be impossible. And with no absolute truth or authority to appeal to, the “rightness" of the day is only contingent upon it’s adherents' ability to uphold it. Even then, the only reasoning behind any of these shifting ideologies is that the species survives, so identifying any particular one of them as being universally more “right” than another would prove baseless. 

For example, under Group Two’s thinking, one could suggest that killing off the weak and disabled would be the best thing for our species. It would promote stronger genes being passed on and allow our resources to go farther since the population would be smaller. Quite Hitler-esque, isn’t it? Could you imagine the outcry if that was suggested in our current political climate? However, under Group Two’s premise, it is just as legitimate as suggesting we love and care for everyone regardless their condition. Any sense of “rightness" surrounding an idea would only depend on the idea’s efficacy in promoting the species’ survival.  

When faced with injustice, the appropriate action for those in Group Two would be to assess which side is winning and join it.

Group Three

I’m giving you an “incomplete” on this one.  By saying, “It feels wrong,” I’m assuming you are in some way recognizing an innate morality described by either of the first two groups. However, your answer could present an even more troubling implication than those of Group Two. 

I doubt you’d go so far as to state it this way, but I just want to put it out there so you can see the danger hiding in your answer. If, by “it feels,” you mean that your current perception of the world around you somehow dictates the universal positions of right and wrong, and you feel it your duty to judge the world based on this notion, then you are essentially setting yourself up as the supreme arbiter of good and evil. Unless you are the most honest of narcissists, I don’t think this was your intention. 

Yet, when you think about it, our society has created an environment in which the individual is exalted to a god-like status. Our individuality is treated with such sanctity that it’s no wonder we are so quickly offended when our point of view is treated as anything but authoritative. Where Group Two’s thinking allows a power struggle between warring ideas, Group Three’s thinking creates a power struggle on the individual level—a battle of billions of supposed demigods. 

When faced with injustice, the appropriate action for those in Group Three would be to make a personal judgement and impose it on the world.

Group One

Might I prescribe to you, Christianity? Whether you readily recognize it or not, I believe your answer appeals to God's authority. And when I say God, I mean to describe not only an ever-enduring constant from which we get the laws of our universe and the thing behind the authorship of our existence, but a personality that grants immovable value and definite parameters to existence and livelihood. If you find yourself disagreeing with the personality aspect, then I’d have to say you actually belong to Group Two with those who think our attribution of meaning is merely a product of instinct.  

Now, I want to take a moment and address a potential objection that may have come up by this point. I’m sure some of you may be thinking, “This is what irritates me about religion. These people claim some divine authority and use it to impose their will on the world. The conflicts proposed in the Group Two section are mostly centered around religion anyway.” 

First of all, I want to say you are correct. Appealing to a divine authority has supercharged the conflict between may people groups throughout history. Christians aren’t immune to this. In fact, we are particularly bad about doing this. Although, we do believe in God’s universal authority, we often wield it as if it we are the appointed judge. There’s a reason Jesus preached humility and servanthood. If we aren’t ourselves constantly being challenged and offended by the authority of God we ascribe to, then we have no solid ground on which to prescribe it to others. 

This isn’t to say there's not a time for conflict. However, there is an important difference in Christianity’s approach to conflict. Where Group Two sees conflict as a perpetual inevitability, Christianity sees conflict as having a distinct end. And that end relies on the final actualization of the Truth they appeal to. If that truth ends up not existing, then it becomes just another shifting ideology described in Group Two. However, if this authoritative truth is real, then it’s adherents are the only ones who have a correct view of justice and therefore are able to pursue it genuinely. 

Which brings up another concept I feel most of you will cringe at: The Wrath of God. Most of us don’t like the concept of a wrathful God. However, we have no problem asking for justice to come on those who do evil. Do you see the paradox here? How can we expect the ultimate abolishment of evil to come if we prefer a god without the power to defeat it? If evil is to be defeated, there must be a line in the sand that delineates what will persist and what will be destroyed. But the amazing thing is, through Jesus Christ, God gives us the choice of which side we’d like to stand on.

Now, for those of you that still find yourself in Group One, lets talk about this Authority to which you find yourself subscribed to. It may feel funny at first, but in order to align with what we are now seeing as a real sense of justice, you are going to have to submit to this Authority. This is where CAREFUL consideration is paramount. I firmly believe Who that authority is ineffably matters. (Remember, ISIS appeals to something they call god.) This means you better hit the books before you even being the process of discerning right from wrong. And don’t you dare just settle for some piecemeal god that you’ve concocted from a mishmash of "life experiences" and celebrity quotes, lest you end up the poster child for Group Three. Trust me, I tried to get by on this whole intuition-based morality thing for a long time and have seen how baseless it is. Even though the US Census has likely known me to be a Christian since I was in elementary school, I really only say I became a Christian my sophomore year of college. 

If you are looking for an awesome resource to help you begin practically uncovering the evident characteristics of God, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and The Reason for God by Timothy Keller are books I can’t recommend enough. In fact, these two books have helped inspire a lot of what you will be reading within these essays. 

When faced with injustice, the appropriate action for those in Group One would be to discern truth and fight for it.  

The Moral Relativists

Now, there is one other group I’ve neglected to address, and that’s because I think there are very few true adherents to it. This is the group of the Moral Relativists. I can hear you right now: “Hey! I know lots of moral relativists! I might even be one! We all decide what’s right for ourselves; to each their own, right?” To each their own; this has been the mantra of our culture for some time now: "Who am I to impose my beliefs on someone else?" 

Well, what happens when that someone’s “own” involves stealing your car and wrapping it around a telephone pole? Or what if that someone’s personal morality justifies raping your wife and abducting your child? To each their own, who are you to judge, right? Again, I’m using extreme examples, but I want to prove a point: The same hypocrisy Christians are (often rightly) accused of when they pick and choose which morals to abide by and which to conveniently ignore, I see in self-defined relative moralists. They preach tolerance and that it’s not right for anyone to impose their personal beliefs on another. But that statement is often forgotten when they themselves are the one being harmed by another person’s actions—actions which are totally allowed by the very creed they proclaim. In fact, to say it is not right for anyone to impose their beliefs on others, is itself, an act of imposing a personal belief on others.

“What is heaven for the spider is hell for the fly,” a drifter once told me whilst wielding a large steak knife he was using to eat bowlful of raw onions and lentils. The only people I see truly ascribing to such a chaotic outlook must be either in a constant state of paranoia or so insulated from reality by either privilege or aloofness that they neither notice nor care about such as thing as rightness.

When faced with injustice, the appropriate action of a moral relativist would be to remain silent. 

True Justice

Now, hopefully you are still with me and maybe some of you have even decided a Christian perspective is for you. I hope so, because this is where the meaning of justice really starts to take shape. You see, once you begin to uncover the character of God and the redemptive nature of the work He is doing, that is when justice becomes a tangible, executable thing. Because now, when we say we fight for justice, we are not referencing some vague idea that happens to be popular at the time, and we are certainly not referencing our own sense of authority and rightness. No, when we say we fight for justice, we are saying we align with a God who say he is “making all things new.” (Revelation 21:5) We can make our mission, his mission: to "preach good news to the poor… proclaim freedom for the prisoner and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed.” (Luke 4:18 - Jesus quoting Isaiah 61:1)—things most of us traditionally think of when we think of justice. But now our pursuit appeals to something concrete: the authority of an immovable, almighty God. 

However, with this new found legitimacy behind our justice-seeking, there is one very important distinction that needs to be made. It is against Evil that we wage war, not people. True, there are great atrocities that people commit under the influence of evil, but they themselves are merely deceived captives. We must be fighting for them as much as we are fighting for those they are oppressing. This isn’t to say that those who continually align with evil won't be punished, but that is a job we leave to God. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19) 

This is not an attempt to belittle the suffering caused by evil. In fact, leading the charge in the pursuit of justice, we have Jesus—the ultimate sufferer of evil. Anyone who has felt the devastation and grief caused by the darkness of this world, has a God who has felt the very same thing on an infinitely greater scale. However, the charge he gives to us is to love our enemies. Even in the midst of his torturous crucifixion, Jesus pleaded in favor of his assailants: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) For Jesus sees a mission beyond simply abolishing evil actions, his mission is to bring freedom—both to the oppressed and the oppressors.

Now, if this whole justice argument still has you feeling skeptical, I want to ask you one more question that may put things in a stronger context: If you say that life is precious, and should be protected. Why? You must answer this question in order to have any respectable position on which to pursue justice. The only way to avoid an answer is to reject the statement that human life has value, and you and I both know that is not a statement you are willing to make. 

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
-- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity