"Christianity - Is it Narrow Minded?"

Christianity’s Narrow Moral View

The suggestion in this case is that Christian morality focuses primarily on matters of sexual behavior.  To read the article referenced below in the background section leaves one with the sense that the writer is once again grasping at straws. 

The notion that “…everything not prohibited is permitted…” is a construct that has no general historical foundation.  Well that is unless a person picks and chooses historical events that may not even represent true Christianity in order to make his case.  Such is the case here.

Morals versus Ethics

In considering the question one must begin with the difference between morals and ethics.  Morals come from the word mores or that which the majority of a culture or sub-culture believes.  On the other hand ethics is more universal and objective.  Christians as well as others believe such to be transcendent.  To read a treatment of the subject see a brief treatment posted at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2011/08/ethics-vs-morals.html.  At that posting there are references to other postings on the subject.  

Wild Accusations Against Christians

Wild accusations against Christianity often flow without documentation.  While it may be true that certain clergy may have endorsed slave trade, such accusations must be supported with documentation or they quickly become irrelevant.  What is more, it also must be remembered that it was the Christian Church in general and individual Christians such as William Wilberforce who stood against the culture and was instrumental in the abolition of slavery.

Christians Ignoring Evils—Oh Really?

Slavery is but one of the evils that the Christian Church has stood against.  Therefore, to lay the claim that Christians ignore the very real evils plaguing society is something of a conflicting statement.  It conflicts with the truth and it conflicts with logic. 

The Basis for Evil

Just how is it one can make the determination that something is evil? 

Logically, there can be no evil without there being a standard by which to make such a judgment. (See argument in posting at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/10/are-there-universal-concepts.html).  Again, the question arises as to the origin of that standard by which something can be valued as evil.

The common answer is that such standards came as culture evolved such values.  However, what cannot be answered is why there are common values in cultures that are separated and have no relationship.  An example is the preoccupation with life, even in the most egregious kinds of activities (infant sacrifice) such were done based upon the premise that pleasing the god would grant a good harvest and such was necessary for life.

In other words such actions as unconscionable as they were—were based upon the notion of the greater good.  That is another universal concept which incidentally is out of step with the “survival of the fittest” notion of evolutionary theory. 

The Good and Evil Judgment

Why then are such things as “…poverty; homelessness; hunger; militarism; a grossly unfair distribution of wealth and income; ecological despoliation exacerbated by corporate greed; overpopulation; sexism; racism; homophobia; freedom-denying, invasive drug laws; an inadequate educational system…” judged to be wrong?  By what standard does one decide these things are good or evil?  Again, one must consider the origin of that standard?

The Question of Responsibility

Arising now is the question of responsibility.  While the Christian church is to be the voice of reason and ethical restraint, there are some matters that belong to government. 

For example in the foregoing list, “…militarism; ecological despoliation exacerbated by corporate greed; freedom-denying, invasive drug laws; an inadequate educational system…” are all issues that fall into the purview of the government.  How is it that any logical thinking person would postulate otherwise?

You Really Want Intrusion?

The same voices that scream bloody murder when the church supposedly intrudes into one’s person life now are equally verbal in asking why the Christian Church is not involved (see previous post at http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/12/christianity-does-it-produce-sexual.html).

One cannot have it both ways.  Either one accepts the involvement of the church or doesn’t accept it.  Such again points to the unfair and illogical thinking on the part of those who cynically disparage the Christian church. 

Secular Champions

It seems then that those with secular agenda want the church to champion their secular causes.    However, again it is illogical for the church when it is mobilized brings with it ethical reality and such reality is not comfortable to the secularist. 

In other words, if you want Christians involved then fine but when such involvement does not fit the secular agenda then be quiet!

Put up or Shut up

Consider then the other social problems listed.  “…poverty; homelessness; hunger; overpopulation; sexism; racism; homophobia….”   Where are the atheistic groups?  Have they opened soup kitchens, rescue missions, etc.?  What hospital have they opened?  Christians have the YMCA, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, AA, and many more helping agencies that have their beginnings because of Christian faith. 

In fact if you look at the Christian church you will find that against the mores of Rome they elevated the status of women, giving the leadership in the fledgling church and stood against racism.  As well, the charge of homophobia is the statement of bias by the writer (see below for source).  The truth is that most churches are well able to accept all kinds of people while not endorsing or even agreeing with their life-style and sexual choices.

So then before an avowed anarchist atheist gets too wild in his claims where is the Young Men’s Atheist Association, the Atheist Army, the Red Anarchist, Alcoholics Atheism Anonymous, etc.?  Oh and one more question.  Would you welcome a conservative Bible believing Christian in your group?  I thought not!

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

The Darkened Understanding

Remember the story of the frog in the kettle?  It all begins with a frog in cool water with the heat being gradually turned up until what do you have?  Cooked frog! It is so with so many things.

If 30 years ago someone would have proposed any of a number of things we find "normal" today they would have been named "extreme," laughed at, or called to repentance.  Yet today we are deeply immersed in a culture that while moral (from word mores--that which at least 50.01% label as normal) is far from ethical (normal based on transcendent, universal, objective, and immutable reality).

How did we get here?  It was not a radical change but a gradual change, imperceptive change, millimeter by millimeter change.  Those who earned the name "extreme" in the past are now viewed as "mainstream" while those once considered to be normal or "mainstream" are now named "extreme" or "radical!"

Why did we get here?  It may be summed up in one word, "depravity."  Man is depraved and that depravity knows no depth.  In other words, without there being an intervention in the heart of man, he will continue the slide deeper and deeper into depravity with the resulting darkened heart and of course sinful behavior.

The minutely gradual nature of this means that with little recognition, man's heart becomes deeply darkened.  The ultimate outcome is that one loses the capacity to comprehend the existence of and the standards of the Divine.

Even a slight recognition of God serves as a restraint.  Such is so even for those who have no faith experience.  Once gone there is nothing to check one's decent as without the buoyancy provided by faith they slip ever deeper into the depths of spiritual and ethical darkness.  Understanding without God's intervention becomes impossible.

Depravity is sinister in that its actions are gradual almost imperceptible until whether it be a culture, sub-culture, or an individual, there is no escape.  Like the frog in the now boiling kettle.

When one uses the moral messages provided by the media and in much of academia to measure what is correct and normal, then one uses a set of depraved principles to measure the behavior of another.  In other words it is like the village watchmaker who sets his clocks by the factory lunch whistle only to find out that the factory time keeper set his watch by the clock in the watchmaker's window.

To know whether one's standards are right or wrong, one needs an external source or standard.  Such is provided by religion in general and by Judeo-Christian faith in particular.

What is one to do?  In past days there were national and international spiritual movements.  Two were called, "Great Awakenings."  It was then that even whole societies awakened to their plight and to their need for change.  Of course the only lasting change is found in the salvation provided by Christ on the Cross.

It is as one becomes a follower of the Lord, Jesus Christ that he can change not just direction in his life but also his family, and his group to include his society.  It is as that change took place that the effects of depravity were held in abeyance for a time.  May it be so again!

 

Giving Away One's Word!

What does the giving of one’s word mean?

Without integrity of word and behavior it is impossible to check man’s descent into chaos.  This would be true of the individual as well as the culture!

At one time one’s word once given and due to a man’s character was as real as truth.  It was in that time that a man did not need to execute a contract because a man’s word meant something.  It was his sacred duty to keep his word and so “A man’s word was his bond.”  Said another way he held himself in the bonds of his word.  Such was so unless released by the other party.  It was an issue or personal ethics.

Often one carried out his word; it was viewed as his sacred duty because it spoke to his personal reputation and his honor.  Thus a man even at great personal cost, loss of material wealth, or even loss of his own life, could be counted upon to do what he said he would do and behave as he said he would behave. 

Sadly in today’s culture one is beyond naïve if he does business on a handshake.  Recently I was in a meeting in which it was decided that the group would purchase a series of products at an agreed upon price.  It was moved, seconded, and passed.  There was no contract only a verbal agreement that the product would be produced at a certain price point. 

The product arrived and then it was revealed to the group that there were additional “set up” charges.  It was moved, seconded, and passed that we pay the additional charges.  There were two dissenting “no” votes.  The reason I so voted was based solely on the fact that there had been an agreement and that the other party had made an agreement and then did not perform according to the agreement.

How one keeping his or her word has changed.  Today if one feels that he inconvenienced or feels that the costs involved are too unfair, such a person seeks to be divested of any responsibility to carry though with his commitments.  He may blame circumstances and comfortably believe he is absolved of such responsibility as his word has established however in making the decision and in giving himself such permission, he does incur another consequence that may ultimately be more costly and inconvenient.  Indeed it is a character issue!

The simple truth is that for one to act outside of his word gives practical expression to the moral fiber of his heart.  It very clearly suggests a life and belief system which is void of such things as trust, honor, honesty, respect for others, and personal integrity.  To gain such a reputation is a consequence and a cost much higher than any inconvenience or material loss that may accrue.

The business community is littered with failures neither because of quality nor craftsmanship but because a man would excuse himself from keeping his word.  Such a decision is not without consequence in one’s own life and in the lives of those he contacts.  We found such to be so in a home project—a kitchen remodel in which the cabinet installer just could not seem to keep his word.

Is it any wonder that we live in a culture that is unraveling?  Some years ago I formed a “handshake” agreement with a service manager to have certain work done on my car at a certain price.  All was well and good until I got the bill.  Later I found out that he did the same thing with others and that he was dismissed from the position by the owner.  The sad part is that someone else hired him in the same position and so he went on deceiving other unsuspecting customers. 

The question we all need to consider is this.  What does it mean when we give our word to another?  Is it a gift that can be counted upon or is it a gift that will be taken back?  Your trustworthiness is based or we might say finds its foundation in your answer!

Genuine Service? Oh Really!

Man's needs provide the opportunity for service and care.  The question arises then on what level do we provide that care? 

Prominent in the arena of social problems such as poverty, discrimination, fractured families, substance abuse, community problems, crime, and so many others are those who seek to provide answers.  Some through some government program or another.  There are those who believe their political party can "fix" these issues.  Some invest their hope and trust in a politician.  Oh, do not forget the community activists who think by marshaling people to some cause or another they can create change--generally they tend to produce more rebellion than results.

Time is the test of change and I am willing to wager that if you study the history of the above mentioned movements over the long-haul not much is different.  However, there is a much more successful "program."  It has been termed variously over the years--renewal, revival, repentance, etc.  It is so because it goes to the central core of the issues listed above, man's heart.

Any of a number of faith based change agents could be cited.  One example is the Teen Challenge Drug Program. Another is the Catholic Charity Hospitals.  How about those with Christians beginnings that though wandering still do lasting work in the lives of those they serve.  The Young Mens Christian Association (YMCA) and the Red Cross are but two of the many.

The point is that it is coming to a personal faith that changes one on the inside is the kind of change that makes a person different, such changes his family, such changes the neighborhood, such changes the community.  Go ahead and seek change--maybe you will succeed but if you leave God out of change, it will not long endure not will it change people in such a way so that the change remains over the long term.

As one goes about serving others in the various venues of life, unless one goes beyond simply meeting the symptoms which are the manifestation of the basic needs, there is no end to the meeting of the symptoms.  One must come a point at which one deals with the deeper issues that caused the symptoms.  As they say, to do otherwise is to “…put Band-Aids on cancer….”

One must have at least a moral framework for change but that is not enough.  If such change does not alter the religious-ethical framework of others, such change will be temporary.  The problem is that without such change on the part of the caregiver, there is little from which to lastingly serve others.  To have change other than mentioned is to do less than serve others.  

"Respect"

Respect is a word that has quite a history and over those years of use there are nuances of difference in meaning.  However, which ever period one chooses to view the outcome is the same.  Respect is a matter of how one person treats another.  As to definition consider the following.

Respect is from the Latin respectus and literally means "the act of looking back at one." Included is the notions of "look back at, regard, consider,"  which comes from re- "back" + specere "look at" The verb is from the mid 1500s and means to "treat with deferential regard or esteem."  (adapted from definition found at http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php) 

Said another way respect is to "treat with reverent or courteous regard—to value, hold in esteem, or high regard.”  In other words, it is a relationship word. 

Some 4,500-6,000 years earlier the Hebrew Language uses the word in the sense of  “to lift” or we would say “to lift up”one's regard for a person or a people.  Then the Greeks came along and added the dimension of feeling and their word meant “to feel respect for.”  Feeling or not, it speaks to the quality of relationship. 

There are it seems to me two applications of the word.

First, it describes how we treat another person.  An example would be in the following.  She treated her the older woman with respect as she listened to her story for the tenth time.  Another way of saying it is that she had a respectful demeanor.

Recently I read the remarks by a young woman by the name of Sara as she wrote of respect.  She works in a local court system and writes about her contact with those who have run afoul of the Law.

"I realized...that the respect I show these people isn't because they have necessarily earned it or deserve it but because there is also an Ethic of Respect.  That Ethic of Respect comes from a decision to intentionally obey the rules of conduct put into place by something greater than just my feelings."

She went on to say, "I don't always respect every customer I come into contact with but I always show them respect..."

Respect is a small gift that each can easily afford to tailor made and then give to another.  One never knows the outcome of such a gift.  It may well be an instrument of change in the life of another.

Second, there is respect as in how we react within.  An example would be the reaction we might have to another who is consistent of character.  One who no matter the winds or tides stays to the course.  It is to be the genuine living out of character qualities.  Such is found in statements as for instance “I respect your honesty.”  We might add other words such as, integrity, punctuality, sensitivity, boldness, determination, dependability, faith, and many others.

Notice that in both cases it does not mean that one has to even like or agree with the person respected.  There can be great respect between people who have different presuppositions about an issue and thus have diametrically opposing viewpoints as they interact based upon the previous list of words and others like them.  Generally speaking respect between even enemies can be maintained when both sides function in not so much a moral but in an ethical manner.

The benefit is that when a person treats even people one does not necessarily like nor gravitate toward, with respect, there is a benefit that will accrue.  Such a benefit may not be readily apparent but more than one person has been "bailed out" by a person who while they disagree with, has received their respect.

"Checking the Descent Into Unethical Chaos"

In previous blogs consideration was given to the descent into chaos.  Applying that descent to relationships means among other things, that without a clear vision of roles, responsibilities, and as well the strength of character to live out those things, there will be consequences, intended and otherwise.  Ultimately without checking it, that decent will end in unethical chaos.  Take for example the three relationships of life.

It seems to me that the pay offs in any relationship includes a sense of security, a sense of loving acceptance, a sense of appreciation, and a sense of nurturing care.  The problems come when these things are not a part of the relationship and the reason they are most often not present is that they are challenged by the aforementioned decent toward unethical chaos in general and in particular into relational chaos.

While most relationships begin on a noble level, left to their own ends and because of man's propensity for self gratification they can very quickly become an exercise in "what is in it for me?"  Me being the insatiable self!  That is without acceptance of the other and the extension of effort even the best of relationships will unravel into a series of very chaotic interactions that for the most part provide no nurture and in fact opens one or both parties to manipulation.

The outcome is that there is a decrease in the capacity for growth, the quality of communication drops, the nurturing effect disappears, and the sense of care is absent.  All that is necessary for the relationship and its participant to began the downward descent is present.

Consider now the previously mentioned three crucial relationships of life.  If it is a relationship with God degrades, then it opens the door to great misunderstanding and mistrust in His ultimate goodness, love, and care.  If such a decent into chaos is with another the same things will accrue to one or both until the relationship becomes unsustainable because it is one of destruction and distancing.  If such is true of one's relationship with and within themselves, again chaos will have consequences in the mental, the emotional, and the volitional arenas of one's life.  

In terms of outcome, such relational chaos as is being described results in the fracturing of the human spirit.  More and more, even secular mental health providers are understanding that treatment must ultimately be on levels deeper than the mind, will, and emotions.  Failure to deal with issues related to the broken spirit can and most often do lead then to deep set issues of anger and bitterness.  The emotional outlay then leads to depression.  

A point of clarification is in order.  As to the chaotic relationship with God, it does not mean that the Eternal is inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy, but that the human part of the relationship is so.  However, since mankind has a propensity for shifting and deflecting responsibility, such chaos as may exist is seen as the responsibility of the Divine.  Most certainly this is another example of the challenge of good by evil.

What, you may ask, is the solution to chaotic and thus disturbed relationships?  A fair question to be sure.

In the simplified, it is summed in one word or should I say phrase--a deep sense of trustworthiness.

A deep sense that the God who is, can be trusted in any and all of the circumstances of life.  While we may not understand His goodness, His ways of caring, and the ways that His love is expressed, it is none the less  essential that we arrive at the conviction of His trustworthiness on a level deeper than mental assent.  It may begin there but must penetrate deep into one's spirit and one's convictions.

As to relationships with others, most certainly there are those who are not to be trusted.  However, there are those in our various worlds who may be counted upon when all else and all others fail.  These are those who are worthy of our trust for though they might not be possessed of great and winsome personalities, hold social positions, possess much in terms of materialism, or wield great amounts of  power, etc. they none the less, are people of deep ethical conviction.

Such deep ethical conviction is reflected in the many arenas of life to include faith, family, and friends etc.  Said another way their deep ethical convictions keep them from spiraling downward into unethical chaos as it results in their living out of character qualities.  Qualities such as honesty, integrity, creativity, thriftiness, sincerity, courage, sensitivity, obedience, and alertness etc.

Then we come to the matter of one's relationship with one's self.  Such can only be characterized by the peace found in self acceptance and deep inner confidence.  Those qualities and other come when one lives out character qualities in the personal and quiet places of life.  

Consider that one dare not hope for sound and affirming relations with God and with man if such an one is not possessed of a penchant for living life, based not upon the winds of change, not upon the pressure of circumstance, not upon the challenge of feelings, but based on rightness of heart--rightness of heart when measured by transcendent, objective, and universal qualities of right and wrong.  All else contributes to the downward spiral into the abyss of unethical chaos.