Stand to Reason Blog

Will Right and Wrong Always Be Obvious?

A person doesn’t have to know the Bible in order to know right and wrong, right? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what value system is being fed to that person by society. A society saturated in a Christian understanding of morality will reinforce that understanding, even among its atheists. A society without the background of Christianity behind it will enforce a different understanding of morality. Atheists have the mistaken idea that objective morality is simply obvious to everyone, but the truth is, it’s not. All one has to do is look back through history (and in other cultures today) to see that this is so. Our damaged consciences are malleable.

Is murdering your child right or wrong? Ask these mothers in India, where it’s commonplace in some areas to let your girl die if you prefer a boy. Ask pre-Christian cultures. This is why I think atheists are being far too hasty when they argue that Christianity is expendable—unnecessary for a good society. If we see atrocious moral crimes in cultures not influenced by Christianity, we have no reason to think our current standards will continue in a culture that rejects Christianity.

Case in point:

You might recall that British politician, Colin Brewer, who last year said that disabled children should be killed to save taxpayer money. You might recall that at the time he apologized and stepped down in disgrace. But you probably didn't know that he was re-elected to his old seat this year. And he's at it again.

This time, he reportedly compared disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview with none other than the Disability News Service, Councillor (yeah, they spell it that way) Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.

‘If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it," he said. "They get rid of it. Bang."

Bang? That's sound fiscal policy, huh? And that's what it is, according to Brewer. He said that disabled people are just too expensive to care for so some may just have to go.

"We are just animals," Brewer continued. "You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt with."

As I’ve written before, intrinsic human value has to be taught. A society’s view of the human person and its value will affect what that society views as being moral: We are just animals. Imperfect animals aren’t worth the trouble. Therefore, there’s a case to be made for killing them rather than caring for them. That conclusion reasonably follows from the non-Christian premise. As Christianity fades in influence and a different view of the human person gains acceptance, don't expect that our society will continue to recognize that conclusion to be immoral. At that point, people will still consider themselves to be perfectly moral…but only because they’re judging themselves by a different standard of morality.

It’s difficult for us to recognize the depth our depravity when “everyone else is doing it.” Ask Gosnell’s nurses. Only the truth can awaken and sharpen our consciences, and for that to happen, the truth has to be heard and esteemed.

For now, there’s an outcry brewing against this politician in the UK, and that’s a good sign. But it’s not as if he’s a lone voice out there (see Peter Singer). As our belief in intrinsic human value wears away, we should expect to see more like him. Just consider this:

But here's the thing – [Brewer] was just re-elected earlier this month to his old seat. That means that being pro-infanticide and culling the disabled is no longer a deal breaker in European politics.

The Stuff We All Agree on When It Comes to Origins

Now that I’ve written a book, I get the chance to speak around the country and talk about how we, as Christians, assemble circumstantial evidence related to the reliability of the Gospels and the existence of God. As a result, I meet all kinds of Christians who hold a variety of views related to the Genesis creation account. Many are “Literal Day” creationists, while others lean toward some version of “Gap Theory”, “Day-Age Creation Theory”, “Creation Revelation Theory”, “Progressive Creation Theory”, “Genesis Creation Day Theory” or “Genesis Literary Theory” Creationism. Some believe that the universe is very young, others that it is very old. Some believe that God created everything in the form we see it in today (as the result of some form of “instantaneous” creation); others that God shaped His creation through some process of progressive interaction. When you ask these folks about the Bible, all of them will tell you that they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. All will agree that the Bible is the final authority. All will tell you that they believe what the Bible teaches. Christians simply disagree on how to interpret the first book of Moses.

I’m sensitive to the variety of views held by Christians on this matter. I see the reasonable nature of every view; I recognize that each approach to Genesis chapter one has its own virtues and its own liabilities. I’m not discouraged by this reality, but encouraged that there are so many reasonable resolutions. I am discouraged, however, when we allow our fallen human nature to get the best of us. Rather than finding areas of agreement, most of us choose to divide over areas of divergence. Regardless of your position related to the Genesis account, I’d like to point out the areas where all of us, regardless of creation theory, agree. As Christians, we all affirm the following premises:

1. God originated everything (all space, time and matter) supernaturally
2. God created the material universe (and our world) in incremental steps over a period of time (six literal days or six “ages”)
3. God was actively involved in the creation of all life (life is not the result of an unguided natural process)
4. God prepared everything in the universe as a home for mankind, the last of his creation
5. God created the first humans in his “image”
6. God’s relationship to his creation is accurately described in the Bible

As Christians, we all agree that God exists. He is the creator of the universe and all life within it. While we agree on the aforementioned critical, foundational issues related to God’s creation, we disagree on how long this process took, and precisely how God shaped each object of his creation (did God create everything in the final form we see today, or did God progressively guide his creation over some period of time?). We agree on the big stuff and disagree on the details.

It’s interesting to note that Christians also agree with atheists on a several important premises related to the nature of the universe:

1. Everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came into existence from nothing at a point in the past
2. Life on our planet appeared in incremental steps over a period of time
3. Humans appear later in history relative to the appearance of other animals
4. Humans possess a consciousness that is unique to the animal world

As Christians, we often think that we disagree with atheists on everything when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but that isn’t actually the case. We also tend to think, as Christians, that we ought to agree with one another on everything when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but I’m not sure that ought to be the case either. Christians disagree with one another on secondary issues. We disagree with atheists on the most important issue: Does God exist and is He actively involved in the creation of the universe? That happens to be the most significant question we can ask as a culture. The answer shapes everything in our worldview; what we believe about our origin determines largely how we will choose to live our lives.

So it seems to me that Christians have a choice. We can focus on the areas where we disagree with one another (secondary issues related to the amount of time taken and the precise mechanisms used by God), or we can focus on the area where we disagree with an unbelieving world (the foundational issue of God’s existence). I am inclined to begin my discussions with Christians by uniting around our common knowledge related to God’s existence and interaction in the universe, rather than dividing over our points of divergence. At the same time, I am also inclined to begin my conversations with non-believers by pointing out our areas of agreement before I address he most important foundational issue that divides us. It’s easy to forget that we have a lot in common, but these points of agreement ought to unite us as we engage other Christians and inspire us to begin a conversation with unbelievers who need to hear the Gospel.

Can Marriage Be Divided into Secular and Religious Institutions? (Video)

Can marriage be divided into religious and secular institutions as a solution to the same-sex marriage debate?

The Bible on The History Channel-Week Two

I'm not going to post a review each week.  I will keep watching.  But I wanted to follow up this week because the second episode reinforced my impression of the first.  The big picture is missing.  The signficance of events is left out of the history.  And that is what the Bible is really about.  I don't really understand the point of making a series about the Bible if the main point of it all is absent. 

As I said last week, I'm entirely sympathetic to the massive task of selecting what events to include and what to leave out.  Last night a half hour was spent on Samson.  Now, that's an interesting story, but its importance in the Bible dosn't seem to justify 1/4 of the episode.

The episode began with the conquest of Jericho.  The Israelite spies meet Rahab, and she tells them that the whole city is afraid of them.  But the program didn't include that she was aware that the coming conquest wasn't just about national rivalries, which is the impression the program gives – it was about God's judgment for their sins, which she acknowledged deserved punishment.  The reason for the conquest of the Canaanites was left out – the bigger picture.

Two episodes in David's life were stunningly devoid of the ultimate purpose.  When David steps up to challenge Goliath, his purpose is to defend God's honor.  He wonders how the Israelite army does not rise up at Goliath's taunts at God. That larger theme was totally missing.  The point of David volunteering to fight Goliath wasn't just about the confrontation of two armies, but about the challenge of the Philistine army against the one true God. And David saw what Saul and his army completely missed.

Later when the prophet Nathan confronts David about his sin with Bathsheba, David's repentance is missing.  That was a significant turning point in David's heart and commitment to God.  When Nathan confronts him in the Bible, David repents and says, "I have sinned against the Lord."  And of course, he writes Psalm 51 at some point.  But in the episode last night, David never repents.  He reacts defiantly to the pronouncement that his infant son will die as punishment.  That was a stunning omission to me because it was the point of the story.

The Bible isn't just a series of events about the nation of Israel.  The significance is what God was doing through the nation and individuals.  It's about God.  And that's what is disappointing to me in this series.

The Bible on The History Channel

I watched the first episode of this miniseries last night with cautious optimism.  The producers wanted to take the Bible as history seriously and involved some good Christian scholars.  The Biblical events are portrayed as history, which I'm glad for, but my overall impressions was, "Meh."  It lacked the overarching theme of what God is up to.  It seemed more like a Sunday School movie than real life.  Still, I think it's worth watching.

It's a quality movie.  The special effects are good.  I acknowledge that it's a gargantuan task to select from the massive amount of material in the Bible to include in a miniseries.  Some of the scenes are quite dramatic to see come to life – like Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.  But it just seems to miss the Big Picture that pulls the events together in one narrative.

The major event that kicks off the story is the call of Abraham, which is a voice in the wind.  Why would Abraham believe he heard from God rather than imagined it?  They left out the dramatic covenant God made with Abraham appearing as smoking incense and going between the halves of the bull while Abraham watched.  And the purpose of the covenant with Abraham is lost – that through this nation all the nations of the world would be blessed.  It leaves the impression that the goal is to get Abraham some descendants and Israel some land.  If the literal words of the text weren't enough to communicate this, they have a narrator that could accomplish this meta-narrative.

Likewise, when Israel is delivered from Egypt, their songs of praise are left out.  These events should leave us thinking 'How great is this God!"  And unless you know that from the Bible already, I doubt you'd think it from watching.  The Passover was curiously edited.  Moses tells the Israelites to prepare for the angel of death, but doesn't tell them the details to prepare to leave.  They cross the Red Sea and get drenched, but the text says that they crossed on dry land, which magnifies the nature of the miracle. It may be more dramatic that they get splashed, but if you're going to do the text, why change that detail?  It just bugged me. 

I think it was a significant mistake to skip Joseph's story because it tells why Israel ended up in slavery and conveys the Big Picture message that God was in charge protecting His people.  Instead, they did the Sodom and Gomorrah story, which makes it unsuitable for young children and at the same time didn't convey the depth of depravity.  After Isaac's sacrifice, next thing you know the Israelites are slaves in Egypt needing deliverance.

So while I acknowledge that selecting the events to include is difficult, I think they made some choices that undermine the overall effectiveness of the series for those who aren't already familiar with the Bible.

The musical score really bugged me.  It lent an air of overdramatization, which makes it seem less real life.  One of the things I thought was effective in "The Passion of the Christ" was the way the scenes with his family and disciples were very ordinary, real life.  While I think the acting conveyed that these were ordinary people involved with a God doing extraordinary things, the music gave it an unreal sense. It would have been much better with a less dramatic score.

I guess the bottom line is that while I thought it was interesting to see the Biblical events brought to life in good quality, I was left unmoved.  I think the result of such a portrayal should be, "How great is our God!"  And I didn't feel that because I think the film fails to communicate the significance of what God is doing other than doing some pretty awesome miracles.

Still, I think it's worth watching for Christians.  I would caution letting young children watch it.  And perhaps it would be a starting point of discussion with non-Christians.  There are more episodes to go, so maybe the Big Picture will become clearer.  And I hope and expect that it will continue to portray the Bible as history.  In that last point, I think it is successful.  And I appreciate the respect the producers have shown for what the Bible claims to be: a history of God at work.

Don't Assume Masculine Contributions Are More Valuable

In a post titled “How Movies Teach Our Kids about Gender” at Everyday Theology, Marc Cortez summarizes a recent TED Talk given by Colin Stokes:

I’d never heard of the Bechdel Test, but it’s a way of gauging how a movie portrays its female characters. And it’s a pretty simple test.

1. Are there at least two women who actually have lines?
2. Do these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
3. Is there conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?...

[Q]uite a few movies fail to achieve even this low standard. Either the movie has almost no significant female characters, or it fails to show them interacting with other women on issues unrelated to dating and/or marriage.

Although I always notice when a movie fails to have a significant female character, I’d never considered the importance of showing female characters talking meaningfully about important issues. The male characters do it all the time, and thus provide strong reinforcement that men can have those kinds of conversations. Even if it’s becoming more common for female characters to engage in the same conversations, we rarely see them having those conversations with each other, reinforcing the notion that women don’t talk about those things. I certainly don’t want my girls growing up thinking that they have to sit at the guys table if they want to talk about politics, theology, and other important issues (like football).

The problem I have with this analysis is that he’s made an assumption that’s never challenged, and it’s this: the macro issues are what’s really important.

Imagine if someone had created the opposite test in order to bring attention to how rarely Hollywood shows a group of men talking about issues relating to dating and/or marriage, chastising Hollywood for reinforcing the notion that men don't talk about these things. Do you ever hear concern expressed about that? No, because there’s an unspoken assumption that of course everyone should be like men.

I appreciate that this man thinks he’s helping women, but he’s actually devaluing them because here’s what he’s saying: “Men are better than women because we focus on macro issues (politics, nation, etc.—notice how he refers to these as the “important issues”) and they focus on micro issues (relationships, family, etc.). Therefore, to help women, we must encourage them to become more like men.”

If our culture valued micro issues, then women would feel more free to invest themselves in them without feeling guilty they’re not acting like men, and our society would be much better off. Just think how different things would be if our culture valued motherhood as highly as involvement in macro issues. Think of the sacrifices families would make to have and care for more children. Think of how issues like abortion and low marriage and birth rates (with all their accompanying societal problems) might be improved. There’s a macro cost to devaluing micro strengths.

I don’t fit in well in women’s groups because I do tend to focus more on macro issues. I don’t know how to do crafts, or create beauty, or entertain small children, or most anything that women usually excel at, but heaven forbid I should look down on those women and think they should be more like me! On the contrary, I know I’m womandicapped—lacking something truly good. I honor the unique contribution of women, and we should be encouraged to excel in all these micro things.

And I hate to tell him, but we usually do have to “sit at the guys’ table” if we want to talk about macro issues. If more than two women are together, we don’t tend to gravitate towards macro topics. That’s just reality. Why not celebrate what women have to offer rather than turn every table into a “guys’ table”?

Irony and Virtues

Columnist Stanley Fish made an interesting observation about many of reviews of the movie "Les Miserables." Some of the "sophisticated" reviewers scofffed at the movie's presentation of virtue and vice. From their 21st century cultural perspective of 19th century values, the story's take on heroism, sacrifice, tragedy, grace, and mercy seemed quaint and archaic.  Fish quotes one reviewer who criticized the movie for it's lack of irony - treating these virtues with disdain.  Fish goes on to analyze this cultural malady:

Irony is a stance of distance that pays a compliment to both its producer and consumer. The ironist knows what other, more naïve, observers do not: that surfaces are deceptive, that the real story is not what presents itself, that conventional pieties are sentimental fictions.

The artist who deploys irony tests the sophistication of his audience and divides it into two parts, those in the know and those who live in a fool’s paradise. Irony creates a privileged vantage point from which you can frame and stand aloof from a world you are too savvy to take at face value. Irony is the essence of the critical attitude, of the observer’s cool gaze; every reviewer who is not just a bourgeois cheerleader (and no reviewer will admit to being that) is an ironist.

“Les Misérables” defeats irony by not allowing the distance it requires.

Fish's observation reminded me of C.S. Lewis's comment, "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."

Abortion and Slavery: The Same Old Arguments

In an article on Slate, pro-choicer Mary Elizabeth Williams argues that the unborn are living human beings:

I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

But then she says, “So what?”

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

Yesterday I wrote about how our worldview affects our view of human beings, which affects the way we treat human beings. For Williams, the live, unborn human being is, as she says, “a life worth sacrificing”—worth sacrificing if “the boss” wants to get rid of him for the sake of the life she would rather have.

How is this complete power of one human being over another not slavery? For Williams, this isn’t a problem, because in her view, “all life is not equal.” She’s bought the idea of instrumental human value—that is, the idea that human beings are on a scale of worth, according to their characteristics and abilities. And apparently, if you’re higher up on that scale, then your desires trump the natural rights of someone who is lower.

Abraham Lincoln commented on the absurdity and danger of citing instrumental value to justify the use of power to impose one’s will on other human beings (thanks to Scott Klusendorf for pointing to this):

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

The arguments for slavery were the same as the arguments now for abortion: Human beings are only instrumentally valuable. Some people are worth less than others because they lack particular qualities that I have. Therefore, my desires trump their rights.

The arguments against slavery were the same as the arguments now against abortion: All human beings are intrinsically valuable and have equal natural rights, regardless of their characteristics.

The arguments are the same then and now because the two options presenting themselves to us haven’t changed and won’t ever change. Slavery and abortion aren’t just random, unconnected controversial issues, they’re rooted in our view of human beings, and they illustrate the two possible directions in which our country can go as we move forward. Will we embrace intrinsic human value or instrumental human value?

Whatever we decide as a nation, don’t think for a moment that the principle we settle on will only be applied to abortion.

Why Not Use Ridicule?

Should we use ridicule as a tool of persuasion? Atheist John Loftus says yes.

Christopher Hitchens famously used to ask Christians to “name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.” One of the problems with answering Hitchens’s challenge (see a more detailed discussion here) is that a person who has a naturalistic worldview is unlikely to have exactly the same understanding of right and wrong as that of a Christian. Of course an atheist can act within his moral framework and do what he considers to be good, but if his ideas about what is moral are incorrect, then his actions will follow. And there are too many questions about who we are as human beings, the purpose of life, the diagnosis of what’s gone wrong and the prescription for fixing it, etc., etc. that we answer differently for us to come to the exact same conclusions about what is right and what is wrong.

For this reason, Hitchens’s charge is logically unanswerable. It’s simply the case that if there truly exists something moral a believer can do that a nonbeliever can’t, it’s because the believer sees it as moral because he’s a believer while the nonbeliever fails to see it as moral because he’s a nonbeliever (worshiping God would be one example of this). And if the atheist fails to see that action as moral, he won’t accept it as an example of a moral action he can’t (or won’t) perform. Therefore, no answer will ever satisfy him, even if it’s true.

So I don’t expect atheists to see this post as a challenge to their morality either. They reject the idea that we’re made in the image of God, so they reject the morality that flows from that idea. That’s to be expected. Proving to atheists that their morality is faulty is not my purpose in writing this (though I’d be happy for their moral intuition to be stirred). Instead, what I hope this will do is shed some light on how our different worldviews affect our understanding of what is moral. We live in a society that’s been soaked in the Christian worldview for centuries, and we’ve come to think that what we believe to be moral is just “obvious.” People haven’t thought about how their understanding of morality has been shaped by Christianity, nor have they considered the consequences of stripping it away (though a look through past cultures would reveal that not everything is obvious).

Atheists don’t need to believe in God to do good—that is, they can follow moral precepts, informed by their moral intuition, which is capable of apprehending real moral truths. But what happens when their moral precepts (and malleable consciences) are wrongly shaped by their idea that there is no God?

Consider how John Loftus of Debunking Christianity reasons to the conclusion that one ought to use ridicule as a method of persuasion:

The use of ridicule can be justified pragmatically. It works well under the right circumstances, depending on the issue and the potential effectiveness of using it. It is best used when the arguments are there to back it up, and when more people agree against the ideas that are being ridiculed…. That is, because we know Christianity is a delusion, and since deluded people cannot usually be argued out of their faith because they were never argued into it in the first place, the use of persuasion techniques like ridicule are rationally justifiable. So satire, ridicule and mockery are weapons that should be in our arsenal in this important cultural war of ideas.

He explains how ridicule works:

These people cannot be convinced by satire, so satire is not written to change their minds. It's written to marginalize them by laughing at them. It persuades people who don't yet have a settled opinion on the issue, in part by using social pressure. No one wants to be a laughingstock. No one wants to be the butt of a joke. If people are laughing at a particular view it pressures the undecided to distance themselves from it. It draws a line in the sand, so to speak. It can also silence people who think otherwise, for they won't want to speak up in a class on behalf of something most others will laugh at….

When something cannot be taken seriously it deserves our laughter…. It's a way to "come out of the closet," so to speak, to let others know they will be laughed at if they espouse certain ideas with a straight face. There is power in social pressure. There is power in numbers.

Ridicule is an effective tool, so why not use it? Why not use power to move people over to your side, if it “works”? There’s only one reason, and it’s a reason from the Christian worldview: human dignity.

For Loftus and others who do not believe in the sacred intrinsic value of every individual, the greater goal outweighs the damage to individual human persons—the simple moral precept of maintaining another’s dignity crumbles before a lofty cause. The morality of Christianity, on the other hand, offers no such exemption, as Jordan Ballor explains in his excellent post “The Mundane Morality of Les Misérables.” In Christianity, because of who God is and who we are as human beings under God, no one is excused from the everyday morality of treating people well, regardless of his goal, or his power, or whether or not doing otherwise would “work”:

We find that the obligations of the moral order fall equally upon all human beings; we are all, regardless of our wealth, power, or fame, moral agents responsible for our actions before God and toward others….

It is tempting to think sometimes that the basic rules of morality do not apply to us, that we are somehow above or beyond the law. But the reality is that there is no special morality for those who exercise greater responsibilities, whether in familial, economic, ecclesiastical, or political contexts. It is true that there is often in such cases greater moral complexity, but there is no dispensation for those in places of authority [or influence] from mundane moral obligations.

One of those mundane moral obligations is the obligation to respect the dignity of human beings because they are made in the image of God. God values individuals, not movements, so our actions had better reflect that. We’re commanded to reflect God—His undeserved grace and love—through the means of our persuasion as well as the ends (as I wrote about here).

Why does Loftus reach such a different conclusion about how to treat his ideological enemies? Why is his determining question, “What works to achieve the desired goal?” rather than, “What would be in keeping with the dignity of human persons?” In an article titled “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” another atheist gives us a clue:

When we raise kids without God, we tell them the truth—we are no more special than the next creature. We are just a very, very small part of a big, big machine….

And Loftus’s approach is the result of that “truth.”

What Is Social Justice? (Video)

What is social justice?