Order, Guilt, and Persuasion

Before I get into the content of my blog today, I would just love to acknowledge that my Bengals are 7-0 for like the first time in franchise history!!! That is pretty phenomenal to me. So anyway, onto other things.

As a side note, today's blog post is more theoretical in nature; do not expect to come away with three points of application to your life of communication. I mean, there are things to apply, but I'm not doing that work for you today.

Communication theorist Kenneth Burke claims that symbols are a fundamental aspect of our persuasion. How we use symbols (of which words are a crucial part) influence a large amount of the way that we view the world.

Because of this Burke is obsessed with his idea of dramatism, or a look at how humans use symbols. Burke would object to the maxim that "Actions speak louder than words," on the basis that there is no distinction between the two - our language is a process of acting. To discuss this object of dramatism, we are going to look at first, humans' use of symbols, the process of accruing guilt, and then the process of redeeming guilt from a situation.

Symbol Use

So what does Burke mean when he says that humans are symbol-using animals? We all know from a very core age that communication and our language is all built around symbols. But what Burke refers to goes beyond that.

He believes that our language is a clear indicator of our attitude, so that we cannot help but reveal what we think by what we say. Our attitudes are forerunners of our actions. Anything we do is going to be the result of how we perceive the world. Thus, our language is a predictor of our actions.

It also seems possible that the language we use or are consistently around could influence our behavior. If we become desensitized to a certain way of viewing the world, it becomes easier to marginalize different people or do things that we would normally consider terrible. Our rhetoric will become our behavior.

Creation of Guilt

But Burke also wants to stress that language has additional power and that power has the ability to create guilt. Guilt is a "psychological feeling of discomfort that arises when order is violated." This feeling comes about as a result of a violation of order.

The most important thing to understand about this definition is where that order comes from. Burke lists three specific areas of language that contribute to the area of order, and thus the area of guilt.

First of all, the negative. By its very nature, when we label something with a word, we exclude it from being something else. When I call this device that I am typing on a computer, it can no longer be a phone or tablet.

Burke argues that this negative space is a human-created existence. By his rationale, there is nothing about this computer that prevents it from being a tablet, except that I say that it isn't. He's actually wrong here. Although we as humans could have labeled this device as a tablet instead of a computer at one point, we haven't and our labeling of it doesn't change what it is.

More to Burke's point, simply saying that something is good or bad doesn't change the fact that it was already good or bad in the first place. That issue of morals is actually what is relevant to Burke's idea of guilt in the first place. Burke argues that we experience guilt because our language gives us a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of order when it comes to morality. When we then break that order, we experience discomfort.

The second way language creates order is a system of hierarchy. Here Burke argues that ultimately when we use language to differentiate between people, we create structures where some people are inferior to others.

We create a structure of different statuses within a culture. Borchers provides the example of our class system here at a university, where the labels, freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior all seem to indicate a different status. The goal then of any freshman is to become a sophomore, and the sophomore is to become a junior, and a junior wants to become a senior.

This illustrates that not only does this labeling create a hierarchy, but it also shows that in our pursuit for order, we will try to move ourselves up the hierarchy to a higher social status, meaning that when we fail to do so, we experience significant discomfort and guilt.

Finally, Burke highlights the idea of perfection, which he takes to mean our desire to take ideas to the extreme. It is the idea that good is the enemy of great. We will not be content with that which is good if there is a chance that we can get the best.

Our desire in all things is to ensure that we get the best possible option of all that is available to us. This means that when we are forced to give less than 100%, or just get less than 100%, we feel anxious, and experience what Burke would call guilt.

Redeeming Guilt

So how do we rid ourselves of this guilt? There are two models for the stages in which order, guilt, and redemption come into play.

The first is called tragic purification, or the terms of order. In this view, you work through four stages. Stage 1 is order. You are not in distress or specifically feeling any guilt. Then in stage 2, guilt enters in, and you find yourself a little out of order.

Stage 3 is purification, meaning the stage in which you work to rid yourself of the guilt. This can be done either by accepting the responsibility for yourself (mortification) or blaming the incident on somebody else (victimage). Once order is restored, you have reached stage 4: redemption.

The second method is called the comic purification. This starts similarly to the tragic purification in that stage 1 is order. But it names the stage where order is disrupted as incongruity.

In a theory that is dedicated to the importance to how different symbols are used, it cannot go unnoticed that these two different models vary in their labeling of this stage.

Guilt provides a very strong negative connotation, which makes it seem that very drastic measures need to be taken to reestablish order. In contrast, incongruity is weaker in force and doesn't seem to need as strong of a response, which explains why this model doesn't provide one.

Instead of the guilty being punished or removed (as in tragic purification), the comic purification only requires a little laughter or encouragement to change their ways. Stage 3 of this process is belittling, which will take the form of humor, maybe even sarcasm.

Stage 4 then ends with enlightenment (a far nicer word than redemption as well), where the "guilty" party learns about what he did wrong and just reaches a higher understanding of the world.

So if we were Made to Enjoy Him...

I promise I will go back to expositional accounts of Scripture before too long, but right now, I will instead share something peripheral to the theme of a Biblical text. In this instance, it has to do with my in-depth study of Ecclesiastes that is coming by so much more slowly than I would like it to.

So, in Ecclesiastes, one statement and theme I keep coming back to is simply - God created us to enjoy Him forever. Of course, this is nothing new. We have all at some point been told that the reason we exist is to ultimately give God the glory, and we do that by serving Him and enjoying Him now and forever.

But it seems that that isn't where we focus in our daily walk with Him. Rightfully so, we are concerned with walking worthy of the calling which we have received when we received salvation. And I definitely don't want to take away from that.

Yet I think it is possible that in our desire to live a holy life, we have forgotten that the purpose God ultimately has for us is to enjoy Him. What that means is, when we read the Bible, we shouldn't only be concerned with guidance for our life.

Instead, our primary purpose should be on getting to know the incomprehensible God a little bit better, so we can appreciate and enjoy Him just a little bit better. After all, that is why we are made.

Within that theological purpose of the text, we will find pure motivation to serve God and to make our walk worthy of our calling, but that should never be the focus. Because to be blunt, that's not why we were made.

Moral living is merely a means to an end of growing closer to God. And seen within this light, is the only way that I can ever see a Christian change his life for God from the inside out. It is also the best way to know what a holy life looks like is to truly get to know the one who defines it.

Not a Question of Ought

When it comes to the economic policies of the government, the way we tend to treat governmental policies are that the government can or cannot do certain things based on some sort of moral authority.

While the state is certainly bound to moral restrictions, it seems quite possible to me that many governmental economic policies need to be evaluated on the basis of effectiveness rather than the basis of morality.

Most governmental policies are ultimately amoral in nature. The government is morally allowed to redistribute money around. The entire function and legitimacy of government is involved with taking money from the citizenry and using it to perform its God-given functions.

Within those God-given functions, there is a good amount of amoral space where the government can look to determine how they should operate. It becomes difficult to say that many actions are simply wrong when viewed within these frameworks.

Thus, when evaluating economic policies, it is probably better to answer the question, what would the consequences of this action be, not what is the moral questions. Ultimately, there are few governmental actions that actually fall outside the realm of morals.

Ukraine, Moral Agents, and the Justification of United States Intervention

About 5 months ago, I wrote a post about how speculation about where the situation in Ukraine is going might be a bit premature. That is very quickly changing at the moment. As more and more developments occur, and more blood is shed, a serious discussion of what the United States should do is in order.

I think we should make one thing clear. Despite how the President misspoke last Thursday, a tragedy has occurred and is occurring in Ukraine. Forget geopolitics - there is not anything that could be said that could write off the loss of human life that has been experienced in Ukraine.

Still a tragedy is not the only necessary ingredient to justify United States involvement in an international conflict. Sure, if we were talking about people, a tragedy would instill an obligation for anyone with the capacity to help to assist in every way they can.

But government is not a person. Further, government is not accountable as a moral agent, the same way that we as human beings are. So we cannot necessarily use the same logic and moral rationale that we would for people when we are discussing government decisionmaking.

Government instead is an entity created by people of a nation for a specific purpose. Generally considered the social contract theory, the people of a nation come together to form an entity designed to protect them from natural disasters (not to help clean up the damage from a natural disaster though), external threats to national security, and internal threats to the rights of the citizens (i.e. criminals). Any action taken outside this purpose is a violation of a contract.

Consider this analogy, quoted here from my prior post "Not Yours to Give: Unconstitutionality and Injustice of Redistribution," 

"When we hire a business to put in a home security system, we would be much annoyed to say the least if we heard the company had decided instead to use our money to redecorate our house, as they considered that a wiser use of our money."

I daresay it wouldn't matter to us nary a bit if we still got our home security system if they took more money from our bank accounts to buy us new furniture or generally use for purposes other than that which we have contracted them. With that in mind, we ought to consider whether the situation in Ukraine is actually considered a part of  our contract.

I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the situation in Ukraine is not likely to affect our national security. If the situation proves that it will escalate from a simple border conflict and actually harm United States situation, then obviously we must act.

That is actually what I believe President Obama was trying to say when he said that a "tragedy may have occurred." And I must give him credit that he understands that not every geopolitical conflict requires his involvement (I obviously don't have to give him credit for his skills in communication).

But that might raise a question in your minds. Why should it matter that the security of our nation isn't at stake? Why can't our government act in charity to assist other nations in their struggles? Is not Ukrainian life worth as much as American life?

The answer to the latter question is obviously yes. But we must once again realize that governments are not moral agents, and should never participate in charity, especially on an international level. Let me remind you of the words of Horatio Bunce summarized by Davy Crockett in his speech "Not Yours To Give," Note that while this specifically pertains to money, the same principle would refer to any type of military involvement.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted [sic] to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be... So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

So yes, a tragedy has happened, but no, the United States government, since it is not a moral agent is under no obligation to act. Indeed, it is under a strict obligation to remain neutral in this particular affair.

The Splendid Samaritan: A Response to Judith Jarvis Thomson

"Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.... The prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth.... How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion.... I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it."

Thus begins one of the most disgusting defenses of abortion ever written. Judith Jarvis Thomson sets out to establish that abortion is justified not because it's not the killing of a innocent life, but rather that it is a justified killing of a human life in her highly published article, "A Defense of Abortion."

Well, I have been sitting on responding to this moral argument for a while now and it's high time that I actually write up a response. While I understand that Thomson was arguing from the perspective of an atheist, as a Christian, I cannot truly discuss an issue of morality such as this without appealing to the one true standard for morality - God. Thus, I write this post more to Christians who would support abortion. Thankfully, these are rare at the moment. I do hope that that will continue.

Fetus or Baby?

Although definitely not the focus of Thomson's point, she does point out that she does not believe an unborn baby to be strictly speaking a human being. She argues against the case simply that because this "fetus" will become a human being at some point, doesn't mean that it is a human being now. She presents the argument of an acorn. Just because an acorn will one day become an oak tree does not make the acorn an oak tree. 

This indeed is an admirable refutation of an argument for why a fetus is actually human. Thankfully, I have never actually used that argument! While I could spend time defending this argument, I find it much more valuable to just look at the Lord's word in Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

To prove that a fetus is truly human and has these rights, I need not do anything more than appealing to those words and the final authority on this world. It is thus unnecessary for me to mention that Thomson herself admits,

"I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth." 

The Violinist Analogy

The crown and jewel of Thomson's argument to defend abortion seems to be her use of the violinist analogy. Since most of the rest of her arguments are built upon this one, it is important that we properly understand her point. She writes,

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.'" 

I think the very nature of this analogy is abominable. She tries to simply separate the act of abortion from the consequences by saying that we are just unplugging someone from access to our own body (obviously not mine, I'm male).

 But let's just take some time to point out the obvious difference between the violinist mentioned here, and the unborn baby at risk of abortion. In the first place, there was a conscious move of the violinist or those representing the violinist to put you in this position. They committed violence to cause this to happen. Those representing his interests caused violence.

But in no situation does a baby or anyone representing a baby consciously commit violence to put you in pregnancy. Yes, there can be rape, which is a violent act, but the rapist is no more a representative of the child than Barney is. It would be unjust indeed to kill the baby for the act of the father.

Rape is a horrible act of violence, but that does not condone another act of violence against the unborn baby. Unlike in the analogy of the violinist, the violence was not made on behalf of that child.

Second, the use of the organs for the violinist is an unnatural process. It is one that requires being plugged into a machine to do it for you. When a baby is conceived, however, it is the specific purpose of those organs. As Matthew Lu, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, writes,

"We may begin by noticing that although it might be possible for one person’s kidneys to 'extract poisons' from another person’s blood, there is no sense in which that is a normal part of the operation of those organs.... However, there is a clear and obvious sense in which a woman’s reproductive organs are for the gestation and protection of a child.... A related difference between the two cases is revealed when we reflect on Thomson’s description of the act of 'unplugging.' It is precisely because the violinist case involves the extrinsic use of the victim’s kidneys in a non-natural way that the intuitive notion of 'unplugging' applies.... Consider how this differs from pregnancy. While it is true that pregnancy is impermanent, the end of pregnancy is built into the nature of the process itself.... In other words, the embedding of the early embryo into the uterine lining is not a 'plugging in'—there is no equivalent external agent that does the plugging... In the violinist case, the restoration is both conceptually and imaginatively clear—just pull the plug."

If we really want to examine these two points, we must acknowledge that the violinist's actions are against the proper function of the body, while the "actions" of the baby are within the natural functions of the body and it is abortion that violates that standard.

Right to My Body

The meat of the rest of Thomson's argument goes hand and hand with the meat of almost every pro-abortion argument since this article was first posted. It's my body; thus, I have a right to do with it whatever it is that I desire, even if that means death to a child. 

As Christians, we can already tell that this argument fails to hold much water. It is not strictly speaking our body at all. It is the Lord's. Indeed, the Bible goes to great lengths to show us this in I Corinthians 6:19-20 

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

I guess this means I won't be mentioning that ownership doesn't give full liberty anyway (for instance, I own this pan, but I have no right to use it to kill you).

Rights vs. Obligations

Thomson's final argument presents the case that simply because I have an obligation to help you, it does not follow that you have a right to my help. Thomson specifically uses an analogy of a boy who is given chocolates and refuses to share with his brother. In Thomson's view, the boy has an obligation to share his chocolate, but his brother does not actually have a right to them.

She thus wants to distinguish between the obligation of a parent to protecting a child and the right of that child to that protection. I actually follow her logic here to a degree. This only raises the question then, what is the obligation of a parent in relation to an unborn child?

It seems very fitting that Thomson follows up the argument of the distinction of rights and obligations with the story of the Good Samaritan, as the Good Samaritan actually provides a solid obligation for Christians to not commit abortion.

Thomson writes,

"We have in fact to distinguish between the two kinds of Samaritan: the Good Samaritan and what we call the Minimally Decent Samaritan.... The Good Samaritan went out of his way, at some cost to himself, to help one in need of it. We are not told what the options were, that is, whether or not the priest and the Levite could have helped by doing less than the Good Samaritan did, but assuming they could have, then the fact that they did nothing at all shows they were not even Minimally Decent Samaritans, not because they were not Samaritans, but because they were not even minimally decent." 

Thomson then goes on a very odd distinction of different levels of Samaritans that I don't find quite worthy of discussing here. The point I would simply like to make is that we should not desire to just be minimally decent Samaritans here. We might even want to be what Thomson calls, "Splendid Samaritans." Jesus did clearly tell us to,

"Go and do thou likewise."

So we are called to help people at cost to ourselves. I don't want to ever be accused of doing too little when it comes to serving others, especially the defenseless unborn children in the womb.

There is another obligation that most people would accept -  that parents have an obligation to protect their young children from danger when they are too young to protect themselves. Sometimes this means staying up late at night and forfeiting certain functions of their body (namely, sleep) to protect the baby.

Why then do we not expect the same obligation before the child is born? As Doris Gordon, National Coordinator for Libertarians for Life, wrote,

"Most abortion-choicers accept, in principle at least, the obligation of parents to protect immature children. Not many would say that leaving one's infant unattended in hazardous situations is a matter of the parent's choice. When their children get very sick in the middle of the night and need help, most abortion choicers don't go back to sleep saying, 'So what if my kid might die? I have the right to control my own body, don't I?' What difference does it make for a woman's rights whether her kid is in the crib or in her womb? It's her self-same body after, as well as before, birth. And it's her self-same child."

Extra-Morality 4: Stumblingblock in the Way

We have thus far in this series seen a few reasons why we should not condemn someone because of their choices on extra-moral concerns. However, simply not condemning is hardly the easiest lesson to apply in our everyday lives as it is rather vague and abstract.

Starting today, we will be seeing in more detail what this course of action entails by seeing what the Lord would have us do. And yes, the information for how we should live our lives also comes from Romans 14.

Let us remember simply that we have come to the conclusion that there are some issues that are not moral or immoral, but are simply issues where each Christian has to decide for himself where he stands. The Lord gives strong evidence in Romans 14 that he doesn't care what decision is made, so long as it is made by faith.

So then in these situations (like dancing, cultural entertainment, and modesty), there will be different beliefs among Christians about what is acceptable and what is not. Baptists may think that dancing is entirely forbidden; Presbyterians may find that dancing is entirely permissible. The same can be said on other issues of extra-moral concerns. So how exactly are we supposed to work as a unified body of Christ in this manner?

I suppose some would say it is possible for us to simply each break apart into separate denominations and keep our different beliefs on extramoral concerns separate. But this is simply not a good idea.

In the first place, choosing a denomination should be based on something more consequential than these issues. We have different denominations so that we can regularly meet with people who think similarly on issues like predestination, baptism, and other doctrinal issues, and not because the atmosphere of extra-moral choices make us comfortable.

Additionally though, you will be hard-pressed to find a group of people who agree exactly as you do on these issues in the first place. Different people are bound to make different decisions even within the same family, or same denomination.

For instance, I am a Baptist. As such, I should completely condemn dancing and never, ever participate (this is what the stereotype says anyway). Yet this very night, I am greatly looking forward to square dancing. Most in my church would probably look down on such actions as ungodly. But I find it to just be another way of fellowship with other believers.

But even if it were feasible to break into denominations because of extra-moral concerns, it would not solve the problem of divisions. We shouldn't just completely isolate ourselves into different denominations. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with breaking into different denominations for regular church services, but there is also nothing wrong with fellowshipping and serving with those from different denominations from time to time.  The Lord doesn't change whether He loves you based on your denomination, so why would we never interact with those we disagree with on any issue?

So we know that we will have to interact with Christians with differing extra-moral concerns on a normal basis. How exactly should we behave? It really comes down to respecting opposing viewpoints. Maybe someone won't watch Doctor Who while you absolutely can't get enough. There is nothing wrong with either position (as long as it was made by faith), so what are you to do?

Romans 14:13-16 provides us with our answer,

"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of."

Here Paul continues with his example of meat he started early in the chapter. Remember, if someone decides to avoid certain areas by faith, then it becomes a sin for him to do such things.

In this example, when someone has decided the Lord doesn't want them to eat meat, then it would be a sin for them to eat meat. In this verse, you are being admonished against tempting your brother with meat that you can eat without guilt that he cannot.

Back to our more modern example, if someone believes that watching Doctor Who would be problematic in their relationship with the Lord, then by all means don't discuss the show in front of him. Don't consistently tell him how amazing the show is, how much he's missing out. Be considerate of his position and don't tempt him to compromise his convictions! Just because they don't line with yours doesn't change his right to have them.

The same can be said for every issue of extra-moral concerns. We must not put a stumblingblock in the way of our brothers with stricter extra-moral concerns then we have. We must not tempt them into erring by discussing or doing those things in their presence.

It's just like how we wouldn't turn on a movie in the presence of a friend who is not allowed to watch it. We simply should not make it difficult for other Christians to stay committed to the Lord.

But those who have stricter extra-moral concerns have a duty as well. It can be so easy to fall into the trap that because you have these stricter beliefs that you are better than your friends. This pride though is sinful. You cannot think that your extra-moral standards make you better than another. They don't. Do not speak evil of the good of your fellow Christians because their extra-moral standards are more lenient.

Both of these duties will naturally follow from mutual respect. Even if you can't come to respect the extra-moral choices of another, learn to respect him as a person, as a servant of the Lord. When you do so, you should find yourself condemning his choices less and less.

Continue to Extra-Morality 5: Proper Focus

Extra-Morality 3: Elevating Ourselves to Status of God

This Sunday an article was posted by two of my friends on Facebook. These two friends are largely fundamental, but the article they posted was directing blame at fundamentalism for offenses that are quite frankly not the fault of any movement.

The articles starts out with legitimate problems of sexual abuse and harassment occurring at fundamental colleges. It goes without saying of course that these problems could happen (and do) at any institution, fundamentalist or otherwise.

Yet this article opines that at its core, this problem is somehow the fault of the fundamentalist viewpoint. Specifically, we read,

"Many fundamentalist communities control their members by isolating them and strictly regulating behavior—especially controlling the flow of information from the outside world and between people. Bob Jones University, for example, forbids students from listening to certain music, filters their internet use, and prohibits certain magazine subscriptions. At Pensacola Christian College, students are banned from watching any television or unapproved movies."

These ideas (which embody a large portion of the extra-moral standards we have been discussing in this series) are allegedly creating a spirit of silent submission, where students are afraid to speak out when are hurt. The link is doubtful at best, since it has commonly been known that anyone, regardless of where they attend college, is ashamed to report such incidents. Quite frankly, this article is a textbook example of the correlation vs. causation fallacy. But that is not the point I want to make with this story today.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's real. I am not playing on fear when I tell you that Christians are becoming divided as sections of Christianity condemn the others simply because they have differing extra-moral standards.

Make no mistake, these allegations are major and need to be addressed, but there is no conceivable way in which we can blame them on the extra-moral standards of certain institutions. Fundamentalists do NOT need to be rescued by Christians on the outside, nor do Christians on the outside need to be taught how to love the Lord by fundamentalists.

But maybe you're not convinced. Maybe you can't yet wrap your head around the idea that extra-moral concerns exist that don't impact service to the Lord. It's okay if you struggle with my interpretation of Romans 14:14,

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

It's okay because regardless of where you stand on this issue, what I say today cannot be denied. Today, we set aside the controversy that I have been discussing to show the flaws in this condemnation with precepts that as far as I know, all Christians accept.

This rebuke was hinted at within my last post as well. There we saw that when we condemn others because of their standards (or for any reason at all) that we are showing the following to be true:

"Somewhere along the way we have become convinced that we are the end all of what standards are acceptable."

To be more frank, when we treat other Christians as reprobates for whatever the reason, we are elevating ourselves to the position of the Lord.

Let us not forget that we are all sinners, that we are all unworthy of the Lord accepting us or our worship. With that in mind, how can we be so quick to condemn others as unworthy because their standards are unfamiliar?

Even if you still believe there is something wrong with the standards some people hold about television, dancing, or similar things, the authority to judge such things rests solely in the hands of the Lord. As Romans 14:10-13 says, 

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more."

Indeed, it is not our concern or authority to condemn those around us. The Lord will judge the intentions of his servants in regards to their standards and we can't possibly begin to do so. Yet we try.

In total, we may highlight why we think other Christians have flawed standards, but we must not blame them for all of Christianity's problems, or to treat them as if they don't love the Lord or people enough.

Let's not be so quick to elevate ourselves to the status of God; we must remember that the Lord is He who plans to judge all motives of Christians.

At its core, this problem of division and condemnation in our churches today comes down to a problem of pride, with no side being innocent. We have forgotten our place in the Lord's plan. We have forgotten that we are all simply sinners saved by grace. We have forgotten that we must focus on being acceptable to the Lord ourselves and not on whether others will be accepted. We have decided we can judge our brethren based on their actions, while still remaining humble and acceptable to the Lord.

But we can't. As James 4:10-12 states,

"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"

Continue to Extra-Morality 4: Stumblingblock 

Is Lying Always A Sin?

Imagine this: it is World War II in Germany, the Nazis are searching persistently for Jews. You know all they find will be surely tortured and then killed, as a part of "ethnic cleansing."

Your friend, David, a Jew, is looking for a place to hide. You let him come in; surely, no German would look for a Jew here. Yet this does nothing to calm anyone's nerves. You don't truly believe that this house will really save your friend and know the risk you are taking in harboring a Jew. 

Then comes the knock on the door. You know what this means. You are all doomed. You tell David to hide under a bed. Maybe we'll be lucky and they won't look there. As you open the door, your heart shivers all the more. 

On the other side is a German officer. "Are there any Jews here?" He steps aside pushing you out of the way. As he does this, you exclaim, "Yes, indeed, there is one just upstairs under the bed in the second bedroom on the right!" 

But wait, why would you do such a thing and betray your friend? Surely, you don't believe in the ethnic cleansing of the Germans. Surely, you are not so concerned with your own safety that you would see nothing wrong with subjecting David to torture! 

No, you are concerned with a little question of morality. You see, you had always been taught that lying was a sin, and could not bring yourself to break the commandment of the Lord, even to save one of his people. 

Remember morals are absolute. If God says, "Thou shalt not lie," then "Thou shalt not lie." Period. Regardless of the circumstances that come in our lives, lying would not be permissible. 

But is this really what the commandment of the Lord is? Does the Lord forbid all types of lying, regardless of the benefits thereof in a specific circumstance? 

No, the Lord see lying as permissible in certain situations. Indeed, he has even commanded people to lie to support his will. Thus, clearly, there is no commandment, of "Thou shalt not lie." 

The closest we come to such a commandment is in Exodus 20:16,

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

At first glance, this verse does seem to indicate that lying is forbidden on all accounts, yet a closer examination reveals an essential three-word phrase, "Against thy neighbour."

The Ninth Commandment exhorts us to not lie about everyone around us, to not falsely accuse others of wrongdoing. But it would be a stretch to say that this forbids lying regardless of the circumstance.

Now, I will not be going into when these circumstances exist which make lying permissible. Suffice it to say that they are extremely rare. What I would like to prove is simply that these rare situations occur.

Also note that this idea that the morality of lying is nothing new and does not indicate relative morals. Everyone of us would admit that murder is immoral; however, killing someone in self-defense is justified. The action is the same, but the morality of that action has changed by the situation. Yet no one would argue that this makes morals relative.

Surely, you think my interpretation is a bit too convenient. Lying is not inherently evil, just evil in most situations. Seems like an attempt to justify a position. But it's not.

Not that long ago, I would have fought tooth and nail that lying for any purpose was forbidden. I would have been the friend of the Jew during the Holocaust who told the Germans where they could find my friend.

But I have found that position in stark contrast to what the Lord commands. In I Samuel 16, God tells Samuel to anoint a new king over Israel, but Samuel feared Saul would kill him for these actions. The Lord commands in verses 2-3,

"And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee."

The Lord here commands Samuel to lie to cover the actions of what he is doing. If you believe that the Lord forbids lying in every circumstance, then how can you justify this action in light of that position? If lying is always a sin, then the Lord is a sinner. And that just won't do.

One may nit-pick and say that it was only a deception, as Samuel really did call a sacrifice. But this excuse holds no water. Regardless, you cannot make any such claims in regards to our next example.

It is Egypt. The Lord's people are sitting in slavery, but the Lord plans to use a man named Moses to rescue them from it and bring them to the Promised Land, never to return to Egypt again.

But that is not what the Lord wants Moses to tell Pharaoh. No, in Exodus 3:18, the Lord instructs Moses to lie,

"Thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God."

 Oh, so that means the Israelites are to come back, right? That seems to be what I was reading. Maybe I'm daft, but this seems to be a promise of a return that the Lord has no intention keeping.

The idea that any and all lying is a sin makes the Lord a sinner. Indeed, this philosophy tears apart all basis of Christianity. Lying in almost every situation is wrong. Spreading false accusations is wrong. Making lies a rule, rather than the exception is wrong.

But lying to save a Jew during the Holocaust, or delivering God's people from tyrannical rule, is not a sin.




On further thought:
Since publishing this post, the Lord has reminded me of Colossians 3:9,

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds."

The argument could still be made that this verse is telling Christians not to lie to other Christians. It could be sad that lying to non-Christians in order to protect God's people, which describes all my examples in my original post, is permissible, but I'm not quite sure about that. Thus, I am unsure of what implications this should have on situations like the Holocaust, which is why I still ask you to pray for me as I prayerfully find answers to these questions. And maybe you would feel compelled to discuss what you have learned in your similar mulling in this topics. I'm not against changing my mind based on sound logic, even when the logic is not mine.

Extra-Morality 2: Same Ends, Different Means

Last week, we learned that extra-moral concerns have brought about some divisions within the body of Christ. Questions such as what music is edifying to the Lord, what attire one should wear and so on, are causing confrontation.

This should come as no surprise. Indeed, in Romans 14, God confronts this very issue, albeit with different examples. Here Paul talks to the Church and discusses those issues of eating meat. His discussion of these examples culminates in our theme verse,  Romans 14:14,

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

As I mentioned last week, this revelation is incredibly scary out of context. Thus, I would like to clarify how it deals with extra-moral concerns this week by examining the context in full.

This conclusion is reached after Paul exhorts us to not condemn those who live by different standards than we do. Now I want to make it clear right now that this verse should not be used to justify sin. It must not be used as a guise to explain away things which the Bible clearly says are immoral. Remember that this applies only to that which the Bible doesn't condemn.

What it is saying is that just because someone dresses differently than you, or listens to all sorts of music, doesn't mean their relationship with the Lord is any weaker than yours. The Bible has nothing concrete to say about these issues.

But there is nothing wrong with holding yourself to a higher standard than what the Bible explicitly provides, nor is there anything wrong with finding such a high standard unnecessary. But there is something wrong when you decide to condemn others because their standards differ from you.

After all, it is up to the Lord to decide whose standards are acceptable and whose are not. Indeed, for all you know, both your standard and the opposing standard could be acceptable to God.

In fact, in Romans 14:1-4, we hear this argument,

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth he can eat all things: another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him that which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” 

What business do we have judging a servant of the Lord simply because they hold themselves to a different standard than we do? It is God's place, as it says, "God hath received Him."

Furthermore, the Lord goes on to say in verses 5-8,

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.”

I think we all need to remember that just because we disagree with someone on how to serve God, doesn’t mean both parties are not still serving God.

To take this into more understandable terms, say you and I are running a business. We are struggling and we both want to increase revenues. You want to put an advertisement for our service, while I think we need to concentrate on creating a better product. We disagree about how to get there, but we both want to increase the number of our clients.

Similarly, just because we disagree on how we can best glorify the Lord, we must realize that it is entirely possible for both parties to be pursuing the same end. Too often, one will look down on these different standards as being wrong, and looking at stories where people "escape from legalism," or areas where the "world has corrupted Christianity" without thinking that both could still be glorifying the Lord.

Somewhere along the way we have become convinced that we are the end all of what standards are acceptable. But this is not the case. The Lord is the judge of such things, and He finds that there are many areas where as long as we act by faith, the specific standards we apply are miniscule in our ability to glorify Him. We must be willing to accept the Lord's position on this issue; failure in this area makes us so quick to sin by condemning those around us for just about anything.

Continue to Extra-Morality 3: Status of God

Extra-Morality 1: Church Divisions

A battle rages in churches across America, or rather between churches across America. Denomination is up against denomination as the church divides. Why? Not any doctrinal issue, per se, but because of insignificant differences in how one should live their lives.

Neither side is without fault in this battle between legalism and radical confucianism. Of course, these terms do little to actually describe the issue properly as they are extreme labels used by either side of the issue to paint their opponents in a negative light.

To properly understand these terms then, I would like to simply say that there are decisions each Christian must make about the standards by which he lives his life. Now of course, there are some items that are not open to discussion.

The Bible forbids stealing. This means that you cannot steal and be considered right with the Lord. Morality is very black and white. What the Lord says to do, we must do, and what the Lord says not to do, we must not do.

However, there is an entire area of life that is not strictly speaking, moral or immoral. I would like to consider this gray area extra-moral, or matters of conviction.

Looking at the Bible, we find no specific commands on things like what books/movies we should watch, what clothing we should wear, or whether dancing is an appropriate activity. We will be sure to find verses, such as Philippians 4:8 which can and should guide us in these areas, but they are open to interpretation. One cannot claim that these areas have a single right and wrong answer.

In fact, I would argue (and the Bible agrees) that these issues are decisions left to individual Christians that should be made after much prayer and reflection. In fact, Romans 14:14, which will be the theme verse for this series, expresses,

“I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean to him it is unclean.”

Now don't fret about the implications that might arise about relative morals from this verse. In context, this verse is not nearly as scary as it sounds. Indeed as we study this out, you will find that this verse is discussing the extra-moral standards I mentioned above.

The example Paul uses is whether one can eat meat. This example is not as relevant today as the examples of modesty, cultural enlightenment, and dancing that I discuss above. The point of this series cannot be to decide what is extra-moral and what is not. I must focus on how we deal with people who make different decisions about these standards than we would.

After all, if these are simply decisions each individual Christian is making, there are bound to be disagreements. And there certainly have been.

The problem is these differences in decisions has led to a division in the body of Christ. People are condemned for their actions whether they choose to be very strict or very liberal in their extra-moral choices.

Both sides of the spectrum condemn the other. One man has accused his opposition of "being more concerned about being right than people."

Now, I'm all for sharing your opinion on these issues. You have a right to share why you have come to your decision about extra moral concerns, but you have no right to condemn or separate yourself from others simply because they disagree with you.

Continue to Extra-Morality 2: Same Ends

America's Biggest Problem

When we examine our government, we can outline several problems. We have a too strong central government. We have a nation whose people are content living off the government. We have a inconceivable tax burden. We have chosen economic winners and losers in our country. We have furthermore tried to determine on several occasions who wins and loses in conflicts on the opposite ends of the world.

Some wouldn't consider these problems. I do. Whether you do, or not is not the purpose of this post. No matter what you consider problems in America today, the biggest one is the lack of moral compass.

You may think this is no big deal, or that it is a problem with our culture, but certainly wouldn't affect our government, right? Our Founding Fathers would disagree.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin

Our freedom according to these men is linked to our morality. Our morality, as we have discussed before, is linked with God and Christianity. Thus, our freedom is linked to Christianity and the Christian God.

What is the biggest problem our country faces? That we are not abiding by Psalm 33:12,

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."