We all have faith (according to the Onion)

Link to the Onion on Darwinism

It's easy to talk within Christian circles about there always being faith behind doubt... How you have to believe one thing to doubt something else.  Smarter men than me have spent time showing that the process by which we arrive at so-called "values" and so-called "facts" are essentially the same (Newbiggin does it well in "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society").  That the supposed divide between public indisputable "facts" and private whatever-works-for-you-as-long-as-you-don't-push-them-on-the-public-square "values" is a false one.

The trouble is, these kinds of arguments are tough to distill into soundbites, or to write on the back of a beer mat down the pub!  Most casual conversations don't provide the opportunity to lay out the framework and assumptions, and then start to highlight the inconsistencies or over-reaching often done in the name of science. 

Speaking for myself, I'm not as good as I'd like to be at chipping away at this particular "defeater belief".  So it's nice that the Onion are gently poking fun... 

Human equality (1) - It isn't rooted in what we can do...

I was chatting with a colleague the other day about the intrinsic value we have as human beings. That we do have dignity as people... Most people would agree that we have value. That their being human carries a certain (possibly inherent) dignity, but where does it come from? 

Here's a survey of possible explanations that don't work... 

a) Is human equality about our physical value?

The raw materials that make us up are mainly water, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, some iron, some phosphorous... But even though commodity prices have shot up recently, our raw materials probably aren't worth more than a few quid. But we understand that value is not determined by raw materials. A BMW 7-series is worth more as an arrangement of molecules than the raw materials it comprises - value is more than that. It has to do with benefit that can be enjoyed - the utility that can be gained! 

How does that apply to individuals? (because surely we are a pretty impressive and complicated arrangement of molecules!).  Is it about what can be done with us as an arrangement of molecules?  (That's the reason why a BMW is more valuable than it's component parts, which in turn are more valuable than the same BMW written off and crushed.) 

b) Human equality isn't about our economic potential

Is value linked to potential to do work?... To produce things?... Entertain people?... Serve others?... What does it mean to say that? 

To make it concrete, how would we rank the following individuals?: 

• John is 30 years old at the height of his physical power. He has a wealth of accumulated skills, knowledge and experience. He has plenty of energy to work and thrives on pressure. Economically, he has begun to be highly successful, and the future augers well. 
  
• Gene is 70 years old. She has raised a family, and worked part and full-time for decades. However, she is getting frail, and is starting to forget things. Under pressure she tends to get flustered and confused. 
  
• Grace is 4. She is full of life, very inquisitive, and chatty for her age. However, she's only 2'6" tall. She's no good for physical work, and - if her drawings at nursery is anything to go by - can't yet do much productive work! When put under pressure, she tends to hide behind her mother's legs. Realistically, Grace will require at least another 10 if not 20 years before she is able to produce more than she consumes (i.e. provide a net economic gain to her community). It will take decades of investment for her to acquire the wealth of skills and knowledge John already has, and that will help her to be more economically productive. 
  

These thumbnails suggest that - based on economic potential - Gene and Grace are less valuable than John. We might argue between Gene and Grace (based on economic potential), but with a bit of upfront investment you would probably reap a good return from Grace. So perhaps she is more valuable...? 

In which case, would we be happy to say "John is more valuable than Grace, who in turn is more valuable than Gene"? 

John > Grace > Gene ? 

To even speak in those terms is pretty unsavoury. 

And where does this kind of rampant age-ism leave you? An EU official was quoted a while back as saying that long term, (with an aging unproductive population consuming increasing amounts of resources), euthanasia would be an important tool in maintaining the economic competitiveness of the EU compared to other parts of the globe. If that's the logical conclusion of deriving value from economic potential, can we stomach it? (And if we can now, will we stomach it as easily in 30 years when we are no longer economically productive?!) 

And what if I introduce fictional Gordon who empties John's bins at work, (and who conveniently shares John's birthday)?  

Gordon doesn't have John's skills, knowledge or experience. The confluence of his genetic material, family upbringing, nature, nurture etc... mean that Gordon will almost certainly never be as economically productive as John. Does that mean Gordon is less valuable as a human being than John? And how would we reflect that in the running of society? 

And how would Gordon compare to four year old Grace - with her promising IQ tests and pushy middle-class "nurturing" parents. Arguably Gordon is less valuable then Grace. 

Ought we to think seriously about giving Gordon less of a vote than John? in fact, should we confine the vote to people like John and Grace's parents? 

Historically, people who talk in this way have oppressed minority groups, denied the vote to non-landowners, worn jackboots... 

Our value as human beings can't be based on economic potential... 

That's good news if you lose your job and your economic potential is diminished. It's good news if you are old like Gene, or dependent like Grace or not gifted in the way the world economically recognises like Gordon). It "feels" right to rule that out as the measure. But it doesn't offer an alternative answer where our value comes from. 

Here's something else that it isn't: 

c) Human equality can't be based on what the market is willing to pay... 

That is usually the golden rule for valuing things. If you are lucky enough to be a homeowner, then your house isn't worth the price-tag you (or your commission hungry estate agent) put on it. A house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. (Which might mean your having to reassess the economic value of your home at the moment with mortgage acceptances at record lows...). 

But we obviously can't apply that to people! I don't know anyone who would countenance the buying and selling of human beings. Whatever people think of Wilberforce's evangelical convictions, we look back and celebrate the abolition of human slavery in the British Empire. (We want to see the enslaved and exploited around the world freed - even if we can't yet explain why). We accept that slavery is demeaning, and that for one human being to own another doesn't sit well with the human dignity we want to uphold. 

You can't put a value on human life using the slave market... 

Economic potential can't be the measure. It's too unsavoury and the logical outworkings are sufficiently unpleasant that I'm willing to rule out the assumptions that point to them. (Besides there is more to life than money!).

What if we change tack slightly and make it about a different kind of potential. Say, the ability to participate generally in society, to enjoy life to the full and generally to experience life...

Where does that lead?

d) Human equality isn't based on our potential to experience life... 

 Based on potential to experience life, we would have to re-order our fictional trio: 

• 4-year old Grace has her whole life ahead of her. 
  
• John is in his prime, but has been round the block a few times already. 
  
• Gene has so many miles on the clock that it's started back at the beginning. 
  

So by this alternative measure - potential to experience life - Grace is more valuable than John who is more valuable than Gene. 

Grace > John > Gene ? 

Gene is still not coming out of this very well! And with each Birthday that passes, I feel less comfortable with sidelining Gene! 

But even if we can live with that statement. What about Grace's fictional identical twin - Hope? 

Hope, through an accident early in life, is blind. She has less "potential to experience life" as she can't see. Is she less valuable than her sister for being blind? Were back in jackboot territory again! 

Or what about Grace's fictional unborn brother Joshua? He is 20 weeks old. He would probably survive outside of the womb (in a Western hospital), so he has the "potential to experience life". And he is younger than Grace... Is Joshua more valuable than his older sister? Would that have been different 4 weeks ago when, at 16 weeks gestation, he would have been much less likely to survive outside of the womb? Was he less valuable then, but has suddenly stepped up a notch now that he could survive in an ICU incubator? (It was this argument about the potential for life that raged in the House of Commons a while back. Should the abortion limit be reduced to allow for advances in medical science? Should we ratchet it down with every medical innovation?) 

But here's the thing: Does the value of human life change with medical science? If that is the case, then it is not something intrinsic to ourselves. It must be linked to our ability or potential to do things once medicine has fixed us up to do them (whether that be "do" economic work, or "do" life experience or whatever). To assert that abortion limits should change based upon the ability of the (medically supported) foetus to survive outside of the womb, then we are asserting value based on potential. 

If my value as a human can't be linked to what I do, then that rules out my ability or potential as the measure (whatever measure I might choose).   The basis for human equality must be something to do with what I am... Something intrinsic to my humanity, and therefore common to all.  Otherwise, we can cannot claim universal equality. 

But what could that inate quality of our humanity be? 

How good is your heaven?

Lots of people believe in some a heaven or after life of some kind. Not usually in a very thought through way - or with much evidence to back it up - but its easy to see how folks could derive some kind of comfort from a vague conviction that death isn’t the end.

A lot of folks go further than that and suggest what comes after death is an improvement on now. They’re thinking of more than an eternal supply of cream cheese. Hence comments like “He’s gone to a better place”... “She’s gone to meet her maker” “He’ll be smiling as he looks down on us”…  

In fact – without knowing it - a lot of people hope for part of the Bible’s description of heaven – a place where there is “no more death or mourning, or crying or pain” (Rev 21v4).

a) This imagined heaven fails to recognise what people are like!

I wonder about this secular, God-free, ‘analgesic’ heaven - the “better place” that wishful thinking invents. Stop and think about it for too long and this heaven falls apart. It disappoints, not only because its promises are without foundation, but because this view fails to recognise what people are like. It suffers from a massive dollop of wishful thinking!

Don’t get me wrong, I want a heaven where there is “no more death or mourning, or crying or pain”. (I don’t think that’s coincidence, I think that’s written on all our hearts by the God who made us. It’s written on our souls, and consequently its what we yearn for when death strips away the distractions and trappings of day-to-day life). But here’s the thing: If this imagined heaven goes on forever then there will be all of those things! Crying, pain and the rest! At least there will be if I am there! In my selfishness I cause people pain. Give me long enough, and I’ll make people cry. Give me forever, and sooner or later I’ll kill people.

If I’m allowed into heaven unchanged, then it won’t be heaven any more! I would spoil it. And so would you, and your nice kind Grandpa Joe, sweet old Aunt Lucy and anyone else you care to think of.

b) This imagined heaven is no heaven at all! 

If you think of this your idea of heaven – God-free & without any mechanism for personal change, then let me say: it’s rubbish! All you’ve done is daydream death away. And you’re left with something which is pretty unappealing. At best it’s just life now, but it goes on forever.  

But “wait!” you say, “the really bad people won’t be there, so it will be better than life now!” Without getting side-tracked clarifying God’s true entry criteria, I think that fails to recognise what I’m like underneath, and equally what you are like. Given long enough we’ll spoil your made-up heaven for each other. I’ll cause you pain. You’ll make me cry. As eternity unfolds, feuds will develop. I’ll get more and more stuck in my ways. And so will you. (That’s generally what old people do! Why will we be different in eternity).

There is nothing in human history which gives me any grounds for hoping that if you get rid of death, that people will relate to each other any better – even the “nice” ones. It’ll end up being just as messy and painful, and hopeless and unresolvable as life is now, but there will be no end and no escape! 

We need heart change. The question is who would we trust to perform that operation? And who has the power to do it?

c) We don’t just need God to forgive us, we need him to change our hearts

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean... I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you, and move you to follow my decrees and keep my laws… you will be my people and I will be your God.” (Ezekiel 36v26-28) 

The Bible’s promises for the future are far more glorious than most people realise! Christians talk lots about Jesus’ death on the cross absorbing God’s justice, and for good reason. Without forgiveness, heaven would be empty. The way we treat God and one another, no one can approach God with any confidence. If God is just and takes wrong-doing seriously, then – absent forgiveness - heaven would have a population of one: Jesus.

But the Christian faith provides for more than just an “entry ticket” to heaven. That wouldn’t be enough. The Bible promises God’s power to transform lives made possible because of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection is the guarantee of what’s to come. It’s the guarantee that those who trust him, will be made like him – that is: perfect! Morally… Physically… Spiritually…

Not that Christians already are. Far from it. But we will be. Not because of our deserving it, but because God chooses to showcase his generosity and mercy by transforming the lives of people who had previously hated him. He brings them to love him perfectly and to love what he loves, to be faithful as he is faithful, to hate evil as he hates it, to seek justice and show mercy just as he does. He undoes the effects of our sin, and restores them so that they can live with him forever.

The Bible’s promise of heaven is realistic and comprehensive. Its better than we dare admit, because it recognises what we are like.

Here’s what God said after he promised a world with no more crying, mourning, death or pain:

“These words are trustworthy and true…”

That sounds a lot better and more certain than a made-up heaven, with or without Philadelphia.

Couldn't it mean anything I want it to? - What are the boundaries on interpretation?

I was chatting with a colleague the other day at lunch. She made a common suggestion: that a person's understanding of communicated truth is dependent on the subjective interpretation of the individual.

I guess Christians tend to encounter the corollary of this: We can't draw any firm conclusions from (for example) the Bible, because it is open to a host of subjective interpretations all equally valid.

It struck me that we don't live like that(!). We act in all our decisions and relationships as if we have confidence in language to communicate truth with identifiable and limited ambiguity so that interpretation isn't subjective. (That is we can identify potential ambiguities in language and, where they arise, have available to us well understood methods for limiting the scope of meaning to that which the writer intends).

If that weren't true, we couldn't ever say anything or write anything with any confidence in how it would be understood. Then contract law would be a joke, love letters a waste of time, and friendships built on very dodgy ground (how could I know what my friend really meant when they said "such-and-such"? Common experience wouldn’t be common because their subjective interpretation of our conversation could be completely different). I wouldn't be able to write these words with any confidence that you would interpret my words in a way that is consistent with my intentions in writing them!

a) Is interpretation of language really that subjective?

To take a concrete example: We live in a culture that prizes home ownership. I take it generally people are confident that the deeds to their home secure their ownership (given the increasingly crazy amounts of money people are handed over to each other!). Ultimately a buyer’s confidence rests on a document with a particular form which is presumably "open to interpretation". If someone rocks up on your doorstep saying they have a different interpretation of your deed (that it has expired, or actually applies to a different flat or a different person,... that the separate storage room isn't actually yours or whatever...), I take it most of us wouldn't consider their interpretation equally valid alongside our own at that point! They'd probably be more than happy to tell the other person they were wrong - that their interpretation was nonsense! Subjectivity wouldn't enter into it!

The answer must be that, in practice, the way we interpret language cannot be that subjective. Our confidence in language stems from an assumption that in practice ideas, concepts and desires can be communicated with sufficient ambiguity removed so as to be useful... We take it for granted that an asserted truth (or at least a very narrow set of possible truth claims) can be understood from, say, the deed to my flat ("I own it"), the bank contracts I sign ("you owe me") or all sorts of other documents (e.g. "it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" Luke 1v3-4).

So, in answer to the question: "Isn't it all just subject to interpretation?"...

In a word: "No!"

Or in five words: "No one really believes that".

b) Why is it easy to think that way?

I think in practice, we have a host of intuitive ways in which we rule out certain interpretations as "invalid"... A variety of ways in which we "rule out" potential ambiguities, and narrow the scope of "valid" acceptable interpretations when we dealing with documents, conversations, letters, literature, poetry, history, or whatever... The thing is, in the ast majority of cases, it is instinctive! We are so used to applying rules of interpretation that we don't think about it.

The instinctive nature of these rules for interpretation would explain why its only when we enter the realms of the unfamiliar (e.g. reading the Bible) that we try to assert that the modes of communication we entrust our lives to daily (e.g. "please mind the gap"!) aren't as reliable as our lives say that they are.

c) So how can we be consistent in our approach?

As I pondered it on the bus, I tried to piece together what these instinctive rules for interpretation might include. It seems to me that we follow two steps:

- "Step 1" of interpretation is to identify possible word meanings based on cultural usage. This provides a set of "technically possible" interpretations.

- "Step 2" is to rule them in (as valid) or out (invalid) according to other considerations (cultural setting and references, personal knowledge of the author and his other writings, internal consistency within a document...). This leave a smaller set of "valid" interpretations

"Step 1" is a language thing (the universe of possible word meanings is determined by cultural usage) and is probably less controversial for anyone whose every used a dictionary. "Step 2" I think is more intuitive, but would include:

i) We trust the cultural context to limit the scope of "valid" interpretations within those which are "technically possible".

We do not communicate in a vacuum, we do so against a backdrop of authorial intent, the purpose of the document, the prevailing culture etc...

So when a cheesy poet writes "your eyes are like the stars" it is not written in a vacuum. Knowledge of the author, his intent, and relationship with the recipient allows us to intuitively narrow the scope of any ambiguity. When he says "like the stars" he is unlikely to be referring the recipient's eyes as being similar to enormous natural fission reactors melding elements at mind-boggling temperature and pressure, emitting vast quantities of energy in the process and possessing a gravitational pull sufficient to hold planets and move comets. If you've read cheesey poetry before, you don't even consider the possibility that it might(!). In the same way, when a cosmologist writes about "...acts as sources of the heavier elements like the stars" he's not referring to the experience of seeing a brilliant pinprick of light against black sky. The phrase "like the stars" possesses limited ambiguity within our use of language. You can (linguistically) attribute either interpretation to both these fictitious writers but the two interpretations are not equally "valid" because the context does not permit it.

ii) We demand logical coherence:

Where a given interpretation conflicts with other writings by the same author, how do we handle that? Does coherence narrow the universe of valid interpretations? (e.g. Luke's gospel says it is an eye-witness account, some people claim that later parables told are not the words of Jesus, or that the miracles are symbolic. Has Luke changed his mind/purpose half-way through? Is he a liar? Is the "symbolic" interpretation a valid interpretation giving the internal contradiction required?).

All language is open to interpretation. When anyone is confronted with a variety of interpretations (of the Bible or anything else), the question must be: Are they all equally valid? Is the one being advanced fair? We ought to ask ourselves:

- What rules of interpretation are being applied to reach these various conclusions?

- Are the rules of interpretation appropriate and being applied rightly?

- Does the cultural background, the use of language or the intent of the author allow me to narrow down the universe of "technically possible" interpretations to a smaller set of "valid" interpretations?

Only once done, can we take a view on what the author is saying. But in practice we're not left with a very large set of possiblities, and the scope for subjectivity is small to tiny.

Nobody lives as if interpreting language is as subjective as some people try to suggest. In engaging with the Bible, it seems to me often the claim to subjectivity stems from a combination of intellectual laziness and lack of familiarity with the Bible itself (i.e. applying the same interpretive grid we apply to our house deeds, love letters and everything else).

Having recognised it's not a legitimate objection, the first step is surely to read the material, and to start to interpret...

Osama & Obi-wan

Star Wars sketch from the BBC's Happy Mondays: The Odd Half Hour

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9fPpya1iDQ)

Previously unnoticed parallels are often funny. Not only is this a funny clip (in my view). It raises some interesting questions.

When we watch Star Wars, we side with Luke - he’s the hero. His actions are ‘good’, the empire is ‘evil’ (Darth Vader wears black and has a suitably ominous theme tune). We feel glad as the Death Star is destroyed and Luke and Han fly away into the starry blackness. Yet despite some similarities in the fact pattern (brought out by this joke), no one I know would dream of giving moral equivalence to the perpetrators of 9-11. There is no question either that intellectually or by “listen[ing] to our feelings” we can conclude anything other than that those actions were despicable.

It's popular to claim that our moral ‘take’ on events or actions is purely subjective - it's up to the individual to decide. That no one person has authority or justification for applying their subjective moral framework to others. But when it comes to it, I don’t know anyone who would accept it is legitimate to say that Darth Vader is the good guy. Or that those who flew the planes were Luke Skywalkers. There are areas where subjectivity is unacceptable.

It seems we implicitly assert universal “goodness” and morality more strongly than we would care to admit. A few questions follow I think :

- What entitles us to make these universal assertions?

- Where does this moral authority come from?

- Is Western culture arrogant in seeking to impose this view on others?

Some have suggested you cannot have a moral law without a moral law giver. You cannot have a universal moral law without a universal moral law giver. Who would have the authority to do that? What's the corollary if there isn't one?...

Do we find Jesus scary?

I wonder why it is we don’t find Jesus scary...   A group of us were looking at Mark’s Gospel last night, and it is pretty clear that, faced with his power, the disciples did:

They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" (Mark 4v41) 

The disciples have just been terrified of drowning in a storm. In their fear, they appealed to Jesus who calmly rebuked the wind and the waves, calming the storm. The result? In front of this display of awesome power, the disciples are now terrified of Jesus. 

Imagine walking down an alley-way and only to be confronted by a rabid Doberman. It bears its teeth and runs at you. Fear’s icy fingers begin to grip you. The dog leaps for your throat, and you are convinced your time is up.  Then, out of nowhere, a lion soars through the air, effortlessly catches the Doberman in its teeth, and tosses it away with disdain.  Where once there was a dog, now there is a lion.  If you thought you had problems before, this new and greater power would been even scarier!

That is where the disciples are at.  They had no control over the storm.  They were helpless before its power. But now they realise they stand before a greater power. A power that can still a storm with a few words. A greater power, over which they have no control, and which may prove an even greater threat.  Small wonder they are terrified!

And yet too often we consider gentle Jesus meek and mild.   Subconsciously, we’re thinking: “How scary can a bearded guy in a white dress and sandals be?”  The answer is "Very!" when you understand who he is.  Through chapters 4 and 5 (and throughout the gospels) we are confronted with a Jesus who is completely in control – powerful over every threat or power (nature, spirits, sickness, death – you name it).  The more we see of him, the more we realise he has absolute power. 

That kind of power is generally scary.  It seems to me there are only two reasons not to be scared of Jesus:

1) You won’t be scared if you are persuaded that Jesus doesn’t (still) have power. 

...Although interestingly, at the time nobody questioned Jesus’ power to do these things!  While his opponents questioned the origin and purpose of the power he wielded, they didn't doubt the reality of his power.  Rather, they concluded he was evil and tried to stop him by killing him. 

It turned out they had badly under-estimated Jesus. his power was demonstrated supremely in overcoming death.  

In fact, Jesus has power over everything. As Peter says to the crowds in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension:

“…God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2v36)

But, recognising Jesus' power, there is still a reason not to be scared of him...

2) You won’t be scared if you know that Jesus will use that power for your good.

If Jesus has power over everything as the creator and King of the world, then he is supremely in control of the world, our lives and our futures. We get scared when we feel out of control… powerless! We get especially scared if someone else is in control… if they have power over us, and we don’t think they have our best interests at heart.  So what are we to make of Jesus’ control?  The million dollar question is: "How will he wield his power towards me?"

If he has the kind of power the Bible speaks of, we are helpless before him. He has power over us whether we like it or not. We have no bargaining chips. He doesn’t owe us any favours. How can we be sure that he has our best interests at heart? (After all, how often have we truly shown concern for his interests?!).  

This is how Peter’s hearers responded to his warning:

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2v37-39)

In Mark 4, the disciples had recognised Jesus’ power, but they still didn’t know how he would wield that power towards them. They were terrified. What reason do we have not to be?

Pursuing wisdom to 'live well' in the world (Proverbs)

I want to 'live well' in the world.  I want to understand how the world works... To have incite into the workings of the stock market... To understand the ways and motivations of men's hearts... and many more things besides.  Knowledge like that would help me to prosper, and protect myself.  It might (in my better moments) help me love other people well.

I want that kind of wisdom, and I want it quickly... easily.  Osmosis through my pillow would be fine.  Hypnosis or a brain download would be OK.  A drip feed even.  Failing that listening to a few podcasts on the tube would be bearable. I want wisdom to come to me the way information and entertainment do. Freely, easily, and with no effort. 

Well it turns out wisdom like that is available.  Wisdom to 'live well' in the world...  to prosper, to protect and to love.  

 

But wisdom - according to Proverbs chapter 2 - doesn’t come quickly or without effort. Wisdom requires application and to be pursued with commitment. We need to “accept” truthful words, “store up” right commands, actively “turn our ears” to widsom, “[apply] our hearts”, “call out” for insight, “cry aloud" for understanding, “look for” and “pursue“ understanding as we would the costliest treasure. None of that sounds like a quick and easy exercise. It sounds like something that is pursued with heart and mind, persistently... even avidly.  (I've recently seen National Treasure the film.  Nicolas Cage's character knew what it was to look for and pursue something as a treasure - I hardly pursue wisdom the same way...). 

But there's more to it than our part. For one thing, where would we look for these "truthful words"?  To whom could we "cry aloud for understanding"? 

Proverbs makes clear, wisdom originates with God and is His to give. Which kind of makes sense! If we connect 'living well in the world' with the purpose of both 'living'  and 'the world' (see “I have a hammer…”), we might expect the creator to have something to say on both.  In fact, it would be rather odd if the God who gives life and who made the world didn't come into the picture when it came to living life in His world.   If he had spoken about it, it would be worth listening to.  Worth treasuring even...

Proverbs 2v1-12
[Our bit… (v1-5)]
My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.
[God’s bit… (v6-12)]
For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. He holds victory in store for the upright, he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, for he guards the course of the just and protects the way of his faithful ones. Then you will understand what is right and just and fair—every good path. For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you. Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse,…

The dangers of pursuing my own approval

My Bloomberg terminal at work provides me with a “quote of the day” each morning. A bit of fortune cookie wisdom presumably designed to soften the barrage of market data that follows shortly after. Monday’s quote came courtesy of Mark Twain:

"A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval"

Now I like a lot of Twain’s quotes, but this one struck me as rather sad. Sure it sounds good, but to say I can't be comfortable without my own approval is to say that my approval matters more to me than anyone elses.  And I guess Twain is saying that is universally true of every man (or woman presumably). 

Is that the right way to see things? Or is that just intensely self-centred?...

What happens when my own approval is more important to me than anyone else’s?

What really happens when I set myself up as the subjective authority whose approval I must enjoy above every other?  Assuming I'm driven to pursue my own "comfort" (as a core part of my "happiness"), I will quickly become a slave to my own approval.  Knowing myself - given the right circumstances - I would expect that to look pretty ugly.

A man made happy by his own approval looks at the world and others around him and says:

• "While I respect you, I hold my own authority above yours (or anyone else’s). So when the chips are down, if we disagree, I will decide what is right for me, and no one can tell me otherwise".

• "While I will listen to you, I believe that I understand the combination of myself and the world better than anyone else. I am best placed to say what will make me happy in the world. So when the chips are down, I'll always take my own advice."

• "While I care about your happiness, I care more about what makes me happy. So I’ll stop making you happy if it stops making me happy. And when the chips are down I'll make you unhappy if I have to".

• "While I love you, I love myself more than anyone else. So when the chips are down, you can always rely on me to love myself".

That seems pretty miserable to me. The world where we all assert our autonomy to judge ourselves - to pursue our own approval set above all else - it’s just miserable!

It leads to:

- friendships that are at heart self-serving...  

- human connections that are doomed to fragility (I’m only interested in you for as long as I think you can help me gain my own approval and so attain comfort and happiness)...

- acts of “altruism” done to make me feel good about myself...

- relationships where self-love trumps all...

It’s miserable, and I think there’s something deep down inside of us that reacts against it. That see that as ugly. That wants something better… A society where people exhibit love that is genuinely self-giving… Where we aren’t all twisted in on ourselves.

About 2000 years ago, a man was asked what the most important principles were for governing how we live in the world…

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark's Gospel, Chapter 12, verses 29-31).

Jesus spoke of a love that is centred not on the self, but on God and others. What's more, that’s how he himself lived:

- loving God (not asserting his autonomy by putting his own approval first e.g. “Not my will but yours be done…”).

- loving others (to the point of dying to reconcile them to the God whose approval and authority they’d scorned by putting their own approval first)

Small wonder that God the Father looked upon Jesus and said "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased"!  God the Father gave his approval to God the Son.  And wonderfully He is pleased to call us sons and daughters and give us his approval if we trust in Jesus.  By being connected to Jesus, we get the approval that his life deserved. 

For all Mark Twain’s wit and wisdom, here is something infinitely better and more satisfying to our souls.  Through trusting Jesus, you can enjoy not your own approval, but the approval of the God who made all things. 

I have a hammer... (What makes something good?)

I have a hammer.  I am comfortable saying it is a "good" hammer. It has a weighty steel head, feels comfortable in my hand, and delivers considerable pressure to the head of a nail when I swing it. It could function as a paperweight, preventing the papers on my desk from blowing away, but it is slightly ugly and cumbersome for the purpose. It bothers me not at all that my hammer cannot perform complicated calculations. I don't consider that important in a hammer. It is - in my assessment - a "good" hammer. 

I have a HP19B calculator.  I am comfortable saying it is a "good" calculator. Its plastic keys are easy to press, but not so easy that a slip types by mistake. Its calculations are accurate, and the screen clearly displays the results. It could function as a paperweight to prevent the papers on my desk from blowing away, not while I'm using it, and only if the draft was mild (as its not very heavy). It bothers me not at all that my calculator would fracture into numerous pieces were I to swing it at the head of a nail (and thereafter never perform another calculation!). I don't consider that important in a calculator. The HP19B is - in my assessment - a "good" calculator. 

It seems to me that to say that my hammer, my calculator or anything else are "good" it is necessary to connect and measure them in some way against a purpose. With my hammer that's clear enough. Whether the purpose associated with my hammer is an objective fact, or whether we are all expected to subjectively agree (perhaps after experiencing the satisfaction of swinging it at a nail), we can probably agree on its purpose. 

For my hammer, calculator (or paperweight for that matter) their purpose is not controversial. But when we enter the realm of people and relationships such assessments becomes more complicated…

I have a friend called Ben. Although he is quite “hard” it would be no good using him to knock in a nail (unless I lent him my hammer!). Ben could serve as a paperweight, but he would likely get bored, plus with Ben sitting on my desk there wouldn’t be much room left to work. Ben’s mental arithmetic is pretty good, but I couldn’t trust it for very complicated calculations.

Is Ben a “good” friend? Or even a “good” human being?!  What does it even mean to ask those kinds of questions?  

Surely to say anything about Ben (or myself or anyone else) I need be able to say with confidence what life and friendship are for… What the purpose of being human is… That’s tougher to agree on than my hammer.  

For an employee,between from nine to five the existence of a job description provides the "purpose" against which we can assess an employee as "good" or not.. But where might we find the "job description" for life? For friendship?

Perhaps we use words like “good” a little too unthinkingly…

Or perhaps we need to think harder about the purpose of things…