The Necessity of Evil

The existence of evil in our world has been the grounds for some of the greatest questions we humans ever ask. Why did tragedy take the life of someone so young? Why did a stray bullet hit an innocent bystander? Why did my father die of Alzheimer’s?

Like me, I’m sure you’ve had hundreds of these kinds of questions, and they all seem to come with no answers.

Recently I was reading one of the leading spokesmen for the New Atheism, Richard Dawkins. In his book River Out Of Eden he declares that the universe is made up of “electrons and selfish genes.” He goes further to posit that the universe has no purpose and is a random and chaotic mix of physical forces that can all be explained by physics and chemistry. This, of course, presents a problem when he turns to things like consciousness, and especially the concepts of good and evil. Dawkins states his logical conclusion succinctly: “The universe we observe has exactly the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” He suggests that it is enough to know that “some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.”

This answer is the epitome of pessimism regarding humanity and life on earth and those joining Dawkins in this worldview might come to view the whole thing as so meaningless as to offer no good reason for living. That’s a conclusion I just can’t accept.

There is another answer to the existence of evil coming from the world of theism. Evil does exist (as is obvious) and it existence is not due either to God being weak or mean. Rather, the presence of evil in our world is proof that God truly loves his creation, and especially, mankind. Stay with me here.

When tragedy strikes we usually hear strong cries of “where was God?” But think with me just a minute. Suppose God did suddenly suck all of the evil out of our world. Suddenly there would be no wrong actions, no evil thoughts, or desires, and certainly nothing that would in anyway reduce the well-being and happiness of mankind. What kind of world would that be?

Before you start cheering, consider this. We would no longer be free. We would be limited only to good choices, measured by what God determined to be good, for all other choices would be unavailable. We couldn’t play a game, for no one would lose. All competition and free choice would be impossible, and our existence would be one-dimensional.

But God, desiring his human creation to act as his image bearers, determined that they could best do that, as free moral agents, in a universe that included evil. As free agents, they would desire, choose, act, and be held accountable for their action. This necessitated the presence of evil. Flowing out of this is the corollary that the presence of evil consequences is essential to showing us how best to live

Finally, the presence of evil allows us to know and appreciate God more than we could without it. Without evil in our world we could never know his mercy, his grace, his wisdom, or his love. And most importantly, we could never know his undeserved redemption, forgiveness, and the grandeur of a transformed life.

All this doesn’t make evil good, but it does help us understand its place. And while we can both restrain and avoid much evil through righteous living, we will never escape it until we pass over to the other side.

So, the next time evil shows it’s face in your world, you can either stand with Dawkins and realize that this life has no meaning, no purpose, and is full of pitiless indifference, or you can see it as a reminder that a sovereign, almighty God has granted you an existence complete with the freedom of desire and action, and press on through the trial in persevering faith. 

Repentance and Redemption

Recently, as a result of the examination of some of our politicians’ lives, the subject of redemption has become part of the national conversation. It usually goes like this:

“Did you hear about what he did?”

 “Yes, I did, but that was 20 years ago, and he has changed, found faith, and is a different person now. Surely you believe in redemption, don’t you?”

When redemption becomes a topic we clergy think we have something to say. After all, redemption is our thing. That’s what we preach and teach and declare to be necessary if every life.

The problem is that redemption isn’t the nice, little, clear-cut experience so many make it out to be today. In fact, one of the hardest things I encounter in pastoral ministry is trying to determine the reality of redemption. How do we know for sure that someone has been “brought back” out of decadence into virtue? What can we say authenticates true life-change, especially in areas of morality and ethics? By what measurements do we conclude that a liar is no longer lying, a philanderer is now faithful, and a serial flip-flopper has become a courageous, consistent, and uncompromising leader?

When we turn to the topic of ethical systems we find ourselves walking in the fields of knowledge that have long dealt with the questions of reality and hypocrisy. And almost universally we find that the necessary pre-requisite to true redemption is a little thing called repentance.

In the Bible, the word “repentance” translates the Greek word that means literally to “change the mind.” But to the ancients, this word was much more than a mere decision to think differently. It was a life decision to turn away from previous ways of thinking and living in order to pursue the way of virtue and righteousness. And just what was the cause of this change? It was the opening of the eyes of the heart to see the disastrous consequences of the present course of life.

Jesus told a story that vividly illustrates the point. A young man, no longer content to work for his father, demanded and got his inheritance. He took off to a far country and spent it all on decadent living. Starving, and finding himself needing to work with the pigs in order to live, the young man is said to have “come to his senses.” He woke up. He suddenly saw the reality of his choices, his selfishness, his foolishness. Then he went further and realized that he was responsible for those choices, and was in fact, as bad as they were. His decisions were just the fruit of who he actually was. He determined to do two things: change his life direction, and also return to repair what his arrogance and wickedness had broken.

In the story, the reality of his repentance is seen in that he admitted both that he had acted wickedly, and that he no longer deserved to be viewed as a son. He simply wanted to return and be in the father’s household, even as a slave. His repentance was primarily seen in his humility. And as the story ends, the father recognizes that his son has truly been changed, and accepts him back with full forgiveness and reconciliation. That is redemption.

So, how do we measure those who claim to be new people, with new and improved lives? First, have they “come to their senses” or did they get caught? Have they taken full responsibility for their actions as well as their polluted hearts? Have they demonstrated over time a new way of living, wrapped in humility?

Before anyone can claim the label of redemption, there must be true repentance wrapped in an attitude of complete humility. And my theology recognizes that such a change of heart and mind is impossible apart from divine assistance. So, maybe the greatest sign of redemption is humility before God rising out of the recognition that even on our best day we’ll never live up to our highest standards, let alone his. And that’s why God set into motion the greatest redemption project ever when he sent his son to do for us what we could never do alone. Redemption is something we all need, and only God can fully accomplish.

The Privilege of Self-Denial

Among ancients the greatest honor was given to those who, seeing the greater good of the greater number, chose valiantly to deny themselves certain rights and pleasures in order improve those around them. But somewhere along the line of history, the honorable virtue of self-denial became associated with weakness, as in not "looking out for #1" and "pulling one's own strings." In fact, it became commonplace to believe that only fools knowingly denied themselves something in order to create something better for others. Nice guys finish last, and we would much rather win than be nice. Only chumps allowed themselves to be taken advantage of, or willingly gave up something in order to better someone else.

But the fact that it is not highly appreciated in no way means that self-denial has lost its value in society. We still see it, and sometimes it is even applauded, but for the most part, it has ceased to be included in the list of virtues we consider essential and attempt to pass on to our children. We also see the consequences of a "me first and foremost: mindset in our world.

It used to be that only children were allowed to be self-centered. It was their natural bent, and the role of the parent was to banish such foolishness before the child was allowed out into civil society. This was done by increasingly saying "no" to the child's desire for his or her every wish to be fulfilled ... immediately. Over time children learned something we used to call "delayed gratification." This was the virtue of waiting to get your way, which necessitated saying "no" to your own desires. In simple terms, this was taking control over personal desires and denying them their way. Self-denial - the inner ability to say "no" to self - was considered an essential component of maturity.

And herein lies the stark reality: our society is increasingly being pulled into the vortex of selfishness because the childish propensity to pamper, indulge, and satiate self has been turned into the virtue of freedom, self-expression and most of all, the crown jewel of modern ethics, high self-esteem. Our goal, apparently, is to feel good about ourselves, and anything that might bring sadness or suffering must never be allowed to find place in our lives. Chief among the things we've had to jettison in our quest for ever greater levels of self-love is self-denial. If you love yourself, then it only follows that it is your duty to fulfill your desires as often and as completely as possible, regardless of how this worldview affects those around you.

Despite the huge success of the self-esteem movement, and it attendant ruinous consequences, we do still see the value of self-denial in isolated areas. The military has long considered it essential to rid their recruits of the entitlement gene, and the rigors of basic training do just that. The academies that shape our law enforcement and fire professionals also consider self-denial to be an essential character trait in their men and women, and work hard to build this control into them. Even the sports world at times recognizes that when Kobe Bryant denies his primary desire - to shoot the basketball - and instead passes the ball to his teammates, the team wins more games.

What the military, law enforcement, fire, and some enlightened sports fans understand is that the ability to overcome the biggest challenges in life begins with the ability to overcome the tyrant of self. Those who can face down their own desires, making the self their slave rather than their master, are more apt to stay away from addicting habits, more capable of staying faithful to their commitments in the face of temptations to the contrary, and more ready to act courageously in times when the welfare of others threatens the serenity of self.

Jesus put it this way: "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."  In order to follow the master, we have to resign the mastery of our lives. And, while on the surface this looks like losing, it is really the best option. The selfish life has never created an authentic sense of purpose, satisfaction, or accomplishment. History books are full of men and women who have lived their lives for themselves only to realize too late that they were devoid of personal value and satisfaction. Ultimately, the self-satiated life is not worth living, and we can only hope our world catches on soon. 

Shoe-Leather Ethics

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that ethics are those moral principles by which individuals order their lives. Further, let’s agree that, broadly defined, the study of ethics is the attempt to identify these ethical sets, and determine which offers the best life.

Of course, this determination will depend on how we define “best life.” To help in this I propose three statements regarding ethical living.

First, one might say I am responsible to God to live ethically. Second, one could say I am responsible to my neighbors to live ethically. And lastly, a person may say I am responsible to myself primarily, and when it suits me, I will live ethically.

The first statement grounds ethical living in the belief that I am accountable to a higher power who has determined what is right and wrong. The rules are set and there will one day be a reckoning when I will account for the way I have lived. This conforms well to a theistic worldview in which everyone is accountable to God. In this way of looking at ethics, the standards are set by God, and man is accountable. Right and wrong come from God, and are not determined by consequence.

The second statement sees ethics as primarily related to the betterment of society. In this case, the ethical standards may vary from culture to culture, and even change over time. It is also true that this view tends to create the belief that something is allowable as long as no one is disadvantaged. Under a system of laws, this view often evolves to that place that, if there is no law forbidding an action, it is not unethical. Right and wrong are determined by consequences, and will often change over time.

The last statement sees ethical living as subservient to personal advantage. This view is highly pragmatic and exalts personal desire over both the greater good of the many, and any accountability to the Divine. This view allows for the individual to determine, depending on the situation, what is actually right and wrong for them.

These three positions describe the three basic assumptions we have about how we should live. Admittedly, while we may live in one of them, we all occasionally visit the others when it suits us.

Foundational to all three is the idea of accountability. If we are accountable only for ourselves, and believe our responsibility is primarily to ourselves, we will concoct a personal code of ethics that is malleable to fit the situation. You don’t have to be a scholar to recognize that where this view proliferates, chaos exists. This is true in marriages, families, teams, business, and any other group that depends upon one another.

If we believe our accountability goes beyond ourselves, and focuses on those around us, then we will live beyond our selfishness and personal well-being in order to bring about the greater good. Yet, this will ultimately create the problematic situation where competing viewpoints clash over what is best for society. Witness our current political climate in Washington D.C. We have several good, smart people – all of whom claim to want the best for the rest of us – engaged in real battles that are both frustrating to them, and unhelpful to us. The problem is they can’t agree on what is right and wrong.

That brings us to the first view of ethical living in which we all believe we are accountable to the same set of moral laws, handed down by God. I would submit that this view is actually the best for both society and the individual.

Now, at this point, I will agree with my detractors that we could well say “whose God?” I’ll take that question so long as we all agree that ethical living must be based on something higher than the changing whims of human society. Once we all agree to that, I’m confident my understanding of God can withstand the challenge. 

The Soil of Morality

Regardless of the position you hold in terms of ethics and morality, these are confusing times in America. Much that was once assumed to be right and honorable is now being questioned even as morality is being redefined. In some cases this “questioning” is just plain silly, as in suggesting that the courts should decide if prayer can be part of a public school event. Really? Is the whole reason America is declining to be found in the fact that some citizens, who persist in believing that the God in whom we trust should be consulted from time to time, might actually do it publicly? I wish those who think this is the kind of issue that merits national attention would open their eyes to what is really ailing our nation.

Today there are much weightier issues that deserve our questions and our intervention. I speak here of certain business practices, the majority of political methods and promises, the sincerity of pharmaceutical testing, the motives and methods of the modern food industry, and whole host of other arenas that we have recently found to be operating in ways that are just plain criminal.

But the greatest question is this: How, in a land built on the courage and integrity of men like Washington, Adams, Lincoln, and Truman, have we become a nation of pragmatists, where success and wealth define morality? If we were to really take some time to look closely and think carefully we might just come to the conclusion that the real problem in America is a basic lack of personal integrity and ethical soundness.

And the next question might be: What do we do about it? I am afraid that too many of us look to government to solve the problems in our land. We have been lulled into thinking that legislation and policy can corral the human will and force it’s energy into noble and honorable channels. But the cruel fact is that law, while somewhat effective at controlling activity is almost never the primary factor in growing a pervasive attitude of integrity. The soil of true integrity is a worldview grounded in truths that put the betterment of others, and accountability to a righteous God at the forefront.

I will go further and state categorically that my preferred worldview – the Biblical/Christian worldview - is not one that can or should be legislated. I am not for throwing away 235 years of American history and pretending that our nation was intended to be a Christian kingdom. We are a pluralistic nation, where no worldview – be it religious or philosophic or economic – can become the law of the land. I don’t want it any other way. But, having said that, no thinking person can actually believe that pluralism means every worldview is right. Logic demands that, where competing truth claims exist, they can’t both be the truth. In a pluralistic nation, proponents of each worldview have the right to champion their views in an attempt to influence as many as they can to follow. Just because I don’t believe Christianity should be the law doesn’t mean I don’t think you’d be better off in every way if you were to follow Christ. I know you would.

Today we are seeing the effects of an eroded ethical foundation in our nation. We see it in many of our political, business, and religious leaders. We see private practices leak out that are diametrically opposed to the public personas we are asked to revere. We watch as promises are spoken, and then parsed in such a way as to be largely devoid of any meaningful fulfillment. We wonder at the increase of incivility in our public discourse even as we despair that our political systems can ever be productive again.

And so, to the increasing number of regular folk who are feeling as I am, I offer this. If we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep getting what we’ve got. We can’t look to government to solve the problems because they exist in the human heart, beyond the reach of Senate bills and House resolutions. What we need is for parents to teach their children right and wrong; demand that they learn to respect those around them, and the institutions of ordered society including God, law, property, age and experience, and sacrifice to name just a few. Most of all, we need to fight against the increasing notion that morality can be defined by personal preference and pragmatic success. In a pluralistic society where every worldview is free to exist, I’m suggesting that we return to the most basic element shared by almost all of them: There is a God, and we are accountable to Him. The ethics that flow from this one element have, for those who abide by them, been a preserving and beneficial core for ordered society. And these ethics begin, not in the actions of government, but in the soil of the family and the heart of the individual.

Staying True to Truth

In Act 1 Scene 3 of Hamlet, Lord Polonius delivers one of the more memorable lines in the history of theatre: “This above all: to thine ownself be true.” This Shakesperean sentiment has traveled through the years to the point where few actually realize it came from the bard. We simply know it because it has been so widely used and believed. But what does it mean?

Some today resort to this aphorism when protecting their own desires against common sense or at least the sound arguments of their opponents. It becomes shorthand for “I’m entitled to do what I want to do, the way I want to do it, when I want to do it.” For this group the line becomes a license for self-centered living.

Others consider that it speaks the truth about self-interest. We must remain true to whatever it is that best promotes our wellbeing. In this sense, the statement becomes synonymous with looking out for yourself, pulling your own strings, and generally ordering your life so that you come out on top as much as possible.

But there is a truth about literature that must not be overlooked here. Every piece of written communication, be a letter, book, play or any of a number of other literary instruments, derives its meaning from the intention of the author. The beginning place of meaning for any written word is “what did the original author intend the original audience to understand from the words that were written?”

If we run back to Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3 we’ll find the rest of the quote: “This above all: to thine ownself be true,
and it must follow, as the night the day,
thou canst not then be false to any man.” Shakespeare is talking, not about self-interest or selfish desires, but about an ethical consistency that arises from the core values of one’s being. To be true to self is to be unwavering in one’s convictions and practice as measured by that set of beliefs one has come to hold as fundamental. We might paraphrase this sentiment as “Above everything else, don’t compromise your personal values, and if you remain true to them, you can’t be false to anyone. They will see you as consistent even if they disagree with you.”

I think Shakespeare is right. To the extent to which our thoughts, words, and deeds conform to our core convictions we become trustworthy individuals, not open to the charge of hypocrisy. But there is a catch. We actually have to have a consistent set of ethical beliefs first.

By a consistent set of ethical beliefs I mean a set of core convictions about the world and ourselves. Whatever your worldview, it has to be cohesive and coherent. It has to be able to explain why there is something rather than nothing. It has to explain why evil exists, and how suffering and pain can be explained coherently. Additionally, it has to give a substantive reason why life has meaning, and whether or not history is really going somewhere or merely spinning slowly down to die.

Today the post-modern ethos is shouting that such consistent belief systems are not only old fashioned but fatal. In attempting to explain our world they actually confine authentic, creative thinking and living, or so they want us to believe.

But there is real danger here. If we stop having any core truth, to what shall we remain true? If the self becomes an incoherent set of inconsistencies motivated by in-the-moment self-interest, can we really afford to be true to that self?

If Shakespeare were writing today he just might look at our society of self-absorbed individuals and suggest that we stop being true to that kind of self simply because in the end, we have become false to almost every man. We need to be true before we stay true.  

The Need for Beauty

In the academic arena, the study of philosophy is usually broken down into the areas of metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics. The last of these seeks to understand the area of beauty, its nature and its benefits. We all understand at some level the need for ethics in order for society to move along in some ordered and managed fashion. Ethics are the norms we share, to which we submit, in order to live together in a way that benefits us all. Of course, some engage in unethical behavior and so the need arises for laws and those who enforce them.

But if ethics allow for the ordering of community life, it is beauty that makes life enjoyable. Beauty is to life what taste is to food, and color is to art. Beauty infuses gladness into the passage of time and reminds the heart that life was certainly intended to be more than mere existence.

When we think of beauty, we most often consider something pleasing to the eye. And certainly that which is visually pleasing can be beautiful. But here is where we run into the dilemma around which the study of aesthetics often winds itself. Just what constitutes beauty? And once we determine this, what other areas of perception are capable of assessing and perceiving beauty? Certainly the ear and the nose and the tongue can find the notes, aromas, and tastes of life beautiful. And isn't it also true that our minds and hearts can be the recipients of beauty in the form of thoughts and nuances that even those deprived of physical senses could know?

It is not my intention here to take us all down the deep, dark hole of aesthetical theory. But I can suggest that, if we did, we would find that beauty is, indeed, "in the eye of the beholder." That is, each of us assess beauty and benefit from it in our own way, according to our own standards, motivated by our own unique set of life experiences. Simply put, what I think is beautiful may not be so to you. And a trip together to a modern art gallery would probably be all the proof either of us would need!

Of course, the pervasive cultural norms of a society will in some measure set standards for what may be considered beautiful. An example is the way the feminine form has been portrayed down through the history of fine art. What was beautiful to Reubens is a far cry from the models in the latest fashion magazine. And something as simple as dress styles demonstrate that the broad conception of beauty changes year by year. What looked great at the party three years ago would be mocked today. But, hold on to it because in fifteen years or so your kids will think its rockin' retro.

Given that beauty is, to a large extent, determined by the beholder in concert with some of the trends of the day, what can we say about the very nature of beauty? Does it exist? And if so, what is the connection between beauty and the enjoyment of life, if any?

My view is that beauty does exist, but it is not to be found in the object considered beautiful. While we think that snow-capped mountain is beautiful, it is so because of the way it excites our vision, stirs our passion, and brings a sense of wellbeing. Simply put, beauty is what exists when I respond positively to something that plays on my senses, my emotions, or my memory. It is my response that creates the sensation we call beauty, and further, it is this sensation that is vital to the enjoyment of life.

The search for this sensation is a driving force in our lives. That trip to the mall, or an evening at the symphony, and any other kind of leisure activity in between all may be seen as a determined, intentional search for beauty. Whether it is found in that new sweater, or the magnificent interplay between the sounds and timbre of the orchestral instruments, we know beauty when we find it. And when we find it, we feel it. And that feeling reminds us that life is to be enjoyed, and not just lived.

It is also my belief that fundamentally, we are addicted to beauty. I mean this in the sense that lives that are deprived of beauty become narrower and shallower and lose that vibrancy that is essential to what we might call a full life. This also means that we are incomplete in ourselves, for we cannot provide the very things we need for life. Like food, water, and air, beauty has to be supplied to us from outside of ourselves. Turns out we are not independent, but very much dependent on an outside source for all of these essentials.

I suppose that God could have created a universe much different than this one. He could have left us with only two flavors, or only six colors, and maybe only five notes and one octave. He could have done this, and we would never have known. But, graciously, He has lavished on us myriad colors and sounds and combinations of flavors. And beyond this gracious display, He has also granted us the privilege of relationship with one another, which is the greatest beauty, and the promise of eternal beauty in relationship to Him through Jesus Christ. Now that's a beautiful life. 

The Place of Virtue

I know I shouldn't be all that surprised, but it always hits me sideways. A college professor whose academic background turns out to be a sham. An incumbent politician whose military record is found to be fiction. Professional athletes caught using illegal drugs to enhance their performance. Journalists discovered to be plagiarizing material and quoting non-existent sources. High placed executives revealed to have embezzled millions of dollars from their own companies. And students by the thousands admitting to cheating as a common practice in their pursuit of being accepted into the best universities. But as upsetting as these headlines are, even more telling is the fact that our society is fast at work producing an ethical environment where these actions are the logical conclusion.

Those who study the science of human behavior have long been convinced that whatever you reward, you replicate. This theory stands on the assumption that people are smart enough to keep doing those things that bring them success. And as long as success is defined solely in terms of power, fame, and wealth, we can expect the character traits that undergird a "win at all costs" mentality to take us further and further down the road of compromised integrity. But it wasn't always so.

Aristotle was among the first to speak to the connection between virtue and character. Virtues, he asserted, were the tools that produced the character in a person that would insure a flourishing life. Much like the golf clubs in the golfer's bag, virtues had to be properly practiced and mastered in order for the outcome to be a success. In golf, mastering the various irons and their particular uses will mean a good score. In life, perfecting the various virtues was thought to produce the character necessary to both private and public accomplishment.

Aristotle considered that there were four "cardinal" virtues: prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. These were the "hinges" that allowed life to swing open to real accomplishment and success (cardo is Latin for "hinge"). To the modern eye, Aristotle was short-sighted. He considered success in life to be measured against society's need for lives of integrity, service, and a passion for the public good. Today almost all of the virtues that society rewards are shaped for personal gain, and the great irony is that society is fast feeling the effects of its own self-inflicted wounds. The self-centered life that our consumerism is championing in our children is threatening the very fabric of our families, our neighborhoods, and our society. We are consuming ourselves to death, and stand ready to defend this right to self-absorption with everything in us.

Against this trend stands the clarion call of Jesus Christ. He said it very simply: If you want to follow me, you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow. To be fair, the concept of self-denial has been greatly debated and variously practiced by Christ-followers down through history. But at its core is a cardinal truth: the self-centered life is really not worth living. At the center of our being as humans is a deep-seated need for relationship, for community, for that sense that we belong to something greater than ourselves. And all of the dollars and empires we may gain can never fill that need. In fact, it is often our misguided pursuit of power, fame and wealth that ultimately reveals our inner emptiness as we gain the whole world only to find that we've lost connection with our own soul and our God.

It's time we took another look at our bag of virtues and then determine to perfect those that will produce the character our society needs. Virtues like honesty, industry, self-control, and contentment. It's time we refused to reward those whose desire for personal power and affluence is so strong that it cannot be corralled by the basic standards of humility and integrity upon which every strong nation is built. It's time that we told our children what true heroes are made of, and reward them when their lives are authentically generous, compassionate, and courageous. It's time we once again took seriously our commitment to virtue as the foundation of character, and character as the essential component in successful living. It's time we started living beyond ourselves, and stopped looking for shortcuts that ultimately shortchange us and those we love. It's time we once again realize that the ultimate success is a life whose virtues are grounded in, and aligned with, the grand purposes our Creator had in mind in the first place. Augustine said it well: You have made us for yourself, and our lives are restless until we find our rest in Thee.

The Vice of Selfishness

The term "vice" usually conjures up the idea of habits considered damaging to those who pursue them. Things like gambling, drinking, smoking and stuffing your face with chocolate come to mind. But perhaps the greatest vice is one that is almost never considered as such. It is seemingly innocuous simply because its prevalence in society has made it so commonplace. I'm speaking of the "vice" of selfishness. We all know that selfishness comes pre-installed on the human hard drive. It's everywhere, and while it manifests itself in myriad ways, I've recently run into a few that are particularly telling.

During one vacation day I found myself on a public bench at Avila beach. My wife had gotten lost in the mother of all flip-flop shops, and I was enjoying the sunshine, and conversing with another man whose wife and daughters were inside a clothing store. When they came out, it was clear that the Mom had found a great deal on a sweater for her teenage daughter. "Only $7" was her victory cry. "But, I don't want it" replied the teen. "But its beautiful, just your color, and we got it for almost nothing!" The argument went back and forth, with the teenager becoming more and more recalcitrant. She refused to appreciate the sweater, and anyone who has raised a child knows why: She hadn't been the one to choose it!

One trait of selfishness is the refusal to appreciate something on its merits if you didn't have a part in its creation. Everyone who has ever shopped with a teenager knows that you never suggest something for them. If you do, they're sure to hate it. Their vice of selfishness demands that the value of something is measured by the extent to which it was their idea.

Unfortunately this aspect of selfishness persists into the adult years as well. Suppose your company decides to come up with a new product or system. You watch. Those not selected for the project team will seldom give approval to the new idea. And while they may hide behind the insistence that they are only doing their job and pointing out all of the challenges involved with implementation, what they're really saying is "since I wasn't invited to be on the team, I won't be for it until I show through my insightful pessimism that I should have been on the team in the first place." Again, they refuse to judge the product or idea on its own merits, and insist on looking at it through the lens of selfishness.

Another illustration is in the political arena where an idea or program advanced by one party will be summarily dismissed by members of the other party simply because they didn't think of it first, or have a part in its inception. They almost never critique the idea itself, on its own merits, but rather they take umbrage with the process to which they were not invited. Like the teen that hates the sweater they only like what they think of or are asked to help create.

What is it about the human soul that insists on a "self first" orientation? Haven't we learned that history makes heroes of those who sacrifice personal rights and wellbeing for the good of the group, for the advancement of what is right? Why are we so quick to take credit, but so slow in granting it to the ideas of others? If we are honest we will admit that most of the problems we face as a society stem from an unwillingness to put others before self, to consider the welfare of the group as more important than our own, to consider ideas on their own merits rather than on whether or not we were asked for our opinion along the way. Since when is the process of more value than the product?

America is awash in the vice of selfishness. We care more about getting the credit than about the problems being solved. We fight for our rights as individuals to the detriment of our families, our companies, and our society. We believe a process that includes us is more important than a solution that does not simply because as a nation we have turned selfishness into a virtue and re-named it "looking out for #1." But deep down we know that self-centered living, self-centered business, self-centered politics, and self-centered families have produced a relational pollution just as toxic as dirty air and fouled water.

But I do take heart in knowing that humanity has always recognized the tragedy of selfishness, and taken radical steps to challenge its supremacy in the human heart. For every Christ-follower, the most powerful antidote continues to be a voice still calling through the ages from a hill outside Jerusalem where Jesus Christ - God's Son - proclaimed from a cross he didn't deserve that through his death we could have life as it was always meant to be. And that life was one freed from the tyranny of selfishness. His entire mission was a study in radical humility. That which fuels selfishness - the lie that we must perpetually be looking out for ourselves - has been forever cast aside by the reality that we can rest in the promise that God loves us, and will supply all that we need. Such knowledge ought to free us from the necessity of self-promotion, and "me-first" living. But then again, we have to believe that humility is actually better. We all have to fight against the destructive tendencies of our humanity, whether it involves a new sweater, a new product, a new idea or the possibility that something that didn't include us may end up being an advantage for the many. 

The Way of Wisdom

Since ancient times wisdom has been a prized acquisition. Solomon, history’s wisest man, wrote “Acquire wisdom, and with all you acquiring, get understanding” (Proverbs 4:7). He recognized that wisdom and understanding were actually two different virtues. Today we need to re-examine the role of each, and the benefit of using them both in the best way.

Wisdom might be defined as the ability to choose the best means to the best ends in every situation. Understanding is the ability to recognize what the best ends really are along with the discernment and courage necessary to choose the best means to those ends.

Basic to our day is an inconsistency as to what the best ends are in life. Take the pursuit of wealth for example. If you decide that the best ends in your life situations are those what help you accumulate material wealth, then your choice of means will be shaped accordingly. You will do whatever it takes to gain a profit, even if it means bending the rules, or perpetrating injustice on those in your way. You will think little about taking unfair advantage of others if it will increase your bottom line. We see this in multiple ways in our world today.

If you have gone down the path of immediate sexual gratification as a driving force in your life then you will think nothing of engaging in multiple sexual liaisons. Every opportunity for pleasure will be seen as the best means to the best ends in your life. And the same can be said for those passionate for power, or fame.

The same truth provides the foundation for other more beneficial lifestyles as well. Those who are driven to champion the plight of the poor and disenfranchised may come to the place where the “ends justify the means” as in the recent Occupy movement.

What may have begun with good ideals deteriorated into chaos and criminal activity on the part of many. How did they get off track? Simply put, while they may have had some level of wisdom and knowledge, they lacked understanding. They didn’t see the big picture. They rushed into a fray without understanding the short and long-term results of their actions. Consequently, they didn’t choose the right means to accomplish their goals. Instead, their foolishness was demonstrated by their own demise. Their cause suffered from a breakdown of internal virtue and they became a mob to be controlled rather than a controlling ideology that could shape public opinion.

The great problem we face in our society is the radical increase in believing that the best ends are always those that bring personal peace and wellbeing. We are fast becoming a people whose daily choices are shaped and fueled more by the desire for immediate pleasure than by long-term stability. Our impatience is exceeded only by our addiction to happiness, and this has clouded our vision. More and more our daily choices are driven by how we want to feel right now. This isn’t wise. And more, it demonstrates that we don’t understand the grave consequences of our selfishness. We are blind to the incremental erosion of our courage to make hard choices.

Our daily addiction to happiness is making cowards of us all, and our reaction is simply to laugh and demand more fun. Meanwhile, the virtues of hard work, delayed gratification, integrity, and true compassion are taking a backseat to easy money, duplicity, and the determination to make sure nice guys finish last.

Perhaps we need to re-examine just what the best ends are in life. For Solomon, the beginning of wisdom was a proper recognition of God. Life is not up to us to figure out. It is to be lived on the highest ethical plane, as those accountable for more than their own temporal happiness. We once believed that the best means in every situation were those that enabled us to love God and love our neighbor. Maybe wisdom and understanding aren’t that difficult to understand after all. 

When Worldviews Collide

Since the announcement of Judge Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 the media has been blanketed with commentary and insightful responses written by better men and women than me. The central thrust of the ruling, its legal and philosophical shortcomings, and its possible consequences for our society don't need to be rehashed here. And despite my concern that the ruling is the fruit of a poisonous philosophical tree, I am even more interested in baring the roots of the tree and showing that, at the most basic level, we are experiencing a fundamental clash of worldviews.

The simplest way to define a worldview is to answer the question "What is the ultimate authority in my life?" Like the third grader on the playground, when told by a peer that he has to stop throwing rocks, we all feel the pressure to ask "Who says?" Whenever two groups with opposing views passionately believe not only that they are right, but that they are clearly and unarguably right, it is no longer a conversation debating evidence or argument. It all boils down to a radically different conviction on where the ultimate basis for authoritative truth is to be found.

Our founding fathers believed that democracy could only succeed if there were a moral foundation. They believed religion provided that foundation since, even in its pluralistic forms, religion taught that man was accountable to God, the ultimate Lawgiver. In this theistic worldview, political debate could proceed constructively even through the deep waters of disagreement since all parties had a common starting place. Their shared pre-supposition was that God made the rules, and His rules defined mankind's rights. Jefferson summed it up in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that all are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..." The rights of all are defined by their Creator.

This basic theistic worldview, though found in many different religious models that themselves are often in great opposition, caused society to function under the shared belief that mankind was accountable to God in all things. This accountability acted as a constraint against the desire of some to take unfair and violent advantage of others. Judgment, found ultimately in God, was also a present deterrent as it flowed down through a series of laws based on the concept that the ultimate Lawgiver was God Himself. God's rules defined mankind's rights, and community laws fashioned from God's laws kept those rights free from the tyranny of those who were driven to put personal desire above the best interests of the community. Accountability to God allowed for ordered society and the shared knowledge of right and wrong.

When Charles Darwin, through his theory of evolution, declared that he could explain all reality apart from the existence of God, the accountability model began to crumble. If God was no longer necessary as Creator, then He need no longer be feared as Judge, nor obeyed as Lawgiver. This gave rise to the humanistic worldview in which God was replaced as the ultimate authority. But the humanists have always had trouble finding something that could take His place. What has ultimately happened is that the "rights" of the individual have become the ultimate authority. No longer do God's rules define mankind's rights. Now, mankind's rights get to define the rules.

The argument over marriage pits those who believe our rights are defined by God's rules against those who believe our rights ought to define the rules. Those who would define marriage to allow for something other than the union of one man and one woman have long ago cast aside any sense that we are accountable to an ultimate authority, a divine Lawgiver. And those in my field who argue from a supposedly biblical viewpoint in favor of homosexual marriage have so radically corrupted accepted laws of interpretation and scholarship that the Bible they espouse and the God they declare are  sadly a corrupt and unrecognizable shadow of the originals.

And so, worldviews are colliding. I doubt that the framers of the Constitution ever considered that one day their writing would be construed to include homosexual marriage. But we should not be surprised that, in a pluralistic society, eventually worldviews will clash at their most basic and unalterable level. And how do we decide which worldview is better for society? I propose that the answer will no longer be found in individual evidence and argument. It will be found in results. A study of history's regimes will clearly show that where the theistic worldview has held sway, the evil that lies dormant in mankind has largely been held in check, allowing for an ordered and civilized society. The same is not true for those countries where accountability to God has been cast aside. When individual rights and power replace divine accountability, the most powerful will define the rights of the rest and tyranny will be the result. 

Why We Lie

Have you ever noticed that no one has to teach a child to lie? Lies seem to be part of the natural expression of the human heart, and as we age, we become more and more adept at lying. "Are you almost done with that project? Uh, yes, uh I'm just putting the finishing touches on it." But the truth is that you've forgotten all about it, and now need to hustle to bring your reality into alignment with your lie. We all do it, and we all do it for reasons whose ugliness is only surpassed by the ethical necessity to look at them, and learn how to push them out of our lives.

It seems that lying is a common practice in our society. We're told that 95% of all Americans lie at least twice a day, and the other 5% - you guessed it! - lie about it! We lie about inconsequential things, but they are still lies. When asked if we've read that new book, or heard the latest business news, we want to be considered "in the know" and so we respond with a slightly nuanced "yes." But the nuance is just the coat our lie wears to go undetected. We lie by exaggerating, we lie when we make up statistics (like the spurious one at the top of this paragraph) and we lie by selling half-truths as whole truths. If you doubt it, try keeping track of all the times you are tempted to lie tomorrow, and all the times you actually give in to temptation.

But my intent here is not to talk about whether or not we lie, or even what constitutes a lie. I want to explore the "why" behind the lie. I can't speak for everyone, so I'll speak for myself. When I find that I have intentionally shaved the edges off of the truth, it is mostly because I don't want to look bad. If fact, I want to look good and escape whatever embarrassment I would feel if the truth were known.

There are lots of other reasons we lie. Some of the sweetest folks I know will lie, not to save themselves, but others from embarrassment. Of course, most lies derive from a desire to get ahead, to get something unearned through deceit, or to escape judgment for a mistake, or an intentional bad act. But in the end, all lies are sourced from that essential human characteristic of self-interest. Lies in all their forms are the fruit of pride.

Pride lies at the root of so many hurtful attitudes and actions. But pride is not a self-existent source. Rather, pride takes constant nourishment, and the nutrients that feed and grow it are to be found all around us. Our society is a pride enhancing society. We have become dependent on adulation, recognition, and the compliments we believe we deserve. And they all become ingredients in the care and feeding of our pride.  Labeled self-esteem, or confidence, or whatever you want, pride continues to permeate our lives, often to our detriment. Pride keeps us from admitting our weaknesses, our shortcomings, our failures, and our fears. It keeps us from asking for help, seeking the best of others, and championing another's success. But most of all, pride is constantly singing in our souls that siren song that makes us addicted to our own significance, and relentless in the pursuit of reputation, even at the expense of character. And more to the point here, pride is deceit's public relations agent that tells us lying is in our best interest, and a useful tool in the battle for success and personal well-being.

A good friend - Alistair Begg - once told me after a public speaking engagement that "compliments are like perfume; a little is nice, but you don't want to drink it." I've never forgotten that, and have taken it to heart many times. What it comes down to is this: if you want to fight pride, you have to speak the truth about yourself, to yourself, on a consistent basis. Pride will tell you you're something that you're not, and then pride will move you to believe it. But honest self-talk can short-circuit the process. We simply have to talk truth to ourselves in order to be the authentic people our world so desperately needs.

An ancient document speaks powerfully to this issue. David, the King of Israel, posed an eternally relevant question in Psalm 15: Who gets to live in the presence of God? He gave several answers, but chief among them was this: He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart.  Notice it doesn't say "speaks truth from his heart" but "to his heart." Ethical living is dependent upon real virtue taking control of the life from within. When we speak truth to ourselves, we are preferring authenticity over hypocrisy, life's reality over pride's facade. And speaking truth to our hearts will make it easier to do so everywhere else. 

Data and Discernment

With another graduation season upon us, educational institutions across our great land are once again forcing students to endure a final, boring “rite of passage” known as the commencement address. Tradition has it that the very best address ever delivered was by Winston Churchill, who is remembered as declaring “Never, never, never give up”, and then sitting down to thunderous applause. Whether the cheers were for his sentiment or brevity I leave you to decide.

But this year there was at least one address that ought to be required reading for every graduate, and every American. On May 19, Leon Wiesteltier, a man of letters, exhorted the graduating class of Brandeis University to rescue the nobility of thinking from the ever-increasing swamp of information that is threatening to re-invent what we understand as knowledge.

Wiesteltier put is very simply: “We live in a society inebriated by technology, and happily, even giddily governed by the values of utility, speed, efficiency, and convenience. The technological mentality that has become the American worldview instructs us to prefer practical questions to questions of meaning – to ask of things not if they are true or false, or good or evil, but how they work.”

There is no arguing against the reality that we are now more a society of data and information than of knowledge and wisdom. With our computers, smart phones and all the connected information sources at our fingertips, we encounter and process more new data than our forefathers did in decades. I see three dangers we face as a result. First, with all this data, we have little time to think. Second, we have come to believe that having information is the same as being knowledgeable. Third, and worst of all, we are more and more prone to reject as unneeded any data that doesn’t come with immediate usefulness.

When I talk about thinking what I really mean is the ability to take data, push it through the sieve of experience and discernment, and formulate a cohesive and ethical worldview. It once was essential to spend time thinking, reflecting, conversing, writing, and reviewing in order to become knowledgeable, not just about facts, but about life. But we are quickly losing this value. Our fast food nation has become a fast solution nation. We face a problem, dilemma, or question, and immediately ask Google, or Siri or Facebook friends for the answer. We erroneously consider it no longer necessary to build our own storehouse of wisdom given that the wisdom of the ages can be accessed on our iPad. The result is that we are losing that important characteristic that most separates us from the beasts and epitomizes the superior nobility of humanity. We are systematically undermining our minds, and their unique ability to synthesize data into knowledge, and knowledge into wisdom.

To understand the dangerous track we’re on will mean recognizing that data isn’t knowledge in the same way that bricks and boards are not a house. The basic materials have to be expertly arranged, according to a design, in order to build something useful. Information informs, but it only becomes knowledge and wisdom through reflection, study, and interaction with competing ideas. A load of bricks does not a wise man make.

Lastly, our belief that information must be immediately useful has fostered our growing addiction to convenience. We’re increasingly committed to believing “If it won’t help me now, I don’t need it.” I remember trying that on my Algebra teacher in middle school. But Mr. Howsin sat me down and gave me the “we’re training your mind to think here, and someday you’ll thank me.” And that day did come, even though for the life of me, I couldn’t solve for X right now. Algebra trained my mind then for what I do now. And while I’ve forgotten the algebraic facts, the patterns of knowledge they etched in me have been very helpful.

The point of all this is that we need to temper our infatuation with facts, and go all the way to passionate thinking about meaning, about truth and error, about what brings real purpose and satisfaction and beauty into life. We must recover the humanity bound up in the study of humanities, all the while making the best use of the technologies available to us. To reject innovation is not wise. But to replace real thinking with bits and pixels is to slough ourselves unknowingly down the path of cognitive suicide.

Thomas Nagel and Intellectual Honesty

While most have never heard of him, Thomas Nagel is at the center of a controversy that threatens to pull the curtain away from the great and terrible Oz of our day. I am speaking about the almost universally accepted belief that all of life – indeed, every element of the universe and all that exists in it – can be reduced to physical particles, themselves the product of physical processes guided by the principle of natural selection.

Nagel, the highly respected University Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the School of Law at New York University and recipient of several prestigious philosophical awards, has dared to propose that there is much more to us than the physical, and that things like consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought, and value cannot be accounted for through purely physical processes. Material processes cannot bring about immaterial products.

In his book Mind and Cosmos Nagel exposes not only the ungrounded assumptions of modern “reductionist neo-Darwinian” theory but presses still deeper to show that the scholarly scientific establishment has long considered it as settled dogma that the fields of chemistry and physics can explain the reality of all things. His whole purpose in writing is to show that this “dogma” cannot stand up to the questions being asked of it, and along the way he brings to light an even more astounding situation.

He has this to say, after describing the basis of his certainty that the “materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly wrong”. “I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.” It is all too apparent, according to Nagel, that being politically correct by upholding evolutionary theory as unassailable truth is a pre-requisite to being respected in the scientific community.

What he is really speaking to is the issue of scholarly honesty. Long ago we abandoned ourselves to science, and to the cult of intellectual progress. We believe that scientific research, which to be sure has discovered and brought to society myriad beneficial things, can be trusted to be scrupulously honest, following the evidence where it leads even if that means scrubbing away private bias. Turns out there is reason to doubt the intellectual honesty of many who are using our research dollars in some of the world’s most prestigious institutions. You’ll have to read the book to get the full picture, but there are a few things we can learn from this brief introduction.

At the core of Nagel’s critique is the ethical value we call honesty. It comes in a wide array of dress including trustworthiness, impartiality, transparency, and not least of all, a radical commitment to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thomas Nagel is no theist, as he makes clear in the introduction to the book. Nevertheless, he shows great intellectual honesty when speaking about intelligent design and its proponents. Though, he says, they may be motivated in part by religious beliefs “the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves … (T)hey do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.”

As a theist I am, of course, drawn to much that Nagel is presenting. However, my appreciation is based as much upon his ethics as his viewpoint. He has a higher commitment to honesty as a philosopher than he has to being accepted by the academic establishment. He isn’t afraid to swim upstream against scholarly opinion if that opinion is manifestly biased and bordering on systemic dishonesty. He has broken with his tribe in order to pursue truth. Our nation could use more men and women like Thomas Nagel, in all walks of life and positions of power. In the long run, it will be our ethical backbone rather than our political correctness that matters.