 |
| Francisco de Zurbaran, St. Francis Kneeling |
That notorious scoffer, the late Christopher Hitchens, complained that the Tenth Commandment ("Thou shalt not covet") was humanly impossible to keep. "One may be forcibly restrained from wicked actions, or barred from committing them, but to forbid people from contemplating them is too much." He then added, "In particular, it is absurd to hope to banish envy of other's people's possessions or fortunes if only because the spirit of envy can lead to emulation and ambition and have positive consequences" (god is not Great, p. 100). It appears that the spirit of American capitalism, for Mr. Hitchens at least, trumped the Ten Commandments.
Mr. Hitchens, as was usual, managed to miss the whole point entirely. The ultimate purpose of the Ten Commandments was to demonstrate the universal guilt of humankind. The apostle Paul put it like this: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:19,20; NKJV). Paul goes on to elaborate in chapter 7: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet'" (Rom. 7:7). The law represents God's perfect standard of righteousness. As such it is 'holy and just and good" (v. 12). But on one level Hitchens was quite right: humanly speaking it is an unattainable goal. But the problem is not with the law; the problem is with us. We are hopelessly corrupt and depraved. "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin" (v. 14).
"But wait a minute," you say. "I'm not 'hopelessly corrupt and depraved.' I have a job and a family. I even do volunteer work in the community." And sure enough, if you look at most people they outwardly seem respectable enough. They have jobs; they have families; they obey the law. They mind their manners (mostly). They may even be charming and well educated. How could someone like that be "bad"?
But that is the whole point to the Tenth Commandment, as Mr. Hitchens properly sensed. If you were to ask the spouses of these charming and well-educated people (or even better yet, their ex-spouses), you might get a different picture. In the privacy of their own homes, where people feel free to relax and be themselves, we begin to see problems. There may be a certain amount of tension and conflict in the home – grumbling and complaining, even outbursts of anger. We may see carelessness and indifference to the feelings of others. Possibly a certain amount of petty lying. What we are likely to see, in fact, is a lot of self-centered behavior.
And if we look further, into the dark corners of the mind, we are likely to see a boiling cauldron of human passions – anger, lust, pride, envy, jealousy and greed. There are likely to be attitudes that have the potential of leading to behavior that is compulsive, anti-social, and self-destructive – and addiction to cigarettes, overeating – possibly addictions to alcohol, gambling or pornography. There may be what are now delicately called "anger management issues." It is not a pretty picture.
All of this puts us at variance with God's will. God did not create us this way. The utter lawlessness of the human heart drives a wedge between us and our Creator. Our reckless and immoral impulses and desires are a direct affront to His holiness. He created us and gave us everything that we have. He is holy and wise and just. His bounty overflows. And yet in spite of all that we have willfully turned away from Him and committed acts that we ourselves know are wrong and are ashamed to reveal to others. Is it any wonder that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom. 1:18)?
The problem, then, is not that God's standard is too high; the problem is that our level of performance is abysmally low. God's standards are determined by what He is, not by what we are. And if we fail to meet His righteous standard, it is a reflection on us, not on Him. He is just and holy; we are fallen sinners. The voice of justice is clear and resounding: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
The problem, then, is not that God's standard is too high; the problem is that our level of performance is abysmally low. God's standards are determined by what He is, not by what we are.
ReplyDeleteWell, to be fair, that also applies to Osiris.
(..ahem..)
"Crimes of a cultic nature: blasphemy, stealing from temple offerings or offerings to the dead, defiling the purity of a sacred place
Crimes of an economic nature: tampering with the grain measure, the boundaries of fields, or the plummet of the balance
Criminal acts: theft and murder
Exploitation of the weak and causing injury: depriving orphans of their property, causing pain or grief, doing injury, causing hunger
Moral and social failings: lying, committing adultery, ignoring the truth, slandering servants before their master, being aggressive, eavesdropping, losing one's temper, speaking without thinking."
(Book of the Dead)
And if we fail to meet Osiris' righteous standard, it is a reflection on us, not on Him. He is just and holy; we are fallen sinners.
Every culture has at least a rudimentary sense of morality because every human being has a conscience. This is one of the things that makes us different from animals. The question is, are we simply being irrational when we think that certain forms of behavior are morally wrong? Is there a real, objective difference between right and wrong?
ReplyDeleteYou may recall that last month I mentioned in a blog post (Peace on Earth) that veterans’ counselors dealing with vets with post-traumatic stress syndrome found that some of the vets were struggling with guilt over having killed civilians or failing to save the life of a comrade. If you were working for the U.S. Veterans’ Administration as one of the counselors (we’ll have to use our imagination here), and a veteran told you that he had killed some civilians in Afghanistan and was thinking about committing suicide, what would you tell him?
Every culture has at least a rudimentary sense of morality because every human being has a conscience.
ReplyDeleteWell, it also seems to go with animals too.
To turn a phrase on it's head, animals don't usually behave "like animals". Acts of empathy or co-operation or community bonding such as protecting and supporting the weaker members in the animal kingdom is a field that is creating a big stir in the scientific world.
You don't have to be Christian to be moral. Any more than you have to be a Muslim to be moral. There's no magic to it.
The question is, are we simply being irrational when we think that certain forms of behavior are morally wrong? Is there a real, objective difference between right and wrong?
It's a good question but you ruin it when you automatically reach for a magical answer. You don't have to.
Pretend for a moment that you are someone else.
Step into the shoes of someone else.
Transport yourself to a totally different culture at a different time and place. You perhaps are some ancient ancestor of yours. A cobbler in Thebes. Or a nobleman in Sumeria. Or a tribal hunter somewhere in the Far North of the world.
Someone like that will not reach for your book yet they will still wrestle with that question. They will not behave like some monster just because they are not you or from your culture.
... what would you tell him?
Oddly enough, I have been in that situation. Or at least, one eerily similar.
As a student in Russia, I met by chance a tenent in my apartment building. He was an Afghan vet. (As in Russian Afghan vet.)
I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and this poor man chose me to unburden his life story.
He was a wreck, emotionally speaking and this giant of a man was drowning in his own tears.
I won't go into the details but, suffice to say, I did my best to 'talk him down' as gently and as respectfully as possible. I talked about not being able to judge him because I had never been in his position and I told him that he was like many young men throughout history who took their war home with them.
But really, I didn't say anything much.
Perhaps the most important thing was that I just listened and gave him all the time in the world.
When we finished our impromptu encounter, I was physically drained from the marathon event but he seemed to be in a better frame of mind. We parted as friends.
What I did not do would be to tell him that Thor will reward his deeds in Vallhalla.
Nor did I ask him to mutter a magical incantation on his knees and pray to the Iroquois Sky Woman for a dream message.
Nor did I ask him if he collected more foreskins from the slain than David. (Personally, I find that kind of thing disgusting.)
Yet ask a priest about morality in general and they will be happy to claim authority on the matter. They will point to their holy books and stories and wax lyrical on matters theological. They will give their brand name the credit. Yet it's not exclusive to Christianity. It's standard operating procedure for ALL the mutiple choice religions out there, past and present.
It's always "Head's I win- Tails you lose and don't forget to put your cash in the collection plate on the way out."
I think you did the right thing by listening to the Russian vet's story and encouraging him. He needed someone to talk to and you were sensitive enough to take the time to listen to him. I hope he appreciated what you did.
ReplyDeleteIf I were, let's say, an army chaplain and was counseling a combat veteran who had killed some civilians, I probably would have at least begun the same way you did. I think it is important to listen, and to try to understand, and to show sympathy. But I probably would have also told him that in sense he was right to feel guilty, that taking a human life is a very serious matter, and that what he was feeling was, in a sense, normal. But I think that I would also point him in the direction of forgiveness and redemption. This is where Christianity differs from the other religions you often mention. Christianity posits a divine-human Savior Who gave His life as an atonement for sin, and on that basis we can have our sins forgiven -- and we all have sins. Hopefully the guilty and depressed would be able to find real peace of soul as a result.
I spent time in the army in Vietnam, but fortunately did not see much combat -- I never saw anyone get killed, thank heaven! But I had a lot of time to think about the war. I knew it was very controversial -- there were massive protest demonstrations back in the states. As I would sometimes pull guard duty, sitting on a bunker staring out into the night, I would wonder, if I should happen to see an enemy infiltrator (a Viet Cong "sapper"), would I be able to pull the trigger and kill him? For me the question boiled down to this: what did God think about the war? If I killed a man in combat, how would I explain it in the Day of Judgement?
After I got out of active duty I went to a Mennonite college. Technically I was still in the army when I was sitting in the classroom at the college (Inactive reserve status). The Mennonites, as you probably know, are pacifists, but were not very good at explaining their position. I finally concluded that the tradition "Just War Theory" was basically correct. However I also began to realize that if we apply the criteria for a just war to the wars that the U.S. has fought, most of them would not be considered just. I think that a counterinsurgency campaign in a foreign country almost never makes sense either politically or militarily, and therefore fails the test of having to have a reasonable chance of success.
I was interested to hear that you had studied in Russia. You may have seen Peter Hitchens' book "The Rage against God." Peter is Christopher's brother. He spent a number of years in Soviet Russia as a British journalist, and says that the country still has not recovered from Communism. What was your impression, having seen it firsthand?
This is where Christianity differs from the other religions you often mention.
ReplyDeleteSurely, you have that backwards?
It's the other guy's religion that differs from all the other religions that I mentioned.
Christianity posits...
I'm sure it does. However, the other brand name religion poists something too.
You have yet to step outside your own viewpoint.
To you it's self-evident that you must reach for your bible.
You don't seem to be willing to walk a mile in someone elses shoes and see how they would do the same thing for the same reason...only their book would be different.
You don't seem to be able to view yourself through their eyes.
All those other religions don't count somehow.
It's clear they are fake. Sure, they bow and mutter phrases and wave their hands in the air...but that's just for show. They don't really mean it. Not really.
Put them on the spot and with a little pursuasion, they'd all switch to your religion.
It's so obvious your religion is legitimate and all the others are just...well...silly.
Well, maybe not silly. After all we don't want to offend anyone and some of their buildings are cute and the chanting is very nice...but come on!
Goodness knows how they managed to keep it together all this time without the [brand name] magic book.
How lost they all must secretly feel etc, etc.
It never occurs to you that the other guy looks at you with exactly the same sense of pity and bemusement.
I suspect that even if the other guy walked up to you and tried to point out the error of your ways, it just wouldn't click somehow.
Because...well...you were lucky enough to be born in the right geographical area which just so happens to have the right religion that's clearly the only true religion.
Time and again, you work exclusively with the assumption of your [Brandname] god.
...the country still has not recovered from Communism. What was your impression, having seen it firsthand?
Well, I was only there for five years as a student in the 90's so I don't regard myself as an expert by any means.
But back then, the country was in a nasty state of political and economic upheaval. I lived like a Russian, kept my head down and tried to avoid trouble. Though as a foreigner, I had a hard currency lifeline from home that gave me huge advantages compared to the locals. I don't think that Communism is a very useful label to be honest. It has too much baggage. For me, it was just "the regime". Inefficiency, urban decay, an infrastructure in a permanent state of rust and depression were my impressions.
Imagine a Europe that survived (though not really won) WW2.
Now take away the Marshall Plan so there was no easy cash to rebuild.
Now get all the best and brightest and the most vigourous to emigrate somewhere else all at once.
Now put raging alcoholics in charge of all the key positions.
How long do you suppose it would take that alternate version of Europe to whip itself into shape?
It takes a LOOOOOOOOONG TIME.
Well, that's what I saw.
Mind you, I look back on those years with great pride and affection. It was my personal rite of passage. At the time, I wanted to chuck it all in and just go home on multiple occasions. Yet now, I get very sentimental and nostalgic for the "good old days". If I hear someone speaking Russian, I can't keep my mouth shut. I have to introduce myself and indulge a little.
Here's a video that perhaps does the best to capture some of the mundane things that stick my memory. The clunky buses and TVs, the glasses, the streets festooned with wires, the street kiosks etc. Hope you enjoy it.
I did enjoy it. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAs for "those other religions," I am reminded of a conversation I had once with a Muslim. I was attending a Franklin Graham meeting on a nearby university campus (Franklin is Billy's son). The Muslim fellow had set up a literature table outside the hall, and after the meeting I engaged him in a conversation. I would gather from his appearance that he was probably from somewhere in South Asia, probably Pakistan, but possibly India or Bangladesh. I told him that the problem I had with Islam is that it didn't have a Savior. He replied that he didn't need one. I then asked him if he thought that God was perfectly just and holy, and he answered in the affirmative. I then asked him if he thought that we, as human beings were sinful, and he said yes. I asked him if God punishes sin, and again he said yes. Unfortunately I didn't get to finish the conversation -- my bus was leaving!
It could be argued that both he and I were simply defending our respective cultural heritages -- people who know me personally will tell you that I am conservative to the bone. But at some point we have to deal with ideas and concepts. It was obvious that there were points of similarity between Christianity and Islam, but that there was also an obvious difference. On that one point -- the need for a Savior -- I think that Christianity is unique. So then, how do I know that Christianity is right? First of all, there is my sense of my own need -- for me guilt, my real, objective guilt -- is a genuine problem, and if some one offers me the medicine i will take it. But I also think that there is solid documentary evidence about the main facts of Jesus' life and ministry, and ample reason to believe that He really was who He said He was.
The Bible offers a kind of simple, common sense approach to truth: "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a matter be established." If all you have is one witness, it would be virtually impossible to verify his claims -- you don't know whether he is telling the truth or not. And this is the problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon. They were each written by single authors. But we have four gospels in the New Testament, each written in the first century, and they largely concur about what Jesus said and did. He said that He was the Messiah, the Son of God, He performed miracles, and He rose from the dead. That works for me!
On that one point -- the need for a Savior -- I think that Christianity is unique.
ReplyDeleteAll religions are unique. Islam is unique too.
Scientology is unique too.
Chrisitianity is just the one you happen to have been brought up with.
So then, how do I know that Christianity is right? First of all, there is my sense of my own need...
No, Bob.
The other guy can say exactly the same thing.
You are not walking in a mile in the other person's shoes.
But I also think that there is solid documentary evidence about the main facts of Jesus' life and ministry, and ample reason to believe that He really was who He said He was.
Again, this can be said about other religions.
Besides, the Jews don't agree with you.
The Bible offers a kind of simple, common sense approach to truth...
Oh for pity's sake, Bob.
Why do you think you are saying this in the first place?
Why are you reaching for your bible at all?
Think about it.
Take a step back and look at what you are doing.
But we have four gospels in the New Testament, each written in the first century, and they largely concur about what Jesus said and did.
(...facepalm...)
Bob, you don't even know who wrote them.
If all you have is one witness, it would be virtually impossible to verify his claims.
You have no witnesses, Bob. None. Whoever wrote those books is long dead.
He said that He was the Messiah, the Son of God, He performed miracles, and He rose from the dead. That works for me!
Yes but the other guy can say the same thing about his religion.
The only reason why you are pushing your [Brand Name] is because of geography.
That's it. Nothing more.
You automatically discount all the other religions in the world out there because that's what you are culturally conditioned to do. You are rationalizing them away.
The other guy does it too and for exactly the same reason.