We have a strong tendency to begin our conversations in a pragmatic, moral framework and to work outward from there. “Does it work,” we might ask? “Is it equitable or fair?” In such a system, or way of thinking, usefulness and equality are heralded as the supreme virtues, the democratic ends of modern society. One does not need to go very far to see evidence of these virtues in our own country. Political debates concerning economics, for example, revolve around proposals for “responsible and fair budgeting.” Many conservative groups use the phrase, “balancing the budget,” as a utilitarian means of avoiding an economic crisis, such as the “fiscal cliff.” Meanwhile, more liberal groups often chirp back that conservative proposals do not work because the monetary distributions involved in such schemes give preference to the wealthy, which is neither equitable nor fair.
But political economics isn’t the only place we see the manifestations of such virtues. We observe them everywhere. Our conversations about education revolve around who’s not getting enough of it:”No Child Left Behind.” Speaking of children, we often teach them to disregard “being right” in exchange for “getting along.” We also say things like, “Well that might work in theory, but in the real world….” We even read the Bible through our consumer-driven, egalitarian, democratic lenses. “What does this verse mean to you?” or “What can God do for you?” We even tend to regard faith as “something that works” for us: “If you just trust God, He will make you feel less guilty,” or “boost your confidence,” or “bless you with success.” Recently, I even read an article that reinterpreted the biblical narrative of Jonah to mean being less “…narrow, nationalistic, racist and exclusive….”
The problem with being equitable and pragmatic is not that these are bad or undesirable virtues in themselves. The story of Jonah may very well be applied to speak to narrow-mindedness and exclusivity. We should also avoid any “fiscal cliffs” as well as favoritism. I agree that racism is wrong, partly because it isn’t fair and it doesn’t work. God’s forgiveness does indeed assuage feelings of guilt and of shame. The problem with these begins when they are plucked from their context, from their proper order within reality, and set up as what is central, or foundational, to it. In other words, while there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic; there is something wrong with pragmatism. There is nothing wrong with equality or equity per se, but egalitarianism is a denial of reality.
Are all people really equal? Are all people equally wise, intelligent, or strong? Do all people share the same economic status, physical abilities, or charisma? Are all men equally able to lead, or to inspire, or to speak? Upon what basis does one claim all men to be equal, if there is absolutely nothing intrinsic to man that even suggests that anything like equality should ever exist? (See my blogs, “Politics 101,” for an explanation on what sense all men are “created equal”)
Philosophy looks at the highest things in existence. When the pragmatists ask, “Does it work?” The philosopher asks, “What is “it”? Does “it” work for what?” Consider our modern day concern with our economic crisis: The pragmatist, both conservatives and liberals, wants a system that works. I do too. However, I also know that I must learn what economics is and for what purpose it exists PRIOR TO the development of any economic system. This pattern is really important: What precedes what in the order of things. To illustrate the magnitude of it, let me say that how we think about this will shape how we read the Bible, and even how we think about the Gospel.
If equality and performance are the highest virtues, what becomes of how we read and interpret the Bible? If those are the highest things in the church, then everything else is subordinated to those things, and brought into conformity with them. Jonah’s story is no longer seen as a story depicting a sovereign God moving all of history along as He pleases, according to His eternal plan of redemption, where even the vegetation and the creatures of the sea obey Him. Instead, it’s about being “open” to the perspectives of those different than you. It’s about not being “nationalistic” or “racist,” even though those concepts did not exist in those days.
How about the Gospel? Why did Jesus come to die? Well, He came to save sinners from death. Who would disagree with that? Obviously, no Christian would…at least until he realized that a “sinner” no longer means someone who is offensive to God’s holiness and that “death” no longer refers to eternal separation from, and damnation by, God. Instead, a sinner is a narrow-minded “bigot” who disagrees with progressive reinterpretations. “Death” means holding on to those old ways, which prevent us from pressing on to a “better tomorrow.” Jesus died for what works and so that we may all be treated equitably, or equally. At least, that is the Gospel I see many Christians, including some of my own friends, constantly post about.
The biggest things in life are invisible and spiritual. We know they are bigger because everything else is shaped by them, given meaning and existence by them. The lesser things are contained within the greater things. All of the biblical writers were very concerned that we thought this way about everything in existence. Jesus Christ even condemns those who get this wrong for their hypocrisy:
““Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:16–24 ESV, emphasis added).
What did these men do but to exchange the heavenly things for the earthly things? Giving up the weightier matters for mint, dill, and cumin? And replacing the greater things with lesser things?
“It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.” (Hebrews 7:7)
It is, indeed, “in Christ” that we have been saved. We are inferior to Christ; therefore, we are blessed by Him, and not because of who or what we are, but because of who and what He is. It is in Him that we are shaped and given our being. Everything in existence follows this pattern: The greater things blessing or informing the lesser. It is by the altar that the gift is sacred, not the other way around. When we swear by the altar, we are swearing by everything contained by the altar because it includes all of those things. The altar is the bigger classification, and the gift is contained within that classification, along with everything else on the altar. This is how all of existence works; it is also precisely how logic works.
Logic exists and works because of what the Logos is.
The Logos is the truth, the rational ordering principle of the entire universe. All things are as they are because of what the Logos is. It is this Logos which creates and designs all things, giving them order, substance and form, from the greater to the lesser. A thing is a thing because of the nature of truth itself. A thing is a thing? This also happens to be first law of logic.
Epistemology deals with logic, or truth criterion. How do we know that we know? How do we know that we know that this God-ordered universe and not something else? How do we know that we know the Bible actually is the word of God? What does it mean “to know?”
“To know” means to have the mind informed by the object of study. It is not man opining about how he feels about the object, whether it feels right or good to him. It is not man merely “thinking” in any way he pleases, so that he might build some sort of cognitive model out of words that point to nothing in particular. Those are vain imaginings, empty words, and are referred to as such in the Bible (Eph 5:6, Matt 6:7). Words and statements are true because they point at something real, something that exists and has a nature. Words have content and substance because they faithfully articulate the being and essence of the things spoken about. To be “informed” is to look at the object (truth, justice, faithfulness, etc…) that the mind might be transformed into its image (Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18).
What philosophy does is to smash empty words, meticulously plucking them out of our faith. These are interferences—sin—dwelling in our minds, blinding us to what is real. It uses logic to this. Philosophy is superior to sophistry. Reason is greater than irrational babble, and checks the statements of poor thinking, or the speech of those who would use empty words to deceive. Pluck out the log that causes blindness from our own eye, and we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother’s eye.
The first three laws of logic are like three sides of the same prism. Looking through this prism, falsehoods begin falling away. We've already mention one, the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example, a fish is a fish, and is not a rock, or a chair, or the Sun, and so forth. This law is often expressed as A=A, meaning A is equal to A. Therefore, a thing is equal to itself.
Doesn't that seem ridiculous and simple? But it’s violated all the time, as we shall see. For instance people will say God is unique, eternal, and unchanging. But then these same people will also claim that the God of the New Testament is nice, gentle, and merciful, while the God of the Old Testament is mean, vengeful, and full of wrath. Likewise, people will emphasize God’s mercy at the expense of His justice. However, the God of the OT is the same God of the NT! And while it is true that God is love, it is also true that He is justice. God’s justice is loving, and His love is just. The reason people fail to consider such things is because they do not have this law of logic, or the other laws, ingrained into their thinking. It takes practice. A bigger reason this is violated is because man is fallen, and suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness. But if we practice, then we can grow into maturity.
The second side of our prism is called the law of non-contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship. Or to put it another way, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. A≠~A (≠ means “not equal to” and the ~ symbol is a negation, meaning “not” or “non”). In other words, “A” is not equal to “non-A.”
The third law of logic is called the law of the excluded middle: A v ~A, which means A or non-A (the “v” in logic means “or”). A thing either is or it is not. There is no third option and it cannot be both. Either a statement is true or it is false. The law of the excluded middle does not apply to gradations within a category or class, but to the existence of a class. Either it is a gradation or it is not. If I referred to a blue-green button as being “blue,” this does not violate the law just because the button is also green because it is also blue. However, if I said the blue-green button was not blue-green, then I just contradicted myself. Either it is blue-green or it is not.
When Christians seek to refute logic as “human reasoning,” they are refuting themselves in the process. One cannot deny these laws and still maintain validity in their arguments or claims, since all valid statements depend upon these. They just threw truth and reality out the window, so to speak. They have denied the very laws that their own statements depend upon. So when someone says, “I don't believe in human reasoning and logic, I only believe in the Bible,” they are refuting their own statement. When they said, “the Bible,” did they also mean “anything unbiblical?” Obviously not. Did they mean to indicate that “believing” and “not believing” were mutually exclusive categories? If not, then to believe is also not to believe. If so, then they are depending on logic, what they call “human reasoning,” in order to make the assertion.
What logic does is to wreck empty words, which deny or confuse the order—the classifications—of things. A bachelor, for example, refers to a man who is not married. A person is either married, or he is not. A bachelor is a man that belongs to the class of people. What kind of people? Unmarried people. So if I said, “married bachelor,” I am speaking gibberish because the categories “married” and “unmarried” are mutually exclusive. The same can be said of square circles. It cannot exist because a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. Saying “square circles” is a meaningless combination of words. They point to nothing at all.
What does all of this have to do with Christianity?
Absolutely everything. If God created all things, then there is an order and a design to all things. All of the things that He created bear something of His stamp. When God spoke, out comes creation. Does any Christian seriously believe that God speaks gibberish? Or do the things that He spoke into existence bear His message? All things say something about God. Whatever God speaks into existence He speaks it out of His very being, it is filled with content and information about His own nature (Rom 1:20).
This blog is worth considering too:
ReplyDeletehttp://jjevans1975.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-faith-and-modern-western-church.html