Senior Theses

Wow - three posts in the last week; and two today.
A family friend requested that I post my senior theses, so I shall.
The first one is a response to John Hick, the most prominent religious pluralist in the last 50 years. In short, he believes that all religions are similar and lead to the same place, wherever that may be. A further explanation is included in my thesis. I rebut his arguments and show the logical incoherence of pluralism.

The second thesis is a positive case for Christian exclusivism, though my teachers said I didn't do as well on this one :( Oh well, the assignment was huge - defend Chrisianity from every attack and show why everyone in the world should believe it. I presented for 10 minutes and defended against the entire Petra secondary and staff for about 40 minutes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thesis Statement: Christian exclusivism is a truer view of the world and its religions than John Hick’s version of religious pluralism.

Religious pluralism, advocated as “tolerance” in our cultural vernacular, has a prominent place in America today. A substantial part of American culture looks on those who evangelize exclusively for a particular religious tradition as intolerant, arrogant, and close-minded. Exclusivist Christians who believe that salvation is in Christ alone especially feel this pressure to accept adherents of all faiths. They may experience it from others while attending college, or may consider for themselves the eternal fate of their Muslim neighbor who just helped them to move in. Christians are confronted with the facts of orthodoxy and asked “Do you really believe that anyone who does not believe in Jesus is going to hell? What about the kind people like your Muslim neighbor?” Christian discernment and philosophy enable us to point out the inconsistencies in these weighty and emotionally-moving charges.

Pluralism as a way of thinking about religion has emerged more and more in the West, especially in America, as immigration has brought believers of every faith. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, America worked to break down the barriers of racial prejudice. Discrimination on the basis of race was combated vigorously. This new era we live in is about destroying new biases: those against other religions. As Christians encounter various faiths and interact with their adherents, who all seem to be good, moral people, they struggle over their exclusivist belief that all of these men and women are going to hell. In consequence, attitudes towards other religions, even among Christians, are marked by the “virtues” of tolerance, acknowledgment, and mutual cooperation. In addition, philosophers have created and defended the worldview of religious pluralism as an accurate representation of the world. Men such as John Hick, to whose ideas this thesis is devoted, have tried to show that all religions are ultimately similar, and that they lead to the same result in people’s lives.

John Hick began his life in 1922 in Yorkshire, England. He is very well educated, having attended University College (law), Edinburgh University (philosophy), and Oxford (philosophy) (Hick Four Views 29-32). He grew up as an orthodox Christian, even defending the gospel in 1957. Later, he began to question his own faith, specifically the literal incarnation of Christ, and when he moved to Birmingham England in 1967 his worldview changed entirely. Birmingham held enormous cultural diversity, and Hick became very active in trying to tear down the strong racial prejudice there. While he was doing this, he was in frequent contact with intelligent Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews. Drawing off his earlier Christian thinking, which justified his belief in Yahweh through religious experience, he began to see others’ religious experience as equivalent to his own. By 1973 he had become a religious pluralist, and in 1989 his book, An Interpretation of Religion, put forth a full worldview of pluralism. (Netland 159-167)

Hick’s religious pluralism can be summed up in three points. First, there exists an ultimate reality (which Hick called the Real) to which all religions are legitimate responses (Hick Four Views 39). Hick specifically avoided using the term “God” for his ultimate because it would have given preference to theistic religions. Throughout his work, the term Real is used for the concept of the all-encompassing ultimate (Netland 169). Second, Hick believes that religions are human creations, in that they are historically and culturally determined responses to the Real (Netland 221). This means that religious beliefs were created by and are dependent on the cultures that they formed in. As a corollary to the cultural dependence of religions, Hick asserts that no religion can be said to be superior to another, in the same way that no culture can be said to be superior to another. Third, soteriological transformation (which is a term for all the different salvations that religions believe in) occurs or is available to roughly the same extent in all religions (Netland 221).

Hick’s arguments for pluralism are as simple as they are powerful. First, he claims that pluralism is ethically necessary, because it is “the only way to promote justice in our intolerant and oppressive world” (Hick Four Views 17). Second, religious experience is universal – no religion can claim that their “experience” of their deity makes their doctrine absolute and supreme. Lastly, Hick asserts that “varying cultural and historical contexts preclude absolutist religious claims” (Hick Four Views 17). Taken together, these three arguments mean that no religion has access to any sort of absolute truth, no religion can claim superiority, and all are equally valid for life.

Now, Hick’s worldview must be differentiated from pseudopluralism, which often masquerades as true pluralism. Pseudopluralism is religious tolerance that comes, not from a belief that all religions are equivalent, but from the deepest convictions of one religion (Netland 213). Let me explain with an example. The Dalai Lama, seen around the world as an advocate of religious discussion, tolerance, and a move toward common goals, is a pseudopluralist. Jane Compson writes about him: “Whilst his tolerance is entirely genuine, it arises from prioritizing Buddhist ideas over those of other faiths, and in this respect the apparent pluralism is deceptive” (quoted in Netland, 217). The Dalai Lama is tolerant of others who have not yet seen the ultimate Buddhist truth because Buddhism asserts that people have many lives, many reincarnations. He considers that though a person may not reach enlightenment now, in a hundred lives of false religions they will work their way to Buddhist truth. If questioned pointedly, the Dalai Lama states that all other religions beside Buddhism are wrong; so though he has the appearance of tolerance he is only a pseudopluralist. (Netland 216-218)

There are some agreements between pluralists such as Hick and Christian exclusivists, who believe that Jesus Christ alone is the way to salvation. The first agreement is that religion has a moral purpose – adherents of a faith ought to become better human beings by following that faith. Both accept something like the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 as the mark of a “saved” person (Hick Four Views 39). Second, both Christians and pluralists agree that elements of truth exist in all religions. The difference in this point is that Christians believe they have the complete truth and others have warped parts of it; and pluralists believe that truth is accessible to all religions.

There are many differences between the two worldviews as well. The most prominent, of course, is that pluralists believe that most religions lead to salvation; Christians think that only Christianity does. Second, pluralists believe that differences in religion are all various, but still reasonable, expressions of the Real that is beyond comprehension. Christians believe that any religion’s fundamental differences with Christianity are errors. Third, pluralists think that salvation is achieved through becoming Reality-centered; Christian exclusivists believe salvation is by grace through faith in Christ.

The first point I would like to refute in John Hick’s worldview is his attempt to re-interpret all the religions of the world to make them fit within his theory. He admits himself that pluralism is “a philosophical interpretation of the global religious situation” (Hick Four Views 51). If this is so, it stands to reason that pluralism, because it is an interpretation, succeeds or falls based on its ability to explain the religions of the world completely and accurately. Yet this is the very thing it seems to do poorly. In his attempt to bring all of the religions together to acknowledge one truth, Hick makes each one give up some of its fundamental doctrines. Initially, he makes each give up its alleged arrogant presumption to have absolute truth (ibid). Yet, more doctrines than the claim to have absolute truth must be rejected in order to satisfy pluralism. Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims alike would all need to concede that they are worshipping a false being, one that does not truly exist. Hick is essentially saying to the religions of the world: You have all been mistaken. The things you worship do not exist. Your deity is only your impression of the true Real, which cannot be described in such language. (Netland 232-235) Throughout his book, Hick struggles between telling all the religions that their beliefs are mistaken because they don’t explain the Real at all, and telling them that their views are legitimate because they are reasonable views of the Real.

The problem with reconstructing all of the religions’ beliefs is that Hick’s worldview is meant to explain them. Hick’s view is a second-order theory, or one that is meant to explain “first-order” data, in this case, the religions of the world. One of its main claims, as a second-order theory, is to be able to give a fuller interpretation of the first-order religions. Some degree of change, reduction, or magnification is certainly permissible in Hick’s explanatory theory (otherwise there would be little need for one), but the complete rejection of everything that the religions hold is not. The incompatibility between the religions and their pluralist explanation signifies that the explanation is incorrect (ibid).

A second, related, critique of pluralism is that the Real cannot possibly be the referent for all the different religions’ concepts of God and salvation. For the Buddhists it is nirvana, an awakening to reality; for Muslims Allah is one and they are saved through good deeds; the Christians have a Trinitarian god and are saved through faith; etc. It makes no sense that all of these believers are worshipping the same thing and pursuing the same soteriological transformation.

Hick tries to counter this charge of incoherence by making the distinction between the noumenal Real and the phenomenal Real. The noumenal Real is the Real as it is in and of itself, and the phenomenal Real is the Real as experienced by humans (Plantinga 44). The noumenal Real transcends categories, so much so that “none of our terms can be literally (and correctly) applied to it” (Plantinga 43). However, the Real appears in all religions phenomenally as different personae/impersonae, for example Yahweh and Allah as personae and nirvana and sunyata as impersonae. Each of these phenomenal personae/impersonae, according to Hick’s model, are legitimate responses to the noumenal Real.

Still, it must be contended that, even if these are legitimate responses, continuity between them should be expected. If the personae/impersonae truly reflect the Real in some way, even granted that the interpretation has been shaped and warped by human culture and history, then these personae/impersonae ought to be compatible. If the various phenomenal Reals are related to the noumenal Real, then even though they are different, they should mesh together and form a fuller picture of the noumenal Real. Yet they do not; there are insurmountable inconsistencies. Buddhists believe that all desire is evil; Christians believe that proper desire is good and right. Muslims and Jews believe that God is displeased with our sin; Hindus believe that liberation comes from realizing that we are in fact identical to god (Brahman). Netland wisely points out that Hick practically concedes that there are fundamental differences because of Hick’s own use of the terms personae/impersonae.

Hick attempts to counter this by referring to the Real’s transcendent nature. He claims that no human term can apply to it, consequently, no term is truly wrong when applied to it. Only essential properties, such as being wise or non-wise; and negative properties, such as not being a horse, apply to the Real (Plantinga 45). Yet if no substantive properties (that mean anything to us) apply to the Real, can it even be declared that it exists? Mavrodes stated the problem well in his response to Hick: “Hick postulates something which is neither good nor evil, neither purposive nor non-purposive. And of course Hick’s Real is not loving, not powerful, not wise, not compassionate… The Real does not know me (or anyone else), does not care about me (or anything else) and so on. The Real did not create the world… does not sustain the world… What… does the Real have to do with anything which happens in the world?” (Mavrodes quote in Netland 244) In his effort to make the Real ineffable, transcendent beyond human thought, and thereby accessible to all religions, Hick has made his Real meaningless to relate to human action. (Netland 238-239)

A third objection to Hick’s pluralism hinges on Hick’s way of condemning cults. As any good philosopher would, Hick does not allow his philosophy to give license to those who would do evil. Hick does not condone those who practice cannibalism and say that it is a legitimate expression of religious service to the Real. Hick does this by stating that religions are more or less in touch with the Real based on the moral transformation of their members (Plantinga 57-58). The standard for this transformation is a general one: love, patience, compassion, etc. He seems to say that those who are moral reflect the Real better than those who do not. Thus, the immoral cannibals fail to truly perceive and follow the Real. Yet at the same time, Hick asserts that the Real is not moral. Since the Real cannot be said to be good or evil, how can a pluralist condemn religions and religious people that they consider evil? There is no ground to stand on. Hick must either concede that some things can be known about the Real (such as its moral quality) or confess that cannibals have the same relation with the Real as any other religious believer. To do the first would privilege the religions that already know these things about the Real, and to do the second would be completely unethical. (Netland 245-246, Plantinga 57-58)

Lastly, pluralism fails at doing what it set out to do – be tolerant. Pluralism as a worldview was formed in Hick’s mind (and others) because he saw the multitude of religions that exist and could not imagine how so many intelligent, morally good, and sincere believers could be wrong (Netland 166). However, pluralism ultimately does what it tries to avoid. By formulating a Real that cannot be described or explained, Hick denies every religion’s beliefs about the deity they claim to worship. Most religions state that they have an absolute truth, and that men should follow it. They claim to know things about the deity they serve. Hick, in his attempt to promote tolerance and cooperation, made a Real nondescript enough to be accepted by all. Yet in doing so, he has both denied everything the world religions claim to know about their deity, and has created a new absolute truth. The Real has become his god, and those who don’t accept the Real are looked down on as arrogant, and maybe they are even proselytized. These are the two things pluralists wanted to avoid in the first place! (Netland 246)

There are fundamental problems with Hick’s worldview of pluralism. Though it holds enormous emotional appeal and calls on the virtues of tolerance and love, it does not pass the bar of rational thought. Hick, in his desire to make all religions equal, forces each to deny its fundamental principles. Ultimately, he is no more tolerant of exclusivists than exclusivists are tolerant of him! In addition, Hick’s concept of the Real as completely unexplainable is in the end incoherent; though even if it were reasonable, it would mean that the Real has absolutely no impact on our lives or on eternity. The Real being indescribable also leads to an inconsistency within Hick’s thought. Hick must reject sinful religious people, but it seems incompatible for him to do this without acknowledging the morality of the Real. Hick cannot logically claim that the Real is neither moral nor immoral, and that those religious believers who are more moral are more connected with it. At the final conclusion, Christian exclusivists can rest assured that their faith is not destroyed by the attacks of John Hick.

Bibliography:

Evans, C. Stephens Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith InterVarsity Press Downers Grove, Illinois 1982

Hick, John Pinnock, Clark H. McGrath, Alister E. Geivett, R. Douglas Phillips, W. Gary eds. Okholm, Dennis L. eds. Phillips, Timothy R. Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1996

Hick, John An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent Yale University Press New Haven, Connecticut 1989

Netland, Harold A. Encountering Religious Pluralism InterVarsity Press Downer’s Grove, Illinois 2001

Plantinga, Alvin Warranted Christian Belief Oxford University Press New York, New York 2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thesis Statement: Christian exclusivism is the most coherent worldview.

During a plane ride many years ago, I was seated next to a business man in his early thirties. We started talking, and I steered the conversation to what I believed, and tried to witness about Jesus. Though I had never heard of pluralism before, as I talked I recognized that I was not getting through to this man. Whenever I tried to explain anything fully, he would break in with comments like, “It’s good you value religion at your age” or “Oh, that’s very nice” and “I’m glad you take this so seriously.” There was no way that hearing about my religion could possibly convert him, for he viewed all religions as inherently equal. Since to him all of them have the purpose of moral transformation, religion was just a nice thing to have.

So, how do we as Christians witness to pluralists? How do we explain why they ought to believe that the majority of the world is wrong about religion, and that Jesus is the only way to heaven? First, I want to point out that witness is best accomplished among friends. It is rare for someone to make a drastic change in their life (like converting to Christianity) based on another person’s words and deeds unless they have a close relationship. That said, I think that there are very good reasons for believing in Christian exclusivism.

In my last thesis, I discussed and refuted John Hick’s worldview of religious pluralism, but I did not give evidence for exclusivism. I now intend to show the ultimate coherence of exclusivism. Also, I will refute Hick’s own objections to Christianity, that is, the very reasons why he turned away from the faith.

The Biblical case for exclusivism is clear. The Bible states that the original sin of Adam is enough to condemn every man and woman to hell. Psalm 14:3 reads “They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.” Hell does exist, and many people will end up there because of their sin and unbelief. Matthew 7:13 commands and warns “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.” The Bible is also unambiguous when it declares that Jesus is the only way to escape hell. In the words of Jesus Himself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). We can be assured that God will judge justly in each case - as Abraham said “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25b). Still, God’s righteous judgment involves the punishment of evil; for example, the obliteration of Sodom and Gomorrah. Christianity is an exclusivist religion.

These types of assertions make many people, even Christians, uncomfortable. However, a religious seeker should not choose a religion based on how it makes them feel; the religion must make logical sense. The main test of any worldview is its consistence with reality. Every religion makes statements about how the world works, so a religion can be objectively judged by how well the statements it makes agree with observed reality. Christianity excels in this area. The experienced Christian theologian, Ravi Zacharias, says that he affirms Christianity because of its explanation of the four greatest questions men ask about the world: What is humanity’s origin? What is the meaning of life? Does a code for morality exist? and What is our destiny? (Strobel 212). He contends that Christianity explains and answers these fundamental questions better than any other worldview.

The coherence of Christianity is evident as each of the four questions is examined in light of the Bible. First, Genesis explains our origins: we are not God, but are created by Him in His image. Humanity fell through its own sinful desires and is now in bondage to sin. The meaning of life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, but this is made difficult by our sin and prideful nature. A moral code has been given to us by God, but we all fall short of the perfection that it demands in thought and action. Our destiny is to be eternally with God in heaven, or eternally separated from Him in hell. This choice of eternal dwelling is up to us—we must decide whether to accept Christ’s atoning death on the cross for our sins. Every one of these answers is coherent with the others, and even complementary. The Christian worldview is coherent, consistent with reality, and truthful. No other religion explains the world as well as Christianity does. (Strobel 212-214)

The first and most prominent objection to exclusivism is the question: “What about all the morally good people in the world who haven’t heard the gospel? Are they all condemned to hell just because of their ignorance?” There are two responses to this question: one, the Bible is clear that people are not ignorant of what they ought to do. Romans 1:20 declares that “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” The natural revelation that God has provided through His creation, in conjunction with the conscience stamped on every human’s heart, means that no one will be able to claim at judgment that they got a raw deal. Everyone, deep down, knows the moral law—it is how they expect other people to treat them! We, in our sinful human natures, recognize sin when it is done to us or others, but have little desire to change the sin in our own hearts.

The second response to this charge is that, in the Christian worldview, no one goes to heaven because of their good deeds. No person can earn their way into heaven; it is not just a matter of living a life in which good actions outweigh bad ones. Instead, we must realize that one sinful act condemns us before a perfect and holy God. Christians are not saints because they live perfectly or even because they live morally, but because they recognize their sin and repent. Therefore, those who live good “moral” lives do not get a free ticket into heaven.

John Hick has many potent objections to exclusivism; his doubts about Jesus took him from a life of Christian faith to one of religious plurality. His first line of argument against Christianity was that it could not be true (or at least, no more true than another religion) because the religious experience of Christians is no different than the experience of other religious worshippers. That is, Hick claimed that all people feel the same things when they practice their religion so all religions must have the same effects. This makes little sense, however, once the world religions define what they mean by “higher experience.” Buddhists try to rid themselves of all desire through meditation in order to reach enlightenment. Devout Muslims pray five times a day while kneeling in a certain direction. Hindus try to accept the fact that they are not distinct from god. Though initially it might seem like temples, mosques, and churches all enclose the same type of religious devotion, it is evident that the experience of the world religions is as varied and contradictory as their core beliefs. Christian exclusivists even assert that though other religions have aspects of truth, ultimately their practice will lead to dissatisfaction and purposelessness (Zacharias). Only the religious experience of Christianity will bring complete fulfillment to the believer.

However, this bold assertion leads to the second of Hick’s objections to exclusivism. He says that only arrogance will result from one religion claiming to have the complete truth. In response to this, the first thing to note is that all major world religions have absolute truths that they will not rescind. Christians are not the only bullies on the playground, trying to force other religions to adhere to Christian standards. Christianity cannot be labeled as intrinsically arrogant because it asserts absolute truth. In fact, Jesus Christ stands out as a religious founder who wanted his gospel spread through truthfulness in love (Eph. 4:15; 1 John 3:18). He told his disciples to spread the hope of salvation to all nations. The method of this preaching is also clear: the Bible never advocates force, arrogance, or disrespect to non-Christians, but instead love, compassion, and respect. Christians are to be humble about their salvation, for it is only achieved through the grace of God. Christianity does not condone arrogance in its saints.

Hick’s third and last objection to exclusivism is that the various historical and cultural contexts in which the world religions were formed nullifies any absolutist religious claims. To Hick, the claim that Christianity is superior to Buddhism is like saying that Israeli culture is more sophisticated than Indian culture. Implicit in this accusation is the assumption that religions are a product of culture. Yet truth, even religious truth, is still true no matter which culture discovers it. Religions may be shaped by the culture they formed in, but they all make certain truth claims. These claims can be tested, inside and outside the culture, to determine the validity of the religion. It is intellectual foolishness to reject a proposition just because it was produced by a particular culture; a statement’s validity is not ultimately determined by how it was made. In light of this, it is obvious that Christianity must be given a fair trial, and cannot be dismissed as just one among many culturally determined religions.

In the end, none of John Hick’s objections to Christian exclusivism can overturn it. His arguments concerning the cultural dependence of religions, the arrogance inherent in asserting absolutes, and the universality of religious experience can be answered reasonably from within Christianity. Also, the Christian worldview can explain the eternal destiny of moral people in a consistent and logical way. No other religion has the inner coherence of Christianity. It answers the questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny better than any other. Christianity is an exclusivist religion and the truest worldview.

Bibliography:

The Bible, New International Version Thomas Nelson Publishers Nashville, Tennessee 1999

Dowsett, Dick Is God Really Fair? Moody Press Chicago, Illinois 1985

Hick, John Pinnock, Clark H. McGrath, Alister E. Geivett, R. Douglas Phillips, W. Gary eds. Okholm, Dennis L. eds. Phillips, Timothy R. Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1996

Strobel, Lee The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity Zondervan Grand Rapids, Michigan 2000

Zacharias, Ravi K. Jesus among other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message Word Publishing Nashville, Tennessee 2000

Gliding over rough waves

Alright, here we go-another poem. My mom said she liked the ones I wrote before, so I decided to write one for her. It was, of course, written after a stint of reading Gerard Manley Hopkins. I tend to write poetry in similar form to poems I have just read. I really like Hopkin's style, and I think I have done a decent job duplicating at least the form of his writing. I'm not brilliant enough yet to have triple layers of meaning and spiritual truths embedded everywhere. Also, I made the mistake of putting the rhyme in after I had finished the body of the text, so it is not quite as polished as it could have been; the rhyme scheme in the sestet is quite unique. Without further ado,

Gliding over rough waves, surf
Lapping on hull; colors matched
White ship and white clouds pushed and snatched,
Skudding over blues of sky and liquid turf
Fluxing, rolling, wave-tops frothy and beleaguered
What larks! What joyful days remembered!

Just two, joying with all our souls;
Sehnsucht at its pitch - I smile, it breaks
Over faces as waves break the bow nor slakes
The speed! No runner, no thought of another
World on shore can catch the moment, no breather
We are free of freedom, beyond this world
In ecstasy unmatched. My heart is twirled
As glorious past through my mind again rolls.

Richard 5/22/2008

P.S. I finally found a sweet site that will email me whenever one of my friends posts on their blog: rssfwd.com If you would like to receive updates whenever I make a new post, go to the homepage of rssfwd.com, enter http://musingsofthepetrafiedone.blogspot.com/ in the input box, type in your email on the next page, and you're all set!

Graduation

Life has settled down enough so I can write again-I just defended my thesis this Monday and have been completing a lot of end-of-year projects, such as planning graduation, papers, and finals. There now appears to be a finite end to the amount of work left to do before the end of the month. It's a good feeling :) I am still struggling a little to stay diligent, but I've been reasonably efficient this last week. The goal of graduation is a large motivating force. However, Caltech just sent me three and a half hours of calculus diagnostic exams and a placement writing assignment, so I have to work on those sometime. Thankfully, they are both due after school gets out so I can complete them then.

Well, it's time to say goodbye to Petra, where I have spent the last seven years. I will graduate on May 29, 2008 at 7 PM in the Grace Bible Church youth room. If you live in Bozeman or don't mind traveling to get here, you are welcome to come. I was named valedictorian, which is a great honor, but one I feel I could have gone without. There are only four students graduating--it almost seems superfluous to single out one as the most noteworthy. Petra's education is difficult enough that just graduating is an achievement in and of itself. I have heard from multiple graduates that the work they are doing in college is easier than the work they did at Petra. So, I'll graciously accept the honor, but I don't want to let it go to my head and start thinking I'm some superhuman.

EDIT: My profile picture is now my senior picture. See right

The Difficulty of Practicing what You Preach

This week, I have been really struck with how hard it is to make our actions match our words. We see faults in others, but practice the same sins ourselves. What we need is a mirror - the Bible, literature, or other's opinions - to see ourselves as we really are. Two stories I read this week illustrate this well and I'd like to share them with you.
The first is taken from Ravi Zacharias' Jesus among Other Gods, pgs 145-146 (emphasis mine). Dr. Zacharias was speaking as a token theist on the difficulty of preventing cheating in a world where everything is accessible on the internet.
"After [my] lecture, we sat down together for a lunch hosted by faculty members and student leaders. During the lunch, one of the faculty members said something like this: 'All this philosophizing about an objective morality seems so highbrow and philosophically weighty. The basic question I have is very simple: How do we keep students from cheating?'
"As I answered her question, I also reminded her that she was still dealing with the symptons and ignoring the cause.
"At the end of the lunch, a handful of students surrounded me with a flurry of questions. One of them, in low tones, said, 'I really have a problem. I was asked by me professor to come and take in your lecture and to critique what you said. But the truth is that after hearing your arguments, I find myself agreeing with you.'
"'Well, then,' I asked, 'why don't you say that in your paper?'
"'Oh no! I will be definitely docked in my grades if I concur with your reasoning. The professor had been certain that I would disagree with you and wanted me to offer a scathing rebuttal. I am a straight-A student, and I cannot afford to drop my grade.'
"'Are you sure your professor will penalize you just for agreeing with this position on ethics?' I asked her.
"'I am positive,' she said.
"'Was your professor her at the luncheon?' I asked.
"'Yes,' came the obviously hesitant response.
"'Who was it?'
"There was an awkward silence and then an even more uncomfortable admission. 'The one who asked you how she could keep students from cheating.'
"So much for the genuine hunger for truthfulness. I seriously had to wonder if a teacher such as that really wanted her students to learn not to cheat or only to learn to think as she did, even if it meant an entire life of pretense - secondhand doubt."

Wow. As Dr. Zacharias said, the professor did not have a genuine interest in the truth. She wanted to keep students from cheating, but not so that they could write original work - she wanted them to repeat what she thought. That professor herself was part of the cause of intellectual dishonesty (maybe the most serious form of cheating) at the university; she made her own students unwilling to write what they believed. She desperately needed a mirror held up to her own actions; I hope she read Zacharias' book and had enough sincerity left to be convicted and change her ways.

The second story is simply a news article, taken from the most recent world magazine (May 3/10 2008), pg. 15.
"One Idaho state senator should be thankful a bill he sponsored didn't get passed earlier. Police in Boise tagged Sen. John Goedde with speeding through a school zone the same day he debated his bill to increase fines for such tickets on the floor of the state Senate. Goedde's bill to increase the minimum fine for speeding through a school zone eared passage on April 1 - about a month after he was issued a $141.50 ticket for driving 32 mph near a school. 'There was some irony there,' the Coeur d'Alene senator acknowledged."
Irony? It makes me want to cry for this man's hypocrisy. To do him some justice, he asserts that he did not see the signs and flashing lights that signified a school zone. Hopefully he will be be convicted for the right reasons - not just because he was caught and faces very bad publicity, but because he was violating the laws of his state. As a state senator, he ought to be a leader in the area of civic responsibility. Here is the link to the full news article, if you're curious: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=14478

Well, my brother Adam turns 15 today, so we are having a nice dinner. I have some work to do before then.
P.S. Mr. V liked my second thesis on the correct topic.

I was supposed to write on what?

Ever had a miscommunication with a teacher, and turned in the wrong assignment? You probably have, it happens sometimes. Ever researched a thesis topic and handed in the first rough draft and had the teacher say "Uh... you weren't supposed to do this topic?" Well, I have. It was kindof a bummer. OK, not kindof - really a bummer. Last Thursday classified as a terrible, awful, no-good very-bad day.

I had my thesis on moral absolutes all researched, and turned it in to Mr. V only to hear him say I did the wrong topic. He didn't really read it, just browsed and added that to top it off I had done a poor job on the wrong topic - at least, I could have done much better (which was true). He was nice about it, and said I could continue with moral absolutes if I wanted to. I told him I wasn't very attached to the paper (which was true) and that I would switch. So, I have a week to research and write the correct thesis.
How did the miscommunication happen? I'm not sure. I do know that I was gone the day he assigned thesis topics, and that what I heard him say about the topic was mainly from a conversation he had with another classmate, so I must have transmuted that into my topic. Anyways, it was not the kind of news that makes you jump up and run around the room cheering.

However, this did me perspective - for I received an email around the same time from my youth group leader. He asked me to pray for a girl who was a senior in high school but wouldn't graduate this year - she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. I can't even imagine this. She probably already had her college picked, was ready to graduate and head off on her own. Weeks before commencement, she is told she has an often fatal illness and is flown to another city for medical treatment that could take years. Her bad news makes mine pale in comparison. I stopped feeling sorry for myself, and thanked God for all the blessings I have, even if clear communication isn't one of them.