Thursday, October 27, 2016

Christians and Voting: Perspectives on the Upcoming Election

* Here is a guest post from a friend of mine regarding the upcoming election.



Christians and Voting
by Michael G Muñoz, D.Be.

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves;
so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Mat 10:16)

 So, there’s been a lot of heat (mixed with some silliness), but I wonder how much light. I’m speaking about the upcoming election and how Christians ought to vote. It’s been either Christians must vote for Trump or we are guilty of murdering babies. Or, Christians are sinners if they vote for Hillary because we would be electing a murdering socialist. And on-and-on it goes.

While politics is neither the answer or the savior to our nations woes, we are still given the opportunity and privilege of engaging in it wisely and to the glory of God. So, what principles can we use to help guide us in what we should do when we enter the voting booth? As with any ethical issue, I think there are three perspectives that need to be considered: Norms (Biblical/moral principles), the situation, as well as the personal aspect. So with much tentativeness and a desire to start a dialogue (though, I realize, it’s pretty late in the game; but this could be helpful for the next election as well), here is what I have been grappling with.

Norms

The normative perspective considers God’s authority over all of creation and takes account of biblical imperatives, moral principles, and godly wisdom which guide us concerning any given moral question. Can we proclaim it a sin if a Christian does not vote? I don’t think so. However, I think there are some biblical principles that point us in the direction of the responsibility and wisdom in exercising our constitutional right to vote. 1 Tim 2:1-2 instructs us to pray for all men, specifically including “kings and all who are in authority.” Why? So that we may lead “tranquil and quiet” lives. Surely our prayers are meant for their well-being as well as to influence their decision making in a godly direction. It seems a perfectly legitimate application of this verse to begin in the ballot box. In Rom 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-15, we are instructed, “to be in subjection to” and “submit” to those in authority. It seems the height of folly to not exercise what control we have been given in choosing our leaders if honoring God involves submitting to them.

What kind of leaders should we choose? The wisdom literature provides important and general characteristics of a good king. He should be just (Pro 8:15; 20:8), he should not be a wicked man, but one of righteous character (Pro 16:12), he should be wise and righteous (Pro 20:26, 28), and most of all, he should honor and obey God (Psa 2). Because Christ has been given, “all authority . . .  in heaven and on earth (Mat 28:18), because all earthly rulers ought to bow the knee to Him (Psa 2; Phil 2:9-11), and because Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:16), it is appropriate to look for these characteristics in the leaders we choose. Certainly wisdom would also instruct us to consider other necessary qualifications for the job at hand, but character is foundational. The problem in the current election—specifically with the only two candidates with a chance of winning (see below)—is we don’t have a righteous candidate from which to choose. What do we do now? We turn to the next two perspectives for further guidance.

The Situation

The situational perspective takes account of God’s sovereign control over all things and considers context, goals, and probable or desired outcomes. Like it or not, we have a two party system. That means that unless God works a miracle, there are only two possible candidates with a chance at the presidency—Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In other words, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, or any other write-in candidate have the proverbial “snowballs chance in hell” of being elected. However, they can most certainly affect the outcome of the election. How so?

I’ve heard it said that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other party—depending whether you are a Republican or Democrat. The typical response to this assertion is that it is logically fallacious. I think this depends on what is meant by the assertion. The English language is flexible and we don’t always speak in logic-ese. It is true, by not voting for one viable candidate, you are not adding a vote to the other party’s candidate. However, I think what is meant by the assertion, which illustrates how the third party candidates can most certainly affect the election, is as follows. To make the math simple let’s assume that only 30 people can and are voting—15 Democrats and 15 Republicans. If everyone voted according to party line it would be a draw. However, if all the Republicans voted the party line, but only 10 Democrats voted the party line and 5 voted third party, then the Republican candidate would win. This, I think, is what is meant by the assertion and I think it is sound reasoning. So, we can practically conclude that a third party or write-in vote helps one of the two mainline candidates. Which one do you want to help? Then vote accordingly.

I have heard some Christian commentators say that America is under the judgment of God. While I’m not a prophet, I tend to agree with this. After Roe v. Wade (abortion) and Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage), it’s hard to imagine God blessing America. However, we are reminded often in Scripture that if we turn from our wickedness, repent, and submit to God (e.g., 2 Chr 6:36-39; Jer 18:5-10), He may relent. The Great Commission (Mat 28:19-20) instructs us to “disciple the nations.” We can be confident in this task, because Jesus promises to be with us, “even to the end of the age.” My point is that whether we are under the judgment of God or not, we should never give up hope and we should never quit fighting to stem the tide and reverse the judgment. Voting is a way of doing this.

Personal Aspect

The personal perspective asks: What can I do? And what are my motives for doing so? This perspective applies biblical virtues to a given situation. So, wisdom dictates we ought to vote and we should do so relying on the lovingkindness, compassion, and grace of God. We vote within an imperfect and seemingly thoroughly secular system (though arguably it was never meant to be such). It is pretty obvious that we are not going to end up with a righteous and godly president this election cycle. And practically speaking, a third party vote or write-in a candidate will actually help one of the mainline candidates win the election. What do we do?

I’ve heard many say that they cannot vote for either of the mainline candidates with a clear conscience; so, they will either not vote or write-in their choice—regardless of the outcome. But is having a clear conscience that simple? Are there no other issues involved (oh, that life was that simple)? If nothing else, is it possible by voting for a mainline candidate we could slow the tide of America’s eventual, deserved, and seemingly inevitable destruction? These are the questions that Christians should take to the ballot box. We should go into the voting booth “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” I believe our innocence is affected by our desire to glorify God while recognizing the imperfect, secular system we must work within. So, what else should we wisely consider? Here is where it becomes very difficult because we cannot predict the future with the omniscience only possessed by God. Nevertheless, it seems to me that some of the issues we as Christians ought to consider are the following: Religious liberty, supreme court nominees, the rights of the traditional family, marriage, abortion, physician assisted suicide, terrorism and border safety, genetic science, the escalation of pornography, and so much more. Many will say that a President can’t really affect any of these issues or that these concerns fall within the authority and purview of Congress. And if our system was working properly, this would be correct. However, aside from our broken system, history proves that a president can affect outcomes concerning issues like the ones listed above. Many a president knew how to use the bully-pulpit and influence the nation.

Others will say that we cannot rely on either mainline candidate to affect godly and moral change in any of these areas. This may be true. We may simply have to ask, “Which candidate will do the least amount of damage?” And then vote accordingly. Remember, Christians are not of this world, but we are placed directly within it and we are called to do everything in our power to affect change and work toward discipling the nations.
  
Parting Words

As you go to the polls and make some tough choices early this November, please, most of all, remember the words of our Lord:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35).

This commandment is for Christ-followers. Be gracious to your brothers and sisters who may disagree with you. By all means vote your conscience, but do so with wisdom and an understanding of how far the issues extend and thus what falls within the domain of your conscience.

The Foolishness of the Gospel and the "Insanity" of Jesus

* A devotional I penned for our church bulletin.



A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words.  Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is insane.  Why do you listen to him?”  Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed.  A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?”
John 10.19-21

Jesus’ words and actions caused divisions among his contemporaries (John 7.43; 9.16).  Think of this—the greatest man to ever live, with the greatest teaching to ever grace the ears of mankind—he caused division.  What I find most amazing is that the greatest teacher communicating pure truth is accused of being “insane!”  The One from God is thought to be demon-possessed.  Talk about a complete misunderstanding of Jesus!

We should take comfort from this passage.  Sometimes we can feel like we don’t know enough to share the gospel with others.  We worry and wonder, “What if I say something wrong or I can’t answer all their questions?”  We need to remember that there is no “perfect” gospel encounter.  Not even Jesus’ teaching met with total acceptance.  The measure of our success in sharing the gospel is not whether everyone agrees or accepts it.  The measure of success has to be on whether we faithfully represent the message of Jesus Christ.  Our goal should be to please Him.  This was Jesus’ goal—he wanted to please the Father and speak only what the Father told him (John 5.19; 14.9-11, 24).  Jesus didn’t seek the favor of men but the glory of God (John 5.44).  This meant that not everyone accepted the teaching from Jesus.  He caused divisions because he was faithful to the Father. 

He was also willing to be seen as “insane” for the sake of the gospel.  Too often I find in myself a kind of pride that doesn’t want to face rejection.  I want to be accepted and seen as someone who is rational.  Who wants to be dismissed as foolish or naïve?  We need to be reminded that the gospel message is foolishness to those who do not believe.  The message of the cross of Jesus is seen as weak and ineffectual by the world.  As the apostle Paul puts it—“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…” (1 Corinthians 1.18).  But it is precisely this message of the cross in all its “foolishness” that God loves to use to save people and bring them to himself.  Here is how Paul states the matter:

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.  –1 Corinthians 1.21

This “foolish” message is the power of God for salvation for those who believe and God is “well-pleased” to use this preached message to save people.  So let us not be ashamed of this message.  Let us boldly follow Jesus’ example of being willing to be seen as foolish for the sake of the gospel message.  Let us faithfully open our mouths for the sake of Jesus so that others may come to know him.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Quotations on the Meaning of Life

* Select quotations relevant to the issue of the meaning of life.  I used a few of these in my presentation Metaphysics and the Meaning of Life: How the Kingdom of God Changes Everything!


Meaning of Life Quotations

1.     “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him.  When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case prone.  I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz.  The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’  I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”[1]   --Viktor Frankl

2.     “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.  Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”[2]   --Bertrand Russell

3.     “We’re just a bit of pollution.  If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same.  We’re completely irrelevant.”[3]  --Lawrence Krauss (Arizona State University cosmologist)

4.     “It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more or less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning…. It is very hard to realize that this is all just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe.  It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat.  The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”[4]   --Steven Weinberg (Harvard cosmologist)

5.     “We were created not by a supernatural intelligence but by chance and necessity as one species out of millions of species in Earth’s biosphere.  Hope and wish for otherwise as we will, there is no evidence of an external grace shining down upon us, no demonstrable destiny or purpose assigned to us, no second life vouchsafed us for the end of the present one.  We are, it seems, completely alone.  And that in my opinion is a very good thing.  It means we are completely free.”[5]    --E. O. Wilson (Harvard biologist)

6.     “’You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.  As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: ‘You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’”[6]   --Francis Crick

7.     “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[7]   --Richard Dawkins

8.     “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.  1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exist; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”[8]  --William Provine (Cornell evolutionary biologist)

9.     “The universe doesn’t seem to me to be like the kind of entity that could have a higher purpose.”[9]  --John Maynard Smith (evolutionary biologist)

10. “Living creatures capable of reflecting on their own existence are a freak accident, existing for one brief moment in the history of the universe…. There is no God, no Intelligent Designer, no higher purpose to our lives.”[10]   --Keith Devlin (Stanford mathematician)

11. “As evolutionists, we see that no traditional justification of the kind is possible.  Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends.  Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe.  In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.  It is without external grounding.”[11]   --Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson

12. “The Darwinian argues that morality simply does not work (from a biological perspective), unless we believe that it is objective.  Darwinian theory shows that, in fact, morality is a function of (subjective) feelings; but it shows also that we have (and must have) the illusion of objectivity…. In a sense, therefore, morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.”[12]   --Michael Ruse

13. “Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In short it has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe, its contents and its cosmic history. But in making Darwinians into metaphysical nihilists, the solvent algorithm should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental.”[13]  --Tamler Sommers & Alex Rosenberg

14. “Nihilism is not a prescription or proscription of any conduct.  The nihilist may well admit that accepting categorical and hypothetical imperatives may often serve the parochial interests of oneself and others.  To be an ethical nihilist commits one to nothing more than the denial of objective or intrinsic moral values and categorical imperatives.” [14]  --Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg


     [1] Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2016), 11-12.  Weikart is quoting Viktor E. Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy (New York: Vintage Books, 1986), xxvii.
     [2] Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903) in Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 107.
     [3] Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2016), 44.  Lawrence Krauss,
     [4] Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2016), 45.  Weikart is quoting Weinberg’s book The First Three Minutes 1977.
     [5] Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2016), 111.  Weikart is quoting Wilson’s book The Meaning of Human Existence (2014).
     [6] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 162.  Luskin is quoting Crick’s The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (1988).
     [7] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 164.  Luskin is quoting Dawkins’ River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995).
     [8] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 166.
     [9] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 181.
     [10] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 182.
     [11] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 221.
     [12] Michael Ruse, Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy (Basil Blackwell, 1986), 253. 
     [13] Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy 18(5); November, 2003, 653.
     [14] Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy 18(5); November, 2003, 667-668.

Metaphysics and the Meaning of Life: How the Kingdom of God Changes Everything!

* Below are the notes from my presentation at Glendale Community College for the "God and Truth IV" panel discussion.


Metaphysics and the Meaning of Life:
How the Kingdom of God Changes Everything!
Richard Klaus
October 18, 2016
Glendale Community College’s “God and Truth IV: God and the Meaning of Life”


Preliminaries:

·      Thank you to Glendale Community College for sponsoring these events
·      Thank you to Professor Lupu for the invitation

Introduction

·      April 20th—was the 17 year anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre

o   Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

§  Killed 12 students and 1 teacher

§  Injured another 21 people

o   Eric Harris:  Journal

§  “I just love Hobbes and Nietzche (sic).”

§  “I say ‘KILL MANKIND’ no one should survive” and “theres no such thing as True Good or True Evil, its all relative to the observer.  its just all nature, chemistry, and math. deal with it.”

§  T-Shirt on day of shooting: “Natural Selection”

·      Or Consider… Jeffrey Dahmer:  arrested in 1991 for brutal sex crimes and cannibalism

o   Spoke of his belief that “the theory of evolution is truth, that we all just came from the slime, and when we died… that was it, there was nothing—so the whole theory cheapens life.”

o   “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point in trying to modify your behavior to keep it in acceptable ranges.”


·      We are shocked by the above behavior and find it morally repugnant
·      All these cases of ethically deviant behavior are linked with corresponding views about reality and the meaning of life.

·      In these cases a metaphysics of meaninglessness breaks forth in violence

·      IMPORTANT QUALIFICATIONS:

o   Not all who engage in murderous violence are self-consciously motivated by philosophical naturalism

o   Not all who hold to philosophical naturalism engage in murderous acts of violence

o   There may be medical and psychological issues in those mentioned above

§  Eric Harris:  “clinical psychopath” by some

·      MAIN POINT: deep connection between metaphysics, the meaning of life and the ethics that flow forth from such views!

A.   The meaning of life: What are we talking about?

a.    At least three concepts:[1]

                                              i.     Purpose: Are our lives directed toward some goal or end?

                                            ii.     Significance: Do our lives count for anything as part of a greater whole?

                                          iii.     Value: Is my life worth anything overall?  Is it better lived than not? 

B.   Two basic approaches to meaning in life:  Discovered vs. Created

a.    Bestowed from outside:  in which case we Discover this meaning

b.    Meaning created from the inside:  self-ascribed and self-determined

C.    Meaning in life questions are bound together with larger philosophical concerns…

a.    What one thinks about ultimate reality (metaphysics) will affect how one is able to consistently answer the question about meaning

b.    This is illustrated by a number of contemporary philosophers and thinkers

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.  Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”[2]  
--Bertrand Russell

“We’re just a bit of pollution.  If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same.  We’re completely irrelevant.”[3]  --Lawrence Krauss (Arizona State University cosmologist)

“’You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.  As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: ‘You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’”[4]   --Francis Crick

                       
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.  1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exist; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”[5]
 --William Provine (Cornell evolutionary biologist)

c.     Can’t be written off as the ramblings of some mentally deranged teenagers.

d.    Given Naturalistic evolution:  there is no meaning to be discovered

e.    Naturalistic evolutionary accounts of humanity and cosmos tend to degenerate—if consistent—into nihilism.

§  Tamler Sommers & Alex Rosenberg “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life”

“Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In short it has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe its contents and its cosmic history. But in making Darwinians into metaphysical nihilists, the solvent algorithm [random variation acted on by natural selection] should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental.”[6]                    
                                                            --Tamler Sommers & Alex Rosenberg

f.      But if not discovered perhaps meaning can be self-generated or created

g.    Problems:

                                              i.     Arbitrary

1.    Anything can be one’s purpose in life

a.    Engaging in medicine to help others

b.    Sitting around playing video games

c.     Harming others

§  Sailson Jose das Gracas: Brazilian serial killer (over 40 murders)

·      told reporters that murders filled a void in his life

·      “At 17, I killed the first woman and that gave me a buzz.  I kept on doing it and I enjoyed it.”[7]

                                            ii.     Bootstrapping problem: lifting oneself up by one’s bootstraps

1.    If life lacks objective meaning then how does one making a choice suddenly confer meaning on it?


Christian Theism

1.    What about Christian theism?  How does it answer the question of the meaning of life?

2.    First, meaning is objective and discovered

3.    God is both transcendent and personal

a.    Provides the grounding of objective meaning and value

b.    God can be known:  He Is There and He Is Not Silent

4.    Not bare theism or deism.  Not simply a nameless, faceless transcendent source of value

5.    Rather, it is a “blood, sweat, and tears” kind of theism

6.    The ultimate revelation of God is found in Jesus of Nazareth: Scandal and glory

a.    Both its scandal: the raw particularity of ultimate and final revelation in a single Person in history

b.    and its glory: God has come and dwelt among us for awhile

7.    In Jesus…

a.    the transcendent God draws near to humanity

b.    the Love of God is displayed in his self-sacrificing death

c.     the Power of God is manifest in his historical resurrection from the dead

d.    and all of this is part of God’s plan which demonstrates his unparalleled Wisdom

8.    Christian theism: Affirms objective Purpose, Significance, and Value

a.    There is PURPOSE:

                                              i.     Defined and revealed by our Creator à Discovered; not self-created

                                            ii.     One summary: “Man’s chief end [i.e., our highest purpose] is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.”

b.    There is SIGNIFICANCE:

                                              i.     Our lives our part of God’s wise plan for his creation

                                            ii.     As followers of Jesus, his people play a part in the kingdom drama and agenda he is pursuing through the ages

c.     There is VALUE:

                                              i.     Created in God’s image: “crowned with glory and honor” (Ps 8)

                                            ii.     Re-created by the mercy of Jesus’ substitutionary death and the power of his resurrection

                                          iii.     Value of belonging to God and his people

9.    Christians don’t always live up to these majestic realities

a.    but this is the New Testament portrait of Christian theism;

b.    this is the life and meaning available to us!

Conclusion

10.                  Began: metaphysics and the meaning of life

                                              i.     Ideas have consequences… and some ideas have victims!

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him.  When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case prone.  I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz.  The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’  I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”[8] 
                                                                                            --Viktor Frankl


11.                  But we are more than nihilistic meat machines or a bundle of neurons

12.                  There is a meaning in life available waiting to be discoveredrevealed
in the person of Jesus!




     [1] Drawn from James Anderson, “Can Life Have Meaning Without God?” Gospel Coalition (July 16, 2013).  Online: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-life-have-meaning-without-god.
     [2] Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903) in Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 107.
     [3] Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2016), 44.  Lawrence Krauss,
     [4] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 162.  Luskin is quoting Crick’s The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (1988).
     [5] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 166.
     [6] Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy 18(5); November, 2003, 653.
     [7] Ryan Gorman, “’Killing Calmed Me Down’: Brazilian Man Admits Murdering More than Forty People for ‘Fun’” (December 12, 2014).  Online: http://www.aol.com/article/2014/12/12/killing-calmed-me-down-brazilian-man-admits-murdering-more-than-40-people-rio-de-janeiro/21115576/.
     [8] Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Faith, 2016), 11-12.  Weikart is quoting Viktor E. Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy (New York: Vintage Books, 1986), xxvii.