Are you good or bad?

Recently, a friend of mine posted a question for discussion. Here it is in slightly edited form, followed by my initial response.
--
Are you good? How do you know? Are you good by nature, or are you bad--inheritantly evil? Do you need to be cleansed of your sinful nature?

If you are inheritantly bad, then why are children so sweet? If you are inheritantly good, then why do children say no and lie? With conditioning a person can learn to be honest, but some people are naturally honest. Just because a person is raised to be moral doesn't mean that she will be moral later in life, and just because a person is raised in an "ungodly" home does not mean that they will be immoral later.

This question is a major basis of Christianity. If we believe that we are inheritantly bad then we need a savior. We will go to church and read the bible and pray and be cleansed from sin. The only deterrant is that there is so much self-condemnation involved. You absolutely must believe that you are bad in order to have a relationship with a good God.

For some people it comes easy to think of themselves as bad; for others it is difficult.
--
This is a question of the human condition. Christianity is not based on this question, but it answers it well. However, your description of Christianity is mistaken. Christianity is not based on a belief that we are inherently bad. Quite the opposite, it proclaims that we are inherently good, created in the image of a good God, in order to enjoy Him and the universe which He has made, in order to exercise dominion (authority/responsibility) over the earth as He is the ruler of all, in order to exercise creative power with the resources of our intellect and the world around us as He masterfully and beautifully designed the universe, in order to exercise reason just as He is the source of all reason, in order to enjoy relationship with Him and one another as the Triune God enjoys relationship within Himself, and in order to make choices freely without compulsion as no one commands the Lord.

Choices have outcomes.

We were designed, as people created in God's image, to reflect God's character and be like Him. He is good, just, holy, loving, and so forth. We are expected to make choices accordingly. In a perfect world (namely Eden and Heaven) human beings act in line with the image of God in them and experience increasing fulfillment of their potential, desires, and relationships as well as the ecstasy of joy in fellowship with God.

If we choose to be our own God and do what is right in our own eyes it is like turning your stereo up too loud; you're going to blow the speakers. If that happens, you have two choices: replace the speakers or get rid of the stereo altogether.

God chose to replace the speakers.

My dad dislocated his elbow several times playing high school football. Now one arm is slightly crooked. I, however, have inherited from him not one, but two crooked arms—and I have never played football!

When Adam and Eve sinned they blew their speakers, they dislocated their moral arms, and every human being has inherited their crookedness. We call it sin. It simply means that the image of God has been tainted in us and we are inclined toward doing our own thing. It does not mean the image of God is gone. But like a set of blown speakers, the system may be working great, but the sound is fuzzy. God's solution was to fix us, to replace our speakers with new ones that can never be blown out again. The only thing is that we, as free creatures, have to sign off on the work order first. We need to accept His warranty and trust His repair expertise and not try to fix ourselves.

We could try to do-it-ourselves, but there's only one Person who can restore the image of God in us: the Son of God, who is the exact image of God.

His death on the cross frees us from the penalty of sin, which is separation from God forever. For, if we persist in going our own way and insist on being our own kings, God allows us to do so, but we cannot be a part of His kingdom. But God graciously offers us citizenship in His kingdom if we would only accept it.

Jesus' sinless life frees us from the power of sin in this life. We no longer worry about measuring up to God's standard of holiness because He accepts Christ's righteousness as ours and gives us the Spirit to help us overcome the detrimental habits of the past and the crooked inclinations of our hearts.

Christ's resurrection frees us from the presence of sin in eternity. We have the hope that we too will be resurrected like Him with new bodies gloriously reflecting His image and undefiled by sin.

The difference between MARRIAGE & DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP

I do not disparage same-sex relationships. I know there are good people out there who truly love and are fully committed to each other. Some have better model relationships than many heterosexual couples. And I am willing to affirm the good qualities of any relationship. In fact, I wish more homosexual couples had healthier relationships. Nevertheless, since we are comparing the quality of relationships, I cannot neglect to observe that an ideal heterosexual relationship is healthier than an ideal homosexual one. That is not to in any way insinuate that the affective aspects of any relationship are inherently lesser than another. But it is to say that heterosexual relationships are the only ones inherently qualified to be considered a “marriage.”

California state law defines a domestic partnership as “two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring” (Family Code 297). Marriage is that and more. In terms of society (the aspect of marriage with which the law is concerned), marriage is primarily about procreation and raising children. Its sexual fertility and relational fidelity make marriage a uniquely- and ideally-suited context for such a purpose. Without both, marriage becomes a useless societal institution. If we stop having babies our culture will weaken and die. Without intact families and consistent parenting, raising children will unnecessarily become a strain on society.

“Marriage” is the name we use for this ideal procreation situation. Only the sexual union of a man and a woman can naturally produce a child. Sure, we can artificially inseminate and use various means and methods of conception and child birth. Generally speaking, I am not against reproductive technology. But the fact that same-sex couples must resort to it means they are not inherently qualified to be what we call “married.”

“Marriage” is also the name we use for the ideal core of the family unit: a husband and wife who potentially can become a father and mother. I know that many single parents make due and do well on their own. But those who are kids of those parents will also admit to something missing in their lives in the absence of a parent. I also know that some gay and lesbian couples may do a good job of raising children successfully. I am not contesting their competence or the fact some same-sex couples may be better parents than some traditional couples. But such a comparison obfuscates the matter. There will always be examples of good and bad in both camps. If we are going to compare, then a good traditional family is a better environment for children. That is because what is missing in the home of a single parent family is not a second parent. What is missing is having both a father and a mother. As Greg Koukl points out, “there is no difference between a white or a black human being. But there’s a big difference between a man and a woman. There is no comparison here with regards to that issue.” Gender matters. Mothers and fathers make distinctive contributions to the nurture and rearing of a child. Without one or the other a void is left that is deeply felt and must be filled.

So, what if we were to call same-sex unions “marriages” instead of “domestic partnerships” or something else altogether? After all, assuming Prop 8 passes, the only difference under the law between the two will be the name, right? True. But the distinction is of paramount importance.

First, we have already established that only marriage between a man and a woman is inherently qualified to be what society needs marriage to be, that is, fertile and faithful. Homosexuals cannot be fertile without outside assistance. And though they can be faithful to each other and provide a stable home for children they lack the ideal balance that a father and mother can bring.

Second, not only are gay and lesbian unions not inherently qualified, they are also fundamentally unnecessary to society. If we were to do away with them altogether (the unions, not the people) it would not affect the posterity of our nation one bit. However, if we were to do away with traditional unions our people would have no future. Every society unequivocally needs traditional marriage.

What this means is that, if our society changes the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions the distinction between “marriage” and “domestic partnership,” between traditional marriage and same-sex unions, will be erased in the eyes of the state and in the minds of future generations. Many will come to believe the two are equal. They will see the heterosexual- homosexual distinction as surface rather than fundamental. “Gay marriage” will achieve an equal moral and civil status in our culture as the rest of us are obliged to accept it in public policy and social intercourse. Those of us who continue to insist that the ideal family begins with a man and a woman committed for life will be dismissed for our outdated, possibly hateful, beliefs while gay and lesbian unions will erroneously be elevated to the status of “marriage” even though they do not meet the requirements that make marriage necessary to society.

For all these reasons, I am unwilling to give domestic partnership the legal status of being called and considered on par with “marriage” when it inherently is not. Even so, I support the current provisions to give domestic partners all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage, albeit without the accompanying title.

Btw, all of this constitutes a non-religious argument for Proposition 8. As it turns out, I came to the same conclusion as my Christian brothers and sisters who simply took God at His Word. Although I do not encourage blind faith whatsoever, it does say something about the trustworthiness of biblical principles and precepts. They are not arbitrary but coincide beautifully with reality when taken to task.

My Take on Prop 8 - Part 1

I’ve wanted to address Proposition 8 (P8) for a while, but I did not want to write out of ignorance. So, after brushing up a little on the issue and considering both sides, here’s my response.

First, for the sake of intellectual honesty set your pre-judgments aside for a moment. Please refrain from lumping me in with others who have come to the same conclusion as I have and allow my views and arguments to stand or fall on their own.

Having said that, let me state my position. I am for P8 because, even if it passes, California law states, “registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses” (Family Code 297.5). That means that same-sex domestic partners already have the legal provisions equal to that of married spouses. If P8 passes, the only difference between same-sex and traditional couples will be in name only. Heterosexual union will be called “marriage.” Homosexual unions will be called “domestic partnership.” Other than that there will be no difference under the law. Thus, P8 will not discriminate; it will merely delineate, by name, whether unions are heterosexual or homosexual.

The opponents of P8 say it is unfair, wrong, and denies rights to same-sex couples. But those couples already have been given the exact same rights under the law. So, one cannot legitimately argue against the proposition on the basis of rights. They already have them.

There is a legitimate issue opponents of P8 raise: confusion. Domestic partners have the right to be there for each other in emergencies and times of need. However, there is often confusion over whether or not they have legal access and authority in such situations. But even if P8 fails to pass it will not remove the uncertainty. The confusion is not in the law but in the culture. Legally sanctioned homosexual union is relatively new to our society and it will take time for our cultural consciousness to catch up to our legal code. But this issue seems to me that it can be best addressed by better training of medical personnel and the like.

Through all this consideration the real issue comes to the surface. Same-sex couples are not seeking equal rights under the law. That is misleading. They are really seeking equal moral and civil status in the eyes of society. This position is indefensible for reasons I will discuss in a subsequent blog.

On Grace and Gambling: Finding the Truth (5 of 5)

Knowing this [see posts 1-4], Pascal confesses, “I should therefore like to arouse in man the desire to find truth, to be ready, free from passion, to follow it wherever he may find it, realizing how far his knowledge is clouded by passions” (119). The truth is found in the gospel as buttressed by prophecy, miracles, and martyrs. First, Pascal’s conception of the gospel hinges on the contrast between Adam and Christ, the sinful nature and grace. Through Adam man suffered alienation from God; through Christ man has been restored to fellowship (205). Therefore, “it is not only impossible but useless to know God without Christ” (191). Second, the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Christ makes this gospel convincing (335). “If a single man had written a book foretelling the time and manner of Jesus’s coming and Jesus had come in conformity with these prophecies, this would carry infinite weight. But there is much more here” (332). “No one could say it was the effect of chance” (326). Third, miracles serve to validate the gospel. Jesus proved both his identity as Christ and his power to forgive by the miracles he performed (846). In fact, both “miracles and truth are necessary because the whole man must be convinced in body and soul.” Lastly, the gospel is confirmed by the blood of the apostles. Pascal rejects the notion that the gospel was a ruse of the apostles on the grounds that “the human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness” (310). All it would take is for one of them to cave in under the enormous pressure and threat of pain and they all would be exposed. That they submitted to death makes the Gospels credible.

Conclusion

Though Pascal may not have set out to prove Christianity, he did prove that, “it is certain that there are no grounds for mocking those who accept it” (289). So we can confidently wager that God exists and submit to belief because the gospel is a reasonable solution to the condition of man, made more certain by prophecies, miracles and the martyrdom of the apostles. Even so, as Pascal himself experienced, “we shall never believe, with an effective belief and faith, unless God inclines our hearts, and we shall believe as soon as he does so” (380).

On Grace and Gambling: Understanding Human Nature (4 of 5)

“All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions” (148). Yet, our lives are riddled by “inconstancy, boredom, anxiety” (24). Our only consolation is to bury our unhappiness in diversions. Countless pleasures and preoccupations keep us from the introspection that inevitably leads to depression (36). “If man were happy, the less he were diverted the happier he would be” (132). But we are so uncomfortable in the present that we are always looking ahead “planning to be happy” and never arriving at what we seek (47). So, to wish a person rest out of kindness is to completely misunderstand human nature, for to rest is to wrestle with our restlessness, to have the uneasy luxury of contemplating our emptiness (136). Happily, there is a remedy to our condition. This “infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself” (148).

So, once again, The Wager becomes important. If one was to bet that God exists and it turned out to be false, nothing would have been lost but an unhappy life. Nevertheless, Dawkins disagrees, saying, “that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.”[1] To this Pascal retorts, “no one is so happy as a true Christian, or so reasonable, virtuous, and lovable” (357).


[1] Dawkins, Delusion, 105.

On Grace and Gambling: Listening to God (3 of 5)

Just as in science there is no subject so simple that we could ever know or understand all its component parts and their purposes, so the complexities of man are beyond the capacities of man to understand. To know our “true condition . . . [we must] listen to God” (131). “Only I can make you understand what you are,” he tells us, but, “I do not demand of you blind faith” (149). It is not by doing away with reason but by submitting it to God “that we can really know ourselves” (131) and see “clearly, by convincing proofs” the nature and authority of God (149). But we must be willing to submit to the Lord’s tutelage, for “there is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition” (149).

What if we wager on Yahweh only to discover Baal is god? This is another one of Dawkins’ more interesting objections to The Wager: “Mightn’t Pascal have been better off wagering on no god at all rather than on the wrong god? Indeed doesn’t the sheer number of potential gods and goddesses on whom one might bet vitiate Pascal’s whole logic?”[1] On the surface, it may seem so. But Pascal would not be worried. For him, a true religion should require love of God, understand man’s sinfulness, and offer a solution—all which Christianity does (214). And when it comes to the supernatural, “any man can do what Mahomet did. For he performed no miracles and was not foretold. No man can do what Christ did” (321). So true Christianity is not based on blind faith, but necessarily employs reason (167), for “if we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous” (173). But we must guard against the extremes of not using reason at all or using reason alone (183) since faith is not contradictory but complementary to reason (185).


[1] Dawkins, Delusion, 104-105.

On Grace and Gambling: Betting on Belief (2 of 5)

The most famous section of the Pensées is known as The Wager,[1] which argues that, “if there is a God, he is infinitely beyond our comprehension.” We cannot understand him by dividing him into systems and parts as in science. And there is no vantage point from which we can see all of God all at once. He is infinitely greater than anything we can grasp. “We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is,” because we could never give adequate rational grounds to prove a being infinitely beyond our rational capacities. Does God exist? “Reason cannot decide this question.” We must toss a coin. Heads, God exists. Tails, he does not. Everyone must make a choice. If you call heads and it turns out God exists, “you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing.” When the odds are even and the prize is infinite, it is a reasonable bet to make.

Of course, there have been many objectors to this Wager. Recently, the atheist apologist, Richard Dawkins, has weighed in on the matter:

“I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don’t. Pascal’s wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he’d see through the deception.”[2]

Pascal anticipated this objection, saying, “If you are unable to believe it is because of your passions, since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot.” His advice is not to bother with proofs, for the evidence is sufficient, but to focus rather on moral discipline, which is the real impediment to faith. Furthermore, the way to accomplish this is by, in a sense, “feigning belief,” not out of deception but out of desire. Imitating the life of those who do believe will reform the unbeliever’s life and prepare his heart to truly believe. “Now what harm will come to you from choosing this course? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, full of good works, a sincere, true friend.” You will have traded in your harmful pleasures for healthy ones.

Dawkins figures that, “Pascal was probably joking when he promoted his wager.”[3] But The Wager does not exist in some theoretical vacuum, without any support by reason or experience. Pascal, one of the great geniuses in the history of France, posited it within the framework of many astute observations about human nature and proofs of Christianity. The Wager comes as a consequence of his belief that reason and logic can only go so far. There comes a time when we all must make an educated guess, intuiting the unknown from the known. The evidence is there for those who “take the trouble to seek the truth” (158). God puts faith into their hearts “often using proof as an instrument.” (7). “Those to whom God has given religious faith by moving their hearts are very fortunate, and feel quite legitimately convinced, but to those who do not have it we can only give such faith through reasoning, until God gives it by moving their heart, without which faith is only human and useless for salvation” (110).


[1] Pascal, Pensees, 121-125.
[2] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 104.
[3] Dawkins, Delusion, 105.