Wednesday, July 31, 2019

The Grieving Christian

 I can tell from many of the posts here, as well as with our friends and acquaintances, that several have lost loved ones that were dear to them.  Although I cannot relieve their pain, perhaps I can lend some hope. Believe it or not, I will begin with a brief physics lesson.

"Annus Mirabilis" is a Latin phrase meaning "extraordinary year" (or "year of miracles"), and although it has been applied to many different years, one of the most significant was 1905.  It was in that year that Albert Einstein published not one, but four ground-breaking papers, on the special theory of relativity, the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and mass-energy equivalence.  The last of these four yielded his famous equation, e = mc2, but it is the first of these that I would like to explore.

In the special theory of relativity, Einstein took a good, long, hard look at existing physics and found it wanting.  Physics up until that time had been dominated by the theories of Sir Isaac Newton. He turned the world of existing Newtonian physics upside down by making a surprising assumption.  All the things that we think are constant in this material world, things such as size and shape, mass and time, are not truly constant depending on when and how the measuring is done.  The only thing that is constant is the speed of light.  This leads to some rather amazing conclusions.  For instance, as you accelerate an object, it actually shortens in length and gains mass.  For speeds such as we see usually see here on earth, this is imperceptible.  At speeds approaching that of the speed of light, the effects are profound; it is like dividing by zero.  An object at the speed of light would be infinite in mass and infinitely shortened.  And this explains why according to the theory of relativity, nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light. The closest we can come is when scientists use particle accelerators, and by moving particles near the speed of light, these changes can begin to be detected. 

The word "relativity" was meant to describe events as they were "relative" to an observer.  If a person was in a spaceship accelerated to near the speed of light, they would not notice these effects.  It is the observer who measures the increase in mass and the shortening of length.  And time undergoes changes as well, when measured by an outside observer.  For the person in such a spaceship, they would experience the normal passage of time, and the outside observer would experience their usual passage of time, but these would actually be quite different.  Time would run much slower in the ship, the so-called "time-dilation" effect, and a journey that would seem only a few years in the ship travelling to and from Earth near the speed of light would last hundreds of years for the observer here on Earth.  Each would objectively measure the same event with different results.

People have used the word "relatively" to describe things a little differently than "relativity", and when applied to other matters "relatively" describes a subjective sense. It has been jokingly said that the duration of time is "relative" to which side of the bathroom door you are standing on.  Clearly some things seem to be over in an instant, and others drag on endlessly, but our clocks are not running faster or slower because of some phenomenon of "relativity", and it is only how we perceive the passage of that time in those circumstances.

When your loved one tells you that they are going to the store for fifteen minutes to pick up some milk, do you grieve?  Or if you came home and unexpectedly found a note from your spouse that they had run to the hardware store for a short time, would you be devastated?  I would expect not, for you know that they would return in such a brief time that their momentary absence would not make you feel deprived in the least.  It would hardly be noticed.

As a heart surgeon and physician, I occasionally must deal with the death of a patient, someone's parent or spouse.  I am of the age that occasionally friends and acquaintances pass away, and I have also lost loved ones.  I know the heart-wrenching grief and sense of loss that comes with this, and would never try and console someone by minimizing what they are experiencing or sugar-coating it.  But for the Christian, there is some hope in understanding the nature of God's time.

The saved Christian will spend eternity in heaven with God and other Christians.  Just as travelling at the speed of light causes changes that are like dividing by zero and infinite, God's eternity is like dividing time not by days or weeks or months or years, but like dividing by zero. Eternity is infinite time.  You may miss your loved one dearly, and depending on the time of loss, may miss them for years or decades.  But you will be reunited with them in heaven, and their absence will seem so very, very brief.  If you recall the final verse of "Amazing Grace":

                      

                        When we've been there ten thousand years

                                Bright shining as the sun

                        We've no less days, to sing His praise

                                than when we'd first begun.

After you have been reunited with your loved one in heaven for the first ten thousand years, the twenty years you were apart on Earth will seem like only a moment, that they had only gone for a quick trip around the corner to the store.  And after the next ten thousand, and the next, it will seem even shorter still.  The passage of those years of loss on earth will eventually seem like a split-second.  We can look to our future in heaven with the truest of joy, for eternity with those who have meant so much to us. 

Newton was right and Einstein was wrong. "Amazing Grace" was written by John Newton, and in this case I think that this Newton, not Isaac, described God's time.  Einstein was an agnostic, and although he did not deny the possibility of God, he did not believe in a personal God at all.  However, I think that some of his underlying assumptions are true. All the things that the world thinks are constant, mass and size and time, are really not constant at all.  They will all fade away when Christ returns.  It truly is only light that is constant, the Light of the Glory of God, which will shine forever. 

Sunday, July 21, 2019

The Accused Christian, Part II


 It has become common parlance to label people with whom you disagree as having bad motives. This is a sloppy form of trying to win an argument or advancing a point. In logic, this is called the ad hominem fallacy, meaning that instead of attacking the opponent’s position, you attack the person. Today, Christians are accused of being “intolerant”, when nothing could be further from the truth. We are labeled with all kinds of ugly characteristics.

The first thing to get settled is whether or not there is an objective truth. This causes many people difficulty today, in our post-modern society where many have decided that each of us is allowed to determine what truth is for us; what is true for you may not be true for me. That leads to moral relativism, where we each get to determine our own moral laws. The logical law of non-contradiction prohibits this. That law basically says that a thing cannot be true and not true at the same time (or "A" and "not-A") in the same relationship. The animal is a dog or it is not a dog; it can't be a dog and a non-dog at the same time. This means that a truth is true for me and must be true for you as well. There are physical truths, mathematical truths, and even moral truths. The laws of particle physics are not different for you and me, and for both of us, four plus four must equal eight. The real problem arises when people claim that there is no objective moral standard. In that case, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were justified in what they did because it met their moral standards. The next time someone claims that each of us is entitled to determine his own moral truths, take his wallet, and tell him that your morality thinks that it is just fine to steal.


A belief is one step removed from an objective truth. The truth is what it is, and a belief is what a person thinks is truth. We can certainly believe untrue things. Believing the wrong thing does not change the truth. My favorite example of this comes from Christian author Frank Turek, who asks, "If you decided that you didn't believe in gravity, would you just float away?"


The word tolerance comes from the Latin tolerantia, meaning to "endure". It means that if you tolerate something, you endure it or live with it. Generally, with regards to other people, you tolerate one of two things: their beliefs or their actions. Almost universally, we tolerate other people's beliefs, even if we consider them to be untrue. One of the foundational principles of our country was religious tolerance. As Christians, we tolerate the Hindus, the Muslims, the Buddhists, and so on, and we expect them to tolerate our beliefs as well. We do not always tolerate other people's actions; although we may tolerate the radical Muslims and their beliefs, we do not tolerate acts of terrorism.

Acceptance, however, is a totally different matter. I may tolerate your beliefs, but I am under no compunction to accept them as true. The sky is blue, you may believe it to be green, and I can certainly tolerate your viewpoint, but please don't demand that I also believe the sky to be green. And therein lies the problem where one group of people demands that another group of people not only tolerate their beliefs but accept them as true. I happen to get my moral truths from the Bible and God's instructions for us. Not everyone does.


And where these aggrieved groups fall off the lexicographic cliff is when they take those who do not accept their beliefs as true and label them as intolerant "haters" or “ists” or "phobes". Because I believe the sky to be blue does not make me a green-sky "hater”, a “greenophobe”, or a “colorist”, and you are not suffering because I do not accept your belief in a green sky. Please, do not even consider calling me intolerant.


You may believe that stealing is morally perfectly acceptable, but I will not tolerate your behavior, stealing from me, and I will not accept your belief in theft as morally correct or true. Although I am intolerant of your actions, that does not make me a hater, and I would reject your attempt to make me the moral villain. You may desire my DVD player and feel that you are suffering because you do not have one, but I am not causing you to suffer by denying you the right to take mine.

I am hopeful that at least some people will not accept the rampant name-calling today as a valid form of argument, whether they be called racist, bigoted, intolerant, or any kind of “-phobe”. An illusion is a deceptive appearance or impression, and those who would toss those words around are trying to create the illusion that not only do they have a valid argument, but the moral high ground as well. I would claim that they are actually suffering from a delusion, which is a belief that has no evidence in fact.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

The Accused Christian


One of the charges occasionally leveled at Christian conservatives is that they are not compassionate.  This often wounds us as such, leading to confusion and even feelings of guilt because this is such a serious accusation.  Christians, who are supposed to be our brother's keepers, have a hard time responding to people who basically are saying that we do not care about others, and not only are we guilty of that sin, but we are also guilty of hypocrisy.  It is really two accusations in one.

The word compassion comes from the Latin "com", meaning "together", and "pati", which means "to suffer".  We are to come along side of those who suffer and do what we can to alleviate it.  For the Christian, our instructions are clear.  We are to be generous and helpful to those in need.  James 1:27 tells us to, "...visit orphans and widows in their trouble..."  In Matthew 25:35-36, Christ commends those who act out of compassion: "I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me."  And Luke 16:19-31 tells us of the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and the perils of ignoring those in need.

Christian charity blesses both the recipient and the giver.  All of us are to be dependent on God, who promises us that our basic needs will be met.  For other needs, we are to pray, and for those who are needy, God uses charity to answer those prayers and meet those needs.  The giver is submissive to God's will, and God directs and moves his heart to be obedient, to give to those in need, and in doing so he is also blessed.  Those of us who are blessed more are to in return bless others.  This is the very essence of Christian compassion.

However, I can tell you what Christian compassion is not.  It is not socialism.  If you had a neighbor in great need, perhaps due to illness, you might be led to help that person financially.  But if you received a knock on the door with some official forcing you to turn over your earnings to pay someone else's medical bills, that would be a different matter.  The forcible taking of something from one person and giving it to another is not compassionate or Biblical.  In this situation, the government becomes God, and the command of God to be generous becomes the demand of the state to fork over money, to be distributed as the government sees fit.  Rather than God directing our hearts to give to those in need, the government decides how much it will take from one, and how much and to whom it is to be given.  Neither person receives a blessing from God; one receives a legal demand and the other an entitlement.

Our system of government is not perfect, nor is our capitalist economic system.  As Winston Churchill stated, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  As for economics, you must remember that all the major religions originated outside of Western civilization (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) and all the major economic systems came from the West (capitalism, fascism, socialism, communism).  Capitalism incorporates more Christian ideals than any of the other forms of economics, particularly in the concepts of individual responsibility to God for one’s choices and behavior.  Is capitalism compassionate?  Yes.  Of all the economic systems, capitalism provides the greatest benefit for all, the highest standard of living, the greatest freedom, the least dependency, and the greatest opportunity for charity.  The countries with the greatest differences in incomes, with great wealth and great poverty, are the socialist ones.  That is why great numbers seek to come here.  East Berlin had to build a wall to keep people in; we are going to need a wall to keep people out.  The Accuser points a finger and says, "How can you be a Christian and not want to give this or that government benefit?"  Christian compassion comes from the heart, not the Treasury. 

Christian compassion is not erasing the law.  We do not live in a theocracy, but rather God has ordained civil government to pass laws to organize society and protect citizens.  The morality of individuals is the church's concern, and civil order is the state's.  Laws are enacted to guard the public, and the Bible enjoins us as good citizens to obey those laws unless they clearly conflict with the Word of God.  A law that is not enforced or obeyed is no law at all.  We have many illegal immigrants in our country, who have not obeyed the laws of this land, and these laws are not being enforced as they should.  If there are good reasons in this country for passing immigration laws, and there are, then they are to be obeyed and enforced.  The illegal immigrant came here by choice, not obeying those laws; to allow this to continue, or grant amnesty, invalidates those laws, and encourages further lawlessness.  The Accuser condemns the conservative believer, "How can you Christians call yourselves compassionate and not want to help those who have come here to seek a better life?"  Christian compassion seeks to ease suffering, but does not enable law-breaking.

Christian compassion is not violating the Word of God.  God has given us His own set of laws, and where they are clear, we are not to allow misguided compassion to overturn His commandments.  God forbids the taking of innocent life, so no amount of compassion for a single mother allows us to support aborting her baby.  God forbids sexual immorality, and compassion does not permit us to endorse such immorality, even if those who desire it would consider themselves to be profoundly unhappy if they could not live in sexual sin.  The Golden Rule does not permit sin.  Do unto others as we would have them do unto us does not mean to help others to do whatever they wish.  The Accuser contests our beliefs, saying, "How can you Christians have so little compassion that you do not condone others living as they wish?"  Christian compassion understands the unhappiness of others, but does not compromise His Word. 

Compassion not considering Christian morals is devastating in its consequences.  Compassion that forces one to pay for another is theft, and this encourages further dependency.  Compassion that permits illegality invalidates the law, and this encourages further law-breaking.  Compassion that violates God's law is itself immoral and encourages further immorality.  Christian compassion is not socialism, does not condone crime, and does not compromise with sin.  Christian compassion is furthering God's kingdom with charity, according to His Word.  It is the ultimate in caring.