In the timeless Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis speaks of what he calls “the three parts of morality” — the social, the internal, and the spiritual. He employs the image of a fleet of ships that must get all three things right in order to function effectively:
There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual — when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. However well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta. Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for; what course the whole fleet ought to be on. (Mere Christianity, 58-59).
Secular ethics tend to focus on the social dimension. If it doesn’t hurt another person, it must be fine. This approach tends to ignore the question of the goal of human life, in Lewis’s image where the whole thing is headed. Sometimes there is also a neglect of virtue or the internal character of a person. It is common now to hear people say that a public leader can be a complete rat-bag in private life, so long as he serves well for the public good. This has not always been the case. There was a time when, for example, a leader’s marital betrayal was seen as reason enough for someone to step down from high office. This was not mere moralism. The logic was: If “faithfulness” and “discipline” are not inner qualities of this leader, how can the public have confidence that such virtues will guide wider social decisions? It is true this old-fashioned rationale can be oppressive and unfairly employed, but there is something to it.
Religious ethics have their own, equally problematic, flaws. They are often strong on the spiritual dimension, what we are made for. But they can very frequently go astray on both the internal and the social dimensions. Religion can promote mere external piety, divorced from genuine virtue and love for others. Hence our distaste for the “religious hypocrite” I have talked so much about in this book.
The Ten Commandments are concerned with all three parts of the ethical enterprise. We are urged to find satisfaction in our Creator and his blessings. Then we are guided to honour our family and our neighbours. And, finally, the strange tenth commandment drills down to the engine room of our soul and asks, What do we truly desire?
Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development…. [We have created] a culture that gives [us] nothing greater than [ourselves] to believe in — no god, no king, no country.
These words were spoken 25 years ago by an Australian academic, but they still ring true today. If anything, social media and the internet has fueled that personal obsession. Now more than ever, our poverty is exposed: “nothing greater than ourselves to believe in.”
Dickson, is an Australian himself, and is a fellow of Ancient History at Macquarie University, the founding director of the Centre for Public Christianity, and senior minister of St. Andrew’s Roseville. He describes Eckersley’s essay as “a famous government report on Australian youth” and goes on to say: “I remember the report so well because it came out the year before my [book] A Sneaking Suspicion, an attempt to explain the relevance of Christianity for teenagers. The report helped frame some of my thinking, then and now” (A Doubter’s Guide, p. 161).
I want to share a longer excerpt from Eckersley’s essay, which I found is available online in a scan of the publication on Eckersley’s website, here.
Eckersley starts by recounting his reaction at coming back to Australia after several years in Africa, Asia and Europe:
My first reaction on flying into Sydney from Bangkok was one of wonder at the orderliness and cleanliness, the abundantly stocked shops, the clear-eyed children, so healthy and free of the cares of living. Later, however, this celebration of the material richness of life in Australia gave way to a growing apprehension about its emotional harshness and spiritual desiccation. By ‘spiritual’, I don’t necessarily mean believing in God (I am not myself a practicing member of any religion), but having a deep sense of relatedness to the world around us.
…I became aware of the cultural myths that define and support our society. For most of us in the west, the poverty of Africa and Asia is synonymous with misery and squalor; yet it is not. We see their people as crippled by ignorance, cowed by superstition, and oppressed by the harshness of their raw environment; we don’t see the extent to which we are crippled by our rationalism, cowed by our lack of superstition (spiritual beliefs) and oppressed by our artificial environment. (p. 3)
Eckersley goes on to paint a stark picture of the current age (in 1992). Later in the essay he gets to the section from which the opening quote above is taken.
When a society fails to imbue people’s lives with a sense of worth and meaning, then they must attempt to find these qualities as individuals. It is a task that many find extremely difficult, even impossible. People want to know what is expected of them; they need to have something to believe in.
This absence of belief in much beyond ourselves, and the consequent lack of faith in ourselves, are undermining our resilience, our capacity to cope with the more personal difficulties and hardships of everyday life.
Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development.
The consequences of this loss of belief are more serious, I believe, for the young than for grown-ups… [They are] particularly vulnerable to the uncertain culture of our times. (p. 14)
He quotes a study exploring the state of Australia’s youth, and concludes:
But perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study concerns young people’s moral sense. Mackay found that they believed that moral values were in decline, and often found it hard to identify an accepted moral framework within the community — unless they were religious. Moral responsibility to ‘the group’ is much stronger than to ‘the community’, Mackay says:
“Thus the ethical sense is rooted in a social sense, but that social sense is very limited, very transient, and very fragile. Lacking a broader sense of ‘the community’, many young people have difficulty in establishing an ethical framework which has any application beyond the boundaries of their own immediate circle of friends.” [italics original to the article]
The picture that emerges from the Mackay study is of a youth culture that may be meeting the needs of its members in terms of providing them with meaning and an identity, but only just. It is of a culture that is barely holding together, certainly not enduring — a mass-media culture marked by frenetic fashions and polarisation between self-destructive recklessness and abandon, and a more insidiously debilitating cautiousness, social withdrawal and self-centredness. (p. 15)
He then turns to a July 1990 article in Time focusing on “a new generation of young American adults grappling with its values.”
…According to Time, a prime characteristic of today’s young adults is their desire to avoid risk, pain and rapid change. They feel paralysed by the social problems they see as their inheritance: racial strife, homelessness, AIDS, fractured families and federal deficits….
It may be, then, the greatest wrong we are doing to our children is not the broken families or the scarcity of jobs (damaging though these are), but the creation of a culture that gives them nothing greater than themselves to believe in — no god, no king, no country — and no cause for hope or optimism…. (p. 15)
Eckersley goes on to summarize the problems of society and looks for a cure in an optimistic embrace of science and technology — and, ironically, his hope rests ultimately in mankind = ourselves!
The growing crisis facing western societies is, then, deeply rooted in the culture of modern western societies: in the moral priority we give to the individual over the community, to rights over responsibilities, the present over the future (and the past), the ephemeral over the enduring, the material over the spiritual.
Our cultural flaws and confusion both reflect and reinforce our economic, social and environmental problems. They also undermine our ability to resolve them effectively. Unless we forge a new culture, then it is unlikely we will overcome these problems because we will lack the will, the moral courage, to confront them….
…I believe that the problem rests more with our immaturity in using a cultural tool as powerful as science, and I am hopeful that with growing experience and wisdom, together with advances in science itself, we can create a more benign and complete culture, and so a more equitable and harmonious society. (p. 19)
Eckersley explores physics and how “a more flexible approach” has arisen in “how we use science.” An approach he approves of that allows for finding “purpose — or ‘God’ — in the world described by science.” (p. 23). He hopes this scientific endeavor may:
allow us to create new concepts for expressing religious or spiritual beliefs, different from, say, the traditional notion of a supreme being ‘out there’ watching over us, and judging us — metaphysical metaphors more appropriate to our times and our understanding.
Even now, however, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. I think it is less science and the scientific view of the world that cripple us spiritually than it is the busyness and artificiality of our modern lives, the all pervasive manifestations of rationality — an environment that we have created through science. (p. 23-24)
He goes on to focus on environmentalism and how mainstream science is clarifying the need for care of the environment, a cause young people can rally around. His essay aims to change science too, but ultimately the solution is what we make of it. Believing in ourselves and our ability to create a better culture — that is all that people can cling to apart from a religious worldview, such as what we have in Christianity.
I share this long excerpt from this decades old article to make a point. The long decline of our culture has been happening for a long time. There is something missing, and Christians have found the answer in Jesus Christ.
We have a God, a King, and a Heavenly Country to believe in – and that gives us great cause for hope and optimism. We don’t ground our hope in creating a social and cultural dynamic that frees us from the self-obsession of our age. Our ultimate hope, instead, is found in the precious promises we have in Scripture — promises that our God-King, Jesus Christ pledges to fulfill on our behalf.
As citizens of a greater Country, we must resist the urge to focus our hopes only on this present age and our own country — whether Australia or America. We need to work for the good of our city, and shine the light of Christ as we brighten the corner where we are, but we must always remember our faith lies in Someone greater and Something grander. Our obsession must center on our God-King, Jesus Christ. He is the one who calls us to live out our lives with ultimate purpose and meaning as we journey toward our Heavenly Country.
Everyone is sharing their thoughts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to establish marriage as a right to any two people (regardless of gender). And from the intensity and number of both positive and negative reactions, this certainly does feel like a momentous step in our nation’s history. I wanted to bring together some rambling thoughts I’ve had on this issue and point to some resources that may prove helpful.
1) This is not a simple question.
Should we be against “gay marriage” in the civil arena? In light of developments and where we are now at, many Christians would say “of course!” But it isn’t as easy as that.
On this question I have been moved (in a humane way) by the desire of two people for mutual connection and a permanent relationship, and especially about their need for legal status when it comes to end of life scenarios and other important concerns. Some thought “civil unions” was a way to permit this and yet hold marriage for one man and woman, as it has always been. But that solution no longer is viable, it would seem. For more on this line of thinking (the plight of those who experience same-sex attraction) I strongly recommend Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (read my review here).
I have also been keenly aware of just how clear Scripture is on the nature of true marriage and the intent of marriage – to be a picture of Christ and the church. Redefining marriage doesn’t change its nature, it just lessens the idea and makes it more of a bland, pliable entity. Joe Carter explores that angle well in an article for Tabletalk called “Defining Marriage.”
A third consideration has been the futility of legislating morality. I can hold onto a biblical definition of marriage but allow others to have their own opinion – why do we have to force others to live up to Christian values? Additionally, should the church really be focusing so much on political questions? John Piper didn’t think so, and I agreed. Furthermore, focusing clearly on the marriage issue can tend to obscure the Gospel and imply that Christianity is just about morality. This is why I was leery of the Manhattan Declaration. Yet, morality and law do go together, some laws clearly are moral concerns. And encouraging a good society – protecting children and the rights of biological parents, these factors all make this particular issue (gay marriage) one that may very well be worth fighting, just from a pragmatic standpoint.
2) What about America?
Many Christians love America, and to a certain extent I do too. So how should we feel about our nation’s embrace of gay marriage?
Well, I agree with John Piper that we should weep over the “institutionalizing” of sin that it represents. And we should not be afraid of standing up for truth and owning the offense of the Cross.
But in another sense, America has always been a pagan nation. We can certainly pray for God to bless our country, but the direction she is going puts the lie to the commonly held assumption that America somehow deserves God’s blessing. Christians are citizens of a heavenly country, and God used this sociopolitical nation to advance his Church, just as he used other nations in other times. God is doing big things in other places, and we don’t have a corner on Him.
As for strategy when it comes to pastors and how they go about marrying heterosexual couples only and avoid legal troubles, I actually think Roger Olson’s proposal is worth considering. Be sure to read his follow up post too.
And of course, we should continue to resist the pressure to reinterpret the Scripture. Kevin DeYoung has given us a very helpful book that clearly explains the arguments being made that try to say the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexual practice. His book addresses the chief arguments and opens up the Scripture in a clear and forthright manner – and is careful to be charitable and loving in its tone. The book is from Crossway and is titled simply What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality?
Finally, we should not be surprised if we are misunderstood and hated. Jesus promised this: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19). Persecution is promised: “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). A martyr complex will do us no good.
We came back from family wedding this past weekend to realize that Minnesota (our state) passed legislation legalizing gay marriage. Gov. Dayton signed it into law last night, to be put into effect on August 1! My how times change. This new legal reality is coming to a state or municipality near you – and soon.
How is a Christian to respond? There are obviously a lot of Christian pastors and leaders with great things to say, so I’m just chiming in from my own angle – I don’t claim this is advice that will rock the world, just what might be a few helpful thoughts.
1) Don’t freak out. God is not surprised. He’s still on the throne.
The worldly state (think “city of man”) has long embraced what God has forbidden. In Paul’s day, the vice that was legal in places like Corinth and Rome would make your skin crawl. Open sex in temples full of paid prostitute-priestesses (and priests) – all in the name of mystery religion. The slave trade, women captured in war with the victor using them as he wishes. Roman senators with love-boys and lewd public banquets. Oh and Christians were the ones rescuing unwanted infants left “exposed” to die on street corners. They were also the ones who couldn’t participate openly in commerce since that required obligatory offerings to the pagan gods. Christians were the ones who accepted people of all socioeconomic statuses and lived as brothers and sisters. They took care of one another – even when huddled together in the arena facing lions or death by any number of other more gruesome means. So don’t be surprised when the world hates us. Read John 15:18-21 along with Matt. 5:10-12.
2) Remember the State has never defined marriage, God created it and He defines it.
Now worldly cultures and states have developed different traditions and laws governing marriage. In many African tribes, polygamy is normal with either the women or the men in a position of dominance. In ancient times the king could sleep with the bride on her wedding night by right. Whole religions still maintain a priestly class that is forbidden to marry but who nevertheless engages in illicit sex. The world’s structures are broken and always have been. It wasn’t too long ago when Christians were denouncing the government for allowing divorce for unbiblical reasons. Now just about anything goes. The state will let a man marry seven times to seven different women. So if the same state lets a man marry a man, why should we be alarmed? Christians should be defending marriage of one woman and one man for life – the biblical ideal. The exceptions allowing divorce should be rare and not jumped to at any possible opportunity by those who name Christ’s name. See my post pleading against frivolous divorce here.
3) Take heart in the true meaning of marriage.
Marriage is more than a ticket to government benefits. If that is all marriage is — and in our culture of long-standing, live-in relationships, this seems more and more what marriage is — then no wonder everyone should have the same “right.” But this isn’t about tax benefits — it is about what marriage means. Marriage is a picture of God’s covenant relationship with us. And it is for this reason that divorce should be rare among Christians. Our marriages should be pictures of the ultimate marriage of Christ and the Church. See Eph. 5:25-32 for more on this. I would also encourage you to seek out a copy of Tim Keller’s masterful book on the subject: The Meaning of Marriage. Ultimately, marriage isn’t about us, it’s about God. And God can defend it in our culture better than we can. Rather than being devastated by the abuse of marriage in the public arena let us be busy living out our lives as the “salt of the earth” letting our marriages shine before the watching world so they can see the true purpose of marriage and glory in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (see Matt. 5:13-16).
4) Be careful in our reaction to this news.
As most Christians undoubtedly will express dismay at this turn of events, we must be especially careful as to how we react publicly. We must be careful as to how our words and actions will be perceived too, because we care about giving a faithful and clear witness to a watching world. Too often, we have allowed our opposition to the homosexual agenda, to come across as a mean-spirit against homosexual people. And while we are right to be concerned at loose definitions of homophobia and the desire of some to classify orthodox Christian teaching as hate speech, there nonetheless has been homophobia and hate speech in some sectors of Christianity. Furthermore, our strong opposition to homosexual marriage can be misunderstood to convey that the Church really is all about controlling others and seeking to gain and keep onto political power in its desire to impose morality on others. Rather than evincing compassion and understanding toward those struggling with homosexual desires, our actions and sometimes our attitudes say that we are better than them. We are normal, they are not. And if they just quit misbehaving they could be like the rest of us decent heterosexual beings. But isn’t this the opposite of the gospel’s fundamental truth that you can’t save yourself, and that only by God’s grace can we overcome our innate desires (present in everyone’s fallen heart) toward evil? Christianity is not about external morality and do-it-yourself reform; it begins and ends with Christ on the cross and a gospel of grace. As we interact with those in the workplace and our communities who consider themselves homosexuals, let us ponder anew how we can call them to a life of self-denial that is ultimately worth it because of the glory of our Savior and the glorious gospel of His grace for sinners. For more posts on homosexuality from a biblical perspective, see these earlier posts. I would also highly recommend Wesley Hill’s book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality.
The Beatitudes are perhaps the most memorable section of Jesus’ most famous sermon — the Sermon on the Mount. But understanding what the Beatitudes are is not as easy as memorizing these short, poignant declarations. Is Jesus calling us to obey the Beatitudes — to live the life described as blessed? Or is this description of unparalleled righteousness meant to bring us to the end of ourselves? Another way of looking at the problem is asking whether the Beatitudes are intended to guide us into a do-able ethic, or if they are meant to stop us from any pursuit of self-righteousness?
If you are looking for your Bible so you can review the Beatitudes anew, R.W. Glenn would be happy. He is the author of a new book which explores these very questions. Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes (Shepherd Press, 2013) is a provocative look at the Beatitudes in a new light. And what Glenn gives us in this book is a gospel-centered, grace-filled romp through this most familiar portion of Scripture.
Glenn’s book is a devotional exploration of each of the eight Beatitudes. He finds the gospel on full display behind and through each of them. Ultimately, he concludes that Jesus ultimately embodies the Beatitudes – and since we are united by faith to Jesus, we are blessed through his perfect obedience.
Glenn writes with an eye for grace over and against moralism but doesn’t speak down to the unenlightened. He aims to inspire and instill hope rather than merely complain about how others are interpreting the Beatitudes. His writing is lucid and clear, even if the truths he drives home are often convicting. But Glenn brings us to Jesus over and over again, and for that he is to be thanked.
Glenn’s writing style and focus on Christ shine through in this brief quote:
If you come to Christ’s table having already stuffed yourself with your own righteousness, you will starve yourself and never know the satisfaction of the gospel. But if you come to this table with an appetite for Christ’s righteousness, it is yours. Bring your appetite and feast at the table of the comprehensively perfect righteousness of Christ, and you will be satisfied. (Kindle Location 1007)
This book is suited well for small groups and Sunday School classes, and includes a variety of application questions at the end of each chapter. Plus, it is not an overly long book and leaves much that can be fleshed out in group discussion. I encourage you to pick up a copy of this book and spend some time working out the gospel implications of the Beatitudes for yourself.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
Robbed of a broader meaning to our lives, we appear to have entered an era of mass obsession, usually with ourselves: our appearance, our health and fitness, our work, our sex lives, our children’s performance, our personal development…. [We have created] a culture that gives [us] nothing greater than [ourselves] to believe in — no god, no king, no country.
Everyone is sharing their thoughts on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to establish marriage as a right to any two people (regardless of gender). And from the intensity and number of both positive and negative reactions, this certainly does feel like a momentous step in our nation’s history. I wanted to bring together some rambling thoughts I’ve had on this issue and point to some resources that may prove helpful.