Platinga discusses the concept of longing and hope first chapter of his book, “Engaging God’s World.” What caught my attention was the connection Platinga made between longing and hope. “Longing is an ingredient of hope.” He explains that if we sincerely and whole-heartedly hope for something, we must want it; if we want it, we will long for it. Since we have hope of God’s coming Kingdom and hope in our relationship with our Savior, we long for a time when we will no longer be constrained to our earthly bodies and when we will fully experience the complete intimacy of a perfect relationship with God. Yet this longing will never be fulfilled until we reach heaven.
I find the idea of an unfulfilled longing to be fascinating. It is fascinating because it is so visible in our world today; everywhere we look, we see men trying to fulfill its God-intended purpose by giving their hearts to something other than God. Every human being worships something, whether they worship God or not, and whether they are consciously aware of it or not. This longing that we have for heaven plays out in different ways. Because of our sin nature, our first natural and flesh-driven response to this longing is to satisfy ourselves and our desires, giving ourselves up to something other than God. But we will never be satisfied because earthly satisfaction is not what we actually long for. One we are redeemed and transformed by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit redirects our longing towards the hope and purpose God rightfully intended us for. When we live in and through the Holy Spirit, we desire God above all else and are satisfied in God. Yet we still live in our earthly bodies in a world where we do not belong. So that is why we continue to long for the day when we will be truly home, living in the fullness of what God intended for us, living in perfect relationship with God and glorifying him in everything we do.
Friday, January 8, 2010
A Right to Happiness?
I believe that the reoccurring debate of our right to happiness is reflective of the American culture. One of the things that we, as Americans, pride ourselves on and highly value is our long list of rights based on the freedom of our country. Many other countries possess such freedom and rights, but the American mindset seems quite obsessed with its rights more than many other countries. I do not think this is right or wrong; it simply is.
As American culture places so much emphasis on our political rights, it is simultaneously creating a culture in which people like to believe that these are not only political rights, but also God-given rights. This is where I see the danger of the American mindset and its focus on our rights. God created us to glorify Him and to draw near to Him, not to be happy. Yet just as a father delights in giving a gift to his children, so God delights in blessing us with moments of happiness (a state of being that results from outside circumstances); but God never promised us happiness. He did, however, promise that we would experience trials. These difficult circumstances are no reason (and should not be reason) for happiness much of the time. However we still have cause for joy, because joy is not rooted in circumstances; it is rooted in Christ’s powerful love and results from the supernatural hope God graciously gives us. This kind of joy far surpasses any form of happiness. True, we may at times experience happiness from our relationship with God. But God has guaranteed that we will not always experience happiness. That is why God’s joy is so powerful and mighty – because it transcends circumstances and happiness. If we were always happy, joy from the Spirit would not be the same radical testimony to God's work in us.
As Christians, we not only have a right to experience God’s joy, we are commanded to be joyful! In our joy we do not deny the trial and circumstances, but we embrace that God’s plan and purpose is so much bigger than our circumstances. James 1: 2-4 says “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” When a child dies or a friend is diagnosed with cancer, God does not call us to be happy. He commands us to weep with those who weep when these events occur. But instead He calls us to have joy, the fruit of our eternal hope in the Lord, because we look towards God’s purpose and His coming Kingdom with hope. Ironically enough, when such times come we may want to cling to our right to not be joyful. Yet it is not so much that we have a right to be joyful, but that we do not have the right to not be joyful.
As American culture places so much emphasis on our political rights, it is simultaneously creating a culture in which people like to believe that these are not only political rights, but also God-given rights. This is where I see the danger of the American mindset and its focus on our rights. God created us to glorify Him and to draw near to Him, not to be happy. Yet just as a father delights in giving a gift to his children, so God delights in blessing us with moments of happiness (a state of being that results from outside circumstances); but God never promised us happiness. He did, however, promise that we would experience trials. These difficult circumstances are no reason (and should not be reason) for happiness much of the time. However we still have cause for joy, because joy is not rooted in circumstances; it is rooted in Christ’s powerful love and results from the supernatural hope God graciously gives us. This kind of joy far surpasses any form of happiness. True, we may at times experience happiness from our relationship with God. But God has guaranteed that we will not always experience happiness. That is why God’s joy is so powerful and mighty – because it transcends circumstances and happiness. If we were always happy, joy from the Spirit would not be the same radical testimony to God's work in us.
As Christians, we not only have a right to experience God’s joy, we are commanded to be joyful! In our joy we do not deny the trial and circumstances, but we embrace that God’s plan and purpose is so much bigger than our circumstances. James 1: 2-4 says “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” When a child dies or a friend is diagnosed with cancer, God does not call us to be happy. He commands us to weep with those who weep when these events occur. But instead He calls us to have joy, the fruit of our eternal hope in the Lord, because we look towards God’s purpose and His coming Kingdom with hope. Ironically enough, when such times come we may want to cling to our right to not be joyful. Yet it is not so much that we have a right to be joyful, but that we do not have the right to not be joyful.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Bulverism
C.S. Lewis’ article, “Bulverism,” explains the concept that many debates in our society focus on judging a person’s motives with the presupposed assumption that their arguments are wrong. People’s wrong motives, rather than the validity of their arguments, discredit their claim. When this type of debate occurs, the focus of the game is to prove and explain the corrupted intentions of your opponent, rather than exploring the rationality of your opponent’s arguments. Each person assumes that their opponent’s argument is based on unrelated causes, while their argument is based on reason.
As soon as I read Lewis’ article on Bulverism, I tied it back to some of his points brought up in “Meditation in a toolshed.” In a debate, the person on one side of the debate will strongly uphold their views and perspectives. They “look along” and experience their beliefs personally. Yet they will “look at” their opponent’s arguments, without having the personal conviction and experience their opponent has. However in the context of Bulverism, one who “looks at” an argument is not actually analyzing the evidence and rationality of their opponent’s arguments; instead they are assuming their opponent is wrong and judging their opponent’s motives. While people on both side of the debate may have solid and rational arguments, each one looks at the other and sees unfounded beliefs based on causes, rather than reasons. If this is the case, Bulverism is no way to discern the truth. We all “look along” our arguments and automatically reject opposing arguments, without giving them proper thought and consideration.
I believe that exploring whether opposing arguments are right or wrong can lead us to discover truths. If we fully explore and grasp opposing thoughts and reasoning, yet still reach the conclusion that our arguments are valid, this will greatly strengthen our own arguments. It allows us to take a step away from our own view and “look at” our arguments. If our reasoning is right, it will stand the test of analysis and questioning. On the other hand, if we value truth above all else, we will be willing to accept opposing arguments if we find that our opponent’s arguments surpass our own in truth.
As soon as I read Lewis’ article on Bulverism, I tied it back to some of his points brought up in “Meditation in a toolshed.” In a debate, the person on one side of the debate will strongly uphold their views and perspectives. They “look along” and experience their beliefs personally. Yet they will “look at” their opponent’s arguments, without having the personal conviction and experience their opponent has. However in the context of Bulverism, one who “looks at” an argument is not actually analyzing the evidence and rationality of their opponent’s arguments; instead they are assuming their opponent is wrong and judging their opponent’s motives. While people on both side of the debate may have solid and rational arguments, each one looks at the other and sees unfounded beliefs based on causes, rather than reasons. If this is the case, Bulverism is no way to discern the truth. We all “look along” our arguments and automatically reject opposing arguments, without giving them proper thought and consideration.
I believe that exploring whether opposing arguments are right or wrong can lead us to discover truths. If we fully explore and grasp opposing thoughts and reasoning, yet still reach the conclusion that our arguments are valid, this will greatly strengthen our own arguments. It allows us to take a step away from our own view and “look at” our arguments. If our reasoning is right, it will stand the test of analysis and questioning. On the other hand, if we value truth above all else, we will be willing to accept opposing arguments if we find that our opponent’s arguments surpass our own in truth.
Meditation in a toolshed
“Meditation in a toolshed,” by C.S. Lewis, provides a perspective on the difference between looking at versus looking along something and how this affects people’s understanding of what they believe is truth. I found Lewis’ article to be incredibly insightful. The distinction between experiencing something from the inside and looking at something from the outside is essential to understand the context of people’s arguments and views.
One of the points that struck me the most was Lewis’ question, “which is the ‘true’ or ‘valid’ experience?” He accurately observed that today’s society largely disregards looking along something and considers that looking at an idea from the outside is the way to discern truth. According to this view, looking at something is the most rational way of approaching it and allows us to discern the truth. I think this argument has been used in many contexts to dismiss people’s “looking along” experiences. From reading this article, I believe that to discern the truth you must consider both the experience of looking along and looking at an idea; I do not think you can exclusively rely on one of these ways of looking at an idea. Many people are sincerely convinced of the truth of their beliefs based on their experience. Yet the fact that they are convinced does not, in fact, make it true. They may disregard all outside and rational perspectives that counter their experience. On the other hand, someone looking exclusively from the outside will have an incomplete understanding because they have not experienced what they are claiming to know.
I also believe, as a Christian, that humans cannot reason their way to God by looking at the facts. We may be able to develop an idea of whether God exists and his characteristics based on his creation. However if we merely deduce who God is based on our reasoning, we are creating our own idea of a god, rather than discovering God as he reveals Himself to us through his Holy Spirit. As Christians, the Holy Spirit reveals things to us that we cannot know apart from the Holy Spirit; this means we must constantly be questioning and discerning what is truth from the Holy Spirit, and what is not. Another point is that our faith is not exclusively based on rationality and reason, but neither is it irrational. God has given us the ability to look at something from the outside and to reason; I think we should consider our beliefs from the outside (as much as possible, though we cannot fully remove ourselves from looking along an idea) to evaluate whether our faith is irrational.
I think this article should challenge us to ask ourselves how we are looking at the world and how we have formed our beliefs. Are we committed to our beliefs because it is what we have been taught and we are afraid to question them? Are we rejecting Christian beliefs because we are rejecting anything that is not exclusively based on rationality? Or are we committed to our beliefs because we have asked God to reveal truth, sought truth, and wrestled in faith with questions that come from “looking at” and "looking along" faith?
One of the points that struck me the most was Lewis’ question, “which is the ‘true’ or ‘valid’ experience?” He accurately observed that today’s society largely disregards looking along something and considers that looking at an idea from the outside is the way to discern truth. According to this view, looking at something is the most rational way of approaching it and allows us to discern the truth. I think this argument has been used in many contexts to dismiss people’s “looking along” experiences. From reading this article, I believe that to discern the truth you must consider both the experience of looking along and looking at an idea; I do not think you can exclusively rely on one of these ways of looking at an idea. Many people are sincerely convinced of the truth of their beliefs based on their experience. Yet the fact that they are convinced does not, in fact, make it true. They may disregard all outside and rational perspectives that counter their experience. On the other hand, someone looking exclusively from the outside will have an incomplete understanding because they have not experienced what they are claiming to know.
I also believe, as a Christian, that humans cannot reason their way to God by looking at the facts. We may be able to develop an idea of whether God exists and his characteristics based on his creation. However if we merely deduce who God is based on our reasoning, we are creating our own idea of a god, rather than discovering God as he reveals Himself to us through his Holy Spirit. As Christians, the Holy Spirit reveals things to us that we cannot know apart from the Holy Spirit; this means we must constantly be questioning and discerning what is truth from the Holy Spirit, and what is not. Another point is that our faith is not exclusively based on rationality and reason, but neither is it irrational. God has given us the ability to look at something from the outside and to reason; I think we should consider our beliefs from the outside (as much as possible, though we cannot fully remove ourselves from looking along an idea) to evaluate whether our faith is irrational.
I think this article should challenge us to ask ourselves how we are looking at the world and how we have formed our beliefs. Are we committed to our beliefs because it is what we have been taught and we are afraid to question them? Are we rejecting Christian beliefs because we are rejecting anything that is not exclusively based on rationality? Or are we committed to our beliefs because we have asked God to reveal truth, sought truth, and wrestled in faith with questions that come from “looking at” and "looking along" faith?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
