Category Archives: Christianity

Piece of Peace

Posted on by
Reply

I had a discussion today with a Christian who finds contradiction between the Great Commission and Christian participation in the military and any branch of civil government that involves the opportunity to harm another human being physically. He did not say if indirect harm from terrible governance was something to be similarly loathed, but this is perhaps another topic.

The first Christian who was also in a military was a centurion. Of course, when a military is commanded to kill Christians, it would be far from a Christian calling to enter into its service, but this particular centurion lived before those days. After the persecution, Christians filled the ranks of the military once again, bringing with them Christian virtue. We find Christian restraint in the medieval era as Muslims invade territory after territory in endless pillaging. Only after many years did Christians deem it necessary to strike back in defense and reclamation of what was stolen from them. We call those strikes the crusades.

It seemed, to the greatest minds in Christian history, that combat and Christ were not opposed. Certainly, for a God who came to earth as a man in order to divide and ultimately conquer, combat cannot be inherently evil. For a God who demanded the utter destruction of ancient pagans, warfare could not be a sin. God does not change and He is perfect. If He deems warfare and combat appropriate in some contexts, they cannot be fundamentally wrong, or God would have demanded evil to be done in obedience.

This does not justify all combat, no more than that charity being a virtue justifies giving drink to a drunkard. Warfare and violence take on moral shape by their means and their end. This shape can be the dark and hellish pit of sin if killing is done for pleasure and the unjust pursuit of your neighbor’s property. However, it can take the virtuous shape of courage and manliness when you defend your neighbor against such an attack. Courage and bravery, in fact, are virtues that demand a battlefield. That the battlefield is distasteful to some is of no consequence; the battlefield will exist on Earth until the very last of days, and it is right that a man should enter into it when necessary; best that he enter it with no intent to overstay his welcome. He is a healthy and virtuous man, in fact, who seeks to leave the battlefield as early as possible, but who is wise enough to know that the limits of the battlefield are determined by where he decides to stand. To put it vividly, a man who refuses to fight in defense of the borders of his country behind ramparts will soon be defending against his will from his own bedroom window behind curtains.

The world wars have made the reality of warfare’s encroaching nature even more apparent. Should the nations of the world have decided to bow to the will of the Axis powers, millions more would have perished than died during the war. Hundreds of millions perhaps. It takes a virtuous man to risk his life and his conscience in killing an enemy soldier. An army of virtuous men can stop an army of evil men, but an army of cowards can only stand by as entire nations are slaughtered. This is not to say all pacifists are cowards, but certainly all cowards are pacifists the moment they are at risk of suffering. While to a pacifist there is paradox in spreading the Gospel while being willing to defend what is good and virtuous, to most healthy-minded men, there is no such paradox and the two are made for one another. For anything truly loved is truly worth defending. The real paradox is that pacifists only enjoy the peace that real men have fought for, for they can fight for no peace of their own. Those soldiers, real men to the core, are even more manly for letting the pacifists do so without whining about how unfair it all is – and unfair it certainly is.

While a pacifist may be virtuous, he is not virtuous in condemning the soldier for being a soldier. Each may serve a different purpose, but one is not superior to the other. The problem arises when the pacifist considers the soldier to be a moral degenerate, and thus becomes one himself.

Purpose and Work

Posted on by
Reply

As a software engineer, I spend a considerable amount of time every day trying to determine which solution should be used to solve a particular problem. It did not take long from the start of my education in Computer Science to start asking questions of problems that went far beyond the daily situations I’d encounter. Where most students would ask “what is the latest way to do this thing I want to do?” or “how could I optimize this functionality?”, I would ask questions of the “why should I be doing any of this?” variety.

“Why” questions in the technology world are generally pushed outward to a few predefined and limited answers and generally boil down to:

  1. For personal satisfaction.
  2. To help someone accomplish something faster/easier.
  3. To help someone accomplish something new.
  4. For profit.
  5. Stop asking dumb questions.

Certainly we can all grasp the answers and understand them, but do they really answer the question of why we ought to make any technological progress? I don’t think so. Personal satisfaction can be had in other ways, some of which are better at personal enlightenment or edification. Helping people do something faster or easier is just as often a creator of problems as it is a solver of one, and it is certainly not inherently virtuous. Helping people accomplish something new is again not inherently virtuous, but is inherently more dangerous that just speeding up or simplifying an old activity. Profit is the hardest to argue with, but profit alone is not morally virtuous; it is on its own a neutral concept.

This is not to say that I oppose creating or inventing new technology as a matter of practice. I undoubtedly wait longer to adopt a new piece of technology than most and often never do (I refuse to own a smart phone), but it is not my rule to hate technological advancement by any means. I simply don’t find value in a constant pursuit of it for a couple of reasons. First of all, I believe the highest activity to which humans find their natural end is the knowledge of God and molding of oneself to this fact. I believe the second highest activity is in producing, raising, and teaching the next generation. Neither of those things are made easier by technology, but are in fact made much more difficult because of distraction and misinformation. I think of the myriad pieces of false information online against the abundance of knowledge in books that no one reads anymore because they are not accompanied by interactive illustrations.

The second reason I don’t value this pursuit is that it is exhausting far beyond its reward. Take smart phones for instance. Smart phones provide a number of useful features. At times, I’ve taken advantage of those features on the phones my friends own. The technology behind smart phones, however, is constantly changing, and phones are outdated within a year, sometimes within six months. The new features never transform the phone itself, but if you want to be on the bleeding edge of technology, you have to upgrade anyway. What you’ll receive for it is usually not worth the price or the time, let alone the advertising we all endure. Not worth it, that is, if by “worth” we mean more than entertainment value.

These two facts often contradict my profession; a profession that demands a pursuit of the latest and greatest technological advances. I don’t have a problem learning new technologies or developing new tools. My issue primarily lies in the long-term aspects of my work. Despite all the day-to-day interesting problems which require solving in a software engineering position, the question of ultimate purpose must always be asked. So far, the only long-term motivation for staying in a software engineering position that I am aware of is the financial benefit and the intellectual stimulation. As to the two highest ends of my existence – the pursuit of God and the creation and expansion of a family – it is the financial benefit that is most important, while the stimulation simply keeps it interesting.

I am still working through the implications of the contradiction and will continue to write on the topic. I think it is important considering the technological aspirations of our era.

The Equality of Sexlessness

Posted on by
Reply

The Equality of Sexlessness
G. K. Chesterton

In almost all the modern opinions of women it is curious to observe how many lies have to be assumed before a case can be made. A young lady flies from England to Australia; another wins an air race; a Duchess creates a speed record in reaching India; others win motoring trophies; and now the King’s prize for marksmanship has gone to a woman. All of which is very interesting and possibly praiseworthy as means of spending one’s leisure time; and if it were left to that, even if no more were added than the perfectly plain fact that such feats could not have been achieved by their mothers and grandmothers, we would be content to doff our hats to the ladies with all courtesy and respect which courage, endurance and ability have always rightly demanded.

But it is not left to that; and considerably more is added. It is suggested, for example, that the tasks were beyond the mothers and grandmothers, nor for the very obvious reason that they had no motorcars and airplanes in which to amuse their leisure hours, but because women were then enslaved by the convention of natural inferiority to man. Those days, we are told, “in which women were held incapable of positive social achievements are gone forever.” It does not seem to have occurred to this critic that the very fact of being a mother or grandmother indicates a certain positive social achievement; the achievement of which, indeed, probably left little leisure for travelling airily about the hemispheres. The same critic goes on to state, with all the solemn emphasis of profound thought, that “the important thing is not that women are the same as men — that is a fallacy — but that they are just as valuable to society as men. Equality of citizenship means that there are twice as many heads to solve present-day problems as there were to solve the problems of the past. And two heads are better than one.” And the dreadful proof of the modern collapse of all that was meant by man and wife and the family council, is that this sort of imbecility can be taken seriously.

The London Times, in a studied leading article, points out that the first emancipators of women (whoever they were) had no idea what lay in store for future generations. “Could they have foreseen it they might have disarmed much opposition by pointing to the possibilities, not only of freedom, but of equality and fraternity also.”

And we ask, what does it all mean? What in the name of all that is graceful and dignified does fraternity with women mean? What nonsense, or worse, is indicated by the freedom and equality of the sexes?

We mean something quite definite when we speak of a man being a little free with the ladies. What definite freedom is meant when the freedom of women is proposed? If it merely means the right to free opinions, the right to vote independently of fathers and husbands, what possible connection does it have with the freedom to fly to Australia or score bulls-eyes at Bisley? If it means, as we fear it does, freedom from responsibility of managing a home and a family, an equal right with men in business and social careers, at the expense of home and family, then such progress we can only call progressive deterioration.

And for men too, there is, according to a famous authoress, a hope of freedom. Men are beginning to revolt, we are told, against the old tribal custom of desiring fatherhood. The male is casting off the shackles of being a creator and a man. When all are sexless there will be equality. There will be no women and no men. There will be but a fraternity, free and equal. The only consoling thought is that it will endure but for one generation.

–From GK’s Weekly, July 26, 1930

All I can add to this is that Chesterton was profoundly capable of something few writers ever have been: seeing things as they are and then, while writing on the insight, being both relevant to his time and prophetic of the future.

An Open Letter

Posted on by
2

Dear Reader,

I might know you, and I might not, but I already know something about you and I that makes us similar: neither of us is without sin. We have both committed crimes of cosmic significance against a perfect standard carried out by a Perfect Judge. We are incapable of doing any less, because we are broken by our very nature. It isn’t that if we try hard enough that we’ll somehow overcome this natural problem. Of course, some of our problems may be solved with medicine or some other invention, but our nature is not something so easily swayed. It would take a miracle to change it. Thankfully, we have a miracle.

No one can make you accept this miracle, just as no one can make you accept that you are not without sin. That is something you’ll have to come to terms with on your own. It should be obvious to you, though, that something isn’t right about yourself and the world around you; that peace has never lasted forever, that falsehood is often claimed as truth, that evil is pervasive, etc.

Dear Reader, the worst thing I could do (or any Christian for that matter) would be to ignore all of this. The worst thing I could do, the most unloving thing, would be to tell you that you’re okay and I’m not in a position to tell you whether you have sinned or not. The simple fact is that I know we have both sinned, and not telling you is simply lying to you. My personality often comes off strongly, but that doesn’t mean I am happy about having to tell you the truth of the matter. I’d rather have that cup pass me by. I’d rather someone else take my place, but I do not want to lie to you when that place is mine.

If you are not a Christian, I would implore you to become one. If you are already a Christian, I would implore you to stay true to the faith, conforming your feelings to it. We are often told to follow our hearts or that how we feel about something defines the reality of it, but nothing could be farther from the truth. There is nothing inherently good or trustworthy about our feelings. As CS Lewis put it:

“Don’t bother too much about your feelings. When they are humble, loving, brave, give thanks for them; when they are conceited, selfish, cowardly, ask to have them altered. In neither case are they you, but only a thing that happens to you. What matters is your intentions and your behaviour.”

It would be uncaring, unloving for me (or you) to withhold the obvious judgment of sin from another and simply accept it all. If I truly care for anyone else, it certainly means I care more for them than I do for their feelings. You are more than your feelings, and your feelings are your weakest part; they are the most easily swayed, and they are the least trustworthy.

Dear Reader, whether you know me or not, you can expect this to be my attitude as often as I can make it, for it is the ideal attitude that I strive for: To love you enough to love the whole you, not just your feelings. That means we might argue and it means you might come to have a highly negative opinion of me. It means I will likely hurt your feelings and that people who value peace more than Truth might get mad at me and call me names for doing so. But it won’t change the things that love demands, and it won’t change whether or not I carry those demands out.

This is the Christian position on the matter. It is harder than hatred, which cannot love, and apathy also, which ignores sin sinfully by disguising itself as love. The Christian position is the one in which I cannot ignore sin but also can’t stop loving the person committing it. It means I can’t, in good conscience, accept your sin as a part of who you are and simply ignore it, but can’t ignore you either just because it is easier. It means your character matters to me, but so to your mind, body, and spirit, and I refuse to separate them but to love you and reject your sin. It is the hardest of all positions to take, but it is the only correct one. I assure you I will fail to live up to this ideal, but it is what I strive for. I hope to God you strive for the same with me and don’t let me off easily when I pursue what is wrong because it is easier for you or because you believe it will cause me emotional trauma. My soul is more important than my feelings, and so is yours.

Dear Reader, keep this in mind, should our paths ever cross.

Friendship, Fashions, and Fallacies

Posted on by
Reply

The world is changing faster than it really wants to or really should. I do not say that because I fear the sorts of changes that are happening. Certainly, the changes will not benefit mankind, and surely, I would stop them if I could. I do not fear them, because history has a sort of magic to it by which it progresses towards a climax. I do not fear the high point of history, because it will be the greatest and most terrible point in all Creation for everyone, and it is as inevitable as each step towards it. I also know how it turns out in the end.

What I mean when I declare that the world is changing too quickly is that it no longer has time to adjust itself to its own momentum. It moves forward, tries to catch its breath, and is pushed forward again. In this 21st century after the death of antiquity, it would be more accurate to say that the world is simply running at this point, having given up even the hope of stopping to rest. This gives any witness a great benefit however: the motions are now predictable.

Take for example the great 19th century movement away from classical knowledge towards fashionable knowledge as an example. In this century was coined the phrase “dark ages” to describe a period of history much brighter in artistry, music, and thinking than our own. In the 19th century, no longer were we permitted to ask why someone would do something, but instead to stoop in silence as they defended whatever fashion they had adopted with the phrase “why not?” This phrase, perhaps the worst and least powerful argument that could exist in defense of anything, is now seen as the mark of a dreamer or optimist who only has the best of intentions. The century also saw the rise of celebrity-as-expert, which we still experience today with people who were not celebrated at all for whatever topics we consider them to be experts in.

The 20th century which followed was predictable then as it saw more tarnishing of the past. The United States was founded by bigots, racists, sexists, [n]ists, where n goes on to infinity. The old Christian church was the most evil organization to ever exist, and never you mind yourself trying to decide if that statement is true or not (we’ve done it for you, of course). The fashions moved on towards emotion taking the place of reason as the method of argument, which can be seen visibly in advertising and any number of pulpits on Sunday morning. Feminism was on the rise as well, predictably from the suffrage movement and the peace after the world wars.

And so we arrive to our own 21st century. The fashionable topics of the day change weekly, from Kony2012, to gun control, to homosexual marriage. Gone is the notion that there is some ideal to which we might reach; instead, it is to each person’s own ideal that they must strive for. Christianity has (unfortunately) followed along, about 20 years behind. To the calls for relativity in all human affairs, the fashionable church has responded “let no man judge”, while ignoring the looming mountain of Christian history and ethics behind him. To the movement for gay marriage the church responded “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”, ignoring all of world history until the past decade on the topic. The fashionable church must be on the cutting edge, after all, regardless of what is cut by it.

As an unfashionable Christian, I take the same stance that would have been taken by any number of unfashionable Christians all the way to the first few who were so unfashionable that they were martyred: I will love my neighbors and my enemies (often the same people), and will judge by the same standard I expect to be judged. That of course is to say that I will judge, remaining, to my word, unfashionable. This puts friends, family, neighbors, enemies, coworkers, and everyone else in a curious position when talking to me, however, since judgment isn’t always pleasant. But just there is the fallacy hiding in the midst of the entire debate on judgment happening today. If no one is capable of judging whatsoever, then surely no one is capable of judging in a positive sense. If someone were to say “My wife, you are beautiful to me”, they are making a judgment. If the wife were about to shave her head down to a Mohawk because it had become fashionable to do so for women and her husband were to say “You ought not to follow the trends of the day, as you are beautiful with your hair”, he again makes a judgment.

Imagine a man who had confessed to murder. Would it be prudent to judge him had he chosen to hide his confession in your keeping? Would you judge him as honest? As a liar? No matter what your stance, the moment you make a stance, you have judged. Only two questions remain, and they are so important that they are the only ones in regards to judgment that are asked of us:

  • By what standard are we to judge?
  • Have we judged righteously?

We had best have excellent answers for both questions, because by the standard we judge others, we ourselves will be judged. God, being perfect while holding a perfect Standard, judges most of us harshly while escaping all judgment Himself, but this is another topic. As an unfashionable Christian, my answers are:

  • By Truth: revealed, discovered, and reasoned.
  • It is my aim, though God forgive me when I fail.

If you are a friend or acquaintance of mine, know that this is the standard I judge by. Know that I fail, as I am frail. Know that I oppose intolerance done under the guise of tolerance as both evil and common hypocrisy. Know that I will not change my beliefs because they offend, but would be happy to reason with you as to why yours might be better if you are willing to discuss why mine might be better as well. Know that I believe love means more than ignoring what you do that I disagree with. Know that love really does mean more than ignoring what someone disagrees with about someone else. Know that love is a word that today is so brutally abused that we ought to weigh our words carefully before putting it in danger again.