truth

Deep into the Greatest Commandment

A Topic in Christian Living and Reflection

Connecting and getting to know God, our Father, gives such a great amount of joy in a daily Christian life. Serving Him rewards us with comfort and great desire for Him. Although, we can point out so many things about glorifying Him, even God says it’s not enough. One might point to a fact that human beings cannot glorify God like Jesus can, but the real argument I want to clear up on is, “If serving, glorifying, praising, worshipping God is not enough, what must we also do while we live in flesh?”

If we have a relationship with God, should we also have a relationship with others as well?

The answer is yes, and I have several passages from the Word of God we can all look to.

One of the Pharisees in his time asked our Lord a question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:36)

Jesus replied with three answers in Matthew 22:37-40.

1)    Love the Lord with all of your heart, your soul, and your mind. (37)

2)    Love your neighbor as much as yourself. (39)

3)    All the Law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.

Why did Jesus say these things, first of all?

From what I was taught from several ministries, the Pharisees, Jewish leaders, and the people around Jesus, first of all, did not have an authentic relationship with God.

Jesus called God his Father. In John 5:16-18 shows that the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus for calling God his very own father because he was making himself equal with God. The case was actually about showing the position they were in. The people only called God THE Father, instead of calling God THEIR Father. Jesus previously spoke to a Samaritan woman about true worshippers of God. True worshippers of God worship in Spirit and in truth. (John 4:21-24)

This supports answer one from the main question. We must worship God with Spirit and in truth. The Spirit is our heart, and our soul. The truth is our mind that aligns with the Word of God.

Going back into John 5, there was a pool called Bethesda where so many of the sick and disabled lay. There was one specific man who has been disabled for 38 years. He was then cured by Jesus and was told to pick up his mat and walk. This was happening on a Sabbath, and the Jewish leaders saw this man carrying his mat. I’m not sure if they knew before that he was disabled, but the first thing that caught them is his mat instead of his past condition. Before the healing occurred, the man said this after Jesus asked him if he wanted to get well.

“I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” (John 5:7)

This caught my attention about the relationships that people were having with others around that time. Before I get into this part, carrying your mat on a Sabbath day was viewed as working on the Lord’s Day, referencing back to the 4th Commandment of His Law to only rest on the Sabbath. Carrying your mat was actually a man made Jewish Law that has nothing to do with work. Jesus telling the paralytic to carry his mat and walk during a Sabbath Day was done intentionally to get their attention so he can tell the leaders of his relationship with God by the way. John 5:41 and 43 is remarkable:

1)    I do not accept glory from human beings.

2)    I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.

This supports answer two of my main question. We are like them, and maybe usually, we pick and choose others, tending to leave others behind who don’t seem ‘worthy’. Jesus commanded to love others as much as we love ourselves, not love only the ones we are acceptable in society.

When Jesus said that the Law and the prophets hold on to these two commandments, he was stating it as a fact, not an suggestion, opinion, or interpretation. I will be using Hosea as an example: Hosea is a prophet who was commanded by God to love his unfaithful wife Gomer. Unfaithful as in she was a prostitute. God was giving one of the greatest examples about what true love is through Hosea’s harsh life. The gist of the Prophet Hosea is found in chapter 3 verse 1.

“Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes,” the Lord said to Hosea.

This passage shows that prophet Hosea was holding on to God, and also to Gomer. He loved God with all of his heart, his soul, and his mind. He loved Gomer, even though she was not like Hosea, or anybody that Hosea would find acceptable, tolerable, etc. He held on to these two commandments, thus proving Jesus right. This passage really hit me so much, and because of Hosea’s gospel, I was saved through those words, seeing God’s love for me, for you, and for all of us. This supports not just answer three, but all 3 answers of the main question, and hits it home.

Now, that we understand that, how about we look into our relationship with God, and many others in our life? We are going to emphasize the relationships with others more actually. The reason is that our relationships with others can be extremely difficult for all of us, and I’m not just talking about our relationships with our family, or our own friends. I want to use the teaching that Jesus gave to the Samaritan woman which is “Spirit and in truth.” I learned this great lesson from a great teacher by differentiating these two things.

1)    Worshipping God only in Spirit is considered idolatry. (Samaritan example)

2)    Worshipping God only in truth is considered hypocrisy. (Pharisee example)

3)    Worshipping God in Spirit and in truth is a must. (John 4:24)

I wanted to go deeper with that example, except that we will not worship others because it is not good to do so anyway. This is an amazing discovery by going deeper into this teaching of Jesus. I realized that by taking this lesson from our Lord, I wondered about my relationship with others recently.

I loved my friends and family without having to know much about them. I use to defend them, care for them, and even give to them by only by a little knowledge of their life. I was giving them praise, blindly because they just seemed to be so good in life. Wouldn’t that be considered idolizing your own friends? Did I just make them into heroes, or even gods?

I had friends who I knew most of their life. Some may consider them that I was their best friend because I knew so much about them. Yet, even though, with all the knowledge I have about them, I also had no compassion towards them, and still, they were considered my ‘friends’. Didn’t I just tell you that I was being hypocritical? Was I lying to them the whole time?

Without those two things, our relationships with others are futile because it shows that we are not truly reflecting in God’s standards for our daily living, and also, not following the greatest commandment given to us.

Opinion, Neutrality, and Moral Relativism: Getting Past the Rhetoric and Nonsense

This post is birthed out of observations I’ve made about our culture and from some of the conversations I’ve had with friends and other philosophers. I first want to offer a commentary and argument against this wave of “it’s your opinion” statements. More specifically, I’m going to do a brief lesson on what an argument is and what an opinion is. Secondly, this will immediately bring me to a conversation about neutrality with regards to moral judgements and how the government is an example of something that is not neutral. More specifically, people try to say “don’t impose your beliefs on me through the government,” as if the government was some sort of neutral place; news flash, there’s no such thing as a neutral government. Lastly, this will lead me to a face-to-face encounter with moral relativism. So, here we go:

One of the things I’m just fascinated by is how people in general couch their views or arguments in terms of “opinion” so as to maintain a type of neutrality. Whether they intentionally do this or not is beyond me, but that’s besides the point. First, what exactly is an opinion? If you’ve taken an introduction to logic course, you will learn the difference between a fact and opinion and what they actually are. In learning what the components of an argument are, you are able to catch when someone is making an argument or merely expressing an opinion. So let us explore what an argument is and then we will turn to what an opinion is.

What is an argument?

Patrick Hurley, in his A Concise Introduction to Logic, explains that “a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something [...] two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:

  1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons.
  2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence supports or implies something–that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons” (14).
The second condition is known as an inferential claim. Basically, an inferential claim is something that demonstrates some sort of reasoning process. For instance:
All Cats are furry.
Bob is a Cat
Thus, Bob is furry
In taking a look at this simple argument, you can see that there is a reasoning process going on. Based on the first two premises, which serves as evidence or reasons, I derive a conclusion. I am making an inferential claim, and thus I have an argument (I just did the same thing here. Did you catch that? ;) )
Now, Hurley turns to explaining some simple non inferential passages or claims, that is, claims that do not have a claim that is meant to be proved. Some examples of non inferential claims are:
  1. warnings
  2. pieces of advice
  3. a belief or opinion
  4. a report

There is one thing that Hurley stresses in each of these inferential claims: “If no evidence is given to prove that such statements are true, or if there is no evidence that is intended to prove anything, then there is no argument” (16-17). Let us focus on number 3.

Hurley defines a statement of belief or opinion as “an expression about what someone happens to believe or think about something” (17). The Oxford dictionary defines an opinion as “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” The Oxford definition does explain what an opinion is, but i don’t think it will work when we get down to the nitty gritty of logic. The Oxford definition says that it’s a view or judgment formed that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. So, in other words, it can be based on fact or knowledge and still be an opinion. But this is still extremely vague. I can make judgements that are based on fact or knowledge and these “judgements” are true, but will be passed off as just an opinion, although I may have reasons for that judgement. So, this definition won’t entirely work. We need something more. Hurley, however, adds that something more by adding, “[if one doesn't make] any claim that his or her belief or opinion is supported by evidence, or that it supports some conclusion, there is no argument” (17). If I make a mere statement of belief, with no evidence or reasons, then yes, I am merely stating an opinion. However, if I make a claim to something true, and if I list a reason for it (even if the reasons are extremely stupid; there still needs to be at least some reason) and make an inferential claim, it has left the opinion building and entered the argument building.

So, when I make a claim, say to a moral objective standard and I give reasons, I am not merely stating some opinion. I am making an argument. Whether there are moral facts or not is another question, which is one I might  briefly jump into later. To briefly hit on the question of what truth is, I’ll appeal to philosopher Ric Machuga since he can explain it simply: “Realists like Aristotle and Aquinas defines ‘truth’ as the correspondence of what we say or think with what really exists” (84). I could say much more about this, however, I’ll save that for another post.

Neutrality

I always hear the objection that Christians (and other religious people) should keep their religious views to themselves and not bring them into politics. We shouldn’t force our moral views on others by making the government endorse them. Even if we’re not making the government endorse them, we shouldn’t force our views on other people simply because everyone is entitled to their own belief or “opinion” (there we go we opinion and belief again). If we do so, since our views stem from a religion, thus the government must be supporting a religious view and thus it violates the separation of church and state. Moreover, If I’m making a moral objective claim about something, say that abortion is wrong, I cannot impose my belief or “opinion” on others.

First, I would agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion or belief. There’s no problem there. But I think if someone is wrong, and if we have good reasons to think so, there’s nothing wrong with challenging those beliefs or opinions. Secondly, there are a lot of assumptions with those statements made in the above paragraph. What is the relationship between religion and morality? And what is the relationship between government and morality? The middle term here that connect religion and government is morality. Moreover, the other assumption is that the government must be neutral with regards to religious matters. But what does it mean to be neutral, and can the government be neutral? Sorry to spoil the fun boys and girls, but one way or the other, the government is going to fall on one side of the debate. That is inevitable.

Either it sides with the religious man that has his moral view or it sides with the secularist or liberal who has her moral view. It’s either going to side with the pro-choice woman that says “Abortion is not wrong; refusing my choice to abort is wrong” or it sides with the conservative pro-lifer who says, “Abortion is wrong.” The pro-choicer will “force” her views down the throat of others, and the same will happen with the other person. Even by saying that you’re not trying to force your view on someone, simply by taking a stand for your view, and or endorsing policies that supports your view, you are essentially “forcing” your view on others or making particular judgements on people–namely, that one ought not refuse the “right” for someone to abort. So, inevitably someone’s morality is being forced upon the other. Doesn’t this undercut the whole complaint that we “shouldn’t force our moral views on others”?

Because moral relativism is such a big topic, I’ve decided to break up this post into two parts. So, I’ll deal with moral relativism in part 2 of this post.


Christwire.org and Christianity

For some time now I’ve been hopping in and out of Christwire.org and reading some of their stuff. I’m pretty sure this is a satire site, and honestly, some of the stuff is funny. But on the other hand, there is something really sad about the type of material on this site, namely, that there are Christians who are really like this.

First of all, I do not want to come off as an arrogant know it all (trust me, I don’t know a lot), and I don’t wanna be a jerk to other Christians who genuinely believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and who believe that he is, indeed, the “way, the truth, and the life.” But, from time to time I just want to bang my head against the wall because of the way some Christians have denigrated Christianity to a superstition and emotional roller-coaster. So, what type of Christians am I referring to here? The ones that Christwire portrays: The Christian that believes that Satan is in every single bad thing that happens (like getting a flat tire or diarrhea); the Christian that thinks that if you study philosophy you have become a pagan; the Christian who thinks faith means you leave your brain at the door.

I love these people. But it’s so hard to see some Christians act like this and represent Christianity as some sort of superstitious soap opera. These sorts of errors need to be corrected because it gives off the wrong message to other people that misinforms them about what the Christian worldview really is. If we are to be effective ambassadors for Christ, we need to inform people, not misinform. We need to give the right message and show people that the Christian worldview is the picture of reality.

The prosperity gospels, the therapeutic Jesus movement (oh, don’t get me started there), and the superstitiousness and emotionalism that is just running rampant all over the Christian culture really doesn’t help in reaching out to other people and informing them.

Ok, I’m going to comment on what I call the therapeutic Jesus movement. I just couldn’t resist. So prepare for an aside. Plus, I think this fits in perfectly with the idea that we must inform other people and not misinform them. The idea is basically that if you give your life to Christ and surrender it to Him, your life will be a bundle of roses, Jesus will take your problems away, Jesus will take your addictions away and make you into a new person. No doubt Christ is in the business of changing lives and healing people. I don’t disagree with this one bit. And yes he will make you into a new person. BUT, Jesus’s entire goal is not to make you into Mary Poppins and let you run through the rose fields. Jesus came to save those who were lost. Jesus came to restore the broken relationship between God and man that came as a result of us our sin and rebellion. In the process, does God change our character? Yes! But he doesn’t do so so that you can just live life nice and dandy, but so that you can be transformed more into his image and so you can fulfill your purpose on this earth.

The problem I see is that our focus becomes fixated on God’s meeting our every need and want. We’re essentially telling people that God is here to take all their problems away, make them perfect people, and send them on their way. This might not be the intention, but this is the way it’s packaged and sold. What the therapeutic Jesus movement does is it makes the change and good itself (the feeling of elation and happiness, the drug free life) the   the object of fulfillment. The ultimate end becomes becoming like that guy who is good, or being the good guy I wanna be, or reaching my “potential as a Christian,” or being “blessed” financially, spiritually, and what have you. Being drug free, doing good, etc. are goods, don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be blessed. But these things are lesser goods, and they should not be the object of our desire. These things will to fulfill us and they are not our ultimate end.

I think this brings us nicely to the question of “what exactly is our purpose then?” What is our ultimate end? The westminster confession sums it up nicely: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [1]. In making God, who is the supreme good, the object of our desires, happiness comes as an inevitable by-product. In other words, happiness comes with the package. That’s when God changes us, takes away our unhealthy and bad addictions, and He uses us and brings forth happiness as we fulfill our ultimate end. Our human nature is ordered so that we fulfill our ends, and this is ultimately and perfectly fulfilled by God alone. So all these things that a lot of Christians in this thereupetuic movement focus on are distractions. We shouldn’t focus on being like this or being like that, but focus on Christ. In doing so and in orienting ourselves to Him, we begin to make changes and God begins to make changes, and things start happening inevitably.

It’s a slight change of perspective that makes all the difference

Yeah, that was a long aside, but I felt like it was an important discussion. Anyways, I’m huge on critical thinking and logic, and I think this should play a monumental role in the Christian life. It shouldn’t be the only role, but it should play a major role nonetheless. God gave us brains and reason, after all. Yet, I look around and see a lot of Christians just going with the emotional flow of the Christian sub-culture and this goes out the window. I love my Christian brothers and sisters dearly. It just bothers me that I look around and see that everything in the Christian circle is dominated by emotion. Emotion per se is not a bad thing. We need it and it’s something that is a part of our human essence. But that’s not all that Christianity is about. Yes, there is a great deal of emotion involved when I think of Christ and what He’s done, but there’s a lot a great deal of intellectual work and philosophy, and a great deal more with regard to walking the Christian path. We need to be well rounded and we need more critical thinking to offset the emotionalism that’s just gripped Christianity. We need to get back to the basics and fundamentals of Christianity (and NO I am not saying we need to be a fundamentalist in the way that secularism has defined the word, that is, the crazy-psycho pathic Christians who blow up abortion clinics). We need to get back to what the Gospel is and who God is and why He came. We need to show people that reason and faith do not contradict each other, and that Christianity is not anti-science. We need to articulate our views precisely and strongly, and we need to have a heart of servant. Have the heart of a servant and the will of a soldier. It can be done; it just needs to be balanced.

If we’re going to make a difference and win this culture, we have to act like we actually live in this world. Too many times Christians take the whole “be separate from the world” literally to another level. They fabricate their own reality amongst themselves and just live amongst themselves, isolated from the real world. You know, the kind of world we share with other people? The kind of world in which we all experience pain and suffering together? So, why don’t we work with our fellow human beings and show them what Christianity really is. Let’s really reach out, defend, and proclaim the name of Christ. That means we meet people where they’re at.

There’s so much that can be said and I really hope I wasn’t all over the place. There’s just SO much to say and so much I see. I think we can do it. With the rise of even more Christian philosophers and apologetics, we’re starting to see more and more Christians critically reflecting over their faith and bringing this into the market place of ideas. It starts with leaders. People who are willing to study scripture hard, really seek God in prayer and in the scriptures, studying philosophy, getting an education and really seeking truth. If we emphasize an overall approach, because I believe God permeates every avenue of life, we can really turn this thing around and show how Christianity really is vibrant in all areas of life: Spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally. And most importantly, we’d demonstrate how Christianity is reality.

 

The Necklace of Truth

The Necklace of Truth

Isaac from RIOt Ministries (a special friend of mine) took me by surprise when he provided me with a gift card for C28. This necklace is particularly awesome as it succinctly describes my entire belief system: Truth is goodness itself, is Christ Himself, is life itself, is being itself. I’d just like to publicly thank Isaac for his friendship in Christ and would encourage him to persevere with me, no matter how many times we fall, just as we always have. One day, I hope to meet him in person.

 Scroll to top