BUT
before we can get a secure handle on the nature of this
analysis, we must come to understand the reality of God and
His nature. Most
of us understand the fact of God’s sovereignty. By that very innate
character we refer to as sovereignty, we declare God to be
totally in control, totally exercising His divine authority
and uncontested supremacy over His entire creation. BUT HAVE WE WITHIN OUR OWN
THINKING ARRIVED AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS VERY
ASSERTION?
One of the most
important conclusions with respect to the nature of God’s very
sovereignty relates to His transcendency. That is, God forever
remains other than His
creation (He transcends His whole creation), even though He at
the same time is prominent within and active through His total
creation. To
elaborate, God’s creation forever remains within the context
of God, but God is never limited to nor bound within His
creation such that God Himself could be within the context of
His creation.
Allow us to
make an important application here. Before creation, God
existed; that is, before anything ever existed God was. But on a deeper
dimension, we may understand that God Himself cannot be
limited even to existence, that existence remains within the
context of God and God Himself transcends very existence such
that God can never be within the context of existence. As a matter of fact,
even existence itself grew from God’s creative power and
sovereignty making existence dependent on God rather than God
dependent on existence.
Hopefully, many
of us can begin to catch a glimmer with respect to the
direction we are headed.
If everything remains within the context of God, does
that fact bring us to conclude that evil gains status and
prominence through a sadistic and dark side of our
Creator? This
question itself prompts many to devise various and sometimes
radical resorts to preserve the idea that God is good or to
conclude that God Himself is less than perfect. Among these resorts,
some devalue the sovereignty aspect of God and conclude that
God cannot be completely in control, such that evil happens
beyond the latitude of God’s good jurisdiction. Others argue that God
Himself struggles with a schizophrenic flaw within
Himself.
Many other
extra-biblical conjectures pave the philosophical approaches
to account for God’s sovereignty in the light of the very
existence of evil. Some people even contend that evil
does not even exist but simply reflects a trail of humanity's
struggle to evolve in the process of realizing humanity's
basic goodness.
Be that as it
may; however, little useful purpose could be served with
respect to attempts through such philosophical avenues at
uncovering the truth.
Truth does not easily lend itself to discovery by means
of these multiplicity of avenues generated through
speculation. The
fact remains: God
alone can be the final source and authority in revealing
authentic truth.
Consequently,
we are brought to the biblical account of the origin
and manifestation of evil.
The third
chapter of Genesis portrays the conflict between the forces of
darkness against the forces of light. When God brought into
existence the heavens and the earth and all that inhabit the
universe, His creation reflected His character as Creator,
that of goodness.
Because all creation originated from the Creator, the
creation itself had the potential to remain pure and on course
to realize God’s highest purpose. However, because the
creation itself could in no wise be God or a part of God, that
separate entity from God at the same time had the potential to
rebel against God and thereby fall into enmity against God.
This latter potential became a reality in this third chapter
of Genesis.
God Himself
created humanity through Adam and Eve to sustain fellowship
with their living God, thus fulfilling the bonds of genuine
love toward God and toward each other which could have ushered
them into the countless ages in that perpetual bliss in
relationships.
However, if Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter,
their obedience would have been on the low level of
mechanical, never vital through self expression. Thereby, love would
have been meaningless, without authenticity.
Thus, the
serpent, the hissing whisper that what God had done grew from
deception, intrigued Eve. After all, the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil appeared pleasing. Who does God think He
is to set boundaries, to exclude them from discovering for
themselves their own self value as measured by subjective truth, created
from the disposition of self-centeredness and
self-interpretation that would give them (Eve and then Adam)
liberty to live from their own choices independent of any
influences from beyond their own circumference of a
self-designed world?
In our modern
times the echo of this same temptation takes a leap downward
to conclude that subjective truth must
supplant the notion that there can be objective reality and
consequently, that there can be no absolute truth. Hence, pragmatism and
utilitarianism dictate no other conclusion than the God of the
Bible must give way to the god of self, that each person’s
evaluation and expression becomes that which works for him,
that which must be accepted as equally valid as anyone else’s
subjective
truth. With
that dramatic and drastic renunciation of God by disallowing
absolute truth as
with Eve and then as with Adam, judgment must be
repudiated.
Again, it's as though we say to the carpenter, destroy
your ruler, for your judgment becomes as valid as the ruler or
anyone else’s judgment of distances.
Somehow, for
those who consider the possibility of eternal reward hereafter
and demand that their own positions determine that each
pursues different paths of goodness toward the hereafter, the
subjective truth
allows each to determine the definition of his own good works
and such good works
become validated only through his
own definitions.
However, God
can never be impressed by our egos, nor by all our efforts to
offer to Him our own brand of good works to gain His
favor. All such
good works reflect
our resistance to face our own alienation, our own inability
to measure up, our own unworthiness to stand before the pure,
righteous judgment of the Almighty King of kings and Lord of
lords. Such good works are as
filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) and become an insulting slap on the
face of God, Who has already paid our price at
Calvary. When we dare offer
anything else beside the sacrifice of Jesus, we say in effect
that what Christ did does not measure up and what we do to
earn God’s favor takes the place of the Cross and thus making
the cross unnecessary!
Indeed, we can
never originate the light by which we must see. Those who isolate
themselves from a link to external reality seal out the light
from beyond themselves and grope to fashion the darkness
inherent within their own dispositions into a pseudo light
which is borne of that very darkness itself. “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye
is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is
bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you
is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:22-23)
As the physical light
enters the body by means of the eye to provide a link to the
world at large, so is the spiritual eye intended to provide a
spiritual link to God and those beyond our little
circumference we call OURS! When we demand to be
ruled by our self-centered interests and the distorted filter
by which we see everything in terms of our interests and
selfishness, we opt for the status quo and protect our
religion we have forged from our own invented god or gods to
shield us from the real
truth by our subjective truth. Hence, we arbitrarily
create our own values and indulge ourselves in the
intoxication of self
infatuation.
That is, we begin to measure reality by who we are and
condemn others who conclude that God’s reality created
us. To use
another term to drive home the point, we become the measure to
judge everyone else and mock them for being exclusive because
they will not validate our right to subjective truth.
What we seek to
show in this analysis is the fundamental basis
for fallacy without the faintest intent to create a sense of
hostility toward those who embrace such philosophical
expressions.
However, legitimate and meaningful communication cannot
be established without common agreement on the issue of truth. If we concede that
there can be no absolute truth, we
have no ground to arrive at a consensus on any issue. If there can be no absolutes, anything
and everything must be equally
valid such that making any declarations
would be senseless in the overall scope.
For the purpose
of illustration, allow us to reduce this concept of subjective truth to
the gates of absurdity.
A car swirls into a filling station as the driver
excitedly asks which road he should take at the intersection
to get his wife, who is close to giving birth, to the
hospital.
The filling
station attendant nonchalantly shook his head and spat on the
ground as he casually replied, “It don’t make no
difference. One
way’s as good as another.”
“But I need the
quickest way,” the driver urged.
“Ain’t no
such,” the attendant insisted. “Don’t you know
there’s no such animal as absolute truth? Either way you take is
as good as any other.”
Of course, that
conversation could not readily occur. Why? Well, in the real
world, we all understand that there can be no avoiding the
absolutes. If we
did away with absolutes, our whole society would be flung into
total chaos to the degree that survival could not be
possible.
How do those
who claim no absolute
truth exists support their stance? The only way many of
them seek to make some sort of feeble justification for it may
be found in disassociation or
the creation of the illogical dichotomy. This effort at some
sort of sanity creates compartments. The real world, the
world that operates on time frameworks and special directions
may be thought of as a kind of mechanism which accommodates
the dimension of existence. On the other side, the
world of beliefs, totally divorced from that real world,
remains totally subjective and thereby can be arranged and
manipulated to meet the design of the mind. Each person can create
his own value system and express it in any way he
chooses. If such
a system serves his own ends, if it works for him, if he
functions well therein, it is true for him; it is subjective truth.
One of the
greatest problems with this dichotomy can be found in
the arbitrary erection of the division, the chamber
itself. What
constitutes the nature of such division? How does anyone step
from the real world into the subjective truth
domain?
Perhaps a
little mental gymnastics will lead us toward a greater focal
point. Jim and
Dan made an agreement to co-rent a dormitory near the college
campus and share equally in the cost of the rent. However, each day of
the month the landlord would show up, Dan made it a point to
be gone.
Later in a
conversation with Bill, who prodded Jim with respect to his
beliefs concerning subjective truth, Jim
would resort to his reflexive, “What you believe is OK for
you, because that’s your truth. And what I believe is
true for me, because I believe it.”
“Very well, but
didn’t I hear you complain to Margaret the other day that Dan
always leaves you holding the bag when rent is due?” Bill
prodded insistently.
“Yeah,” Jim
acknowledged.
“You heard right.”
“Something
about that bothers me,” Bill mused. “Didn’t you say that
truth is subjective, that there can be no such as absolute truth?”
“That’s
right. So…?” Jim responded.
“If truth is
subjective and Dan believes it to be OK for him to allow you
to pay all the rent, isn’t that his subjective truth and
right for his set of values because he believes it?”
Herein
we can see one of the many dilemmas facing those who seek to
enclose themselves into their own inner chamber and lock out
reality.
This isolation
knows little of altruism. After all, reality is
perceived as that which originates within the creative ingenuity of
self. Any
incursion of facts
or information from
the external world must be made to fit into
the scheme of things to comply with this isolationism. What is referred to as
tolerance in
reality becomes an unwritten truce which loudly demands I leave you to your own
world and you leave me to mine such that dialogue with respect
to our differing views serves no substantive purpose.
But those who
promote this status quo
under the dictates of subjective truth may
react indignantly, “I do know what love is! I
do care for other people!”
While we do not
dispute that perspective and while we only hold up the
standard without seeking to injure or repel the person, we
must seek that forbidden dialogue based upon the true
standard, absolute truth. Based upon this
disclosure, we must remind ourselves that subjectivity demands
that love become love as embellishing the subjective stance of
the person loving; that is to say from the perspective of the
one loving, You are the occasion for
me to love myself even more through you! Unmitigated
subjectivity demands that self remains the center of any and
every occasion.
If the world revolves around self and self remains the
hub around which all events and occasions rotate, there can be
no exception to this principle. From this basic
premise, even devout care for others must be operative within
the pragmatic and utilitarian scope that promotes self or
becomes self-serving.
Hence, there
can be no other god than that of self. Oh, yes. Those who advocate subjective truth to
counter the notion of absolutes may worship a deity, but
that deity becomes nothing more in reality than a projection
of self,
Again, we are
reminded of the serpent’s whisper in Genesis, chapter 3, "You’ll be your own
god…"
Even this analysis in and
of itself per se intends no judging, no critical assault upon
the nature and character of the subject personalities, but
simply seeks to bring light into the foggy darkness that
threatens to seal the victims into isolation. Yet, we desire to
probe deeper into reasons and origins.
Our society
offers a slippery and rocky avenue down the path of
disassociate and dysfunctional families and groups. (Almost one out of two
marriages end in divorce)Unstable and disintegrating
families, especially those torn with conflicts ending in
divorce,
have set adrift children without the vital link and connecting
strength found in acceptance and love. The basic needs of
children to belong, to feel needed and cared for, to have a
voice in family affairs leaves a thirst to find some sort of
bonding that would help them discover who they are and provide
some sense of direction and purpose in life. This sad and
destructive lack of moral and spiritual values that would
promote proper family bonding leaves society groping in a
hostile environment not unlike that found in a war zone.
The first
course for many children as seen from their desperate plight
may well be perceived in terms of simply breaking away, to
gain liberation to discover life that complies with their own
sense of isolation.
These malfunctioning children tend to retreat into
their own world and bring other acquaintances into the vacuum
of their own boundaries to create artificial bonds as a kind
of loose family relationship they could not realize within the
scope of their own torment referred to as
their own homes. Thus, the only real world they
have ever known within the prison of their own homes cannot be
trusted nor perpetuated.
Hence, it can be small wonder that they do resort to a
spirit of isolation to arrive at subjective truth, that
truth they can control, that they can direct and feel less
threatened by, for objective reality has always given them a
bogus and illusionary path. Thus, we can
understand that what they reject cannot be recognized as
light, but as a reality of suffering, abuse and a multiplicity
of frustrating and painful setbacks ending in chronic
distrust.
There can be
little wonder that these individual loners often find some
bonding through a partnership with likeminded seekers in the
fight to protect their ideology based on subjective truth. Thus, they find
alliance to wage warfare against those intruders they perceive
as intolerant and
bigoted. While we do not indict
them on the basis of their plight, we would like to throw out
a lifeline that somehow we may generate even a spark of hope.
Within their
chaotic pursuits they seek to cling to an isolated world, a
world divorced from all channels of credible reasoning bathed
in rays of truth that originate from beyond the circumference
of their darkened world.
We do not lay claim to superiority nor dare hold
ourselves up as spotless examples to lure them. Except for God’s
grace, not a single one of us could lay claim to be any better
than those who have fallen into this pit of subjectivity. Quite the contrary,
many of us would be far worse than these unfortunate souls who
struggle to find some reason for existence, even if it
involves a defensive mode, a protection of the perceived
solitude they have invented to warrant their journey through
life. We can
never use ourselves as the standard by which we judge others
(Matthew 7:1); we simply seek to hold up Christ Who alone
remains the true standard. But Christ would never
fail to love and embrace the sinner; yet, He loves the sinner
too much to leave him in his own plight. For that reason He
cancels the sinner’s debt by taking that sinner’s place on
Calvary!
We have indeed
placed quite a significant responsibility upon the home
environment for the breakdown in moral and spiritual
absolutes reflected through failure to accept absolute truth in
favor of promoting the notion of subjective
truth.
While emphasis must be placed upon the importance of
the home environment, this declaration must not distract from
other major influences coming to bear upon our society leading
down this path of whirlwind destruction. The arrogant cynicism
of many colleges and universities demand eradication
of absolutes and
tread with malice and disdain upon sacred ground. These schools do not
wince at their open hostilities against family, Christian and
traditional values.
In abusing scholasticism many professors often
denigrate any value system which reflects the slightest
suggestion of decency, moral or spiritual conduct, Christian
and home values, traditional values, etc. These professors and
their schools in general often sink to the level of
capara. They use and abuse
their positions to reject outright and arbitrarily any and
every value which does not foster their darkness and evil
agenda.
There yet
remain a number of other sources which adversely influence
significant movements toward this devastating philosophical
sinkhole reflecting subjective truth
as the core premise of this mindset! We do not take time to
go into all of them, for every one of them share in the same
pool of deception.
Yet, suffice it to say, all who arrive at the doorsteps
of this dark world with its menacing power to desensitize and
tranquilize find themselves addicted to the intoxicating
delusion of security, a protection against the world of ideas
abroad.
We may compare
this isolation to cancer cells of the human body. Such cells function
independently from the harmony and union of the whole body and
grow wildly to demand their places. Such maverick cells
rebel against the purpose and linkage to the human body as
their unchecked growth destroys healthy cells of the
body. When
allowed to continue, these wild, uncontrolled cells eventually
destroy the body.
Within that destruction these cells sever themselves
from the very source of their own survival as well as causing
the cessation of functions that keep the body, the host,
alive.
Our Creator,
God, created all of us to live together in the harmony that
can only come as we grow to be one with each other
and one with God
Himself. Our
great enemy, Satan, came to distract us from God’s purpose and
to destroy that union with God and with each other. That disharmony
continues to be reflected through the mindset of the world,
that of disowning the reality of absolute truth to
be supplanted with so-called subjective
truth.
Therefore,
those who land within the trap of subjective truth
find one mode to exercise judgment against others. Their absolute and unyielding position,
that which makes them intransigently intolerant, comes
immediately into play against any and all who claim exclusivity. While they pride
themselves with respect to tolerance of any and all beliefs,
they at the same instance demand that everyone else eradicate
any claim to exclusivity. Yet, in reality, exclusivity becomes
a mark of uniqueness to distinguish each belief from all other
beliefs. Thereby,
underneath all this uproar over tolerance, no one is
given the prowess to think for himself, to dare to be
different from those who advocate the nonexistence of absolute truth.
BUT
subjective truth,
as devastating, insidious and emboldened as it is, represents
only one prong of the total scope of judging. Another brash, brutal
and insensitive prong closes out all light and rages with
unmitigated contempt for all other variations within the
minutest degree from their very own primitive and base
ideology! These
advocates greatly detest the very notion of any kind of
dialogue, but rather resort to terror to annihilate even the
least opposition and everyone, including women and children,
associated with those who do resist their dominance. The only conscience
these hoards of savages nourish relates to their self-centered
and egotistical manipulation of their god to assure a
self-pampering position of gaudy profusion of sensuality and
hedonistic embellishment, all rewards to fulfill their lust as
a gift for some great deed, such as would be
received for suicide bombings. The appeal? For male
suicide
bombers, seventy virgins with whom to sleep,
a crass indulgence prompted solely by lust. How much more
repugnant can this be?
For decent people it seems too far-fetched to
imagine. Yet,
this promise becomes the incentive for extremist Islamic
suicide bombers. The
philosophical notion behind the murdering of all who do not
agree appears to rest upon the premise that to kill those who
proclaim the truth will in and of itself destroy that truth
they proclaim! Let us remember: People of Christ's
day thought that by killing Christ, they would destroy the
Truth He proclaimed. Now, we know
better.
This segment of our world resides beyond
hope. Right?
It may seem
so, but the difficulties of reaching a few of these
desensitized people can be overcome. Some of us have heard
the testimonies of a few who had been identified with
terrorists. Yes,
these few have been converted to Christianity and speak with a
fire of compassion that few of us have ever experienced.
Even if there had been only one convert
from radical Islam, such a soul would have been worth
all the prayers, efforts and cost which we
could ever pay. The very same conclusion may be
drawn concerning those overcome with the delusion of
subjective truth.
Therefore, we need never judge even the
terrorist to be beyond hope. We do need to pray for
them, that more of Islamic radicals and those overcome
with the delusion of subjective truth will come to
the true light.
We need to leave the judging to God alone, for He is
the standard, not we.
Whichever prong, whether those who make
the pragmatism of subjective truth the
hub around which a whole philosophical approach revolves, or
those who create their own brand of truth within the
inventive, radical minds of Islam to shut out reality and to
force upon everyone else in the world their deadly religious
virus, or any other system to supplant God Himself,
the lethal consequences remains the same. Since the true God
becomes supplanted with the god of self as happens in both
cases, the void, the meaninglessness and the end remains
always the same—destruction, death and hell!
Cure: It
should definitely seem to us that the task in presenting an
effective cure for this disruption of God’s purpose exhibited
through such radical and intransigent dogmatism must indeed be
a colossal challenge. Surely, it is
even conceivable that such an undertaking could well be humanly
impossible.
However, what is impossible on the
human level must be assuredly affirmed as possible
on God’s level!
Hence, through
reliance on God, we must put forth a dedicated effort. But at the same time,
we must acknowledge this fact: Communication remains the vital bridge in
any possible influence upon these people (whom God still
loves) to recognize the need for an about-face change. These who embrace this
self-centered philosophical perspective will never be cast
beyond God's outreach and care. If the need for a cure
cannot be communicated, the very greatest efforts will prove
futile.
Yet, in the example of the radical Islamic
converts to Christianity, the efforts can occasionally
yield fruit.
Sometimes, God’s light penetrates the deepest darkness
to reveal His divine love and grace. At that moment,
Salvation becomes possible.
Therefore, we
would certainly be remiss to ignore some profound
opportunities:
All our yesterdays have created the prospect and the
limitations for decisive actions today and all our tomorrows
are shaped and molded by our decisions and actions today! Yet, God works in and
through it all (“…for without Me you can do
nothing.”–John
15:5 NKJV). This is to
say that our decisions and actions must express God’s
life through the Holy Spirit within us. In the absence of both
the acknowledgement of and submission to the Holy Spirit’s
presence and His power and authority within us, our
efforts become futile, for the Holy Spirit bears witness to
Christ and testifies to His life within us.
Thus, in a
measure of setting the table, we have provided a platform for
everyone to bring anything and everything on an equal footing
to this same table such that consideration may be afforded to
each idea on the grounds that all of us express
open-mindedness and sensitivity to all light, irrespective
from whom it comes or what it contains. Transparency and
honesty precedes successful interactions and exchanges leading
to vital life-changing responses. We must never resort
to closing out the light to protect our blindness with respect
to any avenue of discovery. This commitment should
never be evaded, most especially from us who belong to the
household of faith! As long as we cherish
the truth, we need never fear any additional light nor seek to
protect our concepts and perspectives concerning truth, for when we
genuinely love the truth, we must be
willing to change ourselves to comply with that truth rather than
to wince from it.
Therefore, we
have extended an invitation to a dialogue. An open and honest
dialogue on a level playing field can provide a
non-threatening exchange based on mutual respect and express
an urgency to discover and share truth. We thereby invite and
encourage our website visitors to use the e-mail response
for this website to express freely varying views without
hesitation or fear of violation of your privacy (which would
totally be against our policy). Nevertheless, we can
address your issues or concerns generically without violating
in any way your complete anonymity.
This
predetermined attitude serves as the first step toward the
cure. Unless
there can be openness, we create and sustain a gulf of
separation that cannot be bridged.
Advisedly,
allow us to introduce a dialogue format to expedite our
efforts to reach a common ground. As we have sought to
make evident, we intend to keep a level playing field such
that consideration of all facets of truth may reign within our
thinking and reasoning.
Ms. S.T. (Subjective
Truth).:
I feel that I am liberated in acknowledging that
everyone should be totally tolerated for his own views, just
as long as he believes earnestly in his own
religion.
Dr. Islam: And I know that all you
infidels have no part in truth, for truth comes only from
Allah. And we
have his holy Koran from his prophet Mohammad.
Mr. Christian: I understand that no human
has a corner on truth.
Dr. Islam has a credible point in that we ourselves
cannot manufacture truth. Indeed, truth does not
nor can originate with any of us.
Ms. S.T.: I truly believe that Dr.
Islam and Mr. Christian both can be right, for what works for
each of them becomes his set of principles and beliefs true to
each of them. As
in my case, a principle or idea is true for me because I believe
it. Therefore, it
works for me.
Dr. Islam: Ms. S.T., would you accept
the Islamic religion—the true religion?
Ms. S.T.: Why, of course. I would accept it as a
good religion for you.
It’s right for you and I tolerate your right to it and
to express it freely.
Dr. Islam: But you reject Islam for
yourself and that makes you an infidel!
Ms. S.T.: If I follow you correctly,
Dr. Islam, it’s alright for us to tolerate your religion, but
you are duty-bound to be completely intolerant of any and all
other religions.
Do I understand you correctly?
Dr. Islam: At least your hearing is
correct, Ms S.T.!
Mr. Christian: Without any intention to
disparage either of you as persons with a right to express
yourselves freely, I do take issue with both of your
philosophical approaches. Truth is not
necessarily what either of you believe it to be. I’ll go even
further. Truth is
not necessarily what I believe it to be. Truth goes far beyond
us and cannot be cornered by anyone and exploited for personal
gain or used to establish a stance divorced from that reality
extended from beyond ourselves and our own grasp. Furthermore, the
complete truth cannot be discovered within the framework of
our own minds and observations, but must be revealed by the
One Who generated all truth.
Dr. Islam: Mr. Christian, when I hear
you speaking such rubbish, it’s like the howling of the wind
causing dust and litter to slap against my face.
Mr. Christian: Dr. Islam, in all due
respect, how do you ascertain your perspective to be validated
within the context of your life and experiences? In other words, what
significance and resonance with reality justifies your total
commitment to what you believe?
Ms. S.T.: If you’ll allow my
intrusion here in defense of Dr. Islam, I say unapologetically
that each of us must begin where he is and work with what he
has. It’s a cinch
that none can start at a point where he is not. After all, none of us
can be other than what he is nor act on what he does not know
or have. I
suggest that each of us must make the best of who he is, where
he is—whatever culture, environment and circumstances he finds
himself under.
Dr. Islam made his choices based on who he is and where
he is. That is
good for him and is right because he believes it is right.
Dr. Islam: While I can understand
you, Ms. S.T., it’s not all about me. And it’s not all about
you. Allah is
sovereign and we serve him. It’s all about
Allah. He can do
whatever he wants and it’s right because he is all
powerful. We may
make it to heaven or he may send us to hell. None of us knows for
sure in this life, but whatever he does is right because Allah
is sovereign. Only those who die for
the cause of Allah are certain to earn a right to dwell in
heaven.
Mr. Christian: Good! I’m glad you’re both
laying everything on the table. I’m willing to hear
you and respect your right to communicate, but at the same
time, I trust that you both will allow me the same right to
express myself. I
will gladly share with you my problem with some of your
ideologies and expect you freely to share any problems you may
have with my conclusions.
To begin with, there are
two basic problems I see with your proposals. Ms. S.T., you hit the
nail on the head when you say in effect that we cannot begin
where we are not.
However, while all of us begin at a point, we need
never set ourselves into an immobile disposition such that we
remain where we are.
Life begins as a journey from our mothers wombs. If you’ll notice
carefully the third chapter of John’s Gospel, Nicodemus came
to Jesus for a purpose.
Sure he proved himself grounded in the law of God and
had gained a status among the Jews that qualified him to be a
recognized leader.
However, he obviously sensed incompleteness, that he
could not find fulfillment in the status quo. Definitely, something
was missing in his life.
Consequently, Christ
pointed him to the necessity for a new birth. Christ said, “Most assuredly I say to you, unless one
is born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God (John 3:3 NKJV).”
Thus, none of us can remain at the point we find
ourselves and wait for salvation to come to us nor can we
through manipulation of God by good works win our way into the
good graces of God.
God Himself is never an elevated, overgrown, all
powerful human being with all the flaws of a pompous,
arrogant, self-centered and capricious human nature, Who
decides arbitrarily to save whom He will and cast into hell
whom He will on the basis of any flimsy impulse. That kind of a
repugnant god resides in realms far less than even a mediocre
concept of a god any human being could easily
envision.
Ms. S.T.: Excuse me! If I may once more
insert a point, when you say we cannot stay where we are, are
you suggesting that we are the ones to bridge the gap? As I see it, we are
who we are and must bring into our understanding and interpret
all events in terms of our understanding, which in reality
corresponds to who we are.
Dr. Islam: Pardon me, Ms. S.T., but
that’s almost the only point on which I agree with Mr.
Christian. We
cannot remain where we are but must obey Allah. We have no
choice. We must
produce all the good works we can that Allah may consider us
worthy to enter heaven.
Mr. Christian: I appreciate your
interaction with me, but allow me to address both of you. Of course, Ms. S.T.,
your observation has some merit, though I must clarify my
comment. As with
Nicodemus, each of us must come to understand his own
limitations as a human being. But when that
awareness strikes us and impacts our understanding that we are
not what or who we should be, that awareness prods us to move
off center, to go somewhere to seek resolution. God took the
initiative to make Nicodemus conscious of his need, but at the
same time God provided a door of opportunity such that
Nicodemus could respond and walk through. In that way, God drew
him. That door
provided an awesome answer in Jesus. As for you, Dr. Islam,
I commend you for your choice to do good works, but what are
good works?
Without a genuine relationship with God through Jesus
Christ, it is totally impossible for us to distinguish genuine
good works from selfish pursuits to save our own skins at any
and all risks to others.
In that context we do what we perceive to be good works
such that we may have a chance to influence God to give us
access to realize our own selfish goals. Genuine good works
acceptable to God quite naturally expresses an effect of the
new birth.
A second point I wish to
emphasis deals with judgment or condemnation. John 3:5 declares:
“Most assuredly, I say to you,
unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter
the kingdom of God.” Child bearing
prior to the fall
would have been painless and a natural outgrowth of perfect
paradise in which God’s purpose perfectly shone through His
glorious presence.
But sin through rebellion against God brought
consequences across the board, including childbirth. One of the most used
symbols of judgment, especially in the Old Testament, drew on
the image of water.
Water came to cover the earth in judgment. Water of the
Red
Sea
showed God leading His called-out nation through judgment to
life beyond, while the pursuing Egyptians, representing sin
and wrong, perished in the Red Sea. Baptism also
represents dying with Christ that we may be raised to walk in
newness of life as explicitly found in the death, burial and
Resurrection of Jesus Himself. Hence, as the natural
birth is marked by water (judgment, as the child must die to
the old life in the womb to accept new life bursting through
the water of the womb into a new world), so the new birth is
marked by the water of judgment; the water represents
judgment, for to be born again, everyone must be judged with
Christ, dying to self, so that Resurrection with Christ is
possible. This
comes only by God’s grace and love, as He paid our debt at
Calvary. Hence, even our good
works must be judged that we may come to acknowledge that good
works belong, not to us, but to the Christ Who comes to live
within and through us by the presence of the Holy
Spirit, Who is the power, authority and life of Jesus within
us.
Because
of…
Ms. S.T.: Mr. Christian, if I may,
I’d like to break into your oratory. Some of your flowery
rhetoric conjures up something like—well, ecstasy. I mean, it actually
pictures a fantasy of perfection to start with, only losing
out to a curse.
But then your God makes provision. Quite beautiful,
sir! I must
admit, I can understand how your religion works well for
you. But my only
thing with all this is that, even though it works well for
you, you keep the door shut to all other beautiful
religions. I
could find more credibility in what you say if you would
tolerate other religions and just continue to stay with what
works for you.
Dr. Islam: All you infidels take
pride in words and ideas. Our Allah gives the
only true religion and all infidels must meet the same fate
under Allah’s judgment, that of death!
Mr. Christian: Dr. Islam, words and ideas
in and of themselves alone serve no credible purpose divorced
from reality.
However, when such words and ideas become a reflection
of God’s eternal domain to interact within human events, their
reality can never be destroyed by silencing the bearer of such
words and ideas.
It is also true, Ms. S.T., that my Christianity does
work for me, but its origin does not lie within the inventive
ingenuity of humanity and therefore, certainly not of me. God alone originates
and reveals absolute truth. The first of the Ten Commandments
declares absolutely that there can be no other gods
beside Yahweh, the LORD.
Ms. S.T.: And it’s all right
for Dr. Islam to believe in Allah, Mr. Christian. But as I see it, he
does need to tolerate other religions and give them the same
rights as he claims.
I also believe you have your own rights, Mr.
Christian—only, you do need to let everyone else have their
own rights, too.
Dr. Islam: The only rights
are found in the true religion, Islam. All other beliefs come
from infidels.
Islam comes from Allah through his prophet, Mohammed.
Mr. Christian: I
respectively disagree with you each. Ms. S.T., while I
value you deeply as a person and mean nothing to undermine the
sense of that value, I must seriously call into question your
conclusions. If
we do not live in a universe, but, as your philosophy
suggests, each of us lives only in his very own little chaotic
and ultimately meaningless pluralverse
(as opposed to a universe),
each finds himself isolated and captivated within each
little world.
Such a pluralverse would contain infinite centers, each
in effect disconnected from every other center, each laying
claim to its own eccentric values as a micro-universe with no
meaning beyond itself.
Since each micro-universe ceases at death, no meaning
could survive since no ultimate center (or absolute truth)
exists to promote that center beyond its own micro-universe
meaning. In
reality, this very contradiction defies logic in that it
assumes that there can be absolutely no underlying
cohesiveness or purpose from that created on the disconcerted
and disjointed capsule of each person’s individuality. Gravity itself could
not be defined as universally applicable from this
perspective.
Distances could not be concluded to exist independently
of one’s subjective assent within his own belief system. In other words, Ms.
S.T., you say an issue is true because you believe
it rather than saying you believe it because it is
true. Are you
not saying that YOU
create your own truth by your belief? Such placing the cart
before the horse in your case defies the logic that things,
even issues, can exist independent of your belief, does it
not?
Ms. S.T.: Oh, but wait a
minute. Nothing
has any real meaning for me until I come to believe…uh,
issues…uh, even the material world. Look at that door over
there. Suppose I
really don’t believe it’s there. If I didn’t believe
it, I could not use it.
I…uh, could not walk through it.
Mr. Christian: But that
door exists whether you believe it or not.
Ms. S.T.: It has no
meaning for me unless I believe it.
Mr. Christian: I am very
sure of that, but that point does not relate to what I am
saying. Let me
illustrate. A
blind man from birth who walks with his seeing-eye dog every
day under the sun has never seen the sunlight. Yet, he feels the
warmth and realizes that there remains something external to
himself bringing about an effect upon his physical body. He could conceivably
have a delusion that every time he walks outside with his dog,
that dog generates the heat from its own radiant delight to
walk with its master.
However, his belief does not altar the reality that the
heat comes from the sun, does it?
Dr. Islam (snickering): Ms. S.T.,
he cooked your goose, to use an American expression!
Mr. Christian: I wish not
to hold you up to ridicule, Ms. S.T., but I only seek to bring
to you a light you may not have seen before. However, perhaps I
could be so embolden to suggest this illustration to help you
understand my direction.
A young teen whose delight in the freedom he found in
securing his drivers license drove cautiously with glee for a
period of time.
However, in the course of his drive to school every
day, he would come to a crossroad intersection with a stop
sign from his direction at that intersection. At first, he would
always stop and look both ways to assure himself that no other
vehicles with the right of way traveled across his path at the
intersection.
Nevertheless, on one occasion he only slowed down with
a brief glance in both directions and made it safely across
the intersection.
He did that several times with greater confidence. He began to believe
that such a practice held no threats until one day a speeding
vehicle collided with his car and sent him to the hospital for
six weeks with serious injuries. Now, he obviously
believed himself to be secure in his practice, did he
not? Do you catch
a glimmer of my point?
Ms. S.T.: I’ll say
this, Mr. Christian.
You bring a lot to the table. Some of it to me seems
a bit muddled, but you do keep to the point and leave little
doubt that you absolutely believe what you do say. But…well, I’m not all
that convinced, yet.
I reserve my right to digest it and glean what I can
from it, though.
Mr. Christian: And as for
you, Dr. Islam, I’m going to show as much kindness toward you
as I can, but I dare not compromise in so doing. Even though you do
respect strength, you approach your world in much the same way
as Ms. S.T., do you not?
You stress the power of duty-minded good deeds. You always seek to
measure up to the demands of Allah. Allow me to ask a
couple of questions.
Since you can never be sure that you have reached an
acceptable amount of good works, do you always serve under
this stress of striving without even knowing? Again (and I mean no
disrespect) but Allah has been presented through much of the
writings as a very temperamental, unapproachable being, who
remains vexed with heavy anger and hatred, intent on
unleashing his awesome wrath against any and all that his
whims dictate. Am
I right?
Dr. Islam:
Absolutely! His sovereignty
justifies anything he wishes to do!
Mr. Christian: Then, just
for a moment, let me tell you a bit about our God. He remains absolutely
sovereign. His
judgment and condemnation calls attention to all of us that we
have been in rebellion against Him, but such judgment and
condemnation impacts humanity with the need to deal with sin
and rebellion.
Yet, such righteous and deserving action has a very
wonderful purpose.
God’s love awaits to redeem us from our state of sin
and rebellion—not through our good works which could never
make any of us good enough to stand acceptable before such a
majestic, holy and righteous God. Our sins must be dealt
a death blow, and Jesus did that on
Calvary. There we die with
Jesus to self and through His blood we become pure from
beginning to end by a transformed life. Therefore, we never
engage in good works to experience salvation, but we quite naturally express
our love for God and others through reflecting the change of
our hearts by God’s grace through His Redemption by means of
our good works.
We have been liberated from the burden of guilt and set
free. In that
freedom we joyfully fulfill our new natures by expressing our
love through our good works.
Oh, yes, Dr.
Islam, I understand that much of what I have disclosed smacks
of weakness in your perspective. Yet, our Scripture
declares in Paul’s writings from II Corinthians 12:9 that
God’s strength is made perfect in weakness! Certainly, God
exercises sovereignty and could destroy all weakness and
everyone associated with weakness, but Christ came, not to
destroy, but to save (to restore to what God had created us to
be). But even
death can turn out to bring new life, as with the Resurrection
of Christ.
Dr. Islam: But we are
never like you Christians. You believe in three
gods. We have
only one. We can
never be polytheists!
Mr. Christian: On that
score, we agree with you. There can never be
more than one true God.
But this one and only God reaches infinite greatness in
every way. As a
matter of fact, our one God remains so very great that He
expresses Himself through three Persons, the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit—one Entity in three Persons.
Dr. Islam: That’s what
you say, but I am
not convinced.
Mr. Christian: Look, water remains chemically and molecularly
the same wherever water is found. Yet, water can be
found in nature in the forms of fluid, solid and gas. Water as fluid comes
through rain, rivers, oceans, lakes, etc. and as solid, it can
be seen as snow, hail, ice and so on and this same water can
be heated to the point of becoming a gas. Steam is different
from fluid and ice, but each retains the characteristics and
essence of water.
In the same sense, God remains one entity, though by
way of revelation, He exercises three distinct roles. As Father, He is the
transcendent God, above all, though He remains eminent within
His universe. The
Father’s role places Him above and beyond human ability ever
to know, unless He reveals Himself. He does reveal Himself
through His Word (or His Speech). That Word became flesh
to dwell among us as God’s revelation, God’s involvement with
us in human history and affairs. His greatest
revelation took place as the Word ultimately uncovered God’s
love by nailing our sins to the Cross such that we could be
reclaimed as God’s children. But apart from the
Holy Spirit, Who is God in us, we would have no clue as to
God’s Word, which would be as a foreign language to us. As Paul indicates
in I Corinthians 2:13-16, the Holy Spirit becomes our
language by which we understand God’s Word, Jesus Christ to
Whom the Holy Spirit bears witness. Thus, one God gives us
existence and reveals Himself to us through the roles of three
Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Islam: This you
say does not measure up to the Koran!
Mr. Christian: Dr. Islam,
while I do respect you as a person and one whom God loves, I
would like to introduce you to a possible common
denominator. I am
willing to allow the truth, no matter where it may lead and no
matter what it reveals about my misconceptions, to
prevail. I do not
perceive that I have a religion that would fall apart if I
failed to protect It from the real light. My God will glow in
the light of the truth, not fall apart or degenerate in the
least. I don’t
wish to sound unkind, but will your Allah survive the
brilliance of close scrutiny? Does his strength come
from darkness and crude, cruel repressions? Are you willing to
follow the truth, no matter how the chips may fall?
Dr. Islam: I
absolutely refuse to dignify your blasphemy with any further
dialogue. As far
as I am concerned, Allah can destroy every one of you
infidels! That is
all I have to say as I make my way out of here.
Mr. Christian: I am very
sorry that you feel your god is so fragile as to evaporate in
the true light. I
want you to know I still care about you and will keep you in
my prayers.
Mr. Christian, continuing as the
exit door slams: I surely hope
that the door was cracked enough to allow a germ of light to
penetrate the dark world of Dr. Islam.
Ms. S.T.: But don’t
you see how the two of you cause a serious rift with
exclusivity?
Mr. Christian: I feel a
need to be absolutely candid with you, too, Ms. S.T., for I
dare not compromise my integrity in the least. However, I say what I
do because I really care about you and desire to see you
liberated from your own deception.
You place a lot
of stock in establishing your world on a
belief system. I
emphasize the your, because you
remain the hub of your beliefs. If I may be so
blunt—and forgive me—but your creative imagination leads to
incest within the stagnant ideological pool of self-serving
belief patterns, devoid of fresh light from beyond your
closed-minded and isolated inner world of self. Thus, the birth of
your values expresses preconceived notions solely within the
confines of your small self-world prison. No light from beyond
brings vitality, direction and ultimate meaning. I see your obsession
with exclusivity that moves you to make that an ultimate test
of rejecting all other ideological systems that promote
exclusivity. Yes,
you are tolerant of all who believe the way you do about
exclusivity. But
if any and everything else can be right except exclusivity,
then subjective truth says in essence that nothing can be
ultimately right, for there can be no absolute truth.
Ms. S.T.: It’s just the way I am
and who I am. To
me, beliefs hold center stage, for beliefs can be a powerful
affirmation of truth.
Mr. Christian: I truly
understand that, but as important as beliefs are, beliefs in
and of themselves alone should never be substituted for
reality but must be linked to reality and the corroboration
found in life and events. The real world of life
and events affirm the validity of our beliefs. Those life and events
occurrences provide the fingerprints of God Almighty and His
power through our lives by His Holy Spirit, reflecting back to
us the interaction of the divine in human affairs, providing,
of course, our beliefs are indeed true beliefs. In other words,
beliefs must be a result of encounter with God in a personal
relationship rather than the misconception that beliefs are a
mere creation of reality itself.
This dialogue
comes to an end on that note. Did either Ms. S.T.
(Subjective Truth) or Dr. Islam have sufficient information
and persuasion to draw correct conclusions? The facts suggest that
they were indeed pointed in the right direction by Mr.
Christian’s efforts.
Yet, whether either allowed the ground of their hearts
to be prepared enough to permit the seeds sown in earnest
dialogue to germinate and grow into fruition will be
determined over a period of time, but the fact must be
understood that the
ground must be prepared (Matthew 13:1-23). The Light through the
action of the Holy Spirit prepares our lives to receive the
seed (God’s Word), but we can close our eyes to that light
refusing to let the Holy Spirit prepare our hearts to receive
God’s Word, for only the Holy Spirit can remove the stones
from the ground that would prevent seeds’ roots from growing
and the thorns that would choke the tinder plants, etc.
The CURE must involve
these steps:
·
Recognition of
reality—each of us must come to a disposition of
honesty, forthrightness and willingness to respond to that
reality
·
Sacrificing
ourselves—none of us can find the True Light unless
we let go of ourselves such that we can step beyond ourselves
and reach out to the God Who has always reached His hand
toward us
·
Understanding that we have no
merit, no recourse and no escape within ourselves
alone—all our good works and all our inhibitions and
all our resources leave us high and dry in any notion that
Salvation depends upon our own efforts
·
Looking beyond ourselves to the
God Who has already provided Salvation for us—we
cannot reach heaven; neither can we pay for our sins; nor can
we placate God with our promises; yet, God has done it all for
us, such that we need only accept His forgiveness and payment
for our sins and guilt
·
Becoming one with God—in
the union with God we come to a disposition to see everything
from God’s perspective and order our lives accordingly,
allowing good works to flow from us as a reciprocal love
relationship with God
Consequently,
the two examples of Ms. S.T. (Subjective Truth) and
Dr. Islam provide us two extremes of
self-centeredness.
In the case of Ms. S.T., we see someone who doesn’t
trust objective reality, but finds security in a world of her
own creation.
However, any world or value system we create for
ourselves becomes grounded upon fantasy drawn from the well of
our very own, isolated
imagination.
In the case of Dr. Islam, this religious
advocate has reached beyond himself to allow himself to become
bound in the prison of a great delusion, promoted arbitrarily
by a renegade, marauding and insensitive man masquerading as a
prophet from a god given the name Allah. This god leaves much
to be desired and may be accurately described as a projected
human being with the same impure, temperamental and capricious
mood swings that could make a mere criminal seem fairly decent
by comparison.
Thus, the deep dungeon becoming the trap for every
Islamic terrorist provides many safeguards against
escape. For this
reason, the true Light can penetrate only by the Holy power of
a loving God as expressed in Jesus Christ. The Truth must be our
ally as we seek to reach these poor enslaved
souls.
In each case the central sin reflects
original sin, that of
becoming one’s own god, whether through creating one’s own
system of values and/or religious structure (subjective truth)
or identifying with religious bigotry and slavery that
provides an egotistical pursuit to acquire recognition and
rewards by so-called works' demands, including suicide
bombings (Islamic terrorism). The cure cannot be
found apart from severance from original sin, that is,
renouncing one’s right to himself and surrendering self to
Jesus Christ, Who then becomes center of all of life and all
of one’s values
and possessions.
With a question brought to our
attention, we attach this noteworthy footnote to our
conclusion. While
we have indeed recounted the disposition of Islamic terrorists
and the character and nature of their religion, demonstrated
by the kind of god portrayed by Mohammed, we failed to
emphasize that Islam does not hold a unique disposition among
religions, for even under the banner of Christianity, some
marchers in the Crusades
expressed offensive, savage and atrocious acts, quite contrary
to genuine Christian character. Yet, this evil
onslaught brings into its forays counterfeit claims of
Christian purpose.
Evil remains evil whether identified with Islam, false
Christianity or any other religious endeavor. Evil remains forever
evil, no matter what label it carries.
Most
assuredly, we refuse to group all people of any religious
belief together under the same banner. It can never become
our policy to stereotype any groups. Therefore, we wish to
be careful never to place all Islamic peoples under one
umbrella. Neither
do we desire rigidly to bound all Islamic radicals, the terrorists, into a
solidified cauldron that bars radical changes within
individual Islamic people, for we have known individual
terrorists to transcend the demonic prison of terrorism and
become glowing Christian witnesses to the power of God to
transform lives.
