I was preparing to write about the definition of "good" when I discovered it was the topic of "A Slice of Infinity" for today. I plan on writing more about it so this article will serve as a good introduction.
07/17/08
Why Can't I Just Be a Good Person?
Michael Ramsden
"People are basically good," writes one poet. "It is only their behavior that lets them down."
It is remarkable to think there are many today who believe they are good enough to get into heaven. Perhaps there is so much bad news about others that they conclude by comparison they are superior, and thus, deserving of a place in eternity. But then it is even more remarkable that when Christians claim they know they are going to heaven, they are regarded as being conceited, boastful, and arrogant. People immediately ask: How can they think that they are better than everyone else?
The fact that the same person can think of himself as superior to others, while at the same time criticizing Christians for arrogance, underlines one of the effects of living in a postmodern world. Though the contradiction is frustrating, Christians need to be able to respond coherently to the questions at hand: Why can't I just be a good person? Isn't it unfair of God to say that you can't get into heaven unless you believe in Him, even though you have been a good person? Who does He think He is?
Jesus was once asked a similar question by a group of inquirers: "What must we do to do the works God requires?" (John 6:28). Interestingly, the question was posed in plural form; it seems they were looking for a list of good things to do. But Jesus replied in the singular, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent" (6:29).
Of course, in the minds of those who feel they have lived a good life, Christ's answer will not go unchallenged. What makes belief so special? Surely what we do is far more important than what we believe. How can a good person, who is not a Christian, be denied access on the basis of belief?
The difficulty here lies in the assumption that is being made in each of these questions--namely, that there is such a thing as a good person. Jesus again offers further clarification in the form of question and answer. He was once asked, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18). The theory of the questioner was clear: Jesus is a good person; good people go to heaven, so what must I do to be in the same group? But Jesus's reply was surprising. "Why do you call me good?" he asked (18:19). He then answered his own question: "No one is good--except God alone."
The simple truth is that the issue is not about good people not getting into heaven. Alas, the problem is much worse! Jesus seems to define goodness in terms of being like God, and on that basis there are no good people anywhere. Thus, the real question is not about who is good enough to get in to heaven. The real question is how God makes it possible for anyone to get in at all. The answer is that we need to be forgiven, and that forgiveness is won for us through the Cross.(1)
In fact, this is precisely why the Gospel is called Good News, and why we do well to declare it. The good news is that getting into heaven is first and foremost about forgiveness. The Christian testimony is, in fact, far from arrogant! Christians can be sure that they are going to heaven, not because they are good, but because they have received forgiveness by believing in Christ.
In other words, if we will trust in and rely on Jesus--his promises, his person, his life, death, and resurrection--we can be sure that we are saved. Christians are not good people because they live morally superior lives to everyone else. They have been made "good" in God's eyes because Christ has made forgiveness possible--because Christ has extended his own righteousness to those who will believe. Good people will certainly go to heaven. However, the path to goodness lies not in religious observances or respectable acts, but in the forgiveness of a good God, given to us through the Cross of Christ.
Michael Ramsden is European director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in the United Kingdom.
(1) For further reading on this subject, I recommend The Cross of Christ by John Stott.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Psychosomatic and the Lord's Supper
The following article articulates an apologetic connection I made between a conversation I had with my father some time ago about psychosomatic illness and his reminder today concerning a couple of articles he sent me about the significance of the Lord’s Supper that I had yet to read. It is a weird connection but a profound truth!
It is ironic you included the definition of psychosomatic with an inquiry concerning the articles about the Lord's Supper. I had not examined the articles closely until you reminded me today. Both articles focus on right attitude and perception based on right theology which defines the significance and meaning of the ritual. Rightly participating in the meal subsequently produces right self-awareness, confession, grace, healing, and growth of the fruits of the spirit. Wrongly approaching the meal results in ritualism and legalism, i.e. distorted or lost meaning. Wrong attitude and perception based on wrong theology work like disease, taking meaning from worship and life from the body of Christ, resulting in emptiness, decay and death. While this philosophical approach is profoundly true and rightly applied for defining the significance of the Lord's Supper, its application is universal and serves as the foundational approach for defining truth (theology), applying it (hermeneutics), and defending it (apologetics).
So where does psychosomatic come in? Psychosomatic is a psychological term defined by the science of psychology.[1] One of the greatest weaknesses of science is its failure to define or prove the intangible. This failure is potently exposed by an illustration called Aunt Matilda's Cake:
"Let us imagine that my Aunt Matilda has baked a beautiful cake and we submit it for analysis to a group of the world's top scientists. The nutrition scientists will calculate the calories in the cake and tell us of its effect on the body; the biochemists will inform us about the structure of the proteins and fats in the cake; the chemists will describe the elements involved and their bonding; the physicists will be able to analyze the cake in terms of fundamental particles; and the mathematicians will no doubt offer us a set of elegant equations to describe the behavior of those particles.
“Now that these experts have given us an exhaustive description of the cake, can we say that the cake is completely explained? We have certainly been given a description of how the cake was made and how its various constituent elements relate to one another, but suppose we now ask them why the cake was made. The grin on Aunt Matilda's face shows that she knows the answer, for she made the cake, and she made it for a purpose. But surely it is clear that all the scientists in the world will not be able to tell us why she made it. Unless Aunt Matilda reveals the answer, they are powerless. Their disciplines can cope with questions about the nature and structure of the cake but they cannot answer the "why" question. Now, the artists among us will add the science is limited in another sense - it cannot comment on the sheer elegance and aesthetic appeal of the cake, nor could it comment on the quality and truth of a a poem written about the cake. Many important aspects of reality are simply outside the provenance of science."[2]
Every soul is born in a body is doomed by the inherited curse of sin to die physically and spiritually. While grace grants eternal life to the soul and the promise of a new body, there is no salvation for the earthly body. Every moment from the time we are born is one moment closer to our inevitable physical death. That is why the relationship between our intangible minds and spirits and our earthly bodies is scientifically undefined, resulting in the allocation of medical treatment to the partitioned sciences of medicine, psychology and psychiatry (while holistic medicine does attempt to treat the whole person - body mind and spirit, it is recognized as philosophy rather than science, relegated to the unscientific "arts" that answer the question "why?").[3] Psychosomatic is a term that defines the link between some physical and spiritual maladies but fails to define how and why the link exists or how to treat it. Likewise, the paradox of the Biblically defined potential for spiritual benefit due to physical suffering adds to the confusion when trying to diagnose symptoms of physical illness caused by spiritual/emotional illness. Further, ". . . in common with the rest of humanity, scientists have preconceived ideas and worldviews that they bring to bear on every situation," meaning a doctor may be inept to treat a psychosomatic illness due to their own psychosis.[4]
My conclusion is right attitude and perception based on right theology is not only necessary to find meaning and benefit in liturgical rituals like the Lord's Supper, but to find meaning and benefit in all aspects of life which includes our physical bodies. While being right is the best prescription for good physical health given the spiritual healing and nourishment it provides, it does not prevent physical suffering since our earthly bodies still must endure the process of dying. Nevertheless, being right sheds light on darkness, gives life to death, and makes even bad feelings good - a prescription medicine cannot define much less write.
[1]The constant and inseparable interaction of the psyche (mind) and the soma (body). Commonly used to refer to illnesses in which the manifestations are primarily physical with at least a partial emotional etiology. www.med.umich.edu/nursing/psych/staff/orient/words.htm
[2] Ravi Zacharias. Beyond Opinion, Living the Faith We Defend, John Lennox, "Challenges from Science," pp. 113-114.
[3] Holistic medicine is a broadly descriptive term for a healing philosophy that views a patient as a whole person, not just a disease...www.capecodhealth.org/body.cfmMedical care involving the treatment of the whole person - body, spirit and mind. Many holistic techniques have never had their efficacy or safety evaluated.www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_h.htm
[4] Ravi Zacharias. Beyond Opinion, Living the Faith We Defend, John Lennox, "Challenges from Science," pg. 112.
It is ironic you included the definition of psychosomatic with an inquiry concerning the articles about the Lord's Supper. I had not examined the articles closely until you reminded me today. Both articles focus on right attitude and perception based on right theology which defines the significance and meaning of the ritual. Rightly participating in the meal subsequently produces right self-awareness, confession, grace, healing, and growth of the fruits of the spirit. Wrongly approaching the meal results in ritualism and legalism, i.e. distorted or lost meaning. Wrong attitude and perception based on wrong theology work like disease, taking meaning from worship and life from the body of Christ, resulting in emptiness, decay and death. While this philosophical approach is profoundly true and rightly applied for defining the significance of the Lord's Supper, its application is universal and serves as the foundational approach for defining truth (theology), applying it (hermeneutics), and defending it (apologetics).
So where does psychosomatic come in? Psychosomatic is a psychological term defined by the science of psychology.[1] One of the greatest weaknesses of science is its failure to define or prove the intangible. This failure is potently exposed by an illustration called Aunt Matilda's Cake:
"Let us imagine that my Aunt Matilda has baked a beautiful cake and we submit it for analysis to a group of the world's top scientists. The nutrition scientists will calculate the calories in the cake and tell us of its effect on the body; the biochemists will inform us about the structure of the proteins and fats in the cake; the chemists will describe the elements involved and their bonding; the physicists will be able to analyze the cake in terms of fundamental particles; and the mathematicians will no doubt offer us a set of elegant equations to describe the behavior of those particles.
“Now that these experts have given us an exhaustive description of the cake, can we say that the cake is completely explained? We have certainly been given a description of how the cake was made and how its various constituent elements relate to one another, but suppose we now ask them why the cake was made. The grin on Aunt Matilda's face shows that she knows the answer, for she made the cake, and she made it for a purpose. But surely it is clear that all the scientists in the world will not be able to tell us why she made it. Unless Aunt Matilda reveals the answer, they are powerless. Their disciplines can cope with questions about the nature and structure of the cake but they cannot answer the "why" question. Now, the artists among us will add the science is limited in another sense - it cannot comment on the sheer elegance and aesthetic appeal of the cake, nor could it comment on the quality and truth of a a poem written about the cake. Many important aspects of reality are simply outside the provenance of science."[2]
Every soul is born in a body is doomed by the inherited curse of sin to die physically and spiritually. While grace grants eternal life to the soul and the promise of a new body, there is no salvation for the earthly body. Every moment from the time we are born is one moment closer to our inevitable physical death. That is why the relationship between our intangible minds and spirits and our earthly bodies is scientifically undefined, resulting in the allocation of medical treatment to the partitioned sciences of medicine, psychology and psychiatry (while holistic medicine does attempt to treat the whole person - body mind and spirit, it is recognized as philosophy rather than science, relegated to the unscientific "arts" that answer the question "why?").[3] Psychosomatic is a term that defines the link between some physical and spiritual maladies but fails to define how and why the link exists or how to treat it. Likewise, the paradox of the Biblically defined potential for spiritual benefit due to physical suffering adds to the confusion when trying to diagnose symptoms of physical illness caused by spiritual/emotional illness. Further, ". . . in common with the rest of humanity, scientists have preconceived ideas and worldviews that they bring to bear on every situation," meaning a doctor may be inept to treat a psychosomatic illness due to their own psychosis.[4]
My conclusion is right attitude and perception based on right theology is not only necessary to find meaning and benefit in liturgical rituals like the Lord's Supper, but to find meaning and benefit in all aspects of life which includes our physical bodies. While being right is the best prescription for good physical health given the spiritual healing and nourishment it provides, it does not prevent physical suffering since our earthly bodies still must endure the process of dying. Nevertheless, being right sheds light on darkness, gives life to death, and makes even bad feelings good - a prescription medicine cannot define much less write.
[1]The constant and inseparable interaction of the psyche (mind) and the soma (body). Commonly used to refer to illnesses in which the manifestations are primarily physical with at least a partial emotional etiology. www.med.umich.edu/nursing/psych/staff/orient/words.htm
[2] Ravi Zacharias. Beyond Opinion, Living the Faith We Defend, John Lennox, "Challenges from Science," pp. 113-114.
[3] Holistic medicine is a broadly descriptive term for a healing philosophy that views a patient as a whole person, not just a disease...www.capecodhealth.org/body.cfmMedical care involving the treatment of the whole person - body, spirit and mind. Many holistic techniques have never had their efficacy or safety evaluated.www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_h.htm
[4] Ravi Zacharias. Beyond Opinion, Living the Faith We Defend, John Lennox, "Challenges from Science," pg. 112.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)