Why Change?

Ismael commented on my last sermon, and he asked a very good question:

If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?

Why indeed?

Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't.  I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.

But let's delve a little bit deeper.  First, let me ask: what is good?  How do you know what is good?  What is bad?  What is indifferent?

Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results?  Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?

If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness.  That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective.  (Nietzsche)  I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".

And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics.  (The end result is the most important.)  Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case?  What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought?  (That is the first problem.)  The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority.  It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago.  It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change?  The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property.  It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.

We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer.  Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics.  Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.

Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused?  If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good.  2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.

#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation.  If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it.  I feel better about myself.  I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.

One may ask: what is wrong with this?

Nothing, to begin with.  The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good.  If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant.  Rarely does anyone do this.  In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant.  They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant!  Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere.  One will suffice.

Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy.  "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church."  Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement?  For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously?  Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously?  Answer: Self-righteousness.  It pervades our churches and our society.  Why?

This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self.  It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good.  (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this.  I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)

#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing.  I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own.  We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering.  There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.

On the surface.

But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out.  There is not enough of you to go around.  Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.

You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall.  Evidence abounds for this among care-givers.  Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others.  You will desperately want to hear their affirmation.  You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back.  And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair.  It is not a pleasant place to be. 

Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option.  One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others.  I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."

For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God.  Why?  Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere.  We didn't make it up.  If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche.   If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)

Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good?  Do I accomplish the good I need?  Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others?  Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?

I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not.  We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could.  Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do.  We give as long as we are comfortable.  We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it.  We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly.  At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world.  We do not live up to that natural law.

One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further.  C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed.  Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully.  How so?  Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state.  I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life.  Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough.  This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter.  I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount.  The question is: do I do so?  Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need?  Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need?   Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required?  Short answer: no.

So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver?  If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us?  If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere.  I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms.  I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do.  If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever.  You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from.  You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.

But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation.  I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do.  I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver.  And how do I do that?

Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder."  "Do more."  "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."

The problem is, we cannot.  Why?  Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things.  We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good.  Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness.  Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms.  "Do unto others..."  If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me.  In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world...  History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.

Only Christianity offers an alternative.  Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver.  You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder.  You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own.  You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others.  Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."

And the Word became flesh and lived among us...

God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.

In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation.  Only Christianity.  (There is much, much more to it than this.  Books have been written explaining this further.  I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)

And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."

It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works. 

And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change.  For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms).  Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things).  It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do.  And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.

(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God.  I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)

Who Are You Trying to Please?

There is a little saying I have seen on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and on the internet on numerous occasions. I might be paraphrasing it a little differently, but the gist is the same. It reads:

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow is not looking good either.

I hope that caused you to chuckle just a little bit. It generally brings at least a grin to my face every time I see it. But as is the case with many little snippets, there are some underlying truths that are being addressed.

One of the truths being addressed is the seeming need by some people to have everyone please them. Perhaps you have run into such a person in your life. Fortunately, I think such folks are relatively rare, but when you run into them, you know it.

When I was in seminary, part of my training was to work as a hospital chaplain for 10 weeks. During that time period, I was called to visit a patient who was causing some difficulty. When I arrived, we began talking. After only a few minutes, the lady began asking me to do all sorts of things. At first, I graciously helped her with a few items, but then she asked me to do something that I wasn’t allowed to do.

I said, "I’m sorry ma’am, I cannot help you with that."

She retorted, "Why not?"

I replied, "I’m not allowed to do that. You will have to talk to your nurse to see if she can help you with that."

The woman, in a none-too-pleased tone responded, "You are a chaplain, aren’t you?"

I said, "Yes."

She quipped, "Aren’t you supposed to make me feel better?"

I answered, "No, ma’am. You’ve got to do that yourself."

And that’s when the fight started. No, not really. There was no fight, but there was a look of shock from this woman. She literally expected me to do whatever it took to please her, and she wasn’t exactly happy when I wouldn’t comply. Fortunately, there were no ill effects of this visit, but I have remembered it to this day. Why?

Well, when you run across such people, you learn very quickly there is no way to absolutely please them. They will continue to ask for things and harp about things ad nauseum because of a reality I pointed to–no one can make another person happy. Happiness cannot be brought about by expecting others to provide it to you.

That’s point one. The second point is that if you end up trying to please everyone or please someone who expects you to provide that happiness, you will end up in dire straights. I’ve seen this happen more than a few times, but perhaps someone who illustrated this in a marvelous way is science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in his book I Robot. Now, please know this before I begin, the book I Robot is vastly different from the movie staring Will Smith. The book is actually a collection of short stories, and it is to one of these stories that we now turn. It is titled, "Liar!"

Mind you, this book is science fiction, so you will have to allow your imaginations to work. In the story "Liar!" a robot develops the ability to read minds. The people in the story are trying to figure out why to begin with, but they soon find themselves entangled in a massive web of intrigue. It seems like the robot is lying to them. Theoretically, this should be impossible according to the three laws which govern robot behavior. Those laws are:

Law #1: A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction, or allow a human being to come to harm.

Law #2: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

Law #3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Now, Law #1 is critical to the story "Liar!" A robot may not injure a human being through inaction or allow a human being to come to harm. The robot in the story can read minds, and because it can read the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of those humans, it works diligently to make sure no injury comes to those human beings–even emotional injury. Think about that, and then think about your thoughts and what you desire and who you care about and what you would like to happen to you in the future.

Imagine someone who could read those thoughts and then read the thoughts of others. Imagine what would happen if you asked them about what others were thinking. Oh how nice it would be to find out what others were actually thinking about you. But then realize, the person who could read minds couldn’t injure you even emotionally. Imagine the person who could read minds saying exactly what you wanted to hear so that you felt no emotional pain. Imagine what that would do to you when you found out that you had been lied to. What would happen?

Well, in the short story "Liar!" the robot who actually did this ended up making absolutely no one happy, and when it realized it was actually causing pain by trying to make everyone happy, its brain short circuited and was fried.

Can you see the lesson raise by Asimov? Perhaps he didn’t intend for that lesson to come forward, but it’s pretty obvious to me–if you try to please everyone, you will actually please no one, and you will fry your brain in the process.

But this raises the question: who then are we to please? Who are we to focus on? Ourselves? I think if we focus totally on pleasing ourselves, we become like that lady I spoke about in the hospital. And we certainly cannot try to please everyone? Should we just work on pleasing our family? Our friends? Our boss? But what if they turn into those who abuse our good nature? Who are we to work toward pleasing?

As Christians, we have the answer to that question. It is tackled by St. Paul in the book of Galatians, and we have a portion of that before us this morning. In the opening verses of this book of the Bible, Paul writes:

10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Am I now seeking human approval or God’s approval? Which do you think Paul focuses on?

If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. If there was any doubt, Paul clears it up with that statement. He is not here to please people, and neither are we. We are here to please God. Period.

And what does it mean to please God? What does it mean to make God happy? Well, first off, we need to realize, that we can’t totally please God. All have fallen short of His glory. Even with being redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection, we still don’t stop sinning. We cannot achieve perfection. So, even if we don’t achieve perfection, what do we do? Do we cease trying? Do we stop trying to please God because we know His standards are unattainable?

Let me ask you this: does a baseball player refuse to step up and try to hit the ball even though his or her chances of actually getting a hit are generally about one in three? Does a basketball player stop trying to shoot baskets even though there’s only roughly a 50% chance she or he will make a basket? Does a football player refuse to give his all knowing that on most plays a touchdown is never scored or that he will not score that touchdown? Does a sprinter stop running as fast as he or she can even though he or she knows there is only one winner in the race–and there are others likely faster? No. In each scenario, the athlete strives to do his or her best. The athlete works because every once in a while, a ball is hit, a basket is made, a touchdown is scored, and a time is improved.

And what do you think happens when God sees us doing our best? What do you think happens when He sees us trying to please Him even though we fall short? Do you think He becomes angry? Do you think He grovels and prepares a couple of lightning bolts? No. Not at all. I’m pretty sure He says the same thing to us that He said to Jesus at Jesus’ baptism, "You are my child, with you I am well pleased." Amen.