Posted on by Abe Austin

Rights and Materialism: Part Two

In yesterday’s post we talked about God as a basis for our fundamental human rights, and also a more materialist/biological basis for them. I made the point that it is a false choice that we have to believe in only one basis or the other. We can conclude that our rights are made manifest both in the personhood of God and in the inherent nature of the human species.

I would go further, though, and say that not only can these rights be simultaneously rooted in both sources, but they need to be. The materialist/humanist may say that since the same rights can be found in our biological nature we don’t need God for our morals to exist, but that simply isn’t true. If our rights are secured in our biological nature exclusively, it is insufficient. Those rights would then be inherently weak and artificial. Today we will explore why.

Circular Dependency)

Let us quickly summarize how the materialist/humanist view might describe the origin of our rights. In essence, we are members of the human race, and the human race’s survival and flourishing depend on certain qualities for its members. For example, “life” is a quality that is essential to humanity’s survival, and “liberty” is a quality that is essential to humanity’s flourishing. Thus, “life” and “liberty” are basic human rights because they are necessary to the experience of being a human.

We can describe this as a simple equation. If we call humanity “X,” and the preservation of life “Y,” then we can say:

Y is essential for X
So X must secure Y
And if X didn’t have Y, then there would be no X to require Y
So X is also essential to Y

And perhaps the failing is starting to become evident. Y is a basic human right only because X requires it, and it also only exists as a concept because X does. The link between people and their rights is therefore circular, and rights only exist within the context of people themselves. Rights therefore have no recognition outside the orbit of people, they are not anchored in anything deeper than ourselves. If we say our rights come from some sort of “natural law,” it can only be natural within the scope of people, but no further. To the universe at large, there is no difference whether a rock is thrown into the sea, or a person. Nature doesn’t care whether these so-called rights of “life” or “liberty” are meted out to a species. The universe allows drones whose sole purpose is to serve the queen (no liberty), and it allows species to go extinct entirely (no life).

Now why is this a problem?

Removing Rights on a Large Scale)

The fact that the rights only exist within the context of humanity means that they are essentially made up, a mirage caused by the distortion of being a human. Yes, they might be important rights for people, but there is no deeper, more grounded basis for them. As such, it is easy to logically get around the authority of those rights.

Suppose that there was a subset of people that started to see themselves separate from the rest of all other people. In our above equation, they do not see themselves as “X,” they see themselves as “W.” W would then exist outside of the equation that X requires Y, and Y requires X. Therefore, it may be necessary for X to uphold Y, but there is no reason why W must uphold Y also.

And this is not just a theory. This exact behavior has happened a multitude of times throughout history. Perhaps most famously, it happened when Nazi Germany declared themselves an Aryan race, separate from the race of humanity, and therefore morally justified in torturing and killing other races as needed. And from the materialist/humanist view, this atrocity is entirely logical. Why would the Aryan have any more obligation to observe the rights of Jews, than the Jews would have any obligation to observe the rights of cattle?

And Nazi Germany was no exception. It has been the rule in all the world for thousands of years that one nation, upon defeating another, would enslave the defeated people, all because they were not part of the conquering identity. Humanity is constantly splintering itself into different collectives, viewing their group as more real, more elevated, more “human” than the others. Once you do that, then there is no reason not to enslave, or murder, or violate any rights of any outsider, because they are not the same humanity that you are, and their rights are local only to them, and your rights are local only to you.

Removing Rights on a Small Scale)

It doesn’t have to be so broad as an entire people seeing themselves as fundamentally distinct from another people, either. This separation of self from the species happens on a much more individual level.

Suppose I really do see myself as a member of the global humanity, and I really do believe that every other person and group of people also belongs to the global humanity, and I really do believe that we, as a collective, need to maintain certain rights for the betterment of us all. Could I not still carve out exceptions for myself, while still maintaining the rights for the broader humanity? I agree that X should not violate Y in general, but couldn’t I, a lower-case “x,” violate Y on a small scale? After all, poison is in opposition to the nature of a person’s life, and yet many will partake of alcohol, slightly poisoning themselves, and so long as that poison is kept beneath a certain threshold the person will still live. And in nature there are species where some of the adults will kill their own young, which is obviously in direct opposition to the continuance of that species, but if enough of the young do survive then the species can still go on.

So why can’t I permit myself to violate a human right on an individual level? Especially when it causes greater life and flourishing in me, personally? Maybe the victim of my theft will have a diminished quality of life, but mine will be increased, and so the population overall remains level. And if I kill my neighbor, what of it? So long as we don’t all kill our neighbors, the neighbor’s loss will have negligible effects on the whole.

I can even agree that society should prosecute and punish those that thwart its general human rights, that they are justified in condemning me if they catch me. But if they do not catch me, then there is no other authority that I have to answer to. Because, once again, I have violated a right that applies only to humanity, and if humanity cannot punish me for it, then there is no larger, universal law that I have to answer to.

This is why the materialist/humanist worldview by itself is insufficient. By its cyclical, self-contained nature it is easy to start making exceptions to it, creating entities that are outside of the humanity-rights circle. This view of people and their rights, taken to its logical conclusion, is nothing short of horror!

Tomorrow we will see why adding God as another basis for our rights answers all of these limitations, though, and how it does so in a way that cannot be broken.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Rights and Materialism: Part One

The Origin of Our Rights)

A society and a government often define morals based off of the “rights” of its citizens. If an action violates another person’s rights, then that action is considered immoral and faces legal or social repercussions. If something has no rights, then nothing that you inflict upon it can be immoral. Throwing a rock off a ship into the ocean is not immoral, because the rock had no rights, but throwing a person off the ship into the ocean is immoral, because the person has a right to life and bodily autonomy!

This, of course, raises the question of where do our rights come from, and how do we know what they are? In our western civilization, rights have traditionally been seen as endowed by our Creator. It was understood that God made man, and gave commandments that spelled out the rights that God gave to man. Man has a right to life, because God said “thou shalt not kill.” Man has a right to his property, because God said “thou shalt not steal.” And so on.

Alternative Basis for Rights)

Of course, not everyone believes in God, and not everyone agrees with the rights described in scripture. They therefore have the burden of providing another basis for our rights, and another method for knowing what those rights would be.

A person with a materialist, humanist worldview might argue that we do not need the dictates of God to identify basic human rights. They might observe that certain behaviors and states are necessary for the survival and flourishing of the species. Since we are members of this species, we should consider those behaviors and states to be natural rights, as to do otherwise would be paradoxical to our being.

And I would not disagree with such an observation. There are, indeed, certain biological realities that suggest the proper sort of behaviors between people. Members of the same species killing one another is obviously detrimental to the whole, so that leads us to the same “thou shalt not kill” that was also given on Mount Sinai. Furthermore, the historical record has shown that the greatest advancement and achievement of the human race has been motivated by people who had a claim to their own property and labor, and so we can again arrive at “thou shalt not steal.”

More Than One Basis)

But I, as a Christian, do not see this as an either/or situation. The fact that we can arrive at many of the same core human rights by biological examination and intelligent reasoning does not mean that God and His dictates do not also exist. Indeed, I see these as two parts of one testimony, supporting and reinforcing one another.

And, we do need both. The materialist-humanist may think that since we have the biological basis we do not need another basis in God, but this could not be further from the truth. I will explain why this is the case in tomorrow’s post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Tended Towards Ruin

A Heavy Loss)

There was a project that I once loved very much. It was a program oriented towards connecting men with God, helping them to bring their hearts back into His light. It was small and local, humble and unpolished, but it did truly miraculous things in the lives of those who attended it. Lately, though, I’ve found myself struggling to recognize that same institution from what it has become today. At some point, after about ten years of operation, the institution became a for-profit organization, and changes started being made for the betterment of the bottom line, not for the betterment of the men it served. Several of the original founders quit, due to personal disagreement with this new direction.

This has been a heavy thing for me to come to grips with, but as I have reflected on it I’ve realized that it was always going to go something like this. The special spirit of the old program had to meet its end one way or another, because that’s just the nature of things.

Tale as Old as Time)

I am reminded of the story of the tower of Babel. In it, a nation of people decide to build a great tower, reaching all the way to heaven. Bold enough to make themselves gods, they toiled and labored on this great elevation of man until the whole thing toppled to the ground.

We do not know exactly how high they built their tower, only that it fell before they could achieve their aim. Their construction became destruction, their order became ruin, and the people were returned back to the level of the fallen earth.

This, of course, is a type for all manner of structures in the world today. And I don’t merely mean physical structures, either. Even more so it applies to structures of law, of government, of ideology, of any edifice constructed by the wisdom of man.

The Way of Things)

Every club, organization, corporation, and ideal is laid with ruin in its foundation. On the one hand, this might be because they are laid with carnal and earthly motivations, such as focus on profit or notoriety. Once making money is one of the organization’s pillars, then it is tied to the natural things of this earth, all of which decay, erode, and finally collapse. Through the years we have seen countless companies over-exploit their workers, consumers, and intellectual properties, killing the golden goose just to get a higher profit in the short term. We have seen countless governments siphon power and wealth to the highest class until they became too top-heavy and collapsed under their own weight. The compromises that were deemed necessary to make the enterprise possible eventually make its continued existence impossible.

But even without a foundation of earthly motivations, every structure of man is still doomed to fall due to our fundamentally flawed nature. Even our organizations that are built on ideal, and virtue, and purity of intention, gradually erode and eventually go wrong entirely. Even if a core principle is worthy, if it is taken slightly too far at the beginning, it will magnify and accelerate over time, eventually becoming a great evil. It is like stacking blocks to build a taller and taller tower, given enough time and distance every structure leans too far one way or the other. Given enough time and distance, every little flaw becomes a crushing error, and the whole thing will topple. So an organization founded with a focus on discipline will eventually become fascistic oppression, whereas a focus on liberty will eventually become gross hedonism. We sow the death even in the birth, it is simply our nature.

Even God’s church, once entrusted to earthly stewards, is tended toward ruin. The world was in a state of apostasy in the time of Noah, and in the time of Abraham, and in the time of Jesus. God has to refresh His word among His people repeatedly, not because His word has deteriorated, but because we people just keep losing our grasp of it. We know that even the believers today will once again be on the brink of ruin when God will have to refresh everything with the second coming.

What Lasts)

Ironically, what truly lasts is what seems most transient. Though man’s works are doomed to fail, along the way they house occasional sparks of something pure and genuine. There can be a nugget of God in the midst of all the stone. And though that nugget seems momentary and transient, it is only because we are perceiving it through a shifting lens. In actuality, each of those nuggets is anchored in something realer and truer than the structure it was found within.

There is an entity behind all those sparks, a constant certainty beneath every brief wonder. By fastening ourselves to these pearls, and following their threads to deeper things, we tie ourselves to the only thing that is actually eternal.

The man-made program I once loved may be gone, but the experiences I found within it have not. Those experiences introduced me to the One who hasn’t changed at all, and never will. In reality, I haven’t lost a thing.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:20-25

20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the atop of the mount; and Moses went up.

21 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.

22 And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.

23 And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.

24 And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.

25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.

This is a very unusual set of verses. Moses had already ascended into the mountain, but the Lord told him to go back down and tell the people not to come up or they would perish. Moses replied that he had already told the people not to come up, as God had already communicated that requirement in the first place. God insisted, though, “Away, get thee down,” and so Moses went down to repeat the instructions to the people.

What was the point of this back-and-forth? Was God not aware that Moses has already given those instructions to the Israelites? Was there going to be a breach of protocol in spite of the original instructions, and God knew it, but Moses wasn’t expecting it? Was God simply making a point through repetition? Why weren’t Moses and God already on the same page on this matter?

Quite frankly, we aren’t given a clear explanation. In the record that we have, God never makes clear why this repeated instruction was deemed necessary. One thing that might be worth considering, though, is that the next time Moses was called up into the mountain we are not told that he went back down to remind the Israelites of their commitments, and that is the time that they actively defy the Lord and construct the golden calf.

So perhaps the Lord sent Moses down to interrupt them before they could go astray this time, but after they had received His law and more fully committed themselves, He would not stop them if they kept tending towards future infractions. Having made their bed, He would allow them to lie in it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:16-19

16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.

17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

All of Israel had been prepared, and now the miracle rolled down from heaven to the earth. Thunder, lightning, thick clouds, and the sounding of an unseen trumpet! Then, as the people gathered at the foot of the mountain, smoke, fire, quaking, an even louder trumpet. And finally, after all of that, the voice of God!

There is another passage of scripture that sounds very similar to this, which is when we are given the account of Elijah hearing the voice of the Lord in 1 Kings 19:11-12:

And a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

Wind, and earthquake, and fire, and finally a voice. However that later account is both similar and dissimilar to the one here in Exodus. While the 1 Kings account mentions a parade of dramatic forces of nature, it says God is not in any of them, while the elements presented here in Exodus seem to be directly heralding the Lord. Also, the account in 1 Kings describes a “still small voice,” whereas one would think the voice in Exodus was booming and loud, much like the trumpets that had sounded, so that all the camp would hear it.

I believe that both accounts give us half the picture of God. The fact that God lives in our hearts and is able to speak to us in a still, small voice does not mean He isn’t also the master of heaven and earth, appearing in great glory. There is both an outer manifestation and an inner manifestation of the Lord, but they are both one and the same God. Probably most of us are far more acquainted with the quiet, inner Lord who lives in our hearts, but we look forward to the day when we can meet (and survive!) an encounter with the outer Lord in all His majesty!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:14-15

14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes.

15 And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.

Moses relates God’s instructions for the Israelites to prepare themselves to witness His presence and hear His voice. Specifically we are told that they are to wash their clothes, and to refrain from any sexual activity.

There has, of course, been a history of sexual shame in certain sects of Christianity. Not just immoral acts of sexuality outside of the marriage covenant, but even suggesting that every child is born in sin because of the act that brought them into existence. However, it is worth noting that this passage is not at all evidence that any such view is appropriate.

Let us consider the other imperative given to the Israelites: that they wash their clothes. Certainly we can all appreciate how nice and fresh it feels to be clean, and how we want to present our best to those we respect and admire, yet would we say that we are sinful if we come home dirty from a long day of manual labor? Certainly not. Could we not have the same nuanced view towards sexuality within the marriage covenant?

Also, the command for husbands and wives to keep their distance calls to mind the practice of fasting, whereby we forego food and/or drink for a period of time. No one thinks that we are sinful because we have to eat food, but we appreciate that a period of self-denial can help to cultivate the spirit within. Could it not be the same with sexuality within the marriage covenant?

Therefore it is logical to assume that the instruction given to the Israelites for temporary sexual abstinence between husbands and wives was one of preparing themselves spiritually, an act of self-denial that would focus their energy inwards. That is not at all the same as saying that any sexual activity, even in a committed marriage between a man and a woman, is sinful.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:12-13

12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:

13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

In addition to their steps of purification, the Israelites were instructed that they not come too close to the mountain when the glory of the Lord was upon it. They would be permitted to hear His voice, but that did not mean that they could abide touching His presence directly.

This is an interesting notion, one that is visited again later when Uzzah, the Israelite, reaches out to steady the ark and is immediately struck dead (2 Samuel 6:6-7). What is it about the Lord’s presence that people must not come too near, on pain of death?

I see in this a lesson that total godliness is too great for us to endure. It is too bright, it is too pure, it is too glorious, such that it condemns our perverse, fallen flesh. We are like particles of dust that immolate from the heat around the fire, even before we touch the flame. That buffer of disintegrating heat ensures that nothing impure ever touches that perfect light.

This is why each of us must be purified in our hearts before we meet the Father, why we must have our corruptible flesh replaced by an immortal body, why Moses had to be transfigured for his own up-close encounter with the Lord. We require a divine intermediary between us to interact with God, because His glory is literally too much for us to handle!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:10-11

10 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,

11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.

Already we heard how the Israelites expressed their intent to do all that the Lord commanded them, and He had responded by saying that He would let them hear His voice directly. Before that could transpire, though, they had to go through a purification process. Much as how Moses had been commanded to put the shoes off his feet at the burning bush, the Israelites now needed to wash their clothes. This was a time for removing the dirt and the dust, the particles of the earth, in order to have as little of the world between them and the Lord when he arrived.

We will hear in the coming verses that the people were also instructed to not be sexually active during this period of three days. Thus this was also to be a time of fasting from the basic desires and habits of the flesh, a time of enhancing the spirit within. Their spirits had to be ready to meet the Lord’s spirit, their hearts had to be open to His heart, their will had to be subservient to His will. Only then would they be ready to receive His word as it needed to be received.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:7-9

7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.

8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.

The Lord had revealed to Moses His desire to make covenant and promise to the Israelites, but before doing so the Israelites needed to answer His offer. So Moses came down to the people, carrying with him the Lord’s words written down, and laid it before them to see what they would do with it.

Obviously, the Israelites had had their times of faithlessness and contention, but at this point they boldly declared their commitment. They were absolute in it as well, “all that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” Moses brought the words back to the Lord, and God revealed a very special plan. Not only would He give His covenant to the people, He would allow them to hear His voice directly in their own ears. Moses would still stand as a representative between the two, but the people would be able to listen in, receiving a personal testimony of the mind, will, and promise of the Lord.

Now, to be clear, the record is a little ambiguous as to whether they heard the entire set of laws that God spoke to Moses, or whether they only heard God calling out to Moses at the beginning and the rest of the transmission was related to them afterwards. In either case, the hearing of God’s word can be seen as something like a signature seal upon the law that He would give to them, assuring the people that it really came from Him and no other.

And this, of course, is something that has to be reenacted with each of us in our personal lives. We may have been told the good news by others, but God’s great desire is to speak His confirmation of it personally into our own ears. This example of the Israelites tells us the recipe that we can follow to have that same blessed result. After we have sought Him, and declared our commitment to do all that He has spoken, and purified ourselves, we can receive His word confirming His Law. Then we will know that the law is not just a law, but The Law, and that its author is God, not man.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:3-6

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

After Moses ascended into Mount Sinai the Lord called out to him, extending a promise and a covenant to all of Israel. My initial reaction to the things that the Lord is saying to the Israelites was that it seemed out of the ordinary. There are two qualities here that feel out-of-place for the Lord to be extending to the Israelites. One is such direct and frank communication from God, the other is promises of great blessings.

Thus far in the Biblical record, hearing God’s words and receiving His promises had been reserved for the prophets and patriarchs who had dedicated their entire lives to Him. Noah, Abraham, and Moses may not have been perfect, but they were clearly striving to be righteous vessels of God, which is more than can be said for the Israelites at this point of time. So why would God be giving messages and promises to population that was still so prone to wander?

But then I realized, that’s kind of the whole point. Moses’s great value to the Israelites was that he did have the close and intimate relationship with God where he could receive the Lord’s word and promises, and then he could then carry those back to the people who were still finding their way. Every Israelite could receive the word and promise of God, whether they were worthy of it or not. And certainly this is also the case today. Even the greatest of sinners today knows the word of God. They know about the golden rule, and that they should love their enemies, and that heaven is the reward for the righteous. They also know about God’s law for humanity, and the promises He extends to those that enter His fold. Regardless of whether they live according to these pearls of wisdom or not, regardless of whether they would ever hear these messages directly from the mouth of God or not, they still know these things and have the opportunity to accept them.

Through Moses, and the prophets that followed him, the transcendent became common. The unnatural became familiar. The divine condescended to the level of the ordinary man.

And what was the great promise and covenant that Israel received? That if they would obey God’s voice, and keep the covenant that He would reveal to them by degrees, then they would “be a peculiar treasure” a “kingdom of priests,” and a “holy nation.” In short, they would be lifted up from the base and the worldly, becoming a people set apart for the work of the Lord. They would be the Lord’s community, even while living in the midst of a fallen world. They would be the overlap between heaven and earth, a lifted and glowing ideal that no man could attain on his own, but could attain through the Lord.