Posted on by Abe Austin

That Which Aches Most

That which aches most is not necessarily the most important.

When you take stock of your life, certain parts will likely satisfy you, and others will leave you wanting. Your connection to the divine, your friendships, your romantic relationship, your family, your career path, your physical health, your finances, your hobbies and interests…you were hopefully able to make some of these play out the way you’d always hoped, but surely there are some that are a great disappointment.

And the greatest of those unrealized dreams will ache most terribly. We may yet hold out hope for their eventual fulfillment, or despair at their permanent loss, but either way they leave a painful wound in the soul.

But, of course, if we did have those missing dreams realized, but lost other dreams that we already have, then those new lost parts would ache instead. And they might ache even more, because they might be even more essential to our soul. One of the great mistakes that people make is to sacrifice that which is higher to try and soothe the aching of that which is lower. Or they do the inverse, clutching to the lower fulfillment, at the expense of achieving the higher.

You must understand the hierarchy of the soul. The elements that matter most. Accept that some aching is inevitable and be wise in what you are willing bargain to fix it. Do not sacrifice that which is higher for what is lower. Do not hold onto that which is lower at the expense of what’s higher.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Danger of Growth

Predetermined Expectations)

I grew up in an active Christian household. Every Sunday, I attended church with my family. There was never any consideration of not going, and through my childhood it never even dawned on me that that would even be an option.

Of course, at a certain point, I became a young adult and stopped living in my parents’ home. I started taking care of myself, making my own plans, my own decisions for the day. I remember it dawned on me that I didn’t have to go to church. I could just sleep in, or get chores down, or play. I could go once in a while, whenever I started to feel guilty about being away for too long. Or, I could keep going every Sunday, maintaining the same pattern I had been raised with.

I had a choice, and having realized such, my relationship with my faith could no longer be taken for granted. If I was going to remain a Churchgoer, it would not be by accident. It would be because I had actively chosen it for myself. And if I was going to be tepid in my faith, or backslide entirely, that would also not be by accident. It would be because I had actively chosen it.

I have heard that young adulthood is a point where many churches lose large swathes of their congregation, and given my own experiences at that time, I am not surprised. In our culture, his is the age in which we give full autonomy, and for many Christians, this the first time that they start considering other options. I have heard a lot of Church leaders asking how we can change this trend, how we can ensure we don’t lose people at this pivotal moment. Frankly, I think this falloff is inevitable. It is not a flaw in the system. It is simply a byproduct of choice.

Stronger Ties)

Having a choice means having the ability to choose the worse option, and there will always be some that choose it. If the ability to choose the worse option is removed, then there isn’t really any choice. And maybe that seems like a good thing. It prevents the bad outcomes. However, it also prevents the possibility for growth.

Growth requires a choice. Character development requires deciding to do what is right even when there are other tempting offers. Church attendance is just one example of this, but there are countless others. No one is truly courageous until he has chosen action over fearful retreat. No one is truly virtuous until he has turned down the opportunity to act out his lusts. No one is truly good until he has conquered the desire to be bad.

To have growth, you must have genuine choices, and genuine choices are dangerous things. It creates the possibility of failure but also creates the possibility of entering a new level of discipleship.

Some of those who recognize they can stop attending church choose to keep going anyway. Some decide to take a step away from church, but later on decided to come back. And for both of these groups of people, their status in the church is now more genuine, more real, more mature than ever before. Having made an actual choice, they are actually invested, they are there because they want to be, and they are giving up something else to make this a priority. They are attending church on purpose. They are successful, because they had the real possibility of failure.

There is no getting around this. Growth will always come with danger. The only way to remove danger is to deny growth, and that is an even worse outcome than failure.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A Choice of Integrity

A choice of integrity is a choice that I can live with for the long term and not hurt my conscience. If I am making a choice that I am willing to tolerate only for a time, but could not abide by permanently, then it is likely not a choice that I am making in integrity.

That is not to say that there cannot be changes of situation or perspective. It is possible to make one choice in integrity, and then with integrity change it afterward. It is also possible to recognize that one is entering a special season in life, and posture oneself accordingly, with the up-front understanding that after the season is over things will change.

But if from the outset I make a choice with the hope and expectation that those around me will change so that I do not have to abide by that choice any longer, then I have started without integrity. I am looking for outside sources to rescue me from my own decision, and that means I am making a violation against myself. I should not count on outside situations or people to change. I should ask myself what I would do from my conscience if they never changed, and the answer to that question is the choice of integrity.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What Darkens the Soul


You will at times be selfish. You will be unwise. You will believe wrong things. You will hurt those that you love. You will give in to fear. You will judge wrongly.

None of this is good, but it is common and accepted. Many of these sins will be committed without thought, without meaning to do wrong, but afterwards realizing that your behavior went astray. Do not worry. Christ has atoned for all of these and obtaining forgiveness is easy.

Much more significant are the moments where God has already granted you clarity, where you have a sure understanding of what is right, and you sin against that knowledge anyway. You feel the full weight of your conscience, and you defy it anyway. And you do so because following your conscience would come at great personal cost. You learn that your soul has a price, and you have just exchanged it for that price.

These are the moments that truly defile you. These are the infractions that darken the soul. These are the choices that sin against the light. These are the times that lead to true damnation.

Of course, even here, repentance is possible, but it will be at an even greater cost than what you first sold your soul for. You must go back and correct the very choice you made wrong, and the consequences for doing right will be even higher now. It will hurt, you may be sure of it, but you may also be sure that it will be worth it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Overcorrection

I believe that societies generally strive to align with truth and reality, but being mortal, we inevitably get some of it wrong. It takes time, but eventually we do catch on to these errors, but unfortunately it is then our tendency to overcorrect in the other direction, and another generation goes by before we realize it. Letting go of the last generation’s mistakes is so pleasant, that we do not recognize the new harm we’re causing until we’ve already passed it on to the next generation.

I see this very keenly with my own millennial generation, which recognized the folly of mandatory morality, but which overcorrected into licentiousness. Mandatory morality can also be described as “perfectionism.” It was the pattern that many millennials were raised with, where we were given this notion that we had to do all of the good things. We had to go to church. We had to get married and have children. We had to grow up and act responsible. And yes, all of these are objectively good things, the very things that every society should have as its top priorities. The problem, though, was that “had” that came with them.

Millennials hated that had. We balked at the notion that our agency was being stripped from us, and we were hellbent on proving that we didn’t have to do anything that we didn’t want to. And prove it we did, by abandoning all the best things of society. We became atheists, we deconstructed the nuclear family, we refused to leave our adolescence. All to prove a point to the prior generation, we ruined our own sense of purpose and happiness, and demanded that the next generation should also be raised with no duties or obligations.

It would have been a great sign of wisdom and nuance, if we could have instead corrected the error while still preserving everything else that was good. I do wish that millennials had said, “you’re wrong, we don’t have to do the good things, but we do choose to.”

Of course, it’s not as if my generation’s story is over. Perhaps we went astray, but we may still have time to get wiser and set things right.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Choose Your Conviction

People, as a general rule, don’t choose their beliefs
They give their core conviction to a single, ultimate Being
Or Philosophy
Or Cause
And then their beliefs are given to them by that source
So, choose your core conviction wisely

Posted on by Abe Austin

False Moral Dilemmas- Conclusion

Summary)

In this series I explored the world’s strange fascination with moral dilemmas, noted how many of them are unbelievable and contrived, and how even the ones with a historical precedent always had a moral option, even if you have to look outside the box to find it. Another key point that I mentioned was the importance of recognizing disengagement as an option. If you are presented options A and B, and both would compromise your conscience, you could always just do nothing at all.

I also pointed out how both outside-the-box thinking and moral inaction are demonstrated in the life of Jesus. It is from him that we see that the perfect path, with no moral compromise, is actually possible.

At least, it is possible in theory. I also acknowledged that each of us will, of course, compromise ourselves at some point, but that we need to accept and confess that failure, not try to sweep it under the rug by saying we had no choice but to do wrong. We can both have grace for our poor choices while admitting that they were, indeed, poor choices.

The Uncomfortable Truth)

Accepting these truths can be uncomfortable as they leave us no way to hide from the reality of difficult moral choices. Believing that there is no good choice is the easier option, as it justifies us in shrinking from painful consequences. Once we accept that there is always a good path, then we can no longer betray God in ignorance. Then, any time that we do something to get what we want or to avoid pain, we do it with eyes wide open, and we know that we will have to account for it someday.

It is, therefore, both a blessing and a burden to know that choosing good is always an option. That knowledge might condemn us to dissatisfaction or pain in the short term, but it is also the path to ultimate redemption.

Posted on by Abe Austin

False Moral Dilemmas- The Third Choice

The Need for Miracles)

In the last post we discussed so-called moral dilemmas present us with only bad choices, each a compromise of conscience, but if we are willing and creative enough to find it, there is typically another option that sidesteps the dilemma and allows us to keep on the straight and narrow. First, we have to move outside of the manufactured box that our tester has put us in, then see the full range of possible choices, and finally be willing to accept the consequences for sticking to what is right.

Indeed, a common theme all throughout the Bible is people who are faced with exactly these sorts of situations, who then have to step outside the bounds of their initial perception and rely on a miracle to accomplish good and retain their souls. Think of Lot, who saw his only choices as letting the wicked men of the city either rape his guests or his daughters, but who was then saved by angels. Think of Joseph who could either put Mary away in secret or have her stoned for adultery, but who then received a heavenly message to show him that she truly bore the son of God. Think of Solomon who had two women claiming to be the mother of the same child, with nothing in their testimony to show him whom to believe, but who was blessed with wisdom to find out the truth.

Moral dilemmas, and their outside-the-box solutions, are a key theme in the scriptures. When the righteous are faced with no-win scenarios, that’s when the hand of God becomes manifest to show them another way. Indeed, the entire point of the gospel is that it provides a surprise solution to a damned situation. Many of us will sin and earn the suffering of hell, while those that die in their innocence are still swallowed in the grave. No matter which path we take through this life, we’re damned, at least we were until a Savior presented us a miraculous alternative.

The Master of Third Options)

It comes as no surprise that Jesus, himself, was a master of resolving seeming no-win, moral dilemmas. I think more than any other figure in the Bible he was put to the test with contrived situations that tried to get him to compromise himself one way or another.

Think of when the Pharisees brought him the woman taken in adultery, and asked if he would uphold Moses’s law, which required the stoning of the woman. Would he deny the law? That would be heretical. Would he condemn her to death? That would go against his mission to forgive and to save. Jesus stepped outside of their trap, though, and said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” In so doing, he touched their guilt and got them to slink away in shame.

But it’s not as though he was denying the justice of the law. Jesus was still worthy to stone her, but also, he was able to forgive her because he would take her stoning upon himself when he laid his life down as a ransom for the world. Thus, Jesus did not transgress justice, nor embrace condemnation. He found a third way to satisfy justice and make space for mercy.

Think also of when he was asked whether the people should pay taxes to their oppressor Caesar. On the one hand, he could say that yes, they were required to pay their taxes, which would offend the people. Or he could say no, that they should defy Caesar, which would make him an enemy of the state. Jesus, however, chose a third option. He showed the people that their entire framing was wrong. They were putting too much value in worldly currency, thinking that it amounted to anything of moral weight in the eyes of the Lord. He reminded them that worldly treasure and spiritual sacrifice were two separate things, one properly pertaining to the world and one to God. By helping to disentangle the two, and setting the spiritual as superior to the temporal, Jesus found a third path that both approved the paying of taxes while also diminishing its importance in the broader scheme of things.

The stories of Jesus and others in the Bible shows us that we may be given traps where it appears that there are no good solutions, but that if we have some ingenuity, or even some divine intervention, the moral way is still there for us. As Paul told the Corinthians, “With the temptation,” God will “also make a way to escape” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Posted on by Abe Austin

False Moral Dilemmas- Nazis at the Door

A Real-Life Example)

Yesterday I made the assertion that most moral dilemmas are manufactured. By far, the correct moral option is apparent in our day-to-day choices, and that thought experiments like the trolley problem tie themselves in unrealistic knots to try and force a situation where every action seems to be morally compromised.

But are there any other thought experiments that are based on historical fact? Situations that people really faced where every action was wrong?

Well, another common thought experiment that seems at first glance to fit the bill is that of the Nazis at the door. This one is at least based on an actual historical occurrence. During World War Two, there were people that would hide Jews, and Nazi soldiers would be sent from door-to-door, investigating whether anyone in the community knew where the Jews were. So, the thought experiment is simply to put yourself in the place of someone who knows where the Jews are hiding, with a Nazi officer having just asked you to reveal them.

The question is, would you lie and say that you don’t know where they are? Or, because lying is wrong, would you tell them the truth, resulting in their likely death? This is presented as an example of a time where obviously the “correct” choice is to lie. The example is given to convince us that sometimes we must do wrong to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

The Third Choice)

But the whole thought experiment is flawed. As with the trolley problem, the situation is always presented with only two choices, implicitly discouraging any sort of moral creativity. But to suggest that lying or betraying the Jews are the only options is false.

How’s this for a third choice: refuse to engage with the Nazis by principle? Whether you know where Jews are hiding or not, you could always just refuse to say a word to them. Of course, that might have some very painful repercussions on you. You might be hurt, you might be killed, but there’s no denying that this way you didn’t do anything to compromise your conscience.

Perhaps we don’t feel that we have the moral fortitude to commit to such a course of action. Perhaps we would rather compromise our soul than suffer the consequences of silence. Fair enough, we’re all a work in progress, but let us admit that the error is in us, not in the logic of the universe. There is no paradox of having to do wrong to achieve right, our dilemma is that our fear has precluded the only good option, leaving only bad ones before us.

So, once again, we have a thought experiment designed to force us into compromising our morals, but once again it is contrived and forced. Purely moral behavior still remains an option.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Choice in the Time of Proving

Our lives are defined by a few pivotal choices, special moments where we are presented with what is easy on one side, and what is right on the other, and then we prove to ourselves and anyone observing whether or not we are a person of principle, someone who will stick to conscience no matter what.

It is important that we don’t see these moments as predetermined by who we already are, though. It is not as if our quality of character is already locked in, and we simply behave according to our predetermined nature. No, these are moments of active free will. Suppose we have a moment where the right thing is to divulge a difficult truth. We can say to ourselves, “I’ve always struggled with honesty, but I wish I were the sort of person who told the truth, no matter what, and here in this moment I can behave as if I were.” Then, we can make the choice to be that person of honesty just in that moment, and that decision transforms us into really being that way.

Do not worry whether you will have the necessary qualities when the time comes, simply resolve to make the choice that is right, whether you think you’re ready for it or not. No matter the hesitation and doubt, you can choose to be the person that you always wanted to be.