Posted on by Abe Austin

Inside Out- Internal Control

Yesterday we talked about the external influences that society puts on us, molding us into decent and productive citizens. We talked about how there is great good in this, and that we ought not to do away with it. However, we also discussed the limitations of external influence. How it can allow for a society of moral behavior, but inwardly immoral people. How it can be eroded, and when that happens, horrors follow.

Internal Control)

True stability in society requires internal control. It requires people to be inwardly converted to the principles of morality and civility, who will self-govern themselves, no matter what the laws or social norms say. Thus, laws of the land may be important, but laws of the heart even more so.

Consider how Jesus’s words align with this. “Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man,” (Mark 7:18, 20). We can infer that the opposite of this statement is also true, it is not that which goes into a man, but comes out of him, that justifies him and proves him good. It is the choices from the inner place, not the outer, that truly matter.

Notice, then, how sensible the work of missionaries and proselytizers is. They do not go to change public policy, to lobby for laws, to influence the external controls. They go to the individual, convict them of moral sin, reintroduce God to heal what is broken in the heart, and leave a soul that is personally committed to doing what is good. It is hard work and is only effective on those who are open to it, but it is the most important work to maintain the fabric of our societies, let alone the saving of souls.

A Warped Priority)

You would think that we as a people would have learned the importance of this work. That we would trust that as we focused on the individual soul, that the collective society would improve. That as we fixed what is inside, all of the outer peripheries would correct themselves on their own.

As one who gave two years of my life to missionary efforts, I can tell you that that is not the case at all. Opposition to proselyting efforts, and a desire to banish them is everywhere. Both from governments and individuals. Not only this, but we live in a time where people who do have a strong moral compass are often ridiculed or considered suspect. Instead, people crave more legislation, more external control, more outer force, particularly on those they disagree with.

As discussed yesterday, this is a very dangerous attitude to take. The more society discourages and tears down internal control, the more its people will be uprooted from true morality, the more wildly they will start to swing, and eventually they will surely fall to debauchery, perversion, and destruction.

In summary, this question of inner or outer moral convictions may seem a small and simple thing, but its long-term implications are far-reaching. All of us should be sharply aware of our own reliance upon internal or external controls, and also our society’s. And for both ourselves and others, the most important work is to heal the heart within, connect God to the inner man, and establish internal moral control.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Stop Trying to Change the World

Stop trying to change the world. When people use that term today, all they mean is finding fault elsewhere and making others change.

Which doesn’t work, because they are doing the same thing, finding fault in you, and trying to make you change.

And in this cycle no one actually changes. They only become more entrenched.

So, stop trying to change the world.

Just change yourself.

Posted on by Abe Austin

How the World Can Ever Change

Maybe even if I change
The world will stay the same
But on the other hand,
How can the world ever change
If I’m still staying the same

Posted on by Abe Austin

Taking Accountability- Conclusion

Big Problems)

In this little series of posts, it was my sole intention to act out the principle I had recently espoused, to put my behavior where my belief was. And so, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death I identified a way that I contributed to the culture that got him killed, and I took steps to change my behavior accordingly.

But that wasn’t all that came out of these posts. By going through this exercise, I was able to more fully flesh out some of the vague ideas that originally inspired my call for us to find our own personal responsibility in every ill that besets us.

I realized that a major reason for us all to seek out our own slice of responsibility is because that is the only way that the world will ever be healed. Some problems are just too big for some of us to solve it for everyone else. Everyone has to tackle the part that is directly in front of them.

We must not have the arrogance to think that we can divide ourselves into fixers and problems. We all have to see that we are each a fixer, and we are each a problem in and of ourselves. And so, we must take our fixer part and use it on our own problem part, and only by doing this individually can we heal collectively.

A Call Inward)

I invite all of us to start looking at the big problems of the world in this way. I suspect it will be best if we look at the deepest problems, things much more fundamental than politics or ideological divides. Let us consider the hate, the poverty, the deceit, the confusion, and the loneliness. For once, let us set aside who is most responsible for these issues, and just ask, “to what extent am I responsible?”

Is there something negative that we are doing that we could stop? Is there something positive that we should be doing that we are shirking? Can we truly say that we have a clean conscience? That we have contributed nothing to the problem? That we have done our part to contribute to the solution? Or is there room for improvement, room for taking the beam out of our own eyes, room to re-establish heaven in our little corner of the world?

Posted on by Abe Austin

Taking Accountability- Acknowledging Limitations

My Commitment and Influence)

In my last post I explained how I feel that I have given my attention to social media that escalates tension and promotes an “us vs them” mentality. I have been more likely to click on a video because the thumbnail or title promised outrage and blame. And in so doing, I have signaled to the algorithms that I, and people like me, want to engage with this sort of content, want to consume it, and want to be emotionally charged by it. And it’s not hard to see how that drives division, animosity, and eventually violent ideation in the most impressionable of minds.

And so, with yesterday’s post I made a commitment that I was going to stop engaging in this cycle of escalation and tension. I have gone through all of my subscriptions and purged the voices that were most divisive and angry. I am resolving to lessen their reach by at least one viewer, and by that take accountability for my own, little slice of the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Limited Scope)

I think that that conclusion is pragmatic and realistic. Of course, to be honest, it has its limitations. It is not as though that I am equally responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk as some other people are, or that I have the power within me to change everything wrong that led to his murder. This moment of introspection wasn’t about convincing myself that I’m guilty of his murder or making it my sole responsibility to make sure something like that never happens again. That would not be realistic. This moment was about seeing how I am guilty of some things, and how those parts are in my power to change.

This isn’t about changing everything; it’s about changing me. And that might not seem important from the scope of the world, but it is important from the scope of me. My own world and my own soul will be better for making this change, and right now that’s what I want to focus on.

Also, who knows. I’ve seen in the past where I’ve made changes to myself and then seen parallel shifts happening in the world at large. I actually do believe that our spirits are bigger than we think, and that they pull on more strands than we know, and one person making a change for himself can create unseen ripples in the world around him.

More than anything, though, I think the real importance of making a personal change comes down to this: the world is much bigger than I am and requires much more effort to be moved, so if I won’t find the will to change just myself, then obviously the world won’t either. Or in other words, maybe the world will stay the same even if I change, but how can the world ever change, if I’m still staying the same?

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Most Important Change

The most important change to make
Is to develop the ability to make changes

Posted on by Abe Austin

Answers, but Not Truth

We are exhausted and cynical
Running into dead-ends everywhere
Because we live in a world full of answers
But not truth

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reciprocity of Good

Every parent hopes that the world will be good to our children.

Certainly, we do what we can to shape the world in that direction, but there is only so much that we can do. 

Far more effective, then, is to shape our children to be good to world, and then trust that reciprocity will see good reflected back to them.
Posted on by Abe Austin

Fickle Popularity

I may not be very old, but I have already witnessed the way society can swing from one trend to another. I see the masses scramble onto today’s favored platform, only to be embarrassed when it becomes tomorrow’s laughingstock.

I believe that a key component of this is that too often we choose our stance more off of who else is standing there, and not by the merits of the platform itself. The fact is, there are values to be respected in most every position. Conservatism and liberalism, inclusivity and solidarity, faith and skepticism, individualism and collectivism, a solid case can be made for each of these, and it is my personal belief that the correct position comes by taking the good parts of each.

But balance is not the typical position of society. Typically, people go all in on one or another, believing that they do so because of their commitment to its underlying ideals, but more so because of the attractiveness of the community that is built upon it.

Whenever a platform becomes too popular, it starts to attract “all kinds.” Some of the meanest and least understanding jump onto it, and they bring out all the worst extremes of that particular ideal. The rest of society can see the growing ugliness in that position, and so they take up the opposition. In order to escape the depravity of the old platform’s worst tenets, people fully commit to its opposite, until it becomes the popular thing to do. As the masses invest in that side, then they also start to attract even the uglier parts of society to their platform and the cycle repeats, over and over again.

Playing this game is exhausting. Great effort is made, but any short-term progress is eventually undone by an over-correction in the other direction. It’s a pity, because I don’t think it has to be that way. I see the potential for mankind to balance one another out, to elevate the most powerful ideals in each platform, but to circumscribe them by the bounds of all the others. By this I believe we could continually progress towards greater and greater virtue, rather than rising only to fall as has been our historical pattern. I believe this unified progression is a vision of heaven, the society that we shall have when our Lord reigns supreme.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Evil in God’s World

A Common Argument)

I have frequently heard the argument that if we have an all-loving God, how are tragedies and disasters a part of this world? I have addressed this issue in part with previous posts, but today I wanted to point out a fundamental flaw in the argument itself.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave this argument in an interview where he said, “Every description of God that I’ve heard holds God to be all-powerful and all-good, and then I look around, and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti, and I see earthquakes, and tornadoes, and disease, childhood leukemia, and I see all of this and I say I do not see evidence of both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.”

I find it interesting that Tyson’s public persona is entirely based around having a scientific mind, yet his argument is entirely unscientific. He jumps to a conclusion that is not at all supported by the premises. Here are the premises that he establishes:

  1. God is all-powerful
  2. God is all-good
  3. ???
  4. There is great tragedy in this world

And from these he draws the conclusion that the last premise is incompatible with the first two. But as it stands, the statements of God’s character and the state of the world live in isolation from one another. There is a crucial premise missing, one that would establish what the relationship between God and the world even is!

This is the fundamental flaw in all of these criticisms. They speak of the nature of God, and the nature of the world, but never establish what one of those has to do with the other. It is quite a leap to say that if God is all-good that He is required to enforce only good things on the Earth of today. Where did that notion come from? Why can’t God be all-good and not puppeteering everything that plays out in humanity?

The Perfect Earth)

One thing that Tyson did not explicitly say, but which I believe is implied in his argument, is that the missing link between God’s goodness and the state of the earth is that God created the earth. If God is perfect, and the original author of our existence, then why isn’t that existence perfect also?

But even introducing this to the argument doesn’t make it any better. Because if one is going to question why a perfect God did not create a perfect world, the obvious answer is, “well, according to our records…He actually did.” In the first chapters of Genesis, we read that God created a world where everything was “good.” There was no death, no sickness, none of the great tragedies that so distress us today. Thus, the expectation actually fit the reality at the moment of creation. God did give us exactly the sort of world that we would have expected Him, too.

But states can change. And man, not God, chose to introduce sin into this world, corrupted its perfection, and gave birth to the fallen earth that we see all around us. This is all made clear in the first three chapters of the Christian canon, so it doesn’t make sense to state that the Christian conception of God does not account for the disparity between His goodness and the world’s evil.

If one does not believe in the biblical explanation, so be it, but don’t claim that there isn’t any explanation. Indeed, this is one of the unique and compelling aspects of Christianity, that it not only acknowledges the dual nature of our existence but also provides one of the clearest, most explicit explanations of that division’s origin.

Of course, one might still be troubled by the disparity between the professed perfection of the Christian God and the suffering in the world, and one might feel that if God really is all-powerful, then He ought to be able to reclaim that fallen world. And to that I say, brother, have I got some good news for you!