Archive for the 'Thoughts' Category
A Call to Ministry
I just started reading Church Planter: The Man, The Message, The Mission by Darrin Patrick. It’s really good so far. I love this statement about a call to ministry:
All three of these confirmations – heart, head, and skill – must be present in a genuine call. The Pentacostal/charismatic camp tends to focus on heart and the supernatural calling from God. The Reformed/evangelical camp tends to focus on the head. The mainline churches often focus on skills. But in a genuine call all three are present (40).
Thoughts?
Related Posts:
No commentsToday’s Meditation. Sunday’s Content.
Hebrews 4:14-16
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Caedmon’s Call – The Emptiest Day
and I am looking for the well that won’t run dry
the rest the weary thoughts cannot deny
when You wrap Your arms around me
I can walk away or face the emptiest day
Related Posts:
No commentsBook Review: The Prodigal God by Tim Keller
Three Down
The Prodigal God marks the third Tim Keller book that I’ve read this year. All three books (The Reason for God, Counterfeit Gods, and now The Prodigal God) were gifts from my brother Andy and his family. They’re all worth your time.
A Revealing Twist on a Old Favorite
Tim Keller has an uncanny ability to take Bible stories that you’ve heard many, many times before and reveal their relevance in previously unthought of ways. The Prodigal God is a striking example. The entire book explores the parable of “the prodigal son,” or as Keller likes to call it, “the parable of the two lost sons.” As Keller’s renaming of the parable might suggest, he finds as much meaning and significance in the story about the older brother as he does in the story about the younger brother.
The title, “The Prodigal God” is also a bit of a twist on the normal understanding of this parable. The word “prodigal,” according to Keller, means “recklessly extravagant,” or “having spent everything” (1). And he aptly applies this title to God, who recklessly loves His people and who spent the life of His son for our redemption. Keller claims that he has “seen more people encouraged, enlightened, and helped by this passage, when he explained the true meaning of it, than by any other text” (XIII).
I don’t think Keller is stretching the meaning of this story. I think He’s right, and it’s amazing to see all the applications that this story entails.
Personally Speaking
For me personally, I can identify with “the older brother” in this parable. I know my standing before God is one based on Jesus’ performance and not my own performance. But sometimes, in the midst of life, I find myself believing that my performance is the ground upon which God is either proud or disappointed. Sometimes in these moments, especially when I think I am excelling in my pursuit of God, I am the most judgmental person you’d ever want to meet. I start expecting people to live up to my standards. This is pride, and it’s older brother syndrome. The Prodigal God, and about ten other things in my life right now, have helped remind me that I have plenty of faults, and I need to be humble. After all, when I am humble, I am most useful to God.
This is a good book. Easy to read. Life-changing. I wish it weren’t twenty bucks, because I’d buy about fifty copies and give them away.
Related Posts:
No commentsBook Review: The Gospel & Personal Evangelism by Mark Dever
I just finished
I just finished The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Mark Dever. It’s a little book (124 pages), packed with useful thoughts and explanations of how and why we should be involved in the activity.
I was really encourage by reading this book. It’s straightforward, useful, and humble in its tone. This is not a book about perfecting strong-arm techniques in order to force unsuspecting passers-by into praying meaningless sinners’ prayers. Nor is it a book aimed at “guilting” Christians to participate in sharing the gospel. Dever wants to demonstrate to his readers the joy of sharing the gospel. And he accomplishes this task by presenting a theology of personal evangelism, equipping readers to participate in the task, and remaining truthful and loving in his tone.
Chapters
The chapters in the book are:
1. Why Don’t We Evangelize?
2. What is the Gospel?
3. Who Should Evangelize?
4. How Should We Evangelize?
5. What Isn’t Evangelism?
6. What Should We Do After We Evangelize?
7. Why Should we Evangelize?
As these chapter titles illustrate, the book is straight forward, and yet it is full. For instance, take Dever’s chapter on “What isn’t Evangelism?” He explains that imposition, personal testimony, social action, public involvement, apologetics, and the results of evangelism are not by themselves evangelism. They can lead to evangelism, and are not all bad things, but they are not in and of themselves, the gospel. This is good insight and worth pondering. Dever helps the reader to think through these issues in an insightful manner.
A Few Quotes I Love
“We are called to love others. We share the gospel because we love people. And we don’t share the gospel because we don’t love people. Instead, we wrongly fear them” (27).
“The gospel, you see, is not simply an additive that comes to make our already good lives better. No! The gospel is a message of wonderful good news that comes to those who realize their just desperation before God” (40).
“Saving belief is not mere mental assent, but a believing in – a living in – the knowledge of that news. it is a leaning on, a relying on” (41).
“There is a common, worldly kind of Christianity in this day, which many have, and think they have enough – a cheap Christianity which offends nobody, and requires no sacrifice – which costs nothing, and is worth nothing” (Dever quoting J. C. Ryle, 42).
“Too often, advocates of relevant evangelism verge over into being advocates of irrelevant non-evangelism. A gospel that in no way offends the sinner has not been understood” (64).
“Societies are challenged and changed when, through this gospel, the Lord brings individual men and women together in churches to display his character and to pursue their own callings in the world” (76).
“Have you heard it said that the doctrine of God’s choosing some for salvation (the doctrine of election) undercuts evangelism? It didn’t in Paul’s life. As he later wrote to Timothy, ‘I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory’ (2 Timothy 2:10″ (104).
Conclusion
I like this book enough that I’m going to keep copies of it on our resource table at 24church. In fact, I’m honestly not sure that I have read a better book on personal evangelism. You should read it. I did. Now by God’s grace I hope to apply it.
Related Posts:
No commentsYou Should Probably Read The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
A Review of The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Abridged) by Barack Obama
A Halt in Normalcy
Due to the halt in normalcy that the Nashville Flood of 2010 brought these last two days, I listened to the audiobook version of Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. It was only upon the completion of the book that I realized it was a much-loathed abridged version. However, after rescanning audible.com, I realized that there was not an unabridged version of the audiobook available, and that somehow made me feel less cheated. I also discovered upon further investigation, that only one chapter, “The World Beyond Our Borders,” seems to have been left out of the abridged version. So I feel even less cheated, or at the very least, more secure in my assumption that I missed little of the content in full version of the book. Besides, the audiobook version is enhanced over the written form because Obama performs the narration himself. So I’m happy.
As the title of my review indicates, I believe you should probably read this book. And I believe that you should probably read The Audacity of Hope for at least three reasons: understanding, respect, and challenge. Reason number one: understanding. Barack Obama is our president, and the power and authority that he possesses greatly influence the lives of all Americans; we should understand his thinking if we can. And I might add, a book seems to allow him to explain himself in a more well-rounded way than a speech or a debate. Reason number two: respect. Despite your opinion about the politics of Barack Obama, he is a real person just like you and me. This book will, I believe, help readers to more readily respect him as a person, even if they disagree with his brand of politics. I grew up hating Bill Clinton, in fact villainizing him, because he was a Democrat. That’s a poor reason to despise someone. We should try to separate personal attacks from political opinions when possible. That is what I would appreciate if I were in the fishbowl-public-eye like President Obama. Reason number three: challenge. This text, whether you agree, disagree, or partially agree with its opinions, will cause you to think deeply about political issues in America. Obama’s candor makes The Audacity of Hope easy to read, but it is still challenging to think about. Obama will make your political opinions sharper. For all these reasons and more, I say you should read The Audacity of Hope.
Review
I’m honestly not really sure that I have the patience or the time to fully review all of the contents of this book. So like usual, I’m going to highlight a few topics that have me arguing with myself, and I hope to involve you in that discussion.
Complexity
Much of Obama’s dream about how politics should be approached in America are quite admirable. He talks about “different politics,” politics that are less partisan, less composed of concrete idealism, and more understanding of each side’s point of view. To quote him, “A government that truly represents these Americans, that truly serves these Americans, will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be prepackaged, ready to pull off the shelf. It will have to be constructed from the best of our traditions, and will have to account for the darker aspects of our past” (00:32:00). The description of “prepackaged politics” is what especially rings true to me in this quote. I have ideas, especially regarding moral issues such as abortion (i.e. murder), upon which I will not bend. There is no grey on this issue. Murder is wrong; abortion is wrong. However, despite my strong opinion on this issue, I agree with Obama that much of the debate within politics is less certain. It is less black and white and more complex. And I appreciate that Obama realizes this complexity.
Postmodernity
I posted a link to an article about a year ago that highlighted the idea that Barack Obama might be our first postmodern president. I agree with many of the thoughts expressed in that article, and after listening to The Audacity of Hope, I’m more convinced that Obama sees truth through a very postmodern lens. For instance, he highlights the different manners in which people interpret the Constitution. As he explains, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia argues that the Constitution has a single meaning, and only a single meaning, and that it should be interpreted based on the original intent of the authors. While other Supreme Court justices, such as Breyer, argue that the Constitution is a “living document,” and that the founders taught us mainly “how to think, not what to think.” This second view, the one that Obama takes, is extremely postmodern. It maximizes the reader’s role in determining the meaning of the document, and minimizes the writer’s role in determining the meaning of the document. This postmodernistic interpretational method is essentially relativism in disguise. To quote Obama, we should view our democracy “not as a house to be built, but a conversation to be had” (1:57:00). While this sounds amazing, and quite Rob Bell-esque I might add, it’s anti-logical and self-defeating. If everything has multiple meanings, then how can anything have actual meaning? It sucks when what you said is reinterpreted to mean something totally different from what you originally meant, and then you are denigrated for saying something that is quite the opposite of what you actually said, but were determined to have said by others who reinterpreted your words. Even Obama bemoans an article that he wrote for Time Magazine that was later taken out of context and reinterpreted by Peggy Noonan. And yet Obama’s own precepts of epistemology preclude this as a valid complaint if everything has various meanings.
Additionally, Obama is very sensitive in attempting to understand the individual views of different people upon every issue. He sees, (and I’m not attempting to put words in his mouth here), the good and the bad of each person’s opinion. While there is nothing wrong with empathizing in this way, it sometimes ignores the larger issue of actual truth, actual facts. If there is a right and a wrong, then the question is not about my opinion, or your opinion, but about the facts of the situation. Personally speaking, I want to strike a balance between recognizing truth and understanding different viewpoints. Postmodernity can’t strike this balance. As I stated above, not everything in politics is tidy, and I like that Obama recognizes this fact, but I think that many times he may ignore the actual truth, in order to understand how someone else feels.
Faith
I appreciate much of what Barack Obama says about the intersection of faith and politics. He is right, I believe, when he says that, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers” (4:20:00). Personally speaking, it’s frustrating for me to hear the old chant of the religious right that “America is a Christian nation.” Do the chanters of such a statement even understand what they mean by “Christian nation?” I mean what is a Christian nation? Is it a nation composed of a majority of Christians? That’s not America. Is it a nation based on Christian principles? That’s only partially true of America. Is it a nation where the Bible is held by all to be the only standard of truth? That’s not true of America either. So I agree with Obama that we are not a Christian nation. In fact I recognize, as does Obama, that the phrase “separation of church and state,” is a good thing. It’s a principle that Baptists (my own upbringing) helped fight for hundreds of years ago. It’s a needed understanding of the intersection of faith and government, so that the beliefs of others, including my own, are not infringed upon by the government.
The hairy-ness of this separation clause comes in to play when we try to apply it to policy making. How do we make policies that allow religious liberty for everyone without somehow assenting to a common religious / faith-based view that trumps all others?
Obama sees the public sphere as one in which faith is included, but not used as the sole foundation for which to determine policy. As he explains, people of faith need to translate their moral arguments into universal arguments so that they can be discussed by everyone, even those who do not share your personal brand of faith. In this way faith is involved in our discussions, but those of differing faiths, or no faith at all, can still enter into the political discussion and argue on a level playing field. The idea being discussed has been reworded into non-faith language and is now accessible to everyone. This makes a certain amount of sense to me, but I’m not sure it can truly happen without assigning religion a secondary status and removing it from the conversation altogether (which is the very thing Obama is striving to avoid).
The logic of Obama’s argument is this: I cannot expect another person, who disagrees with me that the Bible is true, to accept my opinion about war if I base my argument solely on my biblical arguments. I need to translate the principles of my argument into non-Christian terms, so that others can then enter into the discussion about the fitness of my argument. In this way I have argued for the truth of the Bible, without using the Bible as my source of morality.
My problem with this stance is that it forces a false dichotomy between faith and science. Obama argues that faith and science play by different sets of rules. Faith is unprovable, while science, he argues, is provable. But this is simply not true. Evolution is theory. Gravity is a theory. Electricity is a theory. These theories seem to explain truth, but they are not completely provable. Science is based on set of presuppositions. Without science’s presuppositions, it cannot operate. Religion too is based on a set of presuppositions. Obama wants to take all religious language and translate it into scientific / logical language when it is used in the public sphere because he “believes” science to be provable and religion to be unprovable. In this way he reveals that his trust is actually placed more in science than it is in religion. Despite his attempts to accept both as equally valid, he places science / logic (with its own unprovable presuppositions) as his framework for truth, and in turn places religion in a secondary place of importance. His faith becomes more of a fairytale faith. Unprovable. What’s good for you is good for you. And what’s good for me is good for me. But we shouldn’t try to prove each other right or wrong. We can’t because this is all just “religious talk.”
Since everyone is going to disagree on the presuppositions that are the most tenable in the public sphere, what is the foundation upon which we should decide policy? My argument is that it has to be the Constitution. The Constitution, imperfect as it is, must be the foundation of our policy decisions. Anything beyond what the Constitution describes must be written into law based upon the opinions of the people. The will of the people will determine new policy, and the people are free to use religious or non-religious reasoning in their argumentation for or against policy. This seems to make sense to me. I could be off my rocker, but it seems to make sense. Ultimately, this will mean that our government is faulted because its policies will often be anti-biblical. But isn’t this already the case? Obama’s assumptions about truth necessarily give religion a secondary status within public debate, and I believe assigning religion that secondary standing cuts through the heart of its power.
I Could Go On
I could go on with further ideas about Barack Obama and his book The Audacity of Hope. I still haven’t touched his ideas about the economy, healthcare, or race. And he has some good ideas about these subjects. But it’s now 3:00AM in the morning and “I must be lonely,” and I’m making pop song references, so I’m going to stop. If you are so inclined to read this book, I’d appreciate your personal feedback. My opinions may be idiotic, and your musings (provided they are kindly expressed) may help me to think less idiotically. At the very least, I’m sure my thinking could use some refining that your thinking might encourage.
Related Posts:
No commentsTwo New Goals…
I’m currently fulfilling a goal to read an average of a-book-a-week for this entire year. It’s been fun so far. Really fun actually. I’d suggest this goal to anyone (unless you’re in seminary or law school or in some other situation where additional reading might make you lose your mind). At least a few of my reasons for setting the a-book-a-week goal are:
1) To better develop my mind and thus better love God with my mind (Mark 12:30).
2) To practice writing by briefly reviewing the books upon completion.
3) To be relevant. I think the whole “relevancy” thing can be pushed too far, but it’s still true that we need to understand the world in which we live. And, reading books may actually be a better way to pursue relevancy than watching tv or reading newspapers. I say this because the material in books has usually been mulled over for a longer period of time, and thus may contain more mature thought than other forms of media. In fact C. S. Lewis lamented the fact that boys in his day were encouraged to stay abreast of current news. As he says in Surprised by Joy, “I think those are very wrong who say that schoolboys should be encouraged to read the newspapers. Nearly all that a boy reads there in his teens will be known before he is twenty to have been false in emphasis and interpretation, if not in fact as well, and most of it will have lost all importance. Most of what he remembers he will therefore have to unlearn; and he will probably have acquired an incurable taste for vulgarity and sensationalism and the fatal habit of fluttering from paragraph to paragraph to learn how an actress has been divorced in California, a train derailed in France, and quadruplets born in New Zealand” (152-153). So I want to read a lot of books because with Lewis, I believe it is better learning.
However, the thought hit me today that, in addition to the reading, I also want to find at least one good quote from every book that I read. I want to take these quotes and catalogue them so that I have a readily accessible list of good quotes when I am preparing a sermon or writing an article or book. So this is goal #1.
Goal #2 is to try to witness to at least one person a week. This is what I was asked to do while in seminary at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. While I did not love everything about the way in which the seminary asked us to pursue this endeavor, I do think it was a great requirement. I know that the Bible plainly teaches that I’m to share the gospel regularly. I’ve never quit believing this, but I have not challenged myself to pursue evangelism (the first step in disciple-making) enough since seminary. So I’m setting a goal of witnessing to at least one person a week for the rest of the year. I’m going to reevaluate this goal at that time, see if I fulfilled it, and ask myself whether I should change it in any way.
So there you go. Two unrelated goals. We’ll see how I do.
Related Posts:
2 commentsBook Review: Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins
I just finished the audiobook version of Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins. The audiobook was read by Brian Emerson, who is one of my favorite readers. (I believe even a bad book could sound interesting if Emerson was reading it.)
I can safely say that this book will change the way that you view politics and the economic situation in the world, if you choose to read it. Confessions of an Economic Hitman is Perkin’s autobiography, his confession, about his involvement as an economic forecaster for a now-defunct company called Chas T. Main. Chas T. Main was a large, U. S. engineering firm which specialized in designing infrastructure plans for utility industries around the world. It was bought, and the name changed, in the late 80′s due to mismanagement.
Perkins explains that while his official job title may have been “chief economist for Main,” his real job was to act as an economic hitman. An economic hitman, or EHM (as Perkin’s calls it), is an economist whose purpose is to produce inflated infrastructure predictions for third world countries. These inflated forecasts are produced in order to justify the millions of dollars that foreign countries will have to borrow in order to hire American construction companies to build modern utility infrastructures within these third world countries. Based on these predictions, the world bank grants loans that these countries will never be able to repay. The country becomes mired in debt, and only a few, privileged people benefit. In this way, the American “corporatocracy” continues to grow rich, and economic pressure due to debt keeps the governments of third world countries in-check politically. At the end of the day, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, thousands of indigenous peoples are exploited, and America continues to build its global empire. Economic hitmen, and the CEO’s of large corporations, work unofficially in conjunction with the NSA to control foreign nations.
Whether you buy all this or not (see the wikipedia entry about Perkins for the controversy surrounding the book), it’s great, thought-provoking, conscious-altering reading. Much of what Perkins describes about the way in which the U. S. government uses the private sector, free-trade agreements, and economic pressure, seems (in my mind at least) to match real life. Perkins’ insights into the administrations of several of our past presidents is eye-opening for sure, and he confirms a lot of my own suspicions about the reasons for the Iraq War and the Bush/Cheney regime. I will say however, that any critique of the Clinton presidency is completely absent from this book, which may point towards some of Mr. Perkins’ political leanings (although I would be remiss to say that I find him a complete leftist).
Perkins ends the book with an epilogue of suggestions about how we, as Americans, can fight the global empire and leave a better world for our children. As a Christian, I’m inclined to see “the way forward” a little differently than Perkins. In my opinion, the main reason the global empire of America exists is greed. Many of the ideals at the heart of democracy, capitalism, and a global economy are sound (not perfect, but sound), except that people are greedy. The problem with capitalism is that companies nearly always act based on the bottom line. They hardly ever consider the best interests of others. They are greedy. They run over the poor, especially the poor of other countries. The rich get richer, and the poor are exploited. Unregulatized capitalism would work perfectly if everyone had a changed heart, but we don’t, so it doesn’t. Neither will the alternative to capitalism work (i.e. – socialism). They are both faulted systems because of faulted people.
We need Jesus to do the masterful work of heart transformation. On its own, this world will always tend towards depravity, and the American government and its capitalistic, self-serving policies, are most definitely included. I’m not saying that we should do nothing. We should try to fix the government. We should try to put men into office that don’t simply support the wishes of a few rich men that help fund their campaign. We should work hard, promote justice, and involve ourselves in charity. But more than any of that, we should embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only true, transformational hope that our world has.
My advice: Read this book. Involve yourself in politics as a concerned citizen. Think beyond party lines. Act like a Christian. Trust Jesus and the life change that He brings most of all. And, spend the majority of your time focused on the Gospel because it is the real change-agent in the world.
Related Posts:
No commentsThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn & 40 other books I want to read
I feel a little cheated by my Colorado / Mississippi education. It was pretty good overall, but especially in the area of literature, I missed out. This is at least partially my own fault because during high school my focus was on math, and as such, I refused the opportunity to take advanced or AP level English classes. Now in retrospect, I’m kicking myself for missing an opportunity to read and write better.
One of my goals this year is to average reading a book a week. So far I’ve read mostly theological writings, but I just finished The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (which I had never previously read) to change up my pace. I also made a list of 40 other classic novels that I want to read over the next few years, which you can see below. I highly commend Huck Finn to anyone who has never read the book. Twain’s use of Southern dialect is probably the best I’ve ever read, and he masterfully draws readers to a familiar, yet unfamiliar Southern landscape that is a mixture of laughable, laudable, and distasteful elements all rolled into one. I can’t wait to dive into Tom Sawyer, and many of the other novels on my list below.
If you see a good, classic novel that I’m missing and want to recommend something, that would be great!
books I want to read
1. Huckleberry Finn – Mark Twain
2. Tom Sawyer – Mark Twain
3. The Lord of the Flies – William Golding
4. Catch 22 – Joseph Heller
5. As I Lay Dying – William Faulkner
6. The Sound and the Fury – William Faulkner
7. Light in August – William Faulkner
8. Robinson Crusoe – Bob Blaisdell
9. The Three Musketeers – Alexander Dumas
10. 1984 – George Orwell
11. Animal Farm – George Orwell
12. The Catcher in the Rye – J. D. Salinger
13. A Clockwork Orange – Anthony Burgess
14. To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
15. The Divine Comedy: The Inferno, The Purgatorio, The Paradiso – Dante Alighieri
16. A Farewell to Arms – Ernest Hemingway
17. For Whom the Bell Tolls – Ernest Hemingway
18. The Old Man and the Sea – Ernest Hemingway
19. Fahrenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury
20. The Great Gatsby – F. Scott Fitzgerald
21. The Grapes of Wrath – John Steinbeck
22. Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck
23. Ulysses – James Joyce
24. On the Road – Jack Kerouac
25. War and Peace – Leo Tolstoy
26. Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy
27. Hamlet – William Shakespeare
28. Romeo and Juliet – William Shakespeare
29. The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky
30. Crime and Punishment – Fyodor Dostoevsky
31. The Lord of the Rings – J.R.R. Tolkien
32. Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austin
33. The Count of Monte Cristo – Alexandre Dumas
34. A Tale of Two Cities – Charles Dickens
35. Great Expectations – Charles Dickens
36. Les Miserables – Victor Hugo
37. Frankenstein – Mary Shelley
38. Moby Dick – Herman Melville
39. Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad
40. Dracula – Bram Stoker
41. The Scarlet Letter – Nathaniel Hawthorne
Related Posts:
3 commentsBook Review: The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis
I just finished my third C. S. Lewis book, and can say that of the ones I’ve read (Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, and now The Abolition of Man) this is probably the most important. The basic premise of the book is that, all of life – that is all truth and morality – is based upon some Higher Truth. Lewis does not go so far in The Abolition of Man to claim that this Higher Truth should be Christianity (he argued that in Mere Christianity), but just that all Real Truth is in reality based upon a Higher Truth. Men may deny this Higher Truth, but if while denying this Truth they still claim any sort of right or wrong, then they are in fact being hypocrites. All morality, argues Lewis, stems from a higher, timeless Truth. For lack of a better term, Lewis labels this Higher Truth,”The Tao” in The Abolition of Man.
To actually represent this book correctly, I must explain that Lewis does leave open another possibility. Men may deny this Higher Truth, the Tao, but if they do so, every decision will then be based simply upon the opinion, or lust, of the moment. As he says on page 67, “If you will not obey the Tao, or else commit suicide, obedience to impulse (and therefore, in the long run, to mere ‘nature’) is the only course left open.” If the decisions of morality are not based on a Higher Law, and moral decisions are simply based upon our own fleeting opinions, then, argues Lewis, “Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man” (64). In other words, apart from a Higher Truth society will fall apart, and the influence of a few men in power will affect every other man, and result in the collapse of society. Lewis concludes, “I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently” (66).
I think this is an important book because what Lewis first predicted in 1944 in The Abolition of Man, is happening right now throughout Western society. In American culture the adoption of a relativistic worldview seems to be making society worse not better. When people adopt the “I do what feels right” view of morality, then society is doomed. Mankind must base its morality on a higher, Objective Truth, and the only one that is shown to be true again and again is the truth of Christianity. The pervading, demonic influence of Darwinian naturalism, and the survival-of-fittest mantra, if left unchallenged, will always result in the destruction of society.
