Habits of the Mind: "A Mind for God"

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 7/31/2006 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

A few years ago, a professor at Pasadena City College led a class discussion on the famous story “The Lottery.” In the story, a seemingly normal village carries out a bizarre ritual involving human sacrifice. The professor, Kay Haugaard, had taught the story many times over the years and was anticipating the usual shocked reactions from her students.

Instead, she found that she was teaching a room full of moral relativists who thought that the ritual might be all right “if it’s a part of a person’s culture . . . and if it has worked for them.” To Haugaard’s horror, she realized that “no one in the whole class of twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand [even] against human sacrifice.” The very mentality that Jackson’s story warns us about—“the dangers of being totally accepting followers, too cowardly to rebel against obvious cruelties and injustices”—had become the mentality of this group of intelligent college students.

Haugaard writes, “It was a warm night when I walked out to my car after class that evening, but I felt shivery, chilled to the bone.” James Emery White tells this story in his excellent new book A Mind for God. White, the new president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, wants us to understand just how dangerous it can be to live life without a worldview that teaches that “each person has value, and there is meaning and purpose to every life.”

To have such a worldview, White explains, we must believe that “there is Someone above and outside of our existence who stands over us as our authority.” Without that belief, our sense of morality can be based only on shifting values in the culture around us. And any sense of morality with such a weak foundation is doomed to erode—and create the kind of minds that are blasé about human sacrifice.

Even those of us who do believe in God can be endangered by a relativistic culture like the one we live in. White tells us of an encounter with a woman, who identified herself as a Christian, who informed him that Jesus “lived a long, full life, got married and had kids.” (And people said that The Da Vinci Code would not have any effect on anyone’s religious beliefs?)

How do we shore up our faith against a corrosive culture and develop a true “mind for God”? White’s book is designed to answer that question. He urges us to read, to study, to reflect on our faith and our culture, and he suggests books, websites, and other resources to help us get started. He encourages Christians to create what he calls “a rule for the mind”—a set of disciplines like those once followed by Christian monastics—to help us develop a pattern of Christian thinking that applies to all of life.

“Our minds are deeply spiritual,” White writes, “and so developing our minds must be a spiritual discipline.” I agree, and I can’t think of a better place to start than in this book. Jim White is a gifted Christian thinker, but what I like best is that he writes for laymen at an accessible level.

So you can visit our website, BreakPoint.org, for more information on A Mind for God and for some more Christian worldview resources, including some of White’s other books. All of us need to learn the disciplines of thinking Christianly about all of life.

[Mr. Silverback]

James Dobson has said he fears a coming generation of moral relativists more than he ever feared nuclear war...and consider that this he's lived next to a primary target for most of his career.

There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Blue Eyes]

Please add me to your ping list. Thanks!

[twigs]

I just ordered "Born Again" for a Christian sister whose college-aged son just began a prison sentence. What he did was morally wrong, but we believe the sentences was a miscarriage of justice. Be that as it may, Colson's book was one of those foundational books I read when I was in college during Watergate. I appreciate this thread. And I wholeheartedly agree with the point. I have a 21-year-old daughter who has a strong sense of right and wrong. Yet even she sometimes struggles with these issues without realizing it.

[Restorer]

Without that belief, our sense of morality can be based only on shifting values in the culture around us.

Not actually true. Some agnostics and atheists have the mental fortitude to resist the societal pressure around them based strictly on their own internalized values.

But it is certainly true of most.

[TampaDude]

A "mind for God"? Which God? Jehovah? Zeus? Osiris? Cernunnos? Our laws come from reason and logic, not some divine authority.

Nomex suit on...

[Dark Skies]

I would like to be placed on your Chuck Colson list. Thx.

[dinoparty]

For most people, life events will scare people from their atheistic moral relativism. Its just an indoctrinated theory that is not very deeply rooted. I am more frightened by the impulsive tendencies of our young people -- do what feels good, no patience, materialism -- and the vacuum created by a lack of a moral education.

[Lx]

Ok, I just read the story.

http://www.americanliterature.com/SS/SS16.HTML

Not exactly Huck Finn or even Harrison Bergeron.

[HaveHadEnough]

Be that as it may, Colson's book was one of those foundational books I read when I was in college during Watergate.

But Born Again was written in 1996. Mr. Colson wasn't writing too much during Watergate.

[dinoparty]

Even if you believe that, you must admit that there is a terrifying lack of reverence for ANYTHING today, whether it be God or the dictates of reason.

[newheart]

""Without that belief, our sense of morality can be based only on shifting values in the culture around us.""

"Not actually true. Some agnostics and atheists have the mental fortitude to resist the societal pressure around them based strictly on their own internalized values."

I beg to differ. The agnostic and atheist may have mental fortitude, but they long ago bought into the foundational message of the shifting values in the culture around us. That is the idea that those values are purely subjective, up to the individual to pick and choose and the only real meaning that those values have is the meaning that the individual ascribes to them.

[twigs]

It was written long before that I believe. That must have been a later edition. I believe it was written in the late 70's. I could be wrong. But I'm sure I didn't read it post 1996.

[twigs]

I just looked. 1977.

[twigs]

Sorry. I wrote a sentence that was difficult to decipher. I was in college during Watergate. But I went to grad school, so I was still around after Watergate when Colson wrote his book. So I did read it in college; it was written some years after Watergate.

[chris_ab]

I read a book and it was good...

Now you be the judge...

Now it's written at a pace that can be read by most... So if your head is big and fat - you are arrogant and think you know it all (and we do have many like that here at FR)... have some grace. Anyhow, the book shows some of the common "ins and outs" of relativism in todays society and historically.

Also, I don't fear relativism... I'm not an Alarmist. Why? Because kids grow up to become parents.

So sure we will always have some cocky undergrads and older professors (in Ivory Towers) that will always think that they discovered a new post modern way of thinking (or post-post-modern way of thinking or a post-post-post-modern way ...) but in the end it won't get off the ground.

If we do have an individual here or there that is a moral relativist and she/he takes it to it's natural barbaric/sociopathic conclusion or end, guess what?

That's what we have police for... to keep order and, specifically, for those sickos. Keeps the Police in business.

Plus, they will be exposed on the Bill OReilly show. Bill O'Reilly is "looking out for you!"

: ) I love FR.

***********

Now, I have to say where Moral Relativism does get tricky is when it's implemented in Gov't policy. When that happens look out! Seriously... Rwanda, Germany, etc...

***********

Now back to a more natural setting - domestic life.

My sister used to say "I can do whatever I want - so long as I'm not affecting anyone". In and around that time she had been knocked up by 2 different guys and had 4 babies. Neither of the men offered marriage.

My mom was always at odds with my sister but my mom became the Father. : )

My mom bought the diapers... My sister said, "I can do whatever I want - so long as I'm not affecting anyone".

She was so stupid.

Now she has to fight her kids when they say the same thing... she will be older and a little smarter at age 45.

[No.6]

"The agnostic and atheist may have mental fortitude, but they long ago bought into the foundational message of the shifting values in the culture around us."

I think what he means is that an agnostic or atheist may assert a reasonable value system sans faith and through self-assurance hold it against societal pressure.

What I think he's missing is that this reasonable value system doesn't just spring up a priori, but only occurs in the presence of a faithful culture, or at least the knowledge of one (not all persons growing up in Communist ratholes turn out to be rats, for instance).

This is like the old joke about the materialist scientist who claims to be able to create life: "First I take this dirt and..." at which point God interrupts and says "Hey, get your own dirt!" :)

[chris_ab]

Oh btw, the book is titled...

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

[GourmetDan]

That's like the lady who had one small tattoo and was 'shocked, shocked' when her daughter turned up with several, large colorful ones.

"They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind." Hos 8:7

[chris_ab]

Most excellent...

[Popocatapetl]

The opposite of moral relativity is individual equivalency.

His assumption was the former but there is a good chance that it was something else. Here is the difference between what he found objectionable and what he believes:

Moral relativity says that "their" morality is equal to "our" morality, so we have no right to judge their actions. This is a popular concept with the political left.

Individual equivalency is what he advocates, that "their" lives are equal to "our" lives, so without concern for their morality, we should be shocked by their behavior, based on our morality.

But say this nameless village is in Afghanistan. The Afghan villagers are having a lottery to determine which of their murdering Taliban prisoners they are going to execute by stoning first.

Would anyone here feel a moral imperative to step in and demand that they halt the execution of their murdering Taliban prisoner, because it offends your morality?

Probably not. This is because you *don't* equate a murdering Taliban with a civilized person at all. And while you may not revel in personally wanting to put one of them down like a rabid dog, you find little to object to Afghans doing it for themselves.

Though the story "The Lottery" tries to portray the lottery losers in a sympathetic light, perhaps the students are just reserving judgement. The story is intentionally scant on context, though it tries to coax an easy moral judgement out of the reader, and the students reject such blunt "morality plays" as insulting to their intelligence.

The very essence of a morality play works from the assumption that the morality of the author is better than that of the audience. But this is seldom the case, especially when the creator is a leftist.

[HaveHadEnough]

What I think he's missing is that this reasonable value system doesn't just spring up a priori, but only occurs in the presence of a faithful culture, or at least the knowledge of one (not all persons growing up in Communist ratholes turn out to be rats, for instance).

I think you are begging the questions. Your qualifiers, "reasonable" and "faithful," appear to be linked. In other words, what you are really saying is that a faithful value system only occurs in the presence or with the knowledge of a faithful culture.

I think a more important question is whether any value system can spring forth without a prevailing belief in God.

[Restorer]

I beg to differ back.

A given individual's sense of morality does not inherently shift when or in the same direction as that of the society around him. I agree that it is much more difficult for someone not believing in a higher power to resist societal trends, but it is not impossible.

Whether that individual's values were right to begin with is an entirely different question. Hannibal Lecter did not follow societal trends, but that didn't make his values moral ones. :)

[newheart]

Good points. Of course it all depends on one's definition of what constitutes a reasonable value system. My contention is that it is impossible outside of a theistic world-view. Otherwise we all become 'gods' asserting individualized notions or right and wrong. In that scenario, one god is as 'good' as another.

Your illustration is hilarious and to the point. Imagine God saying to the relativist, "Get your own right and wrong." Curiously, since the Fall, that is precisely what God has allowed us to do. And we've been soooo good at it. ;-)

[No.6]

"Any" value system doesn't cut it for me. The terrorists have a value system, Kali-worshippers had a value system, the Aztecs had a value system, but none of those are what I'd call reasonable.

I intentionally shied away from trying to define "reasonable" so as to avoid being overly specific, rather than to verbally dance around "faithful."

If it turns out that it's impossible to define a "reasonable" value system without somehow referencing Western Judeo/Christian thought, well hey then.

[glorgau]

To Haugaard’s horror, she realized that “no one in the whole class of twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand [even] against human sacrifice.”

Unless, of course, it was themselves.

[HaveHadEnough]

If it turns out that it's impossible to define a "reasonable" value system without somehow referencing Western Judeo/Christian thought, well hey then.

I think it would be impossible for us to do it. Others would have no problem doing so.

[Restorer]

Sorry, I read The Lottery probably 40 years in junior high, and it scared the hell out of me. One of the very few stories I remember from that long ago.

The story makes it very clear that a person is being chosen at random to be stoned to death. The reason for doing this has been forgotten by the villagers, but probably originally had something to do with fertility.

In any case, the villagers are blindly following a tradition that results in the torture and death of a random person, NOT a criminal or war prisoner guilty of atrocities.

The scariest part for me was that all the villagers, including the eventual victim, were willing participants. Even the mother eventually chosen was perfectly willing to stone someone else.

So in a real sense, there are no victims in the story. Just lucky and unlucky perpetrators.

I don't consider the rejection of such a system to be simplistic at all. It's wrong then, now and always.

[Physicist]

To have such a worldview, White explains, we must believe that “there is Someone above and outside of our existence who stands over us as our authority.”

What farcical statement.

Every real-world society that has practiced human sacrifice as a ritual has done so precisely because they believed in such a "Someone", and that Someone demanded human blood.

I, by contrast, don't believe that morals come from any divinity, and yet I am a moral absolutist who believes that human life is the standard of all moral value. My existence stands as a counterexample to the above assertion.

[newheart]

We don't disagree all that much. I also believe that one's sense of morality does not necessarily (is that what you mean by 'inherently'?) shift when prevailing societal attitudes change. I have known many extraordinarily strong-willed atheists. However, the underlying assumption that an individual is inherently entitled to define morality for themselves is often part of the agnostic's or atheist's view.

I have often thought there was a delicious irony (fava beans excluded) that Anthony Hopkins, who played Hannibal Lecter, also played C.S. Lewis in the movie 'Shadowlands.' Especially since Lewis' discussion of this whole issue, "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe" is the best lay analysis of the problem I have ever seen.

[Mamzelle]

I had had hopes that Hopkins would play in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings--but you couldn't have Hannibal playing Bilbo, I guess!

[GOPJ]

James Dobson has said he fears a coming generation of moral relativists more than he ever feared nuclear war...and consider that this he's lived next to a primary target for most of his career.

Dobson's right on this one...

[newheart]

Never thought of that, but he would have been perfect as Bilbo.

[Restorer]

Obviously a great many people today believe we can take a poll to decide what is right and what wrong. The problem is that a vote of 1,000,000 to 1 reaches an inaccurate result if the one person is right and the 1M are wrong.

I hate to bring it up, but the Nazis were wildly popular in Germany during the late '30s. Hitler could have probably been elected with 90%+ of the vote had he believed in free elections.

Popularity does not always equate to morality.

[Amos the Prophet]

Lewis was getting at an ethics based on Natural Law, the foundation of all western jurisprudence and especially the US Constitution. This position accepts as a starting point that the Universe is a unified existence and that our rational nature is expressive of universal principles. From this position a system of supra cultural absolutes is deducible. Reason and logic are subsumed by Natural Law without which they would have no relevence beyond each individual. Whether one accepts a Maker or not, reality is either coherent and unitary or it is not worth discussing.
I appreciate that my words may be taken in a variety of contexts. It is that truth to which they point that is important, not the words themselves.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"A "mind for God"? Which God? Jehovah? Zeus? Osiris? Cernunnos? Our laws come from reason and logic, not some divine authority."

Actually, that's a reasonable comment. Even an essential comment.

The First Commandment requires atheism --- yes, principled non-submission to gods and goddesses, demigods and semi-deities, etc. That's an indispensible precondition to prepare the mind for the One True God.

But if you are wholeheartedly pursuing a code of morality based on reason and logic, you are not at all off-track. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, thoroughly secular though it is, alludes to "Nature and Nature's God" which is another way of talking about Natural Law. This arises from the realization that God's laws are embedded in the structure of reality; they can be detected by a profound examination of human nature (full-strength, and as broad and deep as you can get it.)

And God, who gave us both the book of Scripture and the book of Nature, does not contradict Himself.

Mind you, "human nature" doesn't mean "my own appetites, opinions and preferences." It takes into account what contributes to human flourishing, what constitutes human excellence, and what would be corrective for you when you are in error (because we all fall short at some point.)

In other words: though you find it within you, it has to be something that goes beyond you.

Consider the bicycle: elegant machine, that. Reason and logic are like the two wheels on a bike. It won't take you everywhere --- it won't take you up Mount Evarest --- but you are entitled to take it as far as you can.

And at some point the bicycle itself will "tell" you: "This is as far as a two-wheeler can go. You want to go a-l-l the way up Mount Everest, you'll have to find Something Beyond the Bike."

That's a commandment, too.

[HaveHadEnough]

Mind you, "human nature" doesn't mean "my own appetites, opinions and preferences." It takes into account what contributes to human flourishing, what constitutes human excellence, and what would be corrective for you when you are in error (because we all fall short at some point.)

That sounds kind of needlessly complicated. Can't we determine what "human nature" is simply by observing humans?

For example: An increase in population density is generally proportional to an increased occurrence of violence. Humans will generally protect their own offspring before they protect the offspring of others. Humans will generally invest more in a project if it materially benefits them. Humans generally believe that murder is wrong.

These are all statements of human nature that do not require an understanding of what we value as human excellence (indeed, isn't another statment of human nature: Humans generally maintain a heirachy of political, social, and religious values"?). For example, murder need not be wrong for the statement that "Humans generally believe that murder is wrong" to be true.

I don't know. It seems to me that statements of human nature are descriptive statements, not prescriptive statement. Statements of human nature are of the same quality as statements of dog nature. They are description of how we generally act, having, I believe most people would agree, something to do with what we would call instinct.

[TampaDude]

The First Commandment requires atheism --- yes, principled non-submission to gods and goddesses, demigods and semi-deities, etc. That's an indispensible precondition to prepare the mind for the One True God.

Ah, but which is the "One True God"??? Many years ago, the vast majority of the populace "knew" that Zeus, or Ra, or Odin was the "One True God" with as much certainty as Christians "know" their God is the "One True God" today.

Natural laws exist independent of an anthropomorphic deity. "God" is not a necessary part of, nor prerequisite for, the universe.

And at some point the bicycle itself will "tell" you: "This is as far as a two-wheeler can go. You want to go a-l-l the way up Mount Everest, you'll have to find Something Beyond the Bike."

Yup...like an airplane, perhaps? Thing is, we know airplanes are real.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're quite right: you don't have to start out with God as a precondition. Confucius (or Kong-fu-tse), Marcus Aurelius and Gautama Siddhartha came up with some very good "manmade" philosophy, some of which is, in a natural sense, a pre-evangelium.

Grace perfects nature. It doesn't obliterate it. It doesn't do an end-run around it. Check out the best of natural philosophy, and by all means, get outside of your own culture. See where it leads you. Go on. Go.

(Little jeremiah, you might want to add something here...) ;^)

Romans 2:14-15 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves,
even though they do not have the law,
since they show that the requirements of the law
are written on their hearts,---
their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts now accusing,
now even defending them.)

Natural philosophy is not necessarily free from error. But everything that is true, converges.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the ping, Mrs! I wish I had time this minute to delve into this topic. Maybe later, more... In the meantime, here's a little.

The Vedic understanding is that every living being is an eternal soul, wearing a temporary physical body and materially molded mind. Each soul's consciousness is dimmed or conditioned by desires, envy of God, and reactions from previous actions (karma - or as you sow, so shall you reap). But deep within the soul love for God is eternally established - it is covered, or sleeping. God's expansion as Paramatma (literally "Supersoul") is next to the heart of each being, guiding and instruction each soul, according to our desire and capacity to hear Him.

Truth is truth, wherever it is found. Truth is not relative, but God has many names, and accepts the offerings and worship of every sincere soul, and rewards each accordingly.

All Glories to the Supreme Lord, Who loves each and every one of His children unconditionally, and waits for each of us to reciprocate and become obedient instead of rebellious.

[little jeremiah]

An addition, after reading Tampa Dude's comment.

There are knowledge acquiring senses - eyes, ears, etc. They bring information to the mind, which contemplates it, compares it to previously absorbed information, speculates on it, and so on.

This is not the only way we can know truth. The senses are actually rather dull compared to the knowledge revealed within the soul, called in Sanskrit vijnana, or realized knowledge. It's a long topic, but you mention that one can know bicycles exist because we can see them and ride them. How do you know air exists? Atoms? Love?

IOW, there are other ways to know reality besides the senses, which are relatively dull, imperfect and are known to play tricks.

But, of course, if you don't believe you have/are a soul and that God exists, you can shut the door to receiving knowledge of these truths, since God does not reveal His presence to those who don't want to know. This is His nature. A person at least has to make inquiry and have enough of an open mind to want to know.

[Popocatapetl]

This goes to what I said earlier, about individual equivalency. Taken to the extreme, it is anthropomorphism, assigning your human qualities to inanimate things. For example, empathizing with fictional characters in a story.

Would your reaction have been so powerful if the characters had been primitive African tribesmen? You most likely would have still found it objectionable, but it wouldn't have terrorized you as much, as it would have made a lot more sense in their cultural milieu where life is cheap.

But that pulls you in the direction, if not the extreme, of moral relativism. People who are less like you are less sympathetic, less able for their lives to be seen as equal to yours.

Change circumstances again, to a medieval Japanese fishing village. An unknown villager has offended the emperor, but no one knows who he is. But unless someone is put forward as guilty, then killed by his village, his entire village will itself be killed. So they choose someone by lottery.

But while you might be offended by this principal, it is truly hard to relate to a medieval Japanese fisherman. To see equivalency to yourself with his situation. Again, you have to be drawn in the direction of moral relativism, because you just can't relate to the man.

[Restorer]

People who are less like you are less sympathetic, less able for their lives to be seen as equal to yours.

Probably. Which is why absolute moral values are necessary. They remove the element of my having to make moral judgements based only on my feeeeelings.

Being human, I will have a less powerful emotional reaction to the murder of 3,000 random Rwandans than I did to the murder of 3,000 in America on 9/11. That does not mean that the 3,000 African lives have less value in an absolute sense, only that I can empathize more easily with those more like myself. You seem to be arguing that we should indeed make final moral judgments based on our feelings. I argue that we must rise above our emotions to make such judgments.

An unknown villager has offended the emperor, but no one knows who he is. But unless someone is put forward as guilty, then killed by his village, his entire village will itself be killed. So they choose someone by lottery.

The classic overloaded lifeboat scenario. Someone must be chosen to die or all will die.

Surely you must see that this is very different from the situation in the story?

The issue is not one of the method by which someone is chosen to die. It is the unforced, cheerful and festive participation of the villagers in the story that is obscene. Not to mention that they are no longer even aware of any rational reason for their actions. The people in the story are under no immediate threat.

I assume the Japanese villagers in your example would participate, but unwillingly and with regret. That is very different morally. It is the difference between a bank teller handing someone the cash from the till freely instead of at gunpoint.

[TampaDude]

This is not the only way we can know truth. The senses are actually rather dull compared to the knowledge revealed within the soul, called in Sanskrit vijnana, or realized knowledge. It's a long topic, but you mention that one can know bicycles exist because we can see them and ride them. How do you know air exists? Atoms? Love?

We know air exists because we can feel it and measure it, because birds and airplanes fly and the wind blows, sometimes destructively. We know atoms exist because we have actually seen them, as well as manipulated them many different ways. We know love exists because we understand the action of dopamine, phenylethylamine, and oxytocin on the brain. There is no such empirical, verifiable, objective evidence for a soul, spirit, or anything supernatural for that matter.

[little jeremiah]

Ah well, if you don't want to know, you will remain where you are.

[TampaDude]

Ah well, if you don't want to know, you will remain where you are.

Yup...and I'm happy right here in the REAL WORLD.