Doubting Diversity

As most Americans in the early 21st century know, diversity is all the rage. It's the one quality that seems to give moral legitimacy to almost anything in secular culture. I once worked at a secular school which even had a faculty member whose title was "Diversity Coordinator." 

I understand where the concern for diversity comes from. To safeguard against the bigotry of civil rights abuse in the old South and other forms of stupidity, many have thought it best to pose diversity as the greatest good. But, all things considered, diversity doesn't deliver. 

On one hand it's true that people should never frown on others simply out of a sense of unfamiliarity. And all sane people realize it's wrong to exclude someone from basic human rights or violate a person's dignity simply because the other holds a unique belief or is part of a minority culture. We should all be willing to listen to and thoroughly discern the beliefs and cultures of others--but not as an end in itself. We should be open to learn about the beliefs and behaviors of diverse cultures, to determine which elements in diverse cultures bring us closer to truth!

But acknowledging such a "hegemonic," bigoted idea as truth is blasphemous in the modern church of diversity. As soon as we make a judgment as to what's true, we automatically label all that's inconsistent with it as not true--and that's mean.

I once heard a Hopi Native American woman give a talk to a group of students on the Hopi religion. She said the sun was a god, and some other interesting things. Her ideas were definitely diverse from most others in the room, but what I most wanted to know was, "Is it true?" Of course if I were to suggest it was not--that the sun is really a ball of gas and not a diety--I would have been accused of being "exclusionary."  

But what could be the value of diversity for the sake of diversity? I would love to be able to ask an administrator or CEO of some institution who's made great efforts to create cultural diversity, "OK. Your institution is diverse. Now what? Diversity is great, but what is true? What is real?" 

But again, all this makes sense when one realizes that truth is not typically a concern for those who place diversity as the greatest good. Diversity means harmony, and if one doesn't accept the idea of ultimate truth, I guess the next best thing to shoot for would be harmony. 

Christians, however, don't have the luxury of putting harmony first. When we're tempted to take a dip in the warm-fuzzy, anesthetizing pool of philosophical and religious diversity, we should remember Jesus' words in Luke 12:51-53

"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother–in–law against her daughter–in–law and daughter–in–law against mother–in–law."

MM

Happiness and Homosexuality

I was recently reminded of a story in which a husband and father of three chooses to lose his job in order to stay true to his Christian convictions. As he and his wife struggle over the consequences of his decision, the wife says, “I don’t know how we’re going to make it.” He responds, “I don’t either, but some things are more important than making it.” 

But if “making it” is defined as individual happiness, and happiness is defined by pleasing circumstances, then the husband’s response is opposite the view of a great many people. A lot of people believe happiness to be the greatest good, which sounds reasonable because it is something we should all want. But happiness is not the greatest good. Doing what’s right, in other words, virtuousness, is a greater good than happiness, and there are times when doing what’s right leads to unhappiness--that is it leads to difficult circumstances. The right thing sometimes requires us either to subject ourselves to pain or forgo some pleasure, such as the pain and forgone pleasure experienced by a man in a difficult marriage when he chooses not to get involved with another woman, even though she offers all the affection that’s absent in his wife. 

One perpetually controversial issue I think shows this tension between virtue and happiness is that of homosexual behavior. The tidal wave of gay rights activism that has swept over the western world in the last few decades has largely been driven by the idea that happiness is the greatest good. The argument usually goes something like this: If a same sex marriage would bring two people great happiness without taking away from anyone else’s happiness then why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? The answer is that people shouldn’t engage in homosexuality for the same reason they shouldn’t engage in adultery. Both bring a certain level of circumstantial happiness, but both are morally wrong. 

The reason the proposition that homosexual behavior is morally wrong comes across like a banner at a Klan rally to a lot of people is because their moral compass is of their own making. For many, what’s right means only “what seems right to me.” There is nothing (or no One) outside one’s self by which we judge right and wrong. 

Although this is a totally subjective, individualized way of thinking, one thing people with this mindset do appeal to as a universal standard of rightness is the question of whether or not a person’s actions infringe on another against his will. If this is the ultimate moral question then nothing that takes place among “consenting adults” could ever be wrong. The golden rule is to never impede anyone’s pursuit of happiness. 

But that golden rule is like a movie-set building. It looks real on the outside, but when you go through the door there’s nothing there. If there really is no objective standard--no Moral Law and Lawgiver--to whom we are accountable, then there is nothing to bind anyone to the idea that my happiness at the expense of others’ pain is wrong. There have been many who have had no qualms pursuing happiness through others’ pain because it seemed right to them. To those who hold a what-seems-right-to-me view of morality, there is a resounding “says who?” that goes on forever in response to any argument about what’s right and wrong. 

If it is true that we will not cease to exist after our last breath, but will rather face moral accountability in the highest degree, then there is a right and a wrong way to conduct ourselves sexually, and the difference is not determined by what brings us the most immediate happiness.  

MM

Precisely Wrong

Usually when we're wrong, we're not altogether wrong. Most wrong views include some right elements. In a lot of cases, it's more true to say that certain views are misguided or shortsighted or not entirely true.

But sometimes there comes an argument or a point of view that is precisely wrong. Such is the case with an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune last August, which I stumbled upon this morning. It was written by Salt Lake photographer and writer, Ed Firmage Jr. I'm posting it because I think sometimes the truth is seen most clearly in light of its opposite, and Mr. Firmage's argument in the article is a good example of the opposite.

It isn't long and is worth reading. Here's the link:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/54658089-82/truth-mormons-faith-mormonism.html.csp

The main idea is that, "The ultimate truth of Mormonism or Catholicism or Judaism is not what you believe but what you do," largely because, "the abundance of competing creeds, and the vehemence with which each is defended against the others, suggests that we should take our truths with a grain of salt. Rock salt, perhaps."

This point may apply to Buddhism, because Buddhism is more a way of thinking than a belief about the ways God has revealed himself to people. But it is nonsense (though a comforting, community-building nonsense) to say that the questions of whether or not an angel from God really spoke to Mohammad in a cave, or whether God the Father and Jesus visited Joseph Smith in the grove, or whether or not Jesus really resurrected from the dead--that these questions ultimately don't matter.

Either these things happened or they didn't, and the question of whether they did or not is one of the most important questions we'll ever consider. If Mohammad and Joseph Smith weren't really visited by angels, or if the angels who visited them weren't from God, then millions of people are investing their hearts and minds in a lie. That matters.

For Christians, Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15 are at the heart of it all: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." Christ's resurrection is the engine providing the power that saves us from death. Good deeds without the physical, historical truth of his resurrection is a beautifully painted car with an empty space under the hood.

It's comforting to think otherwise, because if it doesn't matter what you believe is true about God, then none of us have much of a responsibility to seek and discern the truth. We don't have to wrestle with the truth. And, most appealing of all, we don't have to suffer damaged relationships and other hardships because of the truth.

And as for behavior, it is true that there are people who show good behavior while holding bad beliefs. But for the most part, what we believe is true about God, about who he is, the way he has revealed himself, and what he expects from us, directly determines what we do and why we do it. Because Muslims, Mormons, and Christians have fundamentally different concepts of God, our perspectives and motivations for doing good deeds in obedience to God are, generally speaking, fundamentally different as well.

MM

Do We Have To Go To Church?

A friend and I were recently discussing the importance of church attendance and he asked me whether I thought someone had to attend church in order to be right with God. Here's what I said:


As for the question of the necessity of going to church, if we say that attending or having membership in a church is necessary for salvation, then we would be saying that Christ alone isn't sufficient to save someone, without the additional act of our church attendance. So, no, a person's eternal salvation doesn't depend on church attendance, it depends on surrendering one's heart to God.

However, it is God’s design for Christians to be in fellowship with each other. To become a Christian is to be adopted into God’s family. It’s hard to imagine someone being adopted into a family and not wanting to spend time around the other family members. It’s clear in the Bible (Acts 2:42-46, Hebrews 10:19-25) that church life is what God wants to be the normal way of life for his children.

Corporate worship and teaching should also be a main means of making Christians stronger. Church should be the place where we grow deeper in our understanding of Scripture and how to live the Christian life, as well as a place of great synergy where Christians get organized and mobilized in pursing God’s purposes in the world, and are all the more empowered to do so by the mutual encouragement that comes from fellowship. With this in mind, the question “Can someone be saved and not go to church” is a lot like the question, “Can someone eat only crackers and water and still survive.” The answer is yes, but it would be very far from ideal.

This quote from Book I, ch. 2 in Mere Christianity seems to say it about as well as can be said:

“God can show Himself as He really is only to real men. And that means not simply to men who are individually good, but to men who are united together in a body, loving one another, helping one another, showing Him to one another. For that is what God meant humanity to be like: like players in one band, or organs in one body.
Consequently, the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the whole Christian community, waiting for Him together. Christian brotherhood is, so to speak, the technical equipment for this science - the laboratory outfit.”