Download PDF here (3MB) - Ravi Zacharias International

40 Pages·2013·2.82 MB·English

VOLUME 21.4 I WWW.RZIM.ORG
JTHUE MAGSAZINET OF RATVI ZAHCHARIIASN INTERNKATIONIALN MINISGTRIES
+
REBELS WITHOUT
A PAUSE
PAGE 14
A TREATY
WITH REALITY
PAGE 22
TO HEAR THE HORNS
OF ELFLAND
PAGE 26
Threads of a
Redeemed Heart
PAGE 2
Just Thinkingis a teaching
resource of Ravi Zacharias
International Ministries and
exists to engender thoughtful
engagement with apologetics,
Scripture, and the whole of life.
Danielle DuRant
Editor
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
4725 Peachtree Corners Circle
Suite 250
Norcross, Georgia 30092
770.449.6766
WWW.RZIM.ORG
TABLE of CONTENTS
21.4
VOLUME
2 26
Threads of a To Hear the Horns
Redeemed Heart of Elfland
Ravi Zacharias asserts that the When Alex Renton’s six-year-old
fundamental difference between a daughter asked her parents to
naturalist worldview and a religious send the letter she penned to God,
worldview is the moral framework. Renton had to stop to consider all
While a naturalist may choose to be the possibilities. Renton is an atheist,
a moral person, no compelling rational and what was at stake was an issue of
reason exists why one should not be imagination. Jill Carattini observes
amoral. And yet, the Christian faith that Renton’s dilemma is one with
reminds us that our fundamental which C.S. Lewis the atheistwould
problem is not moral; rather, it is have deeply resonated.
spiritual.
35
14 Think Again
Rebels Without A Pause
Too often we shun boundaries because
Stuart McAllister shows how the we feel impeded or we’re afraid they
concept of rebellion has taken hold will deprive us of what we think we
in cultures throughout the West. really want, says Ravi Zacharias.
However, our very freedoms The Christian message is a reminder
contribute to much of our miseries, that our true malady is one that
and the endless call for greater morality alone cannot solve. At its
liberation sounds like the weary core, the call of Jesus is a bountiful
cry of a jaded and fatigued culture. invitation to trust and freedom to
live in the riches of that relationship.
22
A Treaty with Reality
Whether filing our taxes, writing a
research paper, or following up with
the doctor, we often try to avoid as
long as possible what we don’t want
to do or to think about. Yet Danielle
DuRant wonders, if the truth will
set us free, why do we seek to
evade it?
JUST THINKING•TheQuarterly Magazine ofRAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES
[ T h e G r a n d
W e av e r ]
[2] Just Thinking•RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES
Threads of a
Redeemed Heart
by Ravi Zacharias
One of the cardinal distinctions of
the Judeo-Christian worldview versus
other worldviews is that no amount of
moral capacity can get us back into a
right relationship with God. Herein lies
the difference between the moralizing
religions and Jesus’s offer to us.Jesus
does not offer to make bad people
good but to make dead people alive.
Just Thinking•VOLUME 21.4 [3]
Taken from The Grand Weaver: How God Shapes Us Through the Events of Our Livesby
RAVI ZACHARIAS. Copyright © 2007 by Ravi Zacharias. Used by permission of
The Zondervan Corporation.
S
ome years ago, I read an article certain that there are other matters on
in an in-flight magazine on the which no price is right and no sum of
subject of ethics. It began with a money would cause one to budge. Would
provocative story undoubtedly a man who truly loved his wife or his
designed to instantly gain the daughters sell them for a certain price?
attention of the reader. It worked. The I think the answer is an overwhelming
writer described a man aboard a plane “absolutely not!”
who propositioned a woman sitting next But then another thought entered
to him for one million dollars. She glared my mind. What does one make of the
at him but pursued the conversation and charge that God himself has set up a
began to entertain the possibility of so scheme in human relations where the
easily becoming a millionaire. The pair entire game is fixed? Perhaps Adam and
set the time, terms, and conditions. Just Eve could not have resisted the wiles of
before he left the plane, he sputtered, the devil; perhaps sooner or later the fall
“I—I have to admit, ma’am, I have sort would have ensued. Isn’t this the way it
of, ah, led you into a lie. I, um, I really sometimes appears? First, it is, “Don’t
don’t have a million dollars. Would you look.” Then it is, “Don’t touch.” At
consider the proposition for just—ah, least, that’s the way the skeptic
say—ah, ten dollars?” frames the scheme. One form of
On the verge of smacking him desire or another would soon find
across the face for such an insult, she the price match, and Adam or
snapped back, “What do you think I am?” Eve would succumb.
“That has already been established,” The garden may have changed,
he replied. “Now we’re just haggling over but the tantalizing trade-offs
the price.” continue as we barter away our
I have to admit that when souls. This dreadful moral
I read this little anecdote, conflict rages within
I felt more disgusted cultures and
with the man who did communities
the propositioning than with the woman and within
who was propositioned. I sensed some- each human
thing mean-spirited about the man who heart. What is this moral
made the offer. He obviously had set her plan about anyway? How does God
up for the kill. It seemed like one of demand moral rectitude in the pattern
those manufactured stories where you he is weaving for you and me in the vast
start with the endgame in view and move design of the universe, when it seems
backward to the start. both impossible and artificial?
But as I reflected on the writer’s
conclusion—namely, that everyone has THE SYSTEMIC DIFFERENCE
his or her price—I questioned the The fundamental difference between a
assumption. While we all may have a naturalist worldview and a religious
price on some matters, I’m equally worldview is the moral framework. While
[4] JUST THINKING•RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES
a naturalist may choose to be a moral per- religions. In every religion except Christ-
son, no compelling rational reason exists ianity, morality is a means of attainment.
why one should not be amoral. Reason In Hinduism, for example, every
simply does not dictate here. Pragmatism birth is considered a rebirth, and every
may, but reason alone doesn’t allow one to rebirth is a means to pay for the previous
defend one way over another. Prominent life’s shortcomings. To make up for this
Canadian atheist Kai Nielson said it well: obvious debit-and-credit approach,
Hinduism established the caste system
We have not been able to show that to justify its fatalistic belief. Karma is
reason requires the moral point of systemic to the Hindu belief. You cannot
view, or that really rational persons be a Hindu and dismiss the reality of karma.
unhoodwinked by myth or ideology In Buddhism, while every birth is a
need not be individual egoists or clas- rebirth, the intrinsic payback is imper-
sical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide sonal because Buddhism has no essential
here. The picture I have painted for self that exists or survives. Life is a force
you is not a pleasant one. Reflection carried forward through reincarnations,
on it depresses me. . . . Pure practical and the day you learn there is no essential
reason, even with a good knowledge of self and you quit desiring anything is the
the facts, will not take you to morality.1 day that evil dies and suffering ends for
you. The extinguishing of self and desire
Bertrand Russell admitted that he through a moral walk brings the ultimate
could not live as though ethical values victory over your imaginary individuality
were simply a and your
matter of personal In every religion except Christianity, suffering.
taste. That’s why Karma is
he found his own morality is a means of attainment. intrinsic to
views incredible. Buddhism
“I do not know as well, but
the solution,” he concluded.2Frederick there is a different doctrine of self at
Nietzsche also said as much: “I, too, have work. While in Hinduism every birth is a
to end up worshipping at the altar where rebirth, in Buddhism every birth is a
God’s name is truth.”3While we cannot rebirth of an impersonal karma. Only the
escape the moral “stranglehold” our best of Buddhist scholars are even quali-
moral bent puts us into, neither can fied to discuss these very intricate ideas.
naturalism explain either the inclination In Islam, the system of tithing, the
toward morality or the conclusion. tax system, the way women are clothed—
So extreme a problem has this all the way to the legal structure and the
created for the naturalist that some have ultimate punishment reserved for apostasy
gone to great lengths to deduce even that —express the moral framework in which
there is no such thing as good or evil; all this religion operates. Even then, heaven
of us merely dance to our DNA. This sits is not assured (which, ironically, is sensuous
very comfortably with them until they in its experience). Only Allah makes the
irresistibly raise the question of all the decision about whether an individual gets
“evil” that religion has engendered. rewarded with heaven.
The debate gains rational grounds In the early days of Israel’s formation,
in the realm of religion, which is why it is moral imperatives extended to every
critical to understand the similarities and detail of life. Hundreds of laws covered
foundational differences between various everything from morals to diet to ceremony.
JUST THINKING•VOLUME 21.4 [5]
“Who gives whom the right to pronounce the other evil?” I have
heard this question countless times. The very word “morality” has
become a lightning-rod theme. “Who is to say what is good? How
audacious that anyone should lay claim to an absolute!” This lies
at the core of our entire moral predicament.
In short, while moral rectitude dif- name the animals. But essential to the
fers in its details, it is, nevertheless, a factor created order was a moral framework
in determining future blessing or retribu- that the creation was not to name or
tion. For the most part, both theistic and define. This was the prerogative of the
pantheistic religions conveyed that idea. Creator, not of the creation. I believe
But for the later Hebrews and, in that this is what is at stake here.
turn, the Christians, two realities make Does mankind have a right to define
a crucial systemic and distinguishing what is good and what is evil? Have you
difference. First and foremost, God is the never heard this refrain in culture after
author of moral boundaries, not man and culture: “What right does any culture
not culture. Here, Islam and Judaism find have to dictate to another culture what is
a little common ground, at least as the good?” Embedded in that charge is always
basis. But there the superficial similarities another charge: “The evil things that
end because the two differ drastically on have happened in your culture deny you
the very possibility of ascribing attributes the prerogative to dictate to anyone else.”
to God, the idea of fellowship with God,
the entailments of violating his law, and Anyone living at the time and old
the prescription for restoration. God is enough to recall will never forget the
so transcendent in Islam that any analogi- outrage of some members of the media
cal reference to him in human terms runs when President Ronald Reagan
the risk of blasphemy. denounced the Soviet Union as an “evil
The book of Genesis, on the other empire,” or when President George
hand, shows God in close fellowship with W. Bush branded three nations as form-
his human creation. It also gives numer- ing an “axis of evil.” AyatollahKhomeini
ous possibilities to the first creation, with of Iran, in the meantime, remained well
just one restriction: no eating of the fruit within his own comfort zone when
from the tree of the knowledge of good he pronounced the United States as a
and evil. When Adam and Eve violated “satanic power,” according to the same
that restriction, the second injunction members of the media.
took effect: they were not to eat the fruit Such moralizing goes on, always
from the tree of life. When you look with the same bottom line: “Who gives
carefully at those two boundaries, one whom the right to pronounce the other
following the other, you understand what evil?” I have heard this question countless
is going on. Eating the fruit from the tree times. The very word “morality” has
of the knowledge of good and evil basi- become a lightning-rod theme. “Who is
cally gave humanity the power to redefine to say what is good? How audacious that
everything. God had given language, anyone should lay claim to an absolute!”
identification, and reality to humankind. This lies at the core of our entire moral
He imparted to humans the power to predicament, and it is truly fascinating,
[6] JUST THINKING•RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES
isn’t it? But we find an interesting twist In the first chapter of this book, I
here, because this selective denial of referred to the address I delivered at a
absolutes in morality does not carry over prestigious university on the subject
into the sciences. “What Does It Mean to Be Human?” A
professor of medical ethics from another
THE CONTRADICTORY university had the next presentation.
APPROACHES It didn’t take long to sense that we were
In his book Glimpsing the Face of God, poles apart in our starting point. After
Alister McGrath points out an obvious listening to her views (neither medical nor
truth that most miss.4He uses the illus- ethical, it seemed to me, but rather just
tration of chemical formulas. Every mole- moral autonomy masquerading as science),
cule of water has two atoms of hydrogen she paid me the ultimate compliment. She
and one atom of oxygen. The formula said, “I have never met anybody with
H2O remains true, no matter what race whom I have disagreed more.” So I chose
of people or what gender analyzes it. Can to agree with her on that point.
one really say, “It’s not fair to oxygen that During the question and answer
there are two atoms of hydrogen in time that followed, a few things emerged.
water; so to be fair, there should be two The first was her confident but naive
atoms of oxygen as well”? You can give optimism that, with all the tools in our
two atoms of oxygen, if you want to—but hands, we could shape our future in
if you drink it, it will bleach your insides genetics and engineer whatever we want
(if not worse), because that would make it to. She spoke in very altruistic terms
hydrogen peroxide and not water. about everything from the elimination of
Naming and actual reality have a direct disease to the utilization of human
connection in physics, even as they do in cloning. Her arrogance, pathetic in its
morality and in metaphysics. ignorance, added insult to injury when
So the question arises, Why do we she gave not one whit of objective basis
readily accept the restrictive absolutes of for what her ethical standards would be
chemical structures but refuse to carry with regard to all of this.
these absolutes into our moral frame- When the organizers opened the
work? The answer is obvious: we simply floor to questions, one woman stood and
do not want anyone else to dictate our said to me, “I was very offended by your
moral sensitivities; we wish to define comment that the heart of humanity is
them ourselves. This is at the heart of our evil.” Between the professor, who placed
rejecting of God’s first injunction. It has the power to live or die in human hands,
very little to do with the tree and every- and the questioner, who denied the
thing to do with the seed of our rebellion, depravity of the human heart, we had the
namely, autonomy. We wish to be a law garden of Eden in front of our eyes all
unto ourselves. over again. In Adam and Eve’s defense,
Of course, we also wish to have they, at least, felt ashamed after they had
control over the tree of life. We desire made the wrong choice. By contrast, our
perpetual and autonomous existence—in brilliant contemporaries have a chest-
effect, wanting to play God. Even though out, clenched-fist audacity and think
we did not author creation, we wish to that by shouting louder their arguments
author morality and take the reins of life. become truer.
Combine the two attitudes, and it boils I recall that Malcolm Muggeridge
down to this: we want to live forever on once said that human depravity is at once
our own terms. the most empirically verifiable fact yet
JUST THINKING•VOLUME 21.4 [7]
most staunchly resisted datum by our A few centuries later emerged the
intellectuals. For them, H2O as the teachings of the Buddha, who rejected
formula for water is indisputable; but in the caste system and built his prescription
ethics, man is still the measure—without for conduct on “the four noble truths”:
stating which man. This is the fundamen-
tal difference between a transcendent 1. the fact of suffering
worldview and a humanistic one. 2. the cause of suffering
But the question arises as to what 3. the cessation of suffering
makes the Christian framework unique. 4. the eightfold path that can end suffering
Here we see the second cardinal difference
between the Judeo-Christian worldview About a millennium later came
and the others. It is simply this: no Muhammad in the sixth century after
amount of moral capacity can get us Christ. His instructions came in the “five
back into a right relationship with God. pillars [or injunctions]” of Islam: the Creed;
The Christian faith, simply stated, the Prayers; the Tithe; the Fast; and the
reminds us that our fundamental prob- Pilgrimage (some add Jihad as the sixth).
lem is not moral; rather, our fundamental All of these are prescribed in specific
problem is spiritual. It is not just that we ways. The injunctions address every
are immoral, but that a moral life alone detail imaginable. The Hadith (a narrative
cannot bridge what separates us from record of the sayings and traditions of
God. Herein lies the cardinal difference Muhammad) became the basis of the
between the moralizing religions and practices and customs of all Muslims.
Jesus’ offer to us. Jesus does not offer to
A
make bad people good but to make dead pproximately fourteen centuries
people alive. before Christ (scholars debate the
exact date), the Hebrew people
WORLDVIEWS APART received the Ten Commandments. An
A brief glance at the basis of the laws that extraordinary first line gives the basis of
have come down to us through religious the Ten Laws: “I am the LORD your
history gives us a clue. The Code of God, who brought you out of Egypt, out
Hammurabi, originating in Eastern of the land of slavery. You shall have no
Mesopotamia, is one of the oldest legal other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2 – 3).
codes we have, dating back to about 2500 To miss this preamble is to miss
BC. In addition to the preamble and the the entire content of the Mosaic law. It
epilogue, it contains 282 prescriptions for provides the clue to each of the systems
conduct dealing with a wide range of situ- of law that have emerged through time.
ations. The last of the codes reads as fol- Here the Hebrew-Christian worldview
lows: “If a slave say to his master, ‘I am stands distinct and definitively different.
not your slave,’ if they convict him, his Redemption precedes morality, and not
master shall cut off his ear.” the other way around. While every moral
About a thousand years after this law ever given to humanity provides a
came the Laws of Manu, considered an set of rules to abide by in order to avoid
arm of Vedic teaching. This codebook punishment or some other retribution,
begins by telling us how ten sages went to the moral law in the Bible hangs on the
the teacher Manu and asked him what redemption of humanity provided by God.
laws should govern the four castes. The Something else emerges with stark
response came in 2,684 verses covering difference. If you notice, the moral law in
several chapters. the other legal codes separates people
[8] JUST THINKING•RAVI ZACHARIAS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES