As a Man Thinks (19)
We now have more than enough context and background to understand verses 6-8. These verses convey several ideas that overlap with the previous verses, but they also make some unique contributions in teaching us about human nature and how to deal with people.
Verse 6 literally refers to one who has an "evil eye" (KJV). Most people who have heard of this term would associate it with a later usage, which refers to the magical power to harm or curse others with a glance or glare. But this is not the biblical meaning.
When it comes to expressions such as "an evil eye," "an eye that is evil," "a good eye," "a bountiful eye," and so forth, many modern translations put down the interpretations instead of the actual words of the text. And since "the evil eye" and other related terms might mean slightly different things in different contexts, they are often rendered differently even within the same translation, making it impossible to perform a simple cross-reference study of the various verses that use these expressions. On the other hand, the KJV seems to be more literal and consistent when translating "the evil eye" and related terms.
Our first example comes from Deuteronomy 15:7-11. In the KJV, we read as follows:
If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
The context makes it clear that the expression "thine eye be evil" (v. 9) means to "harden thine heart," "shut thine hand," and "givest him nought." The opposite of this is to "open thine thand," "lend him sufficient for his need," and "shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him." The NASB translates, "…and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing."
In describing a people under God's curse, Deuteronomy 28:54-56 says:
So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave: So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates. The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter… (KJV)
"His eye shall be evil" means that this person who is eating the flesh of his own children would refuse to share it with the rest of his family. The NIV renders the expression "will have no compassion" (v. 54) and "will begrudge" (v. 56).
Then, "is thine eye evil" (KJV) in Matthew 20:15 is translated "are you envious" in the NIV. The workers who started at the beginning begrudge the fact that those who came later are given the same wages. Similarly, "an evil eye" (KJV) in Mark 7:22 is rendered "envy" in the NIV. In contrast, one who has "a bountiful eye" is one who "giveth of his bread to the poor" (Proverbs 22:9, KJV). He is "a generous man" (NIV).
So to think that one with an evil eye is "a stingy man" in Proverbs 23:6 is not wrong, but perhaps it is too weak and incomplete in that it fails to fully convey what kind of man we are talking about. This is not just a penny pincher, but a hard and mean person – stinginess is probably just one symptom of his rotten spirit.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (18)
We will revisit the concern about cynicism again and add to our answer, but right now we need to reconnect all that we have said in this section with the context of our passage, Proverbs 23:4-5.
Verse 5 says that riches are fleeting, that such things as wealth, status, and favor are unreliable. There are a number of ways that material success can disappear overnight, but we have focused on human fickleness and dishonesty, mainly because the surrounding verses emphasize how people can complicate situations by their deceit and ulterior motives (v. 1-3, 6-8).
What is asserted in verse 5 provides the explanation for verse 4, which says, "Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint." There are some translation issues with both parts of this verse, but especially the latter part.
All the common alternatives are taught in other parts of Scripture, and so in this sense there is no immediate doctrinal danger. For example, the latter part of the verse has been variously rendered, "cease from thine own wisdom" (KJV), "have the wisdom to show restraint" (NIV),12 and "cease from your consideration of it" (NASB).13 The first option would mean that one should stop determining his priorities by human wisdom, or to cease striving after riches through human wisdom. The second option conveys the idea that it is foolish to pursue something as fleeting and unreliable as riches, and so one should have the good sense to stop, that is, to refrain from putting all of his strength into obtaining material success. The third one simply means to stop engaging the mind with how to get more riches – stop being obsessed with it.14
All three options are consistent with biblical teaching, and none does violence to the context, so the concern is not whether Scripture teaches any of these, but with what Scripture teaches here. Among others, I suggest Keil & Delitzsch and Bruce Waltke's commentary if you are interested in the grammatical considerations. I favor the second option, as represented by the NIV, ESV, and others.
As for the first part of the verse, translations other than the typical one had been suggested, but they were rather implausible. Precise considerations regarding the second part aside, the first part is clear and defines the intention of verses 4 and 5: "Do not wear yourself out to get rich."15
To review, let us paraphrase what we have learned so far (22:29-23:5): "If you are competent and efficient in your work, you will not remain among obscure men, but you will be taken into the presence of kings and rulers. Now, when you dine with one of these important individuals, you must restrain your appetite if you are prone to indulge. This is because the feast is probably not just a simple gesture of hospitality, but the host might have ulterior motive in mind. He is watching you, testing you, and you should take care lest you offend him, or do something to entrap yourself, or to incite his contempt. Nevertheless, no matter how careful or discreet you are, wealth is fleeting. Take a mere glance at it, and it flies away. And because wealth is so unreliable, do not overwork yourself to obtain it, but have the sense to stop."
Notes
12 See also the ESV, REB, NRSV, NCV, and CCNT (Jay Adams).
13 See also the HCSB, and The New Jerusalem Bible.
14 There are other less serious contenders. See the GNT, NLT, and The Jerusalem Bible.
15 Since I have already addressed this elsewhere in detail, I will refrain from repeating everything here. Instead, please see "Kingdom First" in my Doctrine and Obedience and "Godliness with Contentment" in my Godliness with Contentment.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (17)
Instead, those who understand human nature acknowledge the reality of sin even in their intimate relationships, and they expect to be occasionally deceived and disappointed even by family members and fellow believers – sometimes due to their inability, and sometimes even due to malice. And when sin surfaces in these relationships, we do not deal with them as we would in business.
As Scripture says, "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" (1 Corinthians 6:7). Thus, when asked how we can maintain healthy relationships with people when they are so sinful, and when we are going to be deceived and disappointed by them, we answer, "You enter into these relationships with the intention to love, to give, and to build up, and expect to be occasionally scorned, betrayed, cheated, and otherwise disappointed."
Of course, we may take certain measures to protect ourselves, and to minimize unnecessary damages and losses. For example, it may be a bad idea to lend money to a certain relative known for his drug addiction, and it would be unwise to conduct business with a professing Christian known for his unethical practices. But still the primary motivation would not be profit or self-preservation, but fellowship and edification.
As eager as we are for deep fellowship and community, we must not build our relationships on a view of man that contradicts biblical teaching. Rather, we must always acknowledge the depravity of man, and for believers, also the progressive nature of sanctification. Now, then, the key to having healthy relationships and at the same time acknowledging the reality of sin is to place our trust in God instead of man.
If Christ is the bond and love is the motive, then intimate and meaningful relationships are possible even though we realize that no mere man can legitimately deserve our total trust. If this is the foundation for our relationships, then we will also have a firm basis on which to forgive those who sin against us.
Our trust would be in Christ alone, and the friendship that we extend to others come from the motive of love, and not profit or self-preservation. Such a motive cannot easily turn into fear, anger, or cynicism, since it is not counting on the other person to be perfect, and it does not require the other person to be the source of our strength and happiness, for we have already obtained these things from Christ.
To trust in God alone means that we will never depend on a man for something that he can never give in the first place. The result is that, rather than preventing healthy and meaningful relationships, this understanding gives us the liberty and courage to pursue the deepest humanly possible relationships with even imperfect and sinful people, relationships that are not easily destroyed by sin. This is because, from the beginning, we would not lie to ourselves that the other person is sinless and flawless, or for that matter, that we are perfect ourselves. But we would realize that only God is perfect, and only he is completely trustworthy and almighty, both willing and able to perform all his promises.10
For some, this biblical answer produces another question. That is, if Christ is the only proper bond between meaningful human relationships, and Christian love is the only proper motive, then does it follow that there can be no deep and sincere relationships between non-Christians, or between non-Christians and Christians?
We affirm this without hesitation. When the ultimate commitments between two parties are directly opposed, or when they are both evil, then genuine love, peace, and hope are always impossible.11
Notes
10 Consider how this would offer a firm foundation for a marriage relationship. On this basis, one would regard God as the source, provider, and the bond, and the primary motive is not to see how one can profit from the relationship, but to love and care for the other person.
11 To illustrate, if the Christian were to discuss his ultimate commitment to his non-Christian friend, the latter must offer a disinterested, patronizing, or even hostile reaction. If the friend reacts in a sincerely agreeable way, as if he shares this ultimate commitment, then he is already a Christian. Now if two people can never agree on the ultimate level, then no matter how socially compatible they appear to be, to define this as a deep friendship only betrays the shallowness of the one who calls it such.
(to be continued)
Omnipotence and Contradictions
From Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology (PDF, p. 58-59):
The OMNIPOTENCE of God refers to his unlimited power and ability to create what he wills and to control his creation.
It is often asked whether this means that God can create something that amounts to a contradiction; however, the question suffers from what we may call the CATEGORICAL FALLACY. This means that a term or concept has been misapplied to an issue in question such that one does not even belong in the same category with the other, and thus the statement or question becomes unintelligible and meaningless.
For example, the question "How big is your cat?" makes sense, since size is a category that can be meaningfully applied to animals. The same is true for "How fast is your car?" and "How smart is your son?" However, it makes no sense to ask, "Is the color green fast or slow?" or "Is that rock smart or stupid?" Speed does not apply to color and intelligence does not apply to a rock. Green cannot be fast or slow; a rock cannot be smart or stupid.
There is a similar problem with the question asking whether divine omnipotence implies the ability to perform a contradiction, such as, "Can God create a rock so big or heavy that he cannot lift?" However, God is incorporeal, and thus physical forces do not act upon him at all. When God "lifts" an object, there is no physical force to restrain him. What force is going to make the rock "heavy" to God? Whether the object is big or heavy to us is completely irrelevant. If God creates a rock, he will always be able to do anything he wants with it.
Now, a square circle is a self-contradictory concept. The category of ability does not apply to creating a contradiction, since a contradiction is not something to be created – a contradiction is nothing. Therefore, it is meaningless to ask whether God can create a square circle, since it is nothing to be done at all.
The omnipotence of God is defined as his ability to create what he wills and to exercise complete control over his creation. God does not act contrary to his own will or nature, and he does not perform contradictions, since contradictions are nothing to be performed.
Additional Comments:
When responding to the question (often intended as a challenge to the coherence of biblical theism) of whether God can create or perform contradictions, many Christians are too quick to insist that divine omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything. For example, God "cannot" lie or die. Then, they would apply this to contradictions, saying that God cannot create or perform them.
However, this accepts the confusion inherent in the question, and on that basis supplies a compromising response that is often theologically irrelevant to the Christian God, and that makes an unnecessary concession about God's ability.
The answer is often irrelevant because, when it comes to creating a rock too heavy for God to lift, the category of weight does not apply to an incorporeal God in the first place, so to accept "heavy" as applicable to "God" means that one is no longer answering for the Christian God.
Then, the answer makes an unnecessary concession because a contradiction is nothing to be created or performed, such that the issue of ability is inapplicable, and so to say that God "cannot" create or perform a contradiction is to unnecessarily say that God "cannot" do something, when it is really nothing.
Even the common illustrations that are meant to clarify divine omnipotence demand our reconsideration.
First, does the Scripture really say that God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2, KJV), or is it in fact God "does not lie" (NIV) or God "never lies" (ESV)? Go check the Greek.
Second, even if we have access only to the KJV, so that the verse reads "cannot lie," why must we assume that "cannot" is here used in the same sense as it is in the question under discussion? Depending on the intention and the context, "cannot" sometimes means "does not." Hebrews 6:18 says that it is "impossible for God to lie," but then we still need to know why or in what sense it is impossible. Is it because God is inherently unable to speak falsehood as if it is truth? Or is it because whatever God says becomes the truth (Romans 4:17)? Power and the Word are one in God. Why can he not lie? Is it because of inability, or something else? Does the category of ability apply at all in this case?
Likewise, when we say that God "cannot die," are we saying that he lacks the ability to die, or should we rather say that death does not apply to the Eternal in the first place? Nothing eternal "can" die, but the "can" here has nothing to do with ability — the category does not apply at all. The eternal does not die, and when we say that God "cannot" die, we are referring to the utter impossibility of it, the inconceivability of it, the inapplicability of it, and not his ability or inability.
We should be deathly afraid to say that God cannot do something, that is, in the sense of inability. If we were to attribute inability to God — assuming that there is ever a legitimate and relevant application of inability to God — we must be certain that we use the term in the right sense, that we are not making an unnecessary concession by adopting anti-biblical assumptions, that the biblical verses being used to support our explanation indeed teach what we assert, and that it is not merely an equivocation on our part. We must avoid all silliness and carelessness, such as in the response, "God cannot perform contradictions because he is rational, and he cannot or will not act against his rational nature" — as if an irrational God would be "able" to perform contradictions!
As a Man Thinks (16)
You may ask, if people are unreliable in general, and if no one is perfectly trustworthy, then is it still possible for us to maintain healthy and meaningful relationships? How can we function in society at all? In reply, we need to reinforce rather than relax the biblical teaching on human depravity, but then also make a proper application of it, so that we do not deny the kind of relationships that Scripture encourages.
What we are saying here is not founded on a cynicism generated by experience, but it is the Scripture that teaches us about the wickedness and the deceitfulness of men. It teaches us to be "shrewd as snakes" (Matthew 10:16), and to "be on your guard against men" (v. 17). Although these particular expressions appear within a definite context, and we would not want to illegitimately universalize them, they also aptly represent what other parts of Scripture tell us about dealing with people.
Some relationships do not require total trust in the first place. For example, total trust in a business transaction is unnecessary, and given the reality of sin, outright foolish. Even if you trust the other person completely, he certainly does not trust you completely, that is, unless he is as foolish as you.
Rather, business transactions are driven to completion mostly by financial and practical motives, and prevented from failure by legal contracts, self-preservation, long-term selfish interests, and so forth. Of course, Christians should not make these their primary motives for conducting business, but the reality is that these are the reasons that sustain the market, and the transactions would continue even if there is almost total distrust.
But what about relationships that are meant to be more intimate and enduring, such as relationships within the family and the church? Must we be constantly suspicious? Should we doubt everything that is said to us? Is it necessary to expect the worst from everyone, even our family members and fellow believers?
No, because these relationships are different from business relationships. The immediate purpose in business is to make a profit, and avoiding deception and disappointment is paramount. Only a fool would continue a business relationship in which he is repeatedly deceived and disappointed, even if he chooses to maintain personal relationships with those who have deceived and disappointed him.
The purpose and expectation for maintaining relationships in the family and the church are different. In these more intimate relationships, sacrificial love ought to dominate, and we should not concentrate on how to profit from other people. We do not constantly bargain or negotiate, and we do not regulate these relationships with contracts, or enforce them in the court. In fact, if we were to treat these intimate relationships as we would business relationships, we would destroy them.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (15)
This bleak view of human loyalty may be depressing to some people, but it is what Scripture reveals about people. Christians should and could be better than this, but they are often not, or at least not yet.
Popular opinion urges us to trust in people, for only then can we have healthy relationships and achieve success. Unfortunately, even many believers have accepted this, and assume that it is the biblical attitude. However, Scripture teaches the opposite, admonishing us to place no confidence in man.
This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD. He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not see prosperity when it comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives.
"But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve." (Jeremiah 17:5-10)
It is on the basis of this admonition, that we should have no confidence in man, that Scripture also instructs us concerning the only proper alternative. Returning to Jesus and Paul, the former did not only say, "But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone," but he also added, "Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me" (John 16:32). And after saying, "At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me," Paul wrote, "But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength" (2 Timothy 4:16-17). This is why we do not despair at the fact that people are unreliable, because God is always reliable, and we place our trust in him alone.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (14)
So even the people of God can be fickle and spineless. But this is why most of them are going to be followers all their lives, and this is why they need strong shepherds to direct and teach them, lest they be scattered.
If you are satisfied to be an echo in ministry, repeating the popular opinions of others, never contradicting cherished traditions, then you can just be part of the mob. But if you are going to be a strong leader, and do great things for the kingdom of God, then you will have to come to terms with this reality, that you cannot put your trust in people, not even Christians.
In fact, several Christian businessmen have told me that one must be twice as cautious when dealing with those who claim to be Christians. They are usually the first ones to sell you out, stab you in the back, and disappear with your money. But long before they told me about their experiences, and even since I was a teenager, this is what I had been telling people who started new jobs and business ventures. I learned from the Bible that you cannot trust people.
Come to think of it, I have never heard even one businessman tell me that all people are basically good and trustworthy, and that the path to business success is to trust other people. I assume that there are people who think this way, but I just have not encountered any of them so far. Perhaps most of them are already out of business?
No matter how pathetic, grotesque, extreme, or gruesome, every instance of human depravity is merely another illustration of what Scripture consistently teaches about the sinful nature of man. Thus, although we could feel disappointed and even outraged over some of the things that people do, we should never be surprised by the weakness and wickedness of men, even as exhibited by those who claim to follow Christ. To be surprised means that either we have not read the Bible, or that we do not believe it.
Whether in business or politics, but especially in the ministry, a leader must accept the fact that people are weak without becoming bitter about it. There will always be cowards and weaklings. There will always be traitors and deserters. Thus Paul wrote, "At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me," but added, "May it not be held against them" (2 Timothy 4:16). This is just the way they are, even those who claim to be Christians, and if it makes us think any better of them, many deserters are just spineless, not malicious.
But Paul expected better things from Timothy: "So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God" (2 Timothy 1:8). By the power of the Word and the Spirit, some will grow to become strong and reliable individuals, capable of leading others to maturity. However, this is not common.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (13)
There is an intriguing comment attached to the end of John 2, that is, after Jesus turned water into wine: "Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man" (John 2:23-25). I read this when I was very young, and I have never forgotten it. Jesus did not commit himself even to those who believed in him. Why? Because "he knew what was in a man."
Since the word "believe" is used in both instances, the verse could be translated, "They believed in him, but Jesus did not believe in them." It is true that at least some of them were probably false believers, claiming to follow Christ when they had no genuine faith. But this only reinforces the point. Jesus was not swept up by his popularity. He knew that, although the fame and favor would increase even more for a while, very soon many would no longer follow him (John 6:66). As for those who remained, "It is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" (Mark 14:27). And that was what happened.
In one place, Paul wrote, "At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me" (2 Timothy 4:16). Those were not unbelievers who deserted him, for they were never with him in the first place. No, Christians deserted him. Those were Christians who left him to fend for himself. Perhaps some of them were false converts, but this possibility carries only limited practical relevance. As long as there are false believers and weak Christians in our midst – it is not always easy to tell them apart, and even those that appear to be strong are often revealed to be weak under pressure – it is also possible that they will desert us at our greatest time of need.
Some Christians follow mobs. They are intimidated and influenced by them. So when a minister is widely criticized, some Christians would back away from him, even if they used to support him. I have experienced some of this, too. Often, both the mobs and the deserters are Christians. And when the wave of criticisms pass, or when the person regains favor, then some of the deserters might return. But this kind of support is deceptive and worthless.
Have you read the story of Samson (Judges 15)?9 Three thousand cowards from Judah came to betray him, their own anointed deliverer, to the enemies of God. As always, Samson was fearless, but he made the people promise him that they would not kill him themselves before handing him over to the Philistines. That he even had to ask this accentuates his courage and their cowardice.
Notes
9 See Vincent Cheung, Samson and His Faith.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (12)
Another incident occurred when I was a college student. A woman heard my radio program on Boston's WROL and gave me a call. She was the choir director at her church, and she said that she could probably get me an invitation to preach there. Everything was going well until she told me with great resentment that she left her previous church because the pastor cancelled an animal rescue program that the church did not have the money to maintain. When I agreed with her pastor and said that she seemed to be harboring much bitterness in her heart, she screamed at me, cursed my radio program, and hung up the phone.
Reactions like these never surprise me, and if you have not already guessed, I will give you the biblical reason for this in just a minute; nevertheless, they are always disappointing to experience. Neither of these women rejected my ministry because of my doctrine or character. In fact, both of them approved of my doctrine and enjoyed my teaching style. They turned against me because I crossed some of their strongly held preferences and opinions.
Of course, not everyone loses wealth and favor because he insists on doing right, but many people lose everything because they behave in a foolish and sinful manner. The point is that wealth, status, and favor can easily come and go whether or not you are righteous or unrighteous, and whether you are dealing with believers or unbelievers.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (11)
This is true not only when we are talking about business and politics, but the same applies when it comes to the ministry. In the ministry, people's loyalty and financial support can come and go, sometimes due to no fault of your own, and often because you insist on doing the right thing.
A woman became an ardent supporter of my ministry several years ago upon hearing my recorded lectures.8 She was not only excited about the teachings she was receiving and recommended them to others, but she also began to make regular donations. These donations were large enough to affect my operation. In addition, because she owned a retail business, she was able to donate a number of useful items from her company.
Her support and enthusiasm never relented, but even increased over time. But then she started listening to the teachings of a certain prominent televangelist. Some of his doctrines were outright heretical. When I learned about this, I gently warned her about him, and showed her numerous examples of how this person's teachings departed from central biblical doctrines, and how he constantly abused Scripture by making false inferences from it.
She was shocked and outraged, not at the televangelist's heresies, but at the fact that I would speak against him. It did not matter to her whether I was right or wrong about his doctrines, but that I warned her against him at all was enough to indicate that I was at fault. She declared that she would no longer support my ministry. I offered to refund her a fairly large donation that she had just sent in, and she took it. I never heard from her again.
Thus in one day – within several minutes, in fact – I lost a zealous supporter and a significant source of income. I knew this was a possibility when I decided to warn her, since I understood the very thing that I am illustrating here. So her reaction did not surprise me, but it was still disappointing. She never received any solid biblical teaching before she discovered my ministry, so perhaps there was not enough time for her to develop discernment. Or, perhaps her heart was never truly converted to the truth. Whatever the reason, I would have done the same thing even if I knew that this was how she would have reacted. I am a shepherd, not a hireling. If I could not do my job, then I would have no right to her support and her money in the first place.
Notes
8 To protect the person's identity, I have altered several details that are non-essential to the illustration.
(to be continued)
More on Racism
Some people might have problems understanding the distinctions that I made in the previous entry on racism. This is partly because many assume that "racism" in any sense is false and immoral no matter what, and so they cannot see how racism in the first sense would not always be racism in the second sense also, even on a definitional level. They are blind to any logical analysis of the subject, and so they might have greater difficulty understanding what I was saying.
So far I have not received any negative response on the previous entry, but I am guessing that since some people are accustomed to thinking in a particular way, they might misunderstand what I was getting at yesterday, so that it might be worthwhile to clarify. Those who understood what I was saying realized that I was not undermining racial equality or justifying racism, but I was complaining against a bad argument.
But perhaps some failed to see the point. So I have decided to illustrate and restate some things, and actually naming a race of people in the process. Since racial discussions are more heated when whites and blacks are involved, so that some people would refuse to calmly listen, and since I am Chinese myself, I will use the Chinese people as the focus of my illustrations.
First, we will remind ourselves of the definitions suggested in Merriam-Webster, on the basis of which we made the distinctions: (1) "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," and (2) "racial prejudice or discrimination."
For the sake of the illustration, suppose it is true that all or most Chinese people are born with greater intelligence than people of other races. Then if intelligence is a standard by which we define or measure superiority and inferiority, the Chinese people would be superior by birth. To assert this fact, then, would be "racist" according to the first definition in Merriam-Webster, even though it would be a factually true statement. However, by itself it cannot be racist in the second sense, which is the usual sense attacked in most discussions on racism.
Or, suppose it is true that all or most Chinese people are born with weaker livers than people of other races. Then if liver health or health in general is a standard by which we define or measure superiority and inferiority, the Chinese people would be inferior by birth. Again, to merely affirm this fact would be "racist" according to the first definition in Merriam-Webster, even though it would be a factually true statement. But again, by itself it cannot be racist in the second sense.
One problem with the non-Christians who argue against racism is that they oppose racism in the second sense because they think that no racist statement in the first sense could ever be true. They admit that there are some inherited differences among the races, such as skin color, but that these differences are non-essential. For their argument to stand, they must first discover these differences, then specify and defend a standard by which to judge whether these differences are essential or non-essential in determining superiority and inferiority, define and justify their definitions of superiority and inferiority, and then apply the standard to the differences between the races to demonstrate that there are no essential differences indicating that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another.
If they skip or fail any of these steps, then the process of reasoning is invalid, and the whole case falls apart.1 They will have no rational basis by which to assert that no racist statement in the first sense could ever be true. In fact, because their method is science, which I have repeatedly shown to be always fallacious and irrational, no one can ever demonstrate on the basis of empirical and scientific investigations that all racist statements in the first sense must be false. It is simply impossible. Moreover, since empiricism and science can never establish any moral principle, neither can they oppose racism in the second sense. This is why science can say nothing about racism, whether for or against it.
Only biblical revelation can provide the correct basis from which to understand racial issues, and if racism is indeed immoral, to oppose it.
First, we must come to terms with the fact that not all statements that can be described as "racist" in some sense are false or immoral (see Titus 1:12). Not all statements about racial distinctions indicate a "racist" attitude. Many Chinese people are good at math. Many Chinese people are short. Most Chinese supermarkets are filthy.2 So what? These are descriptive statements that might be true or false, but they are not racist in an immoral sense. If they are true, then they are not inherently problematic, but only when they are asserted or applied with a racist attitude, that is, racist in the second sense. But if they are false, then they should be rejected because they are false whether or not they are asserted or applied with a racist attitude. If we will acknowledge these straightforward distinctions, discussions on race and racism would become more precise and productive.
Then, we must not go to Scripture already obsessed with the agenda to find arguments against racism, before we even discover what it teaches about the subject of man and of race. Instead, we must first gain an understanding of creation, humanity, and redemptive history. We will find that all men were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), that all were made from "one blood" (Acts 17:26, KJV), and that although God has made a distinction between the elect and the non-elect, the Christians and the non-Christians, both groups consist of people from various races. God does not damn people only from a particular race, but he sends all kinds of people to hell according to his justice and pleasure. Likewise, he saves people from all difference races, and the believers from one race are not inherently more spiritual or privileged than the believers from another race (Romans 10:12; Galatians 3:28).
Third, we must oppose racism not because we wish to be politically correct or because of any man-centered motive, but because God has told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, a command that all true believers are eager to obey.
Finally, when a true negative statement is made about your race, instead of complaining of racism, you should just fix the problem. If the statement is true, then racism is not the problem, your people are the problem. If derogatory remarks about your race bother you so much, then take responsibility for your people. Help to improve the people of your race in those areas where others make true criticisms. Quit taking the wimp's way out in blaming those who expose your flaws. It will only make your race appear even more pathetic, and it will only increase other people's contempt for your people.3 Paul wrote, "Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:12–13).4 He was telling Titus to do the Cretans a big favor, that is, to save them from themselves by the power of the gospel.
Notes
1 For example, how do they establish whether or not Chinese are born more intelligent than others? And how do they establish whether this is an essential characteristic in determining superiority and inferiority?
2 I could offer more extreme statements than these and the ones given earlier (on intelligence and health), and these more provoking examples might in fact better illustrate my point. However, there is no need to be crude or offensive if the reader can grasp at least the general direction of my thinking even with these milder ones.
3 Remember I am saying this as a Chinese who has been on the receiving end of some negative racial remarks and discrimination (although admittedly much less than many others). I am referring to racist statements and actions in the second and immoral sense. Yet, I have no problem admitting that some negative generalizations about Chinese people are true, and that in these cases, the Chinese should change instead of complaining of racism. Now, it would be wrong to think that one who has never experienced racial discrimination has no right to say what I am saying here, but I mention this for the sake of those who are irrational enough to think that only experience gives one the right to address the issue.
4 We might wonder if this verse is the best illustration for our point, since "Cretans" are not on the same level as "Greeks," but on the same level as something like "Corinthians." But the principle is similar enough, only that the statement is more narrow. Not all Asians are Chinese — there are Japanese, Koreans, etc. — but a statement about the Chinese would be considered a racial statement, only that it would be more specific than a statement about Asians in general. There are other relevant verses in Scripture that employ broader racial terms, such as "Jews" and "Greeks." This verse is chosen because it illustrates several of our points at the same time. It is indeed a negative racial statement, but the passage also tells us what to do with it.
Sociobiology and Racism
Project on Sociobiology:
As noted, the previous entry on sociobiology was taken from Renewing the Mind. I would like to add something here that I did not include in the book.
For the class that I took, the students had to do a research paper and presentation. We were supposed to address a particular aspect of human behavior using the principles of sociobiology.
So I presented to the class what would be considered a racist thesis (see "comments on racism" below), and supported it with data published by some evolutionary biologists, as well as by applying what I had been taught about sociobiology up to that point. Without denouncing the discipline (although I would have no problem doing it if I had decided on the direct approach), I provided the relevant data, quotes, graphs, and so on, and with a straight face demonstrated the superiority of my own race.
The students were seething with indignation. As I recall, the TA who graded my project did not like what I said, but she gave me an "A-" anyway, probably because I was right — given the data and the theories of sociobiology, my conclusion was logical and legitimate.
It was one of the sweetest ad hominem cases that I have ever constructed.
Comments on Racism:
Merriam-Webster offers two definitions for "racism": (1) "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," and (2) "racial prejudice or discrimination."
My thesis would be racist according to the first definition, but only the second definition indicates an immoral sort of racism. If true, an assertion that is racist in the first sense would be positively moral to affirm, and it would be in fact immoral to deny it, since to deny it would be to deny the truth. Thus a true assertion about the characteristics of a race cannot be automatically racist in the second and immoral sense also.
Many people confuse the two senses, and perhaps influenced by secular thinking, even believers fail to observe such a simple distinction. Of course, there are those who simply reject the distinction because they assume that racism in the first sense could never be true (that one race cannot be inherently superior or inferior to another), so that whoever affirms a racist belief in the first sense must do so only because he is first a racist in the second sense. Others also assume that racism in the first sense could never be true, so that racists in general are just ignorant. However, without reason or proof that racism in the first sense could never be true, the distinction between the first and the second sense must be maintained, and we cannot just assume that racists are ignorant.
Once a non-Christian philosophy student told me that "racism" is irrational, and that "racists" believe as they do because they are ignorant people. I asked him exactly what "racists" are ignorant of, that is, precisely what piece of information they lack so that they would not be racists any longer if they were to learn it. He answered that they are ignorant of the fact that there are no essential differences among people of different races. He was the one who used the word "essential," so he was slightly more careful than some of the others that I have read or talked to on the subject. But when I questioned him on what differences are "essential," what differences are not, and how we can distinguish between the two, he failed to answer me, and could not even suggest a standard by which to find out. Thus his case against racism fails, for ultimately, he has no rational argument against one who would regard any difference among the races (skin color, facial features, etc.) as a basis for discrimination. Of course, the racist could also be irrational in this case, but this non-Christian could oppose him only by an equally irrational argument.
Finally, he said that if everyone would question their assumptions like I was doing with him, then nothing at all could be established. Without agreeing that "nothing at all could established," I pointed out that by this he had admitted that nothing that he believed could be established. But he was the one who said that he was rational, and that the racists were irrational. In other words, his beliefs were perfectly rational as long as no one questioned him about them, and they were true just because he preferred to believe them.
On another occasion, a supporter of homosexual marriage told me that those who oppose homosexuality or homosexual marriage are ignorant people. Again I asked what precisely they are ignorant of. He answered that they fail to understand that homosexuality is natural, that homosexuals are born homosexuals, and that homosexual relationships do not damage society or undermine heterosexual relationships. When I asked him how he knew all of this, and then how all of this justifies homosexuality, he could not answer me. It appeared that these were just random beliefs that he considered both true and relevant, when he could not show that they were true or how they were relevant.
My position is that science can neither prove nor refute racism in either sense. With the first sense, empirical methods and scientific reasonings are never able to arrive at any truth, so it can make no pronouncement regarding whether one race is inherently superior or inferior to another. With the second, empirical methods and scientific reasonings can never validly arrive at any moral judgment. Therefore, science is impotent to address racism from any angle.
Using science to justify racism in the first sense, my class presentation was a case of an ad hominem attack against sociobiology. Since science could never prove anything, the presentation did not rationally justify racism, and still less did it refute racism, but I used a method favored by the audience to support a conclusion that the same audience was reluctant to accept. To prove something right or wrong, one must abandon empirical science and reason from revelation.
Now, the second definition cannot describe what Paul wrote in Titus 1:12, since Paul’s assertion was true. Even the first definition would fail to apply unless Paul is saying that the Cretans were inherently (that is, because they were Cretans) the way they were. But he does not indicate this in the verse, and based on what the rest of Scripture teaches, we can assume that he does not have this meaning in mind.
Therefore, statements about the characteristics exhibited (not necessarily inherited) by a race of people, even denounciations like the one in Titus 1:12, are not racist in either sense. But again, even if these characteristics are inherited and not merely exhibited, then statements about them can at best be "racist" in the first but not the second sense, and they are not immoral. We would have to regard those statements as accurate descriptions, and not racially prejudiced remarks that should be condemned. Those who refuse to acknolwedge these distinctions are irrational fanatics for a cause that they have failed to define or understand. We must not think that they are righteous crusaders for racial justice and equality.
RECOMMENDED:
Apologetics for Christian Students
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word
Vincent Cheung, "Professional Morons"
Vincent Cheung, "A Moron by Any Other Name"
Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy
Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things
Gordon Clark, The Lord God of Truth
Gordon Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God
Gordon Clark, The Christian Philosophy of Education
Sociobiology and Human Nature
The following is taken from Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind (PDF, p. 13–16).
— // —
I took a course in college on sociobiology. The subject presupposes biological evolution and applies it to human thought and culture. From the assumption that human beings are descendants of animals, and are animals, it observes and extends the social behavior of animals to explain human behavior. For example, E. O. Wilson attempts to account for altruism and religion using the theory of evolution.8
One of the essay questions on the final exam was, "How has this course changed your view of human nature?" Part of my answer read, "Only an idiot would let a 100-level course in undergraduate biology change something as important as his view on human nature. It would be like taking a semester of German or Spanish and then immediately adopting it as one's primary language."
Yet such morons abound. With no more than a most elementary understanding of evolutionary theory, and sometimes not even that, they rely on it as one of the most basic principles that govern their thinking. In a speech at the American Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson said, "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence."9
If the public is guilty of believing the scientists without examining the evidence, the scientists are in turn guilty of suppressing evidence contrary to their theories:
It is…right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine that they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.10
Many Christians, affected by an anti-intellectual secular philosophy, are also ignorant of the major tenets of their faith, and this reveals their disobedience to biblical instructions. However, evolutionists do not believe in an omnipotent Spirit who converts the fundamental commitments of the chosen ones so that they may assent to the truth and be saved. The Christian worldview permits one to convert to the faith without a thorough understanding of the entire system, since it is the sovereign God who exercises irresistible power on the will of man by means of the gospel message. Nevertheless, Scripture commands the diligent study of the word of God to gain a comprehensive intellectual understanding of the Christian faith.
The unbeliever cannot justify a change in fundamental commitment based on an undergraduate course in biology, especially those who pride themselves on being rational and scientifically minded. To demand one argument for evolution citing actual evidence for the theory is often sufficient to silence many lay evolutionists. Many of them cannot even explain the theory of evolution, let alone provide evidence in support of it. However, they claim to revere only science, and will believe nothing without evidence.
But the point that I wish to emphasize is that the question on the final exam implied an agenda to alter or shape the thinking of the students. "How has this course changed your view of human nature?" betrays an intention and expectation that the content of the course would change one's view of human nature. The professor wished to work out some of evolution's implications for human behavior so that the students would think and act more consistently with evolutionary theory.
In the words of René Dubos: "Evolutionary concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines. Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly through the concept of progressive historical change."11 Julian Huxley likewise writes, "The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as…linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process."12 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin declares that evolution is "a general condition to which all theories, all systems, all hypotheses must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true."13
Evolution is a theory concerning human origins that produces ramifications in subjects outside of biology. Due to its wide acceptance, it has affected secular theories on psychology, education, criminology, and many other areas of study. Huxley believes that evolution is an "all-pervading process." However, if the theory is false, then the secular theories deduced from it can only be all-pervasive nonsense. Besides his optimistic view of evolution cited in the previous paragraph, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin also says, "[Evolution is] above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience."14 It cannot be verified or falsified. But this is not very "scientific," is it? Imagine the ridicule if a Christian were to make the same claim regarding supernatural creation.
I have in my possession hundreds of pages of additional quotations that can embarrass the evolutionists, but since it is not my aim to refute the theory here, I must refer the reader to my other writings. Now, evolution is one of the major secular and anti-biblical theories that seeks to capture our minds. The point is that non-Christians adopt ludicrous fundamental principles to eliminate the God of the Bible as the determiner and explanation of all human thought and experience. They opt for unbiblical – and therefore false – principles from which to construct their worldviews.
Notes
8 E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature; Harvard University Press, 1988.
9 Colin Patterson, "Evolution and Creationism," New York; November 5, 1981. Dr. Patterson was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
10 W. R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin; Dutton: Everyman's Library, 1956; p. xxii. Thompson was Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa.
11 René Dubos, "Humanistic Biology," American Scientist, vol. 53; March, 1965; p. 4-19.
12 Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," in What is Science? edited by J. R. Newman; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955; p. 256-289.
13 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man; New York: Harper and Row, 1965; p. 219.
14 Ibid., p. 2.
15 It is a philosophical presupposition not derived from, but rather imposed upon, empirical data.
As a Man Thinks (10)
Nevertheless, as the next two verses from Proverbs tell us (23:4-5), no matter how hard you try, and how much care and discretion you exhibit in your work, wealth, status, and favor can fly away at any moment. There are countless ways that this can happen. You might offend someone who could cause you trouble. Maybe those on whom you depend for your wealth and status no longer have any use for you. Or, maybe some natural disaster destroys all that you have accumulated. Sometimes it will be because you have made a mistake, or it might not be your fault at all. In fact, wealth, status, and the favor of men can sometimes disappear precisely because you insist on doing right.
Consider Joseph. He perfectly illustrates Proverbs 22:29-23:1-3. He was competent and efficient in his work, and he exercised great discretion, so that he was promoted to manage Potiphar's entire household and all of his possessions (Genesis 39:1-6). But when he resisted the seduction of his master's wife, he was falsely accused of assaulting her and was thrown into prison (v. 7-20). Even more quickly than he was promoted, he lost his status, his favor, his comfortable environment, and even more important than these, his good name. Thus he also illustrates Proverbs 23:4-5: "Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone."
Daniel "was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent" (6:4), so that "the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom" (v. 3), but his enemies set a trap for him. One moment, he was at the height of his power (v. 1-3), but the next moment, he was thrown into the lions' den (v. 16). In this instance, he was vindicated and restored, but this serves only to illustrate again the unstable nature of material prosperity. In his story, only God's grace and Daniel's faith were constant. Also consider Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3). God was faithful to his elect even during their exile, but wealth, status, and favor come and go.
(to be continued)
As a Man Thinks (9)
Everyone should be taught and trained in these things as a child – that is, to speak clearly, present oneself neatly, always arrive early, follow instructions, and so on. These should be ingrained habits by the time a person reaches his teenage years, if not much earlier. Once in a while there might be a mad genius that is unrefined and disorganized, but mad geniuses are rare, and the rest are without excuse.
When he started as a young man, that successful partner at the large accounting firm, whom I mentioned earlier, had his lessons to learn also. He practiced very well, almost to perfection, all those things that I have mentioned so far. But born into a poor family, he did not know the ways of high society. As a new hire, he was invited to a cocktail party organized by the company. He was excited, but also quite nervous, since he had seldom been in situations like this one. So he was more than a little embarrassed when one who was a partner of the firm at the time came across the room and scolded him for wearing white socks with his black shoes to the function. He told me that the partner was right – he did him a favor by telling him this. If he was going to circulate among those people, then this was something that he needed to learn.
As a child, my father would harshly rebuke me whenever I yawned or looked away while he was dictating to me some serious instructions. Now, was he being too strict, or was I supposed to learn it later by offending a person of high position and losing favor with him? Then, my mother saw to it that I always chewed with my mouth closed. They took me to dine at expensive hotels – to teach me things like which silverware to use for different dishes, and why it took three hours to eat a French meal that left me more hungry than before I started – so that I would become thoroughly accustomed to such things and not embarrass myself later in life.
Later, they sent me to a school that daily enforced in its students the habits of gentlemen. For example, a formal dress code (jacket, tie, trousers, dress shoes) was imposed for classes, meals, and chapel. And when it was too hot, we were required to ask the teacher in charge and acknowledge the female students before removing our jackets. The girls had to wear jackets, long dresses, and dress shoes. Unlike some places, the costumes of whores were frowned upon.
It is true that all of this training addressed relatively superficial things, and it was not until God sovereignly changed me by his grace that I started to know truth and mercy in my heart. You can place a tuxedo on a pile of wet horse dung, and this is what I think of the non-Christian elite. You cannot hide the overwhelming stench from a spiritual man, and still less from God. Nevertheless, Scripture (especially in Proverbs) gives a place to these things as the lessons to learn for one to excel in human society, and they indeed befit the true gentleman who does all things in the fear of God and for his glory.
You are mistaken if you think that we have strayed far from Proverbs 23:1-3. Besides telling them to control their appetites on sensitive occasions and in front of important people, we have been considering some of the other related things that parents should teach their children while they are still young. Of course, most adults need to review some of these lessons as well, that is, if they are not learning them for the very first time. Our passage refers to acting with discretion in a potentially deceptive and dangerous situation (because of the powerful personage involved), whereas we have also considered several other areas by applying the general principle, that we should act with discretion because our actions are often watched by people, and from what they notice they make inferences about our background, character, and competence.
One purpose of Proverbs is "To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion" (1:4, KJV). The opposite of materialism is not barbarism. Just because we as Christians are supposed to be "spiritual" does not mean that we must also be bums and slobs. If anything, we must learn to function on all levels of society – not too refined to embrace the poor and despised, and not too crude to impress the rich and mighty. David was one who obtained the trust of outcasts (1 Samuel 22:2), but also gained the favor of royalties (1 Samuel 18:1-5).
(to be continued)