69 Sermon Illustrations on Human Nature

Things of God seem too simple for some highly cultured intellects. 2 Cor. 11:3. "I thought" (v. 11). Better let God do the thinking. Hell, the only place where men can think for themselves. Naaman would have perished but for servants not possessed of great intellect

A Canadian farmer, noted for his absent-mindedness, went to town one day and transacted his business with the utmost precision. He started on his way home, however, with the firm conviction that he had forgotten something, but what it was he could not recall. As he neared home, the conviction increased, and three times he stopt his horse and went carefully through his pocketbook in a vain endeavor to discover what he had forgotten. In due course he reached home and was met by his daughter, who looked at him in surprize and exclaimed, “Why, father, where have you left mother?”--_Leslie’s Weekly._

See BEAUTIFUL LIFE, SECRET OF; LANGUAGE, FORMATION OF.

ABSORPTION, MENTAL

The anecdote is a familiar one in the history of painting, of the artist employed upon the frescoes of a dome, who stept back to see from a better point of view the work which he had done, and became so absorbed in comparing the scenes which he had depicted with the forming idea as it lay in his mind, that still proceeding backward he had reached the edge of the lofty scaffolding, when a pupil, observing his instant peril, and afraid even to shout to him, rushed forward and marred the figures with his trowel, so calling back and saving the master. The mind, engrossed in its own operation, had forgotten the body, and was treating it as carelessly as the boy treats the chip which he tosses on the wave.

— RICHARD S. STORRS

There died recently in Stockerau, Bavaria, at the age of twenty-eight years, a dwarf, Maria Schuman, who was at one time a celebrity, says _La Nature_. She passed her whole life in the cradle where she slept her first sleep, twenty-eight years ago. Up to the day of her death, this strange creature preserved the height and general appearance of an infant of a few months; but, wonderful to say, her intellect was normally developed and nothing could have been odder than to hear this tiny baby in the cradle talk like an adult, with much vivacity and intelligence! Maria was born in 1875, at Brigittenan, near Vienna. Her parents were of normal development, and so were her brothers and sisters. (Text.)

Samuel Johnson (1709–1784) who was certainly not the greatest writer of his age, perhaps not even a great writer at all, but who was nevertheless the dictator of English letters, still looms across the centuries of a magnificent literature as its most striking and original figure. Here, moreover, is a huge, fat, awkward man, of vulgar manners and appearance, who monopolizes conversation, abuses everybody, clubs down opposition--“Madam” (speaking to his cultivated hostess at table), “talk no more nonsense”; “Sir” (turning to a distinguished guest), “I perceive you are a vile Whig.” While talking he makes curious animal sounds, “sometimes giving a half whistle, sometimes clucking like a hen”; and when he has concluded a violent dispute and laid his opponents low by dogmatism or ridicule, he leans back to “blow out his breath like a whale” and gulp down numberless cups of hot tea. Yet this curious dictator of an elegant age was a veritable lion, much sought after by society; and around him in his own poor house gathered the foremost artists, scholars, actors, and literary men of London--all honoring the man, loving him, and listening to his dogmatism as the Greeks listened to the voice of their oracle.--WILLIAM J. LONG, “English Literature.”

Human nature must be perfected by long processes of improvement analogous to that employed in getting a perfect chronometer.

From the practical point of view, chronometry has made in these last few years very sensible progress. The errors in the movements of chronometers are corrected in a much more systematic way than formerly, and certain inventions have enabled important improvements to be effected in the construction of these instruments. Thus, the curious properties which steel combined with nickel--so admirably studied by M. Guillaume--exhibits in the matter of dilatation are now utilized so as to almost completely annihilate the influence of variations of temperature.--LUCIEN POINCARÉ, “The New Physics and its Evolution.”

Sudden forgetfulness is not an unusual thing in the pulpit. Aubrey, the antiquary, says that when he was a freshman at college he heard Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln, well known for his work, “Nine Cases of Conscience,” break down in the middle of the Lord’s Prayer. Even the great French preacher Massillon once stopt in the middle of a sermon from a defect of memory, and Massillon himself recorded that the same thing happened through an excess of apprehension to two other preachers whom he went to hear in different parts of the same day. Another French preacher stopt in the middle of his sermon and was unable to proceed. The pause was, however, got over ingeniously. “Friends,” said he, “I had forgot that a person much afflicted is recommended to your immediate prayers.” He meant himself. He fell on his knees, and before he rose he had recovered the thread of his discourse, which he concluded without his want of memory being perceived. _Chambers’s Journal._

Our fellow man is as valuable as we. He may be down, but he has it in him to stand. A writer says of the windfalls of apples:

We remember that in the windfalls a sweetness remains. That fruit, fallen untimely, or cast earthward by the storm, yet has not lost its flavor; often it is still sweet and pleasant to the taste. And, therefore, mindful of this, let us not think that the human windfalls have lost all their sweetness. Let us remember some good is left in all, and seek to gather them up. (Text.)

Shiel told Moore of a good thing said by Keller, an Irish barrister. Keller, meeting some judge, an old friend of his, a steady, solemn fellow who had succeeded as much in his profession as Keller had failed, said to him: “In opposition to all the laws of natural philosophy, you have risen by your gravity, while I have sunk by my levity!” (Text.)--CROAKE JAMES, “Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.”

Charles Somerville, writing of the lower strata of society, that he calls the “underworld,” says:

Its inhabitants are not so altogether different from you and me. More wilful in their weaknesses, certainly, they are; more hysterical in their hilarities; blinder in their loves and bitterer in their hatreds; supinely subject to all emotions, good or bad, undoubtedly.... I remember so well the first time I saw a burglar in flesh and blood. His black mask was off, his revolver was in the possession of the police; he had just been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and was saying good-by to his wife and three little children. He was wholly like any other grief-stricken human being. His sob was the same. He was a sandy-haired man with rather large, foolish blue eyes. It was hard to imagine those same large blue eyes looking very terrible, even behind a black mask. (Text.)

Our domestic birds often manifest symptoms of passions, whims, and moral aberrations, clearly analogous to those of their biped proprietors; and in the higher animals those manifestations become so unmistakable that a student of moral zoology is often tempted to indorse the view of that schoolgirl who defined a monkey as “a very small boy with a tail.” According to Arthur Schopenhauer’s theory of moral evolution, the conscious prestige of our species first reveals itself in the emotions of headstrong volition that makes a little baby stamp its feet and strike down its fist, “commanding violently before it could form anything like a clear conception of its own wants. Untutored barbarians,” he adds, “are apt to indulge in similar methods of self-assertion, and, in settling a controversy, prefer menacing gestures to rational explanations. That tendency, however, is not confined to infants and savages. In his controversies with his cage-mate (a female spaniel), my pet Cutch will lay hold of the dog’s tail and enforce his theories with a peremptory pull that never fails to provoke a rough-and-tumble fight; but, long after the dog has relapsed into sullen silence, her antagonist will shake the cage with resounding blows, and every now and then steal a look at the bystanders, to invite their attention to his ‘best method of dealing with heretics.’”--FELIX OSWALD, _Popular Science Monthly_.

See BOY AND KING.

MYSELF

What unto me is Nature after all? I pass her by and softly go my way. She is the remnant of my little day Upon this beautiful revolving ball.

I am the real being. At my beck, The seeming actual pays its vassalage; I am the reader and the world the page; I fling a halter round old matter’s neck.

Glad to be taught of things outside, yet I Find me indifferent to their transient touch; A life’s to-day is an eternity Seems not to please my spirit overmuch.

I may not fathom now the end or what The sweat and blood and tragedy may mean; But I can fight the fight and falter not. Above the clouds the hilltops are serene.

So if I stay here years or slip away While yet the early dawn is dim and dark, It matters not. I am that living spark That ever glows ’tho planets have their day.(Text.)

Science hath measured man in part; in the laboratory, science points to an analysis of a man weighing a hundred and fifty pounds. In one jar are ten or twelve quarts of water, in another jar the lime, the ash, the carbon, the phosphates, and then a tiny vial holding a little iodin, and a little phosphorus. But that row of jars containing all the elements of the body must not be labeled man. Beyond those jars is a certain immeasurable element, an impalpable something, an invisible essence, a secret spirit, a hidden power, that is fenced about with bones and sinews, but that will suddenly compel you to laugh, to love, to burn with moral indignation, and will spread out before you a canvas and dim your eyes with tears; that will wave a wonder-working wand woven of words, and show you an imperial palace built yonder upon foundations of clouds, and then with a stroke dissolve all, and leave not a wrack behind. These twelve jars, analyzed by science, can not write poems or paint pictures, or carve altars, or enact laws, or sing lullabies, or create a Christmas tree.

— N. D. HILLIS

A boy was asked to explain the difference between animal instinct and human intelligence. “If we had instinct,” he said, “we should know everything we needed to know without learning it; but we’ve got reason, and so we have to study ourselves ’most blind or be a fool.”

Sigmund Freud died a bitter and disillusioned man, with little compassion for the common man. Freud wrote in 1918,

"I have found little that is good about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all."

As I record this [October 2007], the New England Patriots are off to one of the greatest starts in NFL history, winning their first three games by an average of 26 points.

But their on-the-field accomplishments have been overshadowed by off-the-field controversies — controversies that say more about our culture than they do about football.

A few weeks ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell fined the Patriots and Coach Bill Belichick $750,000 for videotaping opponents’ signals in violation of league rules. In addition, the Patriots will probably forfeit their first-round draft choice in the April 2008 NFL draft.

Some commentators insisted that the Patriots and Belichick got off too lightly, but theirs was definitely a minority view. For most commentators, it was much ado about nothing. They argued that the “strategic advantage” to be gained from breaking the rules was minor. In fact, many were shocked that Coach Belichick bothered to cheat. After all, the Patriots’ lopsided victories proved that they did not need to cheat to win — as one writer put it, “it’s a whole lot easier to catch the spy than it is to actually beat him.”

This is why we do not, or at least should not, turn to sportswriters for moral guidance.

Perhaps a better guide would be St. Augustine of Hippo. In Book Two of his CONFESSIONS, Augustine recalled the “past wickedness and the carnal corruptions of [his] soul.” The sin whose memory caused him the most anguish was not his sexual misconduct and debauchery. Instead, it involved fruit.

Specifically, it was a pear tree close to his family’s vineyard. He writes that neither the pears’ flavor nor their color was tempting. Yet, one night he and his friends “went to shake and rob this tree.”

Augustine wrote that he was “compelled to [robbery] by neither hunger nor poverty.” He had plenty of pears at home that were of “much better quality.” He did not “desire to enjoy what [he] stole, but only the theft and the sin itself.”

He recalled how he and his companions “laughed because,” as he wrote, “our hearts were tickled at the thought of deceiving the owners, who had no idea of what we were doing and would have strenuously objected.”

As he put it, he acted out of “a contempt for well-doing and a strong impulse to iniquity.” He stole the pears precisely because it was the wrong thing to do.

This “impulse to iniquity” was, for Augustine, what it meant to be fallen — original sin. People are not calculators whose actions are solely, or even largely, determined by rational self-interest. Our natures have been, in C. S. Lewis’s words, “bent” — we often do the wrong thing because it feels better than doing the right thing.

We break rules because our fallen natures tell us that the willingness to break them proves our “superiority” to those who do not. We test the limits, not because it yields an advantage, but to see what we can get away with. Belichick and the Patriots cheated, got caught, and were punished. Good. But it should come as no surprise to Christians that someone who does not need to cheat to win, cheats anyway. That’s what we humans do.

The attempt to explain human perversity solely in terms of “strategic advantage” is a reminder that without Christianity, a culture not only cannot understand God — it cannot understand man, either.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #5274]

What is man? This question has captivated the ages. Ask it today in a university lecture hall, and you are likely to hear that there is no such thing as man, for there is no universal human nature that we all share. There are just individuals. Yes, we share the same physiology, the current fashion says, but we do not share the same destiny, or purpose, or morality. Therefore, there is no such thing as human nature, no such thing as man.

Such an answer has not always been in vogue. Even such disparate figures as Friedrich Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher, and Alexander Pope, the great Christian poet, agreed that humanity had a common nature, something that we all shared. Yet they disagreed what that common nature was.

Nietzsche thought that humanity was “a rope tied between beast and Overman.” [1] Overman was superman — humanity that had evolved beyond our current state into a more powerful and more awesome form. Thus humanity was between superman and beast. Nietzsche said as much in his magnum opus "Thus Spoke Zarathrustra":

What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful

embarrassment. And man shall be just that for Overman...[We]

have made our way from worm to man, and much in [us] is still

worm...[So] man is a rope tied between beast and Overman...[and

so] what is great in man is that he is bridge and not an end. [2]

Thus Nietzsche looked forward to man evolving into superman.

Alexander Pope looked for no such evolution of man. He looked for the salvation of man. Yes, Pope also saw man as being in a between state, but not between beast and superman, but between beast and God. He powerfully articulates this in his masterful poem An Essay on Man:

Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,

A being darkly wise, and rudely great:

With too much knowledge for the skeptic's side

With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,

He hangs between;...

In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast; [3]

Pope, like Nietzsche, understood that we are darkly wise and rudely great. But Pope also knew that our destiny was not to evolve into supermen.

Our destiny, and our great hope, is the putting on of the new man in Christ. Our human nature made in the image of God has been marred by sin. Yet Christ, gives us the hope of overcoming our sinful nature. His promise is clear: “I am the Light of the World, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12) He is the Creator of heaven and earth, the Author of Life — will you follow him to that for which you were created?

____________

1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathrustra, as quoted by Damon Linker in First Things, August/September 2002, No. 125, p. 57.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1378

While the garbage workers were on strike a few years ago, a wise New

Yorker disposed of his refuse for nine days without any difficulty.

Each day he wrapped his garbage in gift paper. Then he put it in a

shopping bag. When he parked his car, he left the bag on the front

seat with the window open. When he got back to the car, the garbage

always had been collected.

- Unknown

This summer Dr. Lee Silver, author of REMAKING EDEN, predicted the first human clone would be born within a mere six years. And last month, scientist Richard Seed announced he plans to clone HIMSELF within two years. And there’s nothing to prevent him from doing it.

Congress has considered various measures to prevent the cloning of human beings, but so far there is no law against it. Christians need to be thinking now, seriously, about what will happen if human cloning takes place and about what our response ought to be before it becomes an accepted practice.

Consider why anyone would want a clone in the first place. Enthusiasts for genetic engineering talk about the prospects of replacing a lost loved one, or using a clone to provide a genetic match for organ donation.

Brave New World scenarios even picture cloning super-athletes or super-scientists.

What makes all of these examples ethically skewed is that they represent a sub-Christian view of human nature. A clone is a full human being: Clones are not copies of the people they are cloned from any more than identical twins are copies. They would be genetically identical to the parent, but they would be different people and have minds of their own — just like identical twins are separate individuals, and they have different souls.

But the reason people give for cloning treat the clone as having less than full dignity, as a means to an end, a tool for meeting personal needs or social engineering goals.

Imagine, for example, that an enterprising biomarketing firm decides to clone homerun champ Mark McGwire and supermodel Cindy Crawford. Each of them donates cells and relinquishes parental rights. Imagine what happens when these superbabies are 15 years old. These kids may look just like Mark McGwire and Cindy Crawford at age 15. But problems have arisen. Mark II, sick of living under Mark McGwire’s shadow, despises baseball. He deeply resents being treated like some product. He wants to lead his own life, not fulfill some company’s marketing expectations.

Or the Cindy Crawford clone has problems, too. Let’s imagine that because of the intense pressure put on her to be a supermodel, she turns to God and decides to go into full-time ministry. Everybody deeply resents her decision. After all, the whole point of cloning her was to reproduce a beautiful supermodel who could earn millions of dollars — not a fundamentalist preacher.

These scenarios illustrate one of the horrors of cloning. It’s hard enough for anyone to escape his parents’ expectations, but imagine the unbearable burden of being asked to live the second life of someone who’s gone before — the constant pressure to live up to a preconceived image.

Scripture teaches that God loves us for our own sake. We’re not mere tools or cogs in some scheme of social engineering. We are unique beings, made in His image. We’re not here to fulfill some other person’s plan for our lives, but rather to discover God’s plan.

As the cloning debate heats up, Christians need to explore this subject in depth and help our neighbors understand all that is at stake. This is one debate we should get into now, not after it’s an established fact.

________

Copyright (c) 1998 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

One of the principle aspects of Jesus' teachings is his poignant understanding of human nature. In fact, Christ's appraisal of humanity is undoubtedly one of the distinguishing features between Christianity and other worldviews, evident even in our political and cultural theories. Consider the two perspectives of Jean Jacques Rousseau and Blaise Pascal on human nature.

Rousseau opened his book THE SOCIAL CONTRACT with these well-known words: "Man was born free; and everywhere is in chains." Rousseau believed that humans are inherently good; yet he saw that goodness did not prevail. His political theory described social contracts that would capitalize on this innate goodness. But such notions were soon overturned in the flames of the French Revolution. Any philosophy that assumes that man is innately good finds its optimism ever disappointed. History continues to show us this.

In distinction to Rousseau's estimation of human nature, listen to what Blaise Pascal said:

"It is in vain, oh men, that you seek within yourselves the cure

for all your miseries. All your insight has led to the knowledge

that it is not in yourselves that you discover the true and the

good. The philosophers promised them to you, but they were not

able to keep that promise...Your principal maladies are pride,

which cuts you off from God, and sensuality, which binds you to

the earth.... Those who have grasped the vanity of such a

pretension have cast you down in the other abyss by making you

believe that your nature is like that of the beast and have led

you to seek your good in lust, which is the lot of animals."(1)

Is Pascal right? What he is saying here is that we tend either toward thinking that we are like God, or that we are beast-like. So then who are we?

Jesus taught that we are essentially superior to animals, but immeasurably less than God. The contrast in both comparisons is one of kind, not just degree. Jesus clearly taught that our wills are bent in rebellion against God, the only source of goodness, but that we can know the working of God's goodness in our lives when we acknowledge our rebellion and seek Him. Rousseau said, "Man was born free; and everywhere is in chains." Jesus teaches us that man is born in chains, but everywhere can be free.

1. Blaise Pascal, The Mind on Fire, editor James M. Houston (Portland Oreg.: Multnomah, 1989), page 115.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

I don't watch the HBO series SEX AND THE CITY — that graphic television show depicting the supposedly glamorous sexual escapades of four single women in New York. But enough people have told me about it that I'm glad I don't watch it.

Recently, in the excellent English magazine THE SPECTATOR, writer Mary Kenny made an unusual observation: “SEX AND THE CITY means family values” read the title of her article. You've got to be kidding, right? Explicit sex, graphic language, glamorized promiscuity — where do “family values” fit in there?

Well, the truth we can't not know, to use the title of J. Budziszewski's recent book, can pop up in unexpected places — particularly the truth about human nature. We're made for one another, and men and women were created with certain roles. And when we flout them, the way we're made will always come back to haunt us.

For example, the fact that homosexuals desire marriage actually betrays the “lifestyle” they extol. Of course they want to marry and have children — they're human, and that's the way God made us. But two homosexuals “married” can't do that, which is why marriage and homosexuality can never go together. Gay “marriage” has always got to be a counterfeit, and gays know it.

“The 'forces of conservatism' always win in the end,” writes Mary Kenny, “because it is the natural order.” Though moral Darwinists would say otherwise, humans weren't meant to jump from mate to mate, or juggle multiple partners at once, because sex is not a recreational act. It is not, says Kenny, that “brash, competitive, and indeed consumerist” activity depicted on SEX AND THE CITY. Rather, she goes on to say, it's one that “evokes in human beings something both animal and transcendental.”

Exactly. Sex is a procreational act, carrying the weight of life-bearing potential. And it works to promote spousal unity — it's not meant to fulfill selfish desires, and if used for that end, it's ultimately unsatisfying.

And so when we see Samantha on the screen, the most uninhibited character in the show, hopping from one sexual partner's bed to the next, writes Kenny, we cringe. Nobody applauds such self-deprecation. Then there's Miranda, the lawyer and now a single mother, finding fulfillment in motherhood and wanting to cut back on her work to be with her child. She yearns for her child's father and for the stability and commitment of marriage.

Charlotte, the erstwhile WASP who always wanted marriage, converts to Judaism for her husband. And finally, Carrie, the center of the show, sums up the futility of the sexually “liberated” single life when she remarked to a friend, “I'm lonely. I'm really lonely.” Later, at Charlotte's wedding, Carrie tells her, “I wish I had a man strong enough to catch me when I stumble.”

Two ARE better than one, as Ecclesiastes says. We weren't meant to be alone, nor to give ourselves away to anyone and everyone. The way SEX AND THE CITY is ending up illustrates this truth. It tried to portray the glamour of the sexual libertine lifestyle, but it doesn't work — even on TV.

Sooner or later human nature — as created by God — kicks in. And apparently the writers of SEX AND THE CITY found that out.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Mary Kenny, “SEX AND THE CITY MEANS FAMILY VALUES,” THE SPECTATOR (London), 16 August 2003. Note: some profanity.

Gina Dalfonzo, “COMPLICATING THE ISSUE,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 30 June 2003. (Also see “THE ICK FACTOR.”)

Marcia Segelstein, “UNFORBIDDEN FRUIT,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 10 June 2003.

Lee Siegel, “RELATIONSHIPISM,” THE NEW REPUBLIC, 11 November 2002. (You must be a subscriber to access this article, or sign up for a free four-week trial.) Note: some profanity.

J. Budziszewski, WHAT WE CAN'T NOT KNOW (Spence, 2003).

Thomas Hibbs, SHOWS ABOUT NOTHING (Spence, 1999).

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

As I write this, I am home sick with a dreadful cold. I won’t bore you by describing my symptoms; I doubt there’s a person out there who hasn’t been waylaid — at least for a brief time — by this most common ailment.

What we think of as “the common cold” is really just a bundle of symptoms. In actuality, the real ailment behind a cold is a microscopic virus in our nasal passages. Anyone browsing the medicine aisle in a drugstore might believe that we have any number of cures for the common cold available in those brightly colored pills, syrups, and gel capsules. But we shouldn’t confuse treatments with a cure. Although I’m grateful for so many ways to treat my symptoms, there’s not a drug on the market that can truly cure a cold before it has run its course.

Those who observe this world with the eye of a realist recognize that there is something dreadfully wrong with it. The symptoms are all around us: war, disease, famine, disasters, poverty.... These are only the obvious clues that all is not right. Easier to ignore are the more subtle symptoms in our own lives. We lie quickly and effortlessly. We hurt those we love the most. We crave whatever is forbidden to us. We take delight in scandal, as long as it does not interrupt our routine. Even if poverty and natural disasters could be explained away by ecological formulas, the symptoms tell us that the problem runs deeper. There is something amiss in the human heart.

Human beings have devised innumerable ways to deal with the symptoms of evil. We have property laws and courts of criminal justice to restrain violence. We have alcohol and sedatives to numb us. We can turn the television off when the news is too disturbing. We take every opportunity to shield ourselves from feeling the depths of our own pain and the pain we have caused others. The better we get at masking symptoms, the easier it is to pretend that there is nothing wrong. The truth is that this world is infested with death — not only physical death, but also the spiritual death of reckless, rampant sin.

The good news is that, unlike the common cold, this deep-seated disease has a dearly bought cure. The cure for death is none other than life itself. The risen Christ offers the cure to us, holding it out in his nail-scarred hands. Not only will he raise our bodies, but he will also resurrect our souls. Even now, he makes us new creations, endowing us with the power to overcome our base temptations and motivations to bear the fruit of life.

Once we have recognized the cure, we become even more aware of the symptoms of death around us. But once we have tasted true life, we know that treating the symptoms is not enough. We must look forward to the day when there is a new heaven and a new earth, free of the malady that plagues this one. We must believe the words of him who said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

All journalists are shaped by their worldviews, and the only way to bring true objectivity to journalism is to be shaped by the worldview of the Bible, Marvin Olasky says.[1] Olasky is editor-in-chief of World magazine, a syndicated columnist and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of 17 books, and his writing has appeared in such newspapers at The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and USA Today.

“Only when we take up these biblical lenses can we see things as they really are,” Olasky said. “So here’s my thesis: the only true objectivity is biblical objectivity.”

Journalists frequently make two errors regarding objectivity, he said. Sometimes they claim to be completely objective and not bring any presuppositions to their reporting, Olasky said, noting that such claims are wrong because everyone has presuppositions and a worldview. He said others wrongly bring their presuppositions to bear on a story so much that they fail to report the facts accurately.

The right way to do journalism is to let the Bible teach reporters how to view any event and report on it accordingly, he said.

Olasky used a metaphor from whitewater rafting to explain that in some journalistic situations it is easy to know how to apply the Bible and in other situations it is very difficult. Just as rapids are classified in six categories according to their difficulty, Olasky outlined six types of situations of increasingly difficulty when applying the Bible to journalism:

• Class one situations involve cases where the Bible gives very clear instructions on how to view an event.

• Class two situations involve cases where the Bible has an implicit but clear teaching.

• Class three situations involve cases where people on both sides of an issue quote Scripture but a thoughtful Christian can reach a biblical conclusion with careful study.

• Class four situations have no clear biblical solution but can be analyzed by adopting a biblical understanding of human nature and taking lessons from history.

• Class five represents situations where there is no clear biblical teaching and no clear historical lessons but where a biblical understanding of human nature can help process events.

• Class six situations have no clear biblical answer and no other easy answers.

“A very strong biblical stand on the part of a Christian political leader, a Christian journalist on a class one or class two issue is biblically objective,” Olasky said. “A more balanced position on a class five or a class six issue is also biblically objective, given our limited knowledge. We have a goal here. Our goal here is to approach objectivity by giving God’s perspective prime time and keeping silent as best we can when He’s silent.”

Journalists must quote people on both sides of the story for all six classes, but there is no obligation to weight both sides equally when the Bible gives one clear answer, Olasky said.

Experienced Christian journalists can increase their biblical objectivity by studying the Bible carefully and consistently, he said.

“When we study what the Bible says, we can come closer to a God’s-eye view,” he said. “And consistency is vital.”

Christian journalists must not shy away from reporting difficult stories because by showing humans at their worst, journalists demonstrate our desperate need for Christ, Olasky said.

“You look at muck so you can see how desperately we need Christ. Bad news makes the good news shine ever so much more brightly. We need to always be looking up so that we have the strength to look down without being corrupted by it. And we look down so we can appreciate all the more what is above.”

The final goal of journalism is to run with perseverance in order to honor God and know that He is pleased, Olasky said, referring to Hebrews 12.

“We’re in the middle of the story,” he said. “We don’t know how it’s going to end up. Each of us has a narrative of our lives. It may end well. It may end in temporary defeat. But in either case, running the race as journalists helps us feel God’s pleasure.”

________

1. Olasky spoke at the Baptist Press Excellence in Journalism Banquet in Nashville, Tennessee, Oct. 7, 2006.

Although John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty” was published in 1859, it continues to influence our thinking today, particularly the idea that human beings are essentially good. “Don’t tell me how to live!” essentially sums up Mill’s view of liberty, yet in his essay Mill not only tells us how we should live, but who we are! Human beings are essentially good, he declares, and his view of liberty hinges upon this idealistic perspective of human nature.

Mill writes, “To say that one person’s desires and feelings are stronger and more various than those of another is merely to say that he has more of the raw material of human nature, and is therefore capable, perhaps of more evil, but certainly of more good.”

However, many theologians and philosophers of Mill’s era were skeptical of the individual’s passions and one’s willingness to choose what is right over what is pleasurable. Furthermore, as historian Gertrude Himmelfarb observed, “[Mill] took for granted that those virtues that had already been acquired by means of religion, tradition, law, and all the other resources of civilization would continue to be valued and exercised.”

Today these structures of tradition and authority no longer hold sway in our culture, whereas the idea of the essential goodness of humanity has taken on a life of its own and is now imbedded in our modern psyche. Moreover, the assumption held in Mill’s day -- that truth is knowable and should order our lives -- is no longer believed by many, who instead would agree with the words of Nietzsche: “Truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions; worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses.”

On the contrary, the Scriptures witness specifically to the reality of sin and our need for God, and the experience of our world undeniably witnesses to the reality of darkness in our hearts. If this experience has not inspired a change in philosophy, perhaps it is because the illusion of human goodness brings us greater comfort. Yet, does it really? Do we not find it incomprehensible how one could abuse or torture a child? And do we really believe that given time and progress we will learn to love our neighbor as ourselves? Surely the horrors of the twentieth century alone have proven the idea of the essential goodness of human beings to be false.

Jesus himself said in Mark 10, “No one is good except God alone.” But just before declaring this, Jesus showed us how we may know the power to love and to do good -- by coming to him in humility, by coming to him as children aware of their need for a Savior. “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,” he said, “for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth: anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

During his 18 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan didn’t so much testify before Congress as pronounce oracles. He was held in such awe that, even when they weren’t sure of what he had said, members of Congress didn’t dare press him.

Well, times have changed. At a Congressional hearing last week, a committee chairman did press Greenspan, and exposed the biggest gap in the former Fed chairman’s understanding — not of economics, but of human nature.

Greenspan told a House committee that he had “made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations,” like banks, made them “best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

When chairman Henry Waxman said to him, “in other words, you found that your view of the world ... was not right,” Greenspan replied, “Absolutely, precisely.” He then confessed to being “shocked” by this “flaw” in his thinking.

Greenspan, it seems, was shocked by the existence of something called “human nature.” He was confounded by the idea that people, instead of being utility-maximizing machines that act in accordance with an ideological script or academic theory, might act like, well, people!

It apparently didn’t occur to Greenspan, as Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten writes, that “presented with a chance to make a killing,” people might put their own interests first, regardless of the consequences for others.

Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand, author of ATLAS SHRUGGED, the bestselling book which is still very popular. Her worldview, called objectivism, promoted the idea that if you pursue your own self-interest, it will always be rational and help the most people. We’ve seen in recent weeks where that leads.

To be fair, Greenspan is not the only person to be surprised at how human nature intrudes on the best-laid economic plans.

For the past month or so, the financial crisis and stories about it have followed a recurring pattern: Financial markets drop, often precipitously, and government officials put in place measures designed to restore “confidence” in those markets.

After an initially positive response, markets then continue to slide, and government officials and the media scratch their heads. They seem to have forgotten the role that human emotions like fear play in decision-making and how those emotions operate independently of our most elegant theories.

It isn’t a coincidence that memorable economic downturns have been labeled “depressions” and “panics.” To imagine that the economic realm operates independently of human nature and emotions is to live in a fantasy world, as we have been painfully reminded these past months.

Greenspan, to his credit, has acknowledged his mistake. Too bad he didn’t see it earlier before he pumped up the artificial wealth which resulted in our economic collapse.

It’s hard to imagine a clearer example of how bad ideas can have a huge impact. Worldviews matter and following wrong views of reality, as we’ve seen here, is a recipe for disaster.

It’s one thing to avoid excess regulation — it’s another to assume that, left to their own devices, people will selflessly look out for the interests of others. Not so. Forget human nature and you don’t get free markets, you get the Darwinian law of the jungle — a view of the world that shouldn’t come as a shock to any Christian.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.