100 Sermon Illustrations on Selfishness

Baby Boomer narcissism crowds out Christian meaning from a familiar ritual

________

Like most people, I don’t particularly relish encounters with death. But, welcome or not, I’ve had my fair share. I’ve clasped a woman’s hand as her breathing slowed, became sporadic, and finally ceased. Through the cramped hallways of an ancient farmhouse, down which no stretcher could be maneuvered, I helped heft the sheet-wrapped body of a family’s matriarch to carry her to the waiting hearse. When a small Oklahoma church mourned a member who’d fallen asleep at the wheel, late at night, early in life, I was there, thinking of the joyless “Joy to the World” the band of believers had choked out the day before that December 26th funeral. In each of these situations, the death of the young or the old, there was within me a desire to lighten the load of grief borne by the survivors, to shine a ray of life into the gloom of death.

Because of that desire, when I first heard about families opting to have a so-called “Celebration of Life” service for their departed loved ones, instead of a funeral, my interest was piqued. Perhaps here was a viable alternative. The name alone effuses a positive, uplifting appeal that “funeral” or “memorial service” can’t begin to match. Celebrations are good, right? And, life, well, who can possibly have any qualms about that? Perhaps this approach to confronting death, at least the ceremonial part of saying goodbye, would help alleviate some of the pain associated with, and expressed in, a more traditional rite. Maybe it was time to have a funeral for the funeral.

What is a Celebration of Life?

So what makes a Celebration of Life different? Rather than a focus upon the loss of a loved one, this service rewinds the present into the past, to draw the mourners back into the life lived by the deceased. It’s like a miniature, enacted biography of the person, with a focus upon those qualities, interests, and achievements that his family and friends found most endearing about him. Whereas a traditional funeral is structured around a liturgy, in this ceremony stories about the person — serious or lighthearted — take center stage. It is his funeral, after all, so shouldn’t it be about him?

To use an example provided by the National Funeral Directors Association, suppose the deceased was a boot-wearing, hat-sporting cowboy named Wyatt. What might Wyatt’s Celebration of Life look like? How might he “want to ride off into the sunset one last time?” Rather than using a hearse, why not a covered wagon to transport Wyatt’s body to the cemetery? His saddle, bridle, and favorite rope could be displayed at the service. Since he was more into George Strait than Charles Wesley, country and western songs could form the musical background of his celebration. If there’s a procession, his horse could plod along in it. And, since most services include a meal afterward, a BBQ would be right down Wyatt’s alley In all this, the perspective shifts from the tear-filled reality that Wyatt is dead to the smile-filled remembrance that Wyatt was once alive. Every detail in this Celebration of Life must reinforce that death is not mourned so much as life is celebrated.

To guarantee that the Celebration of Life dovetails with the desires of the departed, pre-death planning is strongly encouraged. Indeed, it’s almost a must. What better way to have the celebration you want than to plan it yourself? In fact, this is a large part of its appeal. This possibility resonates especially well with that aging, voluminous generation for whom self-determination is the spice of life: the baby boomers. According to Mark Duffey, the CEO of Everest, a funeral planning and concierge service, the boomer generation is revolutionizing the funeral industry:

“If you’re 75 or older, the mentality is: ‘I want to have the same funeral that we had for Aunt Mildred; I don’t want to be a bother, I don’t want to be showy,’” he said. “You get below 70 and, all of a sudden, it’s changing. Now people are saying, I’m a boomer and I want to be talked about.”

And be talked about they will, for if a Celebration of Life is anything, it is individualism’s last hurrah, in which not God, not death, not resurrection, not even mourners are the focal point, but the deceased, who is host of his very own posthumous party.

Two Grave Dangers

Danger affects its greatest damage in a society when it makes its debut dressed in the garb of positivity. When it looks a culture in the eye, warmly shakes hands, and introduces itself as something that can “improve,” “uplift,” or “make it easier on everyone involved,” then it stands a much greater chance of making that good first impression a lasting one. It needs something else as well, a playground-safe name, one as sweet as apple pie and down-home as Chevrolet.

Properly introduced, skillfully named, and packaged to appeal to the ego, such danger rapidly infiltrates a culture to inculcate its agenda. And if can do so by worming its way into a common cultural phenomenon, such as a service for the deceased, and gradually morph it into something “new and improved,” well, so much the better. That is precisely what the Celebration of Life has been up to. Although they may initially appear innocuous, or even attractive, these celebrations represent a dual danger: they perpetuate and even formalize our culture’s egocentrism, and they rob life of its true value by refusing to address its end and the meaning thereof. Let’s take a look at each of these dangers.

Necronarcissism

Perhaps egocentrism, even in death, is best illustrated by one of the most memorable scenes from “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.” While Tom and his pals Huck and Joe were off hiding on a nearby island, pretending to be pirates, the townsfolk assumed the worst about their disappearance. A funeral was planned for the three boys, victims, no doubt, of those muddy Mississippi waters. Tom and his comrades couldn’t resist the temptation to attend their own funeral. Hiding in an unused gallery of the church, they were all ears as the minister eulogized the “graces” and “winning ways” of the lads, to which he and so many others had been blind while the boys were still among the living.

Such was the eloquence of the preacher that “the congregation became more and more moved, as the pathetic tale went on, till at last the whole company broke down and joined the weeping mourners in a chorus of anguished sobs, the preacher himself giving way to his feelings, and crying in the pulpit.” Seizing this opportunity, the three dead boys strolled down the aisle of the church into this mayhem of mourning, leaving all in attendance temporarily dumbfounded. Shock, however, soon gave way to cries of joy from the families, as they embraced and rained down kisses upon them. As Tom stood there, basking in the glory of being the center of attention, he “looked around upon the envying juveniles about him and confessed in his heart that this was by far the proudest moment of his life.”

The praises he heard heaped upon him from the pulpit, the tear-tale signs that his death had unloosed such an outpouring of grief, and the envy of his fellows conspired together to make this “by far the proudest moment of [Tom’s] life.” The irony, of course, is that this acme of pride was reached at his own funeral. Every eulogizing word boosted his ego. Every tear watered his pride. He was able to twist the ceremony that confronted death and loss into one in which he gained enviable status in life. Tom made sure that Tom’s funeral was all about Tom.

While this youth’s novel antics make for a good story and a hearty laugh, juvenile as they obviously are, in the real world such all-about-me-ness is not nearly as funny. Indeed, it is destructive. What makes community life viable, in groups as small as a family or large as a country, is the will of individuals to makes sacrifices for others, to consider more than their own needs and wants, and to act accordingly. The more robust this other-focused approach to life is, the healthier the community will be. For that reason, there is no greater threat to the cohesion and perpetuation of a society than narcissism. The narcissist operates not according to an objective set of values or beliefs, nor are the needs of others an impetus for his actions, but his whole world is centered in the navel at which he gazes. The be-all and end-all reason for his existence is the man in the mirror. Therefore, the question he poses, whenever any decision must be made, is quite simply this: “What’s in it for me?”

Now that it’s becoming increasingly popular to plan my own end-of-life service in a way that ensures that I will be the center of attention, that I will be talked about, that it will be “by far the proudest moment of my life,” egocentrism extends beyond this life into a kind of necronarcissism. We may not be as lucky as Tom, eavesdropping on our own eulogy, and gorging our pride thereby, but we’ll at least plan our own going-away party to guarantee that the answer to “What’s in it for me?” meets our qualifications.

Let it be said that, yes, it is well and good to be involved in planning your own funeral: choosing hymns and readings; pallbearers and the minister; and dealing with the nitty-gritty of casket selection, plot purchase, and the like. Such planning can relieve the family of making decisions under the stress of grief. What is at issue is not planning but priority. Will the priority of the end-of-life service be the exaltation of the individual or will it confront the reality of death honestly and constructively. And that brings up a second, more serious, concern with a Celebration of Life.

Downplaying Death

The other danger revolving around a Celebration of Life is harder to detect, for it is camouflaged by euphemistic language and wears a smiling mask that whispers half-truths that we, especially in the throes of grief, want to believe as if they’re nothing short of gospel. The danger is simply this: that we downplay death and, in so doing, fail to fully appreciate life. Stripped of its euphemistic language, the get-together billed as a “celebration” or even a “party” is, in truth, a gathering of mourners around a corpse. And that dead body not only preaches that death has claimed this particular life, but it betokens our own inevitable demise. To the extent that we bury our head in the sand when confronted with the reality of death, to that same extent we miss out on an opportunity to learn more about, and to appreciate more deeply, the life that is ours.

It should come as no surprise that a culture which has euphemized the beginning of life has also euphemized its end. A woman is not pregnant with a child, but an “embryo” or a “fetus.” If that “fetus” is unwanted, the “patient” can opt to exercise her “reproductive rights” by going to a “medical professional” to “terminate” the pregnancy through “abortion.” These euphemisms are convenient shields behind which one can hide when confronted with the truth that a mother can hire someone to kill her baby. They are verbal enablers of self-deception, vague, generic utterances into which we can stuff whatever meaning suits our fancy or pacifies our conscience. In the case of abortion, euphemisms enable our culture to look the truth of life square in the face and deny its existence. In the case of a Celebration of Life, euphemisms apply the makeup of life to the face of death.

Welcome to a world in which the womb becomes a casket and funerals become fun.

If you fast-forward to the end of life you will find euphemisms galore, along with the relatively new formalization of death’s disguise in the Celebration of Life. Whereas a funeral, at least in traditional Christianity, takes death seriously, and balances the truth of grief and loss with the hope of life and resurrection, the Celebration of Life looks neither to the present of grief nor the future of hope, but solely to the past. Its focus is neither faith nor hope but only love of what was lost. And in this case, the greatest of these is not love. Call it a celebration all you want; life is not so much celebrated as death is ignored. Therein lies a great tragedy, for a Celebration of Life is a missed opportunity to understand death aright.

In the Christian tradition, neither life nor death is ‘natural.’ Life is always a gift from God and death is always the consequence of sin. Embedded within human nature is a mortality originally alien to it, but now inextricably united to our nature. Each death bears witness to that fact. Any talk of life which fails to talk of death, its origin and cause, is like drinking from a mirage. When a funeral degenerates into a Celebration of Life, mourners may find temporary relief in the nostalgia of the memories, but they will be deprived of true and lasting healing that comes only after confronting death and finding life in Another.

What the Bereaved Truly Need

While the old adage, “A funeral is for the living,” is true, it is an ambiguous truth. It leaves unanswered the question: for what purpose is it for the living? The assumption behind the saying is that death creates a need, or needs, that must be addressed. While these needs vary in kind and number from individual to individual, at the core of them all is this: the need to find that death is not the end, that life will have the last word.

Despite its name, a Celebration of Life is ill-equipped to address that. Its focus is upon a dead person, not a living and vivifying God. Nor does it take seriously the reality and cause of death, without which life cannot be understood. Indeed, it seems an ideal Trojan horse to roll into a religious service, for inside it is hidden many of the same errors that devalue life in our culture.

The bereaved need, and deserve, something better. They deserve a service that speaks frankly and honestly about death, while anchoring the survivors in a hope that extends beyond this world. If any life is to be celebrated, let it be the life of the One who alone can lighten the load of grief borne by the survivors, and who shines a ray of his life into the gloom of death.

________

Chad Bird has served as a pastor and assistant professor of Old Testament Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne, Indiana.

"I'm just not growing in this relationship," Kevin told his wife Diane. And after ten years of marriage and two kids, he left his family. And he did it, Diane discovered, with the blessing of his therapist.

If Diane had been up on the state of modern psychology, she wouldn't have been so surprised. One Christian psychologist says the spread of what he calls "the selfist philosophy" has gravely damaged many American families.

Dr. Paul Vitz is the author of a newly updated book PSYCHOLOGY AS RELIGION: THE CULT OF SELF-WORSHIP. In it he describes modern psychology's deep commitment to self-worship, or "selfism." All the major theories of motivation and personality, he says, assume that reward for the self is the only functional ethical principle.

These values are hostile to our ability to form permanent relationships, or to commit to such values as duty and self-sacrifice. Instead, he says, "with monotonous regularity, the selfist literature sides with those values that encourage divorce" and the breaking of family ties.

Part of the problem is the nature of the therapeutic process. The psychotherapist is typically preoccupied with an individual patient, and he seldom challenges his version of the facts. He doesn't listen to children, parents, or the spouse who might be involved.

Second, Vitz writes, many psychotherapists are themselves divorced or alienated from religious traditions. The temptation for them is to affirm their own choices by encouraging their patients to make the same choices.

Worse, some therapists encourage divorce on theoretical grounds. They teach that if either spouse feels the relationship has stagnated, then the marriage isn't worth saving.

Selfist ideals give some counselors a strong bias against parents. In recovery group settings, patients are under pressure to describe how badly their families treated them. Patients thus become self-pitying "victims" -- with a strong sense of moral superiority.

The result, Vitz writes, is a parody of the words of the Prodigal Son: Instead of the son saying, "Father, I have sinned ... [and] am no longer worthy to be called your son" [Luke 15:21], today's young man is likely to say, "Father, YOU have sinned, and are no longer worthy to be called my father." With its emphasis on treating individuals in isolation, and its hostility to social bonds, modern psychology has caused untold damage to our society.

Vitz invites his readers to imagine a different kind of therapy, one based on love, gratitude, respect, and forgiveness -- a therapy that strengthens a patient's family instead of destroying it.

This approach follows the biblical vision of human relations -- one that is radically different from that of the therapists. It does not give anyone an "out" if they think they're not "growing" in their relationships. Instead, we're told in First Corinthians to love one another unconditionally -- to be patient and kind and not insist on getting our own way.

The rise of selfism means that Christians need to be cautious of whom they seek counsel. And we need to see how deeply this message has permeated our entire culture.

If you find yourself asking, "What's in it for me?", stop and remember the rest of Paul's message: "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" -- and above all, "love never fails" [1 Corinthians 13:7-8].

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION

Paul Vitz, PSYCHOLOGY AS RELIGION: THE CULT OF SELF-WORSHIP, second edition (Eerdmans, 1994). http://www.pfmonline.net/products.taf?_function=d&IC=BKPAR

Roberto Rivera, "Symbols," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, July 2002. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/ColumnsGroup/RobertoRivera/Symbols.htm

BreakPoint commentary no. 020228, "Triumph or Tragedy?: The 'Dark Country' of Divorce." http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Triumph+or+Tragedy.htm

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

You always knew celebrities could be difficult, but this is ridiculous...

In AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS, Catherine Zeta-Jones plays the fabulously glamorous, outrageously spoiled megastar Gwen Harrison. She's adored by the public, estranged from her megastar hubby (John Cusack) and suffered by her assistant/sister, Kiki (Julia Roberts). It's Kiki's job to keep her notoriously high-strung, high-maintenance boss happy and productive -- by doing things like making sure Gwen's butter doesn't touch any other food on Gwen's plate.

AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS requires little in the way of suspension of disbelief. It's all too true that megastar Gwen's childish behavior is not the exception, but the rule in the real-life world of Hollywood's most popular, most bankable stars. (Indeed, a younger, brattier Julia Roberts racked up an astonishing $841,000 in posse costs alone on 1994's flop I LOVE TROUBLE.)

Many celebrities are essentially children who never had to grow up, says Dr. Mark Griffiths, an expert on the psychology of fame at Nottingham Trent University in England. "The common factor between children and celebrities is that they demand things all the time and expect to get them. As they grow up," says Griffiths, "children learn that they can't have everything they want, but celebrities live in such an egocentric world that their demands are often met."

Just scan the lines below for the awful proof...

Whenever Jennifer Lopez makes a public appearance, she demands that her path be prepared in advance with the scent of gardenia. (The room must also be cleared of all other conflicting perfumes or fragrances.) Those not a part of J.Lo's double-digit entourage are instructed not to look her in the eye. And don't even think of photographing her elbows. On a recent photoshoot, she reportedly insisted her elbows be kept out of shot.

Mike Myers threatened to quit during the production of 1992's WAYNE'S WORLD because craft service had no margarine for his bagel. Butter just wouldn't do. Once the crisis had been averted, director Penelope Spheeris assigned her daughter -- anxious to break into the biz -- to be Myers's "snack girl" for the rest of the production. Makers of the subsequent AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY had to make sure a cooler was always filled with lunchmeat, and hired a production assistant whose sole task was to point an air conditioning tube on Myers whenever he was off camera.

During the last days of shooting for 1995's DON JUAN DEMARCO, Marlon Brando was instructed to don a crisp white linen shirt for his final close-up with Faye Dunaway. Annoyed he had to wait for Dunaway's makeup to be touched up, Brando snagged co-star Johnny Depp and left the set for a drink. When a producer was sent to fetch Brando, and begged him to return to the set, Brando began to smear salsa, chips and guacamole all over his shirt. Depp finally persuaded Brando to return, but not before Brando ordered 160 margaritas for the crew and billed it to the production. And he refused to change his shirt for the shot.

Mariah Carey, who'll be on the big screen this August in GLITTER, requires a steady supply of Cap'n Crunch breakfast cereal and a special attendant in her dressing room -- just to hand her towels. At publicity appearances, Mariah demands that all posters of her pop rivals be taken down -- especially those of Christina Aguilera. In addition, she'll only be photographed on one side of her face.

Fair-skinned Kim Basinger claims she's allergic to the sun and requires that an assistant carry an umbrella to shield her from unwanted rays on location.

While shooting CARLITO'S WAY, Sean Penn was stranded in a small boat during a particular tense scene on New York's East River. When Penn got a jones for a cigarette, he had his personal assistant, who was on another boat with the crew, jump deck and swim over a pack of Marlboros in a plastic bag.

When Jim Carrey made ACE VENTURA: WHEN NATURE CALLS, he demanded that the studio pay for two personal chefs -- one for himself, and one for his pet iguana.

John Travolta requires a mass of minions. On location, the star has had trainers, stand-ins, security guards, massage therapists, drivers, 12 assistants and a personal chef. And Travolta gets the studio to pay for his private jet's fuel.

Eddie Murphy won't perform unless his dressing room is stocked chock full of peach-scented potpourri.

Madonna must have total darkness. During a recent stay at an Italian villa, she reportedly demanded that every garden light be turned off so she could see the stars.

Sylvester Stallone once refused to continue with a press interview until the walls of his yellow hotel room were painted a more "likeable" peach.

Liz Hurley likes 'em big. During a break in production, the Brit beauty demanded a private plane, and, when it arrived, refused to board because it wasn't big enough. She sent the plane back, and demanded the studio provide a larger one.

Major diva Leonardo DiCaprio might have had to fatten up for his role in GANGS OF NEW YORK, but that's where the slovenliness stopped. Dirt freak Leo had to have new clothes daily, throwing out the soiled duds he'd worn the day before.

At the Women in Film and Video awards ceremony recently held at Washington, D.C.'s Ritz-Carlton, Sharon Stone -- one of four award recipients -- kept the show waiting for 45 minutes. She wasn't caught in crosstown traffic. She just wasn't ready to come down from her hotel suite.

Sean Connery easily managed to get the setting of the 1995 thriller JUST CAUSE changed, requiring a thorough script rewrite, so that he could golf a course he had a hankering to play in Florida.

In her heyday, Demi Moore was referred to as "Gimme Moore" -- most notably requiring her hair be washed with Evian on-set. Moore also sent back a jet that wasn't able to carry all her luggage without putting one bag atop another and demanded the studio send another.

Baseball fanatic Kevin Costner wanted a baseball diamond built so he could play during downtime on 1994's WYATT EARP. When he discovered his request hadn't been met, he pulled crew members off the set to build one immediately.

Liz Taylor, upset that her dogs couldn't join her while she was filming 1963's THE V.I.P.S in London, managed to circumvent Britain's strict quarantine laws by having herself and her pups put up on a houseboat on the Thames.

Finally, an unnamed celeb, who recently stayed at the posh W Court Hotel in NYC, demanded his bathtub be filled with chocolate milk.

___________________

Copyright 1999-2001 Moviefone, Inc. America Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

*

We've seen some very painful scenes at Ground Zero in the rubble of the World Trade Center - firemen, policemen, emergency personnel, combing through the wreckage for their fallen brothers and sisters. Later, pausing for a moment of silent tribute as the remains of one of them was carried out. But at a time when there was talk of reducing the number of workers at the site, we saw a scene that was painful in a different way. Tempers flared in the raw emotions of that moment, and some of those firefighters and police who had been fighting together to save or find people in the rescue and recovery effort were suddenly fighting with one another at Ground Zero.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about "Rescue Glue."

The moment was short-lived, but it still hurt - people who on September 11 and the days that followed had been so united in trying to rescue the dying, were now fighting with each other. That kind of heartache is something God has been all too familiar with for a long time. His people, who should be united in an all-out effort to rescue the spiritually dying, are instead battling one another.

Unfortunately, it's not a new issue. Way back in Philippians 4:2 and 3, our word for today from the Word of God, Paul was writing about some rescuers who had turned on each other. He said, "I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. (These two women had been co-workers of his.) Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

Now, notice, when these women were actively involved in "the cause of the gospel" - that's getting the life-or-death message of Jesus to people -they were together. But when they drifted away from the rescue mission of Christ, they stopped contending for the Gospel and started contending with each other. That's still happening today.

Rescue unites God's people. When believers, when a church, when a ministry is focused on rescuing the dying, whatever it takes, there's no time to battle with each other. They're too busy battling for the lives of lost people around them. There was no conflict between those New York police and firefighters when they were in that wreckage, desperately working together to bring some people out alive. Turf and ego and divisive issues just don't seem important when people are dying.

But so many of us, so many of our churches, are focused on ourselves rather than on those who are dying spiritually. And when we start focusing on our issues, our kingdoms, our likes and dislikes, our agendas, we start bickering, forming cliques and power blocs, criticizing our brothers and sisters, and elevating things that are relatively trivial to being way too important. Important enough even to fight over.

Remember this: rescue unites, self-focus divides. It's a sad scene when the people who are supposed to be rescuers start turning on each other. You see, while God's spiritual rescuers are battling with each other, we're losing the battle for people who will die if we don't get to them. We have to fight for them, not against each other!

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. 'Practical Answers to Real Life Issues'

*

Columnist Jonathan Rauch believes that America has made “a major civilizational advance” in recent years. Rauch, a longtime atheist, is thrilled about a phenomenon he calls “apatheism.” [See KeruxID #25076]

It’s not that people don’t believe in God anymore, Rauch writes in the ATLANTIC MONTHLY — the majority will still say they believe. But statistics show that they’re going to church less, and when they do go, it’s more to socialize or enjoy a familiar ritual than to worship. And as Rauch observes, they’re refraining from sharing their faith with their friends and neighbors.

On the whole, the people Rauch describes haven’t been putting much thought or effort into their faith. They’re looking for comfort and reassurance, not for a God who asks anything of them. Hence the rise of “apatheism,” which Rauch defines as “a disinclination to care all that much about one’s own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people’s.”

Writer David Brooks noticed a similar trend a few years ago. In his book BOBOS IN PARADISE: THE NEW UPPER CLASS AND HOW THEY GOT THERE, Brooks popularized the term FLEXIDOXY to describe the form of religion practiced by many educated young Americans. He wrote that in a complicated and confusing world, these people “spend much of their time pining for simpler ways of living, looking backward for the wisdom that people with settled lives seem to possess.” But at the same time, they “show little evidence of renouncing freedom and personal choice. They are not returning to the world of deference and obedience.”

It appears that flexidoxy was a natural precursor to “apatheism.” If a person makes himself the center of his own faith, there’s not much room for God.

Rauch thinks this is great, because he believes that “religion, as the events of September 11 and after have so brutally underscored, remains the most divisive and volatile of social forces.” If you must have faith, he argues, it’s better to be lukewarm about it than to be “controlled by godly passions.”

There are several problems with Rauch’s analysis, but the main one is that the “apatheism” he describes looks very much like selfishness. And it’s selfishness, not religious faith, that is a truly disruptive force.

If we really have faith in God, and aren’t just paying lip service to Him, that faith takes us out of ourselves, leading us to serve God and other people. It’s selfishness, not tolerance, that dictates that we direct our own lives and stay where we’re comfortable. Selfishness makes us keep our faith strictly personal, afraid to integrate it with the rest of our lives or even to talk about it for fear of being judged harshly.

In Jonathan Rauch’s ideal world, without the “godly passions” he deplores, there would have been no Mother Teresa, Corrie ten Boom, or William Wilberforce able to identify evil and stand against it. There would be no BreakPoint challenging you to do the same.

Rauch may not like the idea of a world controlled by godly passions, but if he could see a world free of godly passions, controlled entirely by human passions, he might not think it such a great civilizational advance after all.

FOR FURTHER READING:

Jonathan Rauch, “LET IT BE,” ATLANTIC MONTHLY, May 2003.

David Brooks, BOBOS IN PARADISE: THE NEW UPPER CLASS AND HOW THEY GOT THERE (Touchstone edition, 2001).

“A CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BROOKS,” ONLINE NEWSHOUR, PBS, May 9, 2000.

“SURVEY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL CULTURE,” INSIGHT, Spring 2003. (ADOBE ACROBAT READER required).

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030506, “AN UNSTABLE BALANCE.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 021119, “LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR IN TENNESSEE.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 021127, “FAITH AT WORK: TRANSFORMING THE CULTURE FROM WITHIN.”

Fred Barnes, “THE MEDIA GETS RELIGION,” DAILY STANDARD, May 6, 2003.

Edward Farley, “TRANSFORMING A LUKEWARM CHURCH,” CHRISTIAN CENTURY, August 27-September 3, 1997, 754-57.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP (1937).

John Fischer, FEARLESS FAITH: LIVING BEYOND THE WALLS OF ‘SAFE’ CHRISTIANITY (Harvest House, 2002).

Hugh Hewitt, IN, BUT NOT OF (Thomas Nelson, 2003).

____________

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

Earlier this month, I told you about the Kabbalah craze that has enthralled Hollywood. Celebrities like Madonna have become outspoken devotees of what is supposed to be a form of medieval Jewish mysticism. I say “supposed to be” because what is actually being peddled is only the latest example of what I call “do-it-yourself God kits” — quasi-religions that enable people to feel good about themselves without making real moral demands.

While it's easy to poke fun at Hollywood's excesses, if we're honest, we ought to acknowledge that some of these same tendencies are at work in many of our own churches.

A decade ago, Yale professor Harold Bloom wrote THE AMERICAN RELIGION: THE EMERGENCE OF THE POST-CHRISTIAN NATION. Bloom argued that many Americans, including some Christians, were practicing an updated version of the ancient heresy called Gnosticism.

Bloom cited what he called the “experiential” nature, and the disdain for authority and tradition, that characterizes much of contemporary American religion. This emphasis on personal experience is what Bloom meant by “Gnostic.”

While Bloom had many critics, some Christians, like Father Richard Neuhaus, believe that Bloom is on to something. Neuhaus notes that many of the books in the “New Age” section of bookstores are purchased by “people who think of themselves as Christians but are either unwilling or unable to recognize Gnostic doctrines quite at odds with elementary Christian teaching.”

Writer Jeremy Lott adds that Bloom's book “should serve as cautionary tale and barbed warning” for evangelical Christians.

He's right. What Bloom wrote about the “experiential” nature of American religion is often true in Christian circles. For many Christians, their faith is primarily a matter of personal experience and has little to do with historic Christian teaching or being part of God's people, the Church. The idea that the Christian faith produces a distinct worldview is often greeted with uncomprehending stares.

Another troubling tendency is on display at nearly every Christian book store. Dozens of books promise to tell readers the “secret” or “key” to success in some area of life. For students of church history, this is a little too reminiscent of the Gnostic idea of salvation through secret or esoteric knowledge. Nearly all of these books claim to be based on biblical principles. While they may be, what readers are buying is special knowledge that enables them to “tap into” or “unleash” some hidden power.

As with the “Jesus and me” emphasis on personal experience, this hunger for special knowledge reflects an indifference to historic Christianity and the worldview it produces. As with the “do-it-yourself God kits,” the emphasis, admitted or not, is on enhancing one's quality of life, not in conforming our souls to the Truth.

The result is ignorance about, and disregard for, the cultural mandate. Experiential religion begins and ends with the question “What's in it for me?” Shaping culture out of love for God and neighbor rarely figures into the equation.

So, while the goings-on in Hollywood may be amusing, what's happening in some churches isn't. Some Christians have become, to modify the old saying, so earthly minded that they are neither earthly nor heavenly good. And that's not how it is supposed to be.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Jeremy Lott, “American Gnostic,” Books and Culture, November/December 2002.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040514, “An Old Error in a New Package: Hollywood and Kabbalah.”

• David Mills, “Getting Jesus Right,” Touchstone, October 2001.

• Harold Bloom, The American Religion (Simon & Schuster, 1993).

• Alan Wolfe, The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith (Free Press, 2003).

• Paul Vitz, Psychology as Religion (Eerdmans, 1994).

• Charles Colson and Ellen Vaughn, Being the Body (W Publishing, 2003).

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration here was a duplicate in HolwickID 25837-26027]

“New Age spirituality is Me oriented and gives its followers top billing in the soap operas of their own lives. People like to believe they’ve had lots of previous incarnations, get messages in their dreams, and are psychic. When there’s a trend toward humility and selflessness, then we’ll know we’re getting somewhere on the spiritual front. That time is not yet.”

________

Roger Ebert on spirituality in movies, The Gazette (Colorado Springs), April 10, 1998.

National Public Radio recently reported the winner of an invention known to most people in the world of technology. At the Ig Nobel Prize ceremony, the karaoke machine was the honor. As said at the ceremony, the karaoke machine provided “an entirely new way for people to learn to tolerate each other.”

For anyone who has listened to some karaoke performances, the humorous statement is quite fitting. Yet at the same time, there is something thought-provoking about tolerance when listening to average folks trying to imitate digitally mastered professionals. Though the singing may be off key and out of sync, people learn to enjoy one another in spite of their singing abilities.

I have often thought about the tolerance of God and how far He goes to sit through the ridiculousness of humanity. He humorously allows donkeys to speak to prophets and whales to swallow prophets, all in the name of turning renegades to obedience. However, God's work of tolerance is not always a humorous picture.

Think of Jezebel for a moment. She is one of the most wicked characters in the Old Testament, threatening God's people, invoking Baal-worship, killing the prophets. God testified through the mouth of Elijah that Jezebel would die an ugly death. But He postpones the judgment.

Ahab died just one chapter after his death was prophesied by Elijah. But for Jezebel, Ahab's wife, she outlives two more kings and remains alive through ten more chapters. Why does God wait so long before bringing the impending judgment? And what must it have been like for Jezebel to await her judgment those many years, like waiting for the hangman to come? Did she believe Elijah's prophecy? Did she care?

Baal worship and wickedness continued in the lives of Ahab and Jezebel's descendents until Jehu arrives as conqueror. But why does God wait so long?

My suspicion is that even Jezebel was given opportunity to turn to the one true God. Growing up in a nation of Baal worshipers, whose father was named after Baal, God may have spared her life simply so she could see the goodness of the Lord. Only God knows any potential turning in her heart. Only God knows what events He brought to her, even in small ways, to reveal Himself. But her heart was hard and, when her appointment came, she died a gruesome death. When I think along these lines, I sit in the silence and ponder Jezebel in my own heart. What kinds of selfish treacheries of Jezebel am I capable of, even today? What kind of pride, envy, lust, greed, and idolatry lurk deep within me?

The apostle Paul tells us that we are enemies of God without Christ (Romans 5:10, Colossians 1:21) Simply avoiding God is idolatry and a vicious rebellion. But turning to Christ we are clothed in righteousness so that, when the gavel of God's judgment falls, Christ takes our wickedness upon himself. I am righteous before God in the judicial court of heaven. But that is not all! I long, not only to be declared righteous, but to become righteous. I want to be no longer capable of Jezebel-like treachery.

Again, our Advocate rises on our behalf. Through the Holy Spirit and our cooperation with Him, God's love and tolerance go deep to redeem us down to the bottom of our souls.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

There is one thing, among many, that we share as human beings. We are all selfish. It’s built into our DNA. Not that this is all bad. In fact the one commandment that Jesus said that summed up everything God expects of us relies on our being this way. Jesus said we were to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. So self-love is assumed. It’s interesting to me that Jesus doesn’t tell us to stop being selfish; he tells us how to turn our preoccupation with self into something that will take us beyond ourselves.

We all care for ourselves and look after our own needs. We’re all number one in our own book. Jesus was counting on this when he told us how to love. He said to love others the way you love yourself. Look after someone else’s needs the way you look after your own. If you want to find out how to love someone, observe how you treat yourself, and then do that for someone else.

This shouldn’t be too hard to figure out. If you want people to listen to you, listen to them. If you want people to applaud you, applaud them. If you want to be recognized, recognize someone. If you want people to take you seriously, take them seriously. If you’re getting hungry, then you can assume that others around you are probably hungry too. How else did Jesus know to take care of feeding the crowd he had been speaking to all day except that he was hungry himself? You could go as far as to say that this is precisely why we have needs, so we can understand and deal with the needs of those around us.

Noticing others by all the attention we pay ourselves, is a way of using our natural born instincts for something better. This is one of the great things about fellowship. If everyone is concerned about everyone else, everyone gets taken care of without having to focus on ourselves. We all take care of each other taking extra care to make sure no one is left out.

Think about this as you go through this day-that your own needs are more than likely an indication of the needs of those around you, and try satisfying your need by meeting theirs.

Animals can be trained to do amazing things. You’ve probably seen a guide dog help a blind person cross the street, but did you know that dogs can also be trained to help people in wheelchairs? And monkeys have been trained to help quadriplegics with everyday tasks. These animals are given special privileges because they are more than just pets; they are allowed to enter buildings and to fly on commercial airlines, usually without charge.

But some people take advantage of this policy. Last year a woman told US Airways she needed to bring her service animal on a flight with her. The animal, a 13 pound pig, was needed for “emotional support,” according to a doctor’s note.

Imagine the airline’s surprise when the woman showed up for her flight leading, not a 13-pound pig, or even a 130-pound pig, but a 250-pound porker. Once aboard, the animal ran around the cabin and tried to break into the cockpit. The woman’s story is only one of many in which people take advantage of rules in order to have things their way.

But when you have things your way, you often do so at someone else’s expense. In fact, many times the only way you can get ahead is by pushing someone else behind. This approach to life can easily become a habit, as we jostle and shove our way along, constantly fighting for “big number one.” Selfishness can easily become a way of life.

But that’s not what Jesus had in mind, and to make it perfectly clear, he demonstrated his intentions by living his life the way he wanted us to live ours: as a servant.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant… “ (Phil 2:3-7, NIV)

The race is not always to the swift. Try letting someone else go first today; you might find out it work!

While I was doing some homework one evening, I felt the need to put on a record. The record I chose was none other than SLOW TRAIN COMING by Bob Dylan. I will admit I hadn’t listened to it that much at the time, but as the needle passed over “You Got To Serve Somebody,” I realized that if I believed in anything, it would be serving.

I have tried to live a life of a servant. To do something for someone else you don’t even have to know, while not expecting anything more than a good feeling inside is true servitude. I have found that the best way for me is labor. A Baptist-church organization known as World Changers has taken me to the places I needed to be in order to do this. Through World Changers I’ve worked everywhere from Dallas, Texas to Vancouver, British Columbia. At face value its almost absurd; paying over $300 for long van rides in horrible traffic; sleeping on the floors of churches and schools; eating what could never be considered the world’s greatest food; all to re-do a roof in a high crime area while the temperature is somewhere near the 115-degree mark. If the good-vibes weren’t there, I probably wouldn’t spend part of my summer doing it.

Serving is, in short, doing what no one else wants to do without complaining. It is the building of a rock wall; it is being the lowest custodian on a janitorial staff totem pole; it is the painting and re-roofing houses in the middle of cities as well as the middle of nowhere. I’ve done these things usually with little or no financial gain. Money comes and goes, but the servant’s joy is never ending. The homeowners I’ve sweated for always look to me as though I were something more than what I am. It’s the gratitude that could not come from their words but only from the tears. I know that I have given them something that they couldn’t purchase themselves, yet they paid me in something that money cannot compare.

There is one thing old Bob Dylan missed; you cannot serve yourself! Its counter productive for crying out loud! Other than the feeling you shouldn’t need any other reward. When you get something for yourself, it’s more than the feeling, and, therefore, ruins the point. I know I am being redundant but honestly I do not think I can make my point more clear. I think that the song should have been “You Got To Serve Somebody Else.” With that as the title, more people would have understood and applied it. Remember this, material wealth in greater quantities weighs far less than good-vibe wealth in minimal proportions. You may serve the Devil, or you may serve the Lord, or it could be for the bum on the corner, or a homeowner that needs a new roof, but, to be the wealthiest person ever, you have to be the servant of all!

It was our second anniversary, and my husband sent me flowers at the office. He told the florist to write "Happy Anniversary, Year Number 2" on the card. I was thrilled with the flowers, but not so pleased with the card. It read "Happy Anniversary. You're Number 2."

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.

Chen Fuchao, a man heavily in debt, had been contemplating suicide on a bridge in southern China for hours when a passer-by came up, shook his hand — and pushed him off the ledge. Chen fell 26 feet onto a partially inflated emergency air cushion laid out by authorities and survived with injuries.

The passer-by, 66-year-old Lai Jiansheng, had been fed up with what he called Chen’s “selfish activity.” Traffic around the Haizhu bridge in the city of Guangzhou had been backed up for five hours and police had cordoned off the area.

“I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interest,” Lai was quoted as saying. “They do not really dare to kill themselves. Instead, they just want to raise the relevant government authorities’ attention to their appeals.”

How greedy are you?

Dylan Selterman teaches undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland. His students always perk up when he poses this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or 6 points?

He tells his students that the extra-credit offer is to illustrate the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. Because there is a catch to his offer - if more than 10% of the student chose 6 points, all the students get zero points.

The exercise was inspired by a talk given 50 years ago by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin. Hardin’s topic was what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” A common is a pasture that all the villagers shared. Every New England town has a vestige of one near their center. The tragedy is that if each individual only thinks of themselves and puts too many sheep in the commons, the pasture is soon destroyed and no one benefits from it.

And so Selterman offers his extra points on the final paper to see if they can control their personal greed so that everyone comes out ahead. Maybe it is too severe to call it greed - getting more points to help your grade is strategic. It makes sense. But if everyone does it, the pump runs dry.

What do the students choose? After eight years and dozens of classes, only one, a single one, got the two extra points. In all the others, more than 10% chose the six points for themselves.

For most of the students, this was very frustrating. So Selterman came up with a tweak - he added the option of choosing zero points. If someone chooses zero, they get no added points. In addition, someone who chose 6 points is canceled out. So the group is more likely to win their 2 extra points each. But since you choose the zero option, you get no points. (That six-pointer you bumped doesn’t either.) The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much.

Usually only a few of his students each semester choose the zero-point option, but sometimes that’s all it takes. About half of his classes now win the 2 extra points because a few self-sacrificers balance out enough greedy ones. If you were in that class, how many points would you choose?

Self-sacrifice is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus himself exemplified it. He was the only perfect human, so he didn’t need saving. But he sacrificed himself so we could be saved.

Here is the rub - he expects us to sacrifice as well, to deny ourselves and take up our cross every day.

_________

Adapted by Rev. David Holwick from this article in the National Geographic, June 2018:

"What a Simple Psychological Test Reveals About Climate Change: If everyone’s success depended on it, would you share — or be selfish?"

by Dylan Selterman; .

Selterman's full article:

I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points?

I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this summer, describing what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own self-interest without regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th-century convention of “the commons” — a cattle-grazing pasture that villagers shared — to warn against the overexploitation of communal resources.

I’m hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the classroom exercise, Hardin’s ideas, and our planet’s most pressing problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two points or six points of extra credit — but there’s a catch. I stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin’s analysis), or any natural resource.

According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the student’s rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the shepherd’s rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren’t greedy — they’re strategic.

But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate change.

A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their consumption, we’d have sustainability. As many of my students say, “If everyone chooses two points, we’ll all get the points.” And yet, for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class — of the dozens I taught — stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes failed.

This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed too — and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with my peers who had chosen six.

In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise — ”WHAT KIND OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS” — and his lament went viral. People around the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish?

TEST-TAKERS

Dylan Selterman teaches students about the tragedy of the commons with this extra-credit exercise:

Choose zero, two, or six points to be added to your final paper grade. If more than 10 percent of you choose six points, no one will receive any points. If you choose zero points, you cancel out one of the six-point choosers, who will receive no points.

Actually most people aren’t. But it’s very tricky to get people to cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or choosing six points), why shouldn’t I? But if we all think this way, eventually we’ll all lose.

Hardin suggested that education might make a difference — that if we teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not. I’ve been skeptical about this idea. When my student’s tweet went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn’t be able to use the exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the extra-credit points.

Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about 80 percent, choose two points — just as most people choose to cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what’s right. But that alone won’t solve our problems, so we need to think creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions.

In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose two points, six points — or zero points. That’s right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.

The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group context — and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from increased cooperation.

Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a huge difference — that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the extra-credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to increase cooperation.

Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom, won’t we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same–it’s about collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started volunteering with Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend. This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money raised back to American households (to protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive to use — so reducing consumption would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts — again, collective action — we gain allies in Congress and the public. By early this year the House’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across the country.

As I write these words, I’m sitting next to my three-month-old daughter, Amelia. Though the planet faces daunting problems, I’m determined to help her have a bright future — so I have to believe that action by even a few people can make a significant difference. A few students can help an entire class of hundreds gain a leg up in the course. A few people who recycle or compost can have a contagious effect on others’ lifestyles. A few politicians’ votes can alter national and international policies that affect millions.

The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from the Beatles: “All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

________

In his class in fall semester 2017, how did students respond? Read on.

ZERO POINTS

Devin Porter, 21, sociology major

“I took the class to get something out of it, not necessarily for the grade. When we didn’t get the extra credit, I felt bad for the people who really needed it, but I wasn’t too surprised. People who chose two made the obvious choice — everyone eats. People who chose six thought they could get away with it.”

TWO POINTS

Robin Bachkosky, 19, nursing major

”I thought I made a pretty beneficial choice for the class and myself, one that wouldn’t necessarily put the class to any disadvantage but would give me some extra credit. I was a little disappointed that I didn’t get any extra credit just because some of the other kids were selfish and weren’t satisfied with two points.”

SIX POINTS

Gunleen Deol, 18, information systems and psychology major

”I thought that the majority of people would choose two and felt that the rational decision for me to make would be the one that maximizes my personal benefit, which would be six. Considering how my choice affected the rest of the class made me wish that I had chosen two instead.”

The class failed the exercise.

________

Dylan Selterman is a lecturer at the University of Maryland, College Park, and former editor in chief of the psychology magazine In-Mind. He lives in Washington, D.C.

A friend of Stuart Briscoe’s is a professor of New Testament. The professor was writing a commentary on Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and was working on this passage of Scripture. It is not easy an easy passage because Paul talks about husbands and wives, and then he uses the analogy of Christ and the Church, and then you can’t tell whether he is talking about husbands or the church. Paul’s conclusion is, “It’s a great mystery,” and he is right.

But Briscoe’s friend was a serious New Testament scholar, so he was exegeting this passage. As he was working on it, it suddenly struck him that Christ was working with the Church that it might eventually be a radiant Church. He turned away from his computer, and he called to his wife, who was in another part of the house, and he said, “Honey, can I ask you a question? Do I make you ‘radiant’?”

There was silence, and then she said, “What did you say?”

He said, “I asked you, do I make you radiant?”

She said, “Why are you asking me that?” So he explained.

She said, “Do you really want me to answer that?”

He said, “Yes, I do, I need to know!”

She said, “All right I’ll tell you. Frankly, no you don’t.”

He said, “Why not?”

She said, “Well, we’ve been married all these years. We’re married, we’ll stay married, we’re together. But for years our marriage has run on parallel tracks - you do your thing, and I do my thing. The reason I’m doing my thing is I know you’re going to do your thing. What happens is this marriage operates basically on the basis of what you want, and I just fit in. I’m rarely consulted, and if I do express an opinion, it’s usually overridden or ignored. I find, therefore, that the easiest thing to do is say nothing, and just go along with what you want to do.”

She continued, “You are incredibly self-centered. You simply run the show, and I am simply subservient. The result is that I live a life of frustration, a sense of being unfulfilled, bordering on resentment.”

Briscoe’s friend told him, “I had a wake-up call.” Men, this is your wake-up call from the Lord!

Kerux Sermon #26657

The evangelical world, joined by no shortage of secular observers, has been abuzz about the latest soundbite of note from the Pastors Osteen — this time offered by Victoria Osteen as her husband Joel beamed in the background. It is a hard video to watch.

In her message, Victoria Osteen tells their massive congregation to realize that their devotion to God is not really about God, but about themselves. “I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God–I mean, that’s one way to look at it–we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we are happy.... That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy.... ”

She continued: “So, I want you to know this morning — Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy.... When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

As you might predict, the congregation responded with a loud “Amen.”

America deserves the Osteens. The consumer culture, the cult of the therapeutic, the marketing impulse, and the sheer superficiality of American cultural Christianity probably made the Osteens inevitable. The Osteens are phenomenally successful because they are the exaggerated fulfillment of the self-help movement and the cult of celebrity rolled into one massive mega-church media empire. And, to cap it all off, they give Americans what Americans crave — reassurance delivered with a smile.

Judged in theological terms, the Osteen message is the latest and slickest version of Prosperity Theology. That American heresy has now spread throughout much of the world, but it began in the context of American Pentecostalism in the early twentieth century. Prosperity theology, promising that God rewards faith with health and wealth, first appealed to those described as “the dispossessed” — the very poor. Now, its updated version appeals to the aspirational class of the suburbs. Whereas the early devotees of Prosperity Theology prayed for a roof over their heads that did not leak, the devotees of prosperity theology in the Age of Osteen pray for ever bigger houses. The story of how the Osteens exercised faith for a big house comes early in Joel Osteen’s best-seller, Your Best Life Now.

According to Osteen, God wants to pour out his “immeasurable favor” on his human creatures, and this requires a fundamental re-ordering of our thinking. “To experience this immeasurable favor,” Osteen writes, “you must rid yourself of that small-minded thinking and start expecting God’s blessings, start anticipating promotion and supernatural increase. You must conceive it in your heart before you can receive it. In other words, you must make increase in your own thinking, then God will bring those things to pass.”

There is nothing really new in this message. Anyone familiar with the New Thought movement and later books such as Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich will see a persistent theme. The important issue is this — Prosperity Theology is a false Gospel. The problem with Prosperity Theology is not that it promises too much, but that it aims for so little. What God promises us in Christ is far above anything that can be measured in earthly wealth — and believers are not promised earthly wealth nor the gift of health.

But to talk of the promises of God to believers is actually to jump outside the Osteen audience. The Osteen message does not differentiate between believers and unbelievers — certainly not in terms of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In their sermons, writings, and media appearances, the Osteens insist that God is well-disposed to all people and wills that all flourish, but there is virtually no mention of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No reference to sin as the fundamental issue. No explanation of atonement and resurrection as God’s saving acts; no clarity of any sort on the need for faith in Christ and repentance of sin.

Instead, they focus on happiness and God’s “immeasurable favor” to be poured out on all people, if they will only correct their thinking.

As a thought exercise, let’s just limit the consideration to those people who have identified as Christians throughout the centuries. Does the Osteen message come close to their experience? Would it even make sense?

Just consider the fact that most Christians throughout the history of the church have been poor, and often desperately poor. They were not hoping to move into a suburban mini-mansion, they hoped to be able to feed their children one more day. That picture is still true for millions upon millions of Christians around the world today.

And that is just the start of it. What about all those who are even now suffering persecution for their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? What about the loved ones of the martyrs in Mosul? What about the Christians forced out of their homes and threatened with genocide? What about the children of Christians slain in Iraq and Syria just in recent weeks, or those martyred by Boko Haram in Africa? How does Prosperity Theology work for them? Can anyone look them in the eye and say that God’s plan for believers in this life is to know Your Best Life Now?

In her recent work on Prosperity Theology, historian Kate Bowler traces the shift from what she calls the “hard prosperity” message of the early Pentecostals to the “soft prosperity” message of modern preachers like Joel Osteen. As Bowler explains, the new “softer” version of the prosperity message has “become the foremost Christian theology of modern living.”

Well, maybe. Prosperity Theology certainly sells books and draws crowds in the United States, but what does it possibly say to a grieving Christian wife and mother in Iraq? How can it possibly be squared with the actual message of the New Testament? How can any sinner be saved, without a clear presentation of sin, redemption, the cross, the empty tomb, and the call to faith and repentance? Prosperity Theology fails every test, and fails every test miserably. It is a false gospel, and one that must be repudiated, not merely reformatted.

Victoria Osteen’s comments fit naturally within the worldview and message she and her husband have carefully cultivated. The divine-human relationship is just turned upside down, and God’s greatest desire is said to be our happiness. But what is happiness? It is a word that cannot bear much weight. As writers from C. S. Lewis to the Apostle Paul have made clear, happiness is no substitute for joy. Happiness, in the smiling version assured in the Age of Osteen, doesn’t last, cannot satisfy, and often is not even real.

Furthermore, God’s pleasure in his human creatures centers in his desire and will that they come to faith in Jesus Christ and be saved. The great dividing line in humanity is not between the rich and the poor, the sick and the well, or even the happy and the unhappy. The great divide is between those who, in Christ, have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s glorious light.

Mere happiness cannot bear the weight of the Gospel. The message of the real Gospel is found in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” That is a message that can be preached with a straight face, a courageous spirit, and an urgent heart in Munich, in Miami, or in Mosul.

If our message cannot be preached with credibility in Mosul, it should not be preached in Houston. That is the Osteen Predicament.

________

Resource:

Kate Bowler, Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). Section cited is on page 78.

When people believe marriage means anything, it ends up meaning nothing. I’ll explain.

Since time immemorial, marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman for life, usually for the purpose of raising children. But today marriage tends to mean just about any relationship you can think of — first so-called same-sex marriage, now polyamory, or even polygamy are said to be just as valid. But it doesn’t stop there. So hold onto your cummerbund, because I’ve got a new one for you.

It’s known as sologamy — marrying oneself. Or as Dr. Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School called it in a recent First Things article, “same-self marriage.” Dr. George, of course, was a close colleague of Chuck Colson and the past president of the Colson Center’s Board of Directors.

Although sologamy isn’t a big trend yet (but then again, neither were other forms of “marriage”), Dr. George points to several notable examples. Author Sara Sharpe wrote about her self-marriage bliss in her book “A Dress, A Ring, Promises to Self.” Meanwhile, Nadine Schweigert, from Fargo, North Dakota, “married” herself in a public ceremony. Listen to her vows: “I, Nadine,” she said, “promise to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self.” Now why would people do this?

Dr. George explains: “In some ways same-self marriage is the logical outgrowth of what cultural critic Christopher Lasch described in his 1979 bestseller ‘The Culture of Narcissism.’ Lasch, building on Sigmund Freud’s classic essay ‘On Narcissism’ of 1916, applied the term to the sense of grandiosity and excessive self-love that seem to mark not only psychologically disordered individuals but post-sixties American society as a whole.”

Perhaps that’s why the word “selfie” is so revealing. We’re a nation of narcissists.

“Narcissism,” Dr. George goes on, “is more than modern rugged individualism gone to seed. At its heart it’s a spiritual disorder, what Martin Luther ... and Augustine described as incurvatus in se, ‘twisted back into one’s self.’ In our own era, we have seen the evisceration of those communities that sustain us during the most trying and difficult times. Chief among these is the family.”

This form of incurvatus in se is a sign of the sin and brokenness of our world. It’s sin because we are our brother’s keeper. God created us to love others and live in community. That’s how we express and experience His love. So committing only to oneself is a form of brokenness.

Lasch said that the cure for this narcissism “appears to lie in a recognition of our need for and dependence on” other people. Or, as Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself.

So how do we respond to our culture of narcissism? First, we need more compassion than sarcasm. This movement, if that’s what it is, is a poignant reminder that people have longings, but don’t know how to fulfill them. If they don’t fulfill those longings in God and His Word, they’ll search until they find something else that seems to work.

Second, we need to confess that far too often our own marriages have not been a great picture of the real thing, and so people are drawn to counterfeits. Perhaps if our marriages were closer to what God wants, our lost neighbors might want this for themselves. And remember, Scripture says our marriages are supposed to model Christ and the church. So let’s get our own homes in order.

Third, we need to lovingly share the good things we have in our marriage with others — otherwise, how will they be drawn to the real thing? Marriage can be a wonderful tool to share God’s love with a lost and hurting world. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said to a newly married couple, “In your love, you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind.”

________

Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

From grumpy old misers to the wolves of Wall Street, Hollywood has always had plenty to say about the corrupting influence of wealth. But how accurate are the silver screen stereotypes - does money make you mean?

________

The road along the seafront in Los Angeles is lined with palm trees - skateboarders and dog-walkers stroll along, heading for the beach. And social psychologist Professor Paul Piff is spending the afternoon going back and forth over a pedestrian crossing.

Thanks to the high number of wealthy locals, there is no shortage of upmarket vehicles gliding past. The four-wheel drives, sleek sports cars and nifty hybrids are an essential part of his demonstration.

He’s here to illustrate one of his more provocative experiments - who is more likely to stop for pedestrians, the rich or the poor?

Drivers are legally obliged to stop if someone wishes to cross. And, as a Lexus blithely slips through in front of him, Piff explains what his researchers found.

“None of the drivers of the least expensive cars broke the law, while close to 50% of our most expensive car drivers broke the law,” he says.

Piff also asked a range of people from different backgrounds how they would behave in various scenarios.

In the past, public perception has tended towards the notion that the very poor are more likely to break the rules because they are under financial pressure and face more difficult circumstances.

But Piff’s work suggests the opposite - that having more money makes you care about others less and feel entitled to put your own interests first.

After nearly a decade researching this field, Piff has come to the controversial conclusion that being wealthy, rather than transforming you into a benevolent benefactor, can actually be rather bad for your moral fiber.

“It makes you more attuned to your own interests, your own desires, your own welfare,” he says.

“It isolates you in certain ways from other people psychologically and materially. You prioritize your own needs and your own goals and become less attuned to those around you.

“If I put a pen in your hand and ask you to draw a circle to represent yourself, the wealthier you are, the larger that circle is relative to the size of the circles poorer people draw of themselves.”

In his psychology lab, Piff has run studies which suggest people with more money are more likely to cheat in a dice game, more likely to take sweets reserved for children and less willing to give up their time to help others.

Using a well-known tool of psychologists, the dictator test, he took a group of people and gave some of them $10 (£7) each. He told them they could share all, some or none of that windfall with another participant who had been given nothing.

“Rational economics would say the poorer person should keep more for themselves, the richer person should give more away.

“We find the opposite. The wealthier you are, controlling for a whole slew of other variables, the less generous you are. You give significantly smaller portions away to this other person.

“Poorer people were significantly more generous - they give 150% as much as do richer participants,” he says.

In another study he rigged a game of Monopoly to privilege one player, giving him or her more money to start with. As a final touch, they had the counter of the Rolls Royce to move around the board - the disadvantaged player who was destined to lose had the old boot.

After dozens of games it transpired that winning brings out the worst in the player who is scooping the board - an imperious manner, domination of the space, even eating more from a communal bowl of pretzels.

When we feel wealthy, Piff concludes, we need other people less. In the real world, when people have less money, they rely more heavily on their social relationships to get by. Therefore interpersonal relations are prioritized. The rich, by contrast, can buy themselves peace, quiet and space - plus a solution to most problems. There’s nothing like a fat wallet to cheer you up in a crisis. But that tends to isolate them from others’ experiences.

Piff’s findings certainly have popular appeal. There’s a comfort in thinking that those who enjoy the advantages of wealth might also be paying a price. But not everyone is convinced.

Psychology is a discipline fraught with difficulties. In real-world studies there are always confounding factors - does the person crossing the road step out more confidently in front of a cheaper car? Is the driver really wealthy or has he borrowed his uncle’s BMW? Data from population surveys is hard to decipher. There’s no way to tease apart cause and effect, and subjects who turn up to take part in lab studies give responses that may or may not bear any relation to real life.

It’s only when studies employing different methods repeatedly point in the same direction that the results are deemed significant.

Since Piff published his first batch of findings in 2010, other scientists around the world have been busy trying to replicate them. Some have found results which back up Piff’s work, but others, confusingly have found the opposite.

One study in the Netherlands which used real-life millionaires as its participants found they were more generous than the average person when given a small sum of money to keep or share.

Analyses of population data by academics in Europe failed to find any link between wealth and a lack of generosity. If anything, they found the reverse, that wealthier individuals were more likely to offer time and money to others.

Wallets with foreign banknotes on cover You’ve now been primed. Be nice.

There is however a closely related field of study that may help explain Piff’s findings.

Research by Prof Kathleen Vohs at Minnesota University might help to explain Piff’s findings though. She spent her time “accidentally” dropping a bundle of little yellow pencils to see whether people would help pick them up.

First, though, she primed half of them with thoughts of money, either giving them money-related sentences to unscramble or banknotes to count.

Money-primed participants proved to be less helpful in gathering up the pencils. And in a similar study they were also less generous when invited to donate to charity.

Unlike Piff’s work, this seems to have little to do with how rich or poor they are. And the results have been replicated to date in 19 countries.

“It seems there’s something about the idea of money and the way that it’s represented in people’s minds that’s causing the effects that we see and it seems like it has very little to do with whether they are feeling strapped or flush with cash,” says Vohs.

Vohs says even just thinking about money invokes a “self-sufficient mindset” reflecting the fact money is all about transactions with strangers and calculating your best interest. You don’t typically use money with your nearest and dearest. As a result money can make us more determined and focused but it also makes us less sensitive to the needs and feelings of others.

Researchers in Hong Kong; One on left did the sound blast experiment; on right is Yuwei Jiang. Can ask Lucy for more info on other guy is necessary Prof Zhansheng Chen (l) and Prof Yuwei Jiang (r)

Researchers in Hong Kong have taken this a step further. Prof Zhansheng Chen and Prof Yuwei Jiang found money-primed subjects, when given a series of ethical dilemmas, were more likely to accept moral transgressions such as cheating in exams or lying on a CV.

And when playing a game involving punishing another participant with a blast of sound, money-primed participants set the unpleasant buzz for their unseen opponent at a consistently louder level for longer. Money priming made them more aggressive.

So focusing on prices and profits, bank accounts and budgets, may not be good for the atmosphere in your office or the integrity of your organization.

If you want your workers to cooperate with each other and remain honest don’t bribe them with bonuses, says Jiang. He has a better suggestion.

“You can award your employee a trip to Hawaii. People do not think about money when they go to Hawaii.”

Mother Teresa told this story in an address to the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994: [transposed to third person in sermon]

One evening we went out, and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the sisters, "You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worst." So I did for her all that my love could do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand as she said two words only: "Thank you." Then she died.

I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And I asked: What would I say if I were in her place? And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said, "I am hungry, I am dying, I am in pain," or something. But she gave me much more; she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face.

Gratitude brings a smile and becomes a gift.

President Woodrow Wilson is reported to have had a very sharp wit. It seems that while he was Governor of New Jersey, the chairman of the New Jersey Bar Association called him late one evening to tell him that the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court had just died. After the usual kind words regarding the deceased, the head of the Bar Association was trying to find an appropriate way to suggest that he be named to replace him on the bench. He said that he would be interested in "taking the deceased's place."

"Well," said Wilson, "If is all right with the undertaker, it is all right with me."

________

Monday Fodder; http://www.fishermansnet.com/monday-fodder/

Is it possible to forgive a wrong done to someone else? Should only those who repent be forgiven? Is forgiveness a selfish act, a way to make ourselves feel better? Greg grapples with these issues and more after a local community forgives a high school student who slew three classmates.

My comments today are in response to an article entitled "The Sin of Forgiveness" written by my colleague, Dennis Prager, published in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Dennis expresses his deep concern about the knee-jerk tendency of many Christians to simply forgive egregious crimes committed against someone else.

Dennis cites a couple of examples. In one case a Christian pastor invited Americans to forgive Timothy McVeigh, found guilty of murdering 168 people in the Oklahoma city bombing. In a second case, Michael Carneil, a freshman at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky, gunned down three students attending a prayer group on campus. A few days later the students erected a banner saying, "We forgive you, Michael."

Dennis's article makes three points. First, only the one who is wronged can forgive. These students weren't the ones wronged. The ones murdered were wronged. Therefore, the students are out of place presuming to forgive.

Second, Prager argues that according to Jesus' teaching, only those who repent are to be forgiven. It's wrong to automatically forgive everyone who sins against us when repentance isn't demonstrated.

Third, it's selfish to offer forgiveness merely because of the psychological advantages it gives to oneself. Forgiveness isn't for someone else; it's for us, some hold. It makes us feel better. Dennis argues that this turns out to be selfishness disguised as idealism.

What may surprise you is that I agree with most that's been said by Mr. Prager in this article, though I think some qualifications need to be made, especially to his last point about selfishness. Let's take them one by one.

First, only the one who is wronged can forgive. Dennis writes, "Only those they sinned against have the right to forgive, and those they murdered are dead, and therefore cannot forgive them." He adds, parenthetically, "That is why I believe that humans cannot forgive a murder." Forgiveness is obviously not available on this view because the only person who can forgive a murderer is now dead.

I'm not sure if this last means that even God can't forgive a murderer, therefore a murderer can never be forgiven. If that's what Dennis means, then I think he's mistaken for reasons I'll make clear in a moment.

I think Dennis is right when he says that only the one who is wronged can forgive. Such a statement seems self-evident. What does one forgive except a wrong against himself? If someone punches your neighbor in the nose, you can't forgive that crime; the offense wasn't against you. Therefore, it does seem presumptuous for these students to forgive Michael Carneil on behalf of their classmates who were killed.

Two caveats need to be made, though. First, all moral crimes are first of all crimes against God and only secondarily against man. If you recall Psalm 51, David -- who had committed adultery and killed a man in the process of trying to cover up that adultery -- says to God, "I know my transgressions and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only have I sinned."

Even though this was a sin of adultery against a woman and a sin of a murder against a man, David saw the sin principally as a sin against God.

This is especially true of the crime of murder. The central issue of murder -- a violation of the sixth commandment -- is not simply that someone has his life taken from him. That's actually a violation of the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

Rather, the central crime of murder is the destruction of one who bears the image of God. As you recall in Genesis 9:6, God said to Noah in instituting capital punishment, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man."

This tells us something very important. It gives us the foundational principle of all human rights and all human dignity, and all other rules, commands, or laws that naturally follow, including the commandment not to murder. Humans are valuable in that they are image bearers. This distinguishes them from all other beings on the planet -- or in the universe, for that matter. Human beings bear God's image.

Now, you might not have thought of this, but do you remember when Jesus was asked about paying taxes? He asked whose image was on the coin. What did He say then? "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Right?

That applies to this situation. Human beings bear God's image and therefore belong to Him. So the crime of murder is first a crime against God, and therefore the most important forgiveness must come from Him because He is the principal One wronged.

By the way, God is the One most worthy of obedience and He is the One whose justice and punishment is ultimate and most severe. This is why He's the principle subject for forgiveness and not just humans who were the object of the crime committed.

The second caveat I need to add to this concept -- that only the one who is wronged can forgive -- is that God and the students who were killed aren't the only ones this crime was against.

I think a case can be made that there's an indirect crime done to others. For example, 17-year-old Jessica James was cut down that day. Though she lost her life, her parents also lost a daughter and her classmates lost a dear friend.

This is why condolences go out to family and friends of the deceased. We try to comfort the others in their loss . This is something Dennis even suggested we do, send warm condolences. But such an act is a tacit admission of a crime committed against those other than the deceased.

We comfort someone in their loss because they lost something. Something that was theirs was taken from them. If this is the case, then, it seems also the case -- since they've suffered a loss, too -- that they in some sense are in a position to extend forgiveness. These killings were not only crimes against the murder victims, but also crimes against the family and the community. From that perspective, forgiveness on some level from members of the community seems appropriate.

But that needs to be qualified by the second point Mr. Prager brings up in his article, that, according to Christianity -- the teaching of Jesus -- only those who repent are to be forgiven. He quotes Luke 17:3-4, "Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."

In Matthew 18 a slave was forgiven a large debt. When someone who owed that slave a much smaller amount wanted forgiveness for himself from this slave who'd been forgiven such a great debt, the slave instead threw him into debtors prison. Of course, Jesus had very harsh words for that man. Point being, if we've been forgiven when we've asked for forgiveness, when others ask us for forgiveness we should forgive them in like manner.

Scripturally, this is a little bit of a mixed bag because there are other verses that don't mention the repentance issue and talk only about forgiveness. It does seem, though, that the Luke 17 passage qualifies those other verses such that repentance is an important requirement. It doesn't seem to be that God has commanded us to forgive everybody without qualification, because we see these occasions when the qualification is made. (Incidentally, even God doesn't forgive everyone without qualification.)

There's a third thing Dennis said that I want to respond to. He claimed that it's selfish to give forgiveness in order to gain psychological relief for oneself. He writes, "This, too, is selfishness masquerading as idealism. The argument being, though I do not deserve to be forgiven, and though you may not even be sorry, I forgive you because I want to feel better." I disagree with the letter of Dennis's statement here, though I think I agree with the spirit behind it.

Part of the process of healing from tragedies like this involves releasing anger, bitterness, and resentment connected with the wrong done. Often, when people forgive, that's what they're doing, letting it go.

On the other hand, I don't think that means acting as if no crime has been committed. I think that's Dennis's concern. Moral outrage is appropriate and should be expressed by all parties involved. However, as time goes on people need to let go of these things. Hanging on to injury over time is just another way of continuing to punish the offender -- Carneil, in this case. In the long run, though, those that refuse to let crimes against them drop are the ones who are going to suffer.

I don't think this is selfishness masquerading as idealism, but rather a healthy step in the healing process, as long as (and here's my caveat) the egregious nature of the moral crime doesn't receive the short shrift in the process. This, I think, is Dennis's deepest concern, the real spirit of his objection.

(It may be -- and I was thinking about this yesterday -- that statements of personal forgiveness should be done in private so that it doesn't appear that the crime is taken lightly. Save the public statements for condolences to those who lost their children and friends.)

I think the biggest offense that someone like Dennis Prager feels about this is the apparent denial of the harm done and the immediate focus on forgiveness instead of on the appropriate punishment, which would be a function of justice.

In New York a while back a woman almost died when she was badly beaten and raped in Central Park in an act of "wilding." The young men who had committed the crime were caught and jailed. Later they were visited by the Catholic Archbishop and told that God forgave them.

Now, the Archbishop should have mentioned that forgiveness is available from God on God's conditions. But this should have come only after another truth was made clear: As the writer of Hebrews said, "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hell is a real place where moral criminals are punished for their crimes against God and man.

That's what should be told those criminals who did that terrible crime. Only then should they be told about the mercy that God will offer, on His conditions. First the bad news, then the good news.

__________________

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1997 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755

(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 • info@str.org • www.str.org

When people believe marriage means anything, it ends up meaning nothing. I’ll explain.

Since time immemorial, marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman for life, usually for the purpose of raising children. But today marriage tends to mean just about any relationship you can think of — first so-called same-sex marriage, now polyamory, or even polygamy are said to be just as valid. But it doesn’t stop there. So hold onto your cummerbund, because I’ve got a new one for you.

It’s known as sologamy — marrying oneself. Or as Dr. Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School called it in a recent First Things article, “same-self marriage.” Dr. George, of course, was a close colleague of Chuck Colson and the past president of the Colson Center’s Board of Directors.

Although sologamy isn’t a big trend yet (but then again, neither were other forms of “marriage”), Dr. George points to several notable examples. Author Sara Sharpe wrote about her self-marriage bliss in her book “A Dress, A Ring, Promises to Self.” Meanwhile, Nadine Schweigert, from Fargo, North Dakota, “married” herself in a public ceremony. Listen to her vows: “I, Nadine,” she said, “promise to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self.” Now why would people do this?

Dr. George explains: “In some ways same-self marriage is the logical outgrowth of what cultural critic Christopher Lasch described in his 1979 bestseller ‘The Culture of Narcissism.’ Lasch, building on Sigmund Freud’s classic essay ‘On Narcissism’ of 1916, applied the term to the sense of grandiosity and excessive self-love that seem to mark not only psychologically disordered individuals but post-sixties American society as a whole.”

Perhaps that’s why the word “selfie” is so revealing. We’re a nation of narcissists.

“Narcissism,” Dr. George goes on, “is more than modern rugged individualism gone to seed. At its heart it’s a spiritual disorder, what Martin Luther ... and Augustine described as incurvatus in se, ‘twisted back into one’s self.’ In our own era, we have seen the evisceration of those communities that sustain us during the most trying and difficult times. Chief among these is the family.”

This form of incurvatus in se is a sign of the sin and brokenness of our world. It’s sin because we are our brother’s keeper. God created us to love others and live in community. That’s how we express and experience His love. So committing only to oneself is a form of brokenness.

Lasch said that the cure for this narcissism “appears to lie in a recognition of our need for and dependence on” other people. Or, as Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself.

So how do we respond to our culture of narcissism? First, we need more compassion than sarcasm. This movement, if that’s what it is, is a poignant reminder that people have longings, but don’t know how to fulfill them. If they don’t fulfill those longings in God and His Word, they’ll search until they find something else that seems to work.

Second, we need to confess that far too often our own marriages have not been a great picture of the real thing, and so people are drawn to counterfeits. Perhaps if our marriages were closer to what God wants, our lost neighbors might want this for themselves. And remember, Scripture says our marriages are supposed to model Christ and the church. So let’s get our own homes in order.

Third, we need to lovingly share the good things we have in our marriage with others — otherwise, how will they be drawn to the real thing? Marriage can be a wonderful tool to share God’s love with a lost and hurting world. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said to a newly married couple, “In your love, you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind.”

________

Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

A man spoke with the Lord about heaven and hell. The Lord said to the man, “Come, I will show you hell.” They entered a room where a group of people sat around a huge pot of stew. Everyone was famished, desperate and starving. Each held a spoon that reached the pot, but each spoon had a handle so much longer than their own arm that it could not be used to get the stew into their own mouths. The suffering was terrible.

“Come, now I will show you heaven,” the Lord said after a while. They entered another room, identical to the first - the pot of stew, the group of people, the same long-handled spoons. But there everyone was happy and well nourished.

“I don't understand,” said the man. “Why are they happy here when they were miserable in the other room and everything was the same?”

The Lord smiled, “Ah, it is simple,” he said. “Here they have learned to feed each other.”

---------------------

By Ann Landers from A 2nd Helping of Chicken Soup for the Soul, Copyright 1995 by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen

===========================================

Here's the Korean version from “Fair Dinkum” magazine:

The Korea there is a legend about a native warrior who died and went to heaven. “Before I enter”, he said to the gatekeeper, “I would like you to take me on a tour of Hell”. The gatekeeper found a guide to take the warrior to Hell. When he got there he was astonished to see a great table piled high with the choosiest foods. But the people in Hell were starving. The warrior turned to his guide and raised his eyebrows. “It’s this way”, the guide explained, “Everybody who comes here is given a pair of chopsticks, five feet long, and is required to hold them at the end to eat. But you cannot eat with chopsticks five feet long if you hold them at the end. They miss their mouths every time, you see”. The visitor agreed that this was indeed Hell, and was asked to be taken back to Heaven post haste.

In Heaven, to his surprise, he saw a similar room, with a similar table laden with the choosiest foods. But the people were happy; they looked radiantly happy. The visitor turned to his guide. “No chopsticks I suppose”, he said. “Oh yes”, said the guide, “They have the same chopsticks, the same length, and they have to be held at the end, just as in Hell. But you see these, these people have learned that if a man feeds his neighbor, his neighbor will feed him.”

(From Len, Hahndorf, SA)

Some people have a hard time accepting the concept of praise. To them it comes across as unseemly. Surprisingly, C.S. Lewis is one of those who questioned it. He once wrote:

“When I first began to draw near in my belief of God, and even after I had become a Christian, I found a stumbling block. And that stumbling block was the demand so clamorously made by all religious people that we should praise God.

“We all despise the man who demands constant assurance of his own virtue, intelligence or delightfulness. We despise still more the crowd of people who surrounds every dictator, every millionaire, and every celebrity ... simply to gratify the demands of these people.

“I read in the Psalms ‘O praise the Lord with me.’ It was hideously like saying, ‘What I want most is be told that I am good and great.’

“That doesn’t sound like that could be God.

“I tried to sort it out and finally came to this conclusion. It is in the process of being worshiped that God communicates His presence to humans.”

===========================

The above illustration is adapted from Rev. Coy Wylie’s sermon “When You Feel Like Dancing…” preached on June 13, 1999. [Kerux Sermon #10539] http://www.cornerstonebc.com/sermon.htm. The original source in C.S. Lewis’s writings is not given and I have not been able to locate it. Here is how Wylie presents it:

C.S. Lewis was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of this century. Expressing praise at one time was a difficult issue for him. He wrote, “When I first began to draw near in my belief of God, and even after I had become a Christian, I found a stumbling block and that stumbling block was the demand so clamoursly made by all religious people that we should praise God. We all despise the man who demands constant assurance of his own virtue, intelligence or delightfulness. We despise still more the crowd of people who surrounds every dictator, every millionaire, and every celebrity and they are there simply to gratify the demands of these people. When I got that picture, it was at once ludicrous and horrible both of God and His worshipers. It almost destroyed my striving after the Lord. The Psalms were particularly hard for me. I read in the Psalms ‘O praise the Lord with me’ and ‘Praise Him.’ It was hideously like saying, ‘What I want most is be told that I am good and great.’ That doesn’t sound like that could be God. It sounds like it is not only that we praise God but that quantity counts, ‘Seven times a day I will praise thee’ says one psalmist. I tried to sort it out and finally came to this conclusion. Finally I saw that it is in the process of being worshiped that God communicates His presence to men. Even in Judaism, the essence of the sacrifice was not really that men give bulls and goats to God, but that in so doing God gives Himself to men.”