I spoke with a Christian classmate and they said that their stomach turns when they hear the word “Evangelical”. I asked them why, and they explained that feelings of coercion and pride were at the root of the feeling. I suppose that the person felt like “evangelism” was tantamount (at least connotatively) to the Inquisition: Believe or die!
This is a common perception on my sociological category. And perhaps my ancestors were indeed inquisitors and I have to deal with that true legacy. Or it’s propaganda. In either case, I’ve got a strike (or three) against me in starting any conversation because I’m an “Evangelical”. So every once in a while, I am compelled to give a defense for the word with which I am stereotyped.
Evangelism is for me simply the attempt to convince another to believe in a theory about God and the universe. This theory has brought me great joy and peace, and because I love my neighbor, I wish to share the joy and peace.
My motivation hinges on changing belief. But the interesting thing about belief is that it’s not voluntarily changeable. No matter how much money I offered to pay you, you could not believe that the tooth fairy is sitting on top of your monitor right now. Even if you stood to make $1 million, you could not actually believe in something that you believed to be false. And no matter what I threatened you with, you couldn’t change your beliefs. You could say you believe something, but clearly you can’t change your own mind this way. Coercive “belief”, isn’t belief.
The next point is one of Christian doctrine. Christians believe that salvation comes through belief (at least…). So if no one can ‘coerce’ anyone else into believing a thing and if my religion teaches that belief is required for salvation, what then is evangelism? Whatever it is, it logically cannot be coercive. What is it then?
If you want to change someone else’s mind (say, on the team that will win on Sunday), you need to use evidence. Everything from a qualitative statement like “The Cardinals have such a great offense,” to a quantitative one: “Kurt Warner threw 4583 yards in the 2008 season.” This is the way you can change a mind: present compelling evidence. The mind’s evaluates evidence: “For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat” (Job 34:3). So give it evidence!
Do I have the truth? I think I do, as I hope everyone thinks they do. Or at least a part of it.
Isn’t it arrogant to claim that your way is the only way? It would be if I claimed that the human institution of Christianity was the only way, it would indeed be arrogant; we are humans who built it, after all. This is the incredible thing about Christianity: we don’t have a monopoly on the truth. You don’t have to go to a Christian church to be saved. You don’t have to call Jesus “Jesus.” You just have to believe in the truth. Those Christians who do this will be saved; those who don’t, won’t. Jesus actually says that many will profess to be his followers but in the end “…I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” The same goes for every human on the planet: if you have right belief, you will be saved.
It’s not about Christianity; it’s about the truth. Just like nature, gravity doesn’t care if you’re calculating where a cannonball lands from Newton’s laws or from lots of practice. Gravity is gravity, and its rewards are not exclusive to Newtonians. We can say that Newton has perhaps the most effective and elegant way to analyze gravity on a macro scale, but a man need not know the name of Newton to use gravity effectively. The same is true for Christianity. It’s the most effective and elegant way to analyze the spiritual world, but a man need not know the name of Jesus to attain salvation.
So I am an Evangelist for Christianity as Newton was an Evangelist for physics. Did Newton coerce people into believing his theories? No. He convinced them. One piece of evidence at a time. Because his view was true, people who believed in it were better off because of their belief. And belief in Newtonian physics spread.
We consider it an obligation and an honor for a scientist to make his findings known. We look at respect on the evangelical scientist, he who tries to better the world by his revelation of truth. And this is what I aim to do: to share what I believe I understand. If my reasons and evidence are compelling, believe. If not, don’t. I am an Evangelical Christian as Newton was an Evangelical Scientist.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Matter is a Literary Device
I was talking with a friend explaining the purpose of Creation, and it occurred to me that matter might be like a literary device.
There are several types that leaped to mind. Firstly, it’s a metaphor. The stars are a metaphor for wonder. The sun is a metaphor for glory. They all symbolize and teach some truth which is deeper than themselves.
Matter becomes allegory. Jesus uses this material literary device extensively in the parables. The field becomes the world; the mustard seed becomes the Kingdom of Heaven.
Because of the Resurrection (I’m thinking of NT Wright’s description of it; you can find it on Veritas.org), the trees and hills will themselves be remade into something greater than trees and hills. The material world foreshadows the one to come.
There are several types that leaped to mind. Firstly, it’s a metaphor. The stars are a metaphor for wonder. The sun is a metaphor for glory. They all symbolize and teach some truth which is deeper than themselves.
Matter becomes allegory. Jesus uses this material literary device extensively in the parables. The field becomes the world; the mustard seed becomes the Kingdom of Heaven.
Because of the Resurrection (I’m thinking of NT Wright’s description of it; you can find it on Veritas.org), the trees and hills will themselves be remade into something greater than trees and hills. The material world foreshadows the one to come.
Church for Atheists
Along the lines of the entry earlier this week, I have been thinking about the spiritual health of non-Christians. They have the same needs as any Christian has. They need community. They need opportunities for service. They need places to express joy and thanksgiving (even if it’s directed to the universe in general). I think it’s clearly biblical to try to bring them to church. Unfortunately, all the talk about Jesus and miracles is terrifying for a staunch materialist.
When we see a man who has been beaten by robbers and left for dead, what ought we to do? Put him on our own donkey. Sure. But what if he refuses our help on the grounds that he is terrified of donkeys? He will not accept the best thing for him: to be carried to a place of rest. So do we throw up our hands and give up? After all, he had his chance and he blew it. Or do we try to pull he and the donkey together, much to the protestation of both man and beast? We know for a fact that his riding the donkey will be for his own good; coercion may be the most merciful thing.
Moreover, when we offer him wine, and he refuses, saying he doesn’t believe in the power of alcohol to dull pain. Do we force the wine upon him?
In my little rip-off of Jesus great parable, the robbers are Humanism and Materialism, the man is the atheist, and we’re in the role of the good Samaritan. Our donkey is church and the wine is prayer. For many of us, we can think of nothing else but the donkey and the wine. And in part it’s right; the church is indeed the best community on Earth and prayer is the best way man can commune with God. But the man has a deathly fear of the donkey and will not ride it; he does not believe in the wine, and will not drink it.
I propose that we consider another approach: give him all he is willing to take. He’s hurting, so let’s let him lean on us and walk towards the inn, albeit it at an excruciatingly slow pace. He won’t take wine; let’s offer him water. There is no question that he’s thirsty, almost to death for any liquid.
What is the leaning and what is the water? I’m not quite sure, because Christians haven’t quite figured out what spiritual practices are tolerable for Atheists. An Atheist would not come to a prayer meeting; would he come to a lesser communion of God by quiet meditation? Or perhaps stargazing? An atheist would not sing about Jesus; would he sing about the beauty of nature?
I am not thinking about this in typical Evangelical terms (though I think those approaches also are valid). What first motivated this was the question: how do I heal the spirits of my atheist patients? Even assuming that total spiritual healing would never come through Christ, did I not still have an obligation to heal as much as I could? So how can an atheist who is starving to death for community and parched for spiritual practice be healed in part?
I am also not talking about watering down the Gospel. The Gospel must be preached with power and authority at Church; the effort to seek and save the lost must continue unabated. But just like international work, long-term solutions are ideal, but people are starving to death today. Evangelicals have done a superb job at the long-term (eternal even) solution for the soul, but what keeps the soul of an Atheist from starving today?
I pose this question particularly to church people. I don’t know the answer. I see terrible spiritual affliction, and though the church is fighting it systemically, there are too many suffering without relief today who feel too uncomfortable to come to church. Should we have 'church' for atheists?
How can we be a Good Samaritan and give relief to the soul of the bruised and beaten Atheist today?
When we see a man who has been beaten by robbers and left for dead, what ought we to do? Put him on our own donkey. Sure. But what if he refuses our help on the grounds that he is terrified of donkeys? He will not accept the best thing for him: to be carried to a place of rest. So do we throw up our hands and give up? After all, he had his chance and he blew it. Or do we try to pull he and the donkey together, much to the protestation of both man and beast? We know for a fact that his riding the donkey will be for his own good; coercion may be the most merciful thing.
Moreover, when we offer him wine, and he refuses, saying he doesn’t believe in the power of alcohol to dull pain. Do we force the wine upon him?
In my little rip-off of Jesus great parable, the robbers are Humanism and Materialism, the man is the atheist, and we’re in the role of the good Samaritan. Our donkey is church and the wine is prayer. For many of us, we can think of nothing else but the donkey and the wine. And in part it’s right; the church is indeed the best community on Earth and prayer is the best way man can commune with God. But the man has a deathly fear of the donkey and will not ride it; he does not believe in the wine, and will not drink it.
I propose that we consider another approach: give him all he is willing to take. He’s hurting, so let’s let him lean on us and walk towards the inn, albeit it at an excruciatingly slow pace. He won’t take wine; let’s offer him water. There is no question that he’s thirsty, almost to death for any liquid.
What is the leaning and what is the water? I’m not quite sure, because Christians haven’t quite figured out what spiritual practices are tolerable for Atheists. An Atheist would not come to a prayer meeting; would he come to a lesser communion of God by quiet meditation? Or perhaps stargazing? An atheist would not sing about Jesus; would he sing about the beauty of nature?
I am not thinking about this in typical Evangelical terms (though I think those approaches also are valid). What first motivated this was the question: how do I heal the spirits of my atheist patients? Even assuming that total spiritual healing would never come through Christ, did I not still have an obligation to heal as much as I could? So how can an atheist who is starving to death for community and parched for spiritual practice be healed in part?
I am also not talking about watering down the Gospel. The Gospel must be preached with power and authority at Church; the effort to seek and save the lost must continue unabated. But just like international work, long-term solutions are ideal, but people are starving to death today. Evangelicals have done a superb job at the long-term (eternal even) solution for the soul, but what keeps the soul of an Atheist from starving today?
I pose this question particularly to church people. I don’t know the answer. I see terrible spiritual affliction, and though the church is fighting it systemically, there are too many suffering without relief today who feel too uncomfortable to come to church. Should we have 'church' for atheists?
How can we be a Good Samaritan and give relief to the soul of the bruised and beaten Atheist today?
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Fountain of Youth?
Medicine isn’t a fountain of youth. In America, we spend more and more and more on medicine and it’s not making us any healthier.
Scholars evaluating ‘health outcomes’ have begun to see this and are getting scared. After all, what will they have to do when more medicine amounts to giving people sugar pills. I read a paper by a scholar I respected on the availability of MRIs. The conclusion was we use them more when they’re available (in a direct linear relationship), but there is a considerable question as to whether we are any better because of it. He suggests that we may need to start looking for non-health based outcomes. In other words, we need to ask how it made people feel.
We saw another study that showed that doctors in New York visit a certain population of their hospital patients three times as many times as doctors in San Francisco. They also keep them for thrice as many days in the hospitals. “Good for them!” you may say. But when you compare outcomes, there is no difference. Those who stayed 10 days in San Francisco had the same outcome as those who stayed 30 in New York. Zero difference.
“You get what you pay for,” we say to ourselves. If we pay more for healthcare, we get more life out of it. But we’ve maxed out on medicine. There’s no more life that can be purchased for most of us. There are certainly some people who need new breakthroughs to live as long as everybody else. But for most of us, throwing more money at body scans and vitamins is just like throwing money down a toilet. Staying an extra day in the hospital. Getting that X-ray for a rib you knew was broken. Will that make us healthier? Will that add years to our lives? No.
Why do we? Because we think it will. Somewhere in our psyche is the thought that we can buy eternal life. Like Simon the Sorcerer who when he “…saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power…” (Acts 8:18-19a). We think life is for sale, and doctors are the vendors. I’ll let you in on a secret that, if everyone knew about it, would save us from financial ruin: Doctors don’t hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Giving us money just makes us rich. Save your money. Or better yet, use it to save others. Extension of your life cannot be purchased; but that’s not true for at least a billion people around the world. Buy for them the health you already enjoy.
Scholars evaluating ‘health outcomes’ have begun to see this and are getting scared. After all, what will they have to do when more medicine amounts to giving people sugar pills. I read a paper by a scholar I respected on the availability of MRIs. The conclusion was we use them more when they’re available (in a direct linear relationship), but there is a considerable question as to whether we are any better because of it. He suggests that we may need to start looking for non-health based outcomes. In other words, we need to ask how it made people feel.
We saw another study that showed that doctors in New York visit a certain population of their hospital patients three times as many times as doctors in San Francisco. They also keep them for thrice as many days in the hospitals. “Good for them!” you may say. But when you compare outcomes, there is no difference. Those who stayed 10 days in San Francisco had the same outcome as those who stayed 30 in New York. Zero difference.
“You get what you pay for,” we say to ourselves. If we pay more for healthcare, we get more life out of it. But we’ve maxed out on medicine. There’s no more life that can be purchased for most of us. There are certainly some people who need new breakthroughs to live as long as everybody else. But for most of us, throwing more money at body scans and vitamins is just like throwing money down a toilet. Staying an extra day in the hospital. Getting that X-ray for a rib you knew was broken. Will that make us healthier? Will that add years to our lives? No.
Why do we? Because we think it will. Somewhere in our psyche is the thought that we can buy eternal life. Like Simon the Sorcerer who when he “…saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power…” (Acts 8:18-19a). We think life is for sale, and doctors are the vendors. I’ll let you in on a secret that, if everyone knew about it, would save us from financial ruin: Doctors don’t hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Giving us money just makes us rich. Save your money. Or better yet, use it to save others. Extension of your life cannot be purchased; but that’s not true for at least a billion people around the world. Buy for them the health you already enjoy.
Alternative to Universal Healthcare
Explore the possibility of having “universal healthcare” through universal access to government loans instead of limitless insurance. These loans would cover the cost of medical procedures and thus allowing everyone to get care that they needed. They would function like student loans: the payments would be reasonable for all incomes (payments max out at a certain percentage of income), deferrable under extreme economic hardship, and they don’t go away after bankruptcy.
This system would have the advantage of allowing patient-consumers to choose wisely with their own money, and not simply spend without discretion. This would likely need to be aided by mandating transparency in healthcare (Ala Herzlinger’s Healthcare SEC). Whatever a person spends on his health, he is responsible for. For a very sick poor person, they will pay a percentage of his income for the rest of his life, thereby sharing in the cost he is incurring on society.
This would solve the dual problems of medical expenses causing financial ruin and expenses rocketing to the stratosphere because we are not allowed to be consumers. It would cause problems in potential overspending for the very sick. It would also make insurance companies irrelevant, because the burden of risk is upon the government. In many cases, it would be an unequal burden on the rich; they would more often pay off their expensive loans while the poor would die with government medical debt (which would have to be forgiven).
Though I am always hesitant to give the government power, the exchange of a huge government program for a moderate one is palatable. The unequal burden on the rich already exists, and the cost savings by consumers driving the market (as in the RAND experiment) would more than make up for this inequity. Overall, the system would make a person’s health his own responsibility.
This system would have the advantage of allowing patient-consumers to choose wisely with their own money, and not simply spend without discretion. This would likely need to be aided by mandating transparency in healthcare (Ala Herzlinger’s Healthcare SEC). Whatever a person spends on his health, he is responsible for. For a very sick poor person, they will pay a percentage of his income for the rest of his life, thereby sharing in the cost he is incurring on society.
This would solve the dual problems of medical expenses causing financial ruin and expenses rocketing to the stratosphere because we are not allowed to be consumers. It would cause problems in potential overspending for the very sick. It would also make insurance companies irrelevant, because the burden of risk is upon the government. In many cases, it would be an unequal burden on the rich; they would more often pay off their expensive loans while the poor would die with government medical debt (which would have to be forgiven).
Though I am always hesitant to give the government power, the exchange of a huge government program for a moderate one is palatable. The unequal burden on the rich already exists, and the cost savings by consumers driving the market (as in the RAND experiment) would more than make up for this inequity. Overall, the system would make a person’s health his own responsibility.
Overtopping
When you design a dam, you make it big enough to hold more water than you ever expect to encounter. When you screw up, and water starts flowing over the dam (usually causing the dam to fail), it’s called overtopping.
When you’re in medical school, you expect that you can do enough writing so as to record all ideas that you ever expect to encounter. When you screw up, and ideas start backing up, it’s called overtopping.
I started using Post It’s. A wonderful invention. I stick Yellow notes on the wall by my desk for “To Dos” and magenta for “Cool thought; should work out in writing”. At this present time, I have four yellow notes (three of them have all their items crossed off so that I can feel gratified at seeing that I do do things), and 14 magenta notes (none of them have been scratched off). Needless to say, I can’t write 14 pieces, and I don’t expect the flow of ideas will slow. So my only option is to write short, poorly edited pieces. I just want to get them off my wall and make more room for more ideas. Naturally, this give you my reader the wonderful opportunity to say which (if any) of these ideas you find interesting. I like to talk about what other people are interested in; your interest may reignite my own. So please comment!
And now, without further ado (what is ‘ado’ anyways?)…
When you’re in medical school, you expect that you can do enough writing so as to record all ideas that you ever expect to encounter. When you screw up, and ideas start backing up, it’s called overtopping.
I started using Post It’s. A wonderful invention. I stick Yellow notes on the wall by my desk for “To Dos” and magenta for “Cool thought; should work out in writing”. At this present time, I have four yellow notes (three of them have all their items crossed off so that I can feel gratified at seeing that I do do things), and 14 magenta notes (none of them have been scratched off). Needless to say, I can’t write 14 pieces, and I don’t expect the flow of ideas will slow. So my only option is to write short, poorly edited pieces. I just want to get them off my wall and make more room for more ideas. Naturally, this give you my reader the wonderful opportunity to say which (if any) of these ideas you find interesting. I like to talk about what other people are interested in; your interest may reignite my own. So please comment!
And now, without further ado (what is ‘ado’ anyways?)…
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Living and Life
We confusing living for life. We attempt to keep on living for its own sake, and do not realize that in so doing, we fail to truly live.
It is prudent to preserve one's life, but not for it's own sake. I wear a helmet to prevent death by unworthy causes. It is not to maximize the number of years my heart beats. I have protected my life for 23 years so that I might have a chance to spend it on something worthwhile.
We should not flee from death. We err gravely When we equate senseless death with sacrificial death. If we look at soldiers who die and those who die in car crashes and say about both, "what a waste of life," we nullify the nobility of sacrificial death. The soldier gave his life for others; his death was meaningful (even if the war isn't). The car crash victim made no such sacrifice; his death was meaningless. We may justly oppose war because of justice or cost; we ought not oppose it simply because of death.
We can never make 'less death' the end of society. Living alone is not a virtue. Courage, honor and love are; we ought never to sacrifice these for the sake of living. In our decisions we must consider the bad and good that we are preventing.
There are certainly some policy decisions which are straightforward. No major virtue is lost by mandating seat belts. But we cannot take the argument developed in a realm without virtue and apply it to one with virtue.
There is often strong opposition to an organizations' members going to dangerous places. There is a fear that their 'lives will be lost'. On the contrary. Their lives will be saved. If they die for a noble cause, they will have experienced some life within their living. If they avoid all danger and risk, they may never see life, though they live.
Life is loving our neighbor, and true life sometimes requires that a person not live as long. Life is not a beating heart. It is a thriving soul. Making life all about prolonging the functioning of a pump is foolish.
Let us never exchange life for living.
Mar 8:35 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it."
It is prudent to preserve one's life, but not for it's own sake. I wear a helmet to prevent death by unworthy causes. It is not to maximize the number of years my heart beats. I have protected my life for 23 years so that I might have a chance to spend it on something worthwhile.
We should not flee from death. We err gravely When we equate senseless death with sacrificial death. If we look at soldiers who die and those who die in car crashes and say about both, "what a waste of life," we nullify the nobility of sacrificial death. The soldier gave his life for others; his death was meaningful (even if the war isn't). The car crash victim made no such sacrifice; his death was meaningless. We may justly oppose war because of justice or cost; we ought not oppose it simply because of death.
We can never make 'less death' the end of society. Living alone is not a virtue. Courage, honor and love are; we ought never to sacrifice these for the sake of living. In our decisions we must consider the bad and good that we are preventing.
There are certainly some policy decisions which are straightforward. No major virtue is lost by mandating seat belts. But we cannot take the argument developed in a realm without virtue and apply it to one with virtue.
There is often strong opposition to an organizations' members going to dangerous places. There is a fear that their 'lives will be lost'. On the contrary. Their lives will be saved. If they die for a noble cause, they will have experienced some life within their living. If they avoid all danger and risk, they may never see life, though they live.
Life is loving our neighbor, and true life sometimes requires that a person not live as long. Life is not a beating heart. It is a thriving soul. Making life all about prolonging the functioning of a pump is foolish.
Let us never exchange life for living.
Mar 8:35 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)