Who builds your house? (National Day of Prayer is May 3)

As we prepare for National Day of Prayer, please consider, what makes for a lasting and united house? (This year's NDoP theme is Unity)

The same foundation brings prosperity for every house, whether we’re talking about a family, a church, or a nation. What foundation could naturally be the source of all good, you ask? :)

Let’s find out by looking at the start of Psalm 127, A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon.

Unless the LORD builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchman stays awake in vain.
It is in vain that you rise up early
and go late to rest,
eating the bread of anxious toil;
for he gives to his beloved sleep.

When building a “house” for myself, how many times have I been pridefully demanding, unnecessarily stressed, or noticeably unrestful apart from God? On my own, I know not the way of blessedness, and struggle aimlessly against it. I miss the mark (sin).
As Christ would say, consider the ravens! They aren’t all stressed out storing up their 401Ks, fulfilling their duties to their young, or soaring the friendly skies.
These are their benefits of living in their identity--the nature that God gave them. 

So we too need to know that we have a loving heavenly Father. This Dad—the Great King—extends amnesty and deepest friendship to all rebels who will lay down their arms and stop fighting him. Sinners can be reconciled to a holy God. Because God’s identity is unwavering and sure, we can have solidarity in our identity! He’s the foundation of it all*, no?

Where else can we turn?** I know Christ has the words of eternal life.
Should we trust in tanks or bombs? Harsh words or human diplomacy? Perhaps our livestock and economy? The folly of entrusting one’s life and blessedness to such things is well documented.

In contrast to death--and its root: sin--in the world, Christ says “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10) So let’s humbly seek him and build on the only firm foundation, even Christ, so that we might not be ashamed in his Presence. Agreed?! :) 

-- Daniel



End notes:
*Evil is just the corruption of good. Therefore, since God makes the good and we can corrupt it, God is still the foundation for every complete thing!

** Some trust that humanity will learn to transcend itself. We might be lured to trust technology instead of God since it promises to make you a new person. Technology allows us to make decisions that previously only God and chance could make, designer babies, etc. But as CS Lewis points out in The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength, every new advance over human nature makes us both the conqueror and the conquered. Power over human nature really just means the power of some people over others. I think the real implications of people trying to redesign humanity will only be evident if we seek to understand humanity as integrated relational wholes, morally corrupted but made in the image of God. If any nation—however great—swerves from the path of truth by ignoring key aspects of human nature, still the proverb will apply: ‘the way of the false… is hard’ (Pr 13:15). So let’s “be salt and light” for the good of all. (See Matthew 5:13-16, 1 Cor 12:7, John 15:5)

Chaos and Contradiction: Applying Personal Relativism to Everyone

Why does defining identity in terms of personal human autonomy conflict with traditional rights to life, freedom, and happiness? Because transcendent human rights are definite, whereas autonomy implies the ability to contradict or reshape human identity arbitrarily, at least for oneself. 

It is popularly thought that everyone singly has the right to determine everything about themselves for themselves. This view seems benign and commonsensical, because this complete autonomy is applied to oneself. I’d like to present a couple reasons this view is nonsense and unsafe. 

Is it possible that a person be wrong about her view of her own identity? Is the person who thinks herself a potato just as true as someone who thinks herself a person? Self-evidently not, but Identity defined solely in terms of autonomy doesn’t allow the possibility that a person can be wrong about herself. 

Furthermore, how can a person live in a society with other people if there really is no generally understood reality about who people are and how they should be treated? Would you treat this hypothetical woman as a potato or vegetable even if she considers herself that way? The maxim of finding identity through one’s constant self-definition (autonomy) quickly imposes itself on others if it were to be lived out. 

This autonomy assumes relativism, which quickly self-refutes. Relativism says whatever each says about herself is true. Relativism, however, is one of the claims people make about themselves. Relativism–by nature of being a claim about reality–claims to apply to everyone. Hence, if truth is limited to the individual, then relativism ceases to be a theory about reality, and self-refutes. It cannot possibly be true.

Additionally, personal relativism also leads to inherent contradictions. The views that “Woman 1 is a human” and “Woman 2 is a potato,” are both true self-views if personal relativism is true. But there is a contradiction, given that both women have the same [human] nature, and given that humans and potatoes have a different nature. Therefore, personal relativism is false. Merely acting that a falsehood is true does not change the consequences. 

But there’s the rub. What happens when people try to enforce personal relativism? Contradiction will naturally result, so if further pressure is applied, some people’s views will be enforced but not others’. The prevailing view will not be oriented toward truth. The prevailing view will be disoriented. The enforcement of personal relativism would intensify the chaos by creating “noise” that would distract from reality and blur what would otherwise be obviously true. 

If the chaos could be extended to enough youth and pre youth, perhaps the chaos--which would normally be obvious to the next generation--could perpetuate or even grow in new unpredictable ways through generations. So even though relativism remains false and people would retain their human nature, that nature would be in tension with the way people train themselves through thinking and practice.  

 It seems so innocent and commonsensical to think that no one should be allowed to interfere with the way others self identify. It seems so much like respect and many would call it tolerance. But in reality it assumes relativism and is self refuting. People who try to force everyone not to interfere with the way others self identify interfere with the way others self identify. Those who try to enforce relativism do the very things they say not to do. Relativists cannot do otherwise.


__________________

Additional Notes:

 + When I speak of nature being in tension with our training, nature is assumed to be separate from the trained perceptions in the individual, similar to how a computer virus doesn’t eliminate the nature of the computer even if it leaves the software torn to pieces. + It seems like many today pursue a vision of creating a new human nature, and relativism opens the door for genetic experimentation on half humans, new human species, etc. Should we pursue this or do we already have enough information to focus our efforts elsewhere? Perhaps an idea worth exploring is whether any deprivation could properly be considered a new “nature”. This seems logical if goodness [inherently] is fullness of being. If this is true, as I’ve heard argued before, then it will be impossible for humanity to create a new [human-like] nature by these means. If we don’t consider philosophy, many will probably infer no limit to scientific advances--since they haven’t properly considered categories--and support horrific research abominations in the name of science. 

+ Perhaps the noise that disables people from hearing truth is reminiscent of what some poets talk about regarding the noise of hell versus the harmony of heaven.

+ Respect and tolerance are only worth talking about if they exist as positive virtues, but virtues don’t have any definite existence in a relativistic world. They can’t because there’s nowhere for moral objectivity to fit in, if everything is self-determined. Nothing could objectively answer the question, why prefer respect and tolerance to disrespect and intolerance?