n this installment, I take leave of my regular exposition of Christian doctrine;
I will return to it in the next issue. Presently, I offer the following letter
to those who have opened these pages in search of reasons to sustain their objections
to Christianity.
I have always found it helpful to read the opinions of those with whom I agree. My purpose in this space has been to provide that sort of service to Christian readers. Hence the title, "Doctrine 101." But when those who are not Christians pick up these articles, they are surely being read for a different reason.
Credenda/Agenda is a Christian publication. Atheists have their own periodicals, Buddhists have theirs, feminists have theirs, public educators have theirs, and so on. Though I don't take any of these other periodicals, I pick up an issue now and then, much like you have done in reading this magazine. I don't agree with the doctrines advanced in non-Christian publications like Free Inquiry , The Utne Reader, and Sojourners . And perhaps you don't agree with the doctrines advanced in the pages of Credenda/Agenda , including this "Doctrine 101" column. But you are reading anyway. Why?
Recently I did what you are doing right now. I picked up a journal of the so-called "Free Thought" movement and read an article about contradictions in the Bible's account of the Exodus. I thought it to be an enjoyable piece, for the author's failed attempt at cogency served to reassure me in what I believe. Not all of my experiences with these kinds of periodicals have been so easy. Some have forced me to seriously examine what I believe, however, after wrestling with the issues that these authors raise, I come away even more convinced of Christianity than ever.
Are you expecting to arrive at a deeper reassurance in your beliefs as you read this magazine? As a Christian writer, I certainly wouldn't want that to happen. I even hope you will be compelled to repent of your unbelief and embrace Christianity.
The truth is, both you and I are somewhat narrow-minded. I am a Christian, you are not, and we both intend to remain as we are. This means that you already think that I am wrong, and that I already think that you are wrong. You embrace your non-Christian doctrines, and I embrace those of Christianity.
In order to ensure that your own doctrines survive our assault, you have to evaluate what we write. Presently, you are weighing the merits of my words. Is what I write true? Do I contradict myself? Are my claims moral? These are among the questions you ask yourself when evaluating anything you read. You wouldn't be a very careful reader if you did not pose such questions.
If turnabout is fair play, then you shouldn't balk at my asking a few questions of you. As you read, why do you care about whether what I write is true or false? or moral? or consistent? Why do you impose these standards of yours upon me? Perhaps it is because you are a careful reader. Then why favor carefulness over carelessness?
Face it. You have standards. This is clear as you exercise your standards to think about what I write. You treat your standards like universal laws, for you apply them beyond yourself. You apply them to me! In fact, you apply your standards to every person and every idea you ever meet. You can't help it.
Right now, as you read, you are imposing your standards of what you think to be reasonable upon my reasoning. How can you justify such a use of your standards? The fact that I have standards too does not sanction yours. You treat your standards as though they are universal. But you know that you, a finite man, can't speak for the whole universe. You certainly can't speak for me, or for anyone besides yourself. You only know yourself, and you can only justify applying your standards to your own mind. Once you interact with someone or something that is outside your mind, you don't have any standards to apply.
You say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; everyone has their own aesthetic preferences. Is it the same for truth? for morality? Are determinations in these areas left up to personal preference? You, a finite man, determine standards for yourself, by yourself, and they can apply nowhere beyond yourself. None of your standards is universal. Marquis de Sade, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson stipulated standards for themselves, just as you have stipulated standards for yourself. You say that you are satisfied with your standards; de Sade, Hitler, and Manson were content with theirs as well.
The only way for you to register a worthwhile complaint against the morality of these men, or against our reasoning in this magazine, is for you to apply universal standards. But remember that your finitude prevents you from using standards universally. Yet you still insist on doing so (you're still reading, aren't you?) even though you can't justify what you are doing.
I am every bit as finite as you are. Standards that I come up with are just as useless as yours. That is why I have forsaken my own standards and have given my life over to following the Lord of all the universe. He has stipulated standards of reason and standards of morality, and these standards apply to everything under His domain. This should be evident to you, for you know these standards. You use His standards all the timewith every thought, idea, and judgment. You depend on this Lord just as much as I do. Why do you still insist on rebelling against Him? After all, your attempt to replace His standards with yours is utterly futile. m
