How to enjoy Christmas

I was walking back from the office to where my car was parked in a side road one evening a couple of weeks ago. It was 5:15pm, cold, dark and crisp. It was early December, and one of the local residents had newly decorated the outside of their house with Christmas lights. Pulsing, multi-coloured chains. A reindeer running. A glowing, sparkling snowman, with a glowing, sparkling polar bear. I smiled as I walked past, glowing with the prettiness and the fun of it, picturing the smiles on the kids' faces.

And I got thinking of the excitement of my own kids as they look forward to Christmas, the fun and enjoyment they have from having presents, the fun they had decorating the tree, the way they all still enjoy opening the doors on their Advent calendars every day. And I thought of the candlelight carols, the Christmas crackers and mince pies with family that we spend far too little time with at other times of year.

Christmas is a time of joy.

Before I started writing this I had in mind to write about all the things I dislike about Christmas. For one thing, I was taken seriously ill on Christmas Day 2009 and I've been made redundant three times - all of them just before Christmas. But that's not important. I was going to complain about the commercialisation, the materialism, the overspending. I was going to bemoan the way that we exalt lie of Santa above the truth of Jesus. Jesus is, after all, the 'reason for the season'. I was going to ask why we celebrate the humble coming of the Son of God with glitz, glamour and excess, why we celebrate the coming of the sin-bearer with drunken parties and greed.

Don't get me wrong. Those issues are important and they are worth talking about. But it's the joy of Christmas that I have found myself reflecting on.

Joy is good. We were made for joy, not for hate, anger, despair or bitterness. God wants us to be happy.

From one point of view the source of our joy is morally limited. For example, if we get enjoyment from killing people, that's wrong; if we get enjoyment from sexual immorality, that's wrong; if our enjoyment comes from stealing, that's wrong; and so on.

But is the enjoyment of innocent things always right? That would be part of the response if I were to criticise the Santa cult. "It's just a bit of harmless fun!" (There's the 'no harm principle' I was talking about in "Whose Rules Rule (Part 5). Allegedly, if it does no harm it must be right.) How can we criticise fairy lights or tinsel? There is surely nothing wrong, per se, with parties, with alcohol, with glamour, gifts, trees and decorations, snowmen, and even myths of a red-velvet-clad-bearded-bloke and reindeers.

The answer is that it depends on our attitude to these things. We were made to glorify God by finding our joy in Him. One way of doing that is when we respond with joy, amazement, wonder at the beauty of creation, we are supposed to complete the thought with, "Thank you, Father". When we feel loved by, and love for, family and friends, we are sharing an emotion that God had first - first within Himself, between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then shared with His human children. We were made for joy - not any joy, but a joy that explicitly exults in God.

So if I love the nature programmes on TV, I must realise that God made those wonderful creatures for us, so that we would marvel at how wonderful, great, wise and gracious He is.

If I love competing and doing sport, I must realise that God gave me skills and talents, and that these are a microreflection of God's skill, wisdom and power.

If I love a good book, or a nice car, music, drama, movies or paintings, I must realise that God gave human beings creativity, imagination, and aesthetic appreciation, so that we would be like Him who created the universe from His own perfect design, and so that we would see the designer and creator behind everything.

When I love another person so much I want to spend the rest of my life with them, I must realise that Jesus feels much greater love for His people, the church, and that "We love because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)

When I love my children more than anything in the whole world, I must realise that this is only a pale shadow of the love my Heavenly Father has for me.

And God's love is exactly what is supposed to be in view when we celebrate Christmas. "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

When we think of the sin that cuts us off from God, the source of life and everything good - our sin - we know we are powerless to save ourselves. There is nothing we can do for ourselves to take away our sin or to make God think differently about it. So when the angel said to the shepherds, "I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people," (Luke 2:10) he was not exaggerating.

It really is good news of great joy that the eternal Son of God should put off His eternal glory and take on Himself our weak human flesh in order to die for us on the cross. "Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord," the angel said (v11). Another angel had said to Joseph, "you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

The coming of Jesus Christ into the world is a cause for celebration. In fact it's the biggest cause for celebration the world has ever known! The only bigger event to celebrate will be when He returns to bring a complete end to this broken world and bring in the new and perfect world. To say that Jesus Christ is worth celebrating would be a massive understatement!

The travesty of Christmas is when we have so much enjoyment of the celebration that we forget that we are celebrating God's grace towards us. But that's the travesty of life in general - when we get so caught up in the world, good and bad, that we forget/refuse to worship the God who is in charge of it all, and we fail to accept His offer of forgiveness through faith in Jesus.

So as we do all our celebrating this Christmas, as we smile at the pretty lights in the winter darkness, as we share the thrills of the children as they open their presents, as we stuff our faces with lovely food (and maybe the odd glass of wine), as we relax with friends and family - let's not forget the reason why Christmas is so worth celebrating. Let's keep the joy of Christmas and praise God!

'O Come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord!'

Merry Christmas, everybody!

It's good to be human

Whose Rules Rule - Part Six

In order to start to sketch out Christian moral foundations we need to understand that the way Christians talk about equality is different to the way modern secular atheists talk about it. That's because secular atheists can often appeal to equality as the fundamental truth on which to base moral principles (which, as we've seen, is in itself quite an arbitrary appeal). We also need to contrast the Christian view of the origin and purpose of human beings with non-religious views. 

As I have already implied, I believe that when non-religious people talk about equality they include some notion of all humans equally having the right/authority to work out their own morality. For them the equality of human beings really stems from having the same origin. Logically that also puts us equal with animals, rocks and plants, and therefore it means that we have the same rights and responsibilities with regard to morality as animals, rocks and plants. Nothing in their assumptions necessarily leads to there being natural distinctions between things. There is no logic to it. But in an attempt to find meaning, arbitrarily, they distinguish between things (e.g. coal, water, air), living things (e.g. fish, birds, animals, flowers), and intelligent living things (human beings). Non-living things tend to just follow the laws of physics and chemistry. Non-intelligent living things tend to just follow the instincts of their species. But as intelligent living things we humans are characterised by a conscious struggle, according to the secular atheist or non-religious Westerner - the struggle for meaning and to "find our place in the universe". That struggle includes the struggle to work out right and wrong, but since we are equal we all have equal rights to find the answer for ourselves. 

For the Christian, equality also starts from equality of origin, but to fully appreciate the Christian's moral framework we have to also appreciate other levels of equality. Human beings are equally created, but also equally sinners, equally deserving of eternal punishment, equally called to repentance and faith, and equally offered grace to eternal life. We'll look at some of these in later parts of this series. For now let's think about our place in God's creation. 

Since God created everything, all of creation owes its existence to Him and its allegiance to Him. The Bible teaches that the human race was specially created to manage the rest of creation for God. Human beings were created "in the image of God". God defined the distinctions between things, living things, intelligent living things and human intelligent living things. Humans were created with the extraordinary and special capacity to relate directly to Him, the need to relate to Him. And we all - every single human on earth - trace our ancestry to the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. (Incidentally, this does leave open the possibility that we may find other non-humans that show intelligence. Intelligence does not define our special relationship with God. Our humanness does.) Nothing else in the material universe was given the same direct relationship with our Creator - no animal, no bird, no fish or tree. 

Before God, humans have special responsibilities that come with those extraordinary capacities. But under Him we are all morally equal, equally responsible. But note: we are responsible to God, not under our own authority. 

What this means is that when Christians talk about morality, we seek to reiterate God's standards and apply them to particular behaviours and contexts. And as we reiterate God's standards, we do it for ourselves too, as fellow human beings. If abortion is wrong, then it is wrong for me too. If sex outside monogamous heterosexual marriage is wrong, then it is wrong for me too. I am not at liberty to re-engineer morality, since God has hard-wired it into the universe. 

We're all equally judged by God's standards, which are the same for all human beings. So when a Christian makes a moral statement about whether something is right or wrong, that statement does not automatically include within it a moral judgment that puts the Christian above anyone else. This is key for non-religious people to understand, because their moral judgments do involve seeing themselves as better than others because their morals are based on themselves as final authority. So when a Christian makes a moral statement they are saying something objective and factual. When a non-religious person makes a moral statement they are saying something subjective and comparative. This actually makes it possible for a Christian to be hypocritical and still make moral statements that are no less true. And as we'll see next time there is a sense in which Christians are all hypocritical, but that doesn't invalidate what we say about right and wrong, so long as what we say is in line with God's Word. 

But we also need to emphasise to people that God created human beings for a purpose. He did not just make a man and woman and say, "ok off you go and have a play, and I'll check in on you from time to time!" He gave us a purpose and a job to do - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28) He also said that we have to do that in a way that honours Him by obeying Him. The command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) was God's way of saying that this world is His and we are not allowed just to do whatever we want. 

We are not meaningless blobs, we were not just created and left lost in a big universe. We are the special creation of an All-powerful Creator, with a special job to do, to manage the world in the way that He tells us to. 

In fact what I've said so far doesn't really do justice to God's purpose for us. The Bible consistently talks about God having a loving purpose for us. He calls us His children. He didn't create human beings and then leave us to do whatever we want in the universe while He went off to do something else. Nor did He create human beings and then leave us a job to do while He went off to do something else. 

God created human beings to work with Him. We have a whole universe to discover, and it's as if He's like an excited Father watching His children learn new and wonderful things, discovering amazing things He made for us. He made us for that relationship. When we discover something new and wonderful, He wants to hear us say in effect, "Wow! Thanks Dad! How did you do that? That's amazing!" (I hope I'm not being irreverent in putting it like that.) He made us to love His power and wisdom. He made us to love Him. And He is alongside us in every step we take. We humans are special to Him. 

So whilst it is right to think of God as Judge, because the Bible speaks of Him as Judge, we ought not to think of that role as an impersonal one. It is very personal. When we refuse to follow His instructions in the way we conduct ourselves in the world we are acting like delinquent, rebellious children. Everything we have is from Him (whether material possessions or intellect and wisdom or power) and yet we use those very things to shut Him out. We are selfish. We think life is all about us. But it's not. God is ultimate. Everything in the universe comes from Him and is for Him. So when we are out of step with God, disobeying His rules, we are out of step with the whole purpose of the universe. 

In conclusion, non-religious views of morality are based on arbitrary foundations, because their assertions regarding the distinctiveness and equality of human beings have no foundation. In contrast, Christian morality is based on God's creation of human beings as special, to relate to Him and go with Him throughout the world to discover His wisdom and power and glory through everything He has created. As it has often been said, Christian morality is all about "following the Maker's instructions". And the equality of all human beings is firmly based on that purpose and special creation, giving God's rules a firm rational ground. 

But there are other things that apply universally to all human beings, and therefore reinforce the equality of all humanity. And we'll look at those in the next few pieces.

No harm done?

Whose Rules Rule - Part Five

If I were to say to a couple who were sexually active with each other outside of a heterosexual marriage (to each other!) that their sexual activity is wrong or sinful, I guess their response would probably be, "why is it wrong? What harm is it doing to anyone?" It's a response that would reveal one of the principles often given for non-religious moral standards. Since non-religious people have no absolutely infallible reference point (like the one Christians have from God via the Bible) they have to choose their own principles. One such principle used in civilised cultures (I would say those that have been historically influenced by Christianity) is that we can do many things, but we must not harm other people. 

Of course, history is full of examples of where people have not used that principle. Hitler and Stalin obviously thought it was ok to inflict a great deal of suffering on a huge number of people. However, this only demonstrates how arbitrary these principles are when they have no absolute and objective reference point. When a higher principle is developed, for example, from the philosophies of Marx or Nietzsche, for the positive evolution of the human race (i.e. involving the elimination of those who are substandard), the 'no harm' principle gets an exclusion clause. And the recent English city riots and looting demonstrates that the 'no harm' principle is being gradually ditched, because it is arbitrarily restrictive, and replaced in many people by the 'if it feels good do it' principle.

I am also aware that some of those who have called themselves Christians in the past - e.g. the Crusaders or the Roman Catholic church with the Spanish Inquisition - have not lived up to the teachings of their Lord when they have caused suffering to their opponents. Atheists are quick to point this out and even grossly generalise by saying that all wars are caused by religion. However, my point in this introduction is not to say that Christians are morally better than atheists. We are no less sinners. Neither do I want to get into historical debates over which philosophies gave rise to which wars. 

My point is simply that it is very common in today's Western cultures to say that our guiding moral principle should be that anything is ok if it does not harm others. The point of mentioning Hitler and Stalin was only to reinforce what I've said in an earlier article, that moral standards without God are necessarily arbitrary. I am simply choosing for examination a foundation principle that is often held by non-religious people who want to portray themselves as respectable and civilised.

So let's look at this 'no harm' principle. First of all, some people may question why I say that the principle is arbitrary. A rule is arbitrary if it has no logical basis or deduction - it cannot be deduced logically from true statements or facts. For example, parents are sometimes arbitrary when our children ask, "why do I have to do tidy my room?" and we answer, "Because I say so!" If something is only so because I say so, then that is arbitrary. My earlier articles have tried to show that all moral standards that are not based on God's revelation of right and wrong, good and evil, are automatically arbitrary. They are subjective, as no-one can argue with someone else that one moral statement is right and another is wrong.

So we should ask from a non-religious perspective why it would be wrong to harm someone? Having asked this several times in real life, my experience is that the answer from the non-religious person is always something like, "well it's obvious that you shouldn't hurt someone". But I don't have to accept that it is obvious. As I mentioned above, there are many examples of people who don't see that as obvious - people that the majority of civilised human beings frown upon or see as evil. Most people do not see Hitler or Stalin as simply having different philosophies. They see them as evil. But how would our civilised non-religious friends reason with someone who shared the same views as Hitler or Stalin? How would they argue that human beings should not inflict harm on each other? They have no basis. In practice, because they have no basis, they don't try to reason. They resort to dehumanising people less civilised than themselves - so the likes of Hitler and Stalin are called madmen or monsters. The rioters of summer 2011 were called 'feral rats' and 'scum'. The cannibals of the jungle are patronisingly called 'primitive' (they don't know any better).

The non-religious person has no basis for the 'no harm' principle because this principle conflicts with their other basic assumptions. As I have highlighted in earlier articles, their basic assumptions about the origins of life lead them to believe that human beings are not set apart from other animals or even other things that exist. So why should we be upset about human beings - just one type of meaningless formation of molecules amongst millions - being harmed? And on the other hand, why should human beings be the only species or entity with their own moral code? Animals base their behaviour on fear and strength and class distinctions, rather than right and wrong. Why shouldn't human beings? And if the response is simply that intellect, self-awareness and morality is just the particular way that human beings have evolved as distinct from other species, then intellect, self-awareness and morality are meaningless distinctions. On that basis one person's morality based on not doing people harm is as good as another person's morality based on using other people for their own pleasure.

But let's also ask the question, what is harm? We could say that harm is an action performed on an entity that detracts from the quality, pleasure or good feeling of that entity. So the countryside can be harmed by leaving litter, because it detracts from the quality of the countryside. A person can be harmed physically, financially or emotionally by attacking their body, taking their possessions or by threatening their safety or security or pleasure.

But what defines quality in a universe where one formation of atoms is no more meaningful than any other? We could just as well say that quality is something esoteric that evokes pleasure in human beings. It's something we sense.

But then what defines pleasure? Has pleasure any meaning? Isn't pleasure just a release of endorphins in the human body, caused by certain predictable triggers? Is pleasure any more meaningful than something that gives human beings a will to survive?

And what if one person's pleasure is limited by another person's pleasure? Relationships are a good example. If your relationship with your boyfriend or girlfriend (pre-marriage) is not making you happy, or you can be happier with someone else, should you end the relationship or continue? Your boyfriend or girlfriend may be upset (reduced pleasure - i.e. harm) if you end it, so that your increased pleasure results in their reduced pleasure. Would it be wrong to end the relationship?

And if the response is that this is a trivial example, because hurt feelings don't count, then why do we have a concept of 'psychological abuse' or bullying? Sometimes a domineering husband or wife may not physically hurt their spouse, but they inflict psychological damage by the way that they speak or act. And in the school playground a big kid may not actually physically hurt others, but may hurt someone's feelings by their threatening or manipulative behaviour. Why would this be wrong if hurt feelings are trivial?

And why is it ok to harm criminals? Some would say it's not ok, on the 'no harm' moral principle. That's why many psychologists and politicians refuse to talk about punishment. If we don't like someone's behaviour to the extent that we call it criminal then we try first to 'rehabilitate' them (i.e. persuade them to live by the moral standards of the majority), then if they won't be rehabilitated they are restricted. Prison becomes something that protects civilised society, rather than something that punishes criminals. 

There are many many more avenues we could explore to show that the foundations of any morality without God are arbitrary, subjective and meaningless. We simply have to keep asking for definitions, asking why and pointing to the inconsistencies.

In the end we all basically know what harm is, what pleasure is, what quality is. The point is that non-religious people have no rational basis for these definitions. They simply feel what is right and wrong. But as Christians we know that people know these things because we are all created by God, in His image. God gives meaning to everything and is the foundation of truth and knowledge. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we cannot change the fact that we are God's special creation. And as such we are made to think in terms of right and wrong, truth, emotion, pleasure, and such like. And therefore it is no surprise that all these things only make sense in a Christian worldview. But if non-religious people try to do without God and still have right and wrong, truth, pleasure, emotion, etc, they find they end in meaninglessness, irrationality and emptiness.

Next I want, God-willing, to look at the foundations of Christian morality, where it comes from, why it is a positive thing, and how it works. This will take another few articles.