April 1, 2007
-
"Southern Justice: Murder in Mississippi"
I was thinking today about Thomas Kinkade and the fact that I don't seem to despise him nearly as much as many of my friends do, and about art in general, about which we've discussed some thoughts before in the past.
And I was pondering one of my favorite paintings, by Norman Rockwell:
Here is a blurb about this painting:
Some of Rockwell’s most powerful creations came out of his years with "Look." One such piece was inspired by the unjust murders of three civil rights workers near Philadelphia, Mississippi. The painting, “Southern Justice,” was done in 1965 and depicts the horror endured by three young men, two white and one black [James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwermer], who had come to Mississippi in the fight for equality. One man is seen lying dead in the foreground; the next is standing in the glow of the attacker’s torch while defending the third man, who appears near death.
Though this painting is not very "Kinkadian", the question for me is whether the sentiment it expresses is Biblical, and whether it's a skillful work, worth thinking about. I think so, for two reasons.
First, its goal (as a work of art) is to promote racial equality (Rockwell left the Saturday Evening Post after working for them for 47 years, because they told him "never to show coloured people except as servants". Rockwell's decision fits with the Bible's portrayal as all the world of ONE race and endowed by the Creator with unalienable human rights, contrary to the racism inherent from the theory of evolution. And it fits with the mission of "seeking justice" and "defending the fatherless" that God has commissioned His people to engage in. Our primary task is "making disciples" of Jesus - fishing for men in light of the extremely high stakes of eternity. But meanwhile we are the salt of the earth, and without a doubt this influence cannot ignore our host country's political structure.
Second, I find so much beauty in the portrayal of the standing man holding up the other man. I remember standing in front of this painting in the Norman Rockwell museum being literally stunned by the force of the standing man's gaze (he has piercing blue eyes, which are hard to see in the online pictures). The look in his eye says, "Go ahead. Shoot me. But I will not run away - I will not cease from helping this black man who is my friend." This "rugged individualism" is not really "American" in origin, although it is one of the most beautiful things that the American culture has preserved for the world. (...though particular strengths are often tied to related excesses/sins...) Instead, this insistence on doing what is right even when it is unpopular or "goes against what society considers right" is Biblical (contrast with the atheist/agnostic's relativistic/cultural view of morality if you have some time).
I find myself empathizing strongly with the standing guy. Of all ways to die, how wonderful it would be to die while helping someone else, seeking justice and the glory of God and others' salvation, in an ending which the world might consider "tragic" but which God remembers with approval. (Indeed God Himself experienced this... He died on our behalf while saving us from our sins... He voluntarily submitted to death at our hands, so that He could save those of us who believe in Him...) Truly "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."
Yet it is amazing to realize that I can glorify God even in the mundane, everyday moments of life... choosing to die to self and obey God's direction... and amazing that God will not forget even the slightest act. Not just the moment of our death, but literally everything is significant and will be scrutinized on that Day.
Soli Deo Gloria - To God alone be glory. May God be exalted in my life.
Comments (14)
[Of all ways to die, how wonderful it would be to die while helping someone else, seeking justice and the glory of God and others' salvation, in an ending which the world might consider "tragic" but which God remembers with approval. ]
Just a quick question for you: what reason do you believe the atheist has for similar acts? Obviously we don't believe that our death will be rewarded by God, but there are still some atheists that would give their life to save another. I only ask because it seems your reasoning for finding this a valid option is to gain favor in the eyes of God.
Tim, I really enjoyed reading this post. What a great attitude to have; what a privilege it would be to glorify God in death, as well as life!
As for Biblelies comment...dying to save another's life may be a noble cause in the eyes of the World, but for those who do not acknowledge Christ as their Savior it is just an act done in vain.
Hi Kris,
Good question... I tend to agree with rjdohner in that while the atheist would undoubtedly have "some" reason for such extreme altruism, the motivation would seem to be much stronger for the Christian, and more logically consistent for the Christian. The motivations I could imagine for the atheist are for example, hoping that posterity will think fondly upon one's memory (assuming one has already had children, though why posterity's opinion should matter in the atheist's worldview remains a mystery to me), or the reward of being given honor and riches (and pleasure) by the society after the altruistic act (assuming it's not the type of act that renders this reward impossible, like a rescue that's fatal to the rescuer or lifelong imprisonment), or the simple pleasure of helping someone else or bringing justice (on the atheist's view, a simple extension of chemical reactions - a lessening of chemical 'pain sensations' for a large number of other blobs of molecules that human society would collectively label "an oppressed people group").
I do agree with you that atheists often lead "moral" lives, though I do not think they have any reason for doing so that is consistent with their worldview (other than 'personal preference'). For a consistent atheist, choosing to help another person is just like choosing a favorite ice cream flavor. One person likes chocolate, another likes vanilla - one atheist likes to help people, another likes to torture them. It's all based on personal preference, and ultimately on chemical reactions.
For the Christian, besides the three motivations I mentioned above, two much stronger motivations impinge. First and foremost is the fact that some things are objectively right, and other things are objectively wrong. So even without reference to eternal rewards, the Christian has motivation to do what is right. Another motivation is the eternal reward that God promises.
You wrote: "there are still some atheists that would give their life to save another."
I don't necessarily doubt this, but do you happen to know of any examples?
If you haven't read it yet, you should read Tolstoy's "What is Art?" If you're into Art, which it seems that you are, you would like this book. Tolstoy claims that Art is only Art when it has a morally good element as its purpose...check it out.
Fantastic illustration, I hadn't seen that one before. Also, that is a fantastic post to go with it.
I have never seen that NR before, and I have two huge books of his paintings. How can that be?
I believe that if there are indeed atheists who would do that, - they are denying something that they don't know - out of ignorance. It seems to me that they would actually be close to God, but out of ignorance of their own mind or pride - they would still deny an omnipresent being. At the same time it could also be that they would do such an act(which would seem to be a sacrifice) to gratify their own ego - because that would put/elevate them among others in their own minds. It is the intention that matters. A believer in God, however, does not seek a reward for his actions, being satisfied with his faith in God alone, God's love and not love of himself/his ego. Thus a his motto is, no doubt and no matter what deed - Soli Deo Gloria, as you have mentioned =)
Christianity is definately the most personal of all religions, but it is not the most universal. No religion is universal, for much has been lost through the centuries. I will try my best to show that Hinduism(for lack of a better word), being perhaps the richest of all faiths in terms of surviving literature, mentions nearly if not all the ideas expressed in the bible. What is more, by studying ancient hindu texts we may make sense out of that part of christianity which is so hard to understand(like, for example, the very difficult text of The Revelation). Once again, it is not about which religion is right or most complete and accurate - but rather that neither of them can give us a whole picture - only by studying the whole with our minds open and attuned to the Truth can the nature God be comprehended. Why else would God bestow upon us so many 'different' creeds?
I myself am an atheist who would give my life for many of my friends . . .
[the simple pleasure of helping someone else or bringing justice (on the atheist's view, a simple extension of chemical reactions - a lessening of chemical 'pain sensations' for a large number of other blobs of molecules that human society would collectively label "an oppressed people group").]
'kay. just because it's a chemical reaction doesn't mean it's insignificant.
[For a consistent atheist, choosing to help another person is just like choosing a favorite ice cream flavor. One person likes chocolate, another likes vanilla - one atheist likes to help people, another likes to torture them. It's all based on personal preference, and ultimately on chemical reactions.]
umm, I've met people who claim to be Christians who are the same way. Besides which, it's not all based on personal preference, and even if it was, personal preference goes pretty deep. It's based on a lot of different things, including what's socially acceptable.
tired, so I'll only address one other thing.
[I do agree with you that atheists often lead "moral" lives, though I do not think they have any reason for doing so that is consistent with their worldview (other than 'personal preference').]
What's inconsistent? Helping people makes them happy. I want to make people happy, because then I feel better. Still better, they might feel inclined to help me. I would almost say that for some atheists being nice is BETTER than from some Christians, because Atheists lack some "absolute" authority informing them that it's the right thing to do; they have to decide that for themselves.
I like independent thought, now that I think about it.
~Sol
I infer that you are suggesting that old earth creationism is more reasonable than young-earth creationism, because God "would not create a young universe that looked old."
However, this seems problematic for several reasons. First, what would a "newly created universe" look like, on the old-earth view? No matter when it was created, at some point (if it had a beginning, which the 2nd Law implies) it would have actually been new. But does that necessarily mean that God must have created everything in a plasma state (for example) so that nothing could be radioactively or lightwave-travel or otherwise dated? Why couldn't he have created fully formed trees with fruit already on them, adult animals and humans, etc?
You bring up, I think, the most convincing argument for young-earth creationism: ‘since God created fully formed men who had the appearance of age, why couldn’t he have created an earth that had the appearance of age?’ The problem with this for me lies in the fossil record. There we find a progressive creation that begins in the Cambrian period with simple organisms and continues with more complex organisms until we arrive at the present day. Would God create a world that had the appearance of age and go so far as to place feigned fossils in a simple to complex arrangement throughout the layers of the earth’s crust if he is a God of truth? I think not.
Second, what about other places in the Bible where God creates things with 'appearance of age'? If we try to apply this arbitrary principle that 'God cannot create anything with appearance of age because that would be deceptive', we must rule out many of Jesus' miracles: His turning water into wine, His multiplication of the loaves and fishes, His healing of the priest's servant's ear, His stilling of the wind and the waves, His healing miracles in general (because non-miraculous healing never happens instantly). If on the other hand we accept the obvious and contextually-supported meanings of the Bible, we can accept all of those, and Genesis also. It seems quite evident in the Bible that God repeatedly throughout the Bible creates items with appearance of age. It seems rather inconsistent to insist that God could not have done so during the first week.
I never claimed that God could not create anything with the appearance of age; I merely claimed He wouldn’t create earth with the appearance of age and give it fake scars from its nonexistent past; creating fully formed entities is not deceptive, but creating fully formed entities that appear not only fully formed, but aged is deceptive. If God created the earth to look old, why are there fossils strewn throughout its layers? I can believe God created Adam a fully formed human being, but not that God would create Adam’s body with scars from a nonexistent youth, because that is deception. The same principle can be applied to earth. God might create an earth that was fully formed, but would he go so far as to deliberately scar its crust with fossils and other evidences that mislead scientists? I do not believe that God, the Sum of all Being, Truth, Goodness and Beauty would do such a thing.
(Not that I think that all the "scientific evidence" indicating old age is necessarily "appearance-of-age"-based - I think the rock layers/fossils are mainly attributible to the Flood, the starlight to relativistic stretching, and the radioisotope decays to various periods of accelerated decay. But I would suggest that in principle, there is nothing precluding God from creating with "appearance of age", and in some cases (Adam and Eve, the fruit trees in the Garden of Eden, etc) it seems quite evident that He in fact did do this.)
How can you explain simple to complex forms in the fossil record by the flood?
Third, it is clearly not "deceptive" for God to make the universe in six literal days and then tell us specifically that he had done so, regardless of the results of some uniformitarian tests.
What is literal and what is figurative in the Bible? Will you take everything literally? Revelation, Psalms, and the prophets? The first chapters of Genesis appear to me to be more figurative than literal.
One additional thought/question - you asserted that "deceptiveness is not one of [God's] qualities." How do you know this?
Our perceptions of truth, goodness and beauty testify that there must be something perfectly true, good and beautiful. We cannot find what we search for in this universe. Therefore the archetype of these qualities must exist in the metaphysical world. This is God; there is nothing deceptive in him.
If you start quoting the Bible to me, I will challenge you to demonstrate why you believe those passages are to be taken "literally" - i.e. according to your own, possibly naive, interpretation. It seems to me that the same arguments used to dismiss Genesis as real history can also be applied to all other parts of the Bible whenever convenient. Perhaps I am wrong in this, and I am open to being shown so.
I didn’t quote Bible passages to you, but suppose I did. I would quote from the Gospels probably, which are historical accounts of Jesus’ life. They are a different area of literature than Genesis, which has a different human author and a different style of writing which uses more symbols. Not every passage can be taken literally, and the Bible is full of figurative language. I merely interpret Genesis figuratively and you interpret it literally.
But if I am right, perhaps young-earth creationism is the most consistent approach to the Bible, and the only other consistent approach is to completely reject the claim that any of it is divinely inspired.Extreme positions such as literalism and figurativism may be consistent, but they are still wrong. A right interpretation of the Bible is better than a consistent one. For instance, each biblical author uses the same words differently and has a different writing style; but if you realize this you are able to understand the solidarity of the biblical message. If you don’t you find the Old and New Testaments opposed and contradictions throughout every book of the Bible and you interpret Revelation literally or the Gospels figuratively.
[How can you explain simple to complex forms in the fossil record by the flood?]
Terminal velocity decreases with the complexity and irregularity of an object's shape. In the case of the flood, where you have potentially turbulent fluid flow; objects that have the lowest surface area to mass ratio will fall out sooner and are likely be buried with sediment of similar hydraulic properties, coincidentally, heavier, rounder rocks, perhaps material now known as bedrock. The objects with more appendages, wings, fins, etc. would only settle after the turbulence of the water have dropped below the fall-out velocities for each of these objects. The result is the appearance of more complex organisms toward the top of a geological column and less complex organisms toward the bottom.
You always hear about the different layers of organisms, I would be exceedingly interested to find out what kind of non-organic material is also contained in these layers.
[I myself am an atheist who would give my life for many of my friends . . .]
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:6-8 NASB
Would an atheist die for an enemy? Would a Christian die for an enemy?
You have heard that it was said, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Matthew 5:43, 44 NASB
I find the verses very convicting.
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments!
Sol wrote: "just because it's a chemical reaction doesn't mean it's insignificant"
Well, it's no more significant than any other chemical reaction, on the atheist view.
Michael wrote: "How can you explain simple to complex forms in the fossil record by the flood?"
Rather than "simple to complex", the gradient might be more accurately characterized by mobility and ecological zonation... although the intelligence factor might also help explain the lack of human fossils... they might have lasted longer in general in the beginning stages of the Flood by clinging to rafts, etc. E.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp . I know you've likely looked at these explanations before, etc... but to me, it seems like a plausible alternative to evolution's explanation for the fossile record. Especially since there are some indicators that the layers themselves were laid down fast (polystrate fossils, uncracked sharp multi-layered bends, etc).
Michael wrote: "I didn’t quote Bible passages to you, but suppose I did. I would quote from the Gospels probably, which are historical accounts of Jesus’ life. They are a different area of literature than Genesis, which has a different human author and a different style of writing which uses more symbols. Not every passage can be taken literally, and the Bible is full of figurative language."
I strongly agree with you that the Bible must be interpreted "appropriately", meaning that the parts which are poetry must be interpreted as such and the parts which are history must be interpreted as such.
Are you suggesting that all of Genesis is symbolic? Or only some parts of it? Also, how would you prove your case that the Gospels are not to be taken "figuratively", despite the many symbolic elements? How would you delineate the parts in Genesis that are "figurative"/"symbolic" versus literal history? I certainly would see Gen. 2:23 and 3:14-19 as poetic, for example, by the Hebrew sentence structure and parallelism. But I do not see these elements in the other sections of these chapters.
I also see Exodus 20:8-11 as clearly confirming that the "days" in Genesis 1 were literal days (just in case there was any doubt, though there really aren't any sudden changes in literary style between Genesis 1 and the later parts of Genesis). I would be interested in hearing your further thoughts on this.
For further reading on the Biblical exegesis issues I would suggest http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i4/interpretation.asp (this one is excellent), http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp , and http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0801lead.asp as you have time..
I've heard the flood arguments and if they are true, I would expect to see exceptions throughout the fossil record. Generally, the smaller slower animals would be first to go, but not always. Thus, there should be humans and complex animals in the lower layers, though they be the exception.
I probably shouldn't have claimed Young Earth Creationism is wrong, because I am only a man and cannot know that for sure; however, I am inclined to believe it is false.
As for Genesis, the beggining appears to be symbolic (from creation to the fall) and the rest seems more historical. Of course, there may be other metaphors throughout, such as Jacob's struggle with the Lord.
Michael wrote: "As for Genesis, the beggining appears to be symbolic (from creation to the fall) and the rest seems more historical."
I assume you're basing this on specific textual cues and not merely on whim or a desire to concur with scientific opinion?
Also, an ahistorical first three chapters of Genesis would seem to negate Moses'(/God's) rationale for the Sabbath in Ex. 20:11...?
Comments are closed.