Defining Ourselves

How we define ourselves is just as, if not more, important than how we define other people.

So often when we were growing up did we get told not to call other people names.  This was most likely done with the (unspoken) hope that we would outgrow such behavior as we got older.  While our name-calling regarding others may have lessened as we matured, many of us still fall into the trap of calling ourselves names that we shouldn't be called.  I said in my opening statement that this may be the more important behavior of the two, and here's why I made that statement.

How we define ourselves often distorts how we view the world, and therefore affects our interactions with it.  For example, if we are constantly telling ourselves that we are a failure, then we will most likely will never be truly successful.  On the flip side, if we constantly tell ourselves that we are successful then there is a distinct possibility that we will only try to accomplish things that we know we can succeed at, and not try to really push ourselves to accomplish truly great things.  In short, when we define ourselves in a certain way there is a danger that we will limit our behaviors to fulfill that definition.

This defining, or labeling (as it is sometimes called) is a symptom of our quest to understand everything which is a condition that goes back to Eden when Eve decided she had to know everything good and evil.  When we define something that means we understand it.  The problem is that understanding is often quite limited making the definition flawed.  Some have said that it is impossible to fully understand somebody else because we have not experienced all the things that they have, but that statement wouldn't apply to ourselves would it, especially considering that we have experienced everything that we gone through in life?

The problem with understanding ourselves is that we often have massive blind spots when it comes to our own behavior and being.  We often say that we are a good person, but reality says otherwise.  So how do we deal with this problem of faulty understanding and flawed definitions?  The answer to that question can be summed up into one word, surrender.  When we surrender ourselves to God, we acknowledge that He is the only One that understands everything.  Those flawed definitions then fade away and are replaced with the only definition that truly matters, "I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine."

Enforcing God's Law

Wow, it has been quite awhile since I've posted anything here, but as someone once said "Life is what happens when you make other plans." In any case, here is something I would like to share with you.

Every once in a while I read or hear something that makes so much sense that I'm surprised I hadn't read, heard, or thought of it sooner. In this case it was something I just read recently in a book written a long time ago, but first a little background.

A little while ago I was at a Christian book store thinking about buying a book. I was looking for a religious book to complement a non-religious one I was already reading. There are, of course, many good books out there, but I found one that especially caught my eye. It was a red, white, and blue paperback entitled "Rights of the People" and was written sometime in the late nineteenth century by A. T. Jones and reprinted in 1998 by TEACH Services, Inc. I just started reading the book and the thought that really struck me has to do with the role of the government in regards to morality.

Early on in the book Jones establishes the thought that the church, acting as the voice of God, and the government, acting as the voice of the state, have distinct and separate roles in society. He states that God is the sole promoter of morality, and that the state can only promote civility. To put it in other terms, the government can only judge one's actions, they cannot judge one's thoughts, and therefore cannot enforce God's law because it is based on one's thoughts and beliefs. He then poses the question that I have had in my mind for some time and that is "Doesn't the civil power enforce the parts of God's law that say that you should not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc.?" He states that it doesn't enforce them as commandments of God, then explains it in two main points.

1. If a government were to enforce those standards as God's law, then it would have to charge a man for murder if he hates someone else, for perjury one who simply tells a lie, and for adultery if one were to have lustful thoughts.
2. Punishment for crimes would be nearly impossible to carry out because if one breaks God's law and repents, he is forgiven and is no longer guilty of that offense. The government would have to release offenders on the sole basis of them asking forgiveness regardless of how many times they were to commit the offense.

These thoughts definitely shed some light for me on the concept of legislating morality, and I hope it helped you as well. Stay tuned as I'm sure this will not be the last post I make regarding thoughts from this book.