We remember that the only natural factor the population can count on during human experience is change. It is presumed that those most amenable to change are most able to manage life in the natural environment. The concept of change is clearly depicted in nature. We learn early in school that there were glaciers, fires, eruptions, floods, and other forces that introduced change to communities and the world. The flood of Noah’s time might make an interesting discussion on the topic, if we knew all the details of the event. Even Noah had some difficulty with the transitional changes. At this writing much of the news and conversation is occupied with the concerns of global climate change, especially as related to mankind’s contribution to it. Vast programs are attempting to address the contexts of change. (Space does not permit discussion about static societies, as occurred in the Far East for many centuries, but the alternative suggests that any context is learned – either for change or no change.) The West early chose change.
Neither the Christian nor the non-Christian has been able to develop fully the changing nature and resultant human conduct changes, with the fact that God is unchanging. His perfection must deny change for his kingdom. If he did not keep constancy, he would have to reduce his own perfection and control in his kingdom. Perfection can’t be improved. God can’t deny himself. He can’t set aside his nature of perfect love, justice, knowledge, and related attributes/ideals in his nature. To do so would be to accept chinks in the armor of a perfect God. This is a major theme of Scripture. If God submitted to change, he would become the voluntary servant of the mankind’s nature, rather than the reverse status. God can manage change, but change patterns would not constitute his preference. One way he manages it is by tolerating it, permitting mankind to function in common grace. (Acts 17:30) Common grace, looking toward perfection, may prevent mankind from making too many errors. Even as we at this time period consider the theme of change the world is trying to find a way to control atomic power which unleashed, erases much of the world’s population. The Christian believes that this can’t happen, unless God permits it, so offers some relief in the concerns about ugliness of hatreds, warfare, catastrophe and the ignorance fostered in the arrogance of man, ignorance of evil forces that can lead to global insanity. We are given some pause because we don’t understand all this, but we see it. Evidence of it instills fear for many persons.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Alain de Botton acknowledged that he doesn’t believe in a divine God, but does believe that those who have believed in God have done better than those who do not. He notes that faith people have values, and other factors helpful for the situation of mankind and society. He suggests that mankind should act with divine-concept as their religion, the benefits of the characteristics that have been so helpful to history. His proposal, cast in current language, is that similar to many persons through history from ancient Grecians, even found in eastern religions, to recent persons eminent in literature who have proposed virtually the same conjuring. The Christian responds by saying that such proposals may work in that they cooperate with God in common grace advancing natural right, meant for all persons, but will not be meaningful beyond the natural creation. Spiritual matters are spiritually discerned.
The problem becomes that which Scripture recognizes – that the best in mankind leads the natural person to pride – doing well in nature is enough to satisfy mankind and god, if there is a god to satisfy. The problem is even larger, in that it purports to create a humanism faith based on an admitted omission of God, perhaps a lie from ignorance, while favoring his program for us. It may be illustrated in the man who took his values from his father, but denied that he had a father. Unbelievable even if it is humanly comprehensible in language. How does his father take the rejection? God permits rejection/evasion of him, granting functional humanism. His love for human beings (his creation) is the base for making earth experience satisfactory, if natural laws (also his creation) are followed. Evaluation of spiritual consequences will appear separately from nature’s demands. God determines evaluation relating to heaven in a conclusion that is sketched out in Scripture in a context we can grasp. Seems fair warning. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020