Tag Archives: Truth

Logical Gal doesn’t like YOUR view, so there!

28 Jan

“I find the view of Hell so utterly offensive, that I can’t believe it!” 

So there!

A lady actually said this the other day on the radio.  I don’t quibble with her assessment of the Biblical description of Hell.  There’s nothing pretty or compelling about a dark place of everlasting separation from anything good, lovely or true!

But what struck me with the force of a 2 x 4 plank was her unspoken presupposition.  To wit:

Anything I don’t like, I don’t believe

Can you see that if you are consistent and approach other situations with the same guiding premise for testing truth that you might run across other ‘facts’ that qualify as equally unbelievable?

  • cancer
  • war
  • terrorist beheadings

How do you think Radio Lady might respond to those situations, if you were to ask her gently?

Might she possibly qualify her decision-making process by adding something like this:

“Well, we have evidence of those 3 horrid situations. There are news reports, videos…… you know PROOF!”

“Oh, I get it,” you might respond, “You only believe in things you can see? Whatever is invisible doesn’t exist. Is that it?”

Assumptions are powerful filters that we use on a regular basis, often unconsciously.  I find it far easier to spot them in others than in myself.  But now that I am aware of them, I can practice being just as ruthless on myself as I tend to be with others.  After all, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander!

Assumptions

 

 

Logical Gal and when making sense is not enough

21 Jan

Makes sense

That makes sense to me!

Have you ever heard that comment or uttered it yourself?  It sounds so innocent, doesn’t it!  Don’t we want to make sense of the world around us – especially in light of all the horrors and issues that DON’T make sense?

It’s human nature to try to identify, draw associations and categorize all the information that cascades into our consciousness, moment by moment!

But, we must not forget that just because something makes sense, that detail does NOT make it true!

I ran across a useful example of this faulty thinking the other day.  While listening to a radio program broadcast by the organization Stand to Reason, the host discussed how to deal with the possibility that scientists might very well indeed find a gene marker held in common by some gay men and women.  The presupposition explored by the host is this:

Whatever makes sense is right or must be true.

The caller who holds to the above assumption suggested the following opening to an argument based on that assumption:

  • If there is a ‘gay gene’, then it is natural for those with that gene to want to/ need to engage in what is ‘natural’

After having suggested that line of thinking, he finished his explanation with the comment, “Makes sense to me!”

The host, Greg Koukl, reminded listeners that JUST because something makes sense, that doesn’t make it true or right.   An argument based on the faulty assumption could be stated like this:

P1 – All that makes sense is right

P2 – Doing what is natural makes sense

C – Therefore, doing what comes natural is right

And going on, one can continue:  Given a ‘gay gene’, then it is only natural that those with this gene engage in the behavior that is part of their inherited disposition.

However in the above argument, although it may be rational and correctly formed, it can still be faulty if one or both of the premises are FALSE.  Take a look at the following obvious example of a valid, but unsound syllogism:

P1 – All things with 4 feet are alive

P2 – This table has 4 feet

C – Therefore, this table is alive

Why is this argument valid?  Because it follows the rules of formal logic.  It makes sense, we could say. But you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to tell that something is WRONG!!!

Bingo!  The faulty premise is the very first one.  NOT all things that have 4 feet are alive, only SOME.  So the universal statement needs to be changed to a particular statement to be true.

P1 – Some things with 4 feet are alive

P2 – This table has 4 feet

C – Therefore, this table is alive

Soundness Venn diagram

Let’s get back to the possible research into gene markers and whether doing what is natural makes sense.

  • Besides the unsoundness of the argument due to the faulty 1st premise..
  • Besides the false nature of the underlying presupposition that What makes sense must be so,

There is ALSO the assumption that could be debated:  We should engage in what comes naturally!

Really?

Question: Which ‘natural’ scenarios come to mind that raise a red flag?

tantrums

 

Logical Gal and why slogans fail us

14 Jan

Slogans

A recent letter to the editor in our local newspaper provided practice in thinking.  A lawyer had written to champion the ‘Separation of Church and State’.  He counseled Christians to confine their religious practices to church and NOT bring them out into the public square.  He fumed over comments made by supposed conservative Christians who ‘dared’ criticize recent Supreme Court decision.

If he had thought a bit deeper, he might have seen that he was misrepresenting the activity of  ‘religious practices’ because he hadn’t considered his terms.  Since I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to influence the readership of the local paper, I did write a letter to the editor.  In my response,  I pointed out that ‘religious practices’ were actually what people did in church (where people sing songs, celebrate communion, hear messages teaching Bible content and principles and pray together).  What the lawyer probably meant to castigate was what he, himself, might be guilty of….the supposed ‘sin’ of letting one’s values affect one’s actions.

Core values

(Surely law schools must drill into future lawyers the necessity for precise language.  Since lawyers are good at splitting hairs, I picture them spending hour upon hour practicing drawing careful distinctions!)

Back to this so-called requirement to keep one’s religious practices confined to a place of worship! It’s not hard to see that the rites and behaviors one performs in a church service are narrower than one’s core values.  Yes, our values DO influence particular religious behaviors.  But values in general shape most of our actions and decisions. The essential truths that every human being holds create beliefs, which in turn guide one’s intentional behavior.

Justice is blind

I’m assuming that men and women who choose the legal profession esteem many values that they express publicly.  Being charitable, I will say that a career in law presupposes that one cares about truth and justice for all.  So it’s not just Christians who advocate the care and dignity of their fellow human beings.

The danger of slogans is that they brush with too broad of a brush.  They remind me of those mall-stalking pollsters with their clipboards who take sport in canvassing your views, yet all the while limiting your responses . But the problem is that your opinions don’t fit any of the categories!  The same pitfall is attendant in sound bytes.  Lack of time prevents clear thinking!  And furthermore, these written or shouted symbol-laden words actually can cloud communications.

As an aside to my rebuttal letter to the editor, I pointed out how the values and beliefs of many Christians have resulted in much good for society!  Accounts abound, throughout the world, of Christians who have sacrificed to care for the poor, the sick and those in prison.  These followers of Christ have allowed their values and beliefs to shape their actions.  One only has to think of British Christians like William Wilberforce and others who fought tirelessly to abolish the slave trade.  And what about American Christians like Martin Luther King who sought to bring civil rights to the black community?

Beliefs formed from values DO matter and everyone has them.  And unfortunately, we know too many examples of evil done in the name of beliefs, from Christians and non-Christians alike.  My point in gently taking the lawyer to task was to ask him if he really believed that only Christians allow their convictions to inform their actions.

Declaring he doesn’t want ‘conservative Christian values’ spilling out into public, leads me to think that he apparently values autonomy for everyone.  That belief has led him to defend the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.  To be consistent, maybe he should leave his values at home when he ventures into the public square.  Or is he, alone, allowed to vote his conscious, but those who happen to engage in ‘religious activities’ not?

I admit, it’s difficult for all of us to be even-handed in our thinking and consistent!  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

Logical Gal – what do you believe?

3 Dec

It was a tense moment – Halloween morning at breakfast with some colleagues.  We teachers were finishing our coffee in the lobby of a hotel where our 8th graders had fallen into bed after a full day (morning college visit, afternoon caving and evening in Chattanooga).

The Spanish teacher proudly showed off her festive orange and black socks and mentioned that she loved Halloween.  When I asked her why, she attributed her fondness for the holiday to both her and her mom’s sensitivity to the spiritual.

When I casually responded, ‘Oh, so you believe in the spiritual dimension of life?‘ it didn’t take her long to move from my commenting on the historical basis for Christianity to her objections to Christianity’s claim to be the one true religion.  The secular history and science teachers joined in to draw the distinction between fact and belief when I attempted to point out the evidence for Jesus and His resurrection.

Mr. Science clarified the difference between fact and belief.  According to his way of thinking, the two have nothing in common.  He illustrated this division with an illustration taken from family life.  It went like this:  Whereas he might believe that his role as dad is the most important function he fulfills in his life, it was just a belief and had nothing to do with truth.  “That’s a belief and is miles apart from facts like the Law of Gravity!

science v faith

Had there been time, I would have loved to say that one has to have facts or knowledge and from them one draws a conclusion based on some presuppositions or assumptions.  Facts (aka truth) drive or inform beliefs.  Here’s how I think the process works:

My colleague has gathered data (facts) from….

  • reading books about parenting
  • talking to other dads
  • absorbing hard-earned wisdom gleaned from previous generations
  • his own personal experiences in parenting

And based on presuppositions like:

  • my intuitions are trustworthy
  • what I read and what others tell me is reliable
  • time with my children is an investment that has the power to shape them

……he has formed a belief that parenting is his most important job.

The credibility of the Law of Gravity is founded on the same principles, isn’t it?

Law of Gravity

  • scientists have gathered data from observations and
  • they trust the data AND their skills

Why is there such animus about belief when applied to Christianity? After all, we gather evidence from those concrete facts; then we formulate a hypothesis that has the power to account for all the details.

Maybe the term ‘belief’ appears weak and unscientific because it’s used equally to communicate ideas as varied as:

  • I believe in Santa Claus
  • I believe in the Tooth Fairy
  • I believe in miracles
  • I believe in myself
  • I believe in ghosts
  • I believe in God, the Father Almighty….

Two dictionary entries for ‘belief’ describe both

  • an acceptance of a statement as true
  • having confidence in something

Recently I’ve come across powerful ways to describe a belief.  They feel weightier and appear less hackneyed:

  • “Evidence supports that X is true” (this corresponds to the 1st definition of belief)
  • “I trust X” (matching the second sense of the term above)

My discussion with colleagues just reinforces in my mind that our choice of words is critical to making a case for whatever our point of view is.  Words matter!

Obviously my short discourse with those fellow teachers on Halloween day didn’t land anywhere substantial because we could devote only about 4 minutes before we had to herd kids.  Making a case for any point of view TAKES TIME. And our culture is so rushed, that reasoned, thoughtful and calm discussion rarely happens!

But…it pays to be prepared and think through our word choice ahead of time.  As God instructs us through the apostle Peter, we Christians should

  • Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)

 

 

 

Logical Gal and the Source of Misunderstandings

19 Nov

Consider the assumptions below: are they true?

  • The French are snobs
  • Southerners are lazy
  • Kids don’t read much
  • Americans are generous
  • Women feel guilty
  • Schools are failing students

It depends

We often treat these particular statements as true JUST because we know some cases where:

  • SOME French people behave as though they were better than us
  • SOME Southerners lack drive
  • SOME kids prefer video games to reading
  • SOME Americans open their wallets for every world misery
  • SOME women confess their conflicting views about motherhood, marriage and working
  • SOME schools routinely turn out students unprepared to take up adult roles in society

An effective and accurate (truthful) communicator does not assume that the qualities pertaining to certain cases equally apply in EVERY case.   This is the difference between the Universal (ALL) and the Particular (SOME).

When we apply the characteristics of the few or even the many to every, we are going beyond what is logically correct.  Logical thinking is, after all, using language correctly.

EXTENSION is the term to note the particular details of one exemplar of a category.  The term to identify all those members of a category that also carry the same ‘extension’ is COMPREHENSION.  And ABSTRACTION is the term that pulls together the descriptive characteristics that EVERY single member of of the category holds in common.

Take a house, for example:

House - Ranch House - shack House - Victorian

The 3 houses above are all very different.  To get the idea of ‘house’, we abstract what they have in common:

  • a roof
  • 4 walls
  • shelter for living
  • space enough to protect some personal belongings of inhabitants

A particular house, say the rancher on the left, has all 4 of the above features plus we can say that it is:

  • on one floor and noticeably longer than it is wide

But if we took that particular rancher which is a sum of the ‘applies to all’ features (the abstracted idea of house) + a particular characteristic (long and on one floor) and said

  • Houses are easy for handicapped people to access

We would be guilty of taking an extension and applying it across the board to all houses.

To be logical, we would have to supply the correct quantifier and say SOME houses make it easy for handicapped people to access.  A mansion might not have a way for a wheel chair to reach higher floors.

Ramp on rancher

If extension means the particular characteristics beyond the abstracted or general idea of a concept, then what is comprehension?  Think about extension as the details.  Think about comprehension as the number or sum total of all the members of a category to which this description applies.

And when we add more particular details, then a category member can be said to have a ‘greater’ extension.  But, conversely, there are fewer members that can be said to share that extension.

Here are 3 houses again, but this time they are:

a) a general, abstracted house

b) an abstracted house considered a ranch

c) an abstracted house that is ranch-style and has a handicap ramp

The latter, house C, shows the greatest extension because it has the most detail (hence, there are fewer houses that are accurately said to be that kind of house)

The first, house A, has the greatest comprehension because more houses qualify to be that kind of house (basic house) without all the extra details.

See Saw

The seesaw picture shows the inverse relationship between extension and comprehension.  The greater the details (greater extension), the fewer items that meet that description (smaller comprehension) and vice versa.

Bottom line?  Committing ourselves to take the time AND think clearly and then express ourselves honestly can ease the tension and conflict that characterizes our world.  It’s either laziness or pure disingenuousness to paint people or institutions with a broad brush.

Language is the source of misunderstandings Language is the source of...in French

 

Logical Gal and ‘Neutrality’

12 Nov

Neutral

Facts are neutral bits of reality.

Humans give them context and meaning, filling in assumptions to offer explanations.  Sometimes we actually add reasons to our assertions and craft an argument.  But whether we stop short of an argument and just offer a POSSIBLE explanation or craft an intact case, we still carry assumptions that may or may not be expressed for all to see and hear.

The mid-term elections are behind us (Good riddance to all those ads!) but ‘framing’ the results flourishes.  Just like the British headlines after George W. Bush was RE-elected, some people will be scratching their heads to create an explanation for certain wins and losses.

How can 59 million people be so DUMB

Truth is – most facts are neutral.  They take on values (good, bad, stupid, wise….) only compared to something else or based on a pre-supposition.

Look at this conclusion, aka an assertion, which I am inventing for argument’s sake:

  • Senator Joe Blow won reelection because of big oil

‘because of big oil’ is one of those invented explanations.  Possible explanations are everywhere, but they masquerade as arguments. Unaccompanied by reasons, they are meaningless.  But even when the provider shores up her explanation with reasons, not all is uncovered.  We have to dig to find out the pre-suppositions that are BEHIND the reasons and conclusion.   But how do you uncover what is not explicitly articulated?

  • You can ask the person making the claim
  • Or…you can propose an assumption you think might be below the surface and ask the claim-maker to verify or deny it

For example, I might ask:

  1. So you think that Senator Joe Blow won only because those in the oil industry voted for him?

or

2. So you don’t think that Senator Joe Blow might have offered a record of results from his first 6 years or a set of values that pleased his constituents?

Our assumptions (also called presuppositions) heavily influence how we evaluate facts,; they give facts their context.

Hold your horses

(holding one’s horses!) 

Something else that influences our evaluation is our tendency to move from considering neutral facts, to drawing inferences, to making judgments.  Often our conclusions overreach the facts of the particular case.  So we must resist that tendency or habit and ask ourselves if this particular case justifies our conclusions.

Consider the following example I recently read in Senator Hayakawa’s book – Hayakawa's Bk Language

Imagine a hypothetical ‘Pete’ and the following FACT:

  • Pete just got released after spending 3 years in prison

An unwarranted inference might lead one to assume:  Pete is a criminal!

But all we know are 2 facts:

1. Pete spent 3 years in prison

2. Pete has been released

We DON’T know definitively whether or not Pete was guilty of the crime for which he was incarcerated.

If we flow quickly into that inference, however, we might be led to make a judgment such as:  Pete can’t be trusted because he is a criminal.  I would never hire him!

True confessions!  Stopping before I make an inference and slide into a judgment is easier SAID than done!  But anything worthwhile takes effort!  Our world needs more cautious but clear thinkers.

So in this post-election season, let’s exercise calm and rational thinking no matter which side of the political spectrum we land. There’s no room for unwarranted judgments that demonize or boast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logical Gal and False Authorities

5 Nov

I recently encountered 2 examples of the same fallacy – appealing to authority to avoid making a case for one’s point of view.

This is the essence of a fallacy – trotting out a false argument that either is irrelevant, claims too much or is a distraction.

Shrinking Polar Caps

The first was anecdotally reported to me. A small aircraft pilot was recounting the time he flew over the polar ice cap and noticed what he considered to be shrinking icebergs. He then reported, “Yep, global warming is for real, I saw it!”

Let’s take a look at his thinking:

  • P1 – If I see diminishing icebergs, then global warming is happening
  • P2 – I saw diminishing icebergs
  • C –  Therefore, global warming is happening

His syllogism is logically valid in that the form of the argument is correct. But are his premises true? There’s the rub.

Our pilot friend has opened himself up to be shot down easily. Some questions one might ask?

  • Have you measured the shrinkage? For how many years?
  • How do you know that the shrinkage is due to global warming? Could there be other reasons?
  • How did you get your scientific expertise in the area of global temperature studies?

He has appealed to himself as an authority RATHER than building a case. This man was an expert pilot, but not a trusted source of scientific analysis.

*

The other example of an appeal to illegitimate authority is found in the Gospel of John.  In Chapter 7, toward the end, the soldiers return to the Pharisees and Chief Priests empty-handed.  They had been sent to arrest Jesus.  When questioned, they explain that ‘this man’ speaks like no one else they have ever heard!  The religious leaders smirk:

 Has any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in Him? (John 7:48)

The implication is that they don’t need to examine the claims of Jesus to verify if they are true.  It’s enough that THEY have not ‘fallen’ for them.  They are setting themselves up as arbiters of truth.   This is an appeal to an authority and expertise that they don’t have. It’s immaterial to the verification of Jesus’ identity WHO they are.  The claim is either true or false no matter WHO believes it.

20 million Frenchmen can't be wrong

Can a lot of people be be wrong?  YES!

Yesterday many elections were held around the country.  Wildly unsubstantiated claims and accusations were made in all that very expensive advertising.  Today we’re breathing a sigh of relief that THIS season is over.  But campaigning is part of our landscape.  The next time someone makes a claim or an attack on an opponent, use questions to gently guide them back to the claim.  Whoever MAKES a claim needs also to defend his or her case with REASONS.

Yes, it gives one pause to go against a majority, but a majority can be dead wrong!  Think through arguments and look for rational support for the claims made.  That’s how to inoculate oneself against folly, no matter the source.

 

Logical Gal and the beauty of a category error

29 Oct

I heard some good news this week – enunciated in a way that I can understand AND remember.

Good for goodness sake

And it was just the opposite of the song invoked in the photo above.  Whew!

One of my favorite preaching pastors, John Piper Link to his site, was explaining the concept of election and justification, Christian terms for being called into the Christian family by God.  He painted the scenario of a gal lamenting to her pastor that her past was SO BAD, that NO WAY could God forgive her enough to let her into His kingdom.

That’s when Piper described her as BOTH prideful AND incorrect in thinking that any condition could block God’s will.

At that moment…..drum roll Piper announced that God NEVER even considers one’s past life or actions in his selection of His children.  This gal was making a category error.  She was thinking that the two kinds of people were

  • the GOOD enough

and the

  • NOT GOOD enough

It is truly happy news to learn that she was not even in the ball park.

She was right on one account;  there are just TWO categories of folk.  All humans fall into one of these two groups:

  • those who belong to the family of God and are considered His adopted children
  • those who don’t belong to the family because God has not adopted them as His children

But HOW He chooses is a mystery. If we take His words as truth (and since He is God, by nature He IS Truth), then He has decreed who He adopts for His own reasons that have nothing to do with how ‘bad or good’ we are.  (Truth be told, NO ONE is ‘good’.)  Listen to what God teaches us through Paul’s writings in Romans 9: 10-13

  • when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”  As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Of course, we will probably trip over the verbs LOVED and HATED.

So as all good logicians and thinkers, we should CLARIFY THE MEANING of these two terms.

 

Clarify meanining

I’ll leave you to think through what God might intend by ‘love and hate’, but before you snort and feel frustrated, think about how we freely and loosely toss around terms.

  • I love movies….I love my dog…I love my children…I love God
  • I hate laundry….I hate Mondays….I hate terrorists….I hate it when I lose my temper

 

Logical Gal and a win-win wager

22 Oct

True Confessions!

I struggle with worry.  Not only is this stupid, but it’s a sin since God commands Christians: Do not be anxious (Phil 4:6)

I was battling this unbelief Sunday night and Monday morning, when I realized that the possible outcomes revolving around my worrysome circumstance could be organized in a similar fashion to Pascal’s Wager.

Pensées - Pascal

Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher and mathematician.  One of the ways you might be acquainted with him is through his Pensées .  This collection of thoughts were gathered by his man-servant and assembled after his death.  He had written each pithy reflection about God on pieces of parchment and then sewn them into his coat’s lining.

Pascal meditated on how one should live this life here on earth in view of what might happen beyond the grave.  His reasoning as a logician led him  in view of  after death options to sort out the possible outcomes of a decision for or against relying on God.

The 4 possibilities look like this:

1. God exists and I give up management and submit to Him – I get a joy-filled/punishment-free eternal life with God. The cost? Very little –  some temporary experiences that might have satisfied me if indulged in.

2. God exists and I refuse to acknowledge Him and control my own life – I get a scary and painful eternal life away from God. The cost? A LOT! – an eternity of pain that lasts a lot longer than the temporary earthly pleasures I indulged in

3. God does not exist and I give up my control and desires and live according to what I think He wants – I get nothing, because there is nothing beyond the grave.  Nothing bad or good awaits me forever. The cost? Very little some temporary experiences I held back from.

4. God does not exist and I live my life following my own desires – I get nothing, because there is nothing beyond the grave. Nothing bad or good awaits me forever.  The cost? Nothing

So if you evaluate what you stand to gain or lose, rationally it makes sense to bet on God existing. (of course what one thinks of God and what God thinks of us is not up to odds, but this is just a way of using reason)

Back to worry.  How does this idea of a wager apply?

I think we can set up a similar decision wager paradigm that clearly shows the folly of worry.

First of all, here is my pre-supposition:  Worry is a joy and happiness stealer.  The formula looks like this:

Worry Inequaltiy Math Symbol Joy

And our choice of belief boils down to this:

1. Believe God when He says He is taking care of us = no need to worry.

2. Don’t believe God when He says He is taking care of us =  need to worry.

  • If we believe God and He is who He says He is and therefore IS taking care of us – we didn’t worry and we have peace and get proof that God provided for that need/situation/problem.
  • If we believe God and He doesn’t exist or isn’t like what we think – we didn’t  worry and we have to deal with the outcome of the need/situation/problem but we didn’t experience the joyless pain of worry leading up to the situation.
  • If we don’t believe God, whether He exists or not, we end up worrying and lose our joy and peace.

It makes sense as Christians to opt for the first situation.

Happiness

If God IS God by definition, then in His essence He is honest and everything He says about Himself IS true.  Afterall, his character and reputation are at stake.  We yield to emotions so often and don’t cling to truth.  And all along God is present and willing and able to handle our situations.

I have to remind myself daily that God knows about my day and has provisioned me with exactly what I need for each moment.  I am to make use of these provisions by divine faith which He has given me.

Christianity is a calling to use the evidence that God through the Holy Spirit has given us.  May we each be empowered to believe the Truth!

…the Spirit is Truth.  1 John 5:6b 

Question:  What helps you with anxiety?

 

Logical Gal and category challenges

1 Oct

Category Management

The idea of category errors is useful.

I don’t know if it’s an urban legend, but Yuri Gagarin, the first human to travel in space, supposedly proclaimed after his return that he had searched intently and never once did he observe God while in space.

If it’s true, then the statement reveals a category error in his thinking for the following reason:

Humans can observe MATERIAL stuff, but God is NOT material.  He is IMMATERIAL.  It’s akin to asking questions like:

  • How much does blue weigh?
  • If you had to pack your Mom’s love for you to take on a trip, how many suitcases would you need?

The faulty thinking is revealed by simple facts such as:

  • Blue is a property that has no mass, so it cannot be weighed
  • Love is not something that can be measured physically nor can it concretely fill a suitcase

What occurred to me this morning as I listened to a podcast during my walk, was the wonderful Greek word tetelestai  (Strong’s # 5055).  It means: It is finished.

Jesus uttered that word when He finished suffering the punishment for human sin IN OUR PLACE.  His action of redeeming us from hell made it possible for us to be transferred from the Kingdom of this World (under Satan’s rule) into God’s Kingdom.  His work on the cross also guaranteed that not only can humans be freed from the power and punishment of sin, but they can be GIVEN/ASSIGNED a new identity.

Tetelestai

Notice that I did not say, that humans can be given the opportunity to craft their own identity.  Never once do we have that possibility.  There are only 2 possible identities for every man, woman and child who has ever lived OR will ever live.  We are either grafted into Christ and have HIS forgiveness and flawlessness applied to us…….

  • or we are left to face the just judgment and punishment for our works on our own – the imminent next events for those who live according to the outworking of the Fall  (sinful nature) which they have inherited

Here’s where the concept of category error comes back in.  Since Christians have been given a new identity when they are born again,

Identity in Christ

they are treated the same as though they had been born a citizen of a country:

  • NO exam to study for
  • No application process to undergo
  • No appearing before a judge to swear fidelity

So it is STUPID to spend any effort and time trying to craft an identity, right?

Yet that is what I still find myself doing:

  • I angst about what others think of my teaching
  • I angst about whether I’m ‘doing enough’ as a neighbor and as a member of a church family
  • I angst about whether I’m loving my husband in the ways he wants/needs to be loved
  • I angst about whether I am being a good-enough grandmother (whatever THAT means!)
  • And when November arrives, I angst about whether I will select the right kind of presents for family members

And that’s just off the top of my head.

And why?  All because doing ‘it right’ has to do with the identity I WANT to think is ‘me’.

But when I realized this morning that my identity has already been established and is in fact fixed and secure, I suddenly saw that working to shore up my identity (even if just for myself) was not only futile but stupid.

These insights are why I love logic!  Clear thinking can bring freedom.

Question:  Where has thinking through carefully about an issue led to a breakthrough that has impacted your life?