The Value of Human Life

The atheist may claim that life has more meaning because it is short. It is precious because it doesn’t last.

This sounds perfectly reasonable and persuasive. After all, we value gold due to the fact that it is rare.

But then again, so what? Once we die, we will no longer care nor be able to care, therefore life only has value to us as long as we are alive, and after we die it only has value to those we leave behind. Either way, it is subjective and therefore an illusory fabrication.

What about relationships? Do we value good relationships because good relationships are so rare, or do we value them because they are so rewarding? We treasure them more than gold, yet gold is rarer. Few people have pure gold but plenty have good relationships. We are all born from relationships of some kind, but who can say they are born from gold?

It seems that we value relationships because we know they last and because we know they can last. A person remains in a relationship that has troubles because they believe it will last. They fight for it because they see it has potential. Otherwise they would simply ride the tide until it ends naturally.

Furthermore, relationships transcend life. Though one dies, their relations to the people they left behind stay “alive” Whether theologically, philosophically or logically, no one takes gold with them when they die, but relationships follow them where ever they go.

Thus, we value life because we are alive. Life has its value in living and living has its value in longevity, not in its shortness.

To the one who believes in God, life now becomes infinitely more precious because they know it can be infinite. A life of infinite potential that amounts to nothing is seen as pointless. It becomes a waste.

We are greatly grieved over the loss of a young life because we see a loss of potential.
We are still saddened at the loss of one who is elderly, yet are comforted somewhat if they have lived a “full life”

Yet which life had “more value”? Who had more to offer to the world? The one full of life and wisdom or the one devoid of life or wisdom? We value them both because they both had the potential to offer us something in the fullness of their life. No matter whether it was long or short, we wish we had more of them.

The tragedy of humanity in relation to God is all the more tragic because the potential was there for so much more.

Contrary to atheist thought, life has value in and of itself and in its potential longevity, not its lack thereof.

They reverse this by claiming life has more value in and of itself because it is short. However, once life ceases, it is of no value. Can it even be argued it was valuable in the first place?
Ironically, I imagine one could make a strong case that life has value because it is subjective. It has value to the individual whose life it is and to every individual affected by their life.

Therefore, even if they die, their life’s value “lives on” in the hearts and minds of those close to them. And yet this is an entirely “spiritual” reality completely irrespective of the external physical world. How these individuals “feel” about this one life is irrelevant to the physical world in which they claim all reality consists.

Sure, they can use how they feel to affect the physical world around them on some level and influence the sequence of events that play out in the physical world, but ultimately it has no bearing on realities origin and eventual fate.

How they felt didn’t bring this world into being and will not wipe it out either right?

It would seem that life only has value to us on a “spiritual” level. We are less concerned with procreation than relation. But why is this in a purely material universe? Is this logical?

Furthermore, what can a “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” mentality do for life? Does it not cheapen life? Is this philosophy not rife today? People eat, drink, drug and shag to their hearts content. They stray ever so close to death by doing so and risk shortening the already short life they claim to “value” so much. Does this not seem self defeating and illogical?

Of course this would be a generalisation. It isn’t true of everyone who adopts this philosophy. But why not? It seems to me that it is not the case because few are 100% consistent with this philosophy.

Who takes it to its full extent in practice? Very few. Why? Because somewhere they value their life more than this. They know there is “more” to life than eating, drinking and being merry. But why?

How many of us find joy in eating, drinking and being merry alone? Is the loner truly merry and do they have joy? I suppose that experience would tell us otherwise.

Instead we find that these things are defined by the people we do them with. Relationships. Blood is thicker than water. Bros before Hoes. Whichever way you want to phrase it, at some level, relationships supersede everything else.

Can the reason for this purely be for procreation? Because it has a “beneficial survival advantage”? Beneficial for whom? For humanity? Well humanity is not a hive mind. As a whole, humanity does not care whether it survives or not. As a whole, it doesn’t matter.

What humanity wants isn’t the sum of its parts because every part wants something different.
It is on the individual level that humanity cares, and this individual is linked to a network of other individuals. Again, it comes back to relationships.

As a complete entity, humanity doesn’t care.

As a network of individual entities, humans care.

It is ironic then that, individually, we are the opposite of the sum of our parts. Each of the 10 trillion cells in our body doesn’t care whether the body survives. Yet, knit together, these cells somehow come together to make up a being that does care.

It would seem then that, individually, we are not the sum of our physical parts. We are the sum of our physical parts combined with something ultimately indescribable and yet fundamental.

It is that indescribable entity that makes life worth something.

It is that indescribable entity that relates from one human being to another.

It is ultimately this indescribable entity that extends from man to God and comes from God to man.

Thus, it is reasonable and seemingly unavoidable that the value of humanity is defined by its origin, by its relation to that origin and its relation in and of itself.

We come from the infinite and value life due to its infinite potential. Only in the face of the infinite can this make sense, but only if the infinite is as personal or more so than we are.

It seems that we unavoidably come back to this concept of God. Why is this? Why is He / It / She / That always there? Why won’t they go away?

I suppose the simplest answer would be because:

...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. – Genesis 2:7

Tapestry Of Intent

We're born into a broken world that doesn't seem to make sense and are expected by some to explain how everything fits together.

We see those few things that do make sense and find they begin to form a picture.

If the world was made so broken, does it make more sense that such a coherent picture would form for no reason?

If the world was made whole, does it make more sense that such a picture was also made whole and intrinsic to it but has fractured and decayed over time?

In all known history, a tapestry of intent has never spontaneously generated and formed arbitrarily.

In the world I see fragments of a tapestry of intent. Why would I suppose it is spontaneous and arbitrary?

Was Organised Religion ever the “Intention” of God?

This question dawned on me this morning whilst reading from the Book of Hebrews. I’m not sure if there was actually a particular passage that motivated me to reach this line of thought, it just came kinda came to me.

So what do I mean? Well, first I would state that I believe the only organised religion that has been directly established by God is that which is tied to the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. Notice I didn’t say “Judaism” as Judaism is a more modern concept.

I’m talking about the bare roots original that God planted on Mt Sinai. The Ceremonial Life He presented to the Israelites. This is what I mean when I refer to organised religion in this sense.

The question arises because I think back to individuals such as Abraham. Today he is a model of faith and is known as the “friend of God” Yet he had no scripture, he had no temple, he had no priesthood. The closest he had to this was the practice of offering sacrifices to God, a practice established by God when He first clothed Adam & Eve following the Fall.

Even in these cases, Abraham would not build some elaborate altar, but would simply pile up stones. Cutting the stones was seen as a dishonour to God (interesting that).

The point is that Abraham had righteousness accounted to him by God. He was “accepted” in a sense.

Now, moving onto Israel. Here you had a people who had been under the foot of the Egyptians for around 400 years. Many generations had grown up around and within Egyptian culture and society. Now whilst I cannot say this for certain, it seems to me that this would have been their first exposure as a nation to the concept of organised or ceremonial religion.

Were the prophets before this? It doesn’t seem like it. Did they know the name of God? I don’t believe so. Did they even actively follow God? That’s debatable.

What we know from reading the account of the Israelites and looking at their history is they had a habit of looking to the cultures around them and drawing comparisons. Following this, if you look at many of the laws they were given, some of them may seem slightly odd.

For example, why would God tell the Israelites not to mix two different kinds of fabric? Why was this considered an abomination? We know now that no physical object is evil in and of itself or has power in and of itself so what was the purpose of this?

Well it would appear that God’s reason for commanding this was due to the cultures around Israel. Many of their laws were there specifically to separate them from those around them, to distinguish them and keep them from essentially “contaminating” themselves. The reason they were told not to mix fabrics was because there were certain cultures who did so in their worship of fertility gods, believing that this would somehow grant them fertility.

We also learn from Jesus that particularly the laws of divorce were given due to the hardness of the hearts (that is minds) of the Israelites. Put another way, they may not have accepted the commands otherwise. Why is this? I believe it has a lot to do with their background (and probably another reason why the wandered in the wilderness for 40 years until that generation died out).

They came expecting certain things from a God because they had become used to this kind of organised, ceremonial religion that they had experienced in Egypt. Otherwise, they may not have accepted God at all (and we see what happened when He did not meet their ill-founded expectations in the incident with the Golden Calf). Now I’m pretty sure God could have done something drastic to make sure they toed the line, but He instead extended grace towards them.

He did a similar thing when He allowed Israel to appoint a king over them. I don’t believe this was God’s will for them but because He was faithful to their wishes and out of grace He allowed them, knowing He can use all situations to bring about good. And of course good has come of all this, as through it all we have attained salvation.

So, it would seem that God gave them a ceremonial, organised religion as a concession to them due to the hardness of their minds. Seeing their need, He acted in such a way (the agape way) to ensure that as many as possible would accept Him by giving them something akin to what they would expect.

I believe God’s intention has always been God Acknowledged Life.

He wants us to live life, and a life that acknowledges Him and is founded on Him. Essentially you don’t fully get this from ceremonial or organised religion.

It’s one reason why most of the cleansing the Israelites had to do was for ceremonial reasons.

With all of this fulfilled, the need was no longer there for such a system. We were now free to live life, free of the conditions that were contrary to us (as Paul would say).

It seems God will concede to our traditions or expectations, knowing the end from the beginning and knowing that He can use such situations as tools. One way or another, His ultimate will is done.

But I can’t help but think that there could have been an alternative and that we may have gotten to the right stage sooner.

Many ask why Jesus didn’t come sooner. Perhaps it was because the hardness of our minds would not have allowed Him to come sooner. It simply wasn’t optimal.

My Financial Vision for the Church

So so, I originally wrote this several months ago, but I believe it is still just as relevant now as it was then:

This is born out of my perceptions, not only of the impending recession and credit crunch, but out of attitudes I’ve observed over the years to “giving” (offering of any amount or kind) and “tithes” (an offering of a tenth part of some personal income).

I’ve always looked with a somewhat critical eye at tithing, not because I presume to have knowledge that others don’t, but simply the way it’s implemented.

There’s a system of pressure and expectation, with people eyeing you carefully if they don’t see you contributing financially to the church. Of course this is something of a conundrum, in that you’re not really contributing to the Church (i.e the assembly of the saints, the body of Christ, the collective of all followers of Jesus), but to the institutional church building. Because to be contributing, paying or tithing into the Church is surely to be paying into the Kingdom of God? And the Kingdom of God isn’t something you see with your eyes, because it is inside of you. (Luke 17:20 – 21)

The Kingdom of God is referred to in scripture as the Kingdom that was, that is and that is to come (as is Christ and one of the Beasts of revelation. Beasts in prophetic/apocalyptic revelations have always represented earthly kingdoms). I perceive these states of the Kingdom as follows:

1) (That Was) The initial Kingdom of God, as established through the creation of the universe and mankind. Earth became an extension of God’s greater, eternal, heavenly kingdom, with Adam as His representative and the first born of His new family.

2) (That Is) The current Kingdom of God, as established through the first coming of Jesus, before being realised in His resurrection. Through faith in Jesus, we are brought into God’s family as His adopted, and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven.

3) (That Is To Come) The future Kingdom of God, to be announced through the second coming of Jesus prior to the judgement of mankind. Following this, a new heaven and a new Earth will be created under the Lordship of God with us as joint heirs with Jesus as sons and daughters of God.

It’s important to note that all three manifestations of the Kingdom are defined not by material things or by one place, but by relationships.

The first Kingdom was defined by the relationship between God & Adam, Adam & Eve. This is summed up in the scriptures where God is described as walking with them in the cool of the day.

The second Kingdom is defined by our restored relationship with God the Father through Jesus, by our relationship with our fellow brothers & sisters, and expressed in the way we treat our neighbours.

The third Kingdom is defined by our being in fellowship with God forever, summed up wonderfully in Revelation 21:3 where it says God Himself will dwell with us, we will be His people and He will be our God. The temple, or focus of worship is directed to Jesus and God the Father rather than a building because God’s home is now with His people on the new Earth!

Put simply, the point is that the church is defined by people not property. By relationships, not real estate. By brotherhood, not buildings. Blessings, not business.

So the question naturally arises, when people tithe and give offering, how much of the offering is actually being invested in people? In relationships? In brotherhood and in blessings?

Now I’m not about to imply that we shouldn’t have church buildings and facilities, because that would be adding an unnecessary law and sanction that would be a burden to some and chains to another. What I’m putting forward is simply a question:...

Has anyone ever considered how much money there would be if the church wasn’t tied down by the costs of maintaining buildings and the resources that go with them?

Because it’s easy to say “We have this expensive equipment because it’s for the Kingdom’s cause.” Or “When people come, our church needs to be presentable” and in many cases, this works wonderfully, I’ve seen it happen and no one likes a disorganised church. But they also don’t like dishonesty, and whether anyone would agree with me on this or not, I see a lot of the “glamour” as dishonest. We use these things as a “sign” that we are blessed and that God is with us and yet the main push of the Good News was always, is always, and shall always be about the internal.

Let me just paint a picture for a second to bring the point home...

Say that an assembly of disciples were out doing the work, and by the work I mean meeting the needs of the needy, being a light and representing Jesus through conduct. We wouldn’t even need to bring them to our fancy building and show them our great sound system and projector, or the well designed tracts we hand out...Because we would be bringing what’s most important, the true treasures of Heaven, TO them. All the “signs” of God’s favour, all the initiatives and events we plan would go unseen. And of course this wouldn’t be a waste, because lives would be in the process of being actively saved.

The church may think it’s free from coveting because it’s not coveting the “things of the world”, but coveting is coveting. Intended good can turn to bad very easily.

I’m gonna sum it up like this:

From the time you can’t divorce the scriptures that imply material prosperity from the reality presented by Jesus, you are Materially Minded.

God an mammon. Nuff said.

What it comes down to is, if disciples are out there fulfilling their purpose, to be to others what God has been to them, spreading His righteousness through imputing that righteousness onto others (that is, using the way God has cared for us as inspiration to care for others), all the other stuff becomes needless, y’know why? Because if we do it right, those people we bring the Good News to will go right out there and do the same.

I’m going to say something radical...I’m going to say there should be more empty seats on Sunday because we should be spreading out as servants and shepherds. Sowing and spreading the seed, serving the sorrowful and sheltering the sheep.

I’m not saying abandon gathering together because that is against scripture, but I’m saying after gathering to strengthen and encourage each other, we should be going OUT! Spending less time in the building and more time building relationships!

The house warming has gone on enough. We’ve warmed the seats so much that no one else wants to sit on them. The air is getting stuffy.

So how does this all relate to my so called financial vision for the church? Well, now I haven’t looked into this properly myself, I’ve only heard whisperings but I’m assuming they are reliable. But what I’ve heard is that the solution to the financial crisis of today, being proposed by some in the church, is that the church (as a global whole) should have its own bank or banks. This is something I immediately just didn’t think was right, it just doesn’t seem to sit right with the spirit of scripture.

What business does the church have in having its own bank?

There are various other religious groups and other institutions that have their own banks, but they also have something else in common... I believe something like this only encourages segregation. And I’m not talking about segregation of motives and purpose, as in not being how the world is, I’m talking physical segregation and alienation.

We aren’t meant to be segregated in that sense. We’re in the world but not OF the world. Our ways and agenda are different but we should still be found in appearance to be people! We must above all else remain relatable, and one thing segregation does is breed ignorance, arrogance and prejudice. It just feeds our fears and follies, without allowing us to see things from a more God’s eye perspective, seeing people as God sees them. Segregation from other people dehumanizes them in our minds.

We’re called “strangers in a foreign land” according to scripture. Now, when the Jews were exiled to Babylon, they were told by the prophet Jeremiah to do business, live and seek the peace & prosperity of Babylon! They were told to seek the best for those who had taken them from their land and home. They were meant to be a blessing to ALL nations. We are also called to be the same.

We shouldn’t be seeking to usurp power by upsetting the economical balance, hording up treasures for ourselves, but be seeking to BLESS. Part of the reason for this economical crisis is that people aren’t essentially paying into the economy, whether through capitalism or through investments. Like it or not, we are part of the circular flow of income and that flow helps to maintain the lifestyles we live now. I’m not saying dive full on into capitalism, but I am saying we should seek what’s best for the country we live in and our neighbours. If we don’t want to feed into that system, we could possibly at least bless someone who may in turn pay into that system. Alternatively, we could be purchasing so that we can then give those purchases to others.

Now it would be wonderful to set up banks that don’t seek to just make money but to actually provide an interest free service to people, but this should be offered to ALL, not restricted to Christians. Furthermore, with the way the church spends money these days, can we be trusted with our own bank?

So what do I propose? Well, an example has already been set for us in scripture and in the reality of the church. Going back to an earlier point, the church is not a building right? It’s people, it’s connections, it’s relationships, all united in one body under Jesus, the head of that body. So it stands to reason that any kind of “church bank” should follow that model. We all have our own personal accounts and funds, and together they form as much a church bank as we individually form the body of Christ.

What if people simply just paid into each other’s lives when they felt led by the Spirit? If, knowing their account details, they just paid an amount in whenever without word or just handed someone an envelope. They don’t need a reason save they just want to bless. They see a need and see they have the resources to meet that need. And then, what if this were extended to those outside the body of disciples? Where ever there is a need, there would be ample resources to sow into that need by gathering together out of what we have.

If there should be any form of “bank” it should be this. It should not be visual or fully physical (in the sense of one building, one place, one account etc.). It should be a unity of diversity and something that can’t be reduced to one locale. It should be like the Holy Spirit, blowing like a wind and no one knowing where from or where to.

It shouldn’t have a name, it shouldn’t have a status, it should just be. Our God set an example for us through His very name...Yahweh, I AM THAT I AM...

If this is going to be anything, that’s what it should be. It is what it is. If it just IS, it’s just being DONE. It never stops, and it never fails.