Here it's You and me alone, God
Here it's You and me alone

You've hedged me in
With skin all around me
And I'm a garden enclosed
A locked garden for You, for You and You alone

And life takes place behind the face
where it's You and me and me and You alone
- Misty Edwards, "Come into Your Garden"

I recently listened to the following debate from the Veritas Forum, which happened last year at Columbia. I obtained this talk through a Veritas Forum podcast at ChristianAudio.com (now broken, unfortunately).

People Suffer - Who Cares? A Secular Humanist and Christian Dialogue, Part 2/2

Summary: [Discussion portion of event] We dwell in a world in which millions have been touched by tragedy. Why do we care? Why should we? Is there any purpose to it all? Prof. Philip Kitcher, chair of Contemporary Civilization, is among the most influential philosophers of science in our generation. Dr. Vinoth Ramachandra, a theologian from Sri Lanka, has worked for decades among the destitute of his war-torn island.

I had the following reactions to the debate:

1. It's a lot easier to shoot down "secular humanism" when your idea of it is a straw man rather than a real person. Whenever Dr. Kitcher was talking, I found that his arguments were not trivial to dismiss. He did not persuade me of "the intrinsic infinite lovability of all human beings" apart from God, but I did end up feeling that his view was not blatantly self-contradictory.
   
   
2. Dr. Ramachandra took a fairly standard line in approaching Dr. Kitcher's worldview – "You say that all human beings are intrinsically lovable and worth preserving. Why do so few people agree with you if this is the case?" Try telling a Hindu Brahmin that Dalit untouchables are "infinitely lovable" and that all human beings have "intrinsic equal worth." Or tell a Wahhabi Muslim that women have the same "intrinsic rights" as men. Dr. Kitcher's response to this was heavily ironic, I thought. He essentially said that the West had figured out a better way, and that it was our job to teach the rest of the world to follow our example. Wow. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, that was called "the white man's burden" I believe...
   
   Dr. Ramachandra's final point that was the secular humanist idea of "infinite worth" for all human beings was a Christian idea. Secular humanism has attempted to steal it and prop it up with a philosophy that could never have created it. The only way you get a doctrine of "infinite worth" for all human beings is if you have a God who created human beings in His own image and became one in order to redeem them.
   
   
3. I thought the debate ended on an unfortunate note. In response to Dr. Kitcher's comment that everyone has a "pick and choose" approach to interpreting their holy books, Dr. Ramachandra presented a very reasonable interpretive approach to the scriptures. (In essence, "You have to read each part of the book in light of the whole story. So you can't say, for example, that because God commanded genocide for the Amorites in the book of Joshua, that genocide is morally acceptable. The genocide in Canaan has to be understood in light of God using Israel to judge the Amorites. Ethical choices today need to be made in light of the New Testament.")
   
   But when Dr. Kitcher responded that he felt the most horrible part of the Bible was the very end – the book of Revelation, and the judgments of God against a world united in rebellion against Him – Dr. Ramachandra's only answer was that he believed most of the book of Revelation was symbolic. Dr. Kitcher replied that Vinoth had just proved his point – he was using an interpretive method that omitted the parts that didn't fit.
   
   Ultimately, I have to agree. I think evangelical intellectuals need to stop taking a hands-off approach to eschatology. If it's possible that God was just in judging the Amorites by genocide in Joshua's time, as long as you understand the whole story, then it should be equally possible that God can be just in judging the whole world at the time of His Son's return – again, as long as you understand the whole story.
   

The main thing I want to focus on in this post, however, is something that Philip Kitcher said several times: Secular humanists should be free to take the good from the Sermon on the Mount, as well as any other place that they find good ideas, to build a rational ethic without any God to back it up.

This kind of thing seems to be said frequently about the Sermon on the Mount. There seems to be a popular caricature of Jesus' teaching which reduces the Sermon to the following:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:39)
Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

But if you actually read the Sermon on the Mount through, this is nothing like what Jesus said. Reducing the Sermon on the Mount to the above is like summarizing the Gettysburg address as "Lincoln said 'all men are created equal.'" He did say that, and it was important, but it was clearly not the main point.

I once summarized the Sermon on the Mount in a Bible study by saying "God is present. And His presence makes a difference." This, to me, is the foundation for the Sermon on the Mount. The words which resound throughout the Sermon, like a drumbeat, are these: "Your Father in Heaven."

• Why rejoice in persecution? Because "great is your reward in heaven." (Matt 5:12)
  
• Why "let our light shine" before people? So that they may see the good works and "glorify your Father in heaven." (Matt 5:16)
  
• Why love our enemies? "So that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matt 5:45)
  
• Why strive for perfection in our conduct of life? "just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)
  
• Why not practice our righteousness for show? "Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven." (Matt 6:1)
  
• Why give in secret, pray in secret, fast in secret? "your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly." (Matt 6:4, 6:6, 6:18)
  
• Why forgive others? "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matt 6:14)
  
• Why not worry about food or clothing? "your heavenly Father feeds [the birds]. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matt 6:26)
  
• Why persevere in prayer? "how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!" (Matt 7:11)
  

Father, Father, Father… reward, reward, reward… heaven, heaven, heaven. Practically every verse in the Sermon on the Mount appeals to divine consequences for our actions. Jesus holds out the promise of divine reward and the threat of divine rebuke as the whole reason for what He commands. There is no appeal to "universal principles." There is no appeal to "common sense." There is no appeal to "human nature." The only reason that Jesus gives for obeying His word is because the Father rewards holiness and the Father punishes wickedness.

The perfect love and the perfect sovereignty of the Father commend perfect obedience to us as the most practical and logical of choices. It is not "radical" to love your enemies, give more of your possessions to a thief, or turn the other cheek when slapped. It is simply the smartest way to live before a loving, sovereign God who delights to reward His children.

The clearest example of this that I have heard is the testimony of Dr. Josef Tson, which I heard him share on two occasions. Dr. Tson described the scene when he was taken before a panel of officers intending to interrogate him for preaching the Gospel in communist Romania. There were five men sitting behind an imposing table looking at him with very stern faces. They said something to him about the seriousness of the charges against him and the danger that he was in. In that moment, he envisioned these men as five puppets on strings, and the Puppet-master who held the strings was God the Father. He replied to them, "The reason I am here is because my Father has some dealings with me in this place. I don't know what He is going to do with me, but I can tell you this – you will not go one inch beyond His purpose for me."

The Sermon on the Mount calls us to a vertical life. A life lived before an all-powerful God who loves us. Every person that we encounter – whether wise or foolish, whether evil or good, whether lovable or contemptible – is an opportunity that our heavenly Father has given us to choose to obey Him or not. Perhaps secular humanists can have some temporary success in getting rich, post-Christian westerners to be nice to each other on the grounds that it's good for the human race. But whether they do or not is irrelevant to the message of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says of them, "everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand…"