Loving Intolerance

Okay, I suppose I should start off by saying this post is not related to anything specific that I have read of late.  It's also going to seem kind of secular for the most part, but please bear with me...and Shane, hold your "concern" until the end, please!  This semester, I am taking a class on Ethics, and this past week we have been studying the theory of Ethical Relativism.  In a nutshell, this theory states that, because people from all around the world have different moral principles that are relative to their own culture, there are no universal laws or ethics that define our actions.  Just think about that for a minute, and you might be able to see what I'm getting at:  this is messy business.

The theory was coined by anthropologist Ruth Benedict around the turn of the 20th century, though the central idea has been in circulation since Plato's time.  Benedict's key point is in the story of Herodotus and the King of Persia (though honestly, I can't remember what the King had to do with this).  In the story, Herodotus visits two different tribes and learns their customs. Eventually, he sees that while one tribe burns their dead, the other eats it.  In order to find out which tribe was acting morally, he decided to do a little test. He had the leader of the tribe that burns their dead ask the other leader to allow him to honor their dead by piling them onto a great pyre. Obviously, this greatly offended the other leader.  At the same time, the leader that liked to eat his dead asked a similar question to the other leader; and of course, he was equally offended.  Herodotus found that it was impossible to determine which was right and which was wrong; therefore, he concluded that both tribes were acting morally according to their own customs (as morals are simply a description of what one "ought" to do at any certain time).  Fast forward several thousand years, and Benedict went around the world and discovered many similar situations between cultures, and came to the same conclusion.  And her biggest drawing point was that, by believing in this theory, the world may come to develop tolerance, with every moral principle in the world being equally valid across all cultures.

There are quite a few problems with this:

• It's true that the two tribes that Herodotus visited had very different customs when it came to honoring their dead.  But that's just the thing:  they were both honoring their dead.  The way they went about it was different, but the basic moral principle is actually the same!
• Benedict made this conclusion years before the Holocaust -- something 99.9% of the world would agree was an evil act carried out by an evil man.  There is no way anyone would be willing to accept that Hitler's Nazism could be at all "equally valid" as a moral principle - nor should they!
• The theory states that one's own morals are simply whatever they find to be acceptable.  Add in the fact that all of humanity is sinful, let alone inconstant, and suddenly it doesn't sound quite as appealing.
• The ethical relativist would be completely worthless in any kind of ethical/philosophical/theological debate.  In the end, they would have to accept that your view is just as "true" as theirs. 

You see what I mean?  In fact, it turns out that most, if not all, philosophers of today reject this theory, as it is self-defeating, trivial, and quite simply impossible.  Even so, Benedict's promises of tolerance and equality continue to draw people in.  Just take a drive somewhere and count how many "coexist" bumper stickers you see! My ethics professor summed the lesson up in this example:

Imagine two people are involved in a car accident.  Odds are, each one is going to remember the events of the accident quite differently from the other; but that doesn't make each person equally right.  No matter what either of them say, nothing will change what actually happened.  No matter what they believe, there is still one solid truth.  Let's think of it in another way...

Say one person believes that there is a God, and another person believes there is no God.  Do their beliefs affect reality? absolutely not! In the end, there either is a God, or there isn't.  How, then, can we, believing in what we believe, somehow accept that someone else with an opposite view is just as right? How can we believe that Truth is relative?

I realize that in rejecting Ethical Relativism I'm beginning to sound incredibly intolerant.  And, really, I suppose I am.  How, when I believe in ONE Way, ONE Truth, ONE Life, somehow tolerate it when another person rejects my Savior?  Now don't worry, I'm not about to run outside with a picket sign telling the unbelievers that they're going straight to Hell.  This is still a very delicate matter.  Instead, I have a proposal:  let us reject Ethical Relativism, and in doing so let us adopt a kind of loving intolerance that extends out from our love and adoration for God, and spread His One Universal Truth to the world.

-Nick Natoli, Building Bookcases Writer

An Unchanging Character

Sit through any English class and you're sure to hear the term "Character Development" every now and then.  When it comes time to write a book report on a piece of fiction (especially narrative fiction), you will without a doubt be expected to write about the book's character(s) and how they developed as the story was told.  In fact, the one bad thing I have heard so far about the must-see movie "Inception" was that there was very little "Character Development," though I do not necessarily agree with that statement. Regardless, it's clear that it is a pretty important concept.  When we read, we want to relate to the characters we are reading about, and the only way we can do that is if the character is dynamic in some way or another.  The character must experience growth and change during their journey in order for the journey to be believable.  That's right -- in order for us to relate to the character on the page in front of us, that character must change. 


Now, let's take a look at a verse from the most important piece of literature ever written, the Bible:

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." James 1:17

God does not change ... does that mean His Character is static and undeveloped?  Absolutely not! God may not change, but that does not mean He lacks character development.  In fact, He's the most developed character we will ever read about.  That's because He blessed us with a limited understanding of Him; and as we read about Him, this unchanging God changes us.  As we read His word, we are the ones who grow and change.  We grow in our understanding of our wonderful God, and as we apply this understanding to our lives, we begin to change and develop into the character that God wants us to be:  a process most commonly known as "sanctification." 

God does not change, nor does He need  to -- He is without a doubt the most fascinating, glorious, limitless character we will ever know.

--Nick Natoli, Building Bookcases writer 

Doctrine that Inspires Ambtion (Cont.)

This is my second post concerning the following quote from Dave Harvey's "Rescuing Ambition" :

If our understanding of doctrine creates passivity toward God's empowering presence or cools the hot embers of our ambition, we've misunderstood God's sovereignty.

Earlier this week, I addressed my own "passivity toward God's empowering presence."  Tonight, I hope to increase my understanding of doctrine, that I might re-ignite the "hot embers of [my] ambition."

Before a Christian can go about firing up their ambitions, however, they must understand what ambition really means for a Christian.  This, in essence, is the sole purpose of Harvey's book.  I'm not going to get into too much detail (for that, you may want to just read the book itself.  Harvey will explain it much better than I can), but the basic message is that Christian ambition strives to please God and to bring Him glory.  Godly ambition not only brings us closer to God, but it allows us to accept the times when God says "no."  For if we are no longer focusing on ourselves when we pursue our ambitions, how can we be distraught when we are faced with an obstacle?  For "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom. 8: 28)  What an encouraging verse! In his letter to Rome, Paul isn't saying "some" things or "most" things or "just the things that would make sense in the limited, finite capacity of our human minds." No, he says ALL things.  If that isn't a lesson in God's sovereignty, I don't know what is!  And if we, as Christians who love God, take this verse to heart, how can we ever give up when we don't get that dream job or if God's plan as we know it doesn't seem to be going very well?  If God says "no" to one of your aspirations, you can be sure that it means He has something better in mind.  If that's the case, then, what is stopping us from pursuing our ambitions? 

A couple years ago, I started writing a novel of sorts, a kind of Lord of the Rings-esque fantasy story about a regular guy who escapes from his dissatisfied lifestyle into a world that he never dreamed existed. Sad to say, I haven't written anything for it in quite some time, and it's only about 4 chapters long right now.  This may just be another nerdy hobby of mine, but reading Harvey's book on ambition, my imagination cannot help but to be drawn back to that world.  My desire now is to pick this story back up, and start writing again, praying that God can use it to His glory.

-Nick Natoli, Building Bookcases writer

Doctrine that Inspires Ambition

Today, I continued working my way through Dave Harvey's "Rescuing Ambition," which if you haven't noticed I highly recommend, in which Harvey makes the following statement:

If our understanding of doctrine creates passivity toward God's empowering presence or cools the hot embers of our ambition, we've misunderstood God's sovereignty.

Wow. I'm not even sure where to begin (in fact, this may turn into multiple posts).  I suppose I will begin by addressing "passivity toward God's empowering presence."  I have definitely felt that before.  Quite a few times, actually.  And as Harvey points out, it was absolutely due to some kind of misunderstanding about God's sovereignty (as many things are).  Shortly before addressing God's sovereignty, Harvey quotes from Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6)

I'd like to say that I've believed that God exists for most of my life.  But this second part of faith, believing that God rewards those who seek Him:  this is a relatively new concept for me.  The first time the idea was really introduced to me was about 4 years ago as I listened to a message by John Piper, the famous "Christian Hedonist."  And, like so many unfortunate lessons in my life, the idea was buried for a long time.  Now, it has resurfaced, and I've come to the realization that most of my walk with Christ has been shrouded in unbelief in Him; I have never really believed that God, the creator of the Universe, that big Man in the sky, would ever want to reward me for anything.  To me, He was always just watching from far off as I stumbled through this life and made a fool of myself time after time after time.  And now I can see just how foolish I was:  my diluted faith did not reflect God's grace when He sent His Son to die on the Cross for my sins.  It did not pursue a glorious, empowering God who created desire, passion, and ambition; and it did not allow God's sovereignty to enter my life. And now it is my prayer that my sovereign God will eliminate any remaining unbelief or passivity in my life, as I continue to study His doctrine.

(To Be Continued)

-Nick Natoli, Building Bookcases writer

My Bookcase (Part 2)

This is more or less a piggyback on what Jeremy wrote as part of his "intro" post:

If you came into my basement now and examined my bookcase, you would actually be in for a shock.  There are no books on it; instead, it is full of video games, organized by platform or genre, with a pile of strategy guides on the bottom shelf.  Now, being the nerd that I am, and having a major in video game design, I do not think this is a waste of a bookcase.   Is this an insult to literature?  Some would argue "most emphatically yes."  But I would argue differently.  After studying the development of video games, I've come to realize that they are actually pieces of art (at least, most of them are).  There are aesthetic choices, storytelling elements, character development, and general design choices that, as a player, I failed to notice for many years. The truth is that developing a video game is in many ways similar to writing a good book or filming a movie.  Since I began studying this field two years ago, the way I play and react to video games has changed quite dramatically. 

I find myself actually thinking while i play, something that may surprise most casual gamers out there.  For so long, video games have symbolized reflexive thinking; that is, there was never any kind of deep thinking going through the player's mind as they twitched a joystick this way or that:  Only immediate reactions to whatever was happening on the screen.  Now, however, with new technology and a greater grasp on design, game developers have transformed what their games stand for.  Take, for instance, the game Bioshock: a game that sets the player in Rapture, a ruined underwater city in the 1950s.  This city is ruled by a man who worships the self and the things that man can accomplish without the help of God or government, and as one can imagine, chaos quickly ensues.  Through carefully-placed voice recordings that offer back story on the city as well as development of some of its key characters, 2K Games has created a masterpiece in storytelling, and that's before the player gets to the unforgettable twist at the end.  I won't bore you with a full synopsis of the game, but my point is that video games have changed, and so too should our thinking as we play them. 

I assure you I'm not trying to turn this blog into a video game review, but I hope, if my good friends Shane and Jeremy will let me, to offer what insight i can into what I'd like to call "video game literacy."  These posts will be relatively infrequent as I utilize the other bookcase located in my bedroom and continue with our foremost focus, but I hope you will join me as I take the time to place video games in a new light:  one that is not necessarily in opposition to our challenge, but instead compliments it.

-Nick Natoli, Building Bookcases writer

PS.  From here on out, I plan on making 2-3 small posts per week.

We're all glory addicts

Currently, I am reading through "Rescuing Ambition" by Dave Harvey, a book addressing our need to unshackle ambition from our own foolish misconceptions about humility.  Of course, Harvey is the first to admit that humble ambition sounds a lot like an oxymoron, but by carefully walking readers through the Biblical truth behind Godly ambition, I can't help but get incredibly excited about the concept - and mind you, I'm only halfway through the book.

This first half serves to reveal the "inner wiring" carefully formed in us by our Creator.  You see, He created us for His glory; almost everything we do can be traced back to this rather simple fact.  Even before we were saved by Christ's death on the Cross, we were consumed with ambition for self-glory.  This was not God's intention when He created us of course; we were created by God, for God.  But after the Fall, our ambition for God's glory became sorely misplaced and corrupted.  The result was a people obsessed with the self, and prideful ambition was born.  You could say we became like the 300 Spartans whose desire for glory lead them to bulk up their bodies to insane proportions, learning incredible fighting techniques and strategies, taking on the largest army the world has ever seen, and for what? Glory? No, all that they earned was death.

Then, Christ came and changed everything.  His redeeming death on the Cross granted us freedom from our old selfish desires.  There was no longer anything holding us back from the undeniable glory that is in the Lord our God.  So, how did we so easily give in to the lie that we are supposed to get rid of all ambition, humbly following God without actually doing anything for Him?

We're all glory addicts.  We were made to pursue God's limitless glory, and there is no denying that.  So let's start actually pursuing Him!  Don't let ambition rot in the prison you've built around it; actively chase after God, and He'll bring that prison crashing down.

Nick Natoli

How college ruined Harry Potter for me

I realize this may be a bit of a touchy subject for some of you potter fanboys out there, but if you happen to be reading this, please bear with me.  I dont think the Harry Potter series holds any real literary value for society; and i believe that part of the challenge of "Building Bookcases" means that we should, as readers, think first about literary value before we even begin "thinking deeply" about any book we read.  What do i mean by literary value? Well, I'll tell you, to the best of my abilities:

Last fall, i had the privilege of being taught by johnny turtle, one of the most fascinating people ive ever met.  His class was called "the experience of literature," and i think his most important message in that class was that we need to be honest.  At first, I didn't think that would tie in too well in an English class, but somehow he made sense.  He stressed, time after time, that we need to not only live honestly, but read and write honestly:  write honestly, by pouring our own convictions, joys, and sorrows into our words; read honestly, by analyzing the author's message and applying it to our own lives.   After listening to his lessons, I began to realize that Harry Potter, which had been one of my favorite book series to that date, was dishonest on both accounts.  It was written to entertain, by a single mom looking for a financial escape.  And as im sure you're aware, it was a huge success.  And over time, midnight release after midnight release, i followed a generation of young illiterate "readers" as we consumed the nonsense of j.k. rowling:  the problem being that there was no underlying message, no deep theme in her work apart from the very simple cliche of "good vs. evil" complicated by teenage hormones.  The only thinking that the series required was how to solve the mystery of the horcruxes or whether or not ron and hermione would finally confess their love for each other.  In the end, Harry Potter did not allow me to grow, apart from maybe learning some new vocabulary and giving me the satisfaction of having actually read some 7000 pages at my own leisure.  But really, what good are 7000 pages if they don't offer growth for their reader?

Anyways, there you have it.  College ruined Harry Potter for me.  It changed the way I perceive its value in my life and in society, and I'm grateful for it; I can now honestly turn by back on the series, and move on to find growth in God and in other forms of art and literature. And that is the bottom shelf that will hopefully shape my future posts on Building Bookcases.

Nick Natoli