Advanced Directive
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity is offering a free downloadable Advance Directive. The form is simple yet carefully worded and based on biblically-informed bioethical principles. NOTE: It contains instructions for using and modifying it. Personally, I will probably be modifying the provision saying I don’t want want to be put to sleep by assisted suicide – for me, I think that would be more humane than starving me or letting me suffer a protracted, painful death. That’s what they shoulda done for Terri if they were gonna let her die. Idiots.
Presenting A Thorough, Intellectually Appealing Biblical View Of Government
As a Christian, I believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But I don’t want a Christian theocracy. There is only so much we can do through making laws – as it is said
No governmental system can rule an immoral people
This leads me to my two main points:
1. Civil Governement Should Be Based Upon A Biblical View Of Man
Man is both sinful and made in the Divine image. This basically means we need a system that allows freedom within contraints – freedom to express the divine beauty and intelligence of man, and constraints in the form of checks and balances, and laws and penalties, in order to prevent society from devolving into chaos. We need a combination of inner restraint (i.e. virtue or personal morality) combined with external support and restraint (laws that support virtue and morality, and punish evil) in order to keep society organized and safe. Kirby Anderson at Leadership U has a nice article on this entitled Christian View of Government and Law.
2. The Five Spheres of Government
This viewpoint is very instructive: each realm of government (self, family, church, business, and civil) has its own limited sphere of authority, which interfaces with the others, and each sphere should not try to assume the responsibilities of the other, even if the other abidicates. For example, if I as the head of my family government do not take care of my kids, the solution is not to have my family become permanent wards of the state. Sure, the church or the state can step in, but the goal should be to get me to reassume my responsibility, or get someone else (i.e. a new husband!) to assume it.
Conservative v. Liberal Views of Rule of Law
Sorry to be a contrarian, but… I found the aforementioned article on the Rule of Law (ROL) to be a little overly simplistic, painting both conservative and liberal positions in an incomplete light. Also, it failed in presenting a nice picture of a Christian view of government – it made it sound like Christians support a theocracy similar to the Islamic state!
I. A MORE EXPANSIVE VIEW OF THE CONSERVATIVE ROL
The author makes the conservative position seem inflexible and bound by traditional understandings. He should have mentioned that while the conservative understanding of ROL bases law in unchanging, objective laws, it is flexible in that, as our understandings of said laws expands, or needs clarification, we have the flexibility to update it. Hence the many amendments to our Constitution. As a good example, the prohibition against slavery was not a more evolved position, it was the natural extension of the original idea of "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Same with women’s suffrage.
II. A MORE EXPANSIVE VIEW OF THE LIBERAL ROL
He also makes the liberal position sound based totally in the subjective. While I agree, in general, the liberal position is one of shifting, subjective reality, most liberals would probably chafe at such a simplistic portrayal. However, here is why I think Liberals reject the idea of objective morality as reflected in the idea of ROL:
(a) Many Liberals Do, In Fact, Believe in Subjective Morality
This sad fact was clearly emphasized in the article. I think that liberals are comitted to subjective truth because:
- They limit their search for truth to empirical science, and reject revealed truth, so all sources of revealed truth are spurned. So what claim to objective truth do they have? Perhaps the laws of nature or societies as revealed in history, but again, the interpretation of history is subjective, so perhaps they must rely on the shifting sands of human assumptions
- Instead of divine law as the measure of mankind, they measure man by man. Then, if it’s just a battle of human opinion, who can say they are objectively right?
Unfortunatly, for example, this reasoning would go as far as to say, if your society condones infanticide, than it is ok because your society has agreed upon it as a norm. This extreme position, unfortunately, can allow the base nature of man to destroy himself and society.
(b) Liberals Often Reject Objective Truth Because We So Strongly Associate it With Divine Law
Our founders chose well the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident." Rather than appealing directly to divine law, they appeal to reason and naturalistic law. This is important because Liberals rightly want to avoid a theocracy of any type. If we appeal to the laws of nature (and nature’s God), we do better than appealing directly to the Christian Scriptures. By being careful in this way, we give room to liberals who, by use of reason, recognize that *some* issues of morality and law are objectively consistent across cultures and time. If we clothe it merely in scripture, we are bound to be rejected.
(c) Liberals Often Reject Objective Truth Because We Make No Room For the Gray Areas
The intellectual sin of our times is the presentation of unbalanced, polarized truths. We take one half of a truth paradox, and exclude the other. In this case, we forget to mention that some truths are self evident and timeless, but lesser ones are not so clear, and should be left up to the individual nation, group, or individual. This quote echoes that sentiment:
In the essentials, UNITY (we should push for unanimous agreement) In the non-essentials, LIBERTY (we should allow each to decide for himself) In all things, CHARITY (in any case we ought to be kind)
When discussing objective truth and divine law, we need to remember to remark that not every issue can be codified, and government is limited to the big things.
The Five Spheres of Government
The following essay on government is from an out of print Christian newspaper, but I believe it has been updated and documented in Liberating the Nations by Mark Beliles, et al. I want to post this short section of the essay, since it is a great primer on a biblical view of government. This essay was originally written as a response to a letter from a young Chinese Christian, so you will notice some references to China and Chairman Mao, etc.
God has broken down human existence into five basic areas or spheres of government, which make it much easier to comprehend. These five spheres of government are: (1) self government, (2) family government, (3) church government, (4) business government, and (5) civil government.
All human activity falls under the jurisdiction or guidelines of one of these five spheres. The Bible outlines very definite instructions and responsibilities for each sphere as well as definite limits of authority. When each sphere of government operates according to biblical principles in harmony with one another, justice results. When any sphere neglects its God-given responsibility or usurps responsibility from another sphere, injustice results. Gaining an understanding of each of these jurisdictions and their interrelatedness is absolutely essential for anyone desiring to see justice prevail in China or anywhere else.
We will be taking an in-depth look at each of these spheres in future letters, but a brief explanation of each at this time will help us to gain an overview of what constitutes a just society.
The Rule of Law
Conservatives and Liberals both toss around the term "the Rule of Law" but rarely is it fully understood what is meant by the term. This article explains not only how both Conservatives and Liberals view the Rule of Law but how Christians should view the Rule of Law as well. It’s well worth reading.
The Emerging (Goth, Punk, Rave) Church
As a product of the Charismatic movement, a mostly American revival of pentecostal Christianity in the late 60′s which began in California and spread around the world, I am always intrested in the latest trends in the non-traditional (cutting-edge) church. Tim at e-church.com has a nice article on the current debate going on between the Purpose-Driven Life movement and their criticism of the Emerging Church movement. What does the Emerging Church look like? Check these quotes from Tim’s article:
- In Japan, the “new tribe” of Japanese young people, often characterized by dying their hair a rust color, have been the group that have begun many of the emerging churches in their country among the punk and rave scene.
- In Germany, the Jesus Freaks started their first church in 1991 among the punk and metal culture. They now have 80 churches in Germany and their yearly Freakstock Festival numbers 7000. And yet the alternative culture still flavors their ministry.
- In UK, the alternative worship scene started among the rave culture (Nine O’Clock Service) and was also influenced by the punk scene. The early connection with the rave culture partially explains why UK had a head start on worship over USA.
- In USA, the hippie culture of the 60’s birthed many new forms of church and ministry, most of which can be found today in the emerging church. The punk scene of the 70’s gave birth to more churches and eventually the Underground Railroad network of churches among punk, goth and metal cultures. In the mid 90′s, many of the emerging ministries, including my own work among the postmodern subcultures in San Francisco, were connected to UR. FoundKids was a mid-nineties movement of rave kids who came to Jesus and ministered around the country. The Prodigal Project formed in the early nineties out of the hippie culture. Further – Read “Understanding the different Sub-cultures”, and other articles on the Paradox web site
My observations about the "controversies" surrounding the Emergent Church, and revivalism in general:
- True spiritual awakening often looks like the modern culture. Many traditionalists love to attack true revivals because to them, it is taking the form of "the world." What is actually happening is, people unchurched in the often stale, anachronistic church culture are finding faith in God, and are expressing their faith in the manner that they are familiar with. This means that they employ current language and music forms, rather than King James English and hymns. It is important not to confuse the form with the content. Thrash metal music (a form) is not "sinful," even if born out of human angst and anger. However, what is sung about (the content) is very important.
- True spiritual awakening always has a little heresy in the beginning, and in some of its spinoffs. I had a pastor who liked to say "I’d rather have a little wildfire than no fire at all." This occurs because true revivals usually involve many unchurched people experiencing God, but having little doctrinal framwork by which they can interpet what they are experiencing. This is good in that they are not limited to the modern contemporary misundersandings of God, but bad in that they can go far astray and not have the relative safety that proven orthodoxy provides.
Experience without doctrine leads to heresy Doctrine without experience leads to Pharisee
- True spiritual awakening needs criticism to keep it from sliding into heresy. A little testing by fire goes a long way. Sola scriptura!
- God offends the mind to reveal the heart. Jesus often taught in parables, which surprisingly, were very accessible to the common people, but to the intellectual and religious theologians, it was confusing. He did this so that the proud and fault-finding would not see, but the humble would. Don’t ask why, but the scriptures do say that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. So be careful. Check it out in Matthew 13:10-17.
- You can tell them by their fruits – if you can wait. Many spiritual movements that are man-made or spurious end up in disaster. Those that are of real consequence, like the Charismatic movement, continue to save and bless people who come in contact with it. Despite whatever early abuses take place in the immature stages of a movement’s growth, the later stages surely show what it is made of.
Nice job Tim. I will be learning a lot more about this over the coming months.
Media Bias, Fake Memos and Terri Schiavo
One of the stories that have not been reported thoroughly by the mainstream media is the "talking points memo" that was allegedly distributed to Republican Senators just prior to the vote on the resolution to have her legal case moved to federal courts. Two articles today in the Weekly Standard are worth reading for further insight on this issue. John Hinderaker of PowerLine asks "Fake But Accurate Again?" while Fred Barnes looks at "The ABCs of Media Bias". Both are well worth reading.
Does Judge Greer Have A Conflict of Interest?
Newsmax reports that Judge George Greer received a $250 campaign contribution from Michael Schiavo’s attorney one day after declaring "Terri’s Law", the statute passed by the Florida legislature in order to save Terri Schiavo, unconstitutional.
The Anchoress is reporting that under Florida ethics rules a judge who receives a campaign contribution from an attorney in a case he presides over is not required to recuse himself. She goes on to point out:
Nevertheless, a contribution can establish the appearance of impropriety, and the state’s code of judicial conduct requires a judge to remove himself in such a case. (Emphasis in original post)
While this story does not entirely explain Judge Greer’s insistence that Terri be murdered, it does constitute the appearance of impropriety. The appropriate thing for Judge Greer to have done would be to remove himself from the case. It’s not too late for Judge Greer to do the right thing.
Christianity Today Weighs In on Schiavo
CT has a nice collection of essays on the issues around this case, including:
- While I Was Sleeping – Why my husband finally refused to end my life during my two-month coma.
- Life with Dignity – Let’s not be too eager to pull the plug on our fellow image-bearers.
- Speaking Out: Why I Believe in Divorce – Terri Schiavo’s only hope to stay on life support is to divorce her husband who wants to pull the plug.
- Not a Mercy but a Sin – The modern push for euthanasia is a push against a two-millenniums-old Christian tradition.
- Killing with Kindness – Why is the church against euthanasia in instances where people are in terrible pain?
Runaway Judiciary and Terri Schiavo
Regardless of whether you believe Congress was correct in attempting to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case the fact remains that they did intervene and in doing so gave very specific directions to the courts on how to proceed with her case. As Rich Galen points out today, the legislation passed by the Congress required Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube to be reinserted and a new trial be set to determine all of the facts surrounding her case. In spite of these very clear directions, the courts continue to flagrantly disregard the wishes of Congress.
One of the lasting impacts of this case will be the effect that it has on the judiciary. Certainly this case will help President Bush and Republican Senators make the case that activist judges are dangerous and should be kept off the bench. Judges are supposed to not just interpret the law but enforce it as well. Federal judges are subject to the authority of Congress. In fact, if Congress wanted to they could begin impeachment hearings against the federal judges that have failed to follow the mandate given by Congress. It will be interesting to see whether the House decides to proceed with impeachment hearings once this case has concluded. But judges everywhere should be on notice that they are still accountable to a higher authority even though they often behave as if they are not accountable to anyone.
Confused and Tortured Logic in the Schiavo Case
Previously, in The 10 Issues of the Schaivo Case, I outlined the many issues brought up by this fiasco. But the worst part of it all is the tortured logic that everyone seems to be using, not to mention the bad science that Louis mentioned (see comment) Which of the following positions are inconsistent? What’s really bothering me is that many people take a "consistently pro-life" view, and along with liberals, say "I can’t understand how someone can be pro-life and pro-capital-punishment." The words "I can’t understand" should be replaced with "I want to continue to embrace an overly simplistic model of morality so that I don’t have to think." a. Anti-abortion b. Pro-right-to-refuse-treatment c. Pro-assisted-suicide d. Pro-capital punishment e. Pro-euthanasia The Simplistic Pro-life Position: a In all cases, these people are against any kind of taking of life. To many, that is logically consistent, and favoring "life in all cases" usually stems from the belief that God is mad it is morally wrong if we *ever* take life or help people towards dying. Where this position seems to falter is that it is so pro-life, it will prolong uneeded suffering in the name of what is "right" – forbidding people to die peacefully by their own accord. They don’t want physicians to aid in this work of mercy, and certainly don’t want the government to have the right to do this type of "mercy work." The Typical Conservative Position: a, b, d The reasoning for being pro-life on the abortion side, and pro-death-penalty is thus: The unborn child has rights that are being disregarded (the right to life), but the person who has committed a capital crime has forfeited their rights. Furthermore, the government has the right to administer just punishments for crimes. Biblically speaking, capital punishment is supportable – in the same chapter that God gave Moses the commandment "thou shalt not kill," He also gave a nice long list of capital crimes. Most anti capital punishment arguments ignore this, and focus on Jesus’ teachings on tolerance and mercy – but they ignore both Jesus’ teachings on hell, and some of Paul’s somewhat more veiled references to the government’s rights to punish. Interestingly, the Oregon Death With Dignity legislation draws a nice line – they do not permit euthanasia. BTW, there is some very good Christian theology developed around the right to die. (I’m sorry to say that J.S. Spong was chosen to support the death with dignity position – I’m not a big fan of his theology at all.) The Typical Moderate Position: Pick a combo There is not typical position in the middle. Pick any combo not taken by the extremes. Are all of these combos logically consistent? Maybe. Lean a little left, lean a little right. Libertarian, green, whatever ;) The Typical Liberal Position: b, c, d, e This group is pro choice all the way. I should have the right to die by my own hands, and in the case of suffering, I should be able to have a physician help me. I should also be able to make the same decisions for my wards – the government should not restrict my or my family’s rights to self-determination. And in the name of mercy, it may even be good to help other invalids "die with dignity." Put in the negative, I can kill myself, ask a doctor to help me kill myself, kill my ailing spouse or child, or kill my unborn child. It’s all "kill" in the name of personal autonomy and rights. OK, maybe in a few circumstances one should be restricted, but to this group, even late term abortions are really a personal decision, and not the government’s, and certainly, the unborn child has no rights until it comes out of the hole – and maybe not even until the umbilical cord is cut. This position seems to take personal autonomy to an extreme, while not safeguarding the rights of the weak. It certainly does not address the slippery slope contentions of euthanasia. I’m sure some will call this argument a straw man, but I don’t mean it to be so. If most liberals don’t hold this position, perhaps they fall into the moderate category. But those in favor of starving Terry Schiavo to death certainly have forgotten about the "mercy" in "mercy killing." I mean, if she isn’t suffering by starving, then she isn’t suffering by living either, so why not let her parents care for her?
U. S. Supreme Court Rejects Schiavo Appeal
The U. S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal from Terri Schiavo’s parents in their attempts to get her feeding tube reinserted. The legal options remaining for Schiavo’s parents are dwindling rapidly. Clearly the federal courts have shown contempt for the mandate given by Congress in legislation passed last weekend.
The precedent that has been set by this case is frightening. It is up to our elected representatives to step up and ensure that this does not happen again.
The Schiavo Protocol and Servanthood
AnotherThink has an excellent post on Terri Schiavo’s situation and the call for servanthood from her husband. (Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost). He shares the story of another couple in a much more serious predicament except with one difference: the husband shows servant love towards his ailing wife.
The 10 Issues of the Schiavo Case
There are so many issues that the Schiavo case has unearthed, I wanted to summarize them the best I could, and rant a little too. Enjoy 1. Individual Right to Refuse Treatment Does an individual have the right to refuse treatment? We all agree on this. Yes. 2. Guardian’s Right to Refuse Treatment Does a guardian have the right to refuse treatment for a ward? If so, under what circumstances?
- Coma? What kinds of coma? How much brain activity?
- PVS? If so, how much brain activity?
- Refusing vaccination for children?- When is refusal of treatment abuse?
- Like in the Schaivo case, if her husband refused therapy, is that abuse?
3. Conditions that Invalidate a Guardian’s Right to Choose What conditions invalidate a guardian’s right to refuse treatment for a ward? What if a guardian has possible motive for wanting someone dead, like an insurance policy, or they don’t want to care for an invalid? Does that invalidate their rights to make such decisions? How about other purely monetary concerns, like it will bankrupt them to support the ward? What if it’s not bankruptcy, but just financial hardship? What if they refuse to care, but some other family member or organization wants to care for the ward? 4. Individual Right to Suicide There are two arenas here – political and moral (religious). Politically speaking, there is nothing we can do about suicide – I mean, you can’t punish someone for taking their life. Like insurance companies do, however – they can refuse benefits to their survivors. Religiously, there are Christian theologians on both sides of this issue. Some assert that our salvation is based on faith and not our ability to maintain good works, so suicide would not invalidate our salvation. Other’s argue that suicide shows that we lacked saving faith, and so are damned not just by our suicide, but by the fact that our actions reflect our lack of faith. I prefer the former argument. 5. Right to Assisted Suicide Conservatives argue that assisted suicide is one of the early steps on the slippery slope towards euthanizing the weak and sick. However, this is where I think conservatives miss the boat. They argue that medicine should be about curing or palliative care, but not actively killing someone. They have no stomach for any kind of "mercy killing." But in this case, I think that their slippery-slope alarmism is somewhat of a copout. We do have to heed such a warning by putting stringent conditions around ths practice, but to deny it in all cases is just cruel and unjust. Some people suffer so badly, we should allow them to take their lives in a humane way, assisted by a physician if necessary. I also think that the reason that Terry is starving to death is because of this cruel opposition to mercy killing – I mean, if we are going to let her die, why not make it painless with an injection? 6. Guardian’s Right to Choose Assisted Suicide (euthanasia) I think this is really what the Schaivo case is about. Whether or not she is in a PVS, someone else is deciding on whether she lives or dies. In this case, I think we need to allow spouses to make that decision, *unless*
- the ward is not truly in a PVS – we should be able to monitor if they have emotional suffering due to their treatment or lack of treatment
- there is cause to doubt the guardian’s motives, as there is in this case
- we have not already done all we can do to rehab the ward – which in this case, it seems that we have NOT because of the *husband’s* decision.
I think this is a strong argument for letting Terry live. 7. Slippery Slope of Euthanasia Even if we agree with allowing a person to take their own life with assisted suicide, what about putting to death anyone who meets the conditions of PVS or other terminal condition? This would mean first of all that any guardian would be free to put their wards to sleep, and second, it could lead to doing the same to those who are wards of the state. That is sounding dangerous. Here’s where the slippery-slope argument needs to be heeded. We might start out with PVS, but what about extreme suffering like spina-biffida? What about mental retardation? Just severe retardation? How severe is severe enough? 8. Does a guardian’s right to make decisions also apply to abortion and the mother’s right to choose? This whole case has some bearing on the abortion debate. I mean, if a husband can put an ailing spouse down because "she would have wanted it that way", can we also abort if we think, for example, a Down’s Syndrome child would not want to suffer? That’s the type of question that links these together. 9. Does the ward’s right to life also apply to the pre-born child’s right to life? If Terry Schiavo can be put to death because she is inconvenient, it would seem that the same logic would apply to the unborn. Pro-lifers argue that the Terry Schiavo death-logic is consistent with pro-abortion logic, and should not be tolerated. I tend to agree in principle, except that in Terry’s case there is the added detail that she is possibly always going to be in a PVS, while a child will grow up to have a future. 10. Do the feds have the right to interfere with state’s decisions? As Aaron points out, most conservatives are, in principle, not in favor of the feds interfering with states’ rights, and so are not big fans of the recent Bush-led federal efforts to save Terry’s life, even though they want Terry to live. They say this is improper, just like Roe v. Wade. NPR had an interesting interview about this, it seems there is some precedent for this (President Lincoln), but it still may not be constitutional. This is one of the conservative arguments, BTW, against Roe v. Wade – it interferes with states’ rights. However, in the case for life, while federal legislation may not be the answer, we may need a constitutional amendment to preserve life – and I totally agree with that. CONCLUSION As Bugs Bunny once said "that gives me a conclusion of the brain." There are a LOT of issues brought up in this case, and I am disgusted with the illogic and duplicity, as seen in:
- the conservatives’ dogmatism against the right to die, which has contributed to Terry’s painful death instead of a peaceful, morphine induced death
- the liberals’ dogmatism for a person’s rights (Terry’s or her husband’s?) to the point of letting someone suffer a cruel death
- the liberals’ dogmatism that is not giving time for due diligence in making sure that Terry has had all of the tests and chances for rehab before putting her to death (I don’t think the last 15 years of data is enough
- both liberal and conservative polarization and slippery-slope fear-mongering in issues that we should discuss and make reasonable rules around.
How the Law Has Failed Terri Schiavo
In a 2-1 ruling issued this morning, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied requests by Terri Schiavo’s family to have her feeding tube reinserted thus allowing the state-sanctioned murder of Ms. Schiavo to continue. Her parents have filed an appeal with the U. S. Supreme Court. Although the Court has previously refused to get involved in this case there is no way to tell what they will do with this appeal since they have heard only a couple of similar cases in the past.
Full 11th Circuit Court Denies Appeal in Terri Schiavo Case
In a 10-2 decision this afternoon, the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear a petition from Terri Schiavo’s parents to have her feeding tube reinserted. Her parents have stated they will appeal to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Florida are scrambling to try to pass a bill that will help Terri Schiavo. Governor Jeb Bush has already said that he will sign the bill. The key senators can be contacted by e-mail by clicking on this link.
UPDATE 5:00PM EST: The Florida Senate has rejected a bill that would have allowed Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube to be reinserted. Terri’s fate now lies in the hands of the U. S. Supreme Court.
My favorite politician – Howard Dean
Howard Dean continues his 50-state tour of Biblical ignorance. Go and see him expound on his favorite New Testament book – Job. Be amazed at his ability to take virtually ever possible verse out of context and force a political meaning on it to benefit Democrats. Stand in awe of his….Dan Ratheresqe courage as he chastizes the Republicans for their concern of money while immediately turning around and requesting campaign donations. Do not miss out on your chance to witness the Howard Dean Biblical Ignorance Tour 2005. Coming to a southern or western city near you.
Courts Take Another Step Toward Murdering Terri Schiavo
U. S. District Court Judge James Whittemore has become the latest accessory to Terri Schiavo’s murder by refusing to allow her feeding tube to be reinserted. Judge Whittemore based his decision on the finding that Terri’s parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments. Terri’s parents will now appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in an attempt to reverse the ruling.
Although there are many that will claim it is not worth fighting for Terri’s life, Cal Thomas points out today that this case has substantial implications for our society at large:
The Schiavo case should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a flow that began in modern times with abortion-on-demand and will continue, if not stopped, with euthanasia. Once a single category of life is devalued, all other categories quickly become vulnerable.
Objective and Subjective Meaning
Meaning, like truth, has both objective and subjective components. Over the centuries, wise men, spiritualists, and philosophers have observed the human condition and concluded that certain principles and practices lead to relative ruin and unhappiness, while others lead to meaning and satisfaction. This is why we have the concept of a "wasted life." Those who like to say there is no such thing as a wasted life should consider starving children or oppressed peoples. So, we might ask, what principles and practices for human living lead to satisfaction and meaning? To start, here’s a nice list that describes our primary task, that of LOVE:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
- 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
And here’s a nice set of principles to go by as well:
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things.
- Philippians 4:8
One of my favorite authors and authorities on the objective principles that direct us towards objectively meaningful pursuits, Stephen Covey (arguably a modern day wiseman).
Principles are like lighthouses. They are natural laws that cannot be broken. As Cecil B. deMille observed…in the Ten Commandments, "It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law."… "Objective reality" [is composed of] principles that govern human growth and happiness – natural laws that are woven into the fabric of every civilized society throughout history and comprise the roots of every family and institution that has endured and prospered. The reality of such principles or natural laws becomes obvious to anyone who thinks deeply and examines the cycles of social history. These principles surface time and time again, and the degree to which people in a society recognize and live in harmony with them moves them toward either survival and stability or disintegration and destruction. The principles are not esoteric, mysterious, or "religious" ideas….These principles are part of most every major enduring religion, as well as enduring social philosophies and ethical systems. They are self-evident and can easily be validated by any individual….One way to quickly grasp the self-evident nature of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an effective life based on their opposites.
- The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, pp. 33-35.
In Covey’s even more excellent book, First Things First, he identifies many principles and arenas that we should be observing and endeavoring in, in order to succeed in a meaningful, satisfying life – note that these principles are applicable to all humans as a rule, not just "good for some people." Without going into detail, he gives an overview of four areas in which we must develop proper perspectives and habits in order to find meaning and satisfaction. They are:
- To Love – to develop into healthy individuals, and to share ourselves and receive others
- To Live – to not waste our precious commodities of time and personal potential and resources, but to channel them into worthwhile pursuits.
- To Learn – to continue growing in mind and spirit
- To Leave a Legacy – to invest ourselves into people and institutions that have ongoing value.
In summary, the meaning of life is well defined through objective, self-evident principles and practices that lead to meaning. Life’s activities are not just meaningful because I decide to assign meaning to them. However, there is a subjective component to meaning. Some things may not have "objective meaning," but for me, they may have meaning. For instance, watching baseball might not have objective meaning to all mankind, but to me, because I used to play baseball, watching it does have meaning (positive or negative). So in this context, you can say that things only have meaning if I give them meaning for myself. There is a danger, however, in the subjective assignment of meaning – if I fail to assign meaning to things that have objective meaning, or assign meaning to things that do not have objective meaning, I may miss out on meaning, or be controlled by things that are meaningless, respectively. The more our subjective mental map of meaning aligns with the objective map, the more successful, meaningful, and free we really are. It’s not that assigning meaning to watching baseball is harmful, but if it assumes supreme meaning for me, I may be hurting myself and other by missing what is actually meaningful.
