Laboring in Vain?

“Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:58

Such is Paul’s climactic application for 1 Corinthians 15. He has just argued for the reality and centrality of bodily resurrection for the Christian, how we will one day receive a new, glorious body and live forever in perfect fellowship with God and others. Therefore, because of that great reward which awaits us, we are to stand firm in our faith. Okay, I can see that. An eternity of bliss is worth a few years of enduring hardships. That makes sense well enough. But then Paul adds one more sentence in which he states that our “labor in the Lord is not in vain.”

This is another case where it seems that doctrine and experience are at odds (at least for me). Let me illustrate. I always seem to get the tough nuts to crack, so to speak. The non-Christians in my circle of friends historically have not been all that interested in adopting Christianity as their religion of choice. By and large, they enjoy discussing religion and spiritual things, they have no qualms listening to my point of view, and I get the impression that they might even respect me for believing as I do and living out that belief system. But they have no interest whatsoever in becoming a follower of Christ. The usual culprit is their intellect. They are held prisoner by the idea that things just aren’t that simple as the gospel message would claim. The Bible wasn’t written to be taken so literally. What can we really know about this Jesus guy, anyway? There are so many different religions out there, how can there be just one that’s correct? And the list goes on. Although I know arguments to counter each of these questions, I have also learned that often they don’t do much good. This is what I have come across as I do the work of evangelism: Lots of prayer, lots of good discussions, lots of good friendships for which I am thankful, even, but ultimately no decisions for Christ.

It’s hard to look at this situation repeat itself over and over again in my life and believe that the work is not in vain. What am I accomplishing? What good have I done? How am I screwing up? Perhaps I am being too pessimistic. Perhaps one day I will find out that I did more than I thought. But I won’t know until that day.

I suppose in the end, I have to accept the fact that I did what was asked of me—I have tried, in the power of the Spirit, to be faithful. The results are not up to me. But when one labors long and hard with nothing tangible to show for it, the word failure does crop up in one’s mind.

Am I a faithful failure?

Karma: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

*Let us put aside the fact that American karma is a bastardized version of the actual Hindu/Buddhist doctrine. I am only discussing the American version here.

Something Seems Fishy Here

I received an interesting link from my father-in-law this morning, which I think is very much worth sharing.

Like I said, interesting. Then I stumbled across the transcript of President Obama's weekly address, given today (emphases added). Here are some excerpts:

So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care...

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history...insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts – and reform will make sure it is.

Insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime...

Maybe I should email flag@whitehouse.gov--Obama's words seem awfully fishy to me.