The Anatomy Of Belief

by Tommy Karlas

      For most of my life I thought that everyone, including myself, formed their beliefs purely on an intellectual basis.  That we all kind of empirically went through the evidence and based our conclusions and beliefs (or disbeliefs) on what we discovered.  But psychology and sociology have come to show us what Aristotle said over 2300 years ago; everyone’s beliefs are influenced by three factors…pathos (personal/emotional), ethos (cultural/societal), and logos (intellectual/logic).  So intellectual reasons are only part of what shapes our belief systems.  Each factor may have more of an impact than others, depending on the person, but everyone is influenced by all three.

       The intellectual factor is obviously based on evidence, logic, and reason.  This is more of a scientific, or empirical, element in what effects our beliefs.  The personal/emotional factor is based on our own personal desires, fears, and past experiences.  And the societal factor is based on what is common in our specific culture or what those around us believe.  We may be more inclined to believe something because someone we respect, or look up to, believes it (or not believe it because someone we don't like does).  Or because it may be a common accepted belief in our specific time or culture.  So as much as we would think we are completely objective when deciding what we believe, we are not.  Whether it’s political, religious, or whatever, we are all bias to a certain extent.  But by coming to understand this about ourselves and recognizing our own biases, we can learn how to rise above them to an extent and ignore irrelevant influences.

       So an example of a personal factor would be Freud’s argument that belief in God is just wishful thinking that comes from the human need for an eternal father figure.  But the Christian could just as easily say that the unbeliever doesn’t believe because he doesn’t want to be held accountable for anything.  As many 18th Century philosophers have said in one way or another…if there is no god, then anything goes; Everything is permissible.  Another personal component of why someone understandably might not believe in God is because they’ve had an extraordinary amount of suffering in there life.  Or it could also be that their only exposure to Christianity has been with self-righteous, judgmental, hateful people.  But to the former, there are just as many extraordinary sufferers whose suffering only reenforces their faith.  And to the latter, you can’t judge any philosophy by it’s abuse.

       An example of a societal factor would be when someone says we only have a certain religious belief because we were raised that way or because of our geographical location.  In other words, if you were born in the Middle East, you are most likely going to be a Muslim.  Or if you were born in India, you’re probably a Hindu.  And there is some truth to that.  But someone could say an unbeliever only has a pluralistic, secular take on spirituality because they live in a individualistic, democratic, western culture.  It’s also interesting to note that although 88% of people in India are Hindu, 89% of people in the Middle East are Muslims, and so on…there is a prevalent percentage of Christians in all countries (something exclusive to Christianity) and Christianity is the only religion that grows mainly through conversion, as opposed to just being automatically passed down.

        Regardless, none of this speaks to whether any one religion, or belief, is true or not.  As far as Christianity goes, there is really only one question you have to ask: Is Jesus really who He said He is?  In other words, did He really rise from the dead?  It’s no small, or easy, question.  Someone may immediately write it off because of negative experiences they’ve had with Christians.  Or because they have certain problems with the Bible.  But sometimes those quick defeater beliefs keep us from objectively considering Christianity, and giving it the consideration, in my opinion, it warrants. 

       Just a small example of what I mean is some people say they could never believe in the Bible because it talks about slavery without condemning it.  But slavery in Biblical times is much different from the 17th and 18th century slavery we immediately think of because 1) slavery in ancient times was universal and part of the conquest ethic everywhere; it had no defenders because it had no critics. And 2) slaves had rights back then; It was more like indentured servitude.  They could have a family or often buy out their contracts or have slaves of their own.  That in no way makes slavery right, but it does contextualize the Bible’s words in its own ancient time.  Plus it was very much largely Christian groups like the Quakers and William Wilberforce who led the abolishment of slavery. 

      I’m not saying this to prove Christianity true, but only to show we should at least be willing to question our premise sometimes because it’s possible it may just be a straw-man argument for other hesitations we really have.  And unfortunately, many people who don’t believe in Christianity have inaccurate ideas about what Christianity is.  So although Christians should never force their beliefs on anyone, it never hurts to at least make clear to someone what they’re rejecting (and, of course, only if it’s something they want to look at).  And I would never suggest someone should believe in Jesus Christ because it makes them feel better or because so many people do.  But that we believe only because we think it’s true.  Because we’ve looked at the evidence (not proof) of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.  Because we’ve seen the impoverishment of our own souls and therefore see the need for His sacrifice.  We may never be able to get all the way to proof (as with many things we believe), but faith can pick up where reason leaves off.

When Christians Keep People From Christ

by Tommy Karlas

       Recently a friend of mine, who is not a Christian, told me he grew up very involved in church and church activities with his family.  He said he was listening to the preacher when he was around 11 or 12 and remembers thinking how much he wished what he was hearing was true.  But when he looked at how the adults in the church really behaved and spoke outside of the Sunday morning service, he decided it was all BS.  In the sermons he would hear about a loving God who wanted us to love and be compassionate towards others, and not to judge lest we be judged.  But an hour later the same people sitting in those pews, listening to the same sermon he just heard, would suddenly become incredibly petty and judgmental.  Once he became old enough to make his own choice, he understandably stopped going and wrote the whole thing off for good.

       Have you, or someone you know, experienced something similar to this?  In our culture we hear people call Christians hypocrites all the time.  And it’s examples like this which can perpetuate such sentiments and turn people off to Christianity.  How many times have we heard someone say “I believe in God but not organized religion?”(something I used to say)  Which by organized religion, we really meant institutionalized Christianity.  Or how about some of the people you sometimes see on street corners protesting in the name of Jesus who clearly have nothing but hate and condemnation in their hearts?  If this is many people’s only exposure to Christianity, then it’s no wonder they don’t want anything to do with it.  And sure, there are many reasons why someone may or may not believe in Christ that are not purely rational.

      But as St Augustine pointed out over 1600 years ago, we should never judge any philosophy by it’s abuse.  And if you’ve had almost any exposure to Jesus and his words whatsoever, then it’s easy to see people like this are not following Him.  Not that anyone does perfectly, but it does seem too often to be religious people who look down on others and have more a spirit of self-righteousness and veiled-contempt than a spirit of love.  What’s ironic about when it’s Christians is they are still believing in a merit system type of salvation; they still think they are saved by all their good deeds and not by Christ alone.  And believing this can not only lead to believing God is in your debt, but also into becoming very narrow-minded, legalistic, and judgmental.

       The truth is none of us live up to our own standards that we hold others to, and all human beings are hypocrites to a certain extent.  And the impulse to judge others is something we all have to fight all over again everyday.  But if we are going to call Jesus Christ our Lord, then we have to take seriously what he says.  We have to try our very best to follow His teachings and example, while at the same time knowing we are not saved by our own actions.    And we should never assume to know the true state of another person’s heart because, for all we know, someone who has never stepped foot into a church might be closer to the spirit of God than someone who sits in a pew every Sunday morning (though I believe church is important).  C.S. Lewis said “true humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.”  And that kind of humility leads to compassion and forgiveness towards others because that is exactly what Christ has given to us on the cross.  

       There are all sorts of ways people come to trust in Jesus Christ.  And God will work in a person’s heart as He sees fit.  So we don’t want to be too overbearing with our beliefs because that can turn folks off from Him too.  But the most persuasive thing we could ever do to bring someone to Christ is to be Christ-like.  What I mean is our willingness to obey Him—by forgiving, loving, praying for, suffering-long, and keeping a soft heart towards not only our friends, but our enemies—will do more to show the love of Christ and bring someone to Him than anything else.  What is more, it will bring us closer to Him.   

Genesis & Evolution

by Tommy Karlas

       In the past couple of decades there has been a division not only among Christians, but also between some believers and unbelievers, about evolution and the age of our universe.  I know these are probably taboo issues for some, but I think it’s important because there can be radically inaccurate ideas about both.  First, let’s look at the age of the universe.  There is something like one third of American Christians that believe the universe is only 6000 years old.  I think some Christians feel they have to believe and defend that because their faith hinges on a very literal reading of the first creation story in Genesis 1 (God creating everything in six days).  

       But just as St Augustine said all the way back in the fourth century AD, we must be very careful about that which we hang the hat of our faith on.  Because even Augustine back then believed that the first creation story was not meant to be interpreted as literally happening in six days.  In fact, the hebrew word for “day” was mostly used to describe a period of time not 24 hours.

       The Bible is a massive and diverse piece of literature and each book and verse must be read in context and in the way the authors intended it to be.  To me, that is the most literal way anything can be read.  The first creation story in the book of Genesis is not to be read as scientific but as allegorical.  That doesn’t mean God didn’t really create everything.  After all, allegory is an abstraction, but it still points to a concrete reality.  Once they start with the first man, Adam in the second creation story, they are then intended to be read as history.  Just like when you read the Psalms and Proverbs, they are intended to be read as a wisdom genre.  And other parts of scripture are prophetic and law.  

       For instance, in the first creation story there was light before God created the sun on the fourth day.  When looked at as allegorical it makes perfect sense because most people worshipped the sun and other natural things as gods before Judaism (monotheism-belief in one God).  This is a way for the author to show the sun is not a god but merely a part of the naturally created order.  So because we as Christians do not want to exclude and disregard other forms of knowledge like science, geology, archeology (which often support the Christian faith and the Bible), we should take Augustine’s advice as to be careful what our faith is hinged on.

    Next let’s look at evolution.  Today there are many scientists whose faith is only strengthened by evolution, not weakened, like Francis Collins (who mapped the human genome) and John Polkinghorne (who discovered quarks inside of atoms).  To them it makes more sense that the patient God they believe in would bring life about through natural processes as opposed to an arbitrary snap of the fingers.  There are three points as far as Darwinian evolution goes.  1)  Natural selection only explains what happens after you already have life (the first single cell organism) and how it evolves from there.  It has nothing to say about how the first single cell came to be.  And the single cell is the most basic and essential building block of life.  It’s where DNA resides, which is the most wondrous and complicated aspect of life.

       2)  Darwin’s atheism was not because of his theory, it was because his daughter died at a very young age.  This terrible tragedy made him lose his faith in a creator for some time.  But he himself would have told you that nothing about his theory refutes God.  In fact, a young seminary student wrote him a letter thanking him because she’d wondered for so long how God created humans and his explanation was very informative.  Darwin was so proud of this letter that he printed it in subsequent editions of “The Origin of Species.”

    And 3) even with the probability that we humans evolved from apes, there’s more questions this raises than answers from a naturalistic viewpoint.  Because for most of us, it’s easy to step back and look at the difference between an ape and a person.  Namely our consciousness, or our awareness of our awareness.  Or how about our ability to know we will die someday or even just draw a picture?  Has there ever been one animal or ape that can draw a picture, let alone create art or science or do math or reflect on life, beauty, and love?  No. Because that’s what it means to be created in the image of God.  

       There are many things we share with the beasts which are a part of being a biological creature, but being made in the image of God is not one of them.  And though none of these issues are anything worth dividing over (though some do), they are important because we do not want to seem overly dogmatic to the true seeker who may believe in these things, as I do.  

What Absolute Good & Evil Reveal

by Tommy Karlas

       In my early twenties I went through a period of time I did not believe in God.  I was raised Christian and always believed up until then, but suddenly found myself doubting everything I had ever taken for granted.  As I felt then, so I think many feel today that it is no longer sufficient to blindly inherit the faith passed down, but to honestly look at our doubts and weigh the evidence for ourselves.  Before I could even consider Christianity, I had to honestly ask myself if there was even a God at all.  Part of that was looking at science and what could be empirically proven (which is in my post Science & God below).  But the other part of the argument, which C.S. Lewis forced me to look at, was if there really is such a thing as universal right and wrong, or objective good and evil.  

       Because if all of existence is just an accident…a result of time + matter + chance…then there is no such thing as objective right and wrong.  There may be things we personally, or culturally, think are good or bad, but that is only subjective or an opinion, if there is no purpose to life.  And yet, we all have this strong sense of right and wrong.  We all have this standard for the way things ought to be which we judge the world, and ourselves, by every single day of our lives.    We all have moral feelings and a conscience; the voice inside our heads that’s always imposing on us what we should or shouldn’t do.  The question is do these moral feelings have an objective bases in reality, apart from personal preference?   

       Because if there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong or good and bad, then the very thing that would make them absolute would have to be outside, or above, humans themselves.  The very thing that makes right and wrong objective would have to be a reference point outside of our own personal feelings or opinions.  In other words, if there is a universal, objective moral law, there must be a moral law giver.  

       Now someone at this point might say it is the culture, or society, which decides right and wrong.  But if that’s the case, then 51% of a culture could decide infanticide is fine (i.e..China & India).  Or they could decide that female genital mutilation is acceptable (just as there are over 30 countries today practicing this deplorable act).  No!  Everyone reading this knows that it is wrong, and that it is absolutely wrong.  But if no set of moral ideas were better or truer than others, we could not say it's wrong.  And yet we do because we believe that some moralities are better than others.  And the moment we say one is “better” than another, we are measuring both by an absolute standard, admitting there is a real Right, independent of what people think or feel, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. 

       So if by seeing there is an absolute moral law, there must be a moral law giver, God…then which view of God does this lead us to?  There are basically two equal and opposite popular views of God, according to the Bible, that miss the mark.  One is the moralist, the other is a relativist.  A moralist is someone who believes they are moral and good, and therefore they look down on all those immoral folks who don’t live up to their standards.  This is a trap religious people can fall into.  The relativist, however, believes that God is whatever you make Him to be and puts personal happiness/fulfillment above all else.  The moralist thinks he saves himself by following God’s law, while the relativist flat-out rejects the law and becomes his own god.  (The older and younger brothers in Christ’s parable of the prodigal son are the two sides of this same coin)

       The truth is we all have these two opposing forces battling inside of us.  We all have God’s moral law, or the Golden Rule, written on our hearts, and yet we all naturally want to make ourselves our own god.  And we all hold everyone up to a standard that even we, ourselves, do not live up to.  In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says “First, human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.  Secondly, they do not in fact behave in that way.  They know the Law of Nature; they break it.  These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”

       In fact, you could sum up the Bible by saying the Old Testament articulates the law and shows us how through free will human nature is fallen and unable to live up to it, while the New Testament shows us God’s answer and plan all along through Jesus Christ.  And it shows us who God is in as much as our human minds can understand; God is perfect, just, and holy.  And the only way he could allow us to be with Him ultimately without compromising His justness and holiness is to become a man, live a perfect life, and raise us up Himself through the cross.  And if we allow that to really penetrate our hearts, it will keep us from thinking we can save ourselves, while still desiring to be good and have a healthy fear of the Lord.  And if we let Him, Christ will slowly, though not quite in this lifetime, make us into something as beautiful and perfect as He is.  

What Makes Christianity Unique

by Tommy Karlas

       There is a somewhat popular post-modern idea in our time that says all religions are basically the same (an idea really only endorsed by Hinduism.)  And up to a point that is true.  In the book “What’s So Great About Christianity,” the author says “all religions are an attempt to solve the dilemma outlined in Pascal’s ‘Pensees.’  Pascal notes that for thousands of years man employed great effort to solve certain basic problems.  We want to have peace in the world.  We want to live in harmony with one another.  We want to raise our children well.  We want our lives to matter.  Pascal says we have been at this for a very long time, so why haven’t we solved any of these problems?”  

       To put it another way, we all have this idea, or standard, for the way things ought to be but are not.  And even we, ourselves, do not live up to that standard because we are human and flawed.  In our natural default mode we are sometimes governed by our self-centered and destructive desires.  And we give in to those desires because our will is often weak.  All religions pretty much diagnose the problem this way.

       So in one sense, we all live at this lower level and all religions are attempts to raise us up to that higher, divine level.  But here’s the difference between Christianity and every other religion:  All other religions, in one way or another, say you can fix yourself by yourself.  In other words, they are based on the merit system; you can save yourself if your good deeds outweigh your bad.  For Hindus, it’s Karma that will decide whether you come back in the next life as a billionaire or a cockroach.  Judaism and Islam say you will go to heaven if you follow certain laws.  Buddhism doesn’t have an after-life or God, but solves the problem of man’s selfishness by prescribing the elimination of the “self” through meditation and self-renunciation (renouncing possessions, sensual pleasure, etc…).  

       However, Christianity’s premise is much different because it claims that no matter how hard you try, man cannot reach the divine level.  It is way too high.  God must come down to man’s level and raise us up Himself.  And yet, sometimes we have a tendency to say you just need to be a good person.  But if that’s all that’s necessary, then Christ’s sacrifice on the cross would be void and in vein.  That would mean our justification comes from ourselves and could cause us to become legalistic and judgmental, or think God owes us because we’re good.  The whole point of Christianity is we can’t do it ourselves.  And it is only when we try our very best to be good that we understand the most how hard it really is.  In fact, it’s impossible.  Thus making the necessity for the crucifixion.  So doing good is not the cause of our salvation, but rather hopefully the result of it.  

       Another problem this leads to, and people sometimes have with Christianity, is they say it’s too exclusive; that no one can say they have the one true religion because all religions are the same.  But this is false because everyone (and every religion) has an exclusive take on spiritual reality.  If someone says (in the interest of inclusivity) no one has a superior take on spiritual things, they are undermining their own premise because that is a superior take on spiritual reality.  If someone says no one should try to convert anybody to their view of universal truth, that is a universal truth claim that they want the listener to convert to.  There’s no way for them to know that all religions are equal unless they assume the kind of knowledge they say nobody has.  So the “exclusive” problem gets us no where because everyone has an exclusive take on life and spiritual things.

       The real question is what exclusive beliefs are most likely true and most lead you to love and be humble and to serve even your opponents?  Which set of exclusive beliefs would most lead to peace on earth?   Because at the heart of Christianity’s beliefs is a man dying for His enemies and loving people who don’t love Him.  The Christian belief is I’m a sinner saved by grace alone and I assume others may be my moral superiors; because I’m not saved by my moral superiority but grace alone.  One of the best quotes I’ve ever heard is “the church isn’t a museum for pristine saints but a ward for broken sinners.”

       So on one hand some non—religious people have their exclusive beliefs that look down their noses at those people with their primitive religion.  On the other hand, some religious people have their exclusive beliefs that make them think they’re moral, which makes them look down on everybody they think is immoral (which turns people off to Christianity).  But the true gospel of Christ are exclusive beliefs that make me not want to trample on others but to serve, love, and be soft-hearted towards them.  Because when we see how much we’ve been forgiven and blessed, it makes us want to do likewise to others.  Not perfectly, but imperfectly.  And that’s not only the difference between Christianity and all other religions, but also the difference between Christianity and religion.

Science & Religion

by Tommy Karlas

       Up until very recent times there has been a sort of myth in contemporary culture that science and belief in God are incompatible.  While it is true that roughly half of all scientists are unbelievers, a select few say their unbelief is because of their science.   And this still leaves half of them who do believe in God.  However, those few unbelievers say that you don’t need religion because science tells us everything we could ever need to know.  But can science really answer all the important questions?  An MIT physicist, Ian Hutchinson, says in his book “Monopolizing Knowledge” that while science is really important, it is limited to it’s particular kind of knowledge.  He calls this claim that science can answer everything “scientism.”  Because when it comes to the big questions like: why are we here?  what is our purpose?  where are we going?…science has very little to say about these things.  It’s not the right tool set for those questions.

       So science is not contrary to religion, it’s complementary to it.  Indeed, many of the people that founded and built up science believed in God like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.  They started from their theistic, or deistic, belief that the universe was rational because it had a Creator.  Why would we expect there to be any intelligence or order in nature from a purely materialistic, or naturalistic viewpoint?  And in fact,  many unbelieving scientists have come to believe in God because of science.  One of the most famous and outspoken atheists of the twentieth century, Antony Flew, came to believe in God because of the incredible design and sophistication of DNA, and because of the extremely finely-tuned laws of the universe.  Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  It has it’s own language in a four letter alphabet containing 3.5 billion bits of information in exactly the right order.  Someone once said the chances of the very first single cell (which DNA was in) forming just by time + matter + chance is like a dictionary forming from an explosion of a printing press.

       However, the biggest reason Flew, and many other scientists, have come to believe in God is because of the incredible fine-tuning of the universe.  In the last several decades of scientific discovery, believing and unbelieving scientists alike have all recognized, and been astonished by, the finely tuned values of the 20 or so constants that govern the universe such as the force of gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, the speed of light, and so on.  

       Picture a control board with 20 nobs that control the values of these constants.  If you were to turn, or change, even one of these constant’s values in the teeny tiniest bit either way, no universe or life would exist at all.  Stephen Hawking, in his book “A Brief History Of Time,” writes that the initial conditions for the universe—it’s density and its rate of expansion—would have to be very finely tuned for the formation of stars and planets and creatures like us.  If the overall density of the universe were changed by even 0.0000000000001 percent, no stars or galaxies could have formed.  Hawking adds, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size…It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”  

       The Astrophysicist Michael Turner writes, “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bull’s-eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”  Notre Dame professor Alvin Plantiga said it would be like a poker game where one person gets dealt 20 straight hands in a row of 4 aces.  Maybe you couldn’t prove he was cheating, but he’s still going to get his butt kicked.  

       And it’s true that science cannot prove God exists the same way it can’t prove He doesn’t.  But science does show that belief in God is not unreasonable.  And there are all sorts of factors why someone may or may not believe which are not purely rational.  But the idea that “only that which can be proven empirically is true” is false.  Because even that statement cannot be empirically proven, so it falls under its own weight.   And yet, that still keeps many from exploring the real merits and possibilities of Christianity’s truth.  

       I believe it's a healthy thing to have doubts.  And we should not only acknowledge our doubts, but also the doubts of those around us.  Even Christ had his moment of doubt on the cross when he cried out “My God, My God.  Why have You forsaken Me?”  But hopefully we can also keep an open mind and try to only be interested in what is true, and be able to challenge our beliefs at any age or stage.  Because if there is a God, it will make a big difference how we live our lives and treat others and see our ultimate future.  And if we were created by someone, then nothing could be more important than knowing the Creator.

Where We Find Our Worth

by Tommy Karlas

       What thing if you lost it would almost mean you lost the will to live?  What thing if you lost it would mean almost all significance and value would be lost from your life?  We all have something we depend upon for our happiness, worth, identity, security, etc…  We all put that weight on something whether it’s social status, money, career, fame, family, beauty, or a relationship with someone, romantic or otherwise.  We all have that thing we think about that makes our life worth living.  It makes us want to get out of bed in the morning and gives us our worth and security.  It gives us our identity and purpose and is the lens through which we see ourselves.  It may be something we already have or something we strive for.  It could be something materialistic or something intangible.  It can be conscious or sub-conscious.  

       Some will know right off the bat what that thing is while many of us may be completely unaware of it.  We might even think and say its one thing but deep down it’s really something else.  Regardless, we all have something we put almost all our faith in.  We all have something we, in a sense, worship.  The only problem is, no created thing or person can bear that weight because if we lose it, our world crumbles and life doesn’t seem worth living.  Or because it suffocates under the pressure we put on it to deliver our happiness and worth as a person.  And most of the time, the thing is not even bad in itself.  It’s only when we put our ultimate value on it that it becomes bad.  

       The Bible has a very old-fashioned, even unattractive, word for this thing: idol.  When we hear the word idol, we tend to think of a golden calf or something like that, but an idol is any created thing you look at to give you what only God can give you.  The Bible says what psychology shows; we all naturally worship and serve something other than the Creator in our natural default mode.  But when you take even a good thing—a finite, created thing or person—and make it an ultimate reason for being, it will crush you.  It will always end up breaking your heart or eating you alive.  And the most insidious thing about idols is they are often unconscious; We’re not aware of them which gives them even more power over us.

       To put it another way, we all have a God-shaped hole inside of us that only God can fill.  I know my younger readers may be the hardest to convince of this because when you’re young, you have the idea all these things will fulfill you so you invest everything into them.  We think to ourselves: “I’ll be happy someday when I get: rich, married, famous, successful, someone’s approval, etc…”  Or you can worship things like your looks or independence or intellect or what other people think of you.  If you worship intellect, you’ll always feel dumb and worried about being found out.  If you worship your beauty, you’ll always feel ugly and die a thousand deaths on the way to old age every time you look in the mirror.  And so often when we finally get those things, we wake up the next day to find we are still the same people we were the day before.  How many famous people have we heard about who at the peak of their fame overdosed on drugs?  How many times have some of us put all the weight of our happiness on another person, then when disaster struck because of it, we escaped into work or partying or drugs or food.  

       There was something great in the yearning of the thing but it ended up unable to satisfy and deliver on the promise it gave us.  Often because our happiness depended upon it.  I think the more we live, the more we find that St. Augustine and C.S. Lewis had it right; if you find a desire in your heart that nothing in this world can give you, it must mean you were made for another world ultimately.   We all have something called hunger; well…there’s such a thing as food.  We all have something called thirst and there’s such a thing as water.  What about this deep yearning inside of us that no earthly thing can fulfill? 

       And this is where we can see the difference between joy and happiness.  Happiness is dependent upon circumstances whereas joy transcends circumstance because our ultimate hope is not in this world…it’s in a loving God who came to earth and lived the life I should’ve lived and died the death I should’ve died.  It’s in a God who became a man and emptied Himself of all His glory and power and payed a debt for me that I could never repay.  And all He asks in return is that I have faith in Him.  That I try to know and serve Him and love my neighbor as myself.  Not for His good, but for mine. 

       None of this means that everything will go our way or that we will escape pain and suffering.  And sometimes the answer to our prayers are no.  But if we can trust in the perfect goodness of God, and know He works all things for the ultimate good of those who love Him, then we find a peace beyond understanding that only grows stronger with time, regardless of circumstances.  

The Fourth Love

by Tommy Karlas

The ancient Greeks had four words for love: storge (affection, both physical and familial), philia (friendship), eros (romantic love), and agape (God’s love for people or Christ-like love for others).  The first three are the natural and earthly loves we call emotions, or feelings, we have for others.  The fourth love agape, however, is more of an action or intention toward someone.  It is truly love in the purest sense because it desires the best for the beloved simply for the beloved’s own sake.  It wants the best for it’s object regardless of how itself is effected or how deserving or not the object is.   It is my hope to briefly show that although familial affection, romantic love, and friendship are all good things, they can only survive and in fact, be what they were meant to be insofar as they have been raised up into agape, or unconditional love itself.

Now in reality the three natural loves have things in common and are combined and blended in different ways.  Affection can be sort of a base for the other loves the same way tonic is a base for gin, vodka, etc..  Affection is obviously a part of friendship and romantic love.  And friendship can be an element in a romantic relationship as well as familial relationship.  But none of these natural loves desire the object’s good simply for the object’s sake.  Yet in their own way, all three imitate the divine love, agape, and make us at some moments and to some people what we must come to be at all times and in all relationships.  There’s probably nothing like falling in love that would make you give up everything or do anything for someone, especially in that beginning phase.  And what more than family affection could make you love the sometimes unlovable like agape does.  Indeed like God loves us always. 

But what about the differences and dangers of the earthly and human loves?  When left to itself, eros can fool us into treating it like a god.  Taken to the extreme, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is a good example of this.  The god of eros, when falling in love, can convince us to put our new-found love above all else, including our own personal health and well-being.  Eros whispers “better to be miserable with her/him than to be happy without.”  

Or what happens when the “falling-in-love” is over and the newness wears off and/or when he or she lets us down?  Should we just give up and start all over again with someone else?  It’s true this is what happens all too often.  But if it’s what everyone did at that point, there would not be one lasting marriage or relationship in the history of the world.  And just like romantic love, friendships and family relationships too will meet their end, or become toxic, if they are put on a pedestal or are made the center of our happiness.  Why?  Because we are all flawed beings with questionable and selfish motives at times and spending any significant amount of time with one another reveals that.  Because familiarity breeds contempt.  Because we are putting second things first when we put our human relationships before God.    As C.S. Lewis said, “love ceases to be a demon only when it ceases to be a god.”  Lewis also agreed with Freud’s assessment that “all human loves carry with them the seeds of hate.”  

It’s only when our natural loves and relationships have been made second things to our relationship with God that they can truly become their best and what they were meant to be.  Because when we realize how much God loves us despite our unlovability/unloveliness, we become long-suffering and softhearted towards others, especially those we are close to.  It is true that you can have no thoughts of God’s love and get along fine with common sense, compromise, and a give-and-take adaptability.  But that give-and-take is still not love itself, the gift of God.  

It is also tempting to sometimes think that God loves us not because of what He is (love), but because of what we are, because we are intrinsically lovable.  Or the opposite…that God can’t possibly love us because we are unlovable.  There is something in all of us that doesn’t want to receive love if it is not deserved, either way.  But something amazing happens when we can accept both our soul’s impoverished state and receive and respond to what Christ did for us on the cross.  There is a peace and a gratitude that transcends understanding and our circumstances, whether good or bad, that makes our cup overflow and want to give that kind of unconditional love to others.  

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I’m not saying that we have to somehow manufacture warm feelings for someone of which we have none, but rather to act and behave towards them as if you did love them already.  As soon as we do this, Lewis tells us, we find one of the great secrets.  “When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.  If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more.  If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less.”  And it is only by receiving and responding to agape from God that we become able to exercise agape towards our friends, family, and significant others.  And even towards our enemies.  For Christ said, “whatever you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.”  It is only when we accept God’s crazy, almost unbelievable love that we can see the face of Christ in every person and act accordingly.  And, in the truest sense, love them unconditionally.