Re: Copy of: Re: Coincidences (was free will/determinism and God's plan
>>Has anyone else got any "coincidences" to share?
>>
I have several, Stephen. I'll share just one. It is part of a four page
paper I wrote last year on the duties of a Christian; it concerns
how the Lord led us to fill out our family through international
(and interracial) adoptions. What follows here is that paper -- again,
it is four pages long and the story (which non-C's must label as
"coincidences and wishful thinking" starts about 1/2 way through.
Burgy
DUTY.TXT
John W. Burgeson, Compuserve 73531,1501
Class -- Ethics, #1623, Section 6362, RVS 5001, 13:25 Tue/Thur
Analytical Paper #3
Dr. Kenneth W. Hamstra, Ph.D, instructor
March 30, 1995
On Our Duty to Others
In Peter Singer's 1972 essay, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality,"
the author makes the assumption: "... suffering and
death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad," and the
claim: "... if it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral
importance, we ought, morally, to do it."
Mr. Singer appears to base the claim on the deontological grounds of
Religious Absolutism, although this is an inference, as he does not
state it directly. He observes that one may reach his assumption by
several different routes, and identifies the claim as "almost as
uncontroversial."
My first inclination was to support the claim, for I am enjoined by
St. Paul, in I Corinthians 13, to love (agapeo) others, an action
verb; I am to hold a sincere concern for others which must be worked
out in practice, not merely spoken. Yet, upon reflection, I do not
support it; it is supererogatory. My arguments are based both on
utility and Christian idealism.
Mr. Singer's arguments are curiously mechanical. Christ told only one
person to sell all he had and give the money away, and he was told, in
addition, to join the roving band! Surely, if this were to be a
universal maxim, applicable in all times and places, it would have
been argued more in the sacred texts. It is not. Examples abound in
scripture of people "dear to God" who were very well off -- David,
Solomon, Abraham, Lazarus, and others. Paul writes to "rich people"
explicitly (I Tim 6:17) without a suggestion that they impoverish
themselves for the poor. Mother Teresa may well have been called to do
so, but it does not follow that everyone has been similarly called.
The Singer claim also gives no limits on helping others. There are no
third party considerations. If I drain myself for the poor, what then
of my dependents? What then of me -- am I to cast myself as a burden
on others? What of my dependents? How much do I hold back?
More seriously, the Singer claim gives God no credit. If I don't act,
someone will die. That places me at the head of the solution. In
charge. I'm not comfortable there; I know better.
Finally, the claim leaves people open to foolishness -- such as the
church ladies who supposedly visited Mother Teresa, insisted in
staying overnight with her "to save money," and came down with
dysentery the next day, negating their good intentions.
The missing piece in the puzzle, I assert, and Singer, raised in the
Christian faith, might be questioned why he did not discuss it, is
that the Christian has direct access to God, and thus is able to
receive direct "marching orders." Thus, I add to Singer's claim, as
follows, to make it useful:
SINGER: " . . . if it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral
importance, we ought, morally, to do it."
BURGESON: "We must recognize, however, that our ability to recognize
such situations is greatly impaired by our finite humanity; we see the
future but dimly; rightly choosing between alternatives is impractical
at best; often impossible. It is necessary, therefore, to have
direction, and that needs to be from God. The Christian, therefore,
will establish communication with the Almighty, ask for and expect
direction, and when direction comes, execute it as faithfully as he
can, remembering John Locke's words in his letter on Toleration:
"Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the
first place and above all things, make war on his own lusts and
vices." Note that Locke puts that condition first!
It sounds easy. And error-producing! Different people will hear
different directions. Some will even hear bad directions, the
Christian Segregationalists of the 60s, for instance. It is a messy
process, and consensus is not to be expected. But it is, I assert, the
only one that makes any sense. Locke suggests property limits, in
CONCERNING CIVIL GOVERNMENT (section 30), but he wrote in an era of
population sparseness, and his viewpoint may be of limited usefulness
in today's complex world. Locke's God, however, is our God, too.
Capable of giving direction, when asked.
I feel strongly on this subject, and will tell a personal experience
to argue for the claim as revised. It was in the late 60s when my wife
and I wrestled with it most deeply. Christians for ten years, we
tithed because that seemed "right," but we were living well, we had a
roof overhead, decent clothes, offspring, etc. And there were children
"out there" starving! The question was not "should we act," but "how
and to what extent should we act?" We began modestly, by sponsoring a
boy in a Taiwanese orphanage. All it cost us was a little money and a
letter now and then. Nice to do -- not the answer. It was a mechanical
solution.
One day we realized that we had been focussing on the wrong question.
"How do you feed all the starving children in the world" was not the
question God was asking us. Instead, it was, "How do you take care of
just one?" Not "feed," but "take care of." Not money, but commitment.
At that point, genuine communication began. In 1972, after much
prayer, we adopted a Korean orphan to add to our own five children.
This was the part the Lord wanted us to play. A life commitment to a
person; time and energy and sweat and tears and laughter and Little
League and PTA and emergency trips to the hospital, not just money.
Life then was good. We knew the Singer arguments, and we were doing
"what we could." We stopped asking the Lord about such things. Bad
decision! He had more in mind! In 1973, we bought an unfinished house,
moved into the shell and began work. It was much more work than we had
anticipated. Finishing construction became our top priority. One
Sunday, to save time, we skipped our home church for one closer to
home. The Sunday School class was hosted by a guest missionary, only
there for that one particular Sunday. He directed our thoughts to
Psalm 127. Weary with house-building, it was as if God were speaking.
He was.
Vs 1. Unless the Lord builds the house, their labor
is futile who build it. ...
Vs 2. It is useless for you to be early in rising
while being late in sitting up,
eating the bread of toil, ...
Vs 3. Behold, children are a legacy from the Lord;
the fruit of the womb is His reward.
Vs 4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man,
so are the children of one's youth.
Vs 5. Blessed is the man who has his quiver full of them.
Home at noon. Carol went for a walk. I had an "inner view" of two more
children, a brother/sister, who needed salvaging. I could "see" them!
Sat down; wrote a letter to the adoption agency. Carol came home with
the same "marching orders." We gathered the children for a family
council; all carefully signed the letter with us. Mailed it.
As 1973 went along, we prayed for these unknown children. Gradually
they became real -- we could "see" them. Nothing mystical about all
this -- just everyday communication from One who loves us. One hundred
percent subjective and one hundred percent genuine. Then, on January
14, 1974, a letter came from the agency: "Sorry. We have no
appropriate brother-sister pair for you." We were devastated. What was
wrong? Had we engaged in collective wishful thinking?
On January 23, 1974, our response to the agency, carefully drafted,
and certainly prayed over, was that we would wait; they did exist;
they would show. Documentation received later show that David, 4,
holding the hand of his sister Mary, 2, orphaned during the winter of
1973-74, walked into the Seoul office of the agency on January 25,
1974, two days after we posted our reply. They arrived at our home to
join our family on May 30th, 1974. Both are, today, vibrant young
adults, with family roots, out of the nest and soaring on their own
life journeys.
Our children tell us they remember well the 1974-1976 years. Short
resources, powdered milk, an elderly station wagon with "glass" body,
an unfinished house. They were good years though; we missed no meals.
Nor did we get marching orders to adopt more children. Several years
later, with some of our older children out on their own, we had foster
children. Again, the feeling of "mechanical" was back. We were older;
the Lord was not using us that way anymore.
If the Christian faith is anything, it must be everything; if God is
"personal," then He will honor requests for direction. Like all
children, we will sometimes go astray, sometimes misunderstand His
voice, but if we sincerely strive to listen, we will not often find
ourselves far off the path. The words of Jesus on this subject, in
John 14:21, have spoken this to me:
He that has my commandments, and keeps them,
he it is that loves me:
and he that loves me, shall be loved by my Father,
and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
In summary, I have argued against Singer's claim, as stated, and in
favor of a modification of the claim, and I have directed my arguments
only to those sympathetic to the claims of Jesus Christ. I have no
word for others.
John W. Burgeson