Psychology

Head or Heart?

For a pdf, see The Head, Heart, and Moral Knowledge.docx

If any knowledge is “just head knowledge,” and not “heart knowledge,
are we accountable for it?

If all knowledge is moral knowledge, can our ignorance ever be any excuse?


Can the head know something the heart cannot?
Can the heart know something the head cannot?
Or, is there a “head and heart” dichotomy?
Can we have “just head knowledge” or just “heart knowledge” about anything?
Is there something to be said for seeking “heart knowledge” in contrast to “head knowledge”?

 


” . . . intellect and emotion are simply two aspects of human nature that together are fallen and together are regenerated and sanctified. Nothing in Scripture suggests that either is superior to the other. Neither is more fallen than the other, neither is necessarily more sanctified than the other.” John Frame[1]


A common assumption is that the “head” is inferior to the “heart” because feelings are superior (more real or relational) than thoughts or ideas (or beliefs). But if all knowledge can be understood as moral, and that all moral knowledge is by its nature emotive (oriented by the human will), then the head/heart dichotomy does not stand.

In short, if it can be established that all knowledge is moral knowledge, then for everything that we know, we are accountable for it, yes, morally responsible. That is, all knowledge involves moral motions (and emotions). For instance, whenever we ignore the truth of anything in God’s creation, we are trying to think and live contrary to God’s order of creation, regardless of what it is. Indeed, to live contrary to God’s order is to live contrary to God himself; it also creates profound complications in our lives, as in for example when people try to defy the laws of physics and jump off cliffs, knowing that the reality of gravity means that people who jump off cliffs go down, but they do so anyway in the vain hope that they can fly. In this case, the knowledge of gravity is true knowledge, but the foolish “heart” ignores it. This being the case, how could we say that the knowledge of gravity is less significant (inferior), less true, less emotive, or less moral, as in just a lesser “head” knowledge? To be sure, that knowledge of gravity was indeed categorically moral (i.e., “heart”) knowledge, because it is true knowledge of God’s created world that was summarily ignored. It follows then that this knowledge is significant, of great value, true, emotive, and moral. This silly example could be applied to all other knowledge possible about the universe, and I would add to that the knowledge of God himself. There can be no, properly speaking, inferior “head”(intellectual) knowledge in the lower story, and a superior “heart” (moral/emotional) knowledge in the upper story, as follows:

Heart (emotion) – higher, superior (feelings/motions?)  faith?


Head/mind (reason) – lower, inferior (thoughts/ideas?) reason?

In response to this dualism, I propose that any knowledge about God is moral knowledge, as even in the case of one who has no proper relationship with God, or one who rejects God as Lord (as also “the demons believe, and tremble” James 2:19). Despite the fact that a person may have a broken relationship with God, the knowledge they have of God is still moral and requires of them a “heart” response (emotive), which is always either towards faith or unbelief. There is no amoral (non-moral, just “head,” or non-emotive) response to God possible. Could it then not be affirmed that all knowledge about all things is moral knowledge and therefore real, true, actual knowledge? And thus, strictly speaking, there can be no lower story (inferior) “just head knowledge” (without the heart) of God, nor of anything in God’s creation. Conversely, there can be no upper story (superior) “just heart knowledge” (without head knowledge) of God, nor of anything in God’s creation. This may be reflected in, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Mtt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lu 10:27). There does not seem to be any duality or dichotomy here between superior heart versus inferior head knowledge, but a moral imperative that governs the whole person, described in heart, soul, mind, and strength. Indivisibly, the thoughts and feelings of the whole person govern the will, perspectives, attitudes, and path of life.[2] We cannot “follow our heart” as we are so often advised, that is, emotively without our head or our reason/rationality.

By extension, we can assert that 2+2 is a moral equation, no less so than to say that God is triune, three Persons in One God. All truth statements and all true knowledge are by definition theological knowledge, since they show to us God himself. This does not mean that such “knowledge of God” itself can save us from our sin or our condemnation by God’s perfect law.  Indeed, in Romans 1, Paul describes the accurate knowledge of God and his attributes, that all people have through their observation of nature, in order to say that such knowledge does not save us from darkness nor give us a properly restored (“heart”) relationship with God. In fact, that knowledge of God causes people to suppress the truth they know because of their unrighteousness. Even more, this rejection of a true knowledge (without faith) of God leads people to create false gods out of created things and bow down and worship them! This true knowledge of God that is suppressed is not simply somehow a kind of “head” knowledge unrelated to the “heart” of a person; they are inseparably one motive-function of the whole person (emotive and cognitive). This is a good case in which we can see that the response of a person is most certainly also emotive (or emotional in the heart) and not just intellectual (cognitive in the head). The human head-heart dynamic must include moral-motions that necessarily, and indivisibly, involve both emotive sentiment and cognitive understanding.

Admittedly, standing alone, the abstract equation 2+2=4 does not seem at first glance to be a moral equation, though as a true statement it is. And, the moment you apply it to your grocery tab, or when weighing gold bullion, it is evidently moral. Can it then be concluded, as a case in point, that there is no nonmoral (“head”) knowledge here, but entirely true knowledge that has a moral application in every case. For purposes of discussion, not ontological definitions, the “heart” always integrally interrelates with the “head” because they both reside in the core of the human person as one thing: the soul (or today, the whole person). This being the case, the “heart” may be said to describe the emotive moral-motions of the “head,” but the one can never be said to function independently of the other, since they are not separate entities; that is, if all knowledge is moral knowledge. To be clear, the math equation can never be understood as just a matter of either head or heart knowledge.

The foundational principle of all reality is the law of non-contradiction, that A cannot be non A. This is the irrepressible fact of reality: that all things have unity and diversity. All things are in relation, but all things are necessarily differentiated from all other things. This is the truth of the unity and diversity of all created reality, since all things reveal and reflect the triune nature of God who has unity and distinction, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all knowledge about anything in God’s universe is in this sense moral knowledge for which we are accountable. In other words, to say we know about God, but that we are not responsible for that knowledge (as just “head knowledge”) of God implies a false dichotomy between moral and non-moral knowledge (as in the “head and heart” dichotomy).

To expand on that thought, to reject, deny, or live contrary to the fundamental truth of God’s universe, that A cannot be non A, that 2+4 cannot equal 5, that male cannot be female, that good cannot be evil, that God cannot be not God, that we humans cannot be non-human, is to reject God’s order of reality, since all things are differentiated by their nature. Considering the seriousness of this, it follows that evil originates from those created good with true knowledge of God and his creation, but who have rejected God and his order of creation and reality. They have broken down the unity and distinction principle of the law of non-contradiction, as the evil one asked, “Did God really say  . . . ?” in which the first temptation was to deny God’s own declaration of distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, obedience and disobedience, truth and falsehood. To reject God’s definitions, distinctions, differentiations is a moral rejection of the true knowledge of God and his creation, and this does not happen in some part of the soul, or person, called the “head” as distinct from the “heart”; the rejection of such knowledge involves the whole will of the whole person, the emotive-cognition of the “heart and mind” together, if you will.

The Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek terms give a complete picture of the whole person through the very frequent interconnection of body imagery of the eyes, heart, head, tongue, hands, and feet. These images and motifs are used so frequently in the Bible, we hardly notice them to ask why they are so prevalent, and what they imply.  For example, “head” is used many times in the Bible in a literal sense, as referring to one’s physical head, and sometimes in a figurative (symbolic) sense as referring either to authority and leadership, or to rulership (as in military, political, or marital contexts). Paul also expands this in application to the relationship of Christ the Bridegroom to his church the Bride (Col 1:18; 2:19; Eph 4:15; 5:23). But “head” is never used in the Bible in some dichotomous way as pitted against the “heart.” Similarly, the terms for “heart” in the Bible describe figurative aspects of what it means to be a human person (though very little reference to the physical organ of the heart). The biblical heart-terms cover the range of human personality and the intellect/mind, the will and emotions, desire, as well as one’s memory.  As a theological metaphor and common motif, heart-terms provide many central themes related to what constitutes a human being and what motivates them. It follows then that usually there is a moral component to the motif of the heart, as related to its corruptions, and thus a connection with the central gospel theme of the universal need for all humans to have a “new heart.” That is, as often described a, “circumcised heart,” one transformed (regenerated) by the Spirit of God; it is one in which the person is transformed towards true faithfulness and true love towards God and neighbor. This heart-aspect of redemption involves the entire function of the whole person: “thinking, remembering, feeling, desiring, and willing.”[2] As in the biblical terms related to the “head,” there is no bifurcation between terms of the “heart” and those related to the “head.” Further, the biblical relation of eyes, ears, head, heart, tongue, hands, and feet presents a holistic picture of the [whole] person integrally related internally and externally, either aligned by truth or misaligned by falsehood. As the internal (head/heart) is aligned with the truth, the work of the hands, direction of the feet, and the words of the tongue show externally the internal integrity, and vice versa.

This is why true knowledge of God must be accompanied by trust and faith and, by extension, submission to God himself through repentance that leads to obedience. True knowledge of God must be accompanied by the power of God’s Spirit to work in us faith and trust in him. This is especially so, since we are so prone to suppress, distort, and pervert the truth of the knowledge of God.  To know about God (what some mistakenly call “head” knowledge”), and to reject that knowledge (Rom 1), puts us in a place where we must have his powerful work in us to return us to a full and proper recognition that what we all know of God (through observation of creation) is true knowledge of God that makes us morally responsible (because it is true “heart knowledge”). This deduction stands to reason, since we are unable to receive/accept it properly in our own ability because we have been corrupted in our will, reason, feelings, and indeed in our whole person.

Sometimes the phrase “a saving knowledge” of God/Christ is used to describe this process of accepting and believing the knowledge of God, but this may unwittingly suggest that knowledge itself is what brings conversion or regeneration of the person. This is simply not correct. A so-called “saving knowledge” should not be understood as just more information (head) or more feeling (heart), but rather as a real relationship to the Living God of all truth and knowledge. A real relationship could be more accurately described as a restored relationship, since it can be said that all humans have a “relationship” with God, as made by him and in his image, but that relationship is as a broken one characterized by faithlessness, lovelessness, and alienation. We are born broken-hearted. In light of that, we all need a restored relationship with God himself, and that will lead to a restored relationship to his universe, his creation, and our neighbors. This importantly includes internal reconciliation within our divided, double-minded, broken-hearted, selves. We are reconciled internally, and increasingly, so that our heart-motions and our head-thoughts are realigned into one willing whole, where we are no longer ruled by tyrannical emotions that arise directly from our rebellious and unbelieving thoughts (by our rejection of the knowledge of God). We can know an integration of becoming whole again, and this is evidence of realignment with the truth of God that brings new and true integrity to our whole person, our heart, mind, and soul.

It follows then that true knowledge of God is entirely practical knowing, not just moral(heart/head) knowing, since we know the One who made the worlds, and since he is therefore the key to all reality we are consequently re-enabled to live wisely in his created universe. We move from those whose irrational heart-rejection (emotive-cognitive) of the knowledge of God and his order, that led to complete disintegration and disorientation of heart/mind, to those who live in the knowledge of God through a restored relationship with him and thus to his created universe. Our thoughts and feelings become progressively realigned to the One who made them and to the universe he created us for.

Perhaps, better categories to describe the “head and heart” dilemma could be the biblical concepts of knowledge about versus wisdom in response, since when people use these terms “head” and ‘heart” knowledge I think it is fair to say they are often trying to describe the difference between a wise response to the knowledge of God in faith (the heart) verses one of foolish unbelief (the head). While that may be true in a descriptive sense, I have tried to show that those categories do not do justice to the whole picture in Scripture that is better understood in the categories of wisdom (faith/belief in the true knowledge of God) over against unbelief (rejection of the true knowledge of God), or folly. This conflict is not described in the Bible as one between the head and the heart, but as one between foolish unbelief and wise belief, the latter response depending upon God’s Spirit regenerating a person to believe and follow Christ.

In Christ, the LOGOS/WORD of God, the fullness of the knowledge and understanding of God is made clearly known (to our heart and our mind):

Col 2:2-3 . . . that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Ps 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

Pr 9:10 Knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Prov 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge.


In a concluding application then of this assertion that the head and the heart are not distinguished in the Bible, and in fact are not distinguishable in us, there are several implications to consider. If the heart is what defines what we are as persons in our character, our will, being, intentions, thoughts, emotions, and nature, then the “heart” is to be identified with the “head” as the origin of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. The heart/head is thus the “substance” and evidence of our soul, and the source of its spiritual and moral state. This is important in our response to the twin errors of Rationalism and Emotionalism.

Rationalism (often associated exclusively with the “head”) asserts the primacy of human thought/reason at the exclusion of divine revelation and illumination to understand it. The rejection of divine revelation is an absolute error, since it leads to absolute error, since the human mind cannot consistently reason correctly about general revelation unaided by God’s interpretation. This is not to say that the human mind does not understand general revelation enough to theologically know that God is and who he is in his eternal attributes (Rom 1), but in sinful humans this knowledge is twisted and suppressed by unbelief. For believers, the role of the Spirit’s illumination is thus also vital for understanding God’s Special revelation, his revealed Word (it is also related to the sanctifying role of the Spirit of God in our hearts). Rationalism also often excludes the role of emotion in the reasoning process. This is a serious loss of the intrinsic relationship of these two aspects of our reasoning. In rejecting the assumptions of Rationalism, we do not reject the rational aspect of our God-given ability to reason. As made in God’s image, we must of necessity have the irrepressible ability to think, and to think in a properly linear fashion along the principle of the law of non-contradiction. We are innately given the capacity to reason that A is not non-A, and we all have the ability to differentiate unity and diversity in all of God’s creation. This is not obliterated even by the corruption of our minds and their reasoning processes, so it can follow that it is actually impossible for a person to think at all without reason. Even irreason, irrationality, illogicality, and faulty reasoning are all evidence of this inescapable reasoning aspect of our created nature in the image of God. That is to say, even poor and faulty reasoning is still reasoning. In this sense then that rationality is inescapable, and thus irrepressible, even denials of reason as such must of necessity employ reason to deny reason.

Emotionalism (often associated exclusively with the “heart”), on the other extreme, rejects in practice the essential and role of proper reason and rational strategies of thought and action. (It is too easy to use this word to characterize things that seem irrational (or unreasonable) to us, but nevertheless for purposes of discussion we need not reject the term itself.) Emotionalism is found in many forms historically, and is a persistent problem in contemporary Evangelicalism wherever it exalts experience/emotion over propositions, truth, and reason. It tends toward anti-intellectualism, in that it distrusts the claims of rationalism as well as any claims of the necessity of reason/rationality. All the same, we must assert that emotion is a God-given aspect of our being made in his image, but it is to be guided by reason based on divine revelation (the canon of scripture) and illuminated by the Spirit of God. Further, emotion is often greatly perverted due to sin, and is the cause of much of the human misery in the history of world. In light of that, there may be a bit of emotionalism in all that we do, in the sense that our emotions often override our better sense, and reason gets displaced, and we make bad choices based on our distorted, or overpowering, feelings. Sometimes, we even call someone irrational when they are behaving in badly and in inexplicable ways, but what we may be describing are actions based on feelings that override good, rational judgment (hence, “crimes of passion”).

Some contemporary cultural and philosophical movements can be said to have an emotionalist motivation, such as Romanticism (19 century) that has flourished in the twentieth and twenty first centuries in many diverse forms: e.g., utopian Communism, the Marxian revolts of the 1960’s, Existentialism, and Postmodernism. Similarly, much revivalism in Christian circles has been characterized by anti-intellectual emotionalism. Much Evangelicalism in song and form stresses experience (pietism) and emotion (“heart”) over against doctrine, content, reason, knowledge, and propositional truth (“head”) as the foundation for faith.

As demonstrated in this church sign, anti-intellectual, anti-reason ideas are common in American Christianity. What does this mean that reason is the greatest enemy of faith? That faith is reasonless? “Just believe,” do not ask (reasonable) questions? That the heart is superior to the mind/head? That the mind/head is an enemy to the heart? That we believe with the heart, but disbelieve with the head?

We can at least point out that the statement itself is self-contradicting (self-refuting), since the statement depends upon reason and linearity, and the assumption of the law of non-contradiction, as well as the ability of people reading it to rationally comprehend the words.  In other words, the (reasoned) creation of the sign’s wording, and reading with understanding (reason) the words of the sentence would contradict the proposed (and irrational) meaning of the sign itself!


. . . There is a widely prevalent theory, that truth may be of the feelings as well as of the intellect; that it may not only come thus from two independent sources, but may be contradictory so that what is true to the feelings may be false to the intellect and visa versa; and that as moral character and so Christian life are rooted in the voluntary nature, of which the feelings are an expression, the Christian life may be developed and, some say, would better be developed, without reference to such intellectual conceptions as doctrinal statements. This theory is radically false. There is no knowledge of the heart. Feeling can give knowledge no more than can excitement. As Prof. Bowen has well said, “Feeling is a state of mind consequent on the reception of some idea.” That is, it does not give knowledge; it presupposes it. There must be knowledge by the head before there can be feeling with the heart. Once more you see the point. The religion of the heart and the theology of the head cannot be divorced. Unless the heart be disposed toward Christ, the head cannot, because it will not, discern the truth of Christ. As our Lord said, “It is only he who wills to obey God, whose heart is right toward Him, who shall know the doctrine whether it be of Him.” On the other hand, zeal in Christ’s cause will be strong and abiding in proportion as the faith from which it springs and by which it is nourished is intelligent. Zeal without knowledge is dangerous and short-lived. William Brenton Greene, Jr. (1906)[3]


[1] Frame, Systematic Theology, p. 756.

[2] A more complete accounting of the whole person is needed in this conversation, in that any definitions of knowing should include the various complementary aspects of the human mind: for example, the emotions, reason, the will, intuition, imagination, perception. And, instead of debating which is “primary” we should explore their interrelationships more carefully.

[3] Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 368. “We associate thought and memory with the brain today, but in the idiom of the Bible, thinking is a function of the heart” (ibid., p. 369).

[4] Greene, “Broad Churchism and the Christian Life,” Princeton Theological Review, 4 (July 1906), pp. 311-13.

See also my blog on dualism at https://stephenhague.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/dualism-divided-fields-of-knowledge-and-biblical-dichotomies2.pdf

Advertisements

 If ‘whatever’ is your attitude, should I, like, care?

Attitude (ˈadəˌt(y)o͞od)

Why do so many of the oft repeated quotes about attitude suggest that it is more important than money, education, circumstances, skill, and success? Perhaps it is because it somehow determines all of that and more, but most importantly it may be that attitude flows from the root of our character. Many motivational speakers today even go so far as to say that attitude is everything, especially when they speak of it as a kind of magic cure to everything that eludes us. They promise us that (for a fee) they can show us how to use attitude to get money, success, or whatever we want. Even if we do not accept their assumptions and offers, we must reckon with attitude’s profound role in our hearts and lives, that even if it is not everything, it does affect everything.

Psychologists consider attitude a “predisposed” state of mind, and its orientation/expression (positive, negative, or ambivalent) towards its object, that is acquired (learned and formed) through various experiences. It could in this way be said to reflect who we are as persons, and so it is even more important than all external success in money and education and circumstances. It is also universally recognized that our attitude determines how we weather our hardships and failings in each of these externals. Surely, we have all observed that destructive and convoluting attitudes bring trouble, and worse, into our lives. Contrarily, it would seem, that rightly constructive attitudes relate to that which enable us to flourish regardless of externals of life circumstances, and also enable us to face hardships and failure with grace and peace. Because of this profound impact on our lives, many conclude that if we just get the right attitude then we will succeed in all these things, even totally changing our circumstances. That is understandable, but is this not just a “positive thinking” idea that fails to grasp the full complexity of attitude in our mostly unpredictable lives?

We speak often of the primary role in our lives of our ideology, worldview, or convictions based on propositions or ideals and beliefs, and that is a fundamental truth. But, do we reckon adequately with the role of attitude in that, as well? But what exactly is attitude? We sometimes say, “[so and so] has attitude.” Or that someone’s attitude is what caused a particular decision, either good or not good, and that had a profound impact on some outcome in their life. Anyone who has raised children has observed that attitudes are caught as easily as the common cold, and that one is constantly battling to arm them against the many ways even what appears to be an innocuous attitude can change the course of one’s life. A particular attitude that subverts one’s entire life direction may have even come from a single comment made by a disapproving third grade teacher, after years of our cogitating (stewing and internalizing) about it. Or, disparaging peer-comments about education, certain vocations, or particular companies, can unwittingly impact the course of our life and choices.

Attitudes are the hidden rudder, appearing to us only rarely, but all-the-while guiding the whole ship. In this sense, they can be notoriously difficult to identify and address, yet failing to do so can have cataclysmic consequences in the long-term. Attitudes determine how we view our work, colleagues, neighbors, property, authority, even our own families, and life itself, and so commonly without much basis in factual reality. It might be said that human conflicts and even wars are frequently the result of attitudes run amuck, and since we might conclude that attitude is a matter of the heart it is thus one that is not easily remedied. Why then does it seem we do not often address this? I have not been able to find in all of my theological dictionaries any more than one short entry on the word attitude.

It could be said that attitude is the sum total (or result) of combined values, beliefs, experiences, values, ideals, perceptions, moods, and can be either true or false, or contain a mixture of both. Attitude may also be described as an accumulation of all of the above that compounds in interest as one mulls and ruminates. Attitude often is applied to a person who has such a strong feeling, disposition, or perspective on something that they are not able to see any other options; that they have an attitude that has closed their mind. When this is the case, we might conclude that they are not oriented by reason or logic but by an unguided attitude.[1] Could it be described in this case as one’s feeling overpowering reality and the truth?

I recall in my youth how negative attitudes about so many things governed our perspectives on life, institutions, money, work, family, people, government, and the war. I am not saying that there may not have been some truth to our perspectives, but rather that so frequently I recall being unable to see things in any other way, meaning that my attitude determined my whole perspective, and not the truth, and it prevented consideration of other valid possibilities. Yes, the heady ideologies of that time were the air we breathed, and the many philosophies we entertained seemed to hold out promise. But, I came to wonder whether it was my attitudes that determined those philosophies more than the facts. So many of our generation had the blindest of certitude about so many things, that we really were right about everything that really matters, and so we could not seriously consider the chance that we might not be.

This is an example of what I think can be considered a fruit of attitude. That attitude, admittedly, was powered by much disdain and disgust and dislike, yes even hatred for any opposing ideas, even if they might be true. There was an attitude that the whole system was bad and everyone connected with it was bad, even though we had no true moral compass to determine good from bad; it was only assumed and determined by an attitude about the system, the politics, the capitalists and the economy, the military and the technocrats, and the old orders of belief that reflected what we thought was outmoded largely because it was older. Similarly, I have heard that the Punk Rock culture, Heavy Metal, Goth and Grunge, all express an opposing attitude by design, as does the skateboarding culture which they tell me extolls reckless rebellion. Indeed, this is in part the problem of every new generation which must grapple with the messed-up world before them and face the failings of those who preceded them. All the same, in our generation, unlike any before, all across the globe there developed an attitude that was totally and violently disruptive because it was not measured by reality of the truth about things; it was more the product of an attitude of unreasoned rejection. It was as though a predisposition took hold of our perspectives, an emotive reaction that governed our reason and mind-set and therefore our responses to people and problems, and thus prejudices developed that were entirely unwarranted. I began to ask then how such irreason could take hold of so many people, including myself?

The heart is the factory of all our idols, it has been said, and so it is certainly the source of our attitudes. It is often said that we need an “attitude adjustment” and that Happy Hour is just the remedy. Some say we must just “check our attitude at the door,” as if it is a pistol or weapon of self-defense. But if this is a heart matter, neither a gin and tonic nor a pretension to laying them aside will remedy our attitude issues. Ironically, this is seen also wherever there are reversals of discrimination demonstrated against those from whom people have experienced, or perceived, bad treatment. For example, when we see the poor nursing angry attitudes of hatred towards the rich they perceive as responsible for their own hardships, or reversals of racial discrimination seen when an ethnic group returns the favor on those who (or their ancestors) have mistreated them. Or when two good friends or lovers part ways unhappily and speak ill of one another the next day. When we speak of something as a “heart” matter, we refer to issues of character, and biblically speaking what is in view are the heart-attitudes, the orientation of one’s loves, hates, and indifferences. The attitude is the characteristic of our virtues, as for example in pride or humility, righteousness or unrighteousness, honesty or dishonesty, kindness or unkindness, forgiveness or resentfulness, whether we are merciful or unmerciful.

Though there are not many particular biblical terms describing all that we mean in English by attitude, it can certainly be said that this concept can be found in many contexts, and is central to all texts related to the heart, its problems and corruptions, and its need to be made new.[2] Wherever we see motives and perspectives governing a person’s life we are in the realm of attitude. And this is where the gospel of Christ is most prominently applied in that we are to cultivate and pray for the attitudes that exemplify those who are in Christ and claim him as King, Savior, and Lord. That is, our attitude is one that enables us to live with grace and peace in a frequently graceless and un-peaceful world.  It is evident that good attitude is not just something easily taken in hand or drummed up in human strength, as every human heart is evidently misaligned. A broken heart cannot heal itself. A corrupted orientation of the heart cannot uncorrupt itself. All sinful attitudes need a sinless Savior to restore and renew them according to his joyous disposition and merciful temperament that forgives through forging the virtues of humility and compassion. Positive thinking does not suffice in creating virtuous attitudes that enable us to weather this life of trials, nor does it necessarily change one’s circumstances; but it is his grace that enables us to flourish regardless of external circumstances, and also to face hardships and failure with grace and peace. This develops an attitude of hopeful expectation that he who began his good work in us will complete it on the day Christ Jesus returns (Phil 1:6). This is not the negatively blinding kind of attitude I discussed above, but one that walks by faith and not by sight. It is a renewed eyesight that allows for the vision of God to determine our attitudes, thus guiding our steps according to his truth and not our version of it.

The idea of a properly biblical attitude is as follows: 

Phil 2:5-8 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

1 Pet 4:1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.

Eph 4:17-23 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed. 20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Rom 15:5-6 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.


[1] It might be added that both positive and negative attitudinal dispositions about something might have a blinding force, as for example in the Christian Science religion that tries to overcome the reality of sin, sickness, death, etc., all through adjusting one’s attitude and perspective towards them (as in “mind over matter”). Indifference can even be considered an attitudinal stance.

[2] Louw and Nida define 26.16 φρονέω “to think in a particular manner.” Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition, Vol. 1, p. 324). New York: United Bible Societies. See also διάνοια which refers to the mind, understanding, intelligence Mk 12:30; Eph 4:18; Hb 8:10; insight 1 J 5:20; disposition, thought Lk 1:51; 2 Pt 3:1; attitude Col 1:21; sense, impulse Eph 2:3. [dianoetic, of reasoning process], Gingrich, Greek NT Lexicon, p. 46.
See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius, Hebrew English Lexicon,  ] יֵ֫צָר4095) [Hebrew) (p. 428. 4. of what is framed in the mind) cf. יָצַר 1 c, 2 b(, imagination, device, purpose: יצר מחשׁב(ו)ת לב(ב) Gn 6:5, 1 Ch 29:18; י׳ מחשׁבות 28:9; לב י׳ Gn 8:21; יֵצֶר alone Dt 31:21); יֵצֶר סָמוּךְ Is 26:3 a steadfast purpose  or frame of mind. In NH יֵצֶר is common in sense of impulse: יצר הטוב and יצר הרע of good and bad tendency in man.

All the Way Back Home to Shalom

To read the whole essay click here: All the way Back Home to Shalom by Stephen HagueMarch snow 2018


For Julian and Marcus upon their return home March 10[really the 7th], 2018 in hopes that home will always be with, behind, and before them.
And for Lucas who made traveling to Mexico and back home a joy I will never forget.
♥   ♥
In memory of the Contes’ family home (which burned down the day I finished this essay), and which did not destroy their home nor their memories of it.


“Homemaking, like world-building, is a world-ordering enterprise. To turn space into place is to establish normative boundaries that bring a certain kind of order to the life lived within those boundaries.[1]

What if I was to ask you what is the word that most warms your heart, touches on your deepest longings, evokes your riches memories? For me, that word would be HOME. Home to me is the essence of our earthly life, the center, the focus, the foundation of life in this world. And, this is coming from one who loves to travel, and often “get away” from home! “Home” may not be the word that comes to your mind, especially if you had a painful or tragic home-life as a child, or do at present. There is also the feeling, or reality, of homelessness and displacement prevalent in our times. Yet, if you have painful associations with the concept of home, let me suggest for the moment that you put aside those pains and fears and allow yourself to consider the beauty of this word “home.” That is, I suggest, the pain of those who have suffered through childhood is in fact particularly acute because we have an intrinsic understanding of, and longing for, what home should be, for as we are made in God’s image he has made us for home. Therefore, I believe all humans that have ever lived can understand and relate to the pictures I am going to present here on this theme.

To read the whole essay click here: All the way Back Home to Shalom by Stephen Hague

[1] Prediger and Walsh, Beyond Homelessness, p. 53.

COTTAGE1

The Religious Triad of the Modern World: Marx, Freud, Darwin

 Three authors who largely determine how modern folk view the important stuff of life:

The men Their orthodoxies Their meaning Their means Their process Their goal
Marx Money and Power Money (economics) and human power are what define human life Through revolution Disruption, destruction, displacement of the old order of economics and social and religious structures to create in a new world order of total economic equality
Freud Mind and Personhood Mind and the self-actualized person are what define human life Through liberation Rejection and redefinition of the old order of the human person as fundamentally religious and moral, as made in the image of God to create a new person through total freedom for the person morally and psychologically
Darwin Matter and Progress Matter and its progress towards perfection are what define human life Through evolution Rejection and redefinition of all religious interpretations of the origins of the universe and humanity to create through any possible enhancements the perfection of the species/”race”

The question is whether this godless trinity of ideologues ever delivered on their promises?

Marx’s revolution: an estimated 200-300 million people died in the twentieth century as a result of Marxist-Stalinist-Maoist-Pol-Pot, etc., Communist and Socialist revolutions to create the perfect society of equality.
Freud’s liberation:  an estimated several billions of people who experienced liberation from moral and psychological restraints to love themselves above all else have created a generation of narcissists, murderers, criminals of all kinds, exploiters, and divorce rates to match their self-love in the quest to create a perfect society without any restraints.
Darwin’s evolution: an inestimable number of people have died in modern holocausts, genocides, abortions (infanticides), pogroms, and ethnic cleansings, as a result of the views of the evolutionary hypothesis that reduces humans to nothing more than the sum total of chemical processes in the evolution of the human species towards some imagined perfection and world.

To see pdf, click here: The Triad of the modern world by Stephen Hague

Pessimist or optimist?

Why I am not an optimist: the world is not as it ought to be, as seen in the cursed nature of the creation and the corrupt state of human nature and the eventual judgment on the godless world of unbelief for all who reject Christ as Lord and Savior.

Why I am not a pessimist: the world is not as it shall be, as seen in the glorious nature of the creation and the image of God in all humans and the eventual renewal of the earth and the resurrection of the body to life eternal for all who belong to Christ who is Lord of lords and King of all kings.


Pascal captures this Gospel sentiment so beautifully:

  • Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness makes for pride.
  • Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God makes for despair.
  • Knowing Jesus Christ strikes the balance because he shows us both God and our own wretchedness. Pascal, Pensées, 192

“Jesus is a God whom we can approach without pride and before whom we can humble ourselves without despair.” Pascal, Pensées, 212

Behaviorism, Therapism, and Moral Agnosticism

Behaviorism, Therapism, and Moral Agnosticism

Behaviorism had as one of its greatest advocates in the twentieth century, the man named Burrhus Frederbook7-copyic Skinner (known as B. F. Skinner).  Skinner radically departed from traditional, and especially Judeo-Christian perspectives, on what is means to be human, a person, and to have an ethic of responsibility and virtue commensurate to the task of living in this world. According to Skinner, the human person, as we have previously  defined it, must go. He claimed that there are no private events such as thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions that can be understood as causes of an organism’s behavior, since he believed that it is the human environment which is actually responsible for all human behavior. The logic of this is that in order to produce evolution of human progress the environment of the person must be changed, not the attributes of the individual.[1] As can be seen from a sampling of his thoughts from his famous book Beyond Freedom and Dignity, his view is that the person has no real moral responsibility, other than to modify the environment (social, cultural, economic, genetic) to conditions more conducive of right and good behavior (as defined by conditioned moral categories):

“The concept of responsibility offers little help. The issue is controllability. We cannot change genetic defects by punishment; we can work only through genetic measures which operate on a much longer time scale. What must be changed is not the responsibility of autonomous man but the conditions, environmental or genetic, of which a person’s behaviour is a function.”

“Exoneration is in a sense the obverse of responsibility. Those who undertake to do something about human behaviour – for any reason whatsoever – become part of the environment to which responsibility shifts. In the old view it was the student who failed, the child who went wrong, the citizen who broke the law, and the poor who were poor because they were idle, but it is now commonly said that there are no dull students but only poor teachers, no bad children but only bad parents, no delinquency except on the part of law-enforcement agencies, and no indolent men but only poor incentive systems. But of course we must ask in turn why teachers, parents, governors, and entrepreneurs are bad. The mistake, as we shall see later, is to put the responsibility anywhere, to suppose that somewhere a causal sequence is initiated.”[2]

“In short, we need to make vast changes in human behaviour, and we cannot make them with the help of nothing more than physics or biology, no matter how hard we try.”[3]

“The social environment is obviously man-made – it generates the language a person speaks, the customs he follows, and the behaviour he exhibits with respect to the ethical, religious, governmental, economic, educational, and psychotherapeutic institutions which control him.”[4]

Simageskinner does not deny the social and moral problems plaguing the world, he only says that the many ancient attempts to resolve the problems of humanity need a new solution, and that is a “technology of behavior.”[5] In order to find a workable technology of behavior, we must end the old perspectives of humans as having any kind of autonomy, either in personality, character, cultures, or morals. Most striking are his assertions below that radically advance him away from all traditional (i.e. Judeo-Christian or Greek, or ancient) perspectives that allow (and require) for humans any moral autonomy:

We are told that what is threatened is ‘man qua man’, or ‘man in his humanity’, or ‘man as Thou not It’, or ‘man as a person not a thing’. These are not very helpful expressions, but they supply a clue. What is being abolished is autonomous man – the inner man, the homunculus, the possessing demon, the man defended by the literatures of freedom and dignity. His abolition has long been overdue. Autonomous man is a device used to explain what we cannot explain in any other way. He has been constructed from our ignorance, and as our understanding increases, the very stuff of which he is composed vanishes. Science does not dehumanize man, it de-homunculizes him, and it must do so if it is to prevent the abolition of the human species. To man qua man we readily say good riddance. Only by dispossessing him can we turn to the real causes of human behaviour. Only then can we turn from the inferred to the observed, from the miraculous to the natural, from the inaccessible to the manipulable.[6] 

In fact, Skinner’s view is that humans are entirely determined by their environment, and in this sense truly not morally responsible. The inconsistency here is staggering, for even though humans are entirely and totally the product of their evolution and environment, they must somehow create an environment in which humankind can leap forward evolutionally to the perfection he imagines on the other side of the total re-conditioning of the human race according to his (the conditioners’ and manipulators’) ideals and expectations.[7] In short, it can be said that such a model for humanity removes from humans all significance in their dignity, creativity, and moral choice, while removing from them any substantive differentiation from the non-human objects and animals of the physical universe.[8] In this case, humans have no soul, nor a mind that initiates any thought or moral motions, and they certainly cannot make anything uniquely qualified as one’s own creative work, since it is all a product of their biological and cultural evolution and conditioning. As Francis Schaeffer stated it: “This makes Michelangelo’s painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel purely the result of conditioning. Not only morals but every vestige of everything that makes human life valuable from the standpoint of what God meant us to be as men in his image is eradicated.”[9]

Ethics therefore, properly speaking in biblical terms, cannot arise from Behaviorism.  This is not to say that biblical ethics is unconcerned with behavior, but rather that it does not originate from the philosophical presuppositions of the naturalistic determinism and materialism of contemporary Behaviorism. Behaviorism is perhaps the most pervasive philosophical starting point for many secular psychologies and sociologies of human behavior today, even though its key proponent, B.F. Skinner, has for some time been out of the limelight since his death and the widespread rejection of many of his central ideas. Therefore, it is profoundly important that we Christians are aware of the philosophical force of the ideas intrinsic to this ideology, since it has been behind many movements of human manipulation, engineering, and efforts to control human society and human behavior in the past century until the present (see technosapianism, p.171 ). It also has influenced Christian thinking in the ideas intrinsic to the “gospel of sin management” (pp. 96f., 100f., 113f.), and much Christian literature that recycles a behaviorist philosophy in Christian garb. The latter is understandable, considering the weight placed on obedience and action in Scripture. Nevertheless, behaving rightly is never in Scripture the ultimate end-goal of ethics, the law, or wisdom. Rather, it is a new heart and a new character fashioned after the heart and mind of God in Christ. Further, the means of instruction and guidance towards moral thought and action are not the product of environmental conditioning, since moral/immoral actions are not strictly speaking the result of genetic or environment conditions, nor of simply the consequences of external stimuli that reinforce good or bad behavior. Indeed, intrinsically lacking in a Behaviorist framework is a rationale for morals/ethics (right and wrong, good and bad) in the first place.

More questions are raised than answered in the Behaviorist model, since its circularity is self-defeating as a sufficient starting-point for ethical reasoning: that is, if Skinner himself (or any “conditioned” human conditioner) is the starting point, then his conditioning must be sufficient to formulate definitions of “good” and “bad,” yet what precedes his own conditioning must determine what conditioning he received to produce his theories of conditions and ethical categories.[10] This would mean that morality is only conformity to patterns conditioned by the environment. In the simplest terms, if there is no external (pre-existent) moral absolute “outside” (the actant), then all morals are relative to the conditions of the person’s environment and circumstances.  In Skinner’s Naturalistic system, survivability (and well-being) becomes the natural guide (the moral “good”) to all ethical formulation, and is therefore the ultimate value by which actions and culture are evaluated. Yet, if human action towards survivability is the context and source of ethical reasoning, then we have the ultimate payload in a conflict of interest, in that the moral actants determine their own morals based on their own moral conditioning determined by their own genetic/social environment and survivability.[11] Is this not at the root of the pervasive moral collapses today, when all wickedness and evil can be explained away by the relativism intrinsic to the victimhood of our social and environmental conditioning? Does this not also include a colossal philosophical irony that all such environmental determinism is an absolute that leads to absolute moral relativity (itself an irresolvable oxymoronic moral conundrum). In a biblical framework, there must of necessity be a morals-giver, a law-Giver, who is transcendent and holy, who is unconditioned and self-existent. Absolute morals can only arise from One who is Absolute. Of course, ethical relativists (by definition) may not claim to be seeking moral absolutes. Yet, that being the case, the consequences will be (as we have seen in the past century) moral horrors beyond human reckoning. When all morals (of should and must) are only socially conditioned, the conditioners who have the power to manipulate and engineer the genetic, social, and environmental conditions should and must also have the power and will to define what is good and what is not.

Intrinsic to Behaviorism:

  • Materialism and atheism
  • Naturalism
  • Radical Humanism
  • Utilitarianism
  • Teleological pragmatism
  • Moral individualism and Ethical Egoism
  • Subjectivism and Emotivism (non-cognitivist ethics)
  • Totalitarianism?

In dramatic distinction from such Behaviorist relativism, Herbert Schlossberg expresses well a biblical perspective on the relativizing nature of a transcendent God on such human constructs and ideologies that reject transcendent moral absolutes:

Declining to sacralize any period or institution (including the church) means that Christians are free to do what is right, regardless of how radical it may seem. And refusing to sacralize history itself frees them to do what is right no matter how conservative it may seem. They do not need either to stand fast against change or to go with the tide. There is no movement or ideology, no matter what label it bears, that they are obliged, by custom or by the world’s expectations, to support or to oppose. Their norms come from outside of history, and they do not submit to the judgment of those whose faith they consider to be wrongly placed. That conviction was well expressed by Ranke in his famous statement that eternity is equidistant from all points in time. None of those points is worthy of being invested with sacred aura. That freedom from contingent systems should be regarded as a foretaste of the freedom from bondage and decay, toward which Paul looked, when the whole creation soils obtain “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).[12]

Desacralizing history and its elements relativizes all human institutions. There is no ideology, party, movement, or organization that may declare itself to be the absolute judge and arbiter of history. The Christian is free to regard each of them in the light of the absolute that is outside of history, that relativizes and judges them, and provides a point beyond which relativity is not permitted. That absolute, and the judgment it implies, is unacceptable to a generation that seeks to relativize everything without limit, but it is the only bar to Wilson’s and Lippmann’s attempts to make facts and sentiments, respectively, govern the relations between human beings and thereby render everything permissible. There can be no mercy without judgment because only judgment can pronounce the final NO! to relativism’s blessing on barbarity and provide people with the motivation and courage to oppose it.[13]

The related subject of the extraordinary rise of therapism today (I suggest as one of the 51Ac9iL8V9L._SX334_BO1,204,203,200_by-products of Behaviorist ideologies), is chronicled remarkably well by Christina Hoff Sommers and Salley Satel. For example, they discuss the impact of the “self-esteem” movement today (as a positive conditioning initiative of international proportions), noting one of many disturbingly pervasive trends to teach “no-fault history” to students who come to believe it “immoral” to pass moral judgment (even on historical atrocities like the German-Jewish Holocaust).[14] This the authors call a “moral paralysis” and “absolutophobia” that inhibits moral judgment. While ironically, at the same, the persistent encouragement they receive to “esteem thyself,” has led to a generation that is self-absorbed and often narcissistic.[15] Much of this they argue is based on the “myth of the fragile child,” that children must be molly-coddled and spared of all hardship, stress, self-doubt, failure, the disappointment of competitions lost, or bad feelings about anything. This has led to the near “triumph of the therapeutic” view that all people are always fragile and that all of their suffering and hardship must be pathologized in order for the mental health professionals to enter with their healing and salvation through positive conditioning. In terms of ethics, this also includes the loss of understanding the vital need for children to develop character, and rather allows them to remain “happy in the conviction that they should be judged by no-one’s standards but their own.”[16] The bitter pill is that increasing self-esteem has never been shown to increase character nor moral fortitude, nor the ability to cope courageously with life’s challenges. Indeed, “High school dropouts, shoplifters, burglars, car thieves, and even murderers are just as likely to have high self-esteem as Rhodes Scholars or winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor.”[17] High self-regard is well attested among those otherwise deemed as narcissistic and exploitive. The authors also note that many studies now support their concern that there is absolutely no evidence that the self-esteem movement improves anything in academic performance, nor in the development of either virtues or conscientious and humane character. In contrast to the conclusions of therapism, they propose the surprising and refreshing thesis “that human beings, including children, are best regarded as self-reliant, resilient, psychically sound moral agents responsible for their behavior.”[18]   

A biblical response to the Behaviorist and Self-esteem movements should include a strong emphasis on the important theology of humans made in God’s (glorious) image, while simultaneously stressing that humans are suffering the consequences of sin since Adam, while also highlighting the pervasive biblical wisdom that Scripture gives for a balanced self-assessment: thinking not too highly, nor too lowly, of oneself.

[1] B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1971, p. 74 (latest edition published in IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2002).

[2] B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 78.

[3] B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 10.

[4] B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 201.

[5] B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 9.

[6] Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 196. Francis Schaeffer noted this some time ago in his critique of Jacques Monad, Francis Crick, and B.F. Skinner in Back to Freedom and Dignity, Downers Grove: Ill: Inter-varsity Press, 1973.

[7] This is most clearly conveyed in his fictional presentation of what a properly conditioned society would look like in Walden II: IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1948.

[8] According to Skinner, a primary distinction (or attribute) of humans is that humans are more complex animals that are capable of self-awareness that enables them to manipulate their environment to effectively condition their responses to conditioning by it. As he states, “Man is said to differ from the other animals mainly because he is ‘aware of his own existence’” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 186). See also fn. 280 below.

[9] Schaeffer, Back to Freedom and Dignity, p. 36.

[10] This circularity and its contradiction is highlighted above (fn. 278) in Skinner’s assumptions that humans are only distinguished as animals by their selfawareness, and this itself as the context for their ability, and the “moral” necessity, to radically modify their conditioning environments to produce their desired (“morally” preferred) conditioning.  This is seen in his assertion regarding humans and animals: “He differs from the other animals not in possessing a moral or ethical sense but in having been able to generate a moral or ethical social environment” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 172.

[11] It may be that I simply do not understand Skinner here, but the following I suggest is indicative of the radical confusion in his logic: “The controlling self must be distinguished from the controlled self, even when they are both inside the same skin, and when control is exercised through the design of an external environment, the selves are, with minor exceptions, distinct” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 202). And, “The man that man has made is the product of the culture man has devised” (Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 203).

[12] Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and its Confrontation With American Society (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), pp. 31-32.

[13] Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 32.

[14] Sommers and Satel, One Nation Under Therapy, pp. 41-44.

[15] Sommers and Satel, One Nation Under Therapy, p. 43.

[16] Sommers and Satel, One Nation Under Therapy, p. 25.

[17] Sommers and Satel, One Nation Under Therapy, p. 31.

[18] Sommers and Satel, One Nation Under Therapy, p. 10.