Lesson 5
Seeking Meaning From Promoting Social Good
I. Solomon’s Experiment
A. Solomon’s first three experiments involved seeking
meaning and happiness from wisdom, from pleasure, and from
wealth & power.
B. His fourth experiment is very different. He seeks
meaning and happiness from helping others.
1. This fourth experiment is directed not toward himself,
but toward others.
2. At first glance, it seems that this experiment might be
a winner. It certainly appears to start off with a greater
probability of success than did the first three.
3. If it is true that happiness can only be found outside
of ourselves, then perhaps we can find it in service to
others.
C. The Description of the Experiment from Ecclesiastes:
1. Ecclesiastes 4:9-12
a) Two are better than one, because they have a good reward
for their labor. 10 For if they fall, one will lift up his
companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls, for
he has no one to help him up. 11 Again, if two lie down
together, they will keep warm; But how can one be warm
alone? 12 Though one may be overpowered by another, two can
withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
2. Solomon appears to have sought meaning from helping
others and promoting social good. As king, he was in a
position to relieve a great deal of suffering.
a) In Proverbs, 37 verses are speak about the poor. For
example, Proverbs 14:21 – “He who despises his neighbor
sins; But he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he.”
3. Solomon also appears to have experimented with the idea
that if he alone cannot find meaning under the sun, then
maybe he and others can combine their efforts to find
meaning together. Perhaps the problem with meaning is just
one of manpower. As we will see, Solomon may have been the
first to have that idea, but he was not the last.
D. The Result of the Experiment
1. Ecclesiastes 1:2-4
a) “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of
vanities, all is vanity.” 3 What profit has a man from all
his labor in which he toils under the sun?
2. Solomon was concerned for the poor and oppressed, and
the text suggests that he sought meaning from helping the
poor and oppressed. Yet the result was no different – he
found that ALL was vanity.
3. Solomon did not find meaning acting alone, and he did
not find meaning acting with others. Man will not find
meaning under the sun and it does not matter where he looks
under the sun or how many look with him. Man will not find
it, because it is not there. Meaning comes from beyond the
sun.
E. Solomon’s Experiment Continues Today – in the World and
in the Church.
II. Solomon’s Experiment Continues in the World
A. Recall from our introductory lesson that there are three
primary responses to the question “What is the meaning of
life?”
1. Theology
a) Man’s life can have permanent meaning, but only through
God.
2. Nihilism (“nothing-ism”)
a) Man’s life has no meaning. Suicide is the only real
issue.
3. Naïve Humanism (a.k.a. Optimistic Humanism or Secular
Humanism)
a) Man’s life has whatever meaning he can give it, but that
meaning can come from no source other than man.
b) We create our own values and give life whatever meaning
we choose to give it.
c) (American Humanist Association) “Humanism is a way of
living and acting that allows every individual to actualize
his or her highest aspirations and successfully achieve a
happy and fulfilling life.” [This statement, like most of
the statements from this organization, is virtually
content-free!]
d) I will use the term “humanist” below to refer to this
category. However, the word “humanist” is not a bad term.
Indeed, humans were created in the image of God, and
Christians are the true humanists. Those who debase human
life and see humans as nothing more than mutated monkeys
should hardly call themselves “humanists.”
B. This third approach – naïve or optimistic humanism – is
the same experiment that Solomon undertook.
1. The issue is whether man can find meaning and happiness
in himself and apart from God.
2. According to the humanist, life is meaningful, but it is
subjectively meaningful rather than objectively meaningful.
a) Man, rather than God, is the center of reference. Man is
the measure of all things, and hence any meaning that man
finds must be subjective.
(1) Unlike Solomon, humanists generally deny that God
exists. Yet humanists are engaged in the same experiment
that Solomon tried – whether man can find meaning in
himself and apart from God.
(2) There is no practical difference between saying that
God does not exist and saying that God exists, but he is
irrelevant.
b) There are no objective values and there is no objective
point to our lives.
c) We obtain meaning by creating values and pursuing those
values.
C. The first point to make is that naïve humanism shares
many similarities with nihilism. In particular, under each:
1. There is no reason why something exists rather than
nothing exists.
2. There is no purpose toward which the cosmos or human
history is moving.
3. Humans are modified monkeys that have resulted from a
blind process of random mutations.
4. There are no absolute moral values that exist apart from
man.
D. Yet humanism departs from nihilism on the issue of
meaning – humanists not only seek meaning, but they believe
meaning is attainable. Here is what they say on this
subject:
1. (Humanist Manifesto II) “Human life has meaning because
we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the
creative realization of human needs and desires,
individually, and in shared enjoyment are continuous themes
of humanism. We strive for the good life here and now.”
2. (A. J. Ayer in The Central Questions of Philosophy) “But
without the help of such a myth [religion] can life be seen
as having any meaning? The simple answer is that it can
have just as much meaning as one is able to put into it.”
3. (Paul Kurtz in In Defense of Secular Humanism) “The
humanist maintains as his first principle that life is
worth living, at least that it can be found to have worth…
. The universe is neutral, indifferent to man’s existential
yearnings. But we instinctively discover life, experience
its throb, its excitement, its attraction. Life is here to
be lived, enjoyed, suffered, and endured.”
4. Humanists like nihilists believe that this life is all
that there is, but unlike nihilists, humanists do not
despair at that idea. Suicide is not an option for the
humanist.
E. Humanists are very clear that they are seeking meaning
apart from God.
1. (John Dietrich) “For centuries the idea of God has been
the very heart of religion; it has been said ‘no God, no
religion.’ But humanism thinks of religion as something
very different and far deeper than any belief in God. To
it, religion is not the attempt to establish right
relations with a supernatural being, but rather the
upreaching and aspiring impulse in a human life. It is life
striving for its completest fulfillment, and anything which
contributes to this fulfillment is religious, whether it be
associated with the idea of God or not.”
2. (Humanist Manifesto II) “Humans are responsible for what
we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save
ourselves.”
a) When they say no deity will save them, they mean no
deity other than man.
b) (Walt Whitman in Song of Myself) “Divine am I inside
out, and I make holy whatever I touch…”
3. (Carl Sagan) “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or
ever will be.”
4. (American Humanist Association) “Caring about the
welfare of others helps provide inner strength and doesn’t
depend upon guidance from a God. Feeling at home in the
universe and the joy that comes from thinking positively
does not depend upon any theistic belief.” … “Religion
without a supernatural element can become meaningful and
personal.”
a) Humanism is a religion until a humanist tries to keep
religion out of our public institutions and schools. Then
humanism conveniently stops being a religion.
b) Humanist Paul Blanshard wrote: “The question is not
whether secular humanism is a religion, but whether it is
the only religion not subject to the First Amendment.”
F. Humanists believe that meaning can be found from service
to others and to posterity.
1. (American Humanist Association) “What we do now is what
matters. Concern for others becomes our salvation.”
2. (A. J. Ayer) “There is … no ground for thinking that
human life in general serves any ulterior purpose but this
is no bar to a man’s finding satisfaction in many of the
activities which make up his life, or to his attaching
values to the ends which he pursues, including some that he
himself will not live to see realized.”
3. The key phrase in that last quote is “attaching values”
– we attach values to the ends we pursue. Values are
defined by man and no value exists apart from man.
a) Thus, one man may decide that feeding the poor has some
value, and he may thus attach value to that activity. He
could then find meaning by pursuing that activity to which
he has attached value.
b) However, another man may decide that the poor deprive
society of valuable resources, and he may thus attach value
to eliminating the poor. He could then find meaning by
pursuing that activity.
c) One helps the poor and finds meaning; another kills the
poor and finds meaning. Is this a dilemma for a humanist,
and, if so, is there a solution to this dilemma? Why choose
the first option (feeding the poor) over the second option
(killing the poor)? Why be “moral”? What does it even mean
to be “moral”? Why are some values “moral” and others not?
d) Is anything intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong?
If so, how can man be free to define his own values? If
not, how can we complain about someone else’s values?
4. Note, also, from the Ayers quote that humanists are not
concerned about seeking meaning from ends that they
themselves will not live to see realized.
a) Thus, they do not appear concerned with the pursuit of
temporary meaning rather than lasting meaning. But, of
course, this must be the case, since apart from God there
can be no lasting meaning. If there is to be any meaning at
all, it must be temporary meaning.
b) Humanists believe they themselves are temporary, so they
are not concerned that the meaning they find is also
temporary. A lack of permanence is only a problem if you
yourself are permanent.
G. Humanists have several ways of defining “morality.”
1. “Human experience and reason are grounds for belief and
action, putting human good – the good of self and others in
their life on earth – as the ultimate criterion of right
and wrong.”
a) But what is “human good”? What is “human”?
2. (Jeremy Bentham) “Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters – pain and pleasure. It
is for then alone to point out what we ought to do … . They
govern us in all we do, in all we say, and in all we
think.”
a) This is the natural view of those who believe that man
is himself an animal.
3. (John Dewey) “The bad man is the man who no matter how
good he has been is beginning to deteriorate, to grow less
good. The good man is the man who no matter how morally
unworthy he has been is moving to become better. Growth
itself is the only moral end.”
a) This is a wonderfully circular definition! The “moral”
man is the man who is becoming more “moral.”
b) This “definition” owes much to Darwinism – which Dewey
said caused a “transfer of interest from the permanent to
the changing.”
c) No one had a greater impact on education in this country
in the past century than John Dewey.
(1) Another humanist (Paul Blanshard) writing in The
Humanist said: “I think the most important factor moving us
toward a secular society has been the educational factor.”
(2) Charles Francis Potter (who signed the first Humanist
Manifesto) wrote: “Education is thus a most powerful ally
of Humanism, and every American public school is a school
of Humanism.”
(3) In addition to being a leading humanist, John Dewey has
been called “one of paganism’s greatest pagans.”
4. (Humanist Manifesto II) “The values of humanism are
autonomous and situational. … Ethics stem from human need
and interest.”
a) By “autonomous” the Manifesto means that the values are
determined by “individual choice and control” without any
external restraints.
b) Yet the same Manifesto later says that the values must
be determined “consonant with social responsibility.” Thus,
there is no external restraint except for that one.
(1) Which “society” determines what is responsible? Isn’t
this just a way for societies to define their own values
rather than individuals, and if so, how does that solve
anything?
(2) It is interesting to note the language that was added
to the Humanist Manifesto II over what was in the Humanist
Manifesto I.
(3) The Humanist Manifesto I was published in 1933, and the
Humanist Manifesto II was published in 1973. Apparently,
the humanists found some disagreement with one of the their
number who lived during the interim – Adolph Hitler.
(4) Thus, we are still free to define our own values and
pursue those values – but now we must do so “consonant with
social responsibility.”
(5) The hope apparently is that this phrase will prevent a
repeat of Nazi Germany. Now you know why they are called
“optimistic” humanists!
H. The “Nazi Question” is a problem for humanists and all
others who wonder whether man can find meaning in himself
and apart from God.
1. The Issue: Is it all right to find meaning under a
system that also allowed Hitler to find meaning?
2. If you had asked Hitler why he was exterminating the
Jews, what would his response have been?
a) He would have said he was doing it for the “common good”
and that his actions were “consonant with social
responsibility.” He would have claimed that his actions
were in line with “human need and interest” and intended to
promote “human good.” He would have used all of the right
phrases.
b) But how could killing humans promote “human good”?
Simple. Hitler merely redefined “human” – those he killed
were “sub-human.”
c) And how would a humanist respond to that “logic”?
(1) He, no doubt, would complain about the
reclassifications of some people as “sub-human” and argue
that that is where Hitler went wrong. He didn’t really work
toward the “common good.”
(2) Modern humanists would never fall into the trap of
reclassifying people, would they? They would never say that
some life is “sub-human” and therefore can be exterminated
in accordance with the “common good” and “consonant with
social responsibility,” would they? Of course they would,
and they do – Article 6 of the Humanist Manifesto II states
that abortion is a “right.” A right for whom? Humans – as
opposed to the sub-humans in their wombs.
3. A humanist will tell you that his values are good and
Hitler’s values were evil – but by what standard? I thought
values were autonomous and situational?
a) When man seeks meaning from himself and defines his own
values, how can another complain that his values are evil?
b) Remember, humanist values are autonomous and
situational. They are defined by the individual, and do not
exist apart from the individual.
c) The problem with humanists is that they deny the
existence of a roof (an absolute), yet they don’t want to
get wet! So they create temporary roofs to keep themselves
dry and deny they have created any roofs at all.
(1) Either there is some absolute moral code that exists
independently from man or there is not. If there is not,
then the Nazis were right to pursue the “values” they
defined in line with their desires and their societal
goals.
(2) Now you see why it is called “naïve” humanism! Deep
thinkers tend to be either theists or nihilists – humanism
does not withstand close scrutiny.
(a) But the nihilists also have problems with consistency.
Chesterton complained about Russian philosophers who “will
denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove
by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant
ought to have killed himself.”
d) No humanist can offer a rational objection to the Nazi’s
treatment of the Jews.
(1) That activity was one to which the Nazis placed a great
deal of value, and they pursued that value in line with
their view of societal responsibility.
(2) Humanism fails in either way it responds. It either
fails to provide a rationale for a moral objection to
obviously immoral behavior – or it provides such a
rationale and thereby admits that there are moral
absolutes.
(3) Dostoevski was right: “If God does not exist, then
everything is permitted.” Humanists try but fail to
overcome that reality.
I. What does the Bible say about humanism?
1. Romans 1:18-25
a) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness,19 because what may be known
of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that
they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew
God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful,
but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became
fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and
four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God
also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their
hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who
exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and
served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen.
2. Philippians 3:18-21
a) 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now
tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the
cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is
their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set
their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in
heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the
Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body
that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to
the working by which He is able even to subdue all things
to Himself.
b) With regard to our citizenship, Augustine in The City of
God wrote:
(1) “Two cities have been created by two loves: the earthly
city by love of self even to contempt of God, the heavenly
city by love of God even to contempt of self. The one city
glories in itself; the other city glories in the Lord.”
III. Solomon’s Experiment Continues in the Church
A. The Church must be on guard against seeking meaning
apart from God.
1. Many Christians attack “secular humanism” while
simultaneously swallowing hook, line, and sinker the dogmas
of modern, secular culture – its central dogma being that
man in the measure of all things.
2. Even those who believe in God can fall into the trap of
thinking that they can solve problems and find meaning and
happiness apart from God.
3. Man becomes the authority for truth, and satisfying
man’s felt needs becomes the mission of the church.
4. We have a mission and we can find no meaning apart from
that mission – but what is that mission?
B. Our mission is not to feed the poor but to preach the
gospel.
1. Jesus did not send us out into the world to feed every
creature, but to “preach the gospel to every creature.”
2. We are commanded to help the poor and needy – and, of
course, we must – but we must never consider that as our
mission.
a) Of course, we cannot ignore the needs of the body in
preaching the gospel. But neither should we focus on the
needs of the body and ignore the more important spiritual
needs.
b) Jesus recognized the physical needs of his followers
when he fed the 5000 in John 6. But he also made it very
clear that he had not come to merely satisfy those physical
needs:
(1) (John 6:26-27) Jesus answered them and said, “Most
assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw
the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were
filled. “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for
the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son
of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His
seal on Him.”
3. Many so-called churches have abandoned the great
commission (which focused on man’s spiritual needs) and
replaced it with a new commission that is focused on man’s
physical needs.
a) Why the change? Like Solomon, they are seeking meaning
and happiness, and like Solomon they are looking for it in
service to others.
b) As with other pursuits of man (wisdom, pleasure, money),
social work can become an end in itself rather than a means
to an end.
c) Those who often accuse us of trying to earn our
salvation are the very ones who seek meaning from their
good works.
4. Consider the example in Acts 6.
a) A complaint arose in the Church that certain widows were
being neglected. How did the apostles react?
b) Keep in mind from James 1:27 that “pure and undefiled
religion before God” includes visiting orphans and widows
in their trouble.
c) Yet the apostles did not drop everything to run and help
the widows – they obviously did not consider that to be
their mission. What was their mission? Read Acts 6:2-4.
(1) Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples
and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the
word of God and serve tables.” Therefore, brethren, seek
out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of
the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this
business; 4“but we will give ourselves continually to
prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
d) The mission of the apostles was to prayer and the
ministry of the word. They obviously did not see the
mission of the Church to be benevolence – otherwise they
would have dropped what they were doing and attended to the
widows’ physical needs.
e) Were the widows’ needs important? Clearly, yes. Were the
widows’ needs more important than the ministry of the word?
Clearly, no.
C. The danger is that our social programs will become our
reason for existing – and when that happens we have pushed
God aside. We are, in effect, seeking meaning from our
social work.
1. We are in danger of pushing God out of his own church.
2. Our social programs become the end of our ministry, and
suddenly there is no need for God, not even in the church.
3. We are secularizing the church. The world leads, and
religion follows. God ceases to be a monarch, and becomes
instead a mascot that goes along with the crowd.
4. Historian Joseph Haroutunian describing this
secularization process wrote:
a) “Before, religion was God-centered. Before, whatever was
not conducive to the glory of God was infinitely evil; now
that which is not conducive to the happiness of man is
evil, unjust, and impossible to attribute to the deity.
Before, the good of man consisted ultimately in glorifying
God; now the glory of God consists in the good of man.
Before, man lived to glorify God; now God lives to serve
man.”
5. C. S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters gives the following
instructions on how to corrupt a Christian:
a) “Let him begin by treating Patriotism [or any other
earthly pursuit] as part of his religion. Then let him …
come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly
and gradually nurse him on to the state at which the
religion becomes merely a part of the ‘cause.’ … Once you
have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have
almost won your man, and it makes very little difference
what kind of worldly end he is pursuing.”
D. Humanism and Christianity are like Oil and Water
1. Francis Schaeffer writes:
a) “There is no way to mix these two total world views.
They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized. Yet
we must say that liberal theology, the very essence of it
from its beginning, is an attempt to mix the two. Liberal
theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the
Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views
right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips
are down these liberal theologians have always come down,
as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side
of the nonreligious humanist. They do this with certainty
because what their liberal theology really is is humanism
expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or
other terms. An example of this coming down naturally on
the side of the nonreligious humanists is the article by
Charles Hartshorne in the January 21, 1981, issue of The
Christian Century, pages 42-45. Its title is, “Concerning
Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View.” He begins by
equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the
fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is,
he begins by assuming that human life is not unique. He
then continues by saying that even after the baby is born
it is not fully human until its social relations develop
(though he says the infant does have some primitive social
relations an unborn fetus does not have). His conclusion
is, “Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea
that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons
who are already functionally persons in the full sense have
more important rights even than infants.” He then,
logically, takes the next step: “Does this distinction
apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one
in a permanent coma? For me it does.” No atheistic humanist
could say it with greater clarity. It is significant at
this point to note that many of the denominations
controlled by liberal theology have come out, publicly and
strongly, in favor of abortion.”
2. Another commentator writes:
a) “Theology is fast becoming ‘an embarrassing
encumbrance.’ The doctrine of the utter otherness, or
holiness, of God has been replaced by the idol of the moral
self. God is slick and slack, happiness is the opposite of
righteousness, sin is self-defeating behavior, morality is
a trade-off of private interests, worship is entertainment,
and the ‘church is a mall in which the religious, their
pockets filled with the coinage of need, do their
business.’”
E. Meaning and Happiness Can Only Come From Beyond the Sun
1. Man cannot find meaning and lasting happiness under the
sun, whether he looks for it within himself or in others.
2. This is true of man in general, and also true of those
in the Church. We in the Church must keep our eyes on the
Son of God – who is beyond the sun.
3. (John 14:6) “I am the way and the truth and the life. No
one comes to the Father except through me.”