Cameron, Morgan, pt. 5

Wise Witnesses # 3: The Heart Of The Matter.

Cameron might also have engaged Morgan on deeper and more fundamental issues.  Regardless of the sneaky tactics of Morgan, we should know not to engage in moralism or moralistic debate with unbelievers. With unbelievers, moral disputes of any kind are seldom profitable. Why? Because the issue, the real problem, is not their professed morality or lack there of. Rather, the real problem is one's relationship to God. It is idolatry that leads to immorality; immorality is God's judgment on idolatry (Romans 1.18ff). Sure, immorality is a sign of the wrath to come -- but, it is also a sign that wrath has come: a sign, in response to our forsaking God, that God has forsaken us. He has let our wicked hurts run free.

Idolatry deals more deeply with the plight of mankind than moralism, but the problem goes deeper. Why are we idolaters? Why? Because we are all born in a state of guilt and dastardly rebellion against God; sin is not surprising. We don't, not at first, become sinners because we sin; we sin because we ARE sinners. Sin is, apart from grace, all we can do. Sin is not surprising – grace is.

Sinful rebellion against God is our nature as the heirs of Adam. Our natural condition, down to the heart of our hearts, is spiritual deadness. We don't need a few new morals; we need a whole new heart. Something -- not supplemental and external, but fundamental and internal -- is wrong with us. Morality is our problem in the same way that a chipped nail is the problem of a corpse; in other words, only a problem if one prefers looking lively over being alive. This is why, when Jesus was approached by Nicodemus, he cut him to the heart, and dealt with his heart, in a single phrase, “You must be born again (John 3.3).” Jesus brushed aside Nicodemus’ faint praise, “You are a swell teacher Jesus. I think real high of you.” He brushed this aside, rather rudely and abruptly, and got to the relevant real deal, “You must be born again.” Nicodemus tried to damn Jesus with faint praise; Jesus, in response, told him, with no praise, that he was damned. 

Piers Morgan, like Nicodemus, certainly has a fair admiration of Jesus the teacher. He has his own ideas about a ‘loving’ God as he made plain in his Lewis Black interview. He clearly thinks of himself as moral, and even morally superior to Cameron. In his own mind, neither his religious views, nor his ethical guidelines, are a real problem. He's right; he'd be shocked to find out how right he is. These are not the real problem. He's got much deeper problems: he is, at present, dead in sin, and blind to truth. His moral preening before cameras is viewed by many -- but, it is, in the strictest sense of the word, a 'viewing': he's sound asleep at his own wake.

Unbelievers often want to mud wrestle over moral questions, and they usually pose such questions in dreadful worse cased scenarios, "What if your daughter were raped?" In a way, many unbelievers are actually too moral or, rather, too concerned about only morals; too caught up in defending their personal self-righteousness, and being morally superior to others. Ah, the smugness. What a strange thing to see a corpse smile with satisfaction. I sometimes wonder if the world has forgotten that Jesus' followers include scores of former prostitutes, drunks, blasphemers, embezzlers, and low-lifes: scores of people even now snubbed by the self-satisfied elite. Micah prophesied that The City of God would be populated by the lame. Huh? 

And the lame I will make the remnant, and those who were cast off, a strong nation; and the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion from this time forth and forevermore (Micah 4.7).

I read those words again today, and again, scratched my head. Even now, The City of God is being colonized -- to the derision of the so-called healthy -- by men who crawl forth on all fours with dust on their lips? What a strange prophecy -- does it ever fail to shock? Does it ever fail to startle that one Saul of Tarsus, the least moral man who ever lived, the infamous chief of sinners, is one Jesus' most famous followers. 

Jesus appears rather drawn to than repelled by these kinds of broken people. He can, obviously, deal decisively with whatever immorality there is, and whatever guilt and power accompany such immorality. So, ironically, a man's morality is often a bigger hindrance than a man's immorality. A man's morality may divert his attention from his deeper problem: his utterly corrupt and dead heart.

By getting mired with Morgan in a battle of the wits over morality, Cameron was wasting his breath. Morgan wasn’t convinced, and he wasn’t going to be convinced. He couldn’t even fathom what Cameron was saying; it was literally folly to him. No surprise. Blind men can’t see truth no matter how big the letters are painted. When Jesus confronted Nicodemus, he went to the heart of the matter: the heart. Mankind is blinded by sin and in a mad rage against the good God. Jesus told Nicodemus he’d never see the Kingdom unless he was born again. He didn’t try to paint the picture of the Kingdom in vivid colors; Nicodemus couldn’t see any color apart from the gracious intervention of God. 

The grace of God -- there’s the only remedy for dead rebels: transformation and spiritual vision comes by the grace of God. It comes, not by man's decision, but by God's, as God unilaterally raises dead sinners out of their spiritual graves and opens their blind eyes. We can’t argue anyone into the Kingdom anymore than we can argue a dead person back to life. Even if we were to win the argument, and persuade them of our position -- well, all we've done is polish a chipped nail on a corpse.

Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, and Wise Apologetics, pt. 4

Wise Witnesses # 2: Sound Doctrine Not Sound Bites.

When it comes to being more wise, Cameron might have refused to hand deliver what were sure to be offensive sound bites. Much of the discussion revolved around sexuality with Morgan trying to get Cameron to say something, anything, to rouse the masses into madness. Morgan was almost salivating as he asked, twice, "Is it... a SIN?" 

After the discussion about sexuality, he engaged Cameron (a well known pro-life advocate) on abortion, the other highly flammable moral issue of our time. He did so by questioning what Cameron would do if his own daughter were raped and became pregnant. Wouldn't he then approve of an abortion? Doesn't he have a heart?

You gotta admit, Morgan is gooood. His questions, and this one in particular, were calculated to make Cameron look like a bad guy: the overall stratagem (well achieved by the end) was to toss Cameron gut-wrenching complex questions, and pressure him into short offensive answers. 

Actually, on television, almost any answer Cameron gave would be offensive; these interviews are replayed only for sound bites in media outlets. Few will watch the whole interview. Not to mention, on a 30 minute show, there's not much time for thoughtful interchange.

So, how might Cameron have responded more wisely? He might have pointed out that time would not allow discussion of issues  which were too important and sensitive to give short shrift. 

He might have questioned Morgan's tactic -- unhelpful in itself -- of posing dismaying, the-sky-is-falling, scenarios as tests of morality. Such an approach to ethics sets us adrift in murky waters. "If your daughter was raped?" -- I've got a worse, even gloomier, scenario. What if an comet struck earth tomorrow and destroyed all human life? What would you do then? All this kind of questioning tends to abstract ethics from the here and now, and into some dark future -- a future which will likely never be. Jesus said don't fret about tomorrow; each day has plenty trouble to keep us busy.

Many years ago, I had a job interview. The interviewer was an older lady, and didn't know much about genuine Christianity. Yet, she was curious when I mentioned my work as a preacher in the PCA. Then, a light bulb went off, and she said, "Hey! That's the denomination that doesn't ordain women!" Clearly, the very thought offended her. Next, with marked annoyance, she asked, "Why won't you ordain women (i.e., what is wrong with you bigots)?" You could feel the heat rising in the room as she awaited my answer. She was waiting, just waiting, to cast scourges on whatever I said next. 

All this happened near the end of the interview. Due to time constraints, we had, at most, 5 minutes to continue talking. I knew that, at best, we'd engage in a short and heated debate wherein I might get a few major points across. So, I said, "That's a great question, and an important one. There is a good answer. I'd love to talk to you more about it when we have time to really sit down and address the matter." The room cooled, and we parted on friendly terms. The job didn't work out, and I never got a chance to sit down with the lady, but I'm convinced I did some good. If nothing else, I let her know that sound doctrine cannot be reduced to sound bites. Truth has thick layers, deep texture, and it requires careful explanation. 

Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, and Wise Apologetics, pt. 3.

Wise Witnesses # 1: Lace 'Em Up Tight

How might Cameron, and we, handle hostile situations wisely? First, by recognizing when we are in an hostile situation. Cameron might have taken better stock of the battle field he was walking into. If you are doing an interview with Piers Morgan, you can expect that he’s looking for an angle to trap you in a verbal forest fire. He's shown again and again that he cares more about ratings than rational discourse; people like to watch things burn, and he's a skilled arsonist.

Cameron’s purpose on Morgan’s show was to talk about his film Monumental; that’s what he tried to talk about. Morgan’s purpose was, as always, on all his shows, to talk about what he wanted to so as to create a story and drive ratings. This is a man who came to fame in America by gaining media-shy Michael Jackson’s trust (not an easy task), and then using that trust to get close enough to stab him square in the back. Morgan is the master of the assassin interview: a verbal hit man with an impressive body count. This is what he has been doing for many years; this is what he does for a living; this is what he does better than anybody for a world-class living on one of the biggest news stages in the world. Yeah, he's a pro.

Let's watch the pro in action. As Morgan broached controversy with Cameron, he did so shrewdly. He began, "If I asked you, for example, what your view of gay marriage is, what would you say?" Note: he doesn't ask; he poses a hypothetical thought experiment that might be asked in an alternate universe. This is so sneaky. It enables Morgan to keep up the appearance of being friendly with the interviewee; he's not a bad guy, and he's not really responsible for the wickedness involved in asking a contentious question with, to quote Eliot, insidious intent. He might as well have said, "If I hypothetically were to place a live stick of dynamite in your lap for the pleasure of blowing you to smithereens -- for example, only as an example -- what would you say to that, old chap?" But the "if" and the "for example" and the seeming mildness of the interviewer all cover the ill-motives. In his opening question, Morgan shows why he has a PhD in con-tro-versy. He courts trust, abstracts the discussion, and confuses the answerer, and all at the same time. This is brilliant, but dishonest, and rather serpertine. It calls to mind another serpent, and a garden,  and a tree, and a harmless query, "Did God really say?"

But Cameron didn't bite. He took a wise turn, "Well, go ahead and ask me." This was a refusal to mince words: a demand for Morgan take responsibility.

Morgan still refused to ask the question directly; he knew that would come off as despicable. Instead, he played the innocent inquisitor (He used the same tactic to devastating effect with Michael Jackson), "These issues are interesting to me...," he said, like a baffled child in search of understanding. Then, he changed the angle of the question, and posed it to Cameron as a family man, "These issues are interesting to me about what you would tell your kids who you are trying to protect, for example. Would you tell them that gay marriage is (pregnant pause) a sin?" You gotta admit, Morgan knew his man. Cameron is known above all as a family man, and Morgan is appealing to his sense of care for his defenseless children. The question was about sexuality; Morgan has turned it into a question about the heart of a father. 

While Morgan did his homework, and knew his ‘target,’ it seems Cameron didn’t do his homework; he certainly didn’t know that he was a target. He answered Morgan’s seeming childish curiosity by directing the discussion toward God's definition of marriage. He was trying to offer a thoughtful and helpful answer. But then,  Morgan went in for the kill. In search of an offensive sound bite, he cuts Cameron off mid-sentence, "What...What do you believe?" In other words, "Don't tell me why. Don't give me a detailed presentation of truth. Give me what I really want!"

The interview stumbled on. All the while, Morgan tried to get Cameron to say something negative. He used questions like, "Do you think homosexuality is a sin?" Cameron kept trying to steer things in a better direction, without much success. And the fire raged. 

Cameron seemed surprised during the interview, and offended afterward, that Morgan would ambush him in search of an offensive sound bite. He rightly accused Morgan of stirring up controversy purposely, and for no good purpose. Of course that’s what Morgan did. That’s what Morgan always does. It wasn't surprising that Morgan courted controversy; it is slightly surprising that Cameron would be surprised that Morgan courted controversy.

Jesus told us to be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves. Serpents are wily creatures; they don’t walk into traps unawares; they have a cunning instinct for self-protection. Did Morgan ambush Cameron with flammable questions? Yep. Did he do so in a sneaky way? You bet. Was he underhanded? Un-huh. A bit of a snake? No doubt. All the same, Christians are called on to be snakes as well – not morally, but intellectually. We are to be snakes in the grass when it comes to intellectual agility. When dealing with tricky people and tricky situations, we need tricks up our sleeve. There's a Chinese proverb, “For the man who is prepared, there is no emergency.” Situations like the Morgan interview can quickly turn ugly for the unprepared, "For the man unprepared, everything is an emergency."

A friend used to say, before basketball games, "You better lace 'em up tight." It was his way of saying, "Get ready -- don't be casual, or careless. This is going to be tough." Christians are called to, when appropriate, recognize hostile situations, and then lace 'em up tight.

Cameron, Piers Morgan, and Wise Apologetics, pt. 2.

The Bonfire Fueled By Vanity

A third distressing phenomenon is the extreme unwillingness of the average questioner to listen to the answer -- a phenomenon exhibited in exaggerated form by professional interviewers on the staffs of popular journals. It is a plain fact that ninety-nine "interviews" out of a hundred contain more or less subtle distortions of the answers given to questions, the questions being, moreover, in many cases, wrongly conceived for the purpose of eliciting the truth. The distortions are not confined to distortions of opinion but are frequently also distortions of fact, and not merely stupid misunderstandings at that, but deliberate falsifications. The journalist is, indeed, not interested in the facts.- Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of The Maker.

Almost as soon as the interview ended, Kirk Cameron was denounced as a moral criminal. A crime had been committed on public television, and the watching world gasped. The world was partly right: They had witnessed a crime -- just not by Cameron. The true crime -- for him, not a new crime -- was Morgan's flagrant disregard of journalistic ethics. 

Cameron was right in a subsequent interview on Fox and Friends to call Morgan disingenuous, and question his motives. Morgan is, after all, the one who started the conversation, and he is the one who coaxed Cameron further despite his clear desire to talk about other things. Morgan is the one who wanted to talk specifically about sexuality and abortion -- not Cameron, who just wanted to talk about his new documentary Monumental. 

Morgan was mild during the interview, but loud in subsequent comments. He's disavowed all blame, and accused Cameron of "whining." Further, he's dismissed Cameron as a hate filled and scientifically illiterate bigot. While still feigning surprise that Cameron said exactly what he knew, aye hoped, he would say, he's cast Cameron as an idiotic little alien who’d just landed in the 21st century America, fresh from some barbarous podunk planet. He even took the low high road of question the sincerity of Cameron's Christianity, "I just don't think you can sit there with a straight face and say I'm a Christian... (2:07)" 

During an interchange with Lewis Black, Morgan even stooped to misconstruing Cameron's comments as, "... by the way, I hate these people (2:14)." Hate -- now there's a word to stoke a controversy into a white hot blaze. A word, incidentally, which Cameron never used. You can watch the interview a hundred times, and you'll never hear the word "hate." You will, however, hear the word love -- not from Morgan, but Cameron. 

So, Morgan provided the kindling for the fire, then piled on dry wood, poured on gasoline -- and to make sure it burned white hot -- unleashed a flame thrower. Then, he backed away from the flames with feigned shock, and bogus self-righteousness, and condemned the inferno. In Morgan's last melodramatic tweet on the Cameron interview, he claimed disrespect only for Cameron's bigotry, and "inflammatory language" -- inflammatory language? So says the man holding a flame thrower.

I can't think of a word to sufficiently describe the vileness of Morgan's actions. He's like a charlatan who goes from town to town making money by promoting spectacles of gruesome violence. Then, when the show is over, he whips crowds into a frenzy in protest of such violence. Wait, there is a word to describe such a person; that word is hypocrite. 

The passion of every sincere journalist is, or ought to be, seeking truth in the cause justice. Morgan is concerned with seeking controversy in the cause of ratings. He is no different than the  tenth rate gossip mags that run sensational (and false) story lines to catch the eye of old ladies at the check out stand. Martin Luther demanded, "Peace if possible, truth at all costs." Morgan seeks, "Controversy if possible, ratings at all costs." 

Now, let’s be clear, no matter what Morgan says about Cameron being an insincere Christian -- good grief, has Piers Morgan risen so high in his moral superiority that he can pronounce by divine fiat who is/is not a genuine disciple of Jesus? -- no matter, Cameron does represent Christianity. He is a sterling example of a Christian family man; he is also true to the teaching of Christ in commending counter-culture ethics, and the preciousness of human life. Lastly, and most importantly, Cameron was true to the whole spirit of Christianity in his humble demeanor during the interview. In fact, despite Morgan's insistent prodding to use the word "sin," the only time Cameron talked about sin was when he said, "... all of us are sinful. I can stand at the top of the list and say I need a savior." Morgan questioned whether Cameron was a sincere Christian; I question whether Morgan knows what a sincere Christian is. Worse, I question if Morgan sincerely cares about what a sincere Christian is.

Regardless, all in all, Cameron handled the situation well -- I'm sure, better than most. Yet, might he have handled it better? How might he have handled it better? What can we learn from the interview and the controversy that followed? Cameron faced a hostile and subtle interviewer in the context of a bitter and antagonistic culture. This is the usual lot of Christians throughout history, and increasingly, the lot of Christians in America. There’s a lesson for Christians in the interview and the controversy that followed. The lesson is: we not only need to stand for biblical Christianity, we need to do so wisely. 

Kirk Cameron, Piers Morgan, and Wise Apologetics pt. 1

by CWK

In my copy of the New Testament, I underline passages which take my fancy. Nearly all of them are about the deceitfulness of the cares of this world and of riches, about how concupiscence and vanity separate us from God... It is difficult to think of any sentiments which would be more intrinsically unsympathetic in most clerical circles. They are, I should say, about the most unpopular sentences it is possible to utter today... (they cause) on radio and television panels derision and incredulity. 

- Malcolm Muggeridge, The New Statesman, "Am I A Christian?," March 10, 1967.

The Kingdom of Hollywood and The Kingdom of Heaven

Hollywood is a town of tinsel, and plenty of it, a city flush with every kind of earthly wealth in the wealthiest nation yet seen on planet earth. Hollywood eats innocents alive, and then smacks her lips with knowing coolness; her plush mansions are a burial ground: her slain, a mighty throng.

Kirk Cameron, once a first citizen in the Kingdom of Hollywood, long ago transferred his citizenship to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the face of the greatest riches this world has to offer, he chose ahigher, sweeter, fuller, and more enduring treasure: a heavenly one. He traded glittering tinsel for solid gold. In so doing, he’s blazed a trail of integrity, faithfulness, and singular Christian virtue straight out of Hollywood. Every conversion is a miracle, but this is the spiritual equivalent of an escape from Alcatraz.  

Cameron is known to make stands for the Kingdom of God against the spiritual wasteland that is the Kingdom of Hollywood. In a recent confrontation on Piers Morgan Live, he dared to present a Christian's perspective on the two most incendiary issues of our day: sexuality and abortion. 

After the interview, Cameron found himself in a firestorm of rabid tweets and denunciations. Twitter was bitter; The Huffington Post was huffing and puffing. He was pilloried in cities all over the world wide web as a man with a hateful heart: immoral, backward, and ignorant. Piers Morgan, the man who started the fire, distanced himself from it all. Even though he started 'it,' knew exactly what Cameron would say, and goaded Cameron when he tried to change subjects, Morgan positioned himself as the poor bystander who'd been forced to watch a deed of infamy (see 1:36 on video). 

And thus was born the latest outbreak of a long running culture war. Here's my report from the front lines: a report, hopefully, which will strengthen and assist my Christian comrades in arms. See part 2.

Chris McCandless: Where The Wild Things Are

Note: If you haven't read Krakauer's Into The Wild, or followed the debate surrounding the book, this won't make much sense.

My favorite childhood book was Where the Wild Things Are. One of my favorite 'adult' books is Into the Wild. These two books have more in common than the word, "wild." They both address an inherent thirst in the heart of all man/men: the thirst for adventure. This is desire to cut loose, take risks, and set off into the sunset alone, and without a plan; this is the inkling to set sail for a wild place, with a wild and free heart. Both books present a character following this desire. And, in both books, the main character (and by extension, the reader) learns that such journeys do not all end well. However, in Where the Wild Things Are, our little hero sees the folly of his ways and returns home. He learns that wildness unrestrained in the rough and tumble wilderness, with rough and tumble  creatures, is only fun for so long. And so, Max goes home to the domestic pleasures of a loving mother. It appears, especially in the portrait painted by Krakauer, that Chris McCandless learned a similar lesson. Only, he never made it home.

I submit that we should, in raising boys and in being men, continue to honor McCandless' zest for adventure even though his journey did not end well. There was something brave and bold about his life, and that is one reason his life, albeit short, had such an impact. I submit that critics of his have been too severe in their critiques. He died -- not simply because he was reckless -- but mostly because of what some would call bad luck, others call fate, and others (me included) providential particulars.

He had some genuinely bad fortune. For example, being poisoned and made weak by eating "Pot. seed." Also, his body was found only 19 days after his death. Let's say he had preserved the moose (which, incidentally, he might have if he'd not been given bad advice in South Dakota). Well, this would have gotten him through that final 19 days, and he would have been found. He wasn't just reckless, and he wasn't suicidal. One or two critical breaks in the other direction, and he would have made it out alive. We should think of his death along the lines of an "accident." There was no intentionality to his death, certainly not on his part. A truly reckless person often has a death wish; McCandless had the opposite: a life wish: a genuine desire to live life to its fullest: a genuine, and mostly good, desire to journey where the wild things are.

Aristotle argued that courage is the golden mean between feelings of of cowardice on the one hand, and feelings of recklessness on the other. True courage is not recklessness; nor is it sheepishness. It is somewhere, some golden place, between the two. I submit that McCandless had -- this is what fascinates us about him -- courage. He nudges us away from sheepishness. Such courage enabled him to set off, "into the wild." This courage should be honored. We need to learn, of course, that real courage avoids recklessness; there are many places and books and men from which to learn this. At the same time, we need to learn that real courage avoids the timid life of a coward. There are many men from which to learn this as well. Chris McCandless is among them.

It is part of a good man to do great and noble deeds, though he risk everything.- Plutarch

It is better by noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half the evils we anticipate than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what might happen.
- Herodotus

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

Boldness in a Relativistic Age

CWK

“Remember the speeches we spoke over mead, when we our boast won the bench raised: (the boasts of) heroes in hall about hard fight. Now, may the man who is bold prove that he is so!” – Aelfwine in The Battle of Maldon, when he saw men deserting their posts.

***

A definition: BOLDNESS comes from embracing definite/clear/exclusive/ authoritative truth in the heart, and results in proclaiming and defending such truth with fearless freedom.

J.A. Alexander has defined boldness as, “freedom and plainness of speech as opposed not only to a timid reserve, but to a partial and obscure exhibition of the truth.” John Stott (based on the NT word parrasia) defines boldness as, “…speech which is candid (with no concealment of truth), clear (with no obscurity of expression), and confident (with no fear of consequences).” The apostles prayed for it (Acts 4.20-31), and the apostle Paul considered it essential for the full proof of his ministry (Eph. 6.19-20; Phil. 1.20; 1 Thess. 2.2).

If you are reading this, then I take for granted that you are interested in pursuing boldness. First, know this: if you are an American in 2012, you live in a relativistic age: truth is relative; nothing is worth dying for; everything is everything; everything is relative. There are no big T TRUTHS: truths which cover everything and everyone; there is only your truth, or my truth. Even the most illogical and immoral positions may be excused by reference to “personal truth.”

The modern habit of saying, "This is my opinion, but I may be wrong" is entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my opinion. The modern habit of saying "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me" - the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.
– G.K. Chesterton, Introduction to the Book of Job.

My truth; your truth. Upon such a philosophy you were nurtured from infancy. It is the spirit of the age. Such a position is untenable (see Leslie Newbigen’s, The Gospel In A Pluralist Society). Such a position also saps the lifeblood of boldness. Such a position makes us timid: men without chests.

The relativism which is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me’ is an evasion of the serious business of living. It is the mark of a tragic loss of nerve in our contemporary culture. It is a preliminary symptom of death. There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp, but if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth it is in fact an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior to [all others]...We have to ask: 'What is the [absolute] vantage ground from which you claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims these different scriptures make?” ― Lesslie Newbigen, The Gospel In A Pluralist Society.

One consequence of uncontrolled relativism is an apologetic, weasel-y, cowardly, diffident, and timid demeanor: a non-boldness. After all, if there are no grand truths worth dying for, then there are no truths worth being bold about. When relativism reigns, men are left without grand reasons-to-be, without chests, and without courage to speak up.

 The man who called the cataract sublime was not intending simply to describe his own emotions about it: he was also claiming that the object was one which merited those emotions. But for this claim there would be nothing to agree or disagree about. ....  The Chest—Magnanimity—Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal. ....And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive,' or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity.' In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

— C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

Men without chests have a particular communication style. Their voices are mild, just above a whisper; their octaves are high, just above a whine. They often resort to vague metaphors, “It’s kind of like… almost… sort of…” They pile up similes, like bricks, into high walls: not in defense of truth, but in defense from truth. Their speech is full of groping uncertainty, “maybe; perhaps; possibly.” They employ outrageous oxymorons like, “it seems certain.” Seems – certain? They are prolific in qualifying adverbs, but impoverished in action verbs. They wander indecisively along dark streets of meandering prose toward cloudy ‘ideas,’ or, ‘theories.’ They defer decision. They avoid definite assertions; they avoid anything which might offend. Instead, they ask a slew of rhetorical questions with sheepish shyness. They are fond of ‘personal theories,’ and conspiracy theories. Sometimes, they taste a crumb of the truth – and being starved for truth – this crumb nurtures them day and night. From the crumbs of truth, they build vast intellectual empires. And so, “the key to everything,” or, “the secret of life,” revolves around trivialities about, “finding oneself.” Formerly, wise men explained one thing by everything; these wise men explain everything by one thing.

Just as it is the latest fad [of Freudian psychoanalysis] to prove that everything is sexual, so it was the last fad [of Marxism] to prove that everything was economic.  . . .  It is a character of all these manias [from Darwin, Marx, and Freud] that they cannot really convince the mind, but they do cloud it.  Above all, they do darken it.  All these tremendous and rather temporary discoveries have had the singular fascination that they were not merely degrading, but were also depressing.  Each in turn leaves no trace on the true and serious conclusions of the world.  But each in turn may leave very deep and disastrous wounds and dislocations in the mentality of the individual man.— G.K. Chesterton, “The Game of Psychoanalysis”, Century Magazine, May 1923, quoted in Dale Ahlquist, Common Sense 101, pg. 110.

The absence of boldness in public life, or in an individual’s life, can be traced back to the philosophy of relativism. Relativism is a wishy-washy perspective; it makes men wishy-washy in practice. The root of boldness is the seeing of and commitment to authoritative truth in the heart. Where there's no authoritative truth, there can be no boldness. It is common in our present culture (i.e., relativistic America) to hear writers and teachers use soft language, "perhaps, maybe, sort of, almost, kind of." Teachers and even Christian preachers are nervous about saying things in a definite and exclusive way. They want to be inclusive, subtle, and politically correct. Fair enough. But such a disposition is the opposite of boldness. If a man disavows clear defined truth, he will, as the daylight follows dawn, veer toward timidity. The way to be bold is not, first of all, to learn to speak in a grand and fiery manner. The way to be bold is to take hold of some grand and fiery truth. Possession of truth will make you bold. A bold man does not make a thing true. Rather, truth makes a man bold. 

Truth, clear and definite, makes men bold; truth, universal and exclusive, makes men courageous. Truth is by definition exclusive; contradiction of such truth is falsehood.

What success I have had results from the fact that I have always been certain that my military reactions were correct. Many people do not agree with me; they are wrong. The unerring jury of history written long after both of us are dead will prove me correct.
— George Patton, qtd. in Posterity Letters, Dorie McCullough Lawson, (Double Day, 2004) pg. 100.

– such is the conviction and boldness of a man who has got hold of TRUTH. I am right! You are wrong! Relativistic ears hate to call anyone wrong, but if an individual desires to be bold, they are going to have to see that on many, many issues, there is such a thing as black/white. On many, many issues, there is no such thing as a grey area. William Penn, while imprisoned in the tower of London, was strengthened by real truth, and the conviction that right is right, and wrong is wrong. He said, 

“My prison shall be my grave before I will budge a jot; for, I owe my conscience to no man. Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”

In a relativistic age, many truths die the death of a thousand qualifications. We feel the need to hem in every statement, and make excuses for bolder words. The bold man is willing to make a statement, and let it live: to free a truth, and let it stand on its own two feet before the stunned world. The bold man, confident in the truth of his case and cause, is willing to throw his cards down, and let the chips fall where they may. In the annals of history, no one possessed more bold energy than Jesus Christ. He words, like his deeds, are miracles: they come with sudden and bracing light. They fly like bullets, and cut like a knife. Jesus was not shy about saying, "If you do not repent, you will all likewise perish (Lk. 13.5)." He didn't qualify the word "all." He let the word "all" stand. Consider his use of strong terminology, "If anyone comes after me and does not hate your father, mother...even your own, life you cannot be my disciple (Mt. 10.37)." Jesus was not afraid to use all-encompassing strong language. Yes, there is a time to be gentle. But that time is not, "all the time." If we are gentle all the time, then the whole value of gentleness is gone. There is also a time and place to be private, but the gospel is not a private, nor a personal, matter. It is a public truth in the same way that the multiplication tables are public truths.

…the gospel cannot be accommodated as one element in a society which has pluralism as its reigning ideology.  The Church cannot accept as its role simply the winning of individuals to a kind of Christian discipleship which concerns only the private and domestic aspects of life.  To be faithful to a message which concerns the kingdom of God, his rule over all things and peoples, the Church has to claim the high ground of public truth.— Newbigen, The Gospel In A Pluralist Society.

So, clear and definite and exclusive truth makes for boldness – but such truth must be embraced in our hearts. In other words, we must believe; we must hold the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience (1 Tim. 3.9). With a sense of purpose and deliberation, we must set our hearts upon the truth.

We must also develop, by God's grace, what Jonathan Edwards referred to as "religious affections." This means learning to love the right things in the right order. We are to love true, and noble, right, pure, and admirable things. And we must love the best things best. A great hindrance to boldness is a disordered set of affections. For example, if we prefer peace over purity, we will never be bold. Why? Because our sense the value of things is disorderly: James counsels us to FIRST pursue purity, and then peace (James 3.17). Or, as Martin Luther put it, "Peace if possible; truth at all costs." We may also wrongly prefer (prefer = regard with greater love) peace over persecution; again, this is disorderly love, and contrary to Jesus' warning, "Do not fear him who can kill the body; fear him who can throw you, body and soul, into hell (Lk. 12.5)."

One great hindrance to boldness is the fear of man. Or, rather, fearing man more than God. The only way to be free of illegitimate fear is to cultivate godly fear. When Jesus urges us not to fear man, he points us to the proper fear of God, “Do not fear him… fear HIM… (Lk. 12.5).” We might also consider what a silly thing it is to fear weak and ineffectual man. After all, what can man do to me (Heb. 13.6)?

Francis Schaeffer conquered the fear of man by grasping, on the one hand,  the greatness of God, and on the other hand, and the smallness of man. In 1951, while living in Champery Switzerland, he wrote:

I thought how our dear Lord comes into more proper perspective in our thinking in such a place as this- for the higher the mountains, the more understandable is the glory of him who made them and who holds them in his hand. But the other side is also true: man also comes into his proper place. As the Lord gains in greatness in comparison to the mountains, so man diminishes. As it is with space, it is also true of time. My letters from here go to so many countries, and in the last few years I have found friends in many of them. As I have learned the history of these lands from those who tell the history from their hearts, time has come to mean something different to me than it ever did before, when time was measured only by the short scope of the hurrying clock or cold dates on a page of the history book. But as time falls into its proper place, again God seems to grow greater by comparison, and again it has the opposite effect on man. As the mountains shrink him down to size, so also does time…the rectifying process of space and time (has) caused my view of the Lord to grow greater , and my view of man and his works and judgments to grow proportionately smaller… The mountains are too high, history is too long, and eternity is longer. God is too great, man is too small…and if one man and a small group of men do not approve of where I am and what I do, does it prove I have missed success? No; only one thing will determine that – whether this day I’m where the King of Kings and Lord of Lords wants me to be.
— Francis Schaeffer, The Letters of Francis Schaeffer (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books), 1985.                                                                  

As a closing word, boldness does not mean that we are arrogant, or self-important. Genuine godly boldness begins with humility. Humility, first of all, as we bow before the truth. Humility, second of all, because we understand that boldness, like all issues of spiritual strength, depends first on God’s strength. So, with a sense of need, we walk humbly with God, living in his grace, depending on resources. And we pray,

Acts 4.29, “And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness.”

But if the biblical story is true, the kind of certainty proper to a human being will be one which rests on the fidelity of God, not upon the competence of the human knower. It will be a kind of certainty which is inseparable from gratitude and trust.
― Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship.

QUOTES AND RESOURCES ON BOLDNESS

*with hyperlinks.

                                                                         

Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor:

See that the work of saving grace has really and truly been accomplished in your OWN souls...take heed to yourself lest you perish while you are calling others to take heed of perishing...many have warned others that they come not to the place of torment while they rushed to it themselves...Can any reasonable man imagine that God would save a man for offering salvation to others while they neglect it themselves.

J.C. Ryle, Only One Way – Christ!:

Do not be content with hearing, and approving, and assenting to the truth, and going no further.  Seek to have a personal interest in this salvation: lay hold by faith for your own soul; do not rest till you know and feel that you have gotten actual possession of that peace with God which Jesus offers, and that Christ is yours, and you are Christ’s.  If there were two, or three, or more ways of getting to heaven, there would be no necessity for pressing this matter upon you.  But if there is only one way, you will hardly wonder that I say, "Make sure that you are in it."

William Gurnall, “Ministerial Boldness,” (Banner of Truth, vol. 1, 266; italics his):

Great words in reproving an error or sin, but weak arguments, produce laughter oftener than tears.... Let the reproof be as sharp as thou wilt; but the spirit must be meek. Passion raiseth the blood of him that is reproved; but compassion breaks his heart. We must not denounce wrath in wrath, lest sinners think we wish their misery; but rather with such tenderness, that they may see it is no pleasing work to us, but we do it that we might not, be a cruel silence, be accessory to their ruin, which we desire to prevent... A humble boldness, such a boldness as is raised from a confidence in God, and not from ourselves, or own gifts or ability, courage or stoutness... Some helps to produce this boldness. First, a holy fear of God. We fear man so much because we fear God so little. One fear cures another; When man’s terrors scare you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God; this is the way Jeremiah was cured of his aguish distemper, fearing man: Jer. 1.17... Third, keep a clear conscience: he cannot be a bold reprover, that is not a conscientious liver; such a one must speak softly, for fear of walking on his own guilty conscience... Unholiness in a preacher’s life will either stop his mouth from reproving, or the people’s ears from receiving. O how harsh a sound does such a cracked bell make in the ears of his audience!...consider if thou be not now bold for Christ in the ministry, thou canst not be bold before Christ at his judgment; he that is afraid to speak for Christ will certainly be ashamed to look on his face then. ‘We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ’ 2 Cor. 5:10. Now what use doth Paul make of this solemn meditation? ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men’... It is a very small thing to be judged by men now for our boldness, but dismal to be condemned by Christ for our cowardice... pray for this holy boldness... it was the child of prayer (Acts 4.29ff)... Mark, they do not pray to be excused the battle, but to be armed with courage to stand in it; they had rather be lifted above the fear of suffering, than have immunity from the suffering... If this be thy sincere request, God will not deny it.

J.C. Ryle, “Past and Present Ministries Compared,” (Banner of Truth, vol. 1, 267):

Wherein do evangelical Churchmen fall short of their great predecessors? Let us look this question fairly in the face. Let us come to particulars. They fall short in doctrine. They are neither so full nor so distinct, nor so bold, nor so uncompromising. They are afraid of strong statements. They are too ready to fence, and guard, and qualify all their teaching, as if Christ’s gospel was a little baby, and could not be trusted to walk alone. They fall short as preachers. They have neither the fervor, nor fire, nor thought, nor illustration, nor directness, nor boldness, nor grand simplicity of language which characterized the last century. Above all, they fall short in life. They are not men of one thing, separate from the world, unmistakable men of God, ministers of Christ everywhere, indifferent to man’s opinion, regardless of who is offended, if they only preach the truth. They do not make the world feel that a prophet is among them, and carry about with them their Master’s presence, as Moses when he came down from the mount... Ease and popularity, and the absence of persecution, are ruinous to some. An extravagant and excessive attention to petty details withers up the ministry of others. An absurd straining after the reputation of being “intellectual” and original is the curse of others. A desire to seem charitable and liberal, and keep in with everybody, paralyzes the ministry of others.

Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, pg. 16-17: 

(Why is it that bible believing Christian colleges, seminaries, and even whole denominations abandon ‘the faith?) There are several different reasons, of course. But giving in to cultural pressure is often a significant factor. In every generation there are popular views in the culture that contradict what the Bible says, and it is so easy to compromise on one point or another... Almost nobody wants to tackle the subject (of evangelical feminism)! It is “too controversial,” which means it will stir up objections and many people will be upset. It is not easy to stand against the culture. It is much easier to give in and say women can do whatever men can do in the church and in the home.

Luther to Erasmus, Bondage of the Will, pg. 66-70:

Now, lest we be misled by words let me say here that by ‘assertion’ I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it, and persevering in it unvanquished... And I am talking about the assertion of what has been delivered to us from above in the Sacred Scriptures. Outside this we do not need Erasmus or any other teacher to tell us that over matters which are doubtful, or unprofitable and unnecessary, assertions and contentions are not merely stupid, but positively impious; Paul condemns them often enough! ...What Christian can endure the idea that we should deprecate all assertions? That would be denying all religion and piety in one breath – asserting that religion and piety and all dogmas are just nothing at all...Woe to the Christian who doubts the truth of what is commanded him and does not follow it! – for how can he believe what he does not follow... In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what anyone believes anywhere, so long as the world is at peace; you would be happy for anyone whose life, reputation, welfare or influence was at stake to emulate him who said ‘if they affirm, I affirm; if they deny, so do I (Ter., Eun),. II. 2.21); and you would encourage him to treat Christian doctrines as no better than the views of human philosophers – about which, of course, it is stupid to wrangle and fight and assert, since nothing results but bad feeling and breaches of outward peace... Fear the Spirit of God, who searches the reins and heart, and is not deceived by stupid speeches... The Holy Spirit is no Skeptic; and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions – surer and more certain than sense and life itself.

Strunk and White, Elements of Style, 3^rd edition:

 Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.. This is true not only in narrative principally concerned with action, but in writing of any kind. Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice... Prefer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the concrete to the abstract... If those who have studied the art of writing are in accord on any one point, it is on this: the surest way to arouse and hold the attention of the reader is to be specific, definite, and concrete.

Malcolm Muggeridge, Chronicles: The Green Stick, pg. 171: 

It is painful to me now to reflect on the ease with which I got into the way of using this non-language; these drooling non-sentences conveying non-thoughts, propounding non-fears and offering non-hopes. Words are as beautiful as love, and as easily betrayed. I am more penitent for my false words – for the most part, mercifully lost forever in the Media’s great slag-heaps – than for false deeds.

 For preachers, see Richard Pratt, “The Concept of The Kingdom of God: Ancient Near East Backgrounds And Preaching Today,”

"Where two or three are gathered in my name" –  the imagery “in my name" comes from the Old Testament (1 Kings 8:29).  The name of God becomes resident in the temple. Jesus is referring to the "name theology" of the OT. The name of God goes with the temple of God. In the NT, the church is the temple; wherever the church goes, the name goes. "In my name" is temple talk. The temple was royal: it was God's palace. When we are gathered in church, "in the name," it is a royal image - the preacher is the royal herald. The preacher receives the message from the great king of heaven and has the objective of giving the message to the people of God. This is a far cry from the greeter, therapist, politician or teacher. A herald of God must be a holy herald. This is not an ordinary event. Not all things are holy as this is. Also, no herald in the ancient world would have dared to say anything different from what the king said. A royal herald says what the king says, no matter what. Heralds had authority. When preaching is true to the word, it is the word, and thus the people of God are to hear it.

Also for preachers, see The Second Helveltic Confession, Chapter 1:

The Preaching of the Word of God Is the Word of God. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.  Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor . . ., for they shall all know me (Jer. 31:34), and Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth (I Cor. 3:7). For although no one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father (John 6:44), and unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, He shall tell you what you ought to do (Acts 10:6).

 Charles Spurgeon, The Evils Of The Present Time:

The next thing necessary for the present time is that we should have more faith. We need to believe more intensely in God, so as to trust Him more practically and more unquestioningly. The things which we believe must become more real to us. I fear we often use words without feeling their true meaning. This is terrible. It is a sort of willful murder to expel the soul from pious phrases, and still to use them. Let us be honest about the things of God; let us mean all that we say, and say only what we mean. It is a shocking thing for a man to talk all manner of Evangelical, gracious, and sanctifying things, and yet to mean nothing by them. I fear our pulpits are not free from such word-mongers. Let us not hold forth shadows before the people… To us Christ is a real Christ; and the Holy Ghost within a man brings real life from the dead. If we do not preach realities, I pray God we may be driven out of the ministry, in which we are only treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath.

Augustine on The Aim of The Orator:

Neither is it a necessity to give pleasure; for when, in the course of an address, the truth is clearly pointed out (and this is the true function of teaching), it is not the fact, nor is it the intention, that the style of speech should make the truth pleasing, or that the style should of itself give pleasure; but the truth itself, when exhibited in its naked simplicity, gives pleasure, because it is the truth.  And hence even falsities are frequently a source of pleasure when they are brought to light and exposed.  It is not, of course, their falsity that gives pleasure; but as it is true that they are false, the speech which shows this to be true gives pleasure.

Soy Un Perdedor: Meaning, Dignity, and The Internal Script

by CWK

Beck famously sang, "Soy un perdedor/I'm a loser baby/So why don't you kill me?" The "soy un perdedor" part was an act of genius in terms of musical instinct. It introduces a little more mystery into an already mysterious song. Translated literally, from Espanol, it means, "I'm a loser."

The mixing of languages can serve many purposes; it can be a tacit demonstration of intelligence; it can get your message out to a larger audience; it can also hide your meaning. In terms of hiding meaning: clearly, if you speak Spanish to a crowd of crowd of English speakers, you can expect some confusion. My own sense of this verse is that Beck was trying to obscure his meaning a bit, and perhaps even to himself. It's unpleasant to call oneself a loser. Saying it in another language isn't quite as condemning; it makes the blow softer. Probably all of us have winced at ourselves during moments of self-doubt, and rants of self-destruction, and I believe that's what Beck is doing with this lyric. Spurgeon was right: no one knows what a kind word can do... or a cruel word. We often consider the value of words about others. Maybe we should stop now and then and consider the value of words about ourselves. We often have an internal 'song' playing in the back or our minds, like elevator music -- but what if we thought about the lyrics of this song? What if the internal narrative of our minds were laid bare? What if  a transcript of our thoughts and consideration of ourselves were manifest before our eyes?

My guess is that many of us would be singing along with Beck, "I'm a loser..." I remember an epochal conversation I had with a friend in grad school. We were talking about the internal narrative in our minds. I fessed up that often, while I was studying, I would get frustrated with myself. If I didn't understand material quickly or accurately, I'd take to verbally flogging myself, "Loser! You dummy. Why can't you get this? Everyone else has no problem with this material. You'll never get it. Moron." I wince now when writing this. Anyway, I purposed after that conversation to quit this sort of self-flagellation. I started paying attention to the "elevator music" in my mind. I noticed that after every failure, small or large, I'd begin this sort of tirade against myself. And I began cutting it off. A friend who works in counseling once told me that we all have a "script" in our minds. We say our "lines" when prompted by circumstances. Somehow the script of my mind had been set in stone so that, after every failure, I began the monologue, "I'm a loser..." Over time I've cut more and more of these kinds of scenes from my internal script. How? First, by being aware that they are there, i.e. by thinking about what I think about. Second, by the grace of God. The grace of God in Christ transforms one to "beloved" status. The gospel is not about self-help or "affirmation" statements; after all, it tells us that all have sinned. Yet, even in that, there is dignity: we are being taken seriously by God as active moral agent for one. Also, part of our problem is that we have "fallen short of the glory of God." Our grand purpose is to image God's glory. We are less than we should be. The accusation of "loser" often revolves around the claim, "You are worthless: always have been, and always will be." To be identified as one who falls short of God's glory does not amount to worthlessness; it calls us to see how grand our lives should be/should have been. Much more could be said about how God in Christ restores our dignity; it is instructive that the first step to restoration of dignity often involves a statement that we have acted contrary to our dignity. Only an individual who has inherent dignity can forfeit it. I've heard that a contemporary of Mozart once lamented to him, "Mozart, you are not worthy of yourself." The title "loser," on the other hand, attributes worthlessness without dignity. It damns, not with faint praise, but with no praise. It may be the sound track playing softly, like elevator music, in the back of many a mind. God in Christ came to teach us a very different tune.

So, what would the transcript of our "self-talk" be if it was displayed before our eyes? Probably not what it should be. That means: we need to start talking to ourselves about ourselves. Yes, we need to start talking to ourselves. What I mean is, we need to start talking (consider, then speaking the right words), not just listening (letting harsh words flow forth), to ourselves.

We need to talk to ourselves, and we need to choose our words wisely. They should be gracious dignifying words. 

“Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself? Take those thoughts that come to you the moment you wake up in the morning. You have not originated them but they are talking to you, they bring back the problems of yesterday, etc. Somebody is talking. Who is talking to you? Your self is talking to you. Now this man’s treatment [in Psalm 42] was this: instead of allowing this self to talk to him, he starts talking to himself. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” he asks. His soul had been depressing him, crushing him. So he stands up and says, “Self, listen for moment, I will speak to you.” 
― D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Here are some quotes/ articles for those wrestling with issues of dignity and the self:

Any attempt at trading a human being implicitly objectifies that which is no object. It is no more legitimate than a con artist “selling” properties that are not his to sell. The logical impossibility of selling a human being (either oneself or another) effectively drives any question of relative worth out of the market. The question of relative worth is therefore given an absolute answer: human life has infinite value. Put away your credit cards, these items are not for sale.

I described dignity as a fancy word for worth and it should be apparent by now that human worth deserves a uniquely fancy word. We do not ask about the dignity of objects, except in an anthropomorphic sense. We humans are uniquely subjects rather than objects, possessing infinite value, which is in turn reflected in the esteem with which we regard the word dignity itself. Dignity as the infinite, intrinsic, inviolable worth of a human being cannot be won or lost, revoked, conferred, promoted or demoted.

- From, "We All Die With Dignity," First Things.

-----------------------------------------------

This is sobering. Not only am I not to murder another person because he is created in the image of God, but I’m also not to curse him or humiliate him for the same reason. And yet those of us who wouldn’t think of murder will all too often let harsh and hurtful words roll off our tongues with hardly a second thought. When we do this, we sin because we have violated the image of God in the other person. 

- From, Designed For Dignity, Jerry Bridges.

-------------------------------------------
“Made in God’s image man was made to be great, he was made to be beautiful, and he was made to be creative in life and art. But his rebellion has led him into making himself nothing more than a machine.”

- From, Francis Schaeffer, Back to Freedom and Dignity.

-----------------------------------------------------

The central thought on which the projected apologetic of Pascal was to revolve as on a pivot, is the contrasted greatness and wretchedness of man,—with Divine Revelation, in its doctrine of a fall on man's part from original nobleness, supplying the needed link, and the only link conceivable, of explanation, to unite the one with the other, the human greatness with the human wretchedness. This contrast of dignity and disgrace should constantly be in the mind of the reader of the "Thoughts" of Pascal. 

From, William Cleaver Wilkinson, Classic French Course in English (p. 127). Kindle Edition.