Questions on Morality, the Trinity, and Retirement

DR. CRAIG: Hello! This is William Lane Craig. We are right in the midst of our annual fall matching grant campaign. Up through December 31st of this year, any gift that you give to Reasonable Faith will be doubled by a matching grant of very generous donors. So this is a wonderful way for you to double the impact of your giving to the Lord’s work. I think that what’s happening at Reasonable Faith around the world is certainly exciting and well worth your support. Over three million engagements every month come through our social media platforms. We have hundreds of local Reasonable Faith chapters all around the world – throughout Latin America, Asia, even the Middle East – that provide a community and a place of fellowship and outreach for local believers often in hard-pressed circumstances. In addition to that we have our Equip course which has now been taken by thousands of high schoolers and teenagers to equip them in the articulation and defense of the Christian faith. We have been so pleased with the enthusiastic reaction to this Equip platform. So, as you approach the year’s end and think about how best to invest the Lord’s dollar from your giving, we hope that you will think of Reasonable Faith and send a gift toward our ministry. It will be doubled, and thereby have double the impact. Thank you so much for your consideration.

KEVIN HARRIS: Lots of questions that we’ve received from all over the globe, Dr. Craig. Let’s run some of these past you.

Dear Dr. Craig and staff, In debating some of my atheist friends on the subject of morality they often bring up the concept of ethical reciprocity. To my understanding, ethical reciprocity is similar to The Golden Rule where we are to treat others the way we want to be treated. However, it seems to me that ethical reciprocity has to smuggle in a moral truth which atheists deny exist which is: we ought to treat others well. What would be the best response to ethical reciprocity when debating our secular friends as they assert that this is a sound foundation for morality in which God is not needed? Thank you.

Paul, United States.

DR. CRAIG: I think Paul is absolutely right to say that this is not to provide a foundation for objective moral values and duties but it's just to assert that we have a moral duty to treat others in the way that we would like to be treated. So it doesn't do anything by way of explaining the basis for objective moral duties; it just asserts that we have a particular moral duty. So it's completely ineffective as a grounding of moral values and duties.

KEVIN HARRIS: This next question – we get a lot of questions just like this, and I think it's good to kind of put two or three of them together in this question.

Dear Dr. Craig, If the triune God is equal then why does Jesus say in the Gospel of John that “The Father is greater than me.” Jesus prays, “Our Father who art in heaven.” So why a prayer to the Father and not to the triune God? Also, Jesus prays the Jewish Shema in the Gospel of Mark and emphasizes, “Hear, O’ Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” But no reference from Jesus here to the triune God. Any thoughts on this? Many thanks. (If I myself can't fully understand the Trinity, how can I explain it to others?)

Mario, United States

DR. CRAIG: Let me suggest to Mario that he take a look at the chapter on the Trinity in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview where I attempt to lay out a model of the Trinity that is easy to understand and logically consistent and compatible with what the Bible teaches. Now, with respect to Jesus saying, “The Father is greater than me,” I think this is a reflection of Jesus’ incarnation and humanity. As a human being, he is submissive to the Father and worships the Father. And that's why Jesus prays, “Our Father who art in heaven.” Jesus was a Jew, and the God of the Hebrews – the Old Testament God – was regarded as the Father of Israel. And Jesus taught his disciples to join him in prayer to God by praying “Our Father.” Similarly, with the Shema – “Hear O’ Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” –  this would have been a typical Jewish belief that Jesus would have held in his incarnate state. So keep in mind that this isn't just about the Trinity. This is also about the incarnation. The second person of the Trinity has a human nature as well as a divine nature, and it is in that human nature that he lives and works as Jesus of Nazareth in Israel 2,000 years ago. Remember as well that it is the same Gospel (namely, the Gospel of John) which asserts that Jesus is God (John 1:1 and John 1:18). He calls Jesus “the only begotten God.” And then the climax of the Gospel of John comes in chapter 20 verse 28 with Thomas' confession to the risen Lord, “My Lord and my God.” Jesus says, “Do you believe because you've seen? Blessed are those who believe without having seen.” So it's the same John – the same Gospel – that affirms the full deity and equality of Jesus with God the Father.

KEVIN HARRIS: The next question says,

Hi Dr. Craig,

I appreciate your work and am a long time listener.  I am submitting a question on a topic that is probably unique but which I have genuine interest as to how it relates to Christian ethics.  I am wondering about the ethics of retirement.  Is it ethical for a Christian who has the financial means to do so, to "retire" and live a life of leisure?

I have always lived with the assumption that many people aspire to work until traditional retirement age (perhaps 65), and then "ride off into the sunset" with a life of leisure, golf, travel, etc.  As a high earning professional who developed an interest in personal finance, I discovered that I would likely have the ability to be financially independent and retire well before the age of 65 if I desired.  There is even a popular cultural movement today, known as the FIRE movement (financial independence retire early) that focuses on many aspects of financial independence and perhaps early retirement, and I have read a lot about this.  While I believe that saving for financial independence is certainly good for everybody, I'm not sure if retiring at 50 to a life of leisure would be ethical.  I know that someone can always retire from one job to other areas of meaningful work, and that could be good (for example, at times, I have considered a second career in the future with teaching apologetics or a related topic). But it got me thinking that if it would be unethical to retire to a life of leisure at age 50, then would the same concept apply to an able-minded, able-bodied person who is 60 or 70 years old.  It seems that a life of leisure after age 65 is certainly culturally accepted, but the whole concept of "traditional retirement age" itself seems to be a cultural construct.

In essence, is it ethical for someone who has earned financial independence to say "I have done my work, and now it's time to relax", if they have potential to continue doing work for Christ’s Kingdom?  Or should Christians always have a plan to do some form of a job (paid or unpaid) until they no longer can?

Thanks

Homer

DR. CRAIG: OK. Let me not mince words and say as straightforwardly as I can: I agree with him that it is unethical for someone to retire to a life of pleasure-seeking and leisure. I'm so impressed with the words of Jesus: Let us work “while it is day; night comes, when no one can work” (John 9:4). As long as it is day we need to be engaged in the Lord's work until we're no longer able to do so. Now, of course, if one reaches a point where due to physical illness or mental decline one is no longer able to do much, that's understandable. But I think that he is quite right that so long as you are able to bow out of being involved in the Lord's work – in doing work for the Kingdom – this would be deeply unethical. I think he's right. This idea of retirement from your job is a cultural construct. It is a construct of Western culture, and as Christians we need to be so careful not to let the world squeeze us into its mold by accepting cultural mores that, if you think about them, are really deeply un-Christian. And this idea of retiring to a life of leisure and pleasure-seeking is surely one of those cultural mores that we, as Christians, need to reject. I think every one of us should purpose in his heart to work as long as he can for the Lord, to be engaged in Kingdom work, until we die.

KEVIN HARRIS: Just to be clear, he's saying that even if he were to retire from his career or job that he can always continue to work in other areas. Perhaps, like he said, teach apologetics or do charity work. I know a lot of people who retire from a corporation, and then they're very busy doing work for charities, for the church, for the Kingdom, and things like that.

DR. CRAIG: Right. He was very clear in his question that he was not disagreeing that we ought to plan for retirement financially. We don't want to be a burden on our children. We want to be able to carry our own medical expenses and not burden our children when we're aged. He was clear that you can leave the job that you're presently in and be engaged in other sorts of work. But what he's denying is that the goal of retirement is this life of leisure and relaxation and pleasure-seeking. That is a kind of hedonism, really, and I think he's quite right in saying that that is a cultural construct of the West that we as Christians need to call into question.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hello, Dr Craig! I am a huge fan of your work. You have done far more for our faith than many ever will. I just had the pleasure of meeting you and seeing you speak in Plano. This got me reading more of your work then I did before. My question is this: Why do you think by definition, God must be the greatest conceivable being, and by that, must be perfectly loving? In your article "Concept of God in Islam and Christianity", you argue for God being tri-personal by saying God by definition is the greatest conceivable being and in turn must be perfectly loving. While I agree I feel as if that is somewhat flawed. Why must God be the greatest conceivable being? If Moloch was real I certainly wouldn't think he was the greatest conceivable being. Also, why must God be perfectly loving? I can certainly envision a possible universe where this isn't true. You and I would argue that without the existence of God, objective moral values and duties do not exist, love being one of these. It appears to me that you have to assume that God exists to believe that a greatest conceivable being must be morally perfect and therefore loving. But wait, that assumes God exists to make an argument for God being tri-personal. As you do with every other question that I have seen posed to you, I am sure you will answer this one with intelligence and eloquence. Thank you so much for the work you have done for our faith and for the opportunity to meet you and get an autograph in Plano. It was a dream come true. I pray God gives you long life, as long as His purpose for you needs.

Franklin, United States

DR. CRAIG: Yes, thank you, Franklin, for those good wishes. I think that God, as I say, is by definition the greatest conceivable being because if you could conceive of something that were greater than God then that would be God. And if that being did not exist then it would be true that God does not exist. So, yes, that's true that Moloch could exist but Moloch wouldn't be God. He would be at best “god” with a small “g” not a capital “G” because Moloch is not the greatest conceivable being. Now, why must a greatest conceivable being be perfectly loving? Well, simply because being loving is a moral perfection, and a greatest conceivable being must be a morally perfect being. A being which is morally flawed in some way is not as great as a being which is morally perfect. Again, it remains a question, “Does there exist such a morally perfect being or not?” And we can argue about that. But I don't think there's any good argument to be had about this definition or what it entails. By definition, whatever being is God must be the greatest conceivable being because if he's not then it's just true that God does not exist.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Dear Dr. Craig. I am a teen Christian going through some doubts, and I have a question for you. For the most part I believe in the Big Bang – that all energy, space, and time were created in one event orchestrated by God. But I don't understand the initial singularity. From what I hear, the initial singularity existed before the universe and contained all energy, space, and time. So of the view of the Big Bang model, how long did the initial singularity exist? Did the initial singularity create or contain space and time? And did the universe come from nothing, or did the singularity come from nothing?

Wyatt, United States

DR. CRAIG: These are great questions. What Wyatt needs to understand is that as the universe goes back into the past, it becomes denser and denser and denser until finally you reach a point at which it hits infinite density. And that is the singularity that marks the absolute beginning of the universe. There is nothing before that. You cannot trace space and time through a singularity. This singularity is not literally before the universe because it's not a point in space and time; rather, it is the boundary of space and time. If you think of spacetime like a cone, the point of the cone is the boundary of that cone. Similarly, the singularity would be the boundary point of space and time from which then space and time emerge. Now, is the singularity real? I think that it's just a mathematical idealization. It's an artifact of the model that goes back to that state, but I don't think it's a physically real state. I think the universe comes into being at some time in the past, but it need not be a singular state. And there are models of the universe available where the universe has a beginning but not in a singularity. So the singularity, if it is a physical state (if it did exist), didn't exist for any time, especially not for infinite pastime. It would be the absolute beginning. If the universe includes all spacetime points and its boundary points then in that sense the singularity is part of the universe, the universe begins to exist at that point, and so it would need to have a transcendent creator in order to come into being.^[1]