IrContent

Do all men have, as Pascal is said to have put it, a ‘God-shaped vacuum?’ That is, a hole in their soul that longs for God but that people try to fill up with other things in their denial of Him? It’s an interesting question. Here are just some thoughts, not a definitive answer.

To begin with, despite the innumerable “quotes” of Pascal on the internet, he did not in fact say “there is a God-shaped vacuum” in anyone. What he said was . . .

“All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. . . . And yet, after such a great number of years, no one without faith has reached the point to which all continually look. . . . A trial so long, so continuous, and so uniform, should certainly convince us of our inability to reach the good by our own efforts. . . . [yet] he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present . . . But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself.”
(Pensees 6.425)

and . . .

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.
(Pensees 10.14

Thus the hole Pascal speaks of here is, from the human perspective, “happiness-shaped.” The problem arises when evangelists confuse this with the idea that people are intentionally searching for God, when it is really happiness they seek. That one can only find ultimate happiness in God is a separate matter.

Then we have the Scripture verse that is often brought into play: Ecclesiastes 3:11 where God’s placing of “eternity in their heart” is said to be equivalent to the God-shaped hole inside of all people. But this may not be what the verse is actually speaking about. The preaching that usually accompanies such a quote follows along the lines of people who spend their lives looking for something to fill their God-shaped vacuum. Without God, they will try to fill the hole with with sexual immorality, work, relationships, drugs, etc., remaining unfulfilled and wondering why their lives never seem satisfactory. We are then told that the key to evangelism is to get people to admit to this problem, show them that nothing will ever satisfy them besides God, and then proceed to the gospel. But what exactly does it mean to have “eternity in one’s heart”?

We might begin by asking if this is even what the Bible says. There is some debate as to what word this is (the Hebrew olam or ‘elim) and which of several definitions should be used of either. For example we have:

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” (NIV)“He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.” (KJV)“God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time, but he has also placed ignorance in the human heart so that people cannot discover what God has ordained, from the beginning to the end of their lives.” (NET)

None of these seem to be clearly referring to any kind of internal desire that all people have for God, even if the word is “eternity”. And the context does not suggest in any case that the author was necessarily leading up to this point.

Further, with all due respect to Pascal (who I think is being misquoted), I see several problems with the idea that all people are made with a longing for God. First, the Bible does not paint a very pretty picture of an unsaved person’s desires. Rather, it says that people have hearts that are full of evil (Ecc. 9:3), that they do not seek God (Rom. 3:10-18), and that man’s desire can lead to sin (Rom. 7; James 1:14).

Second, I clearly remember my “B.C.” days (having been saved as an adult) and I was definitely not seeking to fill any God-shaped vacuum. I came to Christ in fear and trembling - aware that I was in big trouble if God was really perfect and would judge me for my unbelief. I was not simply responding to my everyday dissatisfaction with life. Not only that, but I desired many of the same things I still do - security, safety, soundness . . . and although I have learned that I must trust God for my needs (met or not) I still desire these things. I think most people are the same way.

Third, what a lot of people who preach this message do not seem to realize is how unique were Qohelet’s (the author of Ecclesiastes) circumstances. How many people today can exhaust themselves on riches, women, food, drink, learning, etc.? We all probably make a lot more money than we did five years ago but we still want more, right? Even if we are not greedy, I think we can all admit that doubling our pay would be more satisfactory! The trouble is that we won’t find out that it doesn’t until we get it. Besides, even if we get the money we’ll just think that a newer car, or a thinner spouse, or a shorter drive to work, or any number of things will satisfy more. The fact is that it is extremely difficult to find someone who has sampled enough of the world to be convinced that they will never get enough to find true happiness in this world. Finding someone who has hit rock bottom abusing themselves is another thing, of course, but that only pushes the starting point to below zero - the same desires still apply.

So in conclusion I do think that man was made with a desire for happiness - virtually all great thinkers agree with this. Further, it is certainly the case that it is only God (Who is infinite, eternal, unchanging, etc.) Who can, ultimately, fill that longing. But I think it is a mistake to act as though unbelievers are out there groping for God and all we need to do is tap into that and we will gain converts. There is just too much potential in this world, especially in America, for additional satisfaction (how ever short-lived). But we can argue from this innate desire that unless existence is a cruel joke there must be an ultimate satisfaction to be found. And that ultimate is God.

The other day my buddy Vozzy and I were discussing the fine points of apologetics, philosophy, theology, evangelism, and heavy metal, when he made an interesting point that I am now stealing for my own Blog. He said this was OK though so it’s not a sin. Also, the hand thing was his idea. OK, on to the Blog . . .

You see, I grew up in the 80’s. It was great - I got out of high school before the whole gangsta movement and I never had to wear clothes that didn’t fit. We rocked hard and rode free. Metal ruled the land. Most good things come to an end though, and with the rise of the poser hair bands metal took a bad turn. By the time of the “W” bands (Winger, Whitesnake, Warrant, White Lion, etc.) Heavy Metal’s reign was pretty well shot, and as I entered college was eclipsed by the grunge scene. So sad. Interestingly, another more extensive cultural shift also began . . .

The post-modern movement began at about the same time Metal was on the decline. Suddenly things like absolute truth were no longer popular and people embracing the movement basically became really really stupid (or possibly their stupidity was the cause of the movement . . . but I digress). For those of you who do not know, post-modernsim’s main claim to fame is that all truth is either unknowable or relative (which itself is a knowable, non-relative truth claim). In short, Pomo’s do not accept any grand unified truth of reality (except the grand unified truth that there is no grand unified truth).

Thus, they also are not impressed by heroic figures who claim to know something important that they do not. All that matters is the conversation. The good news is that the pomo movement decried the materialism of the ’80s, which is good I guess, and it made thinking (even if done poorly) popular again. This opened the door to conversations that might have simply turned off an 80’s Yuppie. Another good thing to come out of the pomo movement was the proliferation of coffee shops and the rise of the internet - both of which, in their own ways, have changed the preferred types of communication.

Watch out, I’m dangerously close to making a point with all this . . .

Now if you watch the movie “Rock Star” you can see this whole shift take place through the eyes of the main character, which is kind of cool. You see the innocence of a guy who just wanted to rock and roll contrasted with those who were in the Metal scene more for the “sex, drugs . . .” part. By the end of the film our hero has moved through these stages, seen through the veneer of rock stardom, and ends up in Seattle where his music becomes more personal and real. Instead of playing to 10,000 seat arenas (the best scene in the movie is his first onstage performance), he now plays to a few dozen people in a coffee shop.

I think that we can learn from the arena-rock-to-coffee-shop shift. The postmodern generation is not impressed by hugeness, explosions, and makeup. They want one-on-one, personal attention. They aren’t looking for larger than life heroes - they want real relationships with real people. The draw is no longer toward huge group experiences, rather it is centered on personal contact and real rapport. For the evangelist/apologist this is important. Evangelism in America is now being done in coffee shops and on message boards - not necessarily through massive crusades with celebrity speakers. Further, the modus operendi is different. Huge hair, makeup, and a wall of Marshall amps all turned up to 11 just doesn’t go over real well in a 200 square foot room with only a dozen people in the audience. Metal requires the arena. On the other hand, the typical grunge / emo / (insert whatever short-lived category they call pop music these days) band wouldn’t be able to pack a 10,000 seat stadium three nights in a row these days. In the same way, grandstanding style evangelism is not going to work in a coffee shop or jazz club. If we expect to draw 10,000 non-believing pomos into some sports arena to hear the gospel defended we will probably be disappointed.

Perhaps we can learn from the Apostle Paul who utilized the most popular venues (e.g. the Aereopagus in Athens) and spoke according to the expectations of his hearers (e.g. quoting the Old Testament to Jews or popular poets to pagans), and mold our gospel presentation and defense strategies (although not gospel the message) to our audiences as well.

I recently had the privilege of judging several home school speech competitions at both the state and regional level. I highly recommend doing the same if you find yourself in the position to do so - it might give you hope for our future. Yeah, most of them are nerdy - but not in the socially unacceptable sense. They are nerds in the sense that they aren’t stupid enough to enjoy the company of idiots. They think, they read, they debate, they act, and they have fun. Contrast this with public education where I have to say things look pretty bleak . . .I know every generation thinks the next in line are morons - but the situation is beyond mere attitudes. Kids in public schools are operating in an environment that is, by design, almost completely without restraint. In the name of tolerance and pop-psychology these kids are basically allowed to remain animals. Not all of them, sure - some do manage to rise above the mire, but it is more difficult for them than ever. The bad ones can’t be punished because that will mess up their precious self-esteem and ruin friendships with the teachers (as if that were their job). They can’t be held to a common moral code because public education is essentially humanistic and pragmatic (which means that each person is at the top of the moral food chain and survival of the fittest is the only ethic). So you basically have a bunch of irreverent, unpunishable, violent animals roving through the halls and no way to effectively curb their behavior. Until, that is, they turn 18. Then we can kill them. (Anyone who is offended at this point should read the original Starship Troopers book by Robert Heinlein and see how the Philosophy of History class of the future describes our time!).

But maybe this isn’t such a bad situation. The way I see it, if Christians are the only ones home schooling, and public education continues down the toilet it is currently circling, then within a generation or so Christians will be the only people in America able to lead this country! (Of course then affirmative action or the NAACP will sue the country for discrimination and force it to hire all the idiots anyway.)