TV Program

Current Episode

For Thy Good

SERIES: In Tables of Stone #1 of 11

2008-09-14

PRODUCTION #: 1120

SPEAKER: Shawn Boonstra

Here’s a question I’ll bet you haven’t asked yourself in a while: What right do you have to get mad when someone else does something evil? If you’re watching the evening news and you find out that somebody did something horrible and killed a bunch of people, what right do you have to get upset? You might be surprised, but some people might argue you have no right to be upset at all.

The day hadn’t started very well for 10-year-old Natascha Kampusch of Vienna, Austria. For starters, her parents had just gone through a nasty divorce, and that was pretty hard on her and her siblings. Then, to make matters worse, she got in a fight with her mother before leaving for school. Little did the red-haired child know just how bad that day was going to get. In fact, that morning was the beginning of an eight-year nightmare for her and her family.

On the morning of March 2, 1998, Natascha was on her way to school. It was cool outside with some snow on the ground. And along the way, a minivan with darkened windows suddenly approached her. The next thing she knew, she’d been grabbed, thrown in the van and whisked away. A witness claims that she saw the child being dragged forcefully into a white van.

Natascha’s abduction led to a massive nationwide search, maybe the greatest in Austria’s history. Just about every white minivan in the whole nation was checked, about 700 of them. Riverbeds and gravel pits all across the country, and even over the border in Hungry, were searched carefully for clues to her disappearance. Every possible lead was followed, and yet, when it was all over, no one knew what had happened to her. She simply disappeared. And over time, many people just assumed that the unfortunate child was dead.

Now, among those questioned by the police was a 38-year-old communications technician named Wolfgang Priklopil, because he was the owner of a white van that fit the description of the one seen in Natascha’s abduction. But Wolfgang had a pretty good alibi and the police let him go. It’s just too bad they didn’t look a little closer, because as the world now knows, Wolfgang was the one who had taken the child and held her in a makeshift prison in the bottom of his small house in a Vienna suburb.

The cell he held her in was about ten by six by five feet, and it sat at the bottom of a cement staircase where it had been sealed with an electronically operated latch. And it was in here, in this cramped little cell, that little Natascha Kampusch was to spend most of the next eight years of her life.

Now, all sorts of grizzly stories have been circulating about what Natascha had to endure. There is just no question of some abuse, even though really clear details haven’t really emerged, at least not at the time that we produced this program. But during the time of Natascha’s captivity, we know that a strange relationship developed between the prisoner and her captor. Priklopil actually bought her books and continued her education right there in the cell. He became somewhat of a father figure to her, teaching her geography and history and reading her stories. She said that, “He brought me books to read and I asked him totally normal childhood questions about foreign countries and animals.”

And all the while that Priklopil was educating his young prisoner, he tried to destroy her hopes of being rescued. “He told me,” she said, “that he was continuously calling my parents. They could have me back if they were ready to pay him 10 million shillings. But he told me they never picked up the telephone because I was obviously not so important to them.”

Over time, he let her come upstairs where they ate together, watched TV, and she even cleaned his house for him. He had warned her over and over that he would grill to the bone anyone who entered the house. And he also told her that he slept with grenades under his pillow and that the house was wired with explosives that would blow her up if she tried to escape. After a number of years, he took her out on small outings, warning her that if she said anything to anyone, he would kill that person.

One time he actually took her on a ski trip to a nearby ski resort. On the way there, they were stopped by the police for a routine check, yet that girl never uttered one word out of fear. She said, however, that from the first day of her captivity all she ever thought about was escape, but she was scared about what might happen if she didn’t make it because he had told her that he was heavily armed and would kill them both if she tried anything.

Meanwhile, neighbors had seen them drive off a few times together. Josef Jantschek, who lived nearby said, “I saw the young lady in the garden quite often during the past year. They also drove off together in his car, and every time she waved at us in a friendly way.” He also added, “We could not have known that it was the kidnapped Natascha Kampusch. When I asked him whether she was his new girlfriend, he only said, ‘I borrowed her from a work colleague to do some work for me.’”

Then, on August 23, 2006, Natascha finally did what she’d been dreaming about for eight long years. She was in Wolfgang’s garden vacuuming his BMW when he got a cell phone call. Because of the noise of the vacuum, he walked away, and after a few moments of hesitation, the now 18-year-old woman made a run for it. She ran through the gardens, across the lawns, jumped over fences, and ran out in the streets. She covered about 600 yards yelling to anyone she saw to please call the police. And you know, amazingly, most people didn’t pay any attention to her.

Finally, after about five minutes of running, she knocked on the window of one house and a 71-year-old woman opened it and looked out. When she did, Natascha yelled, “I am Natascha Kampusch.” The woman called the police and within an hour Natascha was at the police station.

Now, no doubt knowing it was all over and that he faced life in prison, Wolfgang Priklopil committed suicide by throwing himself in front of a commuter train a few hours after the escape.

Like most people, I found this story absolutely fascinating because of one simple fact. There was absolute universal moral condemnation of what Mr. Priklopil did to Natascha Kampusch. Everyone everywhere found his actions absolutely horrifying. There was no moral wavering, no equivocating, no talk of competing values or not judging Mr. Priklopil’s actions by our own moral standards when he might have been living by a different moral code. Instinctively, everybody knew it was wrong. And I find that really interesting, because we do live in a time of rampant and unrestrained moral relativism.

There’s this idea that different people have different concepts of right and wrong and we should all learn to live with that. It’s been said that people in one society shouldn’t judge people living in another culture, because we don’t have that right, no matter how strange or even objectionable their actions might appear to be.

This is the main and overarching view of what has been called post-modernism. Now, to understand what post-modernism is, we need to understand modernism, or the modern era. Quite simply, the modern era is the era of science, of Isaac Newton, of reason and experiment. The modern era began when people stopped blaming their crop failures on spells cast by witches, but blamed poor agricultural practices instead. The modern era gave birth when outbreaks of pestilences were no longer blamed on Jews poisoning the wells, but on germs and improper hygiene. The modern age is when humans replaced superstitions with chemistry, physics, mathematical formulas and laws.

I have this friend who, as a kid, got his first telescope. And when he started to look at the night sky, he was absolutely hooked. He was sure that he was going to be an astronomer. He had these visions of sitting on Mt. Palomar with a giant 50-foot long telescope scanning the wonders of the cosmos. But by the time he got older and looked into astronomy a little more, he saw that it was mostly numbers, math and formulas, and he hated those things. And so, today I think he’s working as a plumber.

The point is the modern age is an age, which basically claims that all reality can be objectively explained through the principles of science and mathematics. One of the funniest examples of this kind of thinking comes from the British political writer, Jeremy Bentham, who died way back in 1832. Bentham tried to take all of human life and break it down in terms of science and math. He once proposed marriage to a young lady in a letter where he worked out, using mathematical formulas, why that woman should marry him.

I don’t know the math itself, but I suppose he calculated their ages and their wealth and the expected number of years they would live together, and so on. However good his calculations were mathematically, they weren’t calculated to win her heart and she turned him down.

Years later he sent another letter, this time with revised calculations to reflect their changed circumstances, again hoping to win her hand in marriage. And I don’t need to tell you what the answer was.

So here’s the point: However good and effective reason, science and math are for creating computers or for building rockets, they don’t explain every aspect of human life. There’s simply more to a human being than what science or math can explain. And so many people have moved away from this hardcore attempt at scientific and mathematical objectivity in the modern era to the opposite extreme. Now they say we’re in the post-modern era, where the notion of objective truth is rejected and replaced by more subjective things like emotions, culture and personal preference.

There’s just one overwhelming problem. In this view, there is no real truth. They say truth is relative, contingent and changing. It depends on your culture, your education, and your upbringing, especially in the area of morals. Different groups have different moral standards, and so no one has the right to judge the moral standards of one culture by the moral standards of their own. After all, who’s to say that one’s personal moral culture is better than someone else’s? So the popular thinking goes that we just shouldn’t pass judgment on what other people do.

Now, of course, I’m all for tolerance and understanding, but it kind of falls apart when you follow it through to its logical conclusion. Let’s go back to the story of Natascha Kampusch for just a moment. If moral values really are relative, then why was everyone so angry at what Mr. Priklopil did? Isn’t that just his own way of living, his own set of moral standards?

Suppose a new culture somewhere in the South Pacific was discovered where it was common for men to kidnap children from other families and hold them captive for years. Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, “Well, we might not like it, but that is their culture, so who is to say it’s wrong?” You see? We might be tempted to say that in the South Pacific, but why do we reject it in the case of Wolfgang Priklopil?

Let me give you another example: This one is from real life. There have been a lot of horror stories coming out of Iraq in recent years, but there’s one that I find especially haunting. Besides the ceaseless bombings, the Iraqi nation has been plagued by kidnappings. People, often children, are snatched away and the family gets them back only if they pay ransom. And as bad as that is, it actually gets worse.

In some cases I’ve heard of when the kidnapped victims are women, do you know what happens when they return home? Sometimes a male member of the family, the father or maybe a brother, feels duty bound to kill the girl. Now, you heard me right. They kill the innocent victim because they believe she might have been violated while in captivity. So, in order to protect the family’s honor, she has to be put to death.

Now tell me, can you really say, “Well, who are we to judge? After all, that’s their culture, so why should we pass judgment on killing your own sister?” You just can’t do it. But if this idea of cultural relativism is right, then you have no choice but to accept that behavior. By our standards, it’s horrible. But, by other standards, it’s the only honorable thing to do. So how can we deem those actions to be wrong?

Here’s what I’m trying to say. When you get right to the bottom line, moral relativism just doesn’t work. Just because something is deemed right in one culture doesn’t make it any more right than if just one person deems it right here.

The Nazis were fanatically convinced they were right. Yet all the conviction in the world won’t turn a death camp into something good. There are certain things we know are wrong regardless of culture or personal preferences.

An atheist was debating a Christian on this whole question of moral values:

Female: “You know, morals are purely subjective and purely personal. One set of values is just as good as another’s.”

Female 2: “Well, in some societies, people are taught to love their neighbors and in others they’re taught to eat them. Which one do you think is better?”

And you know something—that was a pretty good point. Moral relativism doesn’t work. It doesn’t work now and it didn’t work years ago. About five centuries before Christ, a Greek philosopher named Protagoras argued that, “Man is the measure of all things.” The idea being that we alone decide what’s right and wrong. So, it turns out that there’s nothing new under the sun after all.

When God condemned the practices of pagan nations, things like child sacrifice and religious prostitution, can you really see Moses saying, “Now come on, Lord, don’t judge those people by Your standards. They’re just following their own tradition.”

Of course Moses didn’t say that. In fact, Moses said this to the children of Israel after they had sinned against the Lord. Listen to this (Deuteronomy 12:8):

“You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes…”

In another place the Bible says (Judges 18:1):

“In those days there was no king in Israel.”

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Proverbs says (Proverbs 12:15):

“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.”

Do you see it? Doing what you think is right can make about as much sense as someone saying, “I don’t care what this compass tells me, I think north is that way.”

There’s just no question about it. There really are absolute moral values, absolute moral truths. And that’s because God is a god of morality. Just like He created the universe with physical laws, He also created it with moral laws. That’s why we know instinctively that certain things are just flat out wrong, like what Wolfgang Priklopil did to Natascha Kampusch.

There is right and wrong. There is good and evil. And the good news in all this is that God hasn’t left us in the dark to figure it out on our own. He’s given us a standard, an absolute standard of right and wrong, and it’s called the Ten Commandments, God’s moral law.

Jesus was very clear on the importance of keeping those Ten Commandments. Someone once came to Him and said (Luke 18:18):

“Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

And Jesus answered like this (Mark 10:19):

“You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not commit murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”

Now to be honest, that doesn’t much sound like God has changed his mind about what’s right and wrong, does it? And you know, years later, Paul said that circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

And even later, John the Revelator said (Revelation 14:12):

“Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.”

There is a reason those laws were written in stone with God’s own finger. It’s because God meant them to last forever. And I know that people will say, “Oh, preacher, the Ten Commandments are so restricting, so limiting of my freedom.” But you can’t really say that if you think about it. I mean, ask the 19-year-old girl I know of who, through the violation of one of God’s Commandments, contracted HIV.

Ask her how restrictive she thinks the Ten Commandments are. Ask the eight-year-old boy whose life came apart after his dad left his mom and ran away with the office secretary. Ask him how restrictive he thinks the Ten Commandments are. Ask all those people murdered in America each year how restrictive they think the Ten Commandments are. But, of course, we can’t ask them because they’re dead. Ask many of the people rotting in jail for theft if they think the Ten Commandments are too restrictive.

I’m willing to bet that most of these people would only wish they had followed God’s loving moral guidelines. Ask Natascha Kampusch if she thinks the Ten Commandments are restrictive. Or if she wished everyone, especially Wolfgang Priklopil, had just kept them a little better. It’s not restrictive at all.

That’s kind of like telling me I’m restrictive on my kids because I don’t want them playing in traffic; or that I’m restrictive because I don’t want them putting their hands on top of a hot stove, or I’m restrictive because I don’t want them experimenting with cocaine, PCP, or heroin when they get older. That’s not restrictive. It’s just common sense.

And for that same reason, God has given our world a good moral law because He knows for sure what’s best. He gave us this code because He knows all about the horrible impact of sin, which is the act of breaking God’s law. And He wants us to avoid, as much as possible, the suffering that’s caused by breaking His law.

Today, this program is the beginning of a series called “In Tables of Stone,” and as you’ve probably already guessed, it’s all about the Ten Commandments. I want you to be able to see the love of God in those tables of stone, to see a much better plan for a much better life. I want you to see for yourself the reality of these words when the Lord told His people He wanted them to (Deuteronomy 10:13):

“…keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”

Now did you hear that last part? God says it’s for your good. And the bottom line is, that’s why God gave us His moral law. He didn’t just make up a bunch of rules to make your life miserable or ruin your fun. And that’s something that’s obvious when you consider Jesus’ statement that He came to give us a more abundant life. It’s all for our good. I mean, just try and imagine how much better this world would be if everybody was keeping those ten simple commandments. No murder, no theft, no adultery, no lying—I think that’d be a pretty nice place to live.

And, of course, I know we can’t change the whole world, but what about changing yourself? Wouldn’t that be a pretty good place to start?

Look, I know we’ve all broken God’s law. We’re all sinners and we face the immediate and terrible consequences of having broken God’s laws. The horrible results of human rebellion are everywhere. And the sad thing is our violation of the law doesn’t just hurt ourselves, it usually means someone else gets hurt, too. I mean, just ask Natascha.

But the good news is that Jesus died for those who have broken His law. He paid the penalty for our sins, for our transgressions. And right now, at this moment, you can find forgiveness at the foot of the cross. Jesus will forgive your sins. That’s pretty good news.

But, you know, it gets even better! The Bible says that He also makes us new creatures. We get new tendencies and new spiritual desires, and that means that you can, right now, through His power, start living in harmony with His moral law and thus spare yourself so much of the suffering that inevitably comes from breaking it. I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty good deal.

You know, again, we can’t change everybody around us, but we can start making just a tiny piece of heaven here on Earth in our own homes and in our own lives. Why don’t we pray about it?

PRAYER:

Gracious Father in Heaven, you have promised that you can make a new creature out of us in Jesus Christ. We want to have different desires. We want to live a better way. And as we look at your moral requirements, we see that they are there because you love us. So teach us to walk with you. Give us the strength to be more like Jesus. For we ask it in His wonderful name, Amen.

Scriptures Used in “For Thy Good”

“You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes…”
—Deuteronomy 12:8

“In those days there was no king in Israel…” —Judges 18:1 “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise.”
—Proverbs 12:15

“Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’”
—Luke 18:18

“You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not commit murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”
—Mark 10:19

“Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.”
—Revelation 14:12

“…keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good.”
—Deuteronomy 10:13