BBC 2 surprises me, so many times, with it's programming. Various shockers including Stephen Fry about HIV and AIDS. And now, Sunday evening, comes a program about some teenagers that are so good at maths they enter the International Mathematics Olympiad. A massive prestigious competition in maths. The guys that are taking part are predominantly male, and of varying degrees of oddness. Primarily they have been diagnosed with some form of autism or aspergers.
Enough background; one of the teenagers competing to enter (where only 6 from the whole of the UK end up at the IMO) and a coordinator who had won a gold medal nearly 15 years prior were some of the most aware people I have heard speak in a long time. Entirely logically minded the degree at which conversation flows is completely fact based. The teenagers name is Jos and almost no experience travels through to the young boys mind. He is not phased by comments made towards him and is not discouraged to anything. He decided to work alone rather than work in a team, and has noticed that he is not always right, but rather than accepting that, he avoids the confrontation of being wrong and works on his own. He is very intelligent, but this has effected a lot of his life. When asked about his parents he could not understand their need of him, only his need of them. He knew he needed them for full providence and did not take them for granted, but the only reason he could think of for them keeping him in their house was because he could set up the internet. The interviewer commented that those facts were merely practical, Jos suggested the interviewer was trying to coax any emotional feelings out of him, then remarked that all the feelings are based on practical happenings. The practical leads to emotions. (Interestingly, not vice versa.)
Question: Would they have conceived him because, one day, the internet may be required in the household?
You decide
What is the point to notice? He doesn't know what emotions are. Or rather he does, but not to the extent of feeling, only definitions. Asked if he was nervous, he said he had reasons to be nervous. Asked (when failing to make the final team) whether he was upset, he said he knew he should be suppressing it so was doing just that.
All the logic in the world, that made his life make sense, amounted to "nothing".
I'm not trying to comment on his life; this is an example.
Intellectual reasoning in the world is purely a get out. An escape. The rest of the team that went to the IMO's were primarily intelligent, passionate people who (besides one) realise the little importance of being rewarded a medal. One of the finalists was a 15 year old who claimed to be Christian, and was then challenged, by the interviewer, 'But you believe in the scientific approach..', to which he replies, 'Yes, and?'
I get to this point and I think it's been expected. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, who gave up everything to then give everything, so, by faith, we could have everything, is not something that can be intellectually argued. Can you convince somebody they are a person who has desires that are evil (not desiring something evil) which means they deserve to die? Not really. Can you go through all the Truth of the world, giving a world view that puts Jesus as the focal point of the universe and the be all and end all of the entire reason of existence and convince somebody? No. You need something more, something profound, something astonishing that is beyond human control. It is not easy to leave to Him, but it is always required. I don't make the call to turn and repent, God does, Jesus does, and at that point they will turn with the right amount of work in their hearts, done, not by man, but by the Holy Spirit. In Acts 16 the Jailer ran into Paul & Silas' and asked, 'sirs, what must I do to be saved?' though all he had heard were prayers from Christians, not a long debate convincing him he needed salvation.
How much of my salvation was the work of all the Christians I had come into contact with? Well, I'll leave at it was God. I couldn't be convinced, although I know all the arguments. But we can't make a point intellectualising a truth that is only possible by letting go of everything and clinging to the one who died because we are evil. And rose because He's that good.
Posts
