God, Math, and Existence

Who or what created numbers? The Big Bang? God? I don’t really know that it matters. Now, before my Christian brethren get ready to lynch me as defecting from Theism or creationism, let me explain myself. When I’m talking about numbers, that is not the same as talking about information. There’s really only one explanation for information, and that is intelligence. Numbers themselves are simple abstract concepts. You can have two cars or chicken wings, for instance, but you cannot possess the number two all by itself. You cannot interact with the concept of “two”. We call objects, matter, energy, and so forth concrete objects. (Not to be confused with concretes, which are a very tasty treat found at Ted Drewes.) Anyway, besides being abstract, numbers also happen to be very necessary to our universe. They have to exist as a logical consequence of things (matter, energy, people, objects, etc) simply existing. They are, in a sense, uncreated. No matter how you think the universe got here, neither God nor a cosmic hiccup intentionally produced numbers. Now all of the things that numbers represent- almost- were created at some point in time. Even naturalism’s strongest adherents accept this as fact. Numbers are different, as is the whole of mathematics itself. Numbers exist because they have to.

Now, most people who are Theists believe in the self-existence of God. We believe that God exists in the same way that mathematics exists. I don’t need to explain how He exists or where He came from, really. Like numbers, the God of the Bible is self-existent. Christians do not believe in a contingent god, one that needs an explanation for how he came to be. Christians believe in a God Who is absolutely necessary for existence to even have meaning. Created gods, as John Lennox has pointed out, are a delusion, and I don’t know anybody who believes in a god who needed reason for being. Who needs to worship a being that is dependent on another being for its existence? Ought we not to worship the greater of the two, as that will be who is really in control? If the cosmos spawned God somehow, ought not we to worship the cosmos? In Christianity, God is- by definition- necessary and uncreated. If God exists, my atheist friends, He exists because of Who He is. It is the nature of His being, so to speak. Before atheists, agnostics, and Christians can hope to discuss beliefs, they must agree on the definition of the terms, and atheists and agnostics must understand what a Christian means when he says the word “God.” After proper definitions are provided, I believe we can actually accomplish something.

Existence is Futile

Every true Trekkie, at least the TNG sort anyway, will tell you that the turning point for Star Trek: TNG came with the introduction of the Borg. Before those cybernetic aliens graced the sci-fi scene, TNG was just….well, blah. We, the viewers, needed a real villain, something to make us feel that the crew of the Enterprise didn’t have to win. And, of course, even non-trekkies can quote the infamous “Resistance is futile” line. That phrase summed up how most story lines when with the Borg. Practically everybody, including  the great Jean-Luc Picard, had felt the sting of defeat before the Borg. It was that line that helped make the series what it was. Resistance is futile.

In last week’s post, I talked about how the absence of God leaves us without ultimate value, morals, or purpose. While I’m writing this week’s ahead of time, I’m guessing that the atheists in my readership might already have a response ready. Namely, they will be very quick to point out that a negative consequence doesn’t make a belief wrong. They’re right about this. Some of us have had to accept the hard facts of a very sad afterlife for those we love, but we do not throw out our entire faith simply because of negative consequences.

What I’d like to challenge atheists to do, though, is to live their lives consistently in light of atheism. Or, actually, let me take that back. Please, atheists, don’t live out your lives in light of the absence of God. The chaos, carnage, and despair would be horrendous. Devorah Hilsenrath, a survivor at Auschwitz said: “”In Auschwitz, the Nazis interpreted the [Ten] Commandments backwards.” In Auschwitz, a swift murder was almost merciful. Starvation and cruelty were commonplace. Dr. Josef Mengele, the so-called “Angel of Death” was especially known for his cruelty, even performing vivisections on pregnant Jewish women.

There isn’t much difference between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Consider Richard Wurmbrand‘s experiences at the hands of Russian torturers:

“What the communists have done to Christians surpasses human understanding….I have seen communists whose faces while torturing believers shone with rapturous joy. They cried out while torturing the Christians, ‘We are the devil! There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I heard one torturer say, ‘I thank God in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to see this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’”

In a prison in the USSR, Wurmbrand met men who had seen their children murdered before their eyes, simply for refusing to renounce Christ. Christians were crucified and made to eat and drink excrement and urine in mockery of Communion. But, if atheism is true, none of these snippets of history should really make you cringe. You see, if there is no Divine Lawgiver, there is nothing wrong with what happened to these men and women. This entire planet is Auschwitz. This entire planet is Soviet Russia. Everything is permitted, provided you can get the government to make it legal.

Atheists don’t behave this way, though. In fact, I know plenty of atheists that are very moral people. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both have a very strong sense of morality. I once sat in on a talk Hitchens gave about the dangers of Islam in Western countries, and I actually applauded at the end. He recognized the atrocities that come with an Islamic state, and he wants nothing of it for America. The man told of nearly winding up in a concentration camp himself for daring to mark out a Nazi swastika graffiti. He knows right from wrong, but is painfully ignorant of the fact that he has no grounds for condemning the actions of militant Islam. Dawkins is no better, stating that there is no absolute morality, only “pitiless indifference”, only to turn around and condemn religious instruction as child abuse.

This is all rather embarrassing for the thinking atheist. Bertrand Russell was opposed to war and sexual restrictions, but wrote that he could not live as though ethics were a matter of opinion. In light of atheism, he found his moral sense to be incredible, saying “I do not know the solution.” Nietzsche believed in living beyond good and evil, yet he condemned anti-Semitism. In 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue addressed the AAAS on the topic of morality, saying that humanity had only three options. We can turn the world into a madhouse, living only for self. We can turn to benevolent dictators for safety, or we can choose to believe what he called “the Noble Lie.” Rue said that we must believe in respecting human life and rights  in order to trick ourselves into doing good for someone other than ourselves.

In the end, it’s impossible to truly live out atheism in all of its ugliness. While atheists are right in pointing out that a negative result is not proof that a belief or philosophy is wrong, they have a very difficult time living life in light of God’s absence. Christianity is a far superior belief system in terms of morality and rights. It provides us with a God Who reigns and loves us, and a Heaven to belong in when this life is done. I’ll be getting to arguments for Theism a little later, but for now let us at least agree that we’ve identified the implications of either belief system. Existence is either meaningful or futile.

No God, No Peace

Is there anything more dangerous in the world than bumper sticker theology? Whether it’s the ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers or the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” variety, bumper sticker beliefs just make me want to puke. There’s no context, no reasoning. Just a simple statement that is supposed to speak volumes but really just leaves me wondering what the heck the driver was thinking when he pasted something on the back of his car. Which brings me to the title of this post.

“No God, No Peace”, proclaims the bumper sticker. It’s catchy, sort of. I find this one a little less offensive than some I’ve read, but I really honestly think this bumper sticker stopped too soon. It should’ve kept going. “No God. No Peace. No Purpose. No Meaning. No Values.” Not as trendy or memorable, but it’d make a better point. It’d also make atheists realize the absurdity of what they believe and commit a lemming-esque suicide, so perhaps it’s best if we keep such depressing thoughts off of the road. But I digress….

If there is no God, there isn’t really much to this whole “living” thing. What does it matter if I live one year or one hundred if death is ultimately the end of my very existence? What does it matter what humans achieve as a civilization if all that awaits is ultimately the death of our planet, our galaxy, our universe in fire or ice? If I cease to be when I am dead, does it really matter that I existed in the first place? Oh, I’m sure there are some who will mourn my passing. Every human life certainly has relative significance and value, but if there is no God to say that human beings have inherent worth, then in the end….who really cares how it all turns out? Who cares if we find a cure to AIDS? Who cares about peace in the Middle East? Soon enough, there will be no people to contract HIV or fire a weapon. Give it a while, and there won’t be anyone around to remember what we accomplished. How very, very depressing.

If there is no God, then there are no values whatsoever. Jeffrey Dahmer and Mother Teresa are equally moral, for morality isn’t a real thing. There is no such thing as evil, either. By the way, I think this is interesting, since people often call the “Problem of Evil” a Christian’s dilemma. In reality, we know where evil came from, what it does, and what its ultimate fate is. It is the atheist or agnostic that is left to find an answer to the problem. They’re the ones who are left coming up with a baseless code of ethics. There’s no justice, either. If there is no God, then in the end all of the world’s worst criminals have gotten away with it. As Dostoyevsky has written: “If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.” It would seem that an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would agree: “We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.” In a universe without God, you and I cannot condemn war, rape, or murder, but we can also not praise self-sacrifice, love, or generosity. They are neither good nor evil in the end. They may have some practical benefits, but they are not good or evil.

If atheism is true, then we are left with Bertrand Russell’s “firm foundation of unyielding despair.” As one man has said, if God is dead, then man is dead too. Dr. William Lane Craig sums it up nicely, I think: “As for man, he’s a freak of nature- a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe universe to live a purposeless life.” Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Of course not! But have you ever seen an atheist live like he was really dying? Probably not….

No Ordinary People

When it comes to evangelism, it seems, everybody has an idea about how to do it. There’s so-called “life-style evangelism” for those who want to be good, do good, and look good without having to share the good news. There’s televangelism, door-to-door soul-winning, missions work, street preaching, evangelistic services, evangelistic meals, tracts, and a host of other things people like to do. We tailor different styles of evangelism to meet the needs of the people around us. I’ve been to Chicago, where street preaching can actually be pretty effective, depending on where you are located. I’ve been to the Florida panhandle, where those same street evangelists are largely ignored. Some folks will listen to you preach on television but never darken the door of a church, and some have to see that you really care before they care at all about what you have to say.

There’s a small- but growing- population of people that I believe apologetics can be an effective witnessing tool towards. I’ve heard people say that the number of folks who could be reached through apologetics is so small, it’s hardly worthwhile. I strongly disagree. “There are no ordinary people,” C. S. Lewis writes. “You have never talked to a mere mortal.” The size of the population most likely influenced by apologetics is small, but influential. These are the people who have retained the ability to think critically, logically, and independently without resorting to skepticism. These are, quite often, doctors, lawyers, and other educated professionals. At the other end of the spectrum, though, there’s a much larger group of people who can be influenced by apologetics: students. Yes, students. If there’s one thing I’ve learned by being a teacher, it’s that students listen when you least expect it. Teenagers and college students the world over often think more deeply than people twice their age. They ask the big questions of life: questions of existence, meaning, and purpose. They are often the amateur philosophers of our day, trying to figure life out in the few brief years before they become just as burdened by life as their parents.

And why should apologetics not be used? Apologetics is largely about facts and logic. It’s about reality! If reality is, as we Christians believe, about a loving, all-powerful Creator Whom we may have a personal relationship with, then apologetics should be welcome to the party! The Bible is filled with facts, and logic is an aspect of the mind of God (John 1:1). When we use apologetics and couple it with Scripture, the Spirit is pleased to move in the life of the lost soul.

Eat Your Wheaties!

My students will tell you that I’m a huge fan of food illustrations, so here’s one for y’all today. Doing a web search for the phrase “eat your Wheaties” provides a host of advice related to the beloved cereal. It seems there isn’t anything that Wheaties can’t do. Just click the link above to find out what I mean. Of course, Wheaties are usually marketed as a cereal capable of making you stronger or faster, which is probably the only way mothers got their little boys to eat the stuff.

I like to think of apologetics as Wheaties for the Christian mind. Apologetics can give you confidence in sharing your faith with others. I know Muslims and atheists that know more about what the Bible says than most believers. Of course, I also know a number of atheists that wouldn’t know anything about Christianity if it weren’t for the Crusades and a witch hunt or two. Unfortunately, we live in a Christian culture that expects very little mental exertion on the part of believers who are new to the faith or young in years. We need to be explaining to our own what we believe and why (and a simple “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” doesn’t settle it!) Studying anything is hard work; why would you expect the Christian faith to be any different?

Apologetics can also help a believer with times of doubt and struggle. As I’ve said in other posts, doubt can be a very compelling motivator to bring us deeper into the Christian faith. After all, it really isn’t faith in the end if everything can be totally proved in a scientific sense. We’re human, so we will waver on even the most deeply-held issues. For me personally, doubt was the biggest contributor to my study of the Bible and apologetics. I wanted to know if what I had been taught was true, and so I studied Christianity to see if it made sense to me. I’d be lying if I said that I don’t sometimes still have questions, but happily the instability of youth is behind me. I know how to look for answers, and I know that there are some philosophies and beliefs that simply don’t make sense. If you have struggled with your faith, know that you aren’t alone.

Alarmingly, over 40% of youth today will quit going to church by the time they finish college. If 40% stop attending, how many more experience doubt and remain faithful? Should we not be focused on defending the Truth of Christianity rather than felt needs and entertainment? Believe me, I don’t mean to say that all of church must be serious or that worship is not important, but doesn’t Jesus say that we should worship both in spirit and in truth? Apologetics help us remember that our faith is not based on emotions, but on truth. How wonderful would it be if young people could be taught some reasoned faith to help them through their next bout of loneliness? Heck, how wonderful would it be if we could all have some knowledge of truth the next time God seems distant!

Dr. William Lane Craig also lists a third benefit of studying apologetics. He says that doing so will make you a “deeper and more interesting person”, and I couldn’t agree more! As Dr. Craig observes, our culture is “appallingly superficial, fixated on celebrities, entertainment, sports, and self-indulgence.” Apologetics is part of the cure, as it will lead you to study philosophy, history, and science, among other things. You’ll be able to read, talk, and think about the deeper questions of life such as the existence of God, the “problem” of evil and suffering, and so forth. We in the education realm talk much of developing critical thinking skills, but it is in the realm of Christian apologetics that the Church has the ability to develop these skills apart from worldly philosophies. The world desperately needs thinking believers to answer the shallowness of this age.

What Physics Class Taught Me

I signed up for physics class in high school not really knowing what to expect. I’d always loved science classes, and I didn’t expect this one to be any different. It was. God help me, it was. Why it didn’t occur to me that physics would be a lot of formulas and math, I will never know. What I do know is that it took every ounce of mental energy I could muster to survive that year, and survive I did. To this day, I’m convinced that God somehow changed my semester grades when my teacher wasn’t looking.

Perhaps the biggest frustration I experienced with physics class wasn’t the amount of work I had to deal with so much as the fact that I felt like very little of what I was learning really applied to real life. (Ok, I know that that is what students say about practically every class they take, but hear me out.) After all, practically every equation I learned had the wonderful little caveat “in a vacuum” somewhere in the description.  We learned about the speed of light in a vacuum, terminal velocity in a vacuum, friction in a vacuum, and so on and so forth. In other words, we learned about how things move and act if there’s no matter to influence it. So nothing work exactly the way an equation said it should because we don’t experience reality in a vacuum. (Happily, I might add, since that would pretty much eradicate life on earth.) This is a great illustration of the point of this particular post: nothing is learned or experienced in isolation.

We’ve discussed already how apologetics is a very biblical concept. Now I want us to focus on why it is so important. It is absolutely true that we are called to be salt and light to a dark and lost world- we should be evangelistic since Christ is the ultimate answer to our world’s problems. It is also absolutely true that God has called us to faith and faithfulness, so our message includes elements of morality and ethics. However, it is also true that we must be aware of the cultural backdrop against which people will hear the Gospel. The Gospel is never heard in isolation, and we must be able to answer the darkness with light. We as Christians must be willing and able to cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. That imagination may take the form of the acceptance of sin, the secularist/naturalistic worldview, or belief in false religions. The response by Christians must always be the same. We must be able to give a loving answer concerning the hope that we have.

The sad reality is that Christianity has been relegated to a generic “faith” in our Western culture. It’s just another superstition, something someone believes to make themselves feel good. It’s just a crutch. The goal of apologetics is to answer that perspective. We know that Christianity is not just another generic faith. It’s not the same thing as the New Atheist’s “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” It’s the goal of apologetics to bring Christianity out of the private sphere and into the public sector.

Christians ought to be able to explain their faith in ways that make it an acceptable perspective in academics, law, and courts, regardless of the current perspective on issues such as the “separation of church and state.”  I’m not saying anyone will come to Christ simply from apologetics. I am saying that Christians who understand the tenets of our faith and can explain them reasonably will help to create a culture in which Christianity is a reasonable and acceptable thing. The “Moral Majority” has made a fool of Christianity and has lost its power. It will not be political might that rights the wrongs of society. That is the job of biblical Christian demonstrating and explaining a viable faith in a reasonable way.

Defend-o-getics!

Last week I explained to a class of teenagers that we would be studying apologetics next year, and a few of them gave me funny looks.

“What’s that supposed to mean?”, one asked. “What are we apologizing for?”

I explained to them that- within Christianity anyway- apologetics refers to a reasoned defense of the faith.

“Why not just call it ‘defend-o-getics’, then?” he asked, and we all laughed.

If you think about it, “defend-o-getics” would probably make it more clear as to what would be going on. How many of us, after all, thought the same thing when we first heard the term? We get our word “apologetics” from the Greek word apologia, which refers to a courtroom defense. Peter uses this word when he tells us to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that lives in us. (1 Peter 3:15) Now let me be clear on this: being defensive or argumentative about our faith isn’t what Peter is talking about, nor is he excusing treating people in a hateful manner. We’re not just responsible for sharing truth; we’re also responsible with how we share that truth. I believe very firmly that apologetics is one of the most important things to teach believers today, but I’ll get to that later.

What we all need to realize is that apologetics is biblical. Now, I’ve heard people disagree with this point. I’ve heard them say that we need only to study the Bible or heed the Spirit and everything will be alright. While I do believe in being sensitive to the Spirit and studying Scripture, I find that there is something wrong with this view. When I read my Bible, I see apologetics everywhere. When I prayerfully consider what the Spirit would have me do, I feel very much led to study apologetics. After all, Jesus was a master at apologetics. In Luke 24:25-27 and John 14:11, for instance, Jesus appealed to miracles and fulfilled prophecy to prove Who He was. The apostles referenced miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and Jesus’ resurrection to make a point. (Acts 2:22-32) In Acts 14:17, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul points to nature and eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ as proof for Christianity’s validity. This is precisely the sort of thing that modern apologetics tries to do. It’s amazing what the Spirit can do with this sort of reasoning!

Why I Liked Lost’s Finale- Serious Spoilers

In the hours following the Lost series finale, it became pretty clear to me that it was impossible to remain neutral in your take on how things wrapped up. Some fans absolutely loved the ending, while others felt like they had wasted six years of their collective lives. Some folks just seemed to be happy they had been able to survive the roller coaster that was Lost. I can understand people’s frustration at how Lost ended. We didn’t get nearly as many answers as we would have liked. We barely delved into the series’ mythology it seemed, so we’ll never know for sure who built the temple or the statue of Tawaret, what exactly the Light was, whose bodies were down in the pit with the Light, how people seemed to have insight or could talk to dead people, or what happened to poor Walt. To make matter’s worse, we have very few authoritative characters to help us really believe what we’ve been told is true. Jacob’s “Mother” isn’t exactly believable, having killed Jacob and MiB’s biological mother along with all of the people MiB lived with for years. Jacob seems to have gained some insight, but a lot of what he knows is based on what “Mother” said. We don’t know if there would have been repercussions outside of the Island if the Island had sunk, and we don’t know that MiB could have really done much once off of the Island since the Light would have gone out and he would be mortal.

So, yes, I understand why people are frustrated at the lack of answers. However, I’d like to point out that I think that this particular aspect of Lost makes it far more realistic than most television shows and movies. In real life, we don’t know for certain all of the answers. We don’t have absolute certainty about the big questions of life- meaning and purpose, for instance- or about which choices are the right ones. We are so finite, so impotent when it comes to seeing the future or even the past with accuracy. Lost reflects reality very powerfully here. Without omniscience to make things easy for us, we are left with questions to be answered at some unknown date or to believe based on what evidence we can find. We all believe in something ultimately, just as we’re all left to form our own conclusions about our unanswered questions from Lost.

Lost also never quite gave us a definitive answer when it comes to major philosophical questions- questions you and I wrestle with consciously or subconsciously. Are we at the merciless hands of fate? Which choices have been given to us to make on our own? For the Christian- how is it that God can make these complex plans for the universe and for us personally and yet we are left with the ability to choose to follow His plan? To what extent can we choose to follow Him or not, and which things are we unable to choose? The reality is that Lost made us think without shutting down our thinking at the end by answering all of these complex questions for us. It leaves us to keep thinking until we come up with an answer, based on sources that we can trust. That’s a great gift, I’d say.

It was the ending, though, that got folks the most. To realize that the “flash sideways” wasn’t an alternate timeline at all, that our beloved characters were all already dead, was a shock that few people expected. I think people didn’t like this ending for two reasons. First of all, to those who are not religious, an “afterlife” ending broke their willful suspension of disbelief. That- whether or not right or wrong won out in this lifetime- good will ultimately silence evil’s snarls, well, it’s a hard pill to swallow for someone who is an atheist or believes in naturalism. Western folks just don’t like appeals to religion. It’s personal to them, and Lost put the tenets of religion up for serious debate in the public square. People who followed Lost closely had been talking about religious tenets for over six years without realizing it very much. The end left us unable to brush off the religious- mostly Christian- symbolism that we’d witnessed over the last six seasons.

At first I hated that stained glass window in the church- the one with all of the symbols from a “coexist” bumper sticker- because I hated that it didn’t narrow it all down to Christianity. Well, frankly, it was Christian enough, the entire scope of the series, I mean. And, secondly, this is in keeping with the author’s principles of not being definitive about philosophy. While I do sincerely wish that Christianity had been the faith they had adopted at the end, I respect their desire to give people the liberty to make their own conclusions. They avoided preachiness in this manner, something I think we can all respect.

Christians may not like the ending for its ecumenicism, and I completely understand that. However, I believe more Christians will have a problem with the end of Lost because they don’t like the heavenly ending that much. Like unbelievers, we struggle with understanding that the ultimate happy ending will not take place on this earth. We want it to all work out here, but that isn’t the way things go usually. We’ve become so earthly minded and self-centered that we want a nice, neat, logical ending to every part of our lives (and become power-mongers in doing so), and we’d like God to slap a nice bow on it, too. In reality, God is ultimately the one in control, and He’s got a much better ending waiting for us.

Incidentally, I rather liked the emotional side of the ending. I liked that everyone spent a moment in shock when this ride we call life is over. I liked that Jack teared up a bit when he realized that he’d died. I liked that he had his father there to greet him, comfort him, and explain how what I’ll call Heaven worked. I liked that others who had loved and fought and died got to see each other again, and I loved the joy and happiness of their reunion. Isn’t this what Heaven will be?

Oh, I know that heaven is contingent upon faith in Christ, so please don’t blast me for leaving that out. I recognize just as fully as any other believer does that a television show left the central part of the gospel out. It’s not a television show put out by people who don’t appear to be Christians to give folks the truth. In fact, usually television tries to tell us lies more than anything else. That Lost left it open-ended is a blessing. I’m choosing to celebrate the depth of a television show, probably for the first time in my entire life. I’m choosing to be content to know what I know, and to spend the next few years arguing with other Losties about details that we didn’t get to find out about. I’m glad that a television show talked people into seriously thinking about eternity for the first time in ages.

And that, my friends, is why I liked Lost’s finale.

Sphere Sovereignty

Perhaps the single greatest thought I gleaned from Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project was the idea of sphere sovereignty. Sphere sovereignty is the idea that God has ordained and organized aspects of human existence, and that these aspects of existence are distinct and separate from one another. Examples of spheres include Family, the State, Church, Labor/Arts/Education, Economics/Business, and a personal relationship with God. While each sphere relates to the others in a number of ways, they are not to be organized or controlled by the other spheres.

For instance, God has ordained that marriage consist of one man and one woman, and that is all. The State may recognize marriages, and many people get married in Church by a pastor. However, the State does not have the power to extend the definition of marriage beyond the limit set by God. Similarly, the Church does not have the power to forbid to marry, nor can the Church dictate how marriages must operate, beyond what Scripture has already said. The Church has been given a set of rules concerning the roles of men and women in its function, and the Family has a particular set of rules concerning how Husbands and Wives may relate to each other. However, businesses and governments are not necessarily bound to those same rules concerning the roles of men and women.

I think the reason I like the idea of sphere sovereignty so much is that it is a balanced, rational approach to life. Not too long ago, and in some places today, Ecclesiasticism had a powerful hold over the West. The Church was able to dictate what the State should do, and it assumed the role of mediator between God and Man. This was an obvious mistake. However, since the “Enlightenment” (and I do use that word with a hint of disgust), Secularism has swept through and caused disaster after disaster. Secularists believe that Christianity (among other faiths) has no place in the public square. Church and one’s relationship with God are to be completely separate from everything. Secularism accepts and emphasizes sphere sovereignty, yet denies a relationship between spheres. Neutral secularism does not last long because faith is absolutely necessary in humans.

It is impossible to simply not believe in anything greater beyond ourselves, nor can one ever be truly independent. So the State has, in many places, become a monstrosity that has absorbed- or attempted to absorb- all the other spheres. It attempts to dictate what marriage is, what can be taught or preached about certain issues in Church, how faith may be practiced, where Christian works may be practiced, how religion in the sciences and arts are to be handled, and the list goes on and on. The State has, in many minds, taken on the role of a deity. It is a provider. It is a protector. It is what we owe allegiance to, and in return for our worship, we deserve certain things. What a pitiful thing the welfare State quickly becomes!

It is not just the State that has struggled with secularism, though. In the sphere of human labor, Christianity is rarely accepted. Be careful where you share your faith! Naturalism now grips the sciences, and the Arts are often mired in the clay of the revolting, obscene, and perverse. Families lack guidance, and even the Church struggles against anti-intellectualism, moral poverty, and decay of true worship. Among the many needs the western world has, a return to the idea of sphere sovereignty tops my list. Only then can a truly natural order be restored to a society in chaos. Families, businesses, academics, artists, individuals, and churches must return to what God has said in His Word about social order. I am not talking about theocracy here. I’m talking about conforming our ideology to reality.

The Importance of Prejudice

Prejudice is inescapable, and moreover it is necessary. Oh, I know the word has a very negative connotation these days, and rest assured that I’m not trying to cast a positive light on discrimination or injustice. What I mean here is that there will always be- indeed must be- preconceived notions out there. In fact, the truth is that eradicating one preconceived idea (prejudice) will only result in another preconceived idea gripping a society. Once, it was the prejudice of a society that it was wrong for an unmarried woman to get pregnant. While one might point to various religions and cultures as the basis for such a belief, it could hardly be said that any one institution was responsible. Society has now moved onward to the prejudice that there is nothing wrong with an unmarried woman getting pregnant. Once again, no one institution or belief system can claim responsibility here, because the majority of people in America did not reach this conclusion after a thorough study of the issue. Most people simply assumed that because it wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t their business. Tada! Prejudice! Humans are wired for it! The prejudice some Americans held against minorities is giving way to a prejudice in favor of minorities. Prejudice is universal, so it becomes not a question of whether or not to be prejudiced, but rather which prejudices are appropriate and right.

I’m going to make an assertion that will seem a little harsh to some. I believe- very strongly- that it is absolutely cruel not to instill prejudices in young people. Young people need to be instilled with useful prejudices that will help them throughout life. It is good, right, kind, decent, and sensible to impart wisdom to the next generation. Young people need to know what is right and wrong, what is wise and unwise. They need to be taught principles (literally “first things” ….prejudices) for living life. They need to be taught how to make decisions about friends, love, jobs, colleges, budgeting, and morals. Christianity (and, in fact, most religions, since those with common sense are often the deeply religious) has been an advocate of instilling children with Truth since its very inception.

Yet we live in a world that desires to escape the conventional prejudices that made up a decent society. Yet, escaping the conventional becomes a convention in itself. New prejudices are formed, and everyone is encouraged to accept these “radical” new ideas. Of course, these ideas turn out to be neither new nor radical, but actually detrimental to society. Marriage, love, and family are constantly being redefined, to the detriment of our society. In the end, it turns out that mankind is inclined to the same tired temptations that we have been subject to for millennia. There truly is nothing new under the sun…

Separation of Church and…..Art?

“The Arts Enrich Us All”, or at least, that’s what one series of public-service announcements proclaim. Some Christians disagree. They are, perhaps, wary of beliefs and philosophies that run contrary to the Bible, and they are right to be concerned. David Puttnam, producer of the film Chariots of Fire, once said, “Cinema is propaganda.” What he means by this is that the Arts often have a didactic purpose. They teach. The question is, what are they teaching? Is the message acceptable? Due to the incredible danger false messages pose to the young in faith or years, some Christians encourage separation from all of the Arts, at least as much as possible. (Now, I must be clear here. When I say “Arts”, I mean all art: painting, sculpture, poetry, novels, theater, movies, popular and classical music, digital works, etc.)

However, is the mere fact that a worldview- and sometimes an incredibly false one- can be portrayed and validated by a piece of art reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Suppose a piece of art does teach a false worldview. Cannot instruction and information be given (metadata, if you will) to teach a right perspective on a wrong worldview? I would say yes, mainly because I do it all the time. In my senior apologetics class, we frequently view television and movie clips and listen to music to evaluate its worldview by the standard of Philippians 4:8. I tend to think that it is one of the most practical things we do in that class because it teaches students to be wary of the message of the art in question.

However, let us consider for a moment the concept that “non-Christian” and “worldly” are not necessarily the same thing. I mean by this that something may be good and yet not be inherently Christian. Or, a teaching may be biblical without appealing to Scripture. Consider Aesop’s fables. They’re nice little stories for kids to learn moral lessons. This doesn’t make them fit for a worship service, of course, but they do fit in nicely with a foundational Christian worldview. They enhance the teaching of Truth, which is a wonderful thing. A movie, song, or painting may do similar things.

When God created the world, did He make everything “religious”? No, certainly not. He created mountains, stars, the music of birds, the ocean’s waves, and the cool breeze. He created a beautiful world. If we are truly made in His image, what is wrong with creating that which is non-religious? Nothing, I would argue. Christians should not avoid the Arts simply because not everything about the Arts is specifically religious, nor should they endeavor to produce art that is only optimistic and “happy.” Christianity has two themes: Fall and Redemption. So much Christian artwork is both religious and strictly redemption-oriented. This is not biblical. It is romantic. Reality is that we live in a fallen world, and we often have a problem with pain simply because we expect the Christian life to be gumdrops and lollipops. We cannot ignore Truth- all Truth, or else we are left with the stuff that children’s Sunday School material is made of. Biblical art should include both themes.

Ravi Zacharias tells us  that in C. S. Lewis’ Pilgrim’s Regress, Pilgrim has been trapped in the dungeon of The Spirit of the Age. The next morning, he is served cold milk. Pilgrim thanks his captor for his milk, but the villain tells him that he is being foolish, for there is no difference between the secretions of a cow. Cow milk and cow urine are no different. This troubles Pilgrim, for there seems to be some truth to that statement. Why do we make a distinction? Suddenly, Reason comes riding in on a white horse, picks up Pilgrim, and turns to leave. Reason says to the spirit: “Sir, you lie! You have failed to distinguish between that which is nourishment and that which is excrement.”

Let us endeavor to distinguish between nourishment and excrement in the Arts, for they are both present. Let us seek that which brings nourishment to the soul- body, mind, emotions, and spirit.

Oh, For Crying Out Loud!

I got the title of this post from my favorite line from Stargate: SG-1. Jack O’neill always says it when he gets frustrated by people who waste time on stupidity, wrong-headed thinking, or inane political mumbo-jumbo. Frankly, I’ve noticed a lot of Christians that deserve a good “Oh, for crying out loud,” from the Colonel himself, followed by my second favorite line. My reason for this is that it seems like so many Christians have their heads firmly planted in the sand.

I say this because I have met so many Christians who naively think that they are not responsible for what happens in the world around them. Their attitudes and words, they think, do not influence those around them. Their choice of entertainment, they suppose, is entirely a matter of personal preference, devoid of any deeper meaning and incapable of creating unintended consequences. Whether or not they vote or are involved in government and law (one hesitates to use the word “politics”) is of little consequence. Worldview, apologetics, and philosophy have no meaning to them, and they would just as soon have everyone avoid this area of reality altogether. And, oh, the excuses they use to justify these ideas. Some of them even use Bible verses to bolster their position.

Reality check, folks: everything matters. Everything. Your words and attitudes have direct consequences for yourself and those around you. Everything you say either builds up or tears down, and the believer is called to edify. Now, I know this conversation is used to tell people to be polite. Allow me to turn the argument on its head: it is never merciful to allow error to continue unchecked. It is never loving to overlook that which is dangerous. Love cannot bear evil to go unchecked in its object. You are not being nice when you leave sin unaddressed; you are being cruel.

Now that we got that out of the way, I move on to my second frustration: Christians think that what happens in the public sphere is of none of their concern. Imagine that! Christian secularists!!! It will never end well, folks, for us to sit on our hands and wait for the end. “This world is not my home, I’m just’a passing through” was never intended to encourage us to be apathetic- or maybe just pathetic- in our convictions. After all, if songs were supposed to be the foundation of our ideology, whatever happened to “This is my Father’s World”? If we believe abortion is wrong, we must condemn it- and condemn it strongly. If we believe that a sexual union and commitment between two people of the same sex is a perversion of the sacred, then we had better being doing our dead-level best to influence our government.

No, I don’t mean that we should be cruel or unkind. We should always be loving, but, remember what I already said: to permit that which is dangerous and sinful is cruel. If you love this country, it should vex you to see what goes on in it. If you at least care about the people of the country you live in, you ought to want to help them avoid sin. Now, some of you are going to go off the deep end on me. You’re going to say: “What about verses such as Proverbs 21:1, Dan 21:1, and Romans 9:17 that tell us that God is in control of government? Shouldn’t we just let Him do His job while we work on the Great Commission or something?” Well, I have a couple of responses to that:

1. Involvement in something other than government, law, and other aspects of the public square is not contradictory to concern for evangelism and discipleship. I would also add here that the Great Commission is not the only aspect of Christian responsibility. Otherwise, ditch you family and your job and spend the rest of your (most likely short) life winning folks and getting them into church! Oh, you’d have to revoke your citizenship, too, since that’s a part of human government.
2. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, and a host of other men and women of God were directly involved in influencing the course of their nation.
3. God gives everyone talents and responsibilities so that they may work. Work is by default a good thing because God intended for us to work. It’s a part of His creation. God’s idea of “work” is not limited to a job, but to that which creates, repairs, maintains, and produces. In a sense, everything except for recreation is work- even voluntary involvement in government.
4. We live in a nation that gives us direct access to our leaders. We can vote on the federal and local levels. We can call, email, and write our leaders. Just like Daniel and Esther, you and I have an audience with our leaders. They may not always do what is right, but we are responsible to do our best.
5. We live in a capitalist society, for the most part. For this reason, your dollar is your vote for the goods that ought to be produced. When you buy a CD or movie, you tell the producers you want more of that kind of product. “What you applaud you encourage, but beware what you celebrate, ” says Ravi Zacharias. What are you telling Hollywood?
6. Jesus didn’t limit His command for us to be salt and light to strictly evangelism, even though that is how we often portray it. No, He says that we must season the earth and light the world so that people will glorify God in Heaven. This can be done in many ways; naming the name of Christ must be done in even the highest places in the nation.

In fact, the use of the word “world” in Matthew 5 is interesting. “You are the light of the world”, Jesus says. The word “world” is from the Greek word “kosmos”. The Kosmos is defined as “constitution, order, and government”, “the human family”, “the universe and all of reality” and “world affairs”, according to my Greek lexicon. Interesting. We are supposed to be a light to law and government. How can we do so without informing those that work in such areas concerning Truth?

Which brings me to my last point. Truth matters. Either it is sacred and therefore must be protected, proclaimed, and defended, or it is unimportant and may be trampled under foot. For this reason, worldviews matter, for they are how people unintentionally interpret reality and Truth. Philosophy matters, for it is how people intentionally interpret reality and Truth. Apologetics matters, because it treats all Truth as God’s truth. There is no direction you and I can go in reality, no sphere into which we delve, in which God has not spoken. His Truth is everywhere. We can use His Truth, His world, His revelation of Himself through the cosmos to speak truth into people’s lives. If your concern is for evangelism and discipleship, you have no choice but to explore the world of philosophy, worldview, and apologetics.

Too many Christians are picking their one area, retreating into their hand-crafted shells of existence. Whether the world ends with a bang or a whimper, they are only concerned with themselves in the end. They do not want to learn. They do not want to expend energy. They’d rather go to task on only their one thing. We need people like Nehemiah in the Bible. He commanded his people to both defend and build. They took up sword and trowel to accomplish the task God had for them. We need to do the same- or get out of the way so someone else can.

I Love Lucy

Lucy, the small australopithecus afarensis, is supposed to be our ancestor. Standing at around three feet tall, she doesn’t look like much. It’s obvious that if we’re supposed to get from a chimp-like creature to our current standing of Homo sapien, there’s going to have to be a lot of changing going on throughout the years. We are supposed to have gone through the Homo habilis stage, followed by Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, and finally Homo sapiens sapiens (that’s not a typo.)

It all sounds so tidy, doesn’t it? Well, it seems that way until one realizes that there is no clear-cut definition of any of these categories, at least not one that is universally accepted by the scientific establishment. There is some degree of consensus, but certainly not the degree one would expect. There’s also little consensus on how long it takes a new species to evolve. Some estimates place it at 250,000 years per new species of human. Lucy is dated at 3 million years. Homo habilis is dated from 2 to 1.5 million years. Homo erectus is dated at 1.6 to .4 million years. Homo sapiens and so forth remain in the present. With so many unknown factors, who can tell what one should believe about evolutionary science? Of course, it gets much more convoluted than that.

The Taung Can No Man Tame

In 1924, Professor Raymond Dart acquired a fossilized skull from the lime works at Taung. He knew it was unique, and determined that it was a young primate which he named Australopithecus africanus. You can see pictures of Taung in many school textbooks due to its fame. Until Lucy was discovered in 1974, Taung was considered to be our oldest evolutionary ancestor, dating around to 2 million to 3 million years old. Then, in 1973, geologist T. C. Partridge rocked the evolutionist’s world. He determined that the cave that the Taung skull came from could not be more than 870,000 years old. Since it could take up to a million years, according to evolutionary theory, for a new species to evolve,  going all the way from africanus to modern-day humans in 870,000 years is out of the question. Plus, even evolutionists date true humans back to 750,000 years. There’s no way for africanus to be an ancestor.

So what is an evolutionist to do? They tried to fit the Taung skull into the line of habilis. Of course, some were honest. Phillip Tobias wrote in response: “Although nearly 50 yr have elapsed since its discovery, it is true to say that the Taung skull has never yet been fully analyzed and described.” I guess it stinks for all the people duped by the scientific establishment all those years! Some have seen fit to remove the Taung skull from the line of humans altogether, classifying it as P. robustus.

Monkeying Around with the Family Tree

Fortunately for evolutionists, Lucy was found the year after Patridge dated the cave. The family tree was revised, and A. afarensis (Lucy) replaced africanus (Taung) as our nonhuman ancestor. Africanus was moved to the australopithecine branch of the tree and became the link between Lucy and P. robustus.

In 1985, the famous “Black Skull” was found. Dating back, according to evolutionists, to 2.5 million years ago, it seems to be a blend of P. robustus and Lucy, leaving Taung as the odd man out. So scientists have begun to move Taung back to the line of humans (again), between Lucy (A. afarensis) and H. habilis. The problem, of course, is that Partridge’s dating of the cave makes that impossible. The dating was based on thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium-series dates of 942,000 years ago and 764,000 years ago on limestone. Richard G. Klein of Stanford University writes: “A date for Taung of 2 million years ago or more may seem most unreasonable, but the argument is obviously circular and the true age remains uncertain.”

What is my point in all of this? My point is that there is nothing solid or certain about the supposed family tree. Dating methods aren’t entirely reliable, but even when they are used, they are often ignored or twisted to make the fossil record say what the evolutionists want it to say. Lucy, Taung, and the rest are being moved haphazardly about the family tree just to make one that works. To place your trust in the soft science of paleoanthropology is a mistake. I love Lucy because she is a reminder that there are far more problems than solutions offered up by a Darwinistic interpretation of the fossil record. It needs to be reinterpreted. That’s where the problem lies. The flaws are not with the fakes (like Piltdown Man), the genuine fossils, etc. The flaws are in the way evidence is interpreted and with the scientific establishment’s mad dash to put something believable together.

Aren’t you glad there are much more firm foundations out there?

The Poetry and Artistry of Evolution

You’d probably assume that a blog post about biological evolution would deal with biology or some other related study. However, that’s not where I’m taking this discussion today. Today, I’ll be looking at the poetic and artistic aspects of the Darwinism movement. To be honest, it makes sense that a believable, coherent theory would have elements of the Arts, because humans have a way of describing anything that matters in with particular eloquence. It’s true, we often tell someone we care about simply “I love you,” but we all know there are much more creative ways of saying those three words. The music industry has blossomed thanks to that creativity.

Darwin’s Day in Court

Andrew Hill has written: “Compared to other sciences, the mythic element is greatest in paleoanthropology.” (in American Scientist, March-April 1984) Speaking sympathetically of that same phenomena in the same article, Ian Tattersall admits: “Paleoanthropologists are fond of telling each other ‘Just-So’ stories; and once in a while a little needling of this kind does no harm at all.” Milford Wolpoff is much less forgiving: ” When the only people who can comment are the discoverers or friends of the discoverers, there is no sense of independent observer. We’re not practicing science. We’re practicing opera.” His reasons for making that statement can be found here.

Two books, written by law professors, may be instructive at this point. Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer and non-creationist studied evolution for years and wrote a book Darwin Retried in which he demonstrated that evolution was a religion and was not of high enough quality to stand up in a court of law. Philip E Johnson, a law professor of the University of California, Berkeley, wrote Darwin on Trial. In his book, he came to four important conclusions about evolution:

1. Evolution is grounded on naturalism, not scientific fact
2. A belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is nothing but an illusion
3. Evolution is a religion
4. If evolution had been subjected to a rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago

In response to Roger Lewin’s description of the Ancestor’s Exhibit in 1984 in which he spoke of the awe and emotion of the experience, Johnson commented:

“Lewin is absolutely correct, and I can’t think of anything more likely to detract from the objectivity of one’s judgment. Descriptions of fossils from people who yearn to cradle their ancestors in their hands ought to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant’s mother…. The story of human descent from apes is not merely a scientific hypothesis; it is the secular equivalent of the story of Adam and Eve.”

Raining on Darwin’s Parade

Let’s turn now to Darwinism and graphic media. In the March 1998 edition of Antiquity, David Van Reybrouck, a student of the role of drawings in the propagation of Darwinism has made five observations:

1. Illustrations always go beyond the archaeological data
2. Illustrations always involve speculation on the part of the fossil discoverers, who advise the artists
3. Illustrations involve interpretations that rely heavily on unproven and sometimes doubtful theories
4. Illustrations are always nonobjective, yet they are trusted in a visual society such as ours
5. Illustrations are used extensively because they sell evolution effectively.

The most blatant lie ever told to help promote evolution is the “parade” of stages in supposed human evolution that we are all familiar with. The origin of this parade- or should I say charade?- of characters is an illustration in F. Clark Howell’s book Early Man, originally published in 1965. The parade was originally on a 36-inch foldout page within the book. What most people don’t realize that the parade is pure propaganda. It doesn’t exist. The original book makes it clear that the parade doesn’t tell an accurate story, and the author and publishers knew it. Evolutionists knew that the apes and ape-like creatures they had theorized did not walk on their back feet. The book clearly states in the text, but not on the chart: “Although protoapes and apes were quadrupedal, all are shown here standing for purposes of comparison.” Sizes of each proposed ancestor were not to scale, and they were shown walking, not simply standing as the author states. These small details make a world of difference when it comes to the believability of the theory. It’s clear deception. Yet it was- and still is, in some cases- included in advertisements and eventually became its own poster in classrooms around the world.

Holding Out for a Hero

Finally, I’d like to call your attention to Misia Landau’s book Narratives of Human Evolution. In her book, Miss Landau makes an interesting assertion: paleoanthropology is storytelling. She compare folk-stories and epics to Darwin, Huxley, Keith, and Haeckel’s descriptions of human evolution. Here’s some similarities she’s noticed:

• The Hero’s Origin- The hero is typically leading a safe and untroubled life. He may be smaller or weaker than others. Think “Frodo Baggins.” In the story of evolution, the hero is a nondescript primate, perhaps living in the trees. Like Frodo Baggins heading out from the Shire with the Ring, the primate leaves the safety of the trees to walk on the ground, perhaps because of a larger brain or changes in the availability of food.
• The Hero Tested- In myths, the Hero is tested by predators, opponents, or his environment. In the Darwinistic myth, similar situations occur. “Indeed, the tests are specifically designed for that purpose: to bring out the human in the hero”, Landau writes.
• The Hero Transformed- Myths and even modern fantasy always add a sacred or magical object- a Ring of Power, the Master Sword, and Invisibility Cloak- to help a man become more than he was. In evolutionary theory, natural selection or a “magic twist” of genetic mutations (those are the words of Jared Diamond, who wrote an article about the movement of modern humans out of Africa in the May 1989 edition of Discover magazine) bestow upon the hero the intelligence or abilities necessary to become more than his ancestors.
• The Hero’s Death- The fatal irony of the average hero is that he dies due to pride through success. Most evolution tales include a warning to humans that we could become like our supposed ancestors if we aren’t careful. Richard Leakey devotes an entire book to that subject entitled The Sixth Extinction.

Frankly, I think J. R. R. Tolkien is a much better writer of this sort of material than the Darwinists. Let’s just leave it to the experts, ok, guys?

Evolution: A Logical Lightweight

At the AAAS convention in San Francisco, Carl Sagan once explained in his lecture “Velikovsky’s Challenge to Science” that science works in this way: “The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged.” The hypothesis “must survive confrontation with observation. Appeals to authority are impermissible. Experiments must be reproducible.”

That’s a pretty strange statement when you think about it. Evolution isn’t observable. It can’t be challenged in the scientific establishment without some serious ridicule taking place. Evolutionists appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment. There aren’t any experiments that are able to confirm evolution. It’s ironic to me, then, that Sagan would also make a very profound statement in that same lecture: “Not all scientific statements have equal weight.” How right he is. Direct observations of, say, the laws of physics, are far more weightier because of the tremendous amount of data verifying them. Unfortunately, the scientific establishment does not appear to behave this way, and the general public certainly isn’t aware of this concept. What we have are Darwinists acting as the high priests of our society. People- even highly-educated people- believe in Darwinism because scientists can’t be wrong.

How is Darwinism a sort of lesser science? Consider our interest in chimps. We study chimpanzees- their behavior, genetic makeup, and anatomy- because Darwinists believe that we are very closely related to them. Darwinists then use superficial similarities between humans and chimps to prove their assumptions. That is called begging the question in logic. They assume to be true the very thing they are trying to prove. Bereft of anything that Sagan would call a good basis for scientific study, a philosophical assumption has been foisted upon us as science. In reality, such studies on chimps would only attempt to shed light on humanity if evolution had first proven to be a correct assumption. Unlike Darwinism, intelligent design bases its theories on the evidence around us: information provided for our world through physics and DNA as well as the incredible complexity of the universe.

The logical fallacies don’t stop there, however. There’s a difference between historical and scientific evidence. In spite of the fact that scientists have performed numerous experiments on animals in an attempt to prove evolution through mutation, the obvious must be declared: just because mutations can be made to happen or engineered in a lab does not mean that they did happen in the past. That is a logical fallacy. That genetic engineering is possible in the present does not mean that it certainly did happen in the past. Scientists have proven it is possible; they have not proven that it occurred.

Suppose I gave you a pile of hammers and asked you to arrange them in a potential evolutionary sequence. You could start with small ones and work your way to larger ones, arrange them by claw types, group them into families based on what they are made of, etc. You could argue that you showed a pattern from simple to complex. The whole assignment, of course, would be bogus. There was no actual evolutionary relationship between the different hammers. They were designed with a particular function or purpose in mind. Curved and straight claw hammers, sledge hammers, ball pein, mason’s hammers, upholsterer’s hammers, and mallets are different because they are designed that way. Just because scientists can superimpose an evolutionary order on things does not mean that the evolutionary order is fact.

In the Multitude of Evidence There Is Safety

We should all be very grateful for what science has allowed us to achieve. The medical fields have provided us with the ability to heal many wounds and diseases previously thought to be untreatable. Technology has allowed us to communicate and travel efficiently. Yes, because of scientific principles and dedicated men and women willing to spend years of their lives researching, writing, and peer-reviewing what has already been written, you and I are able to enjoy very different lives from our forbears. We can be confident in scientific discovery because it is based on solid evidence and a desire to “follow the evidence wherever it leads,” as Carl Sagan once famously said. Would it surprise you, then, to learn how little evidence we have of human evolution?

HIDE AND SEEK

Have you ever seen an actual fossil of a human ancestor? Probably not. I haven’t. The vast majority of the authors of textbooks on paleontology haven’t. Curators of the museums of natural history around the world usually haven’t. Only a very, very small handful of people have ever been privileged enough to see such fossils. I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy afoot. I’m saying that, because they are so rare, so valuable, and so fragile, human ancestral fossils are very unlikely to be on display or studied. In fact, most of us have never even seen a picture of an actual fossil. According to Marvin L. Lubenow, whose book Bones of Contention provided many of the “diving in” points for this series of blog posts, the total number of people who have access to ancestral fossils is fewer than the heads of state in the entire world.

William King, the man who declared Homo neanderthalensis to be a different species than modern-day humans in 1864, never saw the actual fossils. He did so after reading a description of them. Darwin never saw a single human fossil. Thomas Huxley never saw original fossils either, but he took great pains to describe them in his 1863 work Man’s Place in Nature.

People publish vast amounts of research with unverified data! Germany built a two-story museum to celebrate the discovery of Steinheim Man in 1933. Visitors never saw the actual fossil though. They viewed plastic replicas. The actual fossil was kept in a safe set into a stone wall in an old military outpost several miles away. In their article in the October 1995 edition of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Braun, Hublin, and Boucher note: “While it was never described in great detail, this fossil played a central role in various evolutionary models.”

Of course, there is a good deal of politics in this field as well. Teuku Jacob, former curator of Gadjah Mada University, was known for his jealousy of the Homo erectus fossils from Java in his possession. Swisher, Curtis, and Lewin write:

“These fossils, the prized objects of Jacob’s collection are rarely seen, even by professionals in the fossil-hunting business. Scholars with serious research programs have to apply to Jacob for permission even to see them, let alone touch them, for scientific study. And even those few who succeed in obtaining official permission have to wait for Jacob’s final OK, for he alone is permitted to remove the fossils from the safes.”

Donald Johanson, the discover of Lucy, agrees that “only those in the inner circle get to see the fossils; only those who agree with the particular interpretation of a particular investigator are allowed to see the fossils.”

CIRCLING THE WAGONS

There’s one exception to this almost xenophobic protection of the fossils. In 1984, the American Museum of Natural History in New York sponsored an exhibit in which more than forty of the original fossils were brought together for the first- and probably last- time ever. There were special guards over the fossils and the curators that traveled with the fossils. The fossils were placed in special cases. Work on the subway line beneath the museum was halted to avoid vibrating- and possibly damaging- the fossils.

What prompted this gathering of the fossils? In his book Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, Eric Delson tells us that there were those in the scientific community who were concerned about the rising popularity of creationism. Delson, who was a scientist at the American Museum, tells us that creationism was a “great and growing concern” at the museum. The primary purpose, then, was to show professionals and lay people the evidence for evolution, and they avoided making any statement concerning creationism at the museum so that they would not “dignify…creation science.” Their words, not mine. What are these guys afraid of?

BLIND LEADING THE BLIND

Paleoanthropology is in a strange position. Unlike most- if not all- other areas of science, workers in this field rarely have access to the material their science is based on. They are usually one step or so away from the actual evidence. Too often, creationists have been guilty of downplaying the importance of human ancestral fossils. In reality, they are unique and valuable, but because of their value, an insufficient number of scientists have been able to study them in depth.

What do they work with then? They work with casts and descriptions others have written of the fossils. Casts may be reliable if the molds used are detailed enough and if the materials maintain their intended shape. However, casts can be far from ideal. They lack the detail of the original. Becky A Sigmon of the University of Toronto says that there is a general consensus among paleoanthropologists  that “casts should not be used as resource material for a scientific paper.” (See her collection of papers on the subject for more information.) She has a good reason for saying this. At the American Museum exhibit in 1984, when the original fossils were to be placed into their mounts (which had been based on the casts available), most of them did not fit. Casts simply aren’t substitutes from the originals. Lubenow further complains that “casts of only a small percentage of the total fossil material and less than half of the most important fossil material are available for study.”

Scientists are then forced to turn to description of fossils in scientific literature, which is the most common form of source material for scientific work. How can a field of science continue to function and inform public opinion if there is so little readily-available information? How can we be expected to believe what few have seen? As John Fleagle of the State University of New York, Stony Brook has said: “The big awkwardness right now is when someone announces they have found a specimen that overturns everything we know, but almost no one has seen it.”

Talk about blind faith! My point is this: if we are to believe that humans evolved in the manner most Darwinists claim, there must be more evidence. Right now, there’s just not enough out there for me to buy into.

Your Own Historical Jesus- Writings

We’ve seen how biblical creeds and archeological finds are both types of proof for the Gospel message. In this last section,  we turn to ancient writings by secular historians and their Christian counterparts. This will reveal the most clear details of early Christian belief and also provide further evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ. The Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote of the reign of Nero and the infamous fire that burned Rome during his reign, records the following in his Annals, written in AD 115:

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.” (Tacitus, 15.44)

From this we can confirm the biblical message that Christians were named after Christ, who was sentenced to death under Pilate during the reign of emperor Tiberius. The execution ended the “superstition” of belief in Him for awhile, but the claims of Christ and His followers reasserted themselves shortly thereafter. This agrees completely with Matthew through Acts in the Bible. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, another Roman historian who was also the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian with access to imperial records, writes that Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Christus.” (Suetonius, Claudius, 25) Of Nero’s time in power, Tranquillas wrote: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Nero, 16)

Josephus mentions James “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” in his Antiquities. Many are also familiar with a much-debated passage in Josephus’ Antiquities which seems to state that Jesus resurrected the third day and appeared to many. In this passage, Josephus makes use of quite a bit of Christian language, which is unusual since Josephus, a Jew, was stated to not be a believer by the church father Origen. While as a Christian I would love to believe Josephus actually wrote these words, I have to look at things as they are. Most likely this is a Christian interpolation, as there are translations of the Antiquities into other ancient languages that do not include the subject of the resurrection. However, even after removing the interpolation and evaluating the remaining words for grammatical and historical consistencies, one can look at Professor Schlomo Pines’ translation and commentary on an ancient Arabic edition of the Antiquities which reads:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Quoted in Charlesworth’s Jesus Within Judaism, p 95)

Not too bad, Joe! We can turn also to Julius Africanus’ mention of Thallus’ writings concerning (super)natural events surrounding Christ’s crucifixion. Thallus wrote around AD 50, before the New Testament had been penned. Africanus tells us:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Africanus accepts Thallus’ history, but rejects his rationale that the darkness was caused by the sun. It’s interesting that secular history can provide so much verification for the Scriptures. In my last post on this subject, I’ll look at what Christian historians have said.

Your Own Historical Jesus- Archeology

In the last post, we talked about the historical church creeds recorded in the Bible. Now we turn to further evidence for the historical Jesus. First, let’s take a look at the birth of Christ. Luke gives  us a historical account of Jesus’ birth, and he includes a number of clues that are helpful in approximating when the first Christmas took place. In Luke 2:1-5 we read:

^“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.”

Did people really return to their hometown to be taxed? Was Cyrenius (also spelled “Quirinius”) really govern in Syria during a taxation in Israel? We’ll have to look to historians and archeology for some of these answers. It turns out that the Titulus Venetus, an ancient Latin inscription, explains that a census did in fact take place in Israel and Syria around AD 5-6, and that it was fairly normal for such censuses to take place during the reign of Augustus up until the third century. In his book Christian Origins, Bruce notes that a papyrus dating to around AD 104 records that people were required to return to their hometown for the purposes of taxation and census-taking. What about the subject of Cyrenius? Did he govern Syria when a census took place? It turns out Cyrenius did govern Syria at two separate times. In his book Tells, Tombs, and Treasure, Robert Boyd gives evidence that he governed during an early taxation in 10-4 BC, and he also governed in Syria around AD 6. So we now have a few dates that could legitimately be chosen for the year of Christ’s birth. Historically speaking, Luke builds a very solid foundation for acceptance of the details of Christ’s birth.

Next, let us turn to the subject of Jesus’ crucifixion. Can we establish Pilate’s reign in Israel? Are the details of the crucifixion consistent with what we know from archeology? Is there anything in archeology to indicate that Rome had to deal with the rumors of a resurrection? Boyd’s book notes that coins have been discovered which were minted to commemorate the inception of Pilate’s rule around AD 31. Outside of the Bible, Tacitus and Josephus both record Pilate’s involvement in the crucifixion of Christ. Of course, biblically speaking, the question of who killed Jesus is much more complex.

At this point, I’d like to introduce you to Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol. Well, I would introduce you to him, but, sadly, he is quite dead. His skeleton was found in a stone ossuary about a mile from the Damascus Gate in 1968. Archeologists believe he was killed in AD 70 during the Jewish uprising against Rome. It’s the manner of his death that interests us today, though. According to Dr. N. Haas, a pathologists at Hebrew University, Yohanan (whose name was inscribed on his ossuary) was crucified. He still had a seven-inch-long nail pierced though his heel bones, since apparently Roman soldiers twisted a prisoner’s legs to nail them to the cross. Small pieces of olive wood from the cross were still attached to the nail, which was bent backward to keep the victim in place. Nails had also been driven between the radius and ulna bones in the lower arm. The radius bone was scratched and worn smooth at this point due to the Yohanan’s repeated attempts to pull himself upward to breathe. His lower leg bones were broken, the tibia and fibula bones crushed by a common blow. This sounds stunningly familiar, does it not?

I want to turn to one final piece of evidence which I will risk speculating on. In 1878, a marble slab was discovered in Nazareth. It was an ordinance of Caesar which scholars generally agree was issued by Claudius around AD 41-54. It is translated in its entirety in P. Maier’s First Easter:

“Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain perpetually undisturbed for those who have made them for the cults of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If, however, anyone charges that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing on other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of violation I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charges of violation of sepulchre.” (emphasis mine)

Maier notes that all previous Roman indictments against grave-robbing prescribe only a fine. Why the sudden jump to capital punishment? In AD 49, he expelled the Jews from Rome, and Suetonius remarks that the reason behind the expulsion was because of Christ (see Suetonius’ Claudius for more information, and cross-reference with Acts 17-18, for example.) If Claudius had indeed investigated the beliefs of Christians, he would have quickly discovered the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection due to the tomb being empty in spite of it being sealed. Jewish leaders, of course, tried to explain the event by saying that Jesus’ disciples had stolen the body, an event Claudius would have no doubt also uncovered.

So we’ve given a few examples of archeological evidence for the trustworthiness of the Gospels. Do secular historians provide corroborating evidence?

Your Own Historical Jesus

You’ve probably run across someone who challenged your belief in Jesus Christ on the grounds that He is a made-up figure in a religious text. If they’ve been mildly open-minded, they may have asked you for some historical proof that He was real. That’s not easy for believers to do when we’re used to trusting in the Bible as our sole authority for faith and practice. Hmmmm…..where have I heard that before: “sole authority for faith and practice”? Well, there’s no singular answer since that statement is found in numerous statements of faith, confessions, and…..creeds. Let’s check out a few of those creeds.

How about “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh“? Sound familiar? Oscar Cullmann, author of a classic on early creeds entitled The Earliest Christian Confessions, identifies this statement as a concise creed on the subject of Christ’s deity and nature. That’s what most creeds were about, happily. It is creeds, therefore, that offer us some of the best evidence for the existence of Christ. The reason for this is that even though they are included in the New Testament, creeds like the one I just mentioned existed before the books of the New Testament were written. The various human penmen of the New Testament quoted these creeds on occasion to summarize doctrine, but they didn’t create them.

Here’s another creed that may sound familiar, though it is somewhat more complex.

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

This creed should found familiar to most believers, since it is written out for us in Philippians 2. It is identified as a creed not only by Cullmann, but also Bultmann, Neufeld, and Fuller. Ironically, these scholars, who are not exactly conservative, point out this creed in particular as proof to a very early belief in Christ. If Christ’s death and resurrection did take place around AD 33, and the various books of the Bible did not begin to be written until AD 50 or so, then the creeds became standardized less than 17 years after the events actually happened. Obviously, this is significant because that means the very people who popularized the creeds were those who had witnessed events in the life of Christ. They know of Whom they spoke!

Another early confessional creed is found in 1 Timothy 3:16:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifest in the flesh,

Justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,

Preached unto the Gentiles,

Believed on in the world,

Received up into glory.”

Moule points out that the early date of this creed (before Paul’s ministry) plus the rhyme-pattern that is made clear through a study of Greek literature are evidence of this creed’s use in pre-Pauline hymns. When we read this passage, we are given a glimpse of ancient Christian worship!

The two passages most clearly identified as creeds by the majority of New Testament scholars are 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Paul essentially declares them to be creedal in nature by using the terms “delivered” and “received”, both of which are technical terms for the passing on of Scripture in the rabbinical tradition. Do a quick word search of the New Testament. They aren’t used by Paul or anyone to describe simple communication. Paul is passing along information from another source, a source which uses parallelism through the “and that” of Hebrew narrative tradition and Peter’s Aramaic name (“Cephas”) in the place of his Greek name. We can therefore easily surmise at this point that this creed originates in Israel. This is significant since this means that the people who created the creed were very near the events of the gospels in terms of time (less than two decades) and space (Israel as opposed to somewhere else in the Roman Empire.) Because of this we must take the following statements, at least, to be factual:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus was buried
3. Jesus’ death caused despair on the part of His disciples
4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty
5. The disciples believed they had seen Him alive and well
6. The disciples were transformed from faithless doubters to bold witnesses
7. This message was the center of the early church, which was founded in Jerusalem
8. The early church was born and grew
9. James, who had been a skeptic, converted
10. Paul, another skeptic, also was converted

That’s the minimum any thinking skeptic would have to accept. A number of creeds believed by hundreds, perhaps thousands, so geographically and chronologically close to the events of the Gospels make it hard to believe that at least these items are not true. Whatever else your conclusion, you have to deal with all of these items somehow. Hopefully an honest skeptic will realize that there is something else going on here and eventually embrace the full message of the Gospel by faith grounded in reason.

But is there more evidence from other sources? Glad you asked….

A Sticky Situation

Having established that the creation of the universe and subsequent formation of the galaxies are all but impossible to have occurred by chance, we now turn our attention to the formation of the planets themselves. It turns out that getting planets to form naturally isn’t very easy after all. There was a time when planets were supposed to have blasted out of the Sun as the result of another passing star, but anything blasted or sucked off of the Sun would have fallen back into the Sun as soon as the other star passed. That’s gravity again for you; always making a mess of things! So scientists turned to “cold accretion”, postulating that planets could form as dust from a forming solar system began to stick together, form dust bunnies, then “planetesimals”, then eventually establish their own gravity which began pulling more planetesimals together until eventually a whole planet was formed. This is supposedly how the inner planets of our solar system formed.

Oh, but there’s a problem here, and it’s a whopper! How do you get that much dust to stick together? How does that dust turn into the the rock and iron of modern planetesimals? Why don’t cosmic “dust bunnies” form in space today? The answer is that space dust doesn’t turn into dust bunnies, and planetesimals don’t play nice when they meet each other. These meteorites and their kin cruise around the solar system at a cool 100,000 miles per hour, and, when they hit each other, they either bounce off or shatter each other. No planets. No us.

But, one may argue, could not their speed relative to each other be much slower, such as the rubble that makes up the rings of Saturn? That’s a great question, but the rubble around Saturn is not collecting; the chunks of rock and dust around Saturn simply bounce off of each other.

Well, what of the gas giants and ice planets then? Surely we can come up with a way for them to work out? Not a chance. If dust has a hard time sticking together, how do you think gas molecules will handle things? Not very well, as you can most likely imagine, since gasses simply do not “stick” to anything. I know there have been simulations demonstrating the formation of gas giants, but those simulations begin with a “gravitational instability.” The simulation was designed to create planets, something evolutionists don’t believe in. The ice planets are supposed to have formed as ice crystals sticking together, but there’s not as much matter out there and no model can bring about their existence so quickly. Other models assume they formed closer to the sun and then moved further away, but you still run into that pesky problem of getting things to stick together. Back to the drawing board!

Bedtime Stories About the Beginning

So we’ve already talked about the singularity pseudoscience. What happens after that? Well, I’m glad you asked that, because now the story gets even better! By the time we’re through talking about galaxy and star formation, stories about wolves eating grandmothers only to be killed by friendly woodsmen will seem tragically commonplace and dull. Now, where was I….. Oh,yes! The singularity had just finished causing the strangely uniform inflation to expand the universe and produce antimatter-free matter, when it turned to its next task: the creation of galaxies and stars….

The question is, once the gas particles in the universe begin expanding, how do you get them to start collapsing all over the universe without creating a bunch of black holes? In other words, assuming you can get the expansion to stop and the collapsing to start, how do you keep galaxies from collapsing completely? Galaxies won’t form naturally unless the matter begins to collect, and the only thing strong enough to collect the matter is gravity, which shouldn’t be able to work thanks to the supposedly uniform inflation I had mentioned in the last post.  Of course, once galaxies begin to form courtesy of gravity, they ought to just keep collapsing in on themselves. What has to step in to keep the galaxies from just shrinking into really big black holes? The plot thickens……

Steven Hawking, in his book The Universe in a Nutshell postulated that dark matter did it. Not just any dark matter, though. His very special brand of magical dark matter formed on a brane world parallel to our own. And I thought I had a big imagination! So far, brane worlds and dark matter (at least dark matter on the order Hawking is talking about) is purely theoretical. No science here so far!

Maybe that’s why Hawking has put galaxy formation on his list of unexplained mysteries in his books published in 1988, 2001, and 2002. J. Trefil wrote in his The Dark Side of the Universe: “There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are….It is one of the thorniest problems in cosmology.” Marcus Chown, in his article “Let there Be Light” (February 1998 edition of New Scientist) quoted NASA scientists as saying: “We have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed or how galaxies evolved, whether they formed from aggregations of smaller units or from subdivisions of large ones.” Their problem is that, at best, the Big Bang theory gives us a mass of expanding gas, and that is all.

Of course, then there’s the formation of stars, where we have the same problem with gravity producing more black holes and homogenous gas not wanting to collapse at all. But wait! There’s more! Stars are supposed to have formed, at least in one theory, in hot gaseous clouds vaguely referred to as “star-forming regions.” The problem? Hot gas clouds are more likely to disperse than collapse, so I have a hard time believing that anything like what we see today is actually capable of producing stars. Sure, there are stars in those regions, but that doesn’t mean the stars formed there. They aren’t necessarily new stars. Who honestly cares if stars currently surrounded by vast gas and dust clouds are sucking those clouds in? Any star would suck gas and dust into itself because of gravity. For all we know the stars are old! Lada and Shu wrote and article for Science in 1990, saying: “We have not yet been able to unambiguously detect the collapse of a molecular cloud core or the infall of circumstellar material onto an embryonic star.” No proof there, guys.

This is the second part in a series on the Big Bang. Millions and billions of years have gone by in this little bedtime story, and yet I don’t see any reason for believing a word of it. There’s not one shred of proof, and the objections are virtually insurmountable. I’d rather believe that the cow jumped over the moon than believe this rot, because my “willful suspension of disbelief” has its limits. Just ask my wife about how I felt about “robot heaven” in Transformers 2.

Of Singularities and Pseudosciences

In the beginning there was a singularity. Fortunately for all of us, it expanded (or exploded, depending on who you ask), and our universe is the result. Well, that’s how things would work if the evolutionists had their way. Oh, I know they prefer to use much more scientific terms, but I sometimes have to question why. The things they try so hard to prove using science actually have some very distinct scientific problems.

First of all, there’s the very existence of a singularity from which everything came from. Professor Steven Hawking writes the following in his work A Brief History of Time: “At the singularity, general relativity and all other physical laws would break down: one couldn’t predict what will come out of the singularity….This means that one might as well cut the big bang, and any events before it, out of the theory, because they can have no effect on what we observe.” Thanks, Doc. I’ll just set my bag o’ tools (the laws of physics) aside now because they won’t work in the Big Bang scenario. So what exactly makes this different from a miracle? Once one throws out physics, one is left with metaphysics, in which God is permitted.

The existence of a singularity isn’t the only miracle, however. There’s another great one that big bang cosmologists keep in their bag o’ tricks (since the bag o’ tools known as the “laws of physics” can’t help much here). There’s also inflation, which appears to have properties as varied and mysterious as pixie dust. You see, if inflation didn’t happen, the universe would have collapsed back into a singularity again thanks to a tool of ours known as gravitation. Fortunately, inflation was around to accelerate the expansion of the universe by a thousand billion billion billion times, all very smoothly of course. The Big Bang scenario also predicts the existence of magnetic monopoles, which have never been found, and a non-uniform cosmic microwave background radiation instead of the observed uniform CMBR we see today. Fortunately, we just sprinkle more of the pixie dust inflation and- presto!- the problem goes away. Well, sort of. Inflation is an ad hoc theory in that there is no evidence for its existence, and the inflation rate itself must have been very uniform and fine tuned in order for it to not have looked a lot like a really big, very destructive explosion. I wish I had that kind of faith, my evolutionary comrades.

Then there’s that pesky thing Einstein came up with, what was it? Oh, yeah. E=mc^{2 (which actually looks squared when I type it even though it just looks like a “2″ when I post)} . That’s mass-energy equivalence, meaning that matter and energy are interchangeable. Enough energy can produce matter, and matter can be converted into energy. When particles are created from energy, they are always created in matter/antimatter pairs. Electrons are created alongside anti-electrons (positrons), protons are created alongside anti-protons, neutrinos are created alongside anti-neutrinos, etc. Of course, when matter meets antimatter, the process is reversed. Matter and antimatter annihilate each other and you get a lot of energy. This means that if the Big Bang occurred, the matter formed from the energy of the Big Bang would have very quickly annihilated itself. No galaxies. No stars. No planets. No us. Fortunately, all observable matter in the universe is ordinary, boring ol’ matter. No antimatter galaxies, stars, planets, or people. Big Bang cosmologists try to get around this by saying that- by chance- a small amount (like the mass of the universe) of matter was still left over after the universe nearly annihilated itself, but that seems impossible based on everything we know. What mechanism was in place that skewed the laws of physics and gave existence a chance? None that we know of. It’s all based on assumptions and guesses.

I’d like to come back to the CMBR again. Predictions of the level of background radiation in the universe were way off. It was nearly uniformly 3 degrees kelvin, thanks to the constancy of starlight. I say it was nearly uniform because in 2003, WMAP discovered real variations in the CMBR. I say “real” here because its predecessor, COBE, discovered some years earlier that just turned out to be “white noise.” The problem is, the variations discovered work very nicely in a creationist cosmology, not a big bang cosmology. The Big Bang model predicts that the universe should be uniform, boundless, with no center. Instead, the variations indicated the existence of a cosmic “north and south pole”, and a cosmic “equator” of sorts. Creationists can easily explain this in a model involving the Milky Way positioned near the center of the universe, but such galactocentrism is unpleasant for evolutionists who assume that mankind is not special. Oops again!

The Rape of Chance

Perhaps the most abused factor in evolutionary theory is chance. It is invoked in nearly every aspect of big bang cosmology and Darwinian evolution, even though the average textbook doesn’t actually use the word. Oh, I know that they like to use phrases like “natural selection” and “genetic drift” when dealing with Darwinism, but there’s nothing else out there for the evolutionists to appeal to except for physics when it comes to Big Bang cosmology. It is necessary, of course, because there is no divine mover behind events, and everything that was, is, and will be is the result of Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker“. In the most extreme cases, evolutionists assert that anything is possible, even if “anything” is highly unlikely and may have had to occur or exist in one of the many universes they assume to exist. Since the universe (or multiverse) is so vast, everything has likely already occurred somewhere along the line. Hence, however unlikely it is that the universe we see came about on its own, it has obviously done so thanks to the wonders of sheer chance. To the minds of many, this is just one universe out of the infinite universes that are out there (wherever “there” is), and this may be just one iteration of an infinite progression of universes. We just happened to exist in a universe capable of supporting life. The scenario, however, is false. Anything and everything is not possible. Chance cannot, for instance, violate the laws of physics. That severely limits the potentialities of the wonderful world of chance. Therefore, evolutionists prefer to blend together chance and necessity. An object or process is determined to be necessary, and chance is used to fill in the gaps. How did life begin? Well, we know it exists, and we think we know how early earth would have looked, so just identify what is necessary for life to exist, throw in some “chance”, and add a dash of scientific jargon, and you’ve got yourself a working theory! Williams and Hartnett analyze this use of chance in their book Dismantling the Big Bang.

Williams and Hartnett point out that, for starters, chance is not a force. At all. Things may appear to happen randomly, but there are actually a complex set of forces at work. Anything above the quantum level moves according to Newtonian laws of motion. In a sense, “chance” and “necessity” are really describing the same thing: Physics. Necessity is limited to the certain results of the laws of physics. Chance refers to the possible results of the laws of physics. In this way, chance adds nothing to the party at all. One might question why anybody even invited it in the first place.

Secondly, Chance is dualistic in nature. Whenever you measure the probability something will occur, you must also measure the probability that it will not occur. I suppose there is technically a chance that the water vapor rising from my stove will concentrate into a point and burn a hole through my chest. However, there is a much, much greater chance that such an event will never occur. The chance it will not occur is so significant, no one is even concerned about this event taking place. So it ought to be when discussing chance and origins, because the numbers are no where near being in favor of evolution.

Thirdly, chance does not mean that every possibility is equally likely. Even if the universe is vast and has been around for billions of years, it is most certainly not truly infinite, else the Big Bang would be not necessary. Therefore, there are limits. All interaction in the real world will use up space and time. All interaction in the real world will use up energy. Actually, long periods of time going by will actually decrease the likelihood that anything will happen at all, thanks to our dear friend Entropy. It’s a gamble evolutionists try to take, but the odds always favor the house. Just as spending more money at a casino makes it more difficult to win, “spending” more energy early on in the game of existence makes it more difficult to bring our universe into the state it is in today. The universe would have to had scored an “early win”, which is again unlikely, even by evolutionist standards. Somehow, everything turned out just right for us, something skewed nature. And chance doesn’t really help us figure out what that something is.

Finally, Williams and Hartnett point out that chance can only be applied to events that can happen. Chance never makes things happen when they are physically impossible. Consider the “rogue gas” scenario above that burned a whole in my chest. It isn’t just unlikely. It’s impossible because gas molecules operate according to the aforementioned laws of motion. The actually probability of the event I described is therefore a whopping Zero. Chance cannot make impossible events possible.

Faith of our (Founding) Fathers

As I said in my previous post, America was once a very different nation. It was a nation founded on Christianity, a fact which has been denied and covered up by historical revisionists. Here’s some quotes and statistics that have been buried by some:

• The most popular book in colonial America (after the Bible) was The New England Primer. According to Daniel S. Burt’s The Chronology of American Literature, it sold nearly 5 million copies, an astounding accomplishment when you consider that there were roughly 4 million people living in the USA in 1776. It taught Christianity in conjunction with English and morality. Here’s some examples:

• Harvard University began just a sixteen years after the landing of the Pilgrims, and included the following statements in its original Rules and Precepts. “Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3 and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him, Proverbs 2,3.”
• Gouveneur Morris, the penman of the Constitution wrote: “”Religion is the only solid basis of good morals;
  therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
• Benjamin Rush, the youngest signer of the Constitution wrote: “The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government…is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.”
• “It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”- John Adams
• “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”- George Washington, 1796
• “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence
• “Righteousness alone can exalt America as a nation…The great pillars of all government and social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.”- Patrick Henry
• “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”- John Adams
• “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.”- Daniel Webster
• Then there’s the oath of office from the original Delaware Constitution: “I, _____ do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
• “Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience communicate in one government and jurisdiction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of several nations and strange languages which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our posterity.”- The Articles of Confederation
• “I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”- Benjamin Franklin (He doesn’t sound to much like a deist or agnostic here, now does he?)
• “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” -Patrick Henry
• “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government….I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable, in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.”  -James Madison

Where will we wind up if we continue on our course away from God? What will happen to us if we completely destroy our foundations? I talked about Rome in the last post. Alexander Solzhenitsyn has another, more recent answer for us, and his analysis is frightening:

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

What Does a Christian Nation Look Like?

I cheated. I recently ordered Focus on the Family‘s The Truth Project for small groups in churches and schools. It’s an exciting program, but I didn’t wait for training or go through a small group myself to watch the DVDs. I watched them. All of them. In less than twenty-four hours. Dr. Del Tackett is an amazing teacher, but, far more importantly, he accurately describes and defines faith in a God that is far more amazing. I won’t spoil the series for you, because I think that it is much more powerful in a group setting, but I will use one of the lessons as a jumping-in point for today’s posting.

Ever since President Barack Obama told the world that the United States is not a Christian nation, there’s been a lot of questioning about whether or not he was right in doing so. Perhaps it is better to first ask ourselves what it takes to be a Christian nation. Can you simply slap a label on a country and call it Christian? Can you deny it that label if you so choose? What would a truly Christian nation look like?

A Christian nation would begin with the understanding that God has set up a number of distinct realms in society that are dependent on each other. The Truth Project materials list these realms: Family, Labor, State, Community, Relationships with God, and Church. Each sphere is sovereign in nature. Families operate in a distinct way from churches, and one does not replace the other. One has the duty to create because we are made in God’s image, but work should not encroach upon or replace your relationship with God. Sovereignty, however, does not eliminate an appropriate relationship between spheres. Families ought to go to church. Going to church ought to bolster our relationship with God. A strong relationship with God should provide meaning to work. Work should support and enhance community and government. Government and community should find its principles for functionality from a proper view of Scripture. There is a distinction between Church and State, but the two cannot completely separate themselves from each other. God has ordained the State (Romans 13:1) for a number of reasons. When a nation forgets God, however, horrible things may happen.

In the absence of a belief in God, the State may come to believe that it has the authority to determine what is right and what is wrong. We’ve seen the results of such a government. According to R. J. Rummel’s work Death by Government, Stalin killed 42 million, Mao Zedong killed nearly 38 million, Adolf Hitler killed 21 million, and on and on and on it goes. The State-that-would-be-God is a terrible monstrosity. Unfortunately, there are those who have no problem with this mentality.  G. W. F. Hegel wrote:

“The Universal is to be found in the State. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth, and consider that, if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is harder to grasp the Essence of the State. That State is the march of God through the world.”

What madness is this? The State would absorb family, labor, church, education, and community. And so it has in many Western nations.

In modern-day America, the State gets to determine what marriage is, how a parent may discipline, what should be done to the rich, how the poor must be helped, how a child should be educated, what a church may and may not do in the community, and how a community must function. From the cradle to the grave. What hideous thing mankind has created that now has us slouching toward Gomorrah! What have we done to God’s established order, this wondrous system that should have been a reflection of God’s divine attributes? Where will the West wind up if we continue in this direction? Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire portray the Roman Empire as self-destructing due to the following, among other things:

1. A mounting love of show and luxury
2. An obsession with sex
3. Freakishness in the Arts
4. An increased desire to live off the State

This path will not end any better for us than it did for Rome. It wasn’t always this way, for America at least.

Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, Part 3

Hartnett assumes that part of the first day of creation included forming the Earth primarily from water, that Genesis 1:1-2 is a literal part of the creation narrative and not just an introductory statement. Frankly, I have no problem with that even though some Christians might. Since water- and a lot of it- is essentially the only thing around, God’s creation of light doesn’t refer to stars or the sun. When God created light, He created gravitational and electromagnetic energy, the potential for light. This caused the Earth “which was without form and void” to form into a sphere under its own gravitation. Therefore, the first day of creation included light through electromagnetic energy as well as time, the laws of nature, and three-dimensional space.

On the fourth day the sun, moon, and stars were created as the Bible states. Then, in Hartnett’s theory, God expanded space itself (“stretched out the heavens”) as Psalms and Isaiah state. The size of the universe was rapidly increased, and galaxies were pulled along for the ride, they receded from earth. This event caused the galaxies to recede and spawn quasars. A particularly interesting view Hartnett holds is that quasars are the direct result of God’s stretching the heavens out. If this is true, when we are viewing quasars, we are watching the immediate result of God’s creative act on the fourth day. So how did the starlight reach earth by the time Adam was created?

When God stretched out space, this caused a time-dilation event on earth. Hartnett states that time would have slowed significantly on earth but remained flowing at the “normal” speed throughout most of the universe. However, Hartnett also states that God accelerated the stretching of the universe only during the creation week (since God’s “stretching” act is referred to only in the past tense). In his view, the universe might not be really expanding anymore or at least the expansion is not accelerating. We are only seeing the after-effects of the universe being stretched. Therefore, we observe redshift in the heavens and not blueshift. We are not still in a dilation field (since it was caused by the acceleration of the expansion) so blueshift is no longer observed, but the light we see that has traveled more than 6,000 light years or so has been redshifted by past expansion.

In summary, Hartnett’s theory dovetails nicely with the Genesis 1 creation account. God creates the universe in literally six earth days (plus one day to “rest”- leave off creating). Though the “evening and the morning” only lasted a day on earth, God stretched out the heavens for roughly 1-3 days, during which time itself moved more slowly on earth than elsewhere in the universe. The result is that billions of years occurred elsewhere while only a total of six days passed on earth. In that time, light traveled from distant galaxies to earth, but it is now redshifted as a result of the initial acceleration of the universe. This theory agrees with the Bible and observable data, and it explains how light could travel so far in such a short time.

Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, Part 2

In the previous post, I had explained a little bit about Dr. John Hartnett’s problems with Big Bang cosmology. However, it’s not like Creationists are problem-free in their claims either. For instance, how did starlight that is millions of light years away make it to earth in around 7,000 years? That’s a problem, for sure. Now, Creationists have come up with some interesting solutions to the problem in the past, but I’ve not been thrilled with any of them.

1. Light is slowing down- When God made the world, He made light to travel faster than it is today. As my friend Josh pointed out to me, we’d have a hard time proving that one, and it has some theological implications since God’s emblem in Scripture is light. If light changes in such a fundamental way, then God may change too.

Continue reading at www.kreitsauce.com

Creationist Cosmology: Starlight, Time, and the New Physics

Recently I’ve been reading a book entitled Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, which was published in 2007 by Dr. John Hartnett, a professor from the University of West Australia. He has earned a Ph.D. in Physics, and he has published over 120 papers in scientific journals and holds two patents. Shockingly, Hartnett is also a young-earth creationist. The way Darwinists talk, Christians and physicists could never play nice, especially when it came to cosmology and the origin of the universe. What’s funny is that Hartnett has a scientific problem with the Big Bang Theory. Well, actually he has several.

Continue reading at our new wordpress blog

Faith and our Fathers

Last week, I wrote about the reasons why so many men refuse to go to church. I want to follow up on that train of thought a little bit and talk about the relationship between faith in God and having a father-figure. Dr. Paul C. Vitz of New York University’s Psychology department published an article in 1999 that appears to also be the subject of an upcoming book entitled Defective Fathers: Psychological Origins of Atheism. In his study, Vitz noted that many famous atheists had been neglected or abused by their fathers. Some fathers had simply been not nearly so strong in character or personality as they desired.

Article continues on our new website.

Religulous? Really?

You may remember last year’s Bill Maher film Religulous, a satire which drew its name from a portmanteau of “religious” and “ridiculous.” The obvious implication being that religion in general is ridiculous, and believers in those religions are essentially fools. It would seem that Bill Maher’s film takes the comedic route to the same destination as Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great. In his book, Hitchens says that religion is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.” (see pages 56 and 36)

In the thin world of these men, organized religion (whatever that is) is the chief ill of society, which needs to be eradicated or reduced to an impotent form. And, of course, they are more than willing to bring out examples. Hitler, in their view, was religious- maybe even a Christian. David Berkowitz, the infamous serial killer, was also deeply religious, they remind us. After all, he joined a cult that the Son of Sam himself referred to as “the twenty-two disciples of hell.” Or maybe they could even invoke a mystic like Grigori Rasputin.

Click here to read the rest of the article on our new site!

The Neutered Church

This Father’s Day article is going to address a huge problem in the American Church: the lack of male attendance in congregations. I’ve read a number of articles and even a book or two on the subject, and I’ll be pointing you in the direction of a few good online articles and books if you’re interested.

A while ago, I wrote an article entitled “Jesus Isn’t ‘Nice’” about how we have altered our perception of God Himself to fit our culture. Because we have made that change in perception about God, we have feminized (I prefer the term “neutered”, since it brings to mind the stallion and the gelding) churches and our portrayal of the “godly man.” The effect on our congregations has been profound.

You can read the rest of the article for free at our new site!

A Room with a View

As I said in a previous post, I’ve been reading a fascinating book by Hugh Ross entitled Why the Universe is the Way it Is. Dr. Ross has a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and is the president of Reason to Believe ministries. He’s spoken at over 300 colleges and universities. While Ross’ book is by no means exhaustive, it does an excellent job of helping the reader realize how very, very, VERY unlikely it is for us to exist without a Creator. A disclaimer: Ross does seem to believe in some form of theistic evolution, at least to the extent that God allowed the universe to evolve and then stepped in to make humans several billion years later. I prefer to believe that God either created the entire universe with the appearance of age (since He did so with Adam and the rest of life on earth) or that- thanks to general relativity- God’s act of creation actually did some really cool things to the flow of time. I tend to go with the second option, but I’m not going to explain the whole theory in detail at this time. I also see some value in studying whether or not light itself could be slowing down.

Below you’ll see a few reasons why the earth is not only uniquely designed to support life, but also to allow mankind to view the heavens. God wanted us to discover His universe. (Article continues here)

Life Support: It’s all about location

Recently I’ve been reading Hugh Ross‘ book Why the Universe is the Way it Is, and it has certainly opened up my eyes to the incredible fine-tuning of our universe. Dr. Ross has a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and is the president of Reason to Believe ministries. He’s spoken at over 300 colleges and universities. While Ross’ book is by no means exhaustive, it does an excellent job of helping the reader realize how very, very, VERY unlikely it is for us to exist without a Creator. A disclaimer: Ross does seem to believe in some form of theistic evolution, at least to the extent that God allowed the universe to evolve and then stepped in to make humans several billion years later. I prefer to believe that God either created the entire universe with the appearance of age (since He did so with Adam and the rest of life on earth) or that- thanks to general relativity- God’s act of creation actually did some really cool things to the flow of time. I tend to go with the second option, but I’m not going to explain the whole theory in detail at this time. I also see some value in studying whether or not time or light itself could be slowing down. Below you’ll see a list of facts to support the anthropic principle, the belief that the universe exists specifically to support complex life forms:

Click here to read the rest of the article at our new site!

Rob Bell’s Fractured Fairy Tales

On at least two occasions that I am aware of, Rob Bell has made some very telling blunders when dealing with history.

In the first case, he often interprets what Jesus says in light of the rabbinical writings known as the Talmud and the Mishna. The problem with this is that neither set of writings were codified until around 200 years after Jesus’ birth. In other words, Jesus didn’t say anything in light of either set of writings, and the attitude of the rabbis had most likely changed significantly after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Moreover, neither document is known for being historically accurate concerning the 1st century or the Old Testament. Bell’s misunderstanding of history taints his understanding of Scripture, which is dangerous.

Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, Bell twists the facts….

Continue reading on our new site….

Don’t Fence Me In

My grandparents and parents both listened to old cowboy songs when I was a kid, and while I didn’t really like most of them, this one really stuck out to me. It’s about not wanting boundaries, a concept I think most of us can appreciate. Of course, there are some boundaries that are good. We live our lives safely because of them. Unfortunately, some postmodern believers are of the opinion that fences aren’t very good for faith. In other words, some of those Bible teachings aren’t as big of a deal as we make them out to be.

Rob Bell makes it obvious that he’s of this persuasion in Velvet Elvis, where he makes the following assertion:

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?….”

Continue on to the full article on our new site…

When I was in college, the experimental theater class would occasionally put on small productions entitled “Tell Me a Story.” They didn’t have a huge budget, but they would dress in costumes generally and spend an evening performing short dramas, usually around a particular theme. After a night titled “Tell Me a SCARY Story”, I remember watching my fellow students dart to their dorms in groups thanks to the night’s fare and thinking to myself about how drama is such a powerful method of communication.

In fact, anything involving the use of narrative seems to exert a good deal of influence over us. Perhaps that’s why so much of the Bible is made up of narrative. Some Christians believe that the Bible should be understood strictly as narrative, especially since our postmodern society leans heavily in this direction. I don’t have anything personal against my brothers in Christ, but I definitely have a problem with limiting God’s Word to a narrative whose story must be consistently reinterpreted.

On this subject, Rob Bell said in a 2004 interview in Christianity Today that…

Continue reading at our new site….

Faith: Nebula or Mystery?

The new Star Trek movie has revived the sci-fi lover in me. It’s been so long since I’ve seen anything Trek that I’d forgotten how much I enjoyed it. I guess I’m a nerd, but that’s not really a shock to anyone. Anyway, I remember growing up thinking how cool it would be to fly a spaceship through the universe and see all of those heavenly bodies up close. I also remember thinking how dangerous it would be to fly blind through a nebula. Picard and company always seemed to have a hard time with that. Nebulae were dark, mysterious lonely places where it was easy to get lost and you never knew what new danger the crew of the Enterprise would find.

My other passion involves a good mystery. I enjoy a whodunnit?, conspiracy theory, or whatever. Anything with an excellent plot is sure to make me happy. I think that’s key, though. There’s got to be a good plot, a train of thought or order of events I’m supposed to follow.

It seems to me that there is some tension in modern Christianity as to whether or not we’re supposed to treat our faith- propositional truths and experiential reality- more like a nebula than like a good mystery novel. Mysteries can be understood and followed. They serve a purpose. Nebulae, well, at least Gene Roddenberry’s conception of nebulae- seem to be unsolvable and ultimately unknowable. That just doesn’t seem to be the kind of faith Jesus wants us to have, yet such a perspective persists.

Continue reading at our new site…

The Art of Discipleship

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” -Jesus, Matthew 16:24-26

Are Jesus’ words simply a command? Oh, I have no doubt that He is telling us what we ought to do. It’s just that it seems to me He is also describing reality for us. He’s stating a fact. He tells us that self-denial is required if you and I want to experience the abundant life. It’s like me telling my students that they have to learn their vocabulary and grammar lessons well in order to become an effective communicator or to master the English language. I’m not simply commanding them to work. I’m explaining to them “how to get there from here.”

Continue reading at our new site….

“My” Addiction

If you know anything about ABC’s sitcom Scrubs, then you know that narcissism is a major theme of the show. I don’t necessarily endorse the show, but check out the list of episodes and see if a pattern doesn’t emerge. Besides the pattern of the episode titles, there’s the name of the lead character itself- John Dorian. His name is a reference to Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray. I won’t spoil the whole novel for you, but suffice it to say that Wilde attempts to show what selfishness and pleasure-seeking will do to a person. In Wilde’s novel, the picture of Dorian is an outward reflection of his inward destruction caused by narcissism. Such selfishness and pleasure-seeking are the two primary characteristics of a narcissistic individual, and it is just such an individual that is becoming predominant in today’s society. Most of our culture has taken on the temperament of an adolescent- no, an infant.

Click here to continue reading on our new site…

The Knowledge of the Holy is Understanding

Hosea 4:6 says: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”

Notice that God doesn’t say that His people don’t have faith. He says that they have rejected the knowledge necessary to grow faith. Knowledge requires a combination of reason and experience to interpret reality, and Christians need to learn to be confident that the Bible explains reality very well. When we say “belief” these days, do we mean “I hope it’s true”? Do we think of “faith” as being inferior to “fact”? I hope this isn’t the case, because that’s not how Christians have behaved historically. In some cases, faith and fact are identical. This is what I mean when I say that there is a difference between faith and “blind” faith.

Continue reading on our new site…

Why I Am Not a Skeptic

There are two basic questions in life that you and I have to answer:

1. What do I know?
2. What can I know?

When it comes to these two questions, the skeptic and the down-to-earth person with good, old-fashioned common sense are forever at odds. Skeptics believe that anyone who claims to know something to be true has to prove that he can’t be wrong. This is because- to the skeptic- there is no good solution to either question above. They believe that you and I can’t answer one question without knowing the other. If I try to explain how I know something, I also have to explain how I know that I can know it, and vice versa. Life must be very confusing to the skeptic, which is why most become methodists for all practical purposes. I don’t mean the Christian denomination of Methodists. I mean the philosophical sort of methodist. These methodists believe that you have to know what can be known before you can know that you know something. For example, methodists tend to believe that you can only know things if you can observe them with the five senses. (Naturalism, by the way, is a favored perspective for methodists.) Of course, limiting knowledge in this way assumes that you can know things using the five senses, and it requires you to have knowledge of the five senses first. That means they accidentally answered the first question first and have yet to tell us how they knew something without answering the second question. Now they’re confused and embarrassed!

Continue reading on our new site…

We’re Moving!!!

Kreitsauce’s Musings is moving to a new server as part of the all-new www.renewingminds.com! In the next few weeks, www.kreitsauce.com will redirect you to the new blog @ Renewing Minds, which will have all of the same articles and article comments posted on them. By mid-summer, there will be a number of new blogs available on the Renewing Minds website, including a blog dealing more directly with the Bible and Science, and a blog on politics, American law, and faith. We’re looking forward to providing a lot more content, including a message board or perhaps a chat system to let you discuss topics of interest in real time! To check out the new blog, head over to kreitsauce.renewingminds.com today!

America Waits for Its Hitler

Once a people group accepts naturalism as true, they must begin to accept postmodernism as a natural corollary. Postmodernism is a way of looking at the world in which pluralism and tolerance (or at least a contemporary definition of tolerance) reign supreme. In other words, your beliefs about religion and politics are opinions that are no more legitimate than anyone else’s. To the postmodern mindset, feelings and rhetoric are just as important as reason and substance. This is because there is no true “right” in a naturalistic, postmodern worldview. If feeling is what is most important to you, then feeling trump substance every day. There are no absolutes, so you get to set the standard. How someone appears on Youtube or Saturday Night Live is more important than whether or not a person is right. Here’s an example: After the third debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore, ABC’s This Week aired a discussion between Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts in which Mrs. Roberts said: “Sam, it is too early to tell who won. We’ll have to wait until David Letterman and Jay Leno have their comedic say tonight.”

Since naturalism has limited knowledge to the sciences, religion and politics are unknowable,  and they might as well be determined by who a late night talk show host thinks is right. In the public square, where ideas and perspective from across society come together (government schools and universities, courtrooms, politics, and some forms of media), are now about power instead of authority. We are no longer concerned with who and what should be believed, and instead are concerned with who is in control. Think about it: political correctness is about power, not truth.

I’ll close with an illustration from the first sixty pages of Edmund Husserl‘s The Crisis of European Sciences. Husserl sought to explain how an educated nation such as Germany could fall prey to such powerful dictators and play such a terrible role in World War I. In Husserl’s view, the main culprit was a naturalistic worldview. Values, religion, purpose, and the proper role of government were areas of knowledge that simply didn’t matter. There was no objective knowledge to be had, and so society had no real answers to offer concerning such areas. Husserl notes that this resulted in the privatization of moral and theological issues. When this occurred, there was no foundational knowledge that could be raised against manipulative leaders. Naturalism and postmodernism had paved through the first World War, and, ironically, Husserl only had to wait a few more years until it did the same thing under Nazism!

America, and indeed the entire West, is headed down this dark road. It’s only a matter of time before another Hitler with a “will to power” shows up to lead us to wreck and ruin. Maybe he’s already here.

Short: Naturalism as a Worthless Worldview

J. P. Moreland lists five questions that all worldviews must answer:

1. What is real?
2. What are the nature and limits of knowledge?
3. What is the good life?
4. Who is a really good person?
5. How does one become a really good person?

Now I know these are not the usual questions a person asks about a worldview. It’s all about origin and reality of the physical world, but that’s not all there is to reality. There must be things that are accounted for that extend beyond matter and energy.

In naturalism, the physical world is the only reality. Knowledge is merely an understanding of that physical world through the sciences. The good life is whatever you choose for yourself, a good person consists of bettering yourself according to your own definiton of “bettering”, and there’s no real advice to be offered in bettering yourself because everything is ultimately worthless and empty. We only have to wait for death of life on this rock orbiting our home star, and the universe will ultimately suffer heat death.

Isn’t it obvious? Naturalism is a shallow worldview, incapable of offering satisfying answers. As Moreland says, Jesus Christ is the only “game in town.”

Naturalism: Enigmatic Evil

I’ve briefly discussed naturalism’s inability to account for free will and inherent value, but now I want to turn to naturalism’s inability to account for the existence of evil. In fact, I want to go so far as to assert that naturalism cannot even identify what evil is or how it came to be, much less give a solution for the problem of evil. Understand that I’m not just referring to evil as a moral category. I’m also referring to natural evil- disasters and tragedy-as well.

There are a few people out there who believe that evil doesn’t exist, that it’s all in our heads. These are the sort of people who believe that morality is just what is for the good of society (hopefully not Hussein’s Iraq) or the good of the individual (hopefully not Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer.) I think we can all see that there is such a thing as evil. There are people who do evil things, and there are tragedies that simply occurs. To the naturalist, evil is simply a man-made category, and evil cannot exist as a part of our reality. We are all just moralized atoms living in our own make-believe moralized world. This is because things cannot be naturally or morally evil unless there is such a thing as how things ought to be. There must be a standard to live by. My friend Josh can’t see all the colors of the rainbow properly, but neither can a jar of mayonnaise. Nobody is concerned about the mayonnaise’s inability to see, and, frankly, I think we’d all be disturbed if we discovered that mayo could see!

The point behind my silly illustration is that only in one case would anyone- possibly my friend’s wife- say that things aren’t the way they are supposed to be. There is a sense of “ought to” in our world that can’t be avoided. People ought to see color. Rocks ought to fall when I drop them. Mayo ought to sit in a jar until I’m making a sandwich. I ought to pay my taxes. I ought not to murder. People ought not to run over babies. C. S. Lewis was quick to point out that there is a difference between a “want to do this”, a “this is right to do”, and a third voice that says “I ought to do what is right.”

Only in a “Big Mac” universe can good and evil truly exist. Naturalism can only describe how things “normally” work when it comes to the natural world, and it is incapable of explaining how evil exists. It has no sense of where evil came from, and, as John Lennox points out, there is no ultimate justice for evil people. In the end, people like the 9/11 terrorists have gotten away with it. In stark contrast, the Christian worldview freely explains the origin, nature, and end of evil. Satan tempted the first Parents who ushered in natural and moral evil for ages to come. This is “my Father’s world”, but this isn’t the world as my Father intended it. We are told the results of our moral evil apart from God, and redemption is offered by coming to God. Evil will be punished, and the partakers with Christ will be rewarded.

Evil may be an enigma in the naturalistic worldview, but Christianity is quite adept at unmasking the mystery of iniquity.

Archie Bunker Faith

With so many apologetics movements springing up these days, it shouldn’t be surprising that there are those within Christianity that are attempting to mobilize an anti-apologetics movement. Some Christians believe that apologetics results in Christians being heady and highminded, de-emphasizing evangelism, or entirely too intellectual. They conjure up images of old-fashioned meetings in buildings with sawdust floors in simpler times. I don’t have a problem with evangelism, and I love old-fashioned revivals, however, I don’t see a point in ignoring the weaknesses of oversimplifying the teachings of the Bible and emphasizing only a handful of commands from Scripture. Ought we not to preach “the whole counsel of God”?

Archie Bunker from All in the Family once defined faith as “something you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”  It seems that there is a small segment of Christianity that wouldn’t mind that definition too much. You here talk of not wanting to “prove” Christianity so that people will have room to believe! I’m not joking, folks! People actually say that sometimes. If this were the case, I think we should all pray that evolutionists come up with some concrete evidence in favor of Darwinism so that there would be more room for an even stronger faith! Paul said “God forbid” to the rhetorical question “shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” I pose the questions: “Should we continue in ignorance that faith may abound?” God forbid! How can faith be detached from knowledge and reason?

We need to move away from such ridiculous statements or concerns. If the evidence points toward God, as it surely must eventually, how wonderful is that? God still asks that we accept certain facts to be true and to trust His Word. Evidence in favor of Christian teachings is regularly found, but we must all still trust. We in the apologetics realm simply offer reason for that faith. We need to stop viewing faith as being distinct from knowledge. We can know the truth, and the truth is what truly sets us free.

Naturalism: Devalued Existence

In a previous post I had briefly pointed out a few flaws with a naturalistic worldview. It fails to explain the humanity behind being human. Free will, appreciation for beauty, and reason aren’t well-explained in terms of natural causes. Another difficulty with a naturalistic worldview is the devaluing of existence. If our lives are to have objective meaning, there must be some things that are good, right, and beautiful. Those things must be ends in and of themselves, and they must be worth pursuing. There must be people and ideals that are worth living and dying for.

Of course, we must also believe that we can know what is good, right, and beautiful. This also means that we can know what is wrong, evil, and marred somehow. The means of knowing is unsavory to the naturalist. The existence of value and the standard of value are seemingly abstract and not a part of the physical world, which of course blows the naturalistic agenda to bits. Therefore, things and people of value are flatly denied, or the value of everything and anything is readily affirmed. The problem, then, is that if everything has value we still have no basis for evaluating worth in an objective sense. I say that hard work and honesty make a person valuable, but what if you value deceit and slothfulness? Are those character traits truly valuable to individuals or societies? I dare say not! No, the naturalist would rather blithely put that all things lack intrinsic value. It is much easier to say “vanity, vanity, all is vanity” and leave it at that. That’s the sort of world Bertrand Russell believes in.

You are no more valuable than a cockroach or a star or an atom in a naturalistic world. Fortunately we know that reality is far different than the naturalist portrays it. Some things are beautiful, and some are not. Some things are valuable, and others are worthless. Some things are moral, and others are horribly immoral. The naturalistic world required to allow Darwinism to exist as a plausible theory simply cannot be.

Naturalism: Following a Pied Piper

Princeton University’s WordNet defines naturalism as “the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.” It includes an evolutionary origin of the universe, exclusion of even the possibility of a non-physical universe, and a belief that empirical knowledge is the only kind of knowledge there is. Ironically, naturalism is neither falsifiable, measurable, nor testable, which makes it unscientific from the outset. It is, in fact, a metaphysical assertion, not a scientific assertion.

Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that naturalism is self-refuting, there are many who unwittingly believe it and teach it in the public square. It is widely accepted in the political, educational, and legal realms. There are thousands of examples of this, but I think that there is none so striking as what happened after the Columbine massacre on April 20, 1999.  Who did the nation turn to for answers? Scientists. Practically every news network and magazine featured numerous interviews with psychologists, sociologists, and neurophysiologists in an attempt to explain why it happened. Pastors were only invited when it was time to comfort the family. Theologians and philosophers were never asked to provide insight into what had gone wrong. It was one tragic example of how other forms of knowledge are considered inferior to scientific knowledge because of a naturalistic worldview.

The truth is that while Richard Dawkins insists that we are all strictly the product of our DNA (“and we dance to its music”, says Dawkins), there are a good number of things that naturalism can’t explain. J. P. Moreland writes that naturalism can’t explain the existence of human consciousness in terms of ethical (a sense of morality), aesthetic (a sense of beauty), and intellectual (a sense of reason) properties. Furthermore, Moreland tells us that naturalism fails to explain free will. There is no room for real freedom in a naturalistic worldview. I cannot be held responsible for my actions if I’m merely dancing to the music of my DNA.

Naturalist John Bishop writes: “The idea of a responsible agent, with the ‘originative’ ability to initiate events in the natural world, does not sit easily with the idea of [an agent as] a natural organism. Our scientific understanding of human behavior seems to be in tension with a presupposition of the ethical stance we adopt toward it.”  (Natural Agency, 1989, pg 1) Professor Will Provine puts it more bluntly: “Free will as traditionally conceived simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.” (“Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics”, Marine Biological Laboratory Science 3, 1988)

How then can we prosecute criminals? We cannot punish them, for they have only lived in accordance with the way they were “made.” At best, we can only hope to rehabilitate them or protect the rest of society from them. More interestingly, how can we treat drug addiction and alcoholism as a disease of sorts and yet we still hold rapists and murderers guilty because of their actions? What about the likes of Bernie Madoff? What about Pol Pot, Hitler, or Stalin? Weren’t they also dancing to their DNA’s music? In may be useful to draw a utilitarian line in the sand between a drunk and a serial killer (the drunk isn’t necessarily hurting anyone, while a serial killer harms many people), but utilitarian lines in the sand are dangerous. After all, who decides where the line should be drawn?

Naturalism may depict a world in which you and I follow the eerie tones of our DNA’s music, but that is not the world you and I know to be. You and I make choices every day of our lives, and to strictly describe our decisions in terms of motive rather than a combination of motive and purpose is to give a garbled image of what life is really like. Besides being totally self-refuting, naturalism fails to explain a host of things about being human. It’s time we drop this ridiculous philosophy and consider that there might be more to reality than meets the eye.

More on this later.

Musings from Kreitsauce’s Wife

I have been keeping a journal through our adoption process to record my feelings as we go through the process. Looking back over the journal, I see various feelings, fear, sadness, excitement, longing… As a person who wants to adopt, the wait and the red-tape seems endless at times. But it is all worth while when thinking about having a child who will be your own. With these thoughts, I began thinking about how God must feel about us – His adopted children.

God knew that we would be a part of His family; however, He also had to wait until we were willing to come to Him… He had such a great gift for us, but we had to be willing to take that gift. Sometimes the wait for Him is very, very long.

I think that is sometimes how parents who want to adopt feel. We feel that we have such a wonderful gift to give a child, yet the wait is very long at times. Then once we do adopt a child, we do not always understand why they are not jumping with joy to be adopted into OUR family (which we, of course, think is perfect).

I think that we, as God’s children, can be so in awe of what God did to adopt us. He gave up His ONLY Son so that He could have me! What an amazing thought. It is hard, as a finite human, to understand why God would choose me when the price for me was so very high.

We have had people joke with us that instead of holding the hours of labor over our child’s head as so many biological parents do when they are angry with their children, we could instead hold the massive amount of paperwork and time over our adopted child’s head. How much more could God hold over our heads – He had to turn His back on His only Son because of the sin that Jesus took on Himself.

I think when we stop to truly consider how much our God has done for us, it should make us nothing but thankful and encourage nothing but good behavior from us as His adopted children.

Short: Darwinistic Bait-and-Switch

I was reading through Scientific American’s website and came across this gem: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=darwins-missing-evidence .

Apparently someone is either dishonest or ignorant. What the author describes is microevolution (also know as adaptation) not macroevolution. The moth didn’t change species or give rise to a new species. It’s still a moth. You wouldn’t know it from the way the article drones on and on, though.

It’s sad, really….

Worldviews: Big Macs vs. Slyders

Great as a Burger, Bad as a Worldview

Who can forget the famous old-school commercial for Mcdonalds’ Big Mac, advertising “two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun”? I love Big Macs, but then I also have an addiction to White Castle’s Slyders. They’re little guys, but they’re this perfect little blend of a thin slice of beef, cheese, grilled onions, and a bun. Maybe it’s my penchant for anything dealing with food, but I like to relate worldviews to food. There are basically two different kinds of worldviews you and I could study, and they have radically different implications. There are Slyder worldviews and Big Mac worldviews.

Slyder worldviews are palatable to some, but they lack substance in a very real way. In such worldviews, there is no meaning or purpose. There is no objective sense of right or wrong or a means of assigning value to a person or thing. There is no God, no Heaven or Hell, no ultimate justice. There is just the physical world, and death simply ends being and consciousness. In such a view, our world just simply exists. Everything is one big accident. Bertrand Russell asserted that our world was a Slyder world in his Philosophical Essays:

“That man is the product of causes which have no prevision of the end they are achieving: that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried underneath the debris of a universe in ruins. Only on the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation be safely built.”

The problem is that, like the White Castle menu item, a Slyder worldview doesn’t describe reality very well. It doesn’t explain how humans function. It’s all good and well to say that monogamy is just a social invention, but that doesn’t explain why the promiscuous are rarely truly satisfied. June Vanderkam, a 2001 graduate of Princeton knows that well: “Hookups do satisfy biology, but the emotional detachment doesn’t satisfy the soul. And that’s the real problem — not the promiscuity, but the lack of meaning.” We all hunger for meaning, and a Slyder worldview does nothing to truly satisfy that hunger. The Slyder worldview robs life of meaning, and fails to replace it with anything, well, meaningful. In our world filled with “reality” TV, celebrity gossip, pornography, drugs and alcoholism, movies, music, video games, and professional sports, one wonders if all of this hype is really just a feeble attempt to stave off society’s craving for real meaning and purpose.

Only Big Mac worldviews can satisfy this craving. Big Mac worldviews attempt to answer questions concerning meaning and purpose.  There is a strong sense of objective right and wrong, and people and things have intrinsic value. God, Heaven, Hell, and ultimate Justice all exist, and God is active in His creation. Everything happens for a purpose, and all of life carries meaning. Compared with Slyder worldviews, a Big Mac worldview is significantly more satisfying, more palatable, and more fulfilling. In a very real way, such a worldview really is what we crave.

The Pursuit of Happiness

In 2006, the biographical drama The Pursuit of Happyness graced the silver screen with a heart-warming message of hope. That hope, we are told, is one in which you and I can be truly happy if we can just succeed. We can succeed in our jobs, in our families, and in our various other goals, and if we have success (however we define it) we will be truly happy. Such is the lie of a sensate, spiritually-bankrupt culture. Reality tells a much different story.

The truth is that happiness itself cannot be experienced when it is the ultimate goal. In fact, you will see happy people in Western mansions and developing countries, in homes and orphanages, and in hospitals and gymnasiums. Happiness is not something that can be captured through seeking. It is something that must be experienced through the fulfillment of other purposes. To be honest, I’m not so sure that humans are even capable of being happy with “mere” happiness.

This is what many philosophers and poets refer to as the “paradox of hedonism.” As William Bennett once said: “”Happiness is like a cat, If you try to coax it or call it, it will avoid you; it will never come. But if you pay not attention to it and go about your business, you’ll find it rubbing against your legs and jumping into your lap.” If you and I live by a modern, hedonistic interpretation of The Pursuit of Happiness, we’ll interpret everything according to that paradigm. Jobs, spouses, churches, children….even God Himself will wax or wane in importance to us based on how well they help us achieve this goal of happiness. It’s the new geocentric theory: the universe revolves around 6.5 billion individuals simultaneously!

The truth is that people must live for something bigger than themselves to even remotely experience this Happiness we all crave. We must take up some Cause, some Belief, some Purpose that we deem worthy of ourselves. Comedian Jeff Allen (Yes, I’ve quoted a comedian and a politician in the same post. It’s an off day…) once said that a man needs something he’s willing to die for to feel complete. He’s absolutely right. We need a sense of true purpose, to know that what we accomplish in life matters. We need to know what the standard for success and failure is. We need a finish line to press toward.

In a culture incapable of creating a sense of enduring worth and any sense of real absolutes, we have produced several generations of what psychologists call “empty selves.” Philip Cushman defines the empty self as: “filled up with consumer goods, calories, experiences, politicians, romantic partners, and empathetic therapists…. experience a significant absence of community, tradition, and shared meaning….a lack of personal conviction and worth, and it embodies the absences as a chronic, undifferentiated emotional hunger.” What an accurate depiction of life in these United States!

And what is the result? Martin Seligmann’s research in 1988 states that the Baby Boom generation increased tenfold in levels of depression relative to previous generations. Seligmann states that this was because Baby Boomers started living for self and not for a cause (God, family, country) bigger than they were. They forgot the Eternal in favor of the Immediate. They lost the art of becoming a wise, virtuous person. In seeking pleasure and happiness, they lost both.

Happiness is not an achievement. It is a byproduct of living the good life. Any worldview that is worth its salt must accurately describe the good life, and it must have true happiness as its byproduct. Christianity accurately describes a good life- the life of discipleship- that yields ultimate happiness and satisfaction. The lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Daniel, the Disciples, Paul, and even Jesus Himself speak of a life that may require sacrifice and choosing hard roads, but will result in ultimate joy, ultimate satisfaction, and the promise of eternal reward in the bliss of Heaven. This is the abundant life that Jesus gives. It isn’t just about length of life. It’s about the ultimate quality of that life.

With My Body, I Thee Worship

I want to suggest here in this post that worship is the greatest need of any human who has walked the face of this earth. That isn’t to say that you and I don’t have other needs that are important. However, the need to worship is what we feel most strongly. The reality is that worship is what makes the world go round. I mean that both in the most positive and most negative way possible. Of course faith is important to people, and many good things have been done in the name of Christianity. Many evil things are done because of worship as well. In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis says: “All that we call human history–money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery–[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.”

Ravi Zacharias defines worship as “a posture of life that takes as its primary purpose the understanding of what it really meant to love and revere God. It is the most sacred intimacy of all.” In other words, when Jesus said that He was the Bread of Life and that He offered Living Water capable of quenching any hunger and any thirst, He intended His words to be far more meaningful than most of us take it. When He said that the greatest commandment was: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, He was referring to a life of worship. He was referring to a relationship that blends together both the physical and spiritual, reverence and passion, intense celebration and deep commitment.

Perhaps this is why Jesus speaks in terms of food and water. Yes, they are needs that must be fulfilled. However, we do not merely eat to satisfy a need. We also eat and drink because it is pleasurable. We enjoy eating, drinking, and being merry. Worship also is pleasurable to us, and it brings a sort of satisfaction and joy that is more celestial than terrestial. Partaking in food and drink are also times of fellowship. Any Christian knows that fellowship and food are virtually synonymous in a church setting. Outside the church, the relationship between relationship-building and food is strong. We meet and eat for business, romance, as a stress-relief, and even as a way of showing sympathy. Worship is also a time of fellowship. It is in worship that we have true fellowship with the Creator, the God Who came near. (Is there a significance in Communion being a time of people partaking of food and drink together? I think so.)

In short, worship is about far more than music. It is about prayer, Bible study, evangelism, discipleship, child rearing, engineering, teaching, construction, rest, travel, and, yes, even meals. Worship is about the whole Being. Notice that Ravi Zacharias says that worship is a “posture of life.” It isn’t about an hour on Sunday, or even several hours every day. It is about every moment of every day being Sacred. It is about doing all to the glory of God. It is about a reverential love for the Creator and Savior.

Thomas Cranmer knew that the English word “Love” didn’t do justice to the reality it was meant to describe. Though it has gone out of practice, Cranmer changed the marriage rite in 1662 to include the line: “With my body I thee worship and with all my worldly goods I thee endow.” It was later changed to “with this ring I thee wed.” I personally like Cranmer’s version better. How much better is that line than crassly describing the consummation of marriage as “having sex”? How much more accurate is it to describe the intimacy of marriage as a type of worship, an image of the worship of God that should be a part of every believer’s life.

If it isn’t a part of our lives, we very quickly move on to worshipping something else, for we cannot restrain ourselves from doing so. We may worship power, wealth, fame, relationships, pleasure, false gods, or- ultimately- ourselves. That simply means that we haven’t looked beyond ourselves to see that there is Someone truly worthy of all that attention. If God is the only Thing in this world that can bring true happiness, doesn’t it make sense that we pursue Him with all of our Being? If experiencing Him brings the greatest fulfillment of all human experiences, what aspect of devotion can be deemed unnecessary? We must learn the Truth of Who He is, and we must experience that truth. We must seek the purity of heart He described. We must be willing to make sacrifices for Him because of Who He has sacrificed for us. We must enthusiastically revere the One Who is the chief end of Man.

How Did the Old Testament Get Here?

Preservation of the Originals

I’ve talked a little bit about the transmission of the New Testament Scriptures in previous posts, but now I’d like to turn briefly to how the Old Testament was transmitted. Unfortunately, so much of what we would like to know about how the Old Testament was past down is buried beneath the sands of time. However, this does not mean that we are uncertain concerning the words of Scripture. Rather, we have maximum security that God has fulfilled His promise to forever preserve His words.

Deuteronomy 31:9, 26 makes it very plain that Moses had the priests place the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, beside the Ark of the Covenant. So long as the Tabernacle and later the Temple were kept safe, the originals would have also remained safe. It is not unlikely that Joshua would have done the same with his book. These scrolls were discovered during a time of renovation of the Temple under King Josiah over 700 years later (2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chronicles 34:15). It was not unusual to hide such documents in foundation boxes or within walls, especially if there was fear of them being purposefully damaged or destroyed.

Samuel placed his writings, possibly including Judges and Ruth, “before the Lord” (1 Samuel 10:25), indicating that he originally followed the custom established by Moses and Joshua. The other books we classify as “history” seem to have been considered official state or religious documents (1 Chronicles 29:29, 2 Chronicles 16:11, 1 Kings 14:19) and therefore would have been stored either in the Temple library or the royal archive.

The poetic books of Psalms and Proverbs alone of the books of the Bible were compiled and arranged. This began in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 4:32) and continued beyond the time of Hezekiah. (Proverbs 25:1) Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon would have most likely remained in the royal archives since they were written by King Solomon.

As early as the time of Daniel (Daniel 9), we find that the writings of the Prophets are recognized as canon. Daniel refers to reading from Jeremiah when he prays and asks God to fulfill His promises mentioned in Jeremiah. The Prophets would have also been placed in libraries associated with the post-exilic Temple alongside the official records of Ezra and Nehemiah. While not considered canonical, 2 Maccabees 2:13 does record that Nehemiah founded a national archive of sorts in the Temple.

Witnesses to the Originals

The Masoretic Text is the traditional text of the modern Hebrew Bible and the vast majority of (if not all of) Christian translations. The Masoretes compiled, copied, and preserved copies of the Old Testament from AD 500 to 1100, and it is based on hundreds of manuscripts that are now lost to us or destroyed. The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Masoretic Text include Cairensis (AD 895), Aleppo (930), Leningradensis (1008), and the Damascus Pentateuch (late 9th century).

The Nash Papyrus was considered to be the oldest available example of the Old Testament until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars do not agree on a precise date for the copying of this papyrus, but the style of script dates it to the Hasmonean period (37 BC at the absolute latest). It is actually a liturgical or perhaps devotional book which consists of several passages from Exodus and Deuteronomy.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of about 230 Old Testament manuscripts which include fragments or whole copies of every Old Testament book except for Esther. Some scholars have dated these manuscripts as being written around 225 BC. They are significant because, in the case of the Minor Prophets, they were copied only a few generations after the originals were penned. The Isaiah scroll (1QIsa-a), which was written 1000 years before the Aleppo Codex, agrees with the Masoretic Text in over 95% of the text. The remaining 5% of the text that did not agree with the Masoretic Text was due to slips of the pen and spelling errors.

While the Septuagint is an imperfect Greek translation of the original Hebrew Old Testament, it is important as a secondary witness to the Old Testament text. This is because it is proof of a coherent Hebrew text which existed before the time of the Masoretes or the Dead Sea Scrolls. As a translation, there are words that have been added for the sake of communicating the meaning of the original and there are variants based on translation philosophy and misinterpretation of the Hebrew language. The Chester Beatty Papyri (AD 200-400), Rylands Papyri (200-500), Vaticanus (400s), Sinaiticus (400-500), and Alexandrinus (500s) are all manuscripts of the Septuagint.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is a “modernized and expanded” copy of the first five books of the Old Testament. It was written 200-500 years before the time of Christ. There are a number of differences in spelling, but there are also around 6000 variants from the Masoretic Text. Since it was used in Samaritan worship as opposed to Jewish worship, these changes were most likely purposefully made to alter facts in favor of the Samaritans. Once again, the value of the Samaritan Pentateuch is not in making “corrections” to the Old Testament text, but in that it proves that a coherent biblical text existed hundreds of years before the time of Christ.

The Aramaic Targum and the Syriac Peshitta are Aramaic texts which consist of biblical translation, paraphrase, and commentary mingled together. You might consider them somewhat akin to the study Bibles of our day. They are useful for the purpose of comparison and are also witnesses to the existence of a coherent Old Testament text that had made its way to Jews and converted Gentiles living outside of Israel.

It is impossible to discuss the history of ancient Israel without understanding that God has directed that history and is an intrinsic part of it. If we fail to do so, we lose the concept of an all-powerful God, the literal fulfillment of prophecy, and a Bible that can be trusted. Believers have no choice to affirm the verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the Bible by God, and the evidence from history and biblical texts alike support this belief. Believers can truly have maximum security.

MIA: Transitional Forms

Darwinistic "Tree of Life"

Dr. Geoffrey Simmons once wrote that if evolution is the explanation, then evolution has a lot of explaining to do. When it comes to attempting to trace the supposed macro-evolution of present-day flora and fauna through the fossil record, Dr. Simmons is very, very right. If evolution took place through small adaptions that culminated in major changes, one must ask how these changes took place and where all of the “missing links” went. Here’s a few examples of creatures which are too complex for adaptation over millions, nay billions, of years to explain away. And if someone were to theorize a mechanism to bring this adaptation about, there is certainly no fossil evidence for it. As one of my agnostic friends insists, those who assert a claim are responsible to validate that claim…..

• Bombardier beetles fire off hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone from separate glands in its abdomen. When combined, the exothermic reaction blasts predators at 500 bursts per second. How did the beetles choose those two chemicals out of the thousands available on this planet? Where are the transitional forms that developed the glands, chemicals, and firing mechanisms?
• The various species of whales can dive thousands of feet, adjust the pressure in various parts of their bodies to withstand the crushing weight of the water around them, adjust spermaceti in their heads to regulate buoyancy, store additional oxygen in muscle tissue for extended diving, and hunt by blowing a wall of bubbles to trap krill. How did they develop these abilities? Where are the transitional forms?
• The amoeba- a single-celled organism- can extend a “false foot” in any direction as it moves to attack food or escape a toxin or a predator. It lacks any apparent ancestors, yet is too complex to have been anything like the “simple” single-celled organisms mentioned by the Darwinists.
• Consider also the “migrating” body parts of some types of sea life. Leftvents have anuses that migrate from their left side to mid-line later in life, and flounder’s eyes migrate when they bury themselves in the sand. (Incidentally, one species of leftvent known as “netdevils” consist of females who function as predators and males who function as parasites, since they attach to the females and gain nourishment from their host’s circulatory system.) How did such features adapt? How did one species develop a parasitic and a predatory distinction between genders? And what evolutionary impetus necessitates a mobile anus, anyway?
• Some microbes suck out the chloroplasts of other microbes to create an internal food manufacturing system. The sea slug elysia does the same thing to seaweed. They are animals that depend on photosynthesis and nutrients from their prey for survival. How did they learn to do this?
• Fleas jump many times their body length with an acceleration of up to 100Gs. When they bite, their saliva injects blood thinner and vasodilator to prevent the blood vessel from clotting.  How did this adaptation take place?
• Nudibranchs are a type of sea slug that can swallow nerve toxins from sea anenomes and jellyfish and transfer them to their cerata to be used as a defense mechanism. If the ancestors of the nudibranchs had to develop this ability over time, how exactly did that work? Wouldn’t the first wave of ancestors be killed off?
• Cockroaches can survive over nine times the amount of radiation a human can. Their antannae alone have over 130 segments. They have an “extra” brain in their lower abdomens. They can carry a variety of pathogens yet not contract the diseases. They secrete a “suit of armor” upwards of seven times throughout their lifetimes which helps keep moisture in and bacteria out. They have a second set of teeth in their stomachs. Where is the precedent in the insect world for a second brain in the abdomen or a second set of teeth in the stomach? Did the 130-segment antennae develop all at once or gradually? How did they develop the ability to molt and secrete a new coat in such a short time?

How did all of these creatures evolve in the Darwinian sense? Gradual evolution seems nigh on impossible, yet here they are. Few serious scientists believe in punctuated equilibrium, yet if transitional forms do exist thanks to gradual macro-evolution, 99% of them have yet to show up in the fossil record. There is simply no clear-cut evidence for Darwinism in the fossil record. Why then has Darwinism persisted in the scientific community? The religious fervour surrounding Darwinism is curious. One would think the much-vaunted intellects of our day would appreciate some rigorous criticism so that they could more accurately get to the bottom of the “mystery” of how life originated.

Strangely, as James Lovelock pointed out in his book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, “Things have taken a strange turn in recent years; almost the full circle from Galileo’s famous struggle with the theological establishment. It is the scientific establish that now forbids heresy.” Perhaps Intelligent Design is a better explanation in a scientific sense after all. True, that means postulating the existence of a Being that isn’t strictly detectable in the normal sense, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence for His existence. And, as I’ve pointed out before, the ID vs. Darwinism debate only pits one metaphysical concept against another. Naturalism is a metaphysical concept which is ultimately unprovable by science, and Theism is a metaphysical concept which is just as ultimately unprovable by science. As such, the answer to the question of origins will never be strictly within the realm of science. It is ultimately in the realm of metaphysics that the solution will present itself.

The question is: which concept is there more evidence for? Job had the answer thousands of years ago:

“But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?” (Job 12:7-9)

Contemporary Christian Music

I came from a slice of Christianity that loved to point out everything that is wrong with the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) movement. I grew up believing that drums and Christianity don’t go together. I believed that combining worldly music with Christian words made you sort of a Frankenstein. I believed that anyone involved in this sort of movement didn’t really love God, that they simply wanted to hang on to their liberal lifestyle. Then I did some studying in the realm of music, history, theology, and world cultures. I also met a number of people who did enjoy CCM, and I actually started listening to a few samples of this music. What I found out didn’t really jive with what I’d been told to believe.

Now, in defense of those that hold to such a belief system, there are any number of examples of poor Christian musicians, lyrics, and music. I know that there are some people who listen to and enjoy CCM that are flat out worldly. I also know that there are some who stand to make a profit off of music that is Christian. I also believe that believing that CCM is wrong or worldly doesn’t make you a bad person.

Here’s the thing: music standards aren’t on the list of things that I’d die for. Sorry if that bothers you. Yes, I’ll die for being a believer, protecting my family, or defending my country. I just don’t think music standards are something worth bickering over. Any Bible concordance will tell you that the Bible never directly addresses music standards, and I have a hard time shouting when the Bible is silent. In fact, I think we ought to be very careful when doing so. The Pharisees (“separated ones”) did that, and Jesus wasn’t too thrilled with them when He walked the earth. An otherwise good movement wound up doing significant damage to the Kingdom because they insisted on following their own traditions.

I’ve seen a number of arguments against CCM music. They can involve anything from application of Scripture (in which case I don’t mind if that’s your personal standard if it’s done honestly) to racism and what can truly be described as a eurocentrism. I’ve heard it said that CCM is evil because the beats and instruments come from the heathen in Africa. The last time I checked, most cultures, if not all of them, have included stringed, brass, woodwind, and, yes, even percussion instruments. A quick perusal of the Psalms will let you know that the worship of Jehovah is no stranger to instruments of all types, and Jewish worship music is filled with many styles of music. Beyond all of this, I would argue that there is a difference between using the music of a culture as an expression of worship and purposefully watering down worship so that it is more appealing to unbelievers.

There is no such thing as sacred music in terms of musical notes and rhythms. It is the text of the lyrics enhanced by the mood of the music that makes music Christian. We can all point to songs that are supposed to be “Christian” that just don’t work. Listen to almost any “Plus One” song, and you’ll see a perfect example of how watered-down lyrics can devalue and denigrate worship. It’s also true that the mood conveyed by melodies, harmonies, and rhythms can either add to or detract from a song’s usefulness in terms of worship. However, upbeat music, syncopated rhythms, and varied styles do not immediately eliminate the sacredness of music.

There are at least five words for worship used in the Psalms. They vary in intensity from quiet and meditative to boisterous celebration. Music of all sorts should be present in church. There are times for peaceful music and times for celebration. Some music may bring a tear to the eye and other music may make you want to clap your hands or tap your toes. I’ve heard arguments levied against CCM because it causes the congregation to “become emotional.” What, I must ask, is wrong with experiencing emotion? Perhaps that’s really the big reason some people don’t like CCM. It’s easy to stay in control if you’ve become dull of hearing to the message and music of a particular hymn. CCM brings new music into a church service, and it isn’t as easy to steel yourself to the awesomeness of Who God is and what He has done.

Then, of course, some folks dislike the “showbiz” environment of CCM. I would suggest that not all people get involved in CCM because they want to get rich. To be sure, there are some. However, in some cases the songs produced are  still very good, and it is possible to enjoy the music without partaking in the faddishness of the modern movement. (There’s more spiritual meat in one CD of Casting Crowns music than whole hymnals in some cases.) Furthermore, I would point out that many of the authors of Christian music and even famous evangelists of the past enjoyed celebrity status in their day. (George Whitefield was so idolized that people robbed his grave in the hopes of keeping something the man actually owned or wore.) I would also point out that even fundamentalist Christian circles are not without their pastoral and musical prima donnas. Just because some people in a movement desire fame, wealth, or power doesn’t mean that the movement as a whole is evil.

I think it’s time that we all realize that there is a difference between obeying a particular Bible command (avoiding worldliness) and having a particular preference. Honestly, I prefer hymns. I love the chord structure, the doctrine that is so eloquently stated, and the nostalgia that comes from singing a song that I’ve sung so many times before. I also love Southern Gospel music. I love how plainly the truths of the Bible are stated. I love the style because it has energy and passion, and because it states truth very clearly. I also enjoy many styles of CCM. It has a much more personalized view of God that is a nice contrast to the impersonal nature of most corporate worship. Of course, I recognize that there are good and bad examples of all three categories. There are hymns in the hymnal that I’d rather not sing because of doctrinal error. There are hymns in the hymnal that I think are plain stupid. (“Joy Bells”, anyone?) We all know of good and bad modern Christian music. It just takes some discernment to weed out the bad stuff. Time has a wonderful way of doing that anyway.

Is Vicarious Atonement Immoral?

Christopher Hitchens has made the assertion in a debate with Dinesh D’souza that Christianity should not be accepted because Jesus’ death on the Cross is immoral. He says that we cannot be atoned by the death of another:

“I cannot say you are guiltless of this sin….The promise to do that is an immoral promise. The promise to do it by human sacrifice is immoral.”

Hitchens’ point is well taken. Even if you paid my monetary debt, did time in prison, or even went to the electric chair for me, you could not declare me to be righteous. No human could rightly make that claim. God, however, as the Creator and Judge of All the Earth can declare a person to be righteous. He’s the only one in a position to make that sort of declaration.

Hitchens also misunderstands Christianity on a few points. Justification does not mean that the believer has never sinned. Justification means that God declares a believer to be righteous because Christ’s righteousness is applied to his “account.” Atonement, on the other hand, comes from a Hebrew word which deals with cleansing or covering sin. Jesus’ death atones for sin because it pays the debts charged to the believers’ “account.” Is it immoral for God to require the death of His Son to make justification and atonement possible? No. Jesus did this willingly, and as the Creator and Judge, God is fully right in stating what will and will not be sin and stating what the punishment for committing sin will be. When God said that the wages of sin is death, He was fully right in doing so. Jesus received this punishment in our place and God applied Jesus’ righteousness to our account. This is all very “moral”; it is all very above-board.

Further on, Hitchens says:

“This is the worst kind of primitive, barbaric, Bronze-Age, Palestinian sadomasichism. In what sense is this the way, the truth, or the life? It is instead a worship of death.”

He only tells half the story, though. Having paid for our sins, Jesus returned to life. It is this Resurrection that Christians revere. It is the Resurrection, not simply His Death, that makes all of Christianity valid. As Paul said in 1Corinthians 15:

” Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”

As Paul says just a little further along:

” O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Christianity is not a religion that glories in torture and death, but in peace, grace, and life. He offers us Justification, Atonement, and eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How the Church Created Darwin

Some scientists have been quite outspoken concerning their desire to purge religion from their ranks. In fact, a quick perusal of Paul Z. Myers’ blog Pharyngula will make it obvious that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is to blame for most of the world’s evils. The major complaint against the use of religion in science is that (supposedly) science that seeks out a non-naturalistic cause isn’t very good science at all. I would like to suggest that there is a problem with religion mingling with science. It’s just that I disagree with some scientists on what the religious problem is. You see, modern science’s idea that naturalism alone can explain the universe isn’t just unscientific (springing from the field of metaphysics). It’s also an idea that has its roots in the Church.

Long before Darwin penned his Origin of Species, liberal Christian theology was already moving away from belief in a Creator that is also involved in His creation. Here’s a brief list of their arguments:

1. Some theologians believed that God would get more glory if He could simply produce matter, energy, and scientific laws to govern the universe. Cosmological and biological evolution would take place- in their minds- due to laws already put into place. In this view, special divine action should be minimized since Creation revealed a Designer God, not divine intervention. (Thomas Burnet [1635-1715], Anglican cleric, Telluris Theoria Sacra; John Ray [1627-1705], botanist and natural theologian, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation.)
2. Deistic theologians argued that religious belief was solely a product of reason and not an act of faith. The Deists rejected any doctrines that could not be deduced from philosophy or nature. If it could not be deduced, it was not essential for salvation. Ultimately, they rejected the Bible’s concept of an active, providential God. (Matthew Tindal [1657-1733], deist, Christianity as Old as the Creation)
3. Other scientists and theologians believed that God’s direct involvement with His creation would result in perfection. Evil as a moral category exists, and- to the mind of the theologically-minded scientists- evil existed in nature in the form of imperfections. To their mind, God clearly did not and does not directly intervene in nature. Looking at the geological records of his day, Thomas Burnet insisted that our world was a creation that was “lying in rubbish.” Philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) wrote that “a perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures.” Hume believed that God must be only transcendent and not immanent since such evil exists.
4. Finally, a movement within the church sprang up in the 1700s that sought to downplay and disregard the miracles of the Bible. Peter Annet argued against the existence of miracles because he believed that a God of infinite knowledge would not need to intervene. He could simply make things work out right the first time. He also believed that God would create a simple clockwork system that never needed to be adjusted and that God, being immutable, would never need or want to “contradict” His own laws.

The result of the above four movements was that naturalism was accepted first in the Church and then in the Academy. Because the Church was an avid supporter of discovering truths about Our Father’s World, theology dramatically influenced science. Naturalism became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Because the world was interpreted naturalistically by the theologians and then the scientists, all findings were viewed as supporting naturalism. The problem, of course, is that naturalism is not a finding of science. It was presupposed in the theological and philosophical realm and then superimposed on the scientific realm. Philosophical and theological naturalism came before scientific naturalism.

By the time of Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, the results of naturalism in the theological realm bore fruit. Here are the words of Erasmus Darwin in his Zoonomia:

“The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents!”

In the 1800s, Charles Darwin’s own Origin of Species made many theological and philosophical arguments for his theory. In the first place, why would God make things “imperfectly” or with a boring pattern? He argued that patterns in species were “utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.”(Origin, 73-74) He also argued that “the best adapted plants and animals were not created for oceanic islands, for man has unintentionally stocked them far more fully and perfectly than did nature.” (Origin, 398) In other words, Darwin believed that God would include more variety in nature and would put every living thing precisely in a habitat that would cause it to multiply the most rapidly. He also believed that the variety in “important” organs between species and within the same genus was nonsensical in the creationist’s paradigm. (153, 156) Why would God do reinvent the wheel?

Why would God create birds with webbed feet that rarely swam, and why would He create birds with no webbing that stayed mainly in the water? How can this be the product of special creation? (177) What about the “waste” of pollen in trees and plants? (469-470) All of this makes God a “mockery and deception,” says Darwin. (165-166) Note that Darwin says this as a person who believed in God, not as an atheist. He is careful to keep a lofty view of God intact when he argues that speaking of God as a Designer makes God seem too human. We should not “assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man.” (181-182) It’s fairly obvious to make the connection between the liberal theology in the centuries preceding Darwin and what Darwin believed he saw while writing Origin of the Species. The Church created Darwin.

Where’s God In Hard Times?

Those of you who regularly read my blog have probably noticed that this latest posting is coming out a little later than usual. This past weekend I lost a very good friend to a tragic accident. While he was driving to preach as part of a prison ministry a few hours away, he lost control of his vehicle when he hit a wet patch of pavement, struck a tree, and found himself in Heaven just moments later. Travis is a well-respected man in our community. He loved (and still loves) his wife and son. He was a respected police officer who was responsible for many acts of heroism and had even saved lives. I could sit and listen to his stories- some funny, some sobering- for hours on end. He was heavily involved in the school I teach at. He worked security for school events, he was a faithful coach and fan of our sports teams (nobody could heckle quite as well as he could), he spoke in student chapel, and he was a leader in our school in many other ways. He was involved in his church, and he had a heart to minister to those in prison. That last part was his passion. He loved to see people come to Christ. He’d talk excitedly about the times he had preaching in prison. The times I loved most were when we’d talk about some of the things we’d read in the Bible. He always had an interesting thought or question.

When I found out, I was devastated. Many of us are deeply saddened by the loss of a truly amazing man. It would be easy to question God in the face of tragedy like this. I can’t say I would blame anyone who told me they had at some point during the grieving process. How was this good? Did He care? Where was He?

To answer the first question, God doesn’t ever claim that everything that happens is good. Some days in the Bible are described as “evil.” Various Psalm writers talk about tragedy and difficult times. The Bible doesn’t ask us to wear rose-colored glasses, because life isn’t that way. Our world is filled with death, disease, chaos, war, and evil courtesy of the Fall. On days like Saturday, I’d love to backhand Adam and Eve across the room. “This is my Father’s world”, but this isn’t the world my Father intended.

All of this doesn’t mean that God Himself isn’t good. He’s good because He is God. He is called Wonderful Counselor, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. He’s called the God of All Comfort. He loves and cares for His own. He’s good because He does good things for us. Offering salvation springs readily to mind. He intervenes directly and providentially in our world according to His will. The truth is, we may never know on earth why God allows some things to end tragically and chooses intervene in other areas. Our view is so limited. How can we make sense of things when we can’t see the whole picture that’s being painted? As my former music pastor once wrote after experiencing some significant tragedies in his life, including the death of twin children:

“Though I don’t always understand

All the ways of God with Man

Still I’ll hold my Savior’s hand

His Way is Perfect.”

Regardless of what may come- life or death, wealth or poverty, health or disease, good or evil- God does care. God cares when loved ones pass away. How profound is the shortest verse in the whole Bible: “Jesus wept.” The God of all reality cried at the death of a friend. The Psalmist writes: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” (Psalm 116:15) He cares for sparrows when they fall from the air, and He never even claims to be their Father! (Your Father, Jesus says when speaking of God’s care for lilies and sparrows.)

The skeptic may ask where the proof of all this is. How can we know that He cares or loves for anything in this world? Why doesn’t He do something about it if He is all-powerful? Why not remove pain? Remember that pain can be helpful. It tells us that something is wrong, and something is definitely wrong with our world. Pain can be necessary. Any dentist can tell you that. How often is pain the thing that drives us to God? God would still be just in leaving the world that humans have destroyed to its own wretched end. That’s not what He did though. God the Son stepped off of His throne, wrapped Himself in human flesh, and was born into this wretched, pitiful, sin-cursed world. He came from a lowly place, lived a relatively ignoble life, and died a terrible death. He experienced the worst of what this world had to offer. And think of the Father in Heaven. He knows what it is like to lose a Son. The union we call the Trinity had experienced fellowship and relationship for eternity stretching backward. It was cut off in one horrible moment on the Cross. Not to minimize human loss, but God was cut off from something far deeply intimate than we can even imagine. For the believer, Heaven is waiting, and God promises to create a new universe for believers to inhabit. One day sin, sorrow, death,  and disease will be banished forever.

So we come back to our original question. Where is God in hard times? He is right where He’s been all along: right there. He’s with us throughout our times of agony. We come not before one of the icons or idols of religion. We come before the Savior Who Weeps, the God Who Comforts.

PS- Travis, you were an inspiration and a true friend to me. You taught me what it meant to stand up for what I believe in. You helped me see things in Scripture that I’d never imagined were there. Thank you for that. You will be greatly missed, but I know that you’re enjoying time with the Father, getting those questions answered (and finding out that you were right, I’m sure), rejoicing over those who come to Christ through your life and passing, and no doubt eating some of the best southern cooking ever. Save a leg for me!

Atheism: Light or Heat?

Over the course of the past few years, I’ve made it a point to do a lot of reading on the subject of Christianity. I’ve read many books by Christians and Atheists to get their respective points, and it has occurred to me that works from both worldviews claim to be illuminating on the subjects of eternity, purpose, reality, and human nature. Christianity affirms inherent worth, describes our purpose, and reveals the nature of reality and, ultimately, eternity.What is also abundantly clear is that Atheism denies that a vast portion of reality even exists, and instead of reason uses sarcasm, intense emotionalism, and a fervent indignation toward those who espouse any faith. Hitchens’ major complaint is that he can’t see why anyone would want to serve a deity. Dawkins thinks that Christianity is a foolish relic of a distant age. Harris belittles anyone who believes in any god. There may be some justification for some of these thoughts, but they aren’t proper justification for a worldview. Atheism promises light, but only provides heat. It has the appearance of substance, but fails to deliver.

To be certain, there are people on both sides that are passionate. Heck, I’m passionate. There are even believers who are the epitome of “zeal without knowledge”; they are the results of soapbox preaching and topical Bible studies. They roam the internet and do some stupid if not deceitful things in the name of Christ. This isn’t exactly Christian, though. Christ wanted us to be above-board in our dealings with others, and we are admonished to grow in our faith and in our love for God- heart, soul, and mind.

Atheism, on the other hand, lays no such requirements on its adherents. I was recently at an event in which Christopher Hitchens spoke. After the event, I was talking with him and he said that he needed to get to the book signing because he’s needed to “move product.” Later, I talked with him again in the book signing line (hey, if I’m going to buy the book I might as well get it signed), and he told me that even though I didn’t agree with him he didn’t care because anyone who bought his product was a friend of his. The man is obviously in it for the money. Why not, though? If this life is all there is, and you can get rich in this life by selling what you believe, go for it! Christians who are in it for the money, on the other hand, ought to be kicked out of their ministries. They are an anomaly, not representive of Christianity. They may be leaders of megachurches, but they are not leaders in Christian thought or practice. In contrast, Atheists like Hitchens are leaders in atheistic thought and practice. They are heralded as revolutionaries.

Another such revolutionary was philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault wanted to experience life free of inhibitions after the death of God. This led him to try LSD in the wilderness and experiment sexually in ways that range from normative to the grotesque. As a result he died of AIDS. “To die for the love of boys,” he once told a friend, “what could be more beautiful?” Foucault lived out the natural result of an atheistic worldview. There was passion and fervency in his life and in his works, but there was no substance. It was heat without light. Like Stephen Jay Gould and a host of other atheists, Foucault believed that there were no answers.

Finally I turn to Sam Harris, whose Letter to a Christian Nation is the incarnation of the vitriol contained within the New Atheism. He asks where God is when children are raped (page 51) and when New Orleans was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina (page 52). His illustrations are intended to tug at the heart’s strings, and they certainly do so. I hope to deal with the problem of pain at a later date, but for now I’d like to focus on Harris’ assertion that Atheism is nonviolent in nature. Again, I would point out that unrestrained fervency in the last 100 years has been unleashed by those who espouse atheism.

It isn’t that Christians have not had cause to respond violently. The film adaption of The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988, Serrano’s “artistic” rendering of a crucifix in urine, The DaVinci Code, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, and almost any episode of Family Guy are all blasphemous enough to enrage most of the Christian population, but no rioting occurred. There were no deaths. No one was “roughed up” because of these blasphemies. They were decried, but there was no violent action taken or encouraged. Contrast this with what transpired after Proposition 8, the California proposition that defined marriage as occurring exclusively between a man and a woman, passed. The vast majority of homosexuals are atheistic and anti-religious, so it is not a leap to conclude that the reaction is largely the result of an atheistic worldview. Of course, I don’t have time to talk about the affects of Nietzsche’s atheistic writings on Hitler, who in turn passed them on to Mussolini and Stalin. Perhaps we should be reminded of the words of Hitler, inscribed over one of the gas ovens in Auschwitz: “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience, imperious, relentless, and cruel.” Fervency? Of course. Light? Nothing worth mentioning.

Inherent Human Dignity?

A friend of mine recently pointed me in the direction of the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” He’s done a phenomenal job writing his thoughts on the subject, but he encouraged me to write on it as well. It’s a fascinating world-wide “Declaration of Independence” with a preamble and thirty articles. What interests me most is the preamble (emphasis below is mine):

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

Of supreme interest to me, as I’m sure you’ve gathered from the highlighted words above, is that the United Nations, at least in 1948, had a concept of inherent human worth and dignity. Such a document begs the question: where do humans get this inherent worth and dignity from? Who imbued us with such a lofty position?

If our sense of worth comes from within it is pride and is hardly inherent. If our sense of worth comes from governments or documents it is applied to us. In either case, human dignity is prescribed rather than described. If however, humans are indeed truly significant and special, if they were- one can’t help use the word- created with worth, dignity, purpose, conscience, and meaning, then a transcendent Being must have intended for it to be so. And so it seems to be. While societies run hot and cold on the issue of murder, no society permits the murder of any human for any reason. We are all aware of the value of a person. Some believe in fate or destiny, but most cultures have an innate sense of purpose in this life.

The Bible offers us the answer to the question of inherent purpose:

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!”- Psalm 8:3-9

Man’s dignity come from God, for He has placed us in a position of honor. The whims of politicians and potentates may change on this matter, but God has His mind quite made up: we are made in His image.

As Rollwagen says in his blog: Kingdoms come and go…“Kingdom come.”

What I’ve Done

“In this farewell there’s no blood,
There’s no alibi.
‘Cause I’ve drawn regret from the truth
Of a thousand lies.
So let mercy come and wash away…
What I’ve done.”

So begins Linkin Park’s “What I’ve Done.” That’s one way you could view the Judgment Seat of Christ, and perhaps the unfaithful or disobedient Christian would do well to consider these words  as they may very accurately reflect his attitude on that day. However, I would like to add that there’s a very different view one could take if he continues in faith, nothing wavering, and if he lives a life that is obedient to the Master’s call. What does the Judgment Seat hold for such a believer?

I’ve listed the basis of judgment in a previous post as well as given Old Testament and New Testament perspectives on the Judgment Seat. Now let us turn to the rewards for those who are obedient and faithful.

1. Those who are humble will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, not merely enter into it. (Matthew 5:3)
2. Those who experience godly sorrow over life’s circumstances, poor health, or personal tragedy in this life will receive great comfort in the Age to Come. This is a specific sort of comfort received at the hands of the God of all Comfort. (Matthew 5:4)
3. Those who are meek will inherit their portion of the physical earth. This refers to possession and authority. (Matthew 5:5)
4. Those who crave righteousness above everything else will experience the great satisfaction of becoming righteous progressively on earth and ultimately in Heaven. (Matthew 5:6)
5. Those who are merciful will receive mercy at the Judgment Seat. (Matthew 5:7)
6. Those who are pure in heart will be able to perceive and know the Godhead in a deeper, fuller, richer manner. (Matthew 5:8)
7. Those who are peacemakers receive the unique title: “Child of God.” (Matthew 5:9)
8. Those who are persecuted for being righteous will inherit the Kingdom and receive a great reward that Jesus leaves undefined. (Matthew 5:10-12)
9. Those who lead others to Christ are given a Crown of Rejoicing. (Philippians 4:1 and 1 Thessalonians 2:19)
10. Those who teach, guide, care for, and disciple others are given a Crown of Glory. (1 Peter 5:1-4)
11. Those who live righteous lives and long for Christ to return receive a Crown of Righteousness. (2 Timothy 4:6-8)
12. Those who do not lose their love for Christ or return to Christ as their first love will be allowed to eat of the Tree of Life. (Revelation 2:1-7) What humans have been denied for thousands of years will be permitted to those who love Christ.
13. Those who are killed for their faith receive a Crown of Life, an eternal reward for faithfulness resulting in a tragic end. This most likely also is an allusion to a unique degree of enjoyment of the eternal life Christ has given us. See my discussion on Philippians 3 in my previous posts (Revelation 2:8-11)
14. Those who do not deny their faith receive several rewards. They receive the hidden manna, which is probably a reference to the messianic feast, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. This will be a tremendous time of celebration and honor. They will also receive a “white stone”, which is probably a reference to a stone of victory given at Grecian victory games. Finally the believer is told he will receive a new name, which is probably a reference to the Jewish custom of renaming a person based on what kind of life they have lived. (Revelation 2:12-17)
15. Those who abstain from religious and personal fornication and idolatry receive authority over the nations. Paul speaks of this when he tells Timothy that there are some who will reign with Christ. (Revelation 2:18-29)
16. Those who live pure lives are given white robes. They are called worthy because of personal holiness. Finally, they are commended before God the Father and the angels in Heaven. The Person Who speaks so highly of such a believer is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. (Revelation 3:1-6)
17. Those who are faithful witnesses in the face of persecution of all sorts will share a unique, intimate relationship with God. (Revelation 3:7-13)
18. Those who refuse to conform to the spirit of the age in which they dwell will be permitted to sit in the Father’s throne, a position of honor and authority. (Revelation 3:14-22)

How much better is it to enter the Kingdom with the rewards of faithful service rather than enter the Kingdom “so as by fire.” How much better it is to enter into the joy of the Lord without regret, to not simply being reliant on God to wipe away “What I’ve Done”!

Work Out Your Salvation: Success, Failure, and the Results at the Judgment Seat

I’ve written two other posts on the types of inheritance in Scripture, one based on the Old Testament and the other based on the New Testament. I should state what will be quite obvious to some: I’ve only scratched the surface of what there is to be said concerning inheriting and suffering loss in the Kingdom. I hope this will help open doors for those interested in the subject. The most serious and practical aspect of this study is what success and failure mean for the believer in the future- a very, very real future that we are only moments away from at any given moment. Christ could come back, and you and I would stand before the Judge of all the Earth. Who will be judged at this event, what will this judgment be based on, and what will the results be?

Without question, those who are judged at this event are the believers. The unbelievers will be judged at the Great White Throne judgment mentioned near the end of Revelations. The dead unbelievers will stand before Christ, will be judged based on their works, and will receive their portion in the Lake of Fire. The believers, too, will be judged based on their works. Works, however, are only a portion of what this judgment will be based on.

We will be judged based on the following criteria:

1. Actions- 1Corinthians 3:13, 2Corinthians 5:10, Revelations 3:23
2. Words- Matthew 12:36-37, Luke 12:2-3
3. Thoughts- Hebrews 4:12
4. Motivations- Matthew 6:4
5. Faithfulness- Matthew 24:45, Matthew 25:23, 1 Corinthians 4:2

There are three important things one can do to take care of past mistakes:

1. Confession of Sin- 1 John 1:9 (which, it must be remembered, was written to believers)
2. Show Mercy to Others- Matthew 5:7 (This was written to believers and has future rewards in mind. More on this in a future post.)
3. Judge Ourselves- 1 Corinthians 11:31

The wicked, lazy, or unrighteous believer may partake in one of three consequences of running the race of the Christian life poorly. Keep in mind that none of these consequences affect eternal security or our acceptance by God. They don’t affect our presence in the Eternal State and are not permanent in nature. The worst-case scenario is that they last for the duration of the Millennial Kingdom.

1. A rebuke from Christ Himself: “Thou wicked and slothful servant!”- Matthew 25:26
2. Exclusion from the Marriage Supper of the Lamb due to sinfulness- Matthew 22:11-13
3. Denial of inheritance- Matthew 10:33, 2 Timothy 2:12

If this all seems a bit heavy-handed, allow me to add some comfort from Scripture. It should first be pointed out that those who receive such hash judgments are those who are stubborn in their carnality or laziness. This is not about the day-to-day struggle with sin. This is not about our personal failures when we give into sin. This is about blatant rebellion. In fact, those who struggle with sin do not fall into this category at all! This is, after all, about righteousness, and Proverbs 24:16 tells us that a righteous person is one who gets up when he falls. No, the stern warning in Scripture is toward those who fall and do not care.

There are rewards, though, and Scripture has much to say on this subject. There are crowns, the rewards of those who overcome which are mentioned in Revelation 2-3, the out-resurrection mentioned by Paul in Philippians, treasures in Heaven, and the prospect of reigning with Christ and even being praised by Him before the angelic and believing hosts!  To those who are faithful disciples of Christ, there is a great inheritance waiting indeed!

God is concerned primarily with our hearts and with our faithfulness. Can we stand firm when God seems distant or absent? Can we trust Him when He waits until the eleventh hour to work? Think about it: the Israelites in the wilderness really didn’t struggle with doing right most of the time. They struggled with believing God, and that led to huge problems for them. Consider also David, who was a man after God’s own heart, even when he sinned with Bathsheba! The “degree” of sin doesn’t determine success or failure at the Judgment Seat. Furthermore, Christ is a High Priest who understands the weaknesses of the human flesh. He understands the struggles necessary to overcome a poor family life or background, stress, anxiety, peer pressure, and the weaknesses in our own personalities and genetic make up! These aren’t excuses that we use to talk God into lightening up on us; they are things God as a faithful and loving Father will surely take into account.

More on the inheritance to come!

Salvation: Two Inheritances, Part 2

Most believers are convinced that salvation in all of its forms is strictly a free gift of God. I fully believe that justification, sanctification, and glorification are all free gifts of God. However, I also believe that there is more to the story than meets the eye. We will see in the following verses that inheritance may be gained or lost, and that eternal life is something that we are sometimes told to work for. Certain habitual sins, according to several passages of Scripture,  preclude a person from inheriting the Kingdom. How is salvation free if it must also be worked for? How is salvation secure if one can lose their inheritance?

• He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. -John 12:25

• To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.- Romans 2:7
• Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
• For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.- Galatians 6:8
• For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.- Ephesians 5:5
• Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.- 1 Timothy 6:12

Such verses are cause for deep concern for the believer, since warnings against sin and exhortations to gain eternal life would not exist unless there were a very real possibility to fail. As in the last post, I would like to suggest that the Bible is speaking of two types of inheritance or two aspects of salvation. In one sense, we have God as our inheritance and Heaven as our final home. This occurs at salvation because of faith. However, there is a second inheritance that we can enjoy that is by obedience, obtainable only by sanctified living. Our salvation is indeed secure, but there is a lot concerning our experience in the Kingdom that can change considerably.

I want to write an article that will discuss what this inheritance will consist of, but for now I’d like to focus on an aspect of what I’m saying that is likely to cause some consternation on the part of believers. What is this business of working for eternal life? How can a person be a believer but lose eternal life?

In John 10:10, Jesus says: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” Interestingly enough, John begins his gospel by saying that life originates in Christ. Paul echoes this thought when he writes that it is in Him we live, and move, and have our being. The implication is that eternal life in Scripture is intimately tied to an active, dynamic relationship with Christ. In other words, eternal life isn’t something you and I simply get at salvation and hang onto until we die; it is something that can grow and develop or whither away in the present. An eternal home in Heaven is secure, of course, but Jesus came not to simply give us an infinitely long life, but an abundant quality of life. Enjoying a life of fullness and fulfilledness, one in which times with God can truly be described as “sweet”, can only occur when we are living for Him and desiring to know Him more. We all have access to eternal life, but our experience in that life will differ from individual to individual.

The reward for living out this life eternal in the here and now will have some bearing on the rewards we receive in the future. Paul makes this clear in Philippians 2:11 where he states that he has rejected the elements of his past to know Christ, the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His suffering so that he could attain a resurrection. What’s interesting is that this word isn’t the usual Greek word for resurrection (anastasis). Instead, Paul uses the word exanastasis- separation from out of the resurrected. Of those who are believers and enter into eternal life, there will be some set apart because they sought to win Christ. They alone of all believers will receive the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

God is faithful enough to reward believers based on their actions and attitudes. All believers will have eternal life, a home in Heaven, and forgiveness of sins. However, the vastness of that eternal life, the joys of that heavenly home, and the rewards in the Kingdom will be experienced by each of us to different degrees and in different ways.

More on that subject in the near future!

Salvation: Two Inheritances, Part 1

Israel During Joshua's Time

What happens when a person who claims Christ rejects his faith or lives a blatantly immoral lifestyle with no sign of remorse? That’s a question that the theologians have been batting around for ages. Some believe that such a person loses their salvation, an idea that requires some exegetical acrobatics when it comes to verses such as Romans 8:1 and John 10:28-29. Others believe that that person was never truly saved in the first place, and I believe that there are some people who definitely fall into this category. However, I do believe that it is possible for a genuine believer to fail the grace of God. What happens then? He suffers loss.

The Old Testament frequently refers to the term “inheritance.” In fact, the Old Testament uses the term 185 times, while the New Testament uses it only 18 times! We normally think of an inheritance as something one gets the moment a parent dies. However, in Old Testament times, two things are true of inheritances:

1. In order for an heir to receive an inheritance, the parent does not have to die. Psalm 28 and 33 at least speak of Israel being Jehovah’s inheritance. At the risk of being crass, who has to die to make Him God? The story of the prodigal son in the New Testament also bears witness to this fact.
2. If a parent, Divine or otherwise, put stipulations or prerequisites on the inheritance, there was a potential for a person to lose that inheritance.

This second point is of utmost importance when we consider what we received when we got saved. We certainly received Heaven and were rescued from a destiny in Hell, but there is so much more to it than that. There are two types of inheritances, even in the Old Testament. Believing Israelites as a result of faith had Jehovah as their inheritance, but on top of that, they could receive a secondary inheritance as the result of obedience. This secondary inheritance was a possession in Canaan, and there is a difference between living in Canaan and owning Canaan.

Contrary to many songs sung in churches today and many Bible lessons I have heard, Canaan doesn’t represent Heaven. That makes no sense whatsoever. Canaan had to be worked for, while Heaven is free. Canaan was never free from enemies, Heaven will certainly not be that way. While they are actual historical events, the journey in the Wilderness and Canaan itself are pictures of the possibility for success and failure in the Christian life (1 Corinthians 10).

Here’s some additional examples of the inheritance loss/gain factor:

• Abraham received God as an inheritance when he believed Him and left the land of his fathers, but when he obeyed, God promised him the nations and the land of Canaan through the Abrahamic covenant. (Genesis 22:15-18)
• Caleb and Joshua alone of the Israelites involved in the Exodus actually received the inheritance of Canaan. Even Moses failed to receive an inheritance there because of disobedience. This wasn’t because they weren’t believers, but because they weren’t “obeyers.” (1Corinthans 10:4-5, Hebrews 11:29-30)
• Lamentations 5:2 makes it clear that the Israelites again lost their inheritance due to disobedience.

Israelites and others might enter Canaan but not be able to inherit/possess it. Those who dwelt in Israel when it was established but were not Jewish did not have the same rights as landowners did. They did not have the same rights or access to the same privileges. Some of the Israelites remained in Israel when Babylon conquered, but they did not have all the rights that they had had before. They had lost their possession.

What does this mean for the believer? We’ll look at the New Testament in the next post, but let me tell you what I believe to be true based on what we have seen:

1. All believers have God as their inheritance. They will be with Him for all of eternity. (Psalm 16, 73, 142)
2. Some believers will inherit the Kingdom, while others will not. There will be some who are residents of the Kingdom, and there will be others that enter AND truly possess the Kingdom.This is something additional to being in Heaven.
3. The difference between “enterors” and inheritors is obedience. (Joshua 14:8-9, Genesis 22:15-18)

All believers will enter into the Kingdom of Christ in the Millennial Kingdom and the Eternal State, but not all will be co-heirs with Christ when we are there.

Continue on to Part 2 for a discussion on the New Testament concept of a multi-dimensional salvation!

The End of Faith?

It’s been quite a week for American Christians. President Barack Obama has made several underhanded comments against conservative Christianity, particularly in labeling it an “ideology” in his decision to allow the unborn to be murdered in the name of scientific advancement. Trinity College also released it’s 2008 ARIS report, detailing a decline (variously labeled “slight” and “staggering” by different commentators) in the number of people who either claim Christianity at all or say that their faith makes any difference in their lives. We can argue over statistical accuracy all day, but the reality is that secularlism in America is on the rise and evangelical Christianity is on a decline. This has been true for years now. This has many thinkers in America- atheist, Christian, and otherwise- discussing what the reason for it is. I recently came across Michael Spencer’s blog and really liked what he had to say. He’s taken some flak for stating his case, but I think he is right on target. What follows is his perspective on American Evangelicalism. You can read the whole article on his site.

Here are Spencer’s primary predictions:

1. Within ten years, the beginning of a Great Collapse will take place, resulting in only half of Evangelical Christians still attending church.
2. Public policy (and the public that makes up the policy) will become quite anti-Christian, seeing Christianity as a roadblock to freedom.
3. Christians will “abandon ship” and not look back.

Spencer says that this will happen for a number of reasons, some of which are listed here:

1. Christians have come to believe in a political or moral Cause more than the Faith.
2. Christian youth ministries have failed to instill an orthodox Christian faith in young people.
3. Many churches are either consumer-driven or dying.
4. Christian education isn’t nearly as educational as public education.

Spencer’s outlook isn’t hopeless, though. He believes that what remains will be a Church that returns to itsoriginal purpose and goals. I for one hope that his prediction is correct. American Christianity is soft. We’ve spoken boisterously where the Bible is silent. We’ve made politics the main thing when the Church was not meant to be a political power. We’ve entertained people instead of instructing them. We’ve promised education and provided seclusion. Frankly, in light of all of this, Spencer’s predictions aren’t really predictions at all. They’re more like a cause-and-effect analysis.

You can check out Michael Spencer’s blog here.

God IS Great: Hitchens on Theistic Evolution

I felt I needed to point out Hitchens’ perspective on theistic evolution, for in this one area his thoughts and mine actually somehow dovetail. Here’s what he has to say on page 85 of his book:

The very magnificence and variety of the process [of evolution], they now wish to say, argues for a directing and originating mind. In this way they choose to make a fumbling fool of their pretended god, and make him out to be a tinkerer, an approximator, and a blunderer, who took eons of time to fashion a few serviceable figures and heaped up a junkyard of scrap and failure meanwhile. Have they no more respect for the deity than that?

Amazing! Hitchens gets what liberal Christians and those who are overeager to blend Darwinism and Christianity apparently fail to get! Now, if someone could just convert the man…

God IS Great: Christopher Hitchens, Metaphysics, and Teleology

The fifth and sixth chapters of Hitchens’ book God is not Great are an attempt to undermine belief in God as the Uncaused Cause of the universe. Originally, I had intended to treat chapter five’s dealings with metaphysics as a separate article from chapter six’s dealings with argument from design. However, once I read the chapter on metaphysics, I was faced with a serious problem. Hitchens only deals directly with metaphysics in one paragraph of the whole chapter!

I’ve begun to see the beauty of journalism. You can write articles and whole books based on anecdotes and sarcasm alone! Now, I’m a huge fan of both when used with real support, but if Hitchens wants to discuss such a serious issue as the origin of the universe, he had better have more to bring to the table than baseless claims and gross sarcasm. Perhaps he’d be better off as a White House spokesman. (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.)

Hitchens fails miserably at proving the metaphysical claims of Christians to be false. He mocks them, uses some straw men here and there, takes some quotes out of context, etc. He doesn’t ever deal with real issues. He never quotes Christian apologists of the 21st century. This is, perhaps, the poorest chapter of his book.

Strangely, he also spends very little time dealing with atheistic metaphysics. Every belief system has metaphysical elements. We all must have answers to questions that are non-scientific in nature. After a shoddy attempt to pull the rug out from under Christian metaphysics, Hitchens does little if anything to explain his perspective on the issue of metaphysics.

Hitchens’ only real attempt at metaphysics is one that could have easily been placed in his chapter on arguments from design. He says that because every cause must have a cause, theistic explanations for God are weak. Hitchens makes a categorical mistake here. Christian metaphysics state that whatever comes into being must have a cause. There is a great distinction between the two statements. If God never came into being but simply always is (which, by the way, is the actual claim of Christianity since God is the “I Am”, the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity), then He has no need of an external force or intelligence to bring Him about. Christians simply don’t believe in a created God, for created gods really are a delusion. What really is a tragedy is when intelligent people have no problem believing an infinite regression of causes, such as those who espouse Darwinism.

Hitchens also makes the assertion that the universe could not have been created because there is imperfection in the universe. This seems to be quite the leap to me, and one that ignores the clear marks of design in our world. One of his evidences of the imperfection of the universe is the state of the universe itself. The explosions of stars seems to be evidence of violence to Hitchens, something far more random than a created universe should have. I think it strange that just a few chapters ago, Hitchens talked about the wonder and majesty of the cosmos. Surely he can see that beauty and awe can come from even the explosion of suns! We see very little of the “big picture” in the cosmos so that an argument of this source is really an argument from ignorance. He mocks those who lived centuries ago for their superstitions and false beliefs. Doesn’t he know that people will one day look back on even the likes of Einstein and chuckle to themselves? To argue from lack of knowledge seems foolish.

Secondly, Hitchens makes the assumption that the God of the Bible is a pragmatist. He thinks that because humans see organs or portions of DNA as unnecessary that we couldn’t have been designed that way. Why did God create things as He did? Why did He not do things differently? I suppose there are many different ways God could have done things. The point is that He did them in this way for purposes that we do not know. Rather than assume that we have all knowledge, why not simply admit that we lack true understanding? Isn’t that part of the wonder of God’s universe, to be able to explore, experience, and discover?

Thirdly, Hitchens assumes that because things are unpleasant that they are therefore imperfect. Ears that need cleaning, for instance, are evidence of imperfection in the created order. Seriously? Nowhere in the Bible does God claim to have made a sterile world. Nowhere in the Bible does God claim to have made a world in which there will be minimal to no effort required on our part. God gave us things to do and the means to accomplish those tasks. How is ear wax proof of a world that lacks a Designer? (One could, by the way, make the argument that the existence of earwax is miraculous in itself. Maybe someday…)

Finally, Hitchens completely ignores the Biblical account of the Fall. Things aren’t perfect, and we’d be fools to claim they were. However, assuming that this world is precisely what God intended is equally foolish. Paul speaks in Romans 8 about how the entire creation groans under the crushing weight of human sin. “Man marks the earth with ruin”, as Lord Byron says, and his control no longer stops with the shore. Violence, destruction, and failure to properly care for our Father’s world have ravaged this planet. The results of both Fall and Flood are great and tragic. Everything in this world was thrown about because of man’s fall, and we won’t see a perfect world as God intended it until the Eternal State begins.

On the whole, Hitchens fails miserably to deal seriously with Christian thought and practice. Rather than deal with Christian belief within the Bible itself, he is quite content to deal with historical, marginal Christianity bereft of context. Such a straw man may be easy to knock down, but one is left to wonder how Hitchens would do if he ever came across the genuine artifact.

God IS Great: The Arrogance of Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

“As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.” That’s how Christopher Hitchens ends the first chapter of his best-selling book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Frankly, Hitchens’ book- cover to cover-  is nothing more than a rant. It stirs the emotions of the reader, to be sure. It has some facts scattered throughout. It doesn’t have much substance, though. In fact, the thought strikes me that his book is basically nothing more than a 307-page opinion piece gone horribly wrong.

I’d read this book when it first came out, but I thought I’d read it again since I am going to hear him speak soon. I got it used, so as not to contribute in driving up sales. One of the first things that leapt out at me was the incredible arrogance of the book. Now, he hasn’t gone so far as some atheists (who want to refer to themselves as “brights”), but he is incredibly arrogant, nonetheless.

A Proud Look

Wasting no time in flaunting his presumptuousness, on page 7 of his book he says:  “How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in awareness of one’s own sin?” Throughout the first few chapters, Hitchens asserts that Christianity is incapable of producing anything “intelligible or noble or inspiring” since the rise of science. He speaks of the wonder, majesty, and mystery of Hawking’s description of event horizon of a black hole and the symmetry of the double helix while he says of Jehovah: “Why, if god was the creator of all things, were we supposed to ‘praise’ him so incessantly for doing what came to him naturally? This seemed servile, apart from anything else.”

One has to wonder where Hitchens thinks the wonder, majesty, and mystery of nature came from in the first place. Art and music do not leap into existence on their own; it takes the will, power, and skill of a creator- a creator with passion and imagination- to form them. If we wonder at the creation, how much more should we wonder at the Creator? Hitchens would do better to be like his colleague Richard Dawkins, who at least admits the desire to feel grateful when he beholds the heavens.

Semi-intelligent Design

From Hitchens’ initial error in being arrogant a host of other problems come forth. For starters, he has espoused a Darwinistic/Atheistic worldview. He says of those that think like him: “We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than scientific factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.” This truism is not espoused solely by the Darwinistic and Atheistic faithful, however. It is accepted by Christians as well. As I’ve said many times before, Christianity was foundational and not incidental to the modern scientific movement in the West, and I can think of no Christian today that denies the importance of science and reason.

Rather, Christians have exercised reason and interpreted scientific findings (something we all must do) in concluding that there is a flaw in the atheistic and Darwinistic worldviews. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could,” sang Maria Von Trapp, and she was quite right. Ironically, while Hitchens doesn’t believe in a Creator with a will and an intellect, he cannot avoid projecting those qualities on a theoretical blind process: “Evolution has meant that our prefontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee.”

Standardless Morality

Hitchens also believes that a moral life can be lived apart from God. However, I would ask where Hitchens got the idea that morality and immorality exist. I wonder why he thinks that the moral path is better than the immoral path. If you can get to the top by cheating and swindling and never suffer the consequences you most fear, why not do it? There is no judgment coming in the atheistic worldview. If no one finds out about it, why not go for it?

Humans know that there is a difference between right and wrong, and things such as character and guilt prevent the vast majority of us from doing terrible things. This conscience tells us that there is a “better” and a “worse” in us, and I would say that if there is a “better”, then it is reasonable to assume at some point there is absolute Perfection. If there is absolute perfection, would not this Perfection be the standard for all? A perfect Being is one of the major aspects of the Judeo-Christian God. Hitchens denies the existence of Evil, preferring rather to blame man’s actions on an evolutionary hiccup that has resulted in humans being only partially rational. If this is true, where did the impulse to be good come from? Furthermore, how can I know anything about morality at all if my bodily organs are in control?

Religiosity vs. Relationship

This isn’t to say that Hitchens doesn’t have some leverage in his war against religion. In a sense, religion as we have come to call it does poison everything. Violence done in the name of a god or Eastern religion is tragic. Violence done in the name of Jehovah God is both tragic and grossly hypocritical. Jesus made it quite clear that His Kingdom was not of this world, and Paul said specifically that our weapons are spiritual, not physical. Our Enemy is Satan, not flesh and blood. If humans are made in God’s image and are potential temples for the Holy Spirit, why would any human exercise physical might in the name of God? They wouldn’t.They might have used His name in their crusade, but they have employed nothing of His character and obeyed none of His commands.

While Hitchens may find scientific discoveries “more awe-inspiring than the rantings of the godly”, I would conclude by saying that Christians are not followers of a religion, but partakers of a Relationship with the Divine. Every scientific discovery we make reminds us that “This is My Father’s World.” Every moment we live we are conscious of the fact that it is in Him that we live, and move, and have our being. Every aspect of our lives is a gift from the Creator and Sustainer of life, and we are moved by gratitude to worship and obedience. It is love and awe that is to be the supreme motivator in the Christian life, not fear or lust for power and control.

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: Way, Truth, and Life

The latter part of John 6 tells of a fascinating event in the life of Christ. The crowd is following Jesus, hoping to see another miracle, to taste again of the bread supplied by a miracle.

“If you want life, you must eat my flesh and drink my blood,” said Jesus.

“This is a difficult saying. How can we accept it?”, said the unbelieving multitude. They hadn’t expected this. They had been looking for a free meal. The miracles had become the point of their time with Christ, and Christ Himself had become the means of their “bread and circuses.” Jesus had been trying to get them to focus on their spiritual need but the unbelievers couldn’t see it. They only wanted more of the same. They wanted to have their desires fulfilled without having to deal with God. Of course, Jesus knew that one more meal wasn’t going to bring true happiness. C. S. Lewis once wrote: “All that we call human history–money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery–[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.”

God has not designed the universe to work in this way. He has designed human beings in such a way that the ultimate and deepest satisfaction you and I can partake of is in Himself. There may be other delights in this world, but they are mere hints and whispers of a far greater joy. If we choose to reject God as our ultimate joy, to paraphrase Lewis, we have no choice but to starve.

Life must be about more than consumption and reproduction. Those motives that are supreme in the Darwinian worldview don’t provide lasting satisfaction and fulfillment. Perhaps that is why, in a recent study, only around 40% of Americans admitted to buying into the lie of evolution. There seems to be something instinctive within the human psyche that drives them to seek satisfaction outside of those basic physical needs. Humans want expression and knowledge, love and passion, acceptance and significance. They want Truth in all areas. They want the Sacred.

“I am the Bread. I am the Way. I am the Life. I am the Door. I am the Vine. I am the Light. I am the Shepherd. I am the Resurrection…..I am the Truth.” Jesus makes statements throughout the book of John which tell us of His ability to meet our needs. It is this last claim, the claim to BE Truth, which is so profound and so unique that it distinguishes Jesus forever from any other god that may be raised up in the temple of the mind.

In every other world religion, there is a distinction between the source of the truth claim and the truth claim itself. Krishna offers philosophy and mysticism, but he is not the philosophy itself. Mohammed points to the Koran, but Mohammed the person is not the vaunted truth. The Muslim does not turn to Mohammed himself in worship and obedience. Buddha speaks of a “Noble Path”, but he himself is not that Path. Buddha is the teacher, not the supposed reality behind the teachings. At their very best (the points at which these religions make some accurate statements regarding morality and reality), these religions are like an HIV test. The test reveals the problem, but cannot treat the disease.

Jesus, in contrast, was both the Message and the Messenger. He did not merely teach truth. He is Truth. He did not show a way. He is the Way. (Deepak Chopra recognizes the unique union of Message and Messenger and must make up some pretty weird ideas to get around it.) Life in Christ, in contrast to materialism, is not merely about consumption and reproduction. It is about who we are (our natures) as humans made in the image of God, our new position and relationship as children of God, and our destiny as believers. Our greatest hunger is to be filled with awe and love, to experience celebration, and to commit ourselves to Him. Our greatest hunger is fulfilled in living a life of Sacred Worship.

Hinduism says that I must nurture the god within because I am part of the divine universe. Islam says that I am so different from Allah that I will never really even get close to him. Jesus says that the God- Who is distinct from His creation and from Whom humanity was estranged- has come near. Instead of union with the universe or separation from Allah, God offers us communion through Jesus Christ His Son.

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: Signs and Wonders

Herod's Temple

Last week I began by talking about the eternality of Jesus Christ as a support for the uniqueness of Christianity. This week I want to talk a bit about Jesus’ next unique claim.

We begin in John 2. Jesus performed the miracle at the wedding in Cana, and He moved with purpose to Jerusalem. In the Temple, He drove out the moneychangers. Enraged, the Jews said: “What is the basis of your authority? Show us a sign!”

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.”

John tells us that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body. Why did He give them a sign that they wouldn’t be able to see for years? The answer is that Jesus knew the heart of the particular Jews that asked Him the question. They weren’t skeptics searching for answers. They were skeptics who thought they already knew the answers. In fact, it is interesting to note that every time someone in Scripture asked for a sign of Jesus’ power and authority, Jesus had recently finished performing a great miracle! The miraculous propelled the faithful into greater faith but drove the unbelievers to further skepticism. It is no different today. The skeptics that question whether or not God exists do so with the mind given them by God’s creative power: a miracle. The skeptics that scoff at the idea of Jesus feeding 5,000 with five loves of bread and two fish forget that Jesus created the materials that make up the bread. It isn’t the lack of evidence for Who Jesus is that troubles skeptics, but it’s the implications of the evidence that makes them uncomfortable.

Consider some other miracles of reality, called to mind by Ravi Zacharias:

• The statistical probability of forming a single enzyme, the building block of the gene, is 1 in 10^40,000. That’s a larger number than all of the atoms in the stars in the known universe.
• A human DNA double helix has enough information to cover 600,000 pages of information, supposedly originating from nothing and no one.

Who, I wonder, has more faith: The believer or the materialist?

Yet the materialist who considers Scripture says with David Hume: “Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” The problem is that Hume’s test doesn’t pass its own test; it is neither mathematical nor scientific. Such is the nature of materialistic claims.

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.”

What greater proof is there of Jesus’ authority than His resurrection?  He predicts a bodily resurrection within a specific time frame, and does so quite accurately. The soldiers guarding the tomb knew it happened, as did the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. That’s why the Pharisees in their extrabiblical writings refer to Jesus as a sorcerer instead of a liar. They couldn’t disprove the resurrection. Hundreds, in fact, saw Jesus after His resurrection.

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.”

There’s something else to Jesus’ words than a “simple” reference to His Own resurrection. Notice the use of “temple” as a metaphor for “body.” Jesus reminds the listener that the physical body is sacred. It is sacred because it is a part of God’s special creation. Human rights, the sacredness of marriage, sexuality, and the command to love each other as we love ourselves all come from our bodies being a temple (at salvation) for God Himself. This is the distinction between Christianity and other religions.

In every other classic world religion there is a difference between the body and the place of worship. The body must perform specific deeds, say certain things, etc. in order to enter so-called holy places for worship. The human body must at least face in the direction of the place of worship in Islam if the worshiper is absent. Hindus, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews have engaged in violence toward one another over their sacred places. During Thaipusam, some Hindu devotees pierce their bodies in preparation for their journey to the temple of Lord Murugan. Indira Gandhi was murdered because she sent the military into a Sikh temple to obtain weapons. It is true that people have performed violence in the name of Christ, but Jesus was quite clear when He said that His kingdom was not of this world. It is not of weapons to do violence. We are His temple. How much suffering could have been avoided had we all simply listened to the claims of Christ?

The body is exalted because of Jesus’ conception, His unique expression of the Godhead, His physical sacrifice on the Cross, and His bodily resurrection. What greater sign or wonder is there than these?

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.”

“God Did It So Shut Up”

My final (brief) post on Nitwit Nastik‘s article is a summation of his fifth problem with Christian’s responses. Basically, he hates it when Christians dismiss the question or argument because some Christians will say that the question is unreasonable. Nitwit has a good point. Do children like it when you say “because I said so”? No! Do you like it when your boss pulls rank? No! What makes anyone think that saying “Your question doesn’t matter” is a good response?! We are commanded to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” I would think that Nitwit was making up this last one, but I’ve seen Christian do this to other Christians. Shameful!

Now, Nitwit also seems to have a problem with an appeal to those who are professional students of the Scripture. I’m afraid that I must disagree with him on this point. We ask doctors questions on medicine. We want to know what scientists think on matters of science. We want to know what economists and politicians think about the state of the world these days. Why would we not go to the pastors and theologians when we have questions concerning their professional area of study?

Jesus Isn’t “Nice”

We’ve all seen the pictures. He’s got long hair, feminine features, soft eyes, and maybe a big, cheesy grin. That’s Him. Your friendly, neighborhood Savior. Marketing Christianity sure has gotten easy these days, hasn’t it? We’ve gotten rid of the Stone the Builders Rejected and replaced Him with a “nice” sculpture to admire. The problem is, in getting rid of the original, we’ve committed idolatry.

Jesus isn’t “nice.” To be sure, He is loving, gracious, and merciful. He is the Savior Who mourned the loss of a friend, grieved over His rejection by Jerusalem, and beckoned children to His side. But that isn’t all He is. He drove the money-changers from the Temple. He didn’t give a rip when the Pharisees got offended by His teachings and miracles. He was so rugged He could endure 40 days in the wilderness, surrounded by wild animals, and not eat. He endured tremendous persecution, betrayal, and an excruciating execution. He sits today at the right hand of the Father, and we will all bow before Him one day, declaring Him to be Lord. He will judge both Living and Dead, saved and lost.

Because Christians have feminized Jesus, both believers and unbelievers have gotten entirely too comfortable with Him. He’s regularly mocked by satirical shows such as Family Guy, blasphemed by the creator of the “Sweet Lord Jesus” statue (made entirely out of chocolate), and taken for granted by many Christians today.

We’d best be careful, though. He isn’t called the “Lion of Judah” for nothing.

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: His Dwelling

Coexist: Blind Leading the Blind?

“Christianity is no different than every other religion.” That’s what some of my friends will tell me if we’re ever discussing religion. “They all teach the importance of morality, the existence of eternity, and give people some comfort as well as a reason to be good.” Fair enough. Christianity does have some things in common with most of the major religions. In fact, I would suggest that any religion worth having a look at should at least provide this much information and motivation. I would also suggest, however, that Christianity is very different from mere religion. Christianity is unique because of the Person of Jesus Christ.

Where are you from?

If you read John 1:38-51, an interesting story (which I’m going to paraphrase for the sake of space) unfolds.

“Rabbi, where are you from?”, the disciple asks.

“Come and see.”

We don’t know where exactly Jesus spent the night, but we do know that He and His disciples rarely stayed in houses. We can also hear the incredulity in Nathanael’s voice a few verses later when he asks: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

In the Eastern parts of the world, I am told, one of the most important things about a person is where they are from. In fact, in some areas, where you are from and what your family heritage is like is more important than your own personal credentials. In the West, of course, we are interested in where you are from, but we are more interested in what you can do. If you are dividing the world strictly into East and West, then ancient Israel is very much an Eastern land. That is why the disciples are originally very much interested in where Jesus is from, and that is why Nathanael has difficulty with Jesus’ hometown. Nazareth wasn’t much to look at.

But Jesus wasn’t from Nazareth. Not really, anyway.

Jacob’s Ladder

“You will see greater things, for soon you will see Heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man,” said Jesus.

Jacob. He escaped his brother’s wrath after tricking his father into giving him the blessing. In the middle of the desert, he slept with a rock for his pillow and dreamed of angels descending and ascending into Heaven on a ladder. When he woke up, he knew that He was in Beth-el (“the house of God.”)

In effect, Jesus had said: “I AM Beth-el. I AM the House of God.” Jesus’ dwelling place was identical to the dwelling place of Jehovah, the “High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity.” All of reality is His domain, but His throne is in Heaven.

The Visitation

Nicodemus came to Jesus by night (John 3) to ask Him some questions. Jesus’ teachings astounded him, for He spoke of a new birth, eternal life, and the “lifting up” of Himself. As part of His claim to authority, Jesus speaks of coming down from Heaven, not ascending into Heaven. This is not Enlightenment. This is not Revelation to Jesus from God. This is a Visitation of the eternal, transcendent God.

This truth about Jesus’ origin (if you can call it that) separates Christianity from other world religions. Islam claims that Mohammed was taken to Heaven on a particular night to see what It was like. Heaven was foreign and unknown to Mohammed. Not so with Jesus. He knows all there is to know about reality.

Mohammed, Buddha, and Krishna (assuming his historicity) were born of natural means (sexual union). Not so with Jesus. He is eternal, and His birth was supernatural. Prophecy predicts it; Gabriel announced it; Mary and Joseph proclaimed it in spite of ostracism; Elizabeth and Zacharias  backed it in spite of the fact that their son had to serve the younger Cousin; the disciples preached and risked death for it; and even the Koran affirms it.

Jesus, as the eternal God from Heaven, is holy perfection. Not so with Buddha, Krishna, and Mohammed. One only has to read the scriptures of these other religions to see that. Surahs 47, 48 speak of sins committed by Mohammed that need forgiving. Mohammed struggled with the supposed command to receive revelation, but Jesus knew exactly why He was there. The tale of Krishna’s immorality with the Gopi is an embarrassment to many Hindu scholars, and Buddha had to endure countless reincarnations to achieve perfection and enlightenment.

He didn’t come to teach morality. He didn’t come to teach enlightenment. He came from eternal Heaven into His temporal creation to die for lost humanity and give us abundant life.

“Rabbi, where are you from?”, the disciple asks.

“Come and see.”

Text Without Context

This is my fourth (and probably shortest) response to Nitwit Nastiks “Errors, Inconsistencies, and Contradictions in the Bible.” His fourth problem deals with the tendency of Christians to “proof text” their way through arguments. For starters, I will openly admit that there are a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian, that love to use verses without a context. This is just plain old wrong. For too long, Christians have been content to explain Scripture topically. Rather than do the hard work of digging into Scripture to determine its actual meaning, we have become consumed by a love of milk and forsaken spiritual meat. This leads to poor exegesis, fuzzy doctrine, and weak theology. Shame on us, Christians, for getting to this point.

That being said, I do not believe that the Bible Itself takes Its own passages out of context. The link provided in this section of Nitwit’s post indicates that the New Testament is a twisting of the Old Testament. On the contrary, the New Testament relies heavily on the correct interpretation of the Old Testament. Matthew quotes, paraphrases, and summarizes the prophets frequently. Jesus Himself quotes from Deuteronomy frequently. Peter’s sermons in Acts and Paul’s illustrations in the epistles come from the Old Testament. It may not have been what the Jews expected, but it was what God meant. For more information on the prophetic portions of Scripture, I would highly recommend J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come.

In summation, I don’t believe that anyone should use verses out of context. Proof texting is a bad maneuver on anyone’s part. Quoting verses is perfectly fine, but to ignore context or the overall perspective of Scripture in order to support one’s perspective is patently dishonest.

Eternal Truths or Cultural Command?

The third complaint of my friend Nitwit Nastik is that some things in the Bible cannot be eternal since there are some obvious cultural instructions. If there are specific cultural instructions, how can we say that the Bible is an eternal Book with eternal truths? How can something be both eternal and local? This is an interesting and complex problem which I won’t attempt to treat entirely in this posting.

It is correct that the Bible is both eternal and true. It contains the words of Almighty God. God, in His wisdom, had men write down the words of Scripture for several purposes. Paul lists those purposes in 2Timothy 3:16:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

There are doctrinal reasons and practical (moral) reasons for the existence of Scripture. We learn Who God is and what He is like through Scripture. We know of Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, eternity, and Salvation through the Bible. We also get to see how God has worked to bring about His plans through the narrative of both Testaments. As history plays out on the pages of Scripture, we encounter both eternal commands (Thou shalt not commit adultery) and local commands (But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.) Eternal commands never change because they are true in all ages, but local commands do change according to the culture. However, local commands are based on eternal principles.

Nitwit brings up 1Corinthians 11:4-10, which is the command concerning women wearing head coverings. There are believers who are of the opinion that women must wear head coverings while attending church services. Others believe that this was a cultural command to a specific church in history and does not have to be followed today. Those who take this second view believe that there is an eternal principle behind the cultural command. I am not in this post going to explain my view on the subject. Both views must be defended against the allegations that such a command (whether local or eternal in nature) is sexist and prejudiced.

Remembering that Scripture must be compared with Scripture to determine a proper interpretation, let us look at what the Bible says about the status and role of women is. That same passage in 1 Corinthians also tells us that in terms of value, men and women are completely equal. Men owe their existence to women because of natural birth, but women owe their existence to man because Eve came from Adam. Galatians 3:28 echoes this idea:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Proverbs 31 also explains that women are just as capable of productivity and efficiency in every area of life. Therefore, it cannot be said that 1 Corinthians 11 is an example of prejudice or sexism. There must be another explanation. The Bible does assert that women and men have different roles in the home and in society. This only makes sense. Our brains are distinct, our bodies are distinct, and our needs and emotions are distinct. Men are from Mars; women are from Venus. Men are like waffles; women are like spaghetti. (Google it if you don’t get it.) God planned for each gender to be uniquely made in His image, but we reflect different aspects of Himself.

God tells us that we must maintain this distinction between genders in every area, including dress. This is the eternal principle underlying the local command given in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is instructing the Corinthian church to be sure to maintain the distinction according to society’s standards. For them, this means that men’s hair is short and women’s hair is long. This is not sexism. If anything, it maintains that women are unique and special and therefore should be treated as such.

The Bible: Lost in Transmission?

This is my second post responding to my friend Nitwit’s article concerning supposed errors in the Christian perspective on Scripture. To get an idea of what has come before, you should probably go here to read the first article. Nitwit’s second point is, frankly, difficult to discern since there is a lot of terminology thrown around without being clearly defined. I can gather that Nitwit believes that the actual words written by God (which he technically doesn’t believe in) have been lost. Rather than directly respond to each thought of the article, I am going to positively state a Christian view of the Bible.

1. Inspired- “God breathed”- all Scripture originated from God, and humans wrote down what He said. (1 Peter 1:20-21)
2. Preserved- God has providentially ensured the accuracy of the transmission of both the Old and New Testaments (Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:22-25)
3. Inerrant/Infallible- The Bible is without error. (Psalm 12:6, 19:7; Proverbs 30:5) Note: Some Christians distinguish these two terms, but my point is that you can’t have one without the other.

I’ve dealt with the translation issue and the transmission of the New Testament texts in four previous posts starting here, so I’ll not beat the horse to death (though some would argue that I already have…) Suffice it to say that, with 5,500 copies or partial copies of the New Testament in its original language, there is plenty of manuscript evidence concerning the New Testament. We are content with just having ten copies of the Greek classics in their original language.  Also, New Testament copies originate only 100 years after the original autographs were penned, as opposed to Greek classics, whose extant copies are often available only 700-1400 years after their original composition. John A. T. Robinson writes: “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”

As for the Old Testament, I know of very few serious scholars that would question its accuracy. Of course, we don’t have the original manuscripts. It would be a rare find indeed to find the completed autograph from nearly 4,000 years ago! What we do have is a knowledge of how the Old Testament was transmitted. The scribes and priests in general were given this task, and they faithfully did it for countless generations. After the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., the scribes continued their work in Egypt and Babylon. When the Remnant returned seventy years later, a strict method of copying was resumed, as outlined in Wikipedia (of all places) but confirmed in a number of books.

1. Only clean manuscripts could be used.
2. Each column must contain between 48 and 60 lines. (This kept the writing from getting too small so that the copy could not be copied.)
3. Even the ink had a special recipe, and it had to be black.
4. The scribe had to speak each word as he wrote it.
5. They had to clean both pen and body before they wrote God’s name.
6. Each copy was reviewed within three days of completion. If more than three pages required correction, the entire copy had to be rewritten.
7. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.
8. The documents had to be stored in sacred places.
9. When the document became worn out, it had to be buried in a genizah.

After Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome in A.D. 70, the Jews continued their work of faithful copying, which culminated in the work of the Masoretes. The Masoretes used the ancient scribal system and even expanded it. According to F. F. Bruce, the Masoretes wrote “with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these.”

The results of such careful transmission are clear. We have a Bible available today that we can have maximum security in, knowing and believing that God was faithful in preserving His Word.

Literary Aspects of the Bible

In this post I’ll be directly replying to Nitwit Nastik’s blog article “Errors, Inconsistencies, and Contradictions in the Bible.” (Nitwit and I have a fairly cordial friendship going, so please don’t see this as my attempt to tear him to shreds. You’ll have to read through both our blogs to see that we have had a number of conversations concerning faith.) His basic assumption in this article is that the Bible contains a number of “contradictions and factual or scientific errors.” I call this an assumption because he doesn’t actually list any errors, but rather critiques the responses of Christians when confronted with these so-called errors.

The first response by Christians that he critiques is the use of literary techniques to explain verses in the Bible. Apparently, the use of metaphor and symbolism in Scripture is problematic for Nitwit, who seems to prefer a more “literal” interpretation of Scripture. He goes so far, in fact, as to describe an appeal to the poetic nature of Scripture as “deceptive.”

In order to understand Scripture, we must understand that it is a book of ancient literature. As such, it makes use of a variety of literary types such as proverb, saying, chronicle, lament psalm, oracle, apocalypse, parable, song, epistle, and many others. (For those interested, I highly recommend Leland Ryken’s books How to Read the Bible as Literature and The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible.) On the subject of literary technique, Ryken writes:

“Virtually every page of the Bible is replete with literary technique, and to possess the individual texts fully, we need to read the Bible as literature, just as we need to read it theologically and (in the narrative parts) historically.

“The importance of genre to biblical interpretation is that genres have their own methods of procedure and rules of interpretation. An awareness of genre should alert us to what we can expect to find in a text. Additionally, considerations of genre should govern the terms in which we interact with a text. With narrative, e.g., we are on the right track if we pay attention to plot, setting, and character. If the text before us is a satire, we need to think in terms of object of attack, the satiric vehicle in which the attack is couched, and satiric norm (stated or implied standard by which the criticism is being conducted).

“In view of how many literary genres are present in the Bible, it is obvious that the overall literary form of the Bible is the anthology, as even the word Bible (Gk. biblia, “books”) hints. As an anthology, the Bible possesses the same kinds of unity that other anthologies exhibit: multiple authorship (approximately three dozen authors), diverse genres, a rationale for collecting these particular materials (a unifying religious viewpoint and story of salvation history), comprehensiveness, and an identifiable strategy of organization (a combination of historical chronology and groupings by genre).”

One would expect literary complexity in the Word of God. One would expect literary complexity in any religious book. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that parallelism, foreshadowing, metaphor, simile, symbolism, etc. should appear throughout the Bible. It is the logical result of a Creative Mind guiding other creative minds to write.

Now, I must be clear here. Biblical Christianity has always believed in a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture. We do believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. That means that we believe that some Scripture literally makes use of literary techniques. We also believe in comparing Scripture with Scripture to determine Its true meaning. These principles are both practical and logical.

Nitwit correctly asserts that anything can be given a metaphorical meaning, and he uses The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings as examples. I would like to make a few statements as a way of wrapping up the post:

1. I find it a bit ironic that The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings themselves both make use of allusion, metaphor, and symbolism throughout, frequently in referencing Christianity. The Matrix references Christianity (Zion, Trinity, etc.) throughout, and Tolkien himself explained that Eru is a fictionalized version of God.
2. If modern books and movies use literary techniques, why is it so difficult to believe that the Bible would?
3. In the works mentioned above, we can turn to either the author or the author’s works to figure out what the literary techniques used are meant to represent. When we read the Bible, we do the same thing. We turn to the Author in prayer and further study His Word to determine the correct interpretation.

1 Peter 1:20-21: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Entertainment, Bible Narrative, and The Power of Shared Experience

Those of us who grew up in the 1980′s remember the popular slogan for Music Television: “I Want My MTV!” There were commercials, t-shirts, and a host of other paraphernalia on which the slogan was emblazoned. I came from a fairly conservative background and wasn’t allowed to watch MTV (not that we could, since the cable company STILL has yet to actually run cable to my parents’ house), but I was keenly aware of the mania that surrounded the cultural phenomenon that is still a fixture today.

For a number of years I’ve wondered what it is about entertainment (broadly defined in this article as reading material, music, movies, television, video games, and even the sin of pornography) that is so powerful. With the possible exception of reading, each of these forms of entertainment have a certain addictive quality. Of course, when I was a teenager I thought that the content of my entertainment was irrelevant. As I’ve gotten a little older, I’ve come to realize that there is a strange power in entertainment. I think I’m finally ready to take a “stab” at what that power is.

The power of entertainment is the power of a shared experience. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a video game with a decent plot, I am involved in the experience. My heart races during the intense parts. I may like or dislike certain characters. I am emotionally and cognitively involved with the protagonist of every “story” I am told. Such is the power of narrative. It doesn’t matter whether or not the characters are real, I respond to them as if I knew them personally. Music seems to be even more powerful because melody, harmony, and rhythm blend together with the narrative of the lyrics. The musical elements reinforce the power of the experience.

This is what makes entertainment so wonderful….and so perilous. A protagonist that overcomes tragedy can strengthen us. A family in a movie that rallies during a time of difficulty can inspire us. Music that glorifies real love (as opposed to the whimsical, fickle sort) can draw us closer to a spouse. Entertainment that glorifies an immoral protagonist and emphasizes sensual “love” causes us to experience reality as the author sees it, sometimes quite graphically. We may be able to label actions, attitudes, and thoughts as “wrong”, but we cannot escape the experience. This is why we must be so careful what we allow our souls to imbibe.

I’ve also thought about the nature of sharing experience as it relates to the Bible. Perhaps the reason why God shared so much of His Truths through Old Testament narrative is that experience is so powerful. Most of the Bible, after all, is a narrative of one sort or another. There’s really very little in the Bible that doesn’t take the form of a narrative.

Perhaps God wants us to experience the lives of the men and women of the Bible. We can bask in the wonder of the Shekinah with Moses on Mount Sinai, slay the giant Goliath with David, stand boldly before the king with Esther, and sense the wonder of John as he writes: “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father.” Experience is often a better teacher than men. How much better is it to experience life from those who have gone before, to learn the wisdom of the ages vicariously, than to have to learn everything the hard way?

Whether we consider the power of entertainment or the power of the Scriptural narrative, we cannot ignore or deny the hold that a “story” has on us. We must be careful to abhor evil, to cling to that which is good. Because it isn’t just a movie. It isn’t just the Bible. It’s an experience that, once shared, will be a part of us forever. If MTV is what I choose to watch, it really is “my” MTV.

It’s Just Bible Class…

The Problem

Bible teachers hear it all the time, it seems. A student wants permission to go to the bathroom, make a phone call in the school office, or go to their locker. You tell them that they need to wait until the end of class since that is school policy. They sigh, turn around to return to their seat, and you hear them mutter: “It’s just Bible class…”

A parent needs to schedule a doctor’s appointment for their child or a class sponsor needs help with a fundraiser. “It’s just Bible class…”

Now, I’m no heartless, embittered teacher. I think most of my students would agree that I enjoy what I do and I enjoy teaching them. I’m also admittedly guilty of being something of a pushover at times. I know doctor’s appointments are difficult to work into a schedule. I understand that there will be times when school activities overshadow my class or any other class. What I don’t understand is the apathy toward Bible study amongst Christians. Maybe the reason the world doesn’t “buy into” Christianity is that the Christians barely seem to believe in Christianity themselves. Maybe we are guilty of taking a privilege for granted in our Christians schools. If Bible class is “just” Bible class, perhaps we should all pack up and go home. There’s plenty of free education out there.

No, what I don’t buy into is the idea that Bible class should be treated like an elective thrown in at the last minute to fill a student’s schedule. I don’t buy into the idea that Bible should be an easy class so that students don’t get frustrated with the subject and reject their own faith. A quick look at the statistics will tell you that our apathetic attitude toward serious Bible study in church has already done plenty of damage. In our attempt to entertain people into the Kingdom, we’ve turned them off to Truth. Many students will attend a secular university and reject their faith primarily because it has no depth.

The problem is that Bible classes in our Christian schools are very much like glorified Sunday School classes. We do short little studies of Bible characters, positive character qualities (something you could find in any government school, by the way), and half-hearted outlines of books of the Bible in the upper levels. Then we spend most of our time applying Scripture to our own lives.

Maybe that’s it. Maybe time in God’s Word suddenly became about us instead of about Him. Maybe we don’t want to do the study necessary to come up with real Bible lessons. Maybe we are so focused on “discovering what this verse means to me” that we don’t know what to make of it in its own context. Maybe “personal application” is just another way of saying “I need a crutch.”

I’m not saying Bible can’t be fun, exciting, and have times of application. I am just saying that we have gone so far in the wrong direction concerning styles of Bible teaching that I can’t even find a decent Bible curriculum to use.

An Apologetic for the Academic

Yes, Bible classes in a Christian school- particularly in middle and high school- should be academically challenging. We believe that the Bible is our sole authority in faith and practice. How can we know what to believe, how can we know what to do, say, think, and feel, without knowing what the Bible says? If the Bible is truly a “love letter from God”, a special revelation of the Divine, should it not be treated as such? If we have access to the mind of God Himself, should we not feel burdened with the necessity of serious study?

What sort of message does it send to students if they have to work for decent grades in math, science, history, and English, but Bible is “an easy A.” Of course that’s going to give them the impression that “it’s just Bible.” It seems ironic that elementary school teachers often will teach Bible lessons and have students memorize verses (academic pursuits), but the standard levels off or even drops as students approach graduation from high school! Just when science becomes physics, math becomes trigonometry, and english becomes American literature, Bible class becomes a glorified youth group meeting! We have told them to be good, but we have failed to tell them why. No wonder students stop seeing the importance of the class period!

We also want to teach Scripture to students so that they are exposed to the whole counsel of God. We want them to know what God is actually saying. By their senior year, students should have an idea of what is in every book of the Bible- Genesis to Revelation. If they are given an idea of what is in the Bible, it will cause them to want to study it themselves. When they do study it themselves, their Bible classes will give them a context for what they read so that they aren’t lost. Who knows how many students have left a Christian school without having a clear idea of what the gospel message is all about?

Finally, Bible classes are necessarily academic because students must know the Bible in order to be considered educated as far as the Western world is concerned. Art, music, history, science, and literature are all touched in some way by God’s Word. Each of these areas alludes to the Bible in some way, whether through paintings, symphonies, the rise and fall of nations, various discoveries about our natural world, or the English classics. If students do not know what the Bible says, they lack the ability to understand the very world around them.

Only when students are given a proper Biblical context will they stay strong in their faith when they are no longer in a Christian environment. Students must learn to think for themselves. We must teach our students the theology, literature, and history of the Bible if we are to accurately label our schools as “Christian.” We have an obligation to parents, students, and the Lord to do so. If we fail to develop an academic Bible curriculum, we are guilty of false advertising, and- far worse- we are guilty of setting souls adrift in this world.

Again, I’m not opposed to having fun in Bible. Bible teachers had better have a love for their “jobs”, students, and subject matter. They must be enthusiastic about what they do. Serious academic study doesn’t require that the mood of class be serious. It takes the efforts of the entire school: administrators, teachers, and parents to create the right atmosphere.

At the school I currently teach at, high school students take courses in the Life and Teachings of Jesus, Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, and Christian Philosophy and Apologetics. You won’t hear many of them complaining (until test time, that is.) What you will hear are things like the following quotes, which were written by students in course evaluations last year:

• “I learned more about the Bible in a fun way. The discussions we had in class helped me see other people’s views on things.”
• “Your Bible class has helped me a lot this year. I have always gone to church, and I’ve been a Christian for a few years, but I never knew why I was or what it meant. I can put into words what I believe and why. I’m not afraid to stand up for my beliefs anymore because I know how to explain it and back it up with Scripture.”
• I have not always agreed with what you say, but I have learned from that. I have really enjoyed this class. I have learned so much, and this class has helped me stay strong in my faith.”

Why I Use the KJV: Translation Philosophy

If you’ve read my previous three articles on textual families, the KJV’s history, and the history of the non-Traditional texts, you know that we’ve gone through a lot of depth in a very short period of time. In this final article, I’ll be talking a bit about how the Bible is translated. At the end, I will also give a few examples to show that textual families, historical beliefs, and translation philosophies have led to some important differences between Bible versions.

The KJV

The translation techniques of the KJV translators are by far superior to modern translations. In his work on translation styles, The Word of God in English, Leland Ryken quotes Alister McGrath regarding KJV translation style: “The translators tried to ensure that every word in the original had an English equivalent, highlight all words added to the original for the sake of intelligibility, and follow the word order of the original where possible.” Accurate translation should be a window to the text, and the King James Version does just that.

Leland Ryken, himself a literary critic with extensive credentials, writes: “Its style combines simplicity and majesty as the original requires, though it inclines toward the exalted. Its rhythms are matchless.” In comparison to the language of the day, the KJV is unique. It blends together both the highest of English styles with the simplicity of the common English. The language itself, however, is wholly biblical. It is precisely what is written in the originals, nothing more, nothing less, save that which is included to aid in comprehension. It should again be noted that words added for comprehension’s sake are set apart from the text of the Bible by italics.

Some have complained that the style of the King James Version has added confusion, especially in the use of synonyms to translate the same word from the original language. This should be considered a blessing, not a curse. Synonyms further expound on the original word, so that those who do not know the original languages are not at a disadvantage. To balance the variety provided by the use of synonyms, unity is ensured by the proper translation of words in their context. Truly the vast richness of the English language in the seventeenth century has been utilized in this translation.

It should also be pointed out that the KJV is a translation, not an interpretation. This stands in stark contrast to the New International Version, The Living Bible, and a host of others. Such translations have received criticism from conservative and liberal scholars alike for misinterpreting Scripture.

Dynamic Equivalence and the Modern Translations

Eugene Nida’s philosophy of dynamic equivalence, which interprets the original text rather than translates, spread quickly to the publishers of Europe and America. Translations became increasingly more thought-for-thought oriented, rather than word-for-word. This poses a problem as it is God’s words, not His thoughts, that he promised to preserve.

Ryken lists several reasons for the acceptance of dynamic equivalence, none of which are theological or scholarly in nature: antitraditionalism, a preference for colloquialism, evangelistic zeal, and a consumer-oriented church. These translations, according to Ryken, who was on the board for a recent translation of the Bible, reduce the level of vocabulary to a seventh-grade vocabulary level, drop metaphors, and change words to what the translator believed what was intended. You wouldn’t do that to Shakespeare, Milton, or even A. A. Milne, so why would people do that to God? If you change structure, you’ve ruined the masterpiece. Part of the beauty of a poem is in how it is structured (and the Bible is filled with poetry). You can’t simply sum it up and expect it to have the same effect.

Results and Practical Pointers

The following verses have been omitted or relegated to a footnote in many modern translations. I typically go to the popular NIV when comparing:

• Matt. 6:13, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
• Matt. 7:21. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
• Matt. 15:8, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth”
• Matt. 18:11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
• Mark 15:28. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered
  with the transgressors.
• I John 4:3, “Christ is come in the flesh”
• I John 5:13, “and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God”
• Rev. 1:11, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”

Notice which doctrines are effected in the above verses. Of course, there are also some significant changes between versions even when the verses are present:

I John 5:7 reads as follows:
NIV- For there are three that testify:
NASV- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
NWT- For there are three witness bearers,
KJV- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Messing with the doctrine of the Trinity sounds like dangerous ground to me!

Isaiah 14:12:

NIV- How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star …
KJV- How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

I thought Jesus was the morning star…

Acts 3:13:
NASV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus

KJV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers,hath glorified his Son Jesus;

Is Jesus God’s Servant or His Son?

I also like the KJV because it distinguishes between the sinular (thee, thou, thine) and the plural (you, your, yours) more directly. Technically, modern translations would need to distinguish between the two by using you/you all.

The results of all of this are far-reaching. First of all, there is no longer a Bible that everyone uses. It is up to the reader to determine which Bible is the best for them. Additionally, there is no longer a universal, Bible-centered Christian language, because the text of each Bible is different. Instead of confirming faith, the textual criticism and production of dozens of Bible translations has caused doubt in believers all over the world. According to Lewis, in seminaries, students are told that “the careful student of the Bible will not rely completely upon one version of the Bible, but he will seek to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the versions he uses.”

Either God preserved His Word or He did not. If God is incapable of protecting His Word, then we are all miserable creatures cut off from Him. We have lost our ability to trust the most direct line of communication between God and mankind. Fortunately, God did preserve His Word through the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Traditional Greek text.

I should be clear here that I don’t believe that the KJV is the only English translation that is or ever will acceptable. Languages change, and one day what we call English won’t look anything like English. Here’s an example of Luke 8:1-3 in Middle English:

And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.

Summary

It remains for the church, not denominations, publishers, educational institutions, or fellowships, to continue to print and translate the Word of God into languages for people who have not heard. The text of Scripture was given to God through His chosen people, Israel, and to His bride, the church. When publishers, educational institutions, and the rest get involved in matters of textual criticism, translation, and transmission, trouble follows swiftly.
The believer can be comforted with the reality of God’s faithfulness. He will preserve His Word today, as He has throughout time. Believers have only to come to the sweet waters of God’s Word, and find all they need as they traverse this wilderness with their backs, as always, to Egypt.

Why I Use the KJV: An Age of “Reason”

Tischendorf

Previously I’ve shared my reasons for preferring the KJV based on the family of text it comes from as well as some of its historical background. I want to move on to the history behind the other translations, for most of them come from a blending together of the textual families using textual criticism. Textual criticism comes from an age of unbelief. This is a fact that cannot be ignored as we see the raping of Biblical Christianity unfold.

Enlightenment

The modern age, ranging from 1800 until the present day, has become one of ancient heresy  reborn and endorsed as truth. Men placed themselves above God in determining what He has said. A shift occurred, like a tremor among a fault line, toward rationalism. Many men turned to pay homage to the god of Reason and produced their own translations and paraphrases. Edward Carpenter lists the following one-man translations: Mace’s 1729, Wesley’s 1755, Purver’s 1764, Dodderidge’s 1765, and Newcome’s 1796, to name a few. Each translator saw the KJV as a handicap because it was unscientific and not in line with modern, rational thinking. Their translations are wooden, difficult to read, and not faithful to the words of the original text. Perhaps this is why these translations were not widely used even though they were from the Traditional text.

It should be mentioned that even in this darkening age of human history, the Traditional and Masoretic texts of the Bible continued to be printed, read, and studied almost exclusively. This is particularly true prior to the twentieth century. The majority of Christians believed the Bible was the Word of God and that the Bible was inerrant and infallible. Then, like a flood, lower criticism from apostates in Germany came rushing into seminaries and universities. “Scientific investigations” of the words and manuscripts of Scripture began. Man truly began to wonder what exactly it was that God had inspired men to write long ago. Questions arose regarding the purity of Scripture, and, ever so slowly, faith disappeared from the scene.

Textual critics sought to “fashion” texts according to research and investigation, determining which texts were “legitimate: and grouping them into families. Patristic citations which disproved theories of the Traditional text being a late text were determined to be illegitimate; only those that referred to a non-traditional text were accepted.

From Bengel to Tischendorf

The important men behind this movement were both proud and blind to what was going on around them, endorsing the rationalism of the day. Bengel published a text which classed different variant readings, but it was still based on the Traditional text. This was intended to weaken the faith of those who held to the Traditional text. Griesbach came on the scene in the early nineteenth century, and included in Bengel’s text apparatus for textual criticism. His theories were accepted completely by many scholars of the day, including Lachmann, perhaps one of the most infamous of the old-line scholars. He rejected the Traditional text used by the church for the better part of 1800 years in favor of the heretical texts, creating his own independent version. Lachmann purposefully ignored fifteen centuries of copied Traditional manuscripts in favor of the texts which, to him, carried more weight. It was upon his work that Constantine Tischendorf, in turn, would build his studies.

Tischendorf believed that textual criticism was exercised by Stephanus and Beza when they printed their editions of the Greek manuscripts, and that they were one and the same with Bengel and Griesbach. His goal was “to clear up in this way the history of the sacred text, and to recover if possible the genuine apostolic text which is the foundation of our faith.” Notice the complete lack of faith in God’s ability to preserve His Word.

Westcott and Hort

It was Tichendorf’s discovery (actually a theft) of Sinaiticus (in a garbage room) that bolstered the resolve of rationalistic theologians’ to reconstruct a true critical Greek text. From the work of these men came two men which every student of textual criticism knows well: Westcott and Hort.

Hort was by no means an evangelical believer. He scoffed at the idea of “a fictitious substituted righteousness” or a “fictitious substituted penalty.” He wrote the following to Westcott on April 12, 1861: ” I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach.”

Westcott is no better than Hort. He disdained the concept of infallibility, sided with Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and viewed heaven as a state and not a place. It was from men such as these that a critical text emerged which was a blending of heretical texts from the school of Origen and others like him. Interestingly enough, Westcott and Hort used mainly the patristic citations as proof of the legitimacy of their heretical texts. For this, they had to ignore the patristic citations referencing the Traditional text based on the idea that they had to have been tampered with at some point.

Their Critical Text came largely from two manuscripts known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. An inspection of these texts reveals some interesting facts. Vaticanus omits, according to Burgon, 2,877 words and adds 536. This does not include substitutions. Sinaiticus omits 3,455 words and adds 839, not counting substitutions. Burgon reminds us these alterations are not the same in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. From this, it can be ascertained that a major flaw in logic, to speak nothing of theology, must have occurred to even allow the two texts to be combined into one text.

It is from this work that the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society’s texts come. These texts are used in every major English translation. The Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society texts have been revised twenty-seven and four times, respectively, and great changes are made regularly. The most recent revision of the UBS text included 500 changes. It must be remembered: these are changes to the actual text of Scripture, not a translation thereof. Each of these changes is a change from what God actually said. Still men continue to attempt to do what Tischendorf said: “To set aside this textus receptus all together, and to construct a fresh text, derived immediately from the most ancient and authoritative sources.”

Why I Use the KJV: An Age of Faith

Tyndale

For 1500 years, the Byzantine text was used almost exclusively for Bible study among the educated and in translations for the laity. For 1500 years, the Greek New Testament existed as papyri fragments, uncials, and minuscules. That all changed with the invention of the printing press.

Greek Printings

In the early sixteenth century, God began a mighty work in Europe to bring about a printed Greek Text. It was at this time that Desiderius Erasmus came on the scene. He set out to print, for the first time ever, the Greek text of the New Testament. He gathered together and studied, but did not accept as valid, every available manuscript. Erasmus was given access to nearly every library in Europe because of his scholarship and friendship with the Pope. Far from being unaware of heretical manuscripts, Erasmus divided all manuscripts based on whether or not they agreed with either the Traditional text or Vaticanus. He chose to reject Vaticanus as a pure text in 1533.

It is true that Erasmus’ first printing of the Traditional text was done hastily and contained errors, but the last four were not so. He added 1 John 5:7 and corrected his errors in the last four revisions. It was from the third through fifth revisions that most translations came. He also studied some of the more critical readings of the texts, and was aware of the passages removed from the Alexandrian versions, such as the last twelve verses of Mark and the Pericope de Adultera. The Pericope is the omission of the story of the woman caught in adultery. This was occasionally omitted because of cultural and religious biases.

From this printing of the Greek text, many translations arose. Luther’s German, Tyndale’s English, Lefevre’s French, Biestkens’ Dutch, Laurentius’ Swedish, de Reyna’s Spanish, as well as the Danish, Czech, Italian, and Welsh translations all came from Erasmus’ printing of the Traditional text. In fact, almost all translations came from this text until the nineteenth century! Other printings of Greek manuscripts, such as those done by Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers were simply reprintings of Erasmus’ Traditional text. It was at the time of the Elzevir brothers that the Traditional text in printed form came to be called the Textus Receptus because of an advertisement regarding their printing.

English Translations in an Age of Faith

Tyndale is a name that English-speaking Christians know well. What few realize is that Tyndale studied under Erasmus for four years at Cambridge. Tyndale was an excellent linguist who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French. The stir Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament caused was incredible. He was denounced by church and government alike. It was, however a great translation of the Traditional text. Even Westcott is forced to give Tyndale’s translation its due: “It is impossible to read through a single chapter without gaining the assurance that Tindale [sic] rendered the Greek text directly . . . .”

After Tyndale was martyred, the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were published in 1535 and 1537, respectively. Both Bibles were revisions of Tyndale’s New Testament. The Matthew Bible also included Tyndale’s unpublished notes and translation of Joshua through Second Chronicles.

In 1539, the Great Bible was published, followed by the 1560 Geneva Bible. This last Bible was the first complete English Bible from the original languages. In 1568, the Bishop’s Bible was produced by order of Queen Elizabeth. This was nothing more than a revision of the Great Bible. The translators of all of these Bibles relied on the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text for the basis of their translations. They also relied on previous English translations and translations in other languages for a guide.

The King James Version

In 1604, King James I ordered that a new translation of the Bible be produced, and in 1607, the work began. In their book, The Bible in English Translation, Steven M. Sheeley and Robert N. Nash describe the organization of the translation committees: “Work on the new translation was divided among fifty-four renowned translators from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. These translators were divided into six teams, each responsible for translating a section of the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha. The work of each team was carefully reviewed by other teams, and the final translation was edited by two representatives from each team.” The translation committees were organized and had a system of checks and balances. The translators relied on the Masoretic text and the traditional text, most significantly Stephanus’ third and Beza’s fifth editions.

Unlike the translators of today, these men were not paid. They were therefore not wooed by the love of money, something which cannot be said for translators and publishing companies today. These men were not in any way under King James’ jurisdiction due to financial assistance or official governmental authorization.

They included few marginal notes. The notes included were meant to reinforce the text and clarify the translation rather than be a hindrance. This stands in stark contrast to modern translations. Marginal notes in these new translations are intended to cause doubt with vague references to “variants” and “the best manuscripts,” without defining terminology.

“The King James Version was born in an age of faith,” writes Paisley, “Its inception and reception are characterized by faith.” Nash and Sheeley agree: “The influence of the King James Version, or Authorized Version as it came to be called cannot be exaggerated. . . . It stands as one of the outstanding masterpieces of the English Language.” No other translation of the Bible in English has had the impact of the King James Version. It has been used for 400 years in churches across the world. It has been used to translate daughter editions of the Bible when Christians were not familiar enough with the original languages to translate directly. It set the standard for all translations to come in every area.

In spite of the 400 years that have passed, it has changed little since its first printing. From 1611 to 1917, D. A. Waite discovered only 136 changes of significance in the text of the KJV. These changes are mostly only changes which do not sound the same when spoken aloud. While 136 changes may sound like a lot, it is really a very small amount compared to the number of words in the rest of the King James Version. It should also be recognized that changes within a translation is not the same as changes within the original text of Scripture, so long as the translation changes are accurate to the original. There are, after all, many different ways in which a word may be translated. Additionally, the italicized words for which there is no Greek or Hebrew equivalent may have been dropped because it was determined that they were not needed.

Why I Use the KJV: Families of Texts

I sometimes get asked why I bother using the King James Version of the Bible. After all, there are plenty of translations that use modern language out there. However, I would like to suggest that readability isn’t the only issue when choosing a Bible version. We should be confident in the underlying text. We should also be comfortable with the translation philosophy and the purpose behind the translation. In this article, I’d like to trace the transmission of the Greek New Testament texts through history.

Texts are typically divided into families of transmission. There are three primary families that most students of the Bible will talk about: Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine (also known as the Traditional text or Majority text).

Western Texts

The Western Greek manuscripts are known for paraphrasing the words of Scripture. Now, I’m not opposed to paraphrasing when it comes to summarizing a passage of Scripture, when performing a play or skit produced from Scripture, or when teaching Bible. I am opposed to changing the original words of Scripture. If we cannot say with absolution and authority that God said something, then we shouldn’t even bother. If Jesus said “My words shall not pass away”, then He meant it. A quick read through Psalm 119 makes it very clear that God’s Word is eternal. The Western texts are a paraphrase of Scripture, not Scripture itself.

The Western texts also tend to add to Scripture from other books. This is most serious, since adding and taking away from God’s Word is a sin in the highest degree. I personally think that it is strange that anyone even considers these this group of texts to even be considered a family of text. The original words of Scripture have been paraphrased, taken away, and added to. It is no wonder that there are very few ancient papyri, uncials (Greek manuscripts written in all capital letters), or miniscules (Greek manuscripts written in all lower-case letters) available.

Alexandrian Texts

The Alexandrian texts originated in Alexandria, Egypt. Codex Vaticanus (found in the Vatican library) and Codex Sinaiticus (found in the trash-room of a monastery on Mt. Sinai) are usually placed in this family. There is some debate over exactly how many papyri and uncials are in the Alexandrian text family. The reason for this is that the majority of old manuscripts are really only fragments of manuscripts. However, for the sake of fairness, I am willing to go along with the assertion that the oldest manuscripts (uncials) and papyri are of this family. Those of modern scholarship (though I cringe to call it that) favor the Alexandrian text for the following reasons:

1. They believe the more difficult the original is to interpret, the closer it is to actual Scripture.
2. They believe the shorter the original is, the closer it is to actual Scripture.
3. They believe that older manuscripts are better manuscripts.

I have problems with all three assertions. First of all, there doesn’t seem to be any basis for believing that difficult is better. That assumption seems to be entirely arbitrary. This is believing that difficult is better than simple. This is a baseless claim.

To the second assertion, we must ask why shorter is better. This claim is once again arbitrary. Those who hold to this view maintain that Mark 16 should have ended with the disciples running scared from the empty tomb of Jesus. They believe that Mark never wrote of the women at the tomb or of Jesus’ ascension into Heaven. These people do not even believe that we can know the actual words of Scripture in the first place.

Finally, we come to the assertion that “older is better.” While this might be true of wine or cheese, it isn’t always true elsewhere. We must ask ourselves why these copies survived and others didn’t. First of all, the climate of Egypt is much  more suited to preserving parchment and papyri. It has very low humidity, less rainfall, and a narrow degree of temperature change. It would make sense for these texts to survive for longer periods of time. Secondly, Kirsopp Lake believed that the copiers of the Byzantine text type (having originated primarily in Antioch) would have emphasized a respectful disposal of worn-out manuscripts. A third explanation is that the Church (here capitalized to mean the body of true believers) did not heavily use the Alexandrian manuscripts since they were not in line with actual Scripture. In contrast, the Byzantine manuscripts were heavily used and therefore wore out much more quickly.

I also struggle with the acceptance of Alexandrian manuscripts because of the Gnostic apostasy that was heavily taught in Alexandria. I have few reasons to trust people who believed in such error. I would also point out that the two famous (infamous?) Alexandrian manuscripts were found in suspicious locations. Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library. This already makes it suspicious to some people’s minds, since many Christians are not Catholic because of doctrinal reasons. Sinaiticus, on the other hand, was found in a trash room, waiting to be burned. That the monks didn’t even consider Sinaiticus worth saving makes us suspect that they knew the errors it contained. Finally, we must consider that the Byzantine text is has, in recent years, been given a position of higher authority by some scholars. In fact, the American Bible Society’s Greek manuscript of 1966 has changed from the Alexandrian reading back to the Byzantine reading in thirteen different passages. (Zane C. Hodges, A Defense of the Majority-Text, pg 14.)

Byzantine Texts

The vast majority of New Testament manuscripts are of this family of texts. Zane C. Hodges writes that there are 81 papyri, 267 uncials, and 2,764 miniscules. Of these manuscripts, eighty to ninety percent are in agreement with the Traditional text. Some scholars, such as Riplinger, would put the percentage much higher, even as high as ninety-nine percent. Harry A. Sturz notes in The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism that the preservation of this vast body of manuscripts is God’s stamp of approval on this text. Indeed, it would make sense that the text most used by the early church would be the text preserved by God, and the vast numbers of manuscripts recovered throughout the centuries would be a great testament to God’s marvelous work of preservation. This was, in fact, the position of the New Testament church with regard to inspiration.
Many of these manuscripts appear to originate in Antioch. Textual critics argue that the Traditional text must be an edited version of the Alexandrian texts. This argument makes little sense historically for two reasons. First, a church which sent out missionaries across the known world was most likely a distributor and not a receiver of manuscripts. From the books of Acts and Galatians, we know that Barnabas, Paul, and Peter all ministered there. Secondly, Jews fleeing Jerusalem would have understood the importance of careful copying of Scripture and would have impressed this concept on all who were at the Antiochan church.
Another proof of the early church’s possession and use of the Traditional text is that the early church fathers quoted and paraphrased it frequently. Sturz lists eighteen examples of this as proof, citing Clement, Tertullian, Marcion, and Origen as examples. In fact, from the time of Chrysostom on, the Traditional text is the predominant text in patristic citations.While certain
The Traditional text is not only the most numerous family of texts, but is also used universally. These texts have been recovered from all over the Greco-Roman world. By contrast, the corrupt texts appear to originate in only Alexandria. The implication is obvious: the Traditional text is an accurate sampling of the text used throughout the known world in early times, while the Alexandrian texts come solely from Alexandria and the surrounding locales.

My point in all of this is that most modern translations come from the Alexandrian text family while most- if not all- older translations come from the Byzantine text family. That’s another story, though…

Scripture: The Revealed Word

In previous posts, I’ve spoken about God’s revelation of Himself through nature and Jesus Himself. I will finish this train of thought and begin another by discussing the topic of Special Revelation. God revealed certain aspects of Himself through Creation. God’s ultimate self-disclosure was in Jesus Christ. Peter tells us that we have  another revelation from God that we can be confident in. (2 Peter 1:16-21) This final revelation we have to discuss is the Word of God.

Like the Incarnate Word and the Creative Word, the Living Word has unique characteristics. The Creation displayed God’s infinite intellect and majesty (Psalm 19). The Incarnate Word revealed God Himself to mankind and is the chief method of God’s interaction with His creation (Hebrews 1). Scripture reveals God’s words and thoughts. This makes the Bible a unique gift to mankind. While the Creation reveals God’s power and sovereignty and the Incarnation reveals God’s nature and personality, the Bible reveals His theology and philosophy. King David writes the following in Psalm 19:7-11:

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

There are many details that I could go over when discussing the uniqueness of the Bible. I could talk about the probability of a book claiming to be written by God to be logically coherent when it was penned by scores of men over several thousand years from different parts of the world speaking three different languages. I could reference the accuracy and detail of prophecy. I could talk about the probability of an ancient book making it to our day without losing anything. (Since many of our Greek and even English classics have gaps in them.)

However, I would point out that the Bible itself predicted that it would last forever and claims to come from God. (Psalm 119:89) To make a claim to be eternal truth is one thing, but to actually be true in both spiritual and physical realities is quite another. To speak for God (thus saith the Lord) is one thing, but to bear the marks of the Divine is something quite different.

Scripture allows us to think God’s thoughts after Him. We can partake of the knowledge of the Holy any time we desire. God reveals His past works, His present will, and His future plan in one Book that spans the ages. Who would shun such a wondrous gift?

Fiat: The Creative Word

King David of Israel wrote the following words, which are recorded for us in Psalm 19:1-3:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.

How have the heavens spoken? In what way has God revealed Himself to mankind? At God’s fiat (an authoritative decree coming from the Latin word meaning “Let it be done” [Fiat lux = Let there be light]), matter, energy, and even time itself leapt into existence. Every experiment and experience we are a part of is made possible by God’s Creative Word. God’s very act of creation was done to glorify Himself and to point mankind to Him. His beauty is reflected in the starry sky. He is shown to be wise in the complexity of the human eye, to speak nothing of the body. His majesty is revealed in the roaring of the ocean waves. His power is displayed in the thunder and lightning.

On a sunny spring morning, we can hear His music that birds sing. On a wintry day, we can discover His “treasures of the snow.” The physicist and mathematician are impressed by the elegance of the natural laws designed by the great Mathematician. The more we learn about our universe- and there is so much to learn- the more impressed we are by the magnificence of God. Whoever you are, wherever you are, and whenever you are, God designed His world with you in mind. He makes His presence so obvious, Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that those who deny God’s existence are without excuse.

Logos: The Incarnate Word

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.- John 1:1-5

These verses are perhaps the most profound in all of Scripture. They tell us of the Word Incarnate, Jesus, Who has come to be the ultimate revelation of the Father in Heaven. The Word came to reveal the glory and personality of the Godhead in a tangible form. By coming in human form, we could relate to Him and He could relate to us. We could see God for the first time, and He could experience the suffering that sin had created.

Kant tells us that reason is limited because we don’t know what it is like to BE anything but human. Though we may gain a perspective on a thing, we can never know what it is to be something other than human. Jesus cannot be said to be limited in His understanding of humanity because He is human. That’s the easy part, though.

“In the beginning was the Word…”

By way of introduction, John tells us that Jesus existed before the Creation. When the Beginning (Genesis 1) took place, Jesus already was. He is the uncreated Creator. Paul writes in Colossians 1:15-17:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Jesus is unique because He not only existed prior to the created universe (matter, energy, time, etc.), but because He is eternal just as the Father is eternal. This is necessary because He is the ultimate self-disclosure of the Father. The Godhead is revealed in Jesus’ words, emotions, actions, and attitudes. If Jesus were merely pre-existent but not eternal (as some cults believe), He would be unable to speak for God adequately. In order for Jesus to speak for a God Who is infinite in all of His attributes (love, holiness, justice, mercy, grace, power, etc.) He must be eternal because only the eternal can truly understand Infinity. This is where we fall so short. We categorize God using systematic theologies (which are admittedly very helpful), but He is above all categorization. We are accustomed to things having beginnings because we had a beginning, but God never began. He simply is. His very name, “I AM” tells us of His ever-present nature. Unlike us, Christ has missed nothing of God. He also always is.

“The Word was with God…”

If the Word was with God, then He is not the same person as the Father. “With” also implies a unique relationship with the Father. For all of eternity the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had enjoyed unbroken, perfect communion with each other. They understood one another and basked in each Other’s glory and love. God didn’t need a creation to be complete. He was complete in and of Himself. For all of eternity, God loves, glorifies, and communes with Himself, but not in the narcissistic sense we think of when speaking of humans. As a tri-unity (trinity), the Father loves and glorifies the Son and Spirit, the Son loves and glorifies the Father and Spirit, and the Spirit loves and glorifies the Father and Son. So the Persons of the Godhead love and glorify each other infinitely and eternally. So it should be, for God alone is worthy of infinite love and glory.

“…and the Word WAS God…”

John asserts that Jesus was Divine in all aspects. He has the same essence, nature, character, and quality of God. He is no less Divine than the Father is. Though He takes the position of Son for Himself, He is no less than God Himself.

“In Him was Life…”

Jesus came to give us life. This does not just mean that He intends for us to merely have eternal life, but also He intends for us to have abundant life. (John 15) Consider John’s words in the following verses:

• John 20:31—“But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name.”
• (quoting Jesus) John 10:10—“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

Spiritual (zoe as opposed to bios) life is referenced 36 times in John’s gospel. That’s more than the other three Gospels combined. John emphasizes that Jesus’ life is not just about quantity; it’s about quality. No, I’m not talking about a “health and wealth” gospel. I’m talking about something eternal and intangible that comes our way as a result of faith in Him. He came to give us something unbelievable and indescribable. God stepped into the mess that humans had made and ministered with compassion, healed in love, and spoke truth to all who would listen. Some people didn’t like it though…

“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Light. God’s emblem for Himself. It’s the first thing He made, and it’s how He reveals Himself: burning bushes, the Shekinah glory, the Mount of Transfiguration. Hebrews 1:1-3 begins:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…”

I don’t think it’s incidental that Jesus is called the brightness of His glory in Hebrews and the Light in John. There was darkness as a result of Adam’s fall and now Jesus, acting as the light now points the way back to God. Light symbolizes His holiness, perfection, etc. Darkness, however, is not simply absence of light in John’s gospel. It is a moral category. It is characterized by a hatred of light, evil, and general hostility toward God. Light, however, is able to pierce the Darkness and overtake Evil’s territory. Evil itself is overwhelmed by the “invasion” of God’s Light.

Darkness cannot comprehend the Light. “Comprehend” here does not mean mere understanding. It speaks of overwhelming, destroying, and seizing with hostile intent. Jesus came to give Light, but fallen humanity didn’t like the light they saw. Light is never simply ignored. Darkness attempted to destroy the Light on the Cross. Why? Light reveals Truth even when it is not palatable. Light reveals God for Who He is, and people hate Him for it.

The story doesn’t end there, though. The greatest miracle of all took place three days later. The Father resurrected the Son, and after being seen by hundreds of people, He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the Father’s side.

The Light won.

Evangelical Darwinism

Bertrand Russell

I’ve written a few posts on the religiosity of Darwinism, but now I want to turn my attention toward the “evangelical” aspects of the movement itself. The term “evangelical” is, of course, generally applied to a particular type of Christianity. Evangelicalism emphasizes a variety of means to bringing people to the truth as well as withstanding the advancement of sin or anti-Christian thought: preaching by evangelists, apologetics, sermons (both fiery and compassionate), and public outcry against heresy, apostasy, and immorality.

Strangely enough, Atheism and Darwinism share many of these same traits. They have evangelists: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and others. These men preach powerful sermons and employ convincing apologetics. They warn the listener of the dangers of religion. They are no post-modernists; they see everything in terms of black and white. In fact, they even go so far as to speak in apocalyptic terms concerning the results of a truly Christian nation. To change one’s mind concerning atheism is viewed as  a type of apostasy. Dawkins himself went so far as to refer to Anthony Flew’s “conversion” from atheism to deism as “tergiversation”, a term that is synonymous with apostasy.

In addition to the nature-worship I mentioned at the end of the previous post, they also associate Charles Darwin with Messianic terminology. “Cosmology,” says Richard Dawkins in his debate against John Lennox, “is still waiting for its Darwin.” Stephen Jay Gould is even more explicit in the deification of Darwinin his “Sociobiology: the Art of Storytelling”: “All theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and … Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists.” Michael White echoed Gould in 2002 when he said: “Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher.”

Once again, lest you think that I’m twisting words or “making a mountain out of a molehill”, allow me to quote Darwinist Michael Ruse on the subject:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

Is Darwinism a sufficient faith? I think not. It does not answer the burning questions of the soul. Consider the words of Katharine Tait in her book My Father, Bertrand Russell:

I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life. I would have liked to persuade him that the search for God does not have to be vain. Somewhere at the back of my father’s mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depths of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled with God, and he never found anything else to put in it.

Lest someone accuse Tait of making her case a little too poignant compared to Russell’s own feelings, here is Russell in his own autobiography: “Nothing can penetrate the loneliness of the human heart except the highest intensity of the sort of love the religious teachers have preached.”

Darwinism, atheism, and their ilk are insufficient replacements for true faith in God, for in Him we live, and move, and have our being. Apart from Him, we are left with, in the words of Tait again, “a ghostlike feeling of not belonging, of having no home in this world.”

The Evolution of Pantheism

In my previous post, I contrasted Christianity and Pantheism, the belief that all of Creation is a god. Pantheism has taken on many forms, some of them more complex and articulate than others. Ancient animism, the New Age movement, and the Greek Pantheon all smack of Pantheism in one way or another. In contrast to these belief systems and others, which either attempt to pit various gods or spirits against each other or identify the universe itself as a god, Christianity asserts that God exists uncreated beyond space and time. He may choose to enter our world to accomplish His purpose, but He does not belong to It any more than Picasso belonged to one of his paintings.

Most recently, Darwinism has crept on the scene as the “new” pantheism. In the evolutionary paradigm, lifeless matter and energy somehow- and most scientists are careful enough to inform us that they don’t know how- spawned or created life. Not only did the lifeless universe produce life, it produced information to allow life to reproduce. Where did this information- this DNA- come from? Computer programs, books, magazines, and even Snickers wrappers tell me that an intelligence created them. When I see these things, I know a mind has been at work.

Whether they realize it or not, in the unbelievers’ effort to banish God from their minds, they have replaced Him with something preposterous. They have returned to a sophisticated kind of pantheism. Instead of spirits, gods, or a living universe creating life, they have attributed life to an unliving universe. They have attributed information to a universe without a mind. They have endowed mere matter and energy with god-like creative powers.

Am I going too far in comparing Darwinism to Pantheism? I think not. Consider the words of atheist Carl Sagan in his work Pale Blue Dot:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Sagan obviously believes that the universe is far more magnificent than God. Consider also the words of Paul Davies, who believes that mathematics (which he ascribes intelligence, personality, and inherent power to) alone could produce our universe:

There’s no need to invoke anything supernatural in the origins of the universe or of life. I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering. For me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being.

Richard Dawkins has similar things to say. When John Lennox concluded his debate with Dawkins by pointing to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the focus of the Christian faith, Dawkins responded by saying: “Having proven some case for a deistic God, you fall back on the Resurrection. It’s so petty, it’s so trivial. So unworthy of the universe.”

Darwinists cannot escape the striking beauty, majesty, and wonder of the universe. Without a God to be grateful to and worship, they are only left with an undue reverence for God’s Creation and a desire to attribute intelligence and life to that which is unliving and thoughtless.

As Paul writes in Romans 1:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. . . .Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

Pantheism, Theism, and Dell Computers

3,350 years ago Moses commanded Israel to worship only God and to remember all that He had done for them “lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.”

1400 years later, Paul wrote in Romans 1:21-23: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

These two men, speaking on behalf of God, reminded their audience to avoid confusing Creation with its Creator. In contrast to the polytheism and pantheism of the ancient cultures, the Jews and Christians  recognized only one God Who is distinct from His Creation. Consider the following verses:

• Isaiah 57:15 calls God “the High and Lofty One that Inhabiteth Eternity.”
• Deuteronomy 3:24 says: “O Lord GOD, thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might?”
• John 1:1 tells us that when the universe began, the Word (Logos) already existed.

According to the Biblical paradigm, God exists beyond space and outside of time. In his Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers, Werner Jaeger writes that the Word is the Supreme Intellect or Supreme Power “who is stationed outside the world and brings that world into existence by His own fiat. The Greek gods are stationed inside the world ; they are descended from Heaven and Earth…they are generated by the mighty power of Eros who likewise belongs within the world as an all-engendering primitive force….When Hesiod‘s thought [the Theogony]at last gives way to truly philosophical thinking, the Divine is sought inside the world- not outside it, as in the Jewish Christian theology that develops out of the book of Genesis.”

Surely, men such as Xenophanes attributed the existence of our universe to one supreme God, but monotheism rarely existed outside of the Judeo-Christian religion. It was this Judeo-Christian message of monotheism that distinguished the forces of Nature from the Creator of nature. Furthermore, it was upon this foundational belief that the scaffolding of European science was built. Pantheism in its many forms portrayed our universe as mysterious and unknowable because our world was filled with various deities with vast creative and destructive powers. In contrast, believers saw the world as knowable and logical because it was the product of the mind of a reasonable God.

Today, some unbelievers criticize Christianity because they say that it is lazy to believe that God is involved in any way in Creation. They believe that science blended with naturalism is the only way to rightly view the world. However, belief in God as Creator is not the same thing as belief in God as a motivating force in the physical universe.

James Clerk Maxwell knew these truths when he inscribed the following on the doors of the Cavendish Physics laboratory in Cambridge: “Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them.”  He recognized that the wonder of the universe was meant to point us to a God Who is distinct from his Creation. God is the Creator, not the universe itself.

Perhaps an illustration would be helpful.

Suppose I was completely computer illiterate, but I decided to buy a Dell laptop. I have two options for explaining how my laptop works:

1. I could hold to a view that the computer was made to function in a certain way and given all of the parts necessary to fulfill its purpose.  In this view, “Dell” is the creator of the computer, but as such he is distinct from the computer components themselves.
2. I could also assume that “Dell” was inside the computer causing the various functions of the computer to take place. To do so would be to make the same mistake as the Greeks in their pantheon.

Of course no one is so foolish as to make this second assumption. To figure out the “mechanism” behind the computer, you would have to figure out which parts performed what function. You could also learn about the physics and chemistry behind it if you wanted. However, even those who hold to a “mechanism” view of the computer would still believe in the existence of “Dell the Creator.”

Similarly, Christians do believe that nature’s “mechanisms” should be discovered. However, they also hold that God is the Creator, the Uncaused Cause of reality. There is no conflict in the Christian worldview, for the only other options are pantheism or atheism. Just as “Dell” is not a mechanism of the computer, God is not sitting in some darkened corner of the universe waiting to be discovered nor is He mysteriously guiding the forces of nature. Eternity beyond our universe is His abode. The Creation itself is merely the outworking of His beauty, majesty, wisdom, and power. To truly find Him, He must reveal Himself and Reality somehow. In fact, He has in His Word. (It’s just too bad that Dell doesn’t explain themselves so well in their instruction manuals.)

What Do Scientists Believe?

Given the heated debates of recent years between scientists and Christians, one would think that all- or at least the overwhelming majority- of scientists historically and contemporarily are either atheists or agnostics. Strangely this isn’t the case.

According to Dr. John Lennox, a 1910 survey of 1,000 scientists in America found that 41.8% believed in “a God who answered prayer and in personal immortality” while 41.5% said they did not. The remaining 16.7% were agnostic. Larry Witham, author of Where Darwin Meets the Bible, administered this same survey in 1996 and found that 39.6% believed in “a God who answered prayer and in personal immortality” while 45.5% said no. The remaining 14.9% were agnostic. While the scales have turned marginally in favor of atheism, this is hardly a landslide for atheism.

For the rest of this blog article and perhaps another after this, I’ll let the philosophers and historians of science speak for themselves so that we can see what they have to say about the relationship between science and their worldview. Obviously, I don’t agree with everything these men say. My point is that the same men can look at the same data and reach different conclusions based solely on worldview.

“Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge emerged from religion….Only the religious- among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the underinformed- hope there is a dark corner of the physical universe, or the universe of experience , that science can never hope to illuminate.”- Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University

“The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion….Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.”- Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

“Our science is God’s science. He holds the responsibility for the whole scientific story….The remarkable order, consistency, reliability, and fascinating complexity found in the scientific description of the universe are reflections of the order, consistency, reliability, and complexity of God’s activity.”- Sir John Houghton

“For many years I have believed that God is the great designer behind all nature….All my studies in science since then have confirmed my faith.”- Sir Ghillean Prance

“As I try to discern the origin of that conviction [that the universe is orderly and therefore can be discovered by man's reason], I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.”- Melvin Calvin

“Modern science must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God….My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology.”- Sir Alfred North Whitehead

“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”- Johannes Kepler

“The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”- Galileo

“The visible order of the universe proclaims a supreme intelligence.”– Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“Science brings men closer to God.”– Louis Pasteur

“From a knowledge of His work, we shall know Him.”– Robert Boyle

“Subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ex nihilo creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”- Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III

Atheists and Agnostics, What Would You Do?

I’ve read a lot of well-reasoned arguments by atheists/agnostics (such as my friend Nitwit Nastik), and I have also read  a lot of well-reasoned arguments by Christians concerning their faith. I’ve also had quite a few good conversations with people from both faith systems on my blog and other blogs. So I want to pose a question to all of the atheists and agnostics out there. As with elsewhere on my blog, I ask that your answers be reasonable, fair, and not include foul language. I’m not planning on responding on this post. I just want to hear what the “man on the street” type atheists have to say.

Suppose that, probability and beliefs aside, the worst case scenario for unbelievers comes to pass. You die, God does exist, and His methods of determining who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell are just as the Bible predicts. Those who are repentent and trust Christ’s work on the Cross receive Heaven. Those who did not trust Christ receive Hell. However, God gives you an opportunity to state your case. You have one chance to and explain why you disbelieved Him. What would you say?

I’m interested to hear what you have to say!

Change Worth Believing In

Recently, I have been made aware of an argument against Christianity that is really somewhat shocking to me. This argument states that Christianity is not all that unique. In fact, Christianity- so say the critics- is just one more attempt by man to set up moral standards, reward good behavior, and comfort those in need of a “crutch” by offering them a God to obey and lean on. I have to tell you, I just don’t see the resemblance between Christianity and these religions.

Oh, I know that Christianity shares a similar moral code with many different religions. I also know that many religions claim to have a way to God, an afterlife, etc. Every religion has some fragment of truth in it, but a fragment of truth and having the Truth are not the same thing. All religions recognize the obvious flaws in mankind. What religions don’t agree on is how to take care of those flaws. Islam and Judaism, for all their differences, attempt to make adherents follow a legal code. They have their own distinct yet similar Law which restrains evil and makes or breaks one’s chances of a decent afterlife. Buddhism and Hinduism rely heavily on meditation and other practices to focus on inner strength, purity of thought, and peace.

Christianity has a different answer. Christianity also recognizes that humanity has an evil bent. Christianity also has elements of Law and an emphasis on the eternal soul. Law serves a different purpose in Christianity, however. The Apostle Paul writes the following in Galatians 3:24-25: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” The Old Testament Law’s purpose is to teach us that we can’t live up to God’s standard. There comes a point when we “graduate”, though, and we don’t need our teacher any more. Once we “graduate” our souls gain their true significance.

If we can’t live up to God’s standard, what are we to do? Can we just make up for our shortcomings by doing more good works? No, because “good works” are what we are expected to do anyway. Whatever good we accomplish in our lives, we can never undo the bad things we did. Under the law, every lie, lustful thought, moment of indiscretion, bitter thought, etc. is an action that we are “paid” for. Paul tells us of this payment  in Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death.” This spiritual death leaves the sinner in Hell for all of eternity.

What is Christianity’s alternative to Sin and Hell? How do we earn our way to God and His Heaven? The answer is perhaps the most shocking in all of history: we don’t. We can’t. God’s standard is not that we be good, but it is that we be perfect. Many have claimed to be good, but few- if any- would claim to be perfect. This is where God steps in and does the unexpected. He came down into a world of sorrow and violence caused by man’s sin and took on human flesh. He doesn’t take on flesh to advise, encourage, punish, or trick us as the heathen “gods” did. He took on flesh to experience human suffering and, ultimately, to endure the agonies of the Cross “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

When we could not ascend to God because of our sin, God came down to us. This is the great difference between religions and Christianity. Some religions may share similar thoughts with Christianity, but things change dramatically when it comes to Jesus. Muslims are willing to accept Him as a prophet and even recognize His perfection and virgin birth, but they stop short of calling Him “God.” That Allah would take on flesh is akin to blasphemy. Judaism is offended that Messiah would die and thus rejects Him. Buddhism and Hinduism have little- if any- regard for Jesus. In the person of Jesus, the Divine experienced the pain and suffering of this world and the weight and guilt of sin. The Lord of Life experienced Death. This shocking truth is what separates Jesus from all other “gods” and faiths. Trusting in His death and resurrection makes Christianity a “change” from all other religions. It’s a change worth believing in.

When Faith Justifies Mass Murder

While my previous posts have emphasized the gross distortion of facts concerning the Galileo “incident”, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc., I want to now turn to atheism and its effects. Atheism is considered a belief system because it posits, without evidence, that God does not exist. It must be taken on faith in philosophy alone. The last century saw the rise of powerful atheist regimes in Russia, China, Germany, among others. Stalin’s Communist regime was responsible for the deaths of around 20 million people. Mao Zedong’s regime was responsible for around 70 million. Strangely enough, Hitler “lags behind” his fellow atheist’s regimes by “only” murdering 10 million people, 60% of whom were Jews. Pol Pot of Cambodia was responsible for the deaths of 20% of his country’s population in only four years. All told, atheist regimes are responsible for the deaths of well over 100 million people. Think about it: an estimated 200,000 people were killed in the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch burnings combined. Even if you adjust for the increase in population between the Middle Ages, colonial American history, and the 20th century, the deaths caused in the name of Christ only amount to 1% of those caused by atheist regimes of just the “Big Three”: Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

Stalin and Mao’s Communist regimes were strongly anti-religious. We have little reason to doubt that atheism is a major component of their ideology. Their brand of Communism calls for the elimination of wealthier classes, emphasizes violent change, and calls for the creation of an atheist “utopia.” Both Communism and Nazism saw Christianity as an obstacle, if not an outright enemy.

A book titled Hitler’s Table Talk gives a collection of Hitler’s private writings and opinions which was compiled by one of his aides. He called Christianity a “scourge” and desired that Germany be “immunized against this disease.” Through the lower classes he wanted to “destroy Christianity”, and he blamed the Jews for “inventing” Christianity. He saw Christianity as weak because it emphasized equality and compassion. Hitler’s advisers such as Bormann, Goebbels, Heydrich, and Himmler were rabid atheists who despised religion.

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, imprisoned and murdered the clergy, closed churches and religious schools, confiscated church property, and censored religious writings. This was Nietzsche’s “lust to dominate” come full circle. That mentality combined with a modern idealogy that saw man as the originator of morality (a natural result of atheism) resulted in a bloodbath that the world still mourns over. Atheism, not Christianity or even Islam, is responsible for the greatest massacres found in history.

Atheist Urban Legends, Part 2

In the previous section, I pointed out that the historical account of “Galileo vs. the Roman Catholic Church” doesn’t quite jive with the version most often cited by the New Atheists and some Protestants, there are some other instances in which history has not been presented accurately. I demonstrated that the primary conflict was between the Church and Galileo the man, not the Church and Galileo the scientist. I’ll say this a thousand time throughout this post, but I’m not interested in sweeping these things under the carpet and pretended they didn’t happen. I am, however, interested in getting the truth out.

The “Crusades”

We’ve all heard the stories about the atrocities that were committed and the millions killed by people claiming the name of Christ in the Crusades. I’m not going to deny that there were injustices committed during this time by the Church, just as I did not deny that some wrongdoing occurred on both sides during the conflict between Galileo and the Church. However, some things do need to be cleared up.

First of all, the name “Crusade” was later applied to this conflict. Neither Catholics nor Muslims ever called their battles a Crusade. Second of all, the real issue when the Crusades began was the Muslim invasion of Europe. Let us not forget that the Muslim armies were poised to completely overrun Europe at this time. They had conquered the entire Middle East and parts of Northern Africa, Asia, and Europe. They had conquered parts of Italy, most of Spain, pushed through the Balkans, and were preparing for a full-scale invasion of Europe. Edward Gibbon wrote that if the West hadn’t mounted a defense when they did “the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the Revelation of Mahomet.” As it stood, it took European Christians 200 years to finally defend themselves on a large scale.

As for the “Crusaders” themselves, they thought of themselves mainly as pilgrims. They made any number of mistakes, none of which I am seeking to defend. I am only attempting to give a context to what may seem brutal to our 21st-century minds. Under the Catholic mindset of “works salvation“, they gave up everything to try to free Europe and Israel from Muslim rule. The Crusade efforts left the vast majority poorer than when they started. This lack of support by the nations of Europe and the Catholic Church left them to loot and forage for themselves. Raping, plundering, and the horrific “Children’s Crusade” can’t be justified by any terms. However it should be remembered that good did come from the madness. As D’nesh D’souza observes: “The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christians lands.”

The Inquisition

Once again, I’m making no attempt to justify many of the actions of the Inquisition. Many atrocities were, in fact, committed by the Inquisition. However, there were far fewer than you might think. Historian Henry Kamen estimates that around 2,000 people were put to death over the course of 350 years. That’s just over five people per year. I’m not minimizing the deaths of people who were largely innocent, however I think we would all agree that this is not nearly so dramatic as we have been led to believe. In fact, the vast majority of those who were tried by the Inquisition, most were punished through what we would call community service. This is much less harsh than the national courts at the time.

The Salem Witch Trials

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible has captivated the imaginations of generations, and many other sources have enhanced this dramatic effect. Carl Sagan writes guesses that there may have been hundreds or thousands killed in these massacres. The actual number of deaths by execution is recorded for us by historians. Nineteen women were sentenced to death, and about six more died while in prison. Once again, I’m not minimizing the deaths of these women, but Sagan and others have grossly exaggerated the number of persecuted.

Conclusion

Should these accounts, of death, torture, thievery, and rape be ignored or minimized? Of course not. Does this more realistic picture justify the actions and beliefs of the historical Catholics and Puritans? Never. However, I do have a few points to make in all of this.

1. Atheists and others have done a marvelous job of spreading these Urban Legends to the point that most people believe them.
2. Just because someone commits an action in the name of Christ does not mean that Christ would have approved.
3. A faith should not be judged based on what its followers do when they do not act in accordance with that faith’s teachings.
4. What the Catholic Church or the Puritans do should not reflect poorly on Protestants (many of whom do not believe that the Church should be a political entity) and other orthodox Christians.
5. Even if the atrocities mentioned are laid to the account of Christianity as a whole, there is another faith that does far worse than Christianity. Let those who are without blame cast the first stone.

Atheistic Urban Legends, Part 1

Galileo

It’s come to my attention, after reading D’nesh D’Souza’s apologetic What’s So Great About Christianity, that there are some urban legends being spread by our friends the New Atheists (and a good number of old atheists, too) that need to be cleared up. It’s a tall tale that’s been repeated often and frequently, so much so that some Christians, especially those bent on villifying Catholicism, have bought into the story.

I’m going to go through them very briefly, but I’ll leave the deep digging up to you. Please be forewarned, the average Internet site is just going to go on spreading the myth. Unfortunately, you’ll have to read actual books to get to the bottom of this….

Galileo vs. “The Church”

Everyone knows that scientists and Roman Catholic Church have been at odds for years. Even Catholics have strived to show approval with modern scientific theories, lest their reputation continue. Actually, the concept of Science vs. Religion was born in the 1800s, not the Middle Ages. John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom are the source books for many of these myths. Draper’s book, in particular, is now read mostly as a case study in fin de siecle anti-religious prejudice. While both books are used by atheists as source material for their propaganda, both have been discredited time and time again.

To the point, though. The Church of Galileo’s day accepted the idea of a geocentric solar system because of the sophisticated writings of Ptolemy. Up until Galileo’s day, the data and common sense (or at least the common sense of the day) supported Ptolemy’s theory that the earth was the center of the solar system. Copernicus’ heliocentric model (by his own admission) lacked proof, but it was interesting enough to gain a following. Though Galileo had advanced the theory, Tyco Brahe and the Jesuits (who were among the leading astronomers of the day) told Galileo that he still lacked enough evidence to prove the heliocentric model.

Surprisingly (at least to those of us who have been essentially lied to all these years), the Pope and the head of the Inquisition (Bellarmine) were both very interested in Galileo’s discoveries, since astronomical research was typically conducted at church-sponsored observatories and universities. Instead of holding a trial for Galileo, Bellarmine met with him privately in 1616 after Galileo had met with the pope several times and attended various receptions. Bellarmine and Galileo agreed that since Galileo’s evidence was inconclusive, Galileo should not teach or promote the heliocentric theory. This was recorded as an injunction and filed in the church files.

Several years later, when Pope Urban VIII came into power, Galileo believed that the winds had changed and went against the injunction and published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Galileo made a number of errors at this point.

1. His proof for the heliocentric model contained an error: he said that the earth’s motion caused the Earth’s tides.
2. Galileo also said that all planets travel in circular patterns, an idea that was disproven by Kepler.
3. Galileo’s Dialogue centers on two characters: himself and a man named “Simplicio” who bore a striking resemblance to the Pope. Not only did he mock the Pope (unintentionally) in doing so, but Simplicio’s arguments were caricatures of the real geocentric arguments in Galileo’s day.
4. Finally, and most importantly, Galileo also advanced the idea that Scripture was merely an allegory that had to be constantly reinterpreted to be meaningful. Here he left science and went into theology.  This was the age of the Reformation, and the Pope wanted to make it clear that Catholicism was faithful to Scripture, so this accusation could not be tolerated.

In 1633 Galileo was tried for advocating the heliocentric model when he had agreed to the injunction, supporting a non-literal interpretation of Scripture, and deceiving the Inquisition by not revealing his previous agreement with Bellarmine earlier and attempting to side-step that agreement through his “fictional” characters. Arthur Koestler’s writes that Galileo’s defense “was so patently dishonest that his case would have been lost in any court.”

Galileo’s punishment was that he had to recant his heliocentric position and placed under house arrest. He was never charged with heresy for a heliocentric view, placed in a dungeon, or tortured. His “house arrest” lasted five months in which he had to stay in the palace of the archbishop of Siena. After he went home, and still under house arrest, Galileo was allowed to visit family throughout Italy and continue scientific research and writing. He died of natural causes in 1642.

I’m not trying to justify the Catholic Church’s actions. I’m not a Roman Catholic myself, so frankly I don’t feel any need to do so. I do, however, believe that we need to stop propagating the myth that Galileo was branded as heretical for scientific discoveries and subsequently tortures. It villifies a Church that was an avid supporter of scientific research and knowledge in general.

It also ignores the political power that the Church of the Middle Ages had. Right, wrong, or indifferent, nations had given up their national sovereignty to a religious entity. As it stands, the Church actually dealt very compassionately toward the aging Galileo, and Galileo’s own pride and deceit must not be left out of this picture if we are to get an accurate view of history. Should the Church have the right to “try” anyone in this manner? Of course not. Did the Church behave in such an awful manner towards a man of science and of faith? Not even close.

Why the Water Boils: Procedural vs. Philosophical Atheism

Why is the water boiling? One could explain, in scientific terms, how water molecules behave when they reach a certain temperature. That is certainly one reasonable explanation. There’s another very reasonable explanation: I want a cup of hot tea on a cold morning. Neither of these answers would be wrong. One answer explains how matter and energy behave, while another explains purpose. So it is with science and Christianity. There is no difficulty in reconciling science with religion. They work in different fields to explain reality. Why then do atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, say that the two “sides” are at war with each other? The difference is in the types of atheism.

Leaving God out of the Gaps

The first type of atheism is what D’souza calls procedural atheism. Procedural atheists aren’t really atheists at all, at least not in the sense that we usually think of atheists. Procedural atheists are merely trying to find ways to accurately describe how the universe works. I don’t know a Christian that has a problem with this. No one wants to see a scientist trying to find a cure for disease and just give up, claiming that the disease was a miracle, so no cure could be found. No one wants to hear that it’s impossible to understand how stars are formed because, as a part of God’s miraculous creation, we can’t really know how it works in the first place. Procedural atheism treats nature as if that is all that exists simply because nature is all that science has to work with. There are a many scientists that believe in God that use procedural atheism in their discoveries.

Astronomer Owen Gingerich writes: “Science works within a constrained framework in creating brilliant pictures of nature. This does not mean that the universe is actually godless, just that science within its own framework has no other way of working.” Gingerich later writes: “Reality goes much deeper. A universe where God can play an interactive role…is not excluded by science.”

No “Divine Feet”

Philosophical atheism, on the other hand, is a dogmatic position that believes that the natural universe is all that exists. Often, procedural and philosophical atheism are blended to form a case against a Creator. The philosophical atheist dogma barricades itself into a very small box, shielding itself against any knowledge that does not fit the naturalistic theory. Theists, on the other hand, are entirely willing to admit naturalistic explanations for how something works- our natural laws- while reserving room for supernatural explanations for why something exists and functions.

Philosophical atheists are sometimes unwilling to admit their own bias, but at other times they are astonishingly frank. Physicist Stephen Hawking writes: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

[Meanwhile Christians have long believed in a beginning, and Augustine even posited that time itself was an aspect to the created world.]

Astronomer and physicist Lee Smolin rants: “Must all of our scientific understanding of the world really come down to a mythological story in which nothing exists…save some disembodied intelligence, who, desiring to start a world, chooses the initial conditions, and then wills matter into being? It seems to me that the only possible name for such an observer is God, and that the theory (that the universe had a starting point in the Big Bang [ironically]) is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds.”

Cut off from any other explanation for origin and purpose, philosophical atheism must now thrive on ludicrous and unprovable ideas. Biologist Franklin Harold writes: “Life arose on earth from inanimate matter, by some kind of evolutionary process. This is not a statement of demonstrable fact, but an assumption. It is not supported by any direct evidence, nor is it likely to be.”

Francis Crick, the man who helped discover the structure of DNA has another alternative to mankind being God’s special creation. He’s serious, folks. In his book Life Itself, Crick theorizes that aliens brought life to our planet from theirs. Really? So if your newborn baby’s skin tone seems a bit green to you….

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, tells us that we should expect gaps in the fossil record. In his mind the absence of evidence for biological Darwinism should be “exactly what we should positively expect.” Later he writes that “we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.” How very scientific, Richard.

Naturalism as a Faith

Here’s the reality: naturalism and materialism are not the conclusions of the modern scientific community, rather they are premises of the modern scientific community (at least the majority) that have been imposed on nature. Welcome to the Church of Naturalism!

I’ll close with the words of Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, since they speak for themselves:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment- a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanation, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Survival of the Fittest and the Death of Secularism, Part 2

Dinesh D'souza

In my previous post, I listed some statistics regarding the numbers of Christians in the world. My purpose  in bringing those statistics to light is to point out that the secularist predictions that faith in God would become obsolete came nowhere near to becoming realized. In fact, if I had chosen to broaden the scope of my previous post, I could have included the number of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in the world. While I do not believe in many- if not all- of the aspects of these religions, they prove nonetheless that humans have a deep need for a belief in the supernatural. Secularists, who are generally Darwinists and either Atheists or Agnostics, tend to be quite puzzled and frustrated by this development. In fact, the “New Atheists” are, as far as I am concerned, a reaction to the “failure” of religion to just….die.

The Darwinist has every right to be puzzled. A need to believe in the supernatural doesn’t quite fit their worldview, nor does it dovetail with any aspect of evolutionary biology. As D’nesh D’souza asks, “Why would evolved creatures like human beings, bent on survival and reproduction, do things that seemed unrelated and even inimical to those objectives?” Religious people in general do things that go against these supposedly innate objectives. They build cathedrals, sacrifice animals, fast, tithe, recite prayers, visit distant holy lands, evangelize people in the farthest reaches of the world, and some even die for their beliefs. All of these things, to one degree or another, go against these evolutionary objectives.

So how do the Darwinists explain this “anomaly”? Richard Dawkins speculates that there might be some “hyperactivity in a particular node of the brain” that causes people to seek religions. He also believes that the idea of the eternal “spreads because it caters to wishful thinking.” What possible benefit could their be for the human “animal” to develop comforting beliefs that are false? Would it really be helpful for me to imagine that the tractor-trailer barrelling toward me is really a fuzzy pink bunny? Does it really comfort me to imagine that the smell of smoke filling my house is actually the odor of freshly-baking bread? As D’Souza points out, wishful thinking of this sort would have been weeded out by the “survival of the fittest” principle long ago.

Randy Alcorn has a much better explanation. He reminds his congregation that if you pit the “came from nothing and going nowhere” explanation for your existence versus the “special creation of a loving God” explanation for your existence, only Christianity is capable of giving every single person on this planet a motivating sense of purpose. This sense of purpose is evidenced by the sheer number of conversions (mentioned in my previous post) as well as the size of the Christian family. While atheistic Russia is losing 700,00 people a year due to a low birth rate and atheistic Japan is set to lose 30 million in just a few decades, many more religious nations are producing two to three times as many children as would be needed to replace the current population. While atheistic worldviews view procreation as a means of continuing the species or- in a practical sense- a means of self-gratification, Christianity views children as a gift from God. Christianity simply offers people something that Secularism can’t: a sense of transcendent purpose. With that transcendent purpose comes confidence and hope. Darwinism insists that humans do adapt, Christianity helps people to adapt.

I will end this section with a quote from D’souza:

My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. Atheism is a bit like homosexuality: one is not sure where it fits into the doctrine of natural selection. Why would nature select people who mate with others of the same sex, a process with no reproductive advantage at all? It seems equally perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no higher purpose to life or the universe.

Perhaps a better explanation for a belief in religion in general and Christianity in particular is that God has made us to crave Him. In that sense, maybe Dawkins isn’t too far off after all…

Survival of the Fittest and the Death of Secularism, Part 1

Voltaire

If the secularists and materialists from the “Enlightenment” through the first half of the last century were to tell you their forecast for the beginning of the 21st Century, I sincerely doubt that they would have guessed the state of affairs concerning religion. I’m sure they would have said something about places of worship looking like mausoleums and Bibles being something that would most likely be found in a museum.

In fact, I happen to know that they did. Besides his famous “God is dead” quote, Nietzsche also said “What are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?” His only concern was that we would have a hard time finding a basis for morality once the idea of God had died. (Incidentally, he is right in being concerned. There is no absolute morality without God.) Voltaire proclaimed: “One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity-seeker.” If you look around today, you’ll find that these men were very, very wrong.

Oh, I know that religion tends to get a lot of bad press in some areas of the United States, Canada, and Europe. Bad press, however, doesn’t give a very clear picture of reality. The bias of reporters makes it easy to believe that only the backward, unintelligent, insane, or emotionally unstable still cling to religion of any kind. I hate to tell them, but that just isn’t the case.

For instance, according to the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the Southern Baptist Convention in America has doubled in size between 1960 and 2005 to an estimated 16.5 million members. In his book titled God’s Continent, Philip Jenkins tells us that 90% of Greeks believe in the God of the Bible and 45% of those in Ireland still attend church regularly. 40% of Americans claim to attend church on Sunday, 90% believe in God, and 60% believe that their faith is important to them, according to Paul Bloom of the Atlantic Monthly.

The West indeed has become more secular, but the world in general has become more religious, not less. Philip Jenkins tells us that there are 480 million Christians in South America, 314 million in Asia, and 360 million in Africa. There are more Presbyterians in Ghana than in Scotland, and South Korea is second only to America in the number of missionaries sent forth. While the Western churches are often pictured by empty pews and pastors drumming up some new entertainment to encourage people to come, there are African churches that have to ask their members to only come once or twice a month so that everyone has a chance. David Aikman speculates in his book Jesus in Beijing that China will become the largest Christian nation in the world in a matter of decades. This comes in spite of tremendous persecution at the hands of the Chinese state.

I’m not saying that I would be 100% in agreement with each and every “flavor” of Christianity mentioned, nor am I (at this point) making the assertion that if you have numbers on your side then you are correct. I am saying that the basic premise of secularism is wrong. People have shown a tremendous desire for religion (Christianity in particular), and it is either arrogant, ethnocentric, or just plain racist to label all believers as unintelligent or superstitious. The fact of the matter is that people need God, and the prominence of religion in society is proof of this. We cannot banish God to the dark corners of the public arena, because, as C. S. Lewis said, “We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God. The world is crowded with Him.”

Nietzsche, God is far from dead, and, Voltaire, the Bible is far from obsolete. The Geneva Bible Society bought your house fifty years after your death and used it as a printing press….

Help My Unbelief

Many times when I discuss Christian faith with my unbelieving friends, they will say that I am a Christian simply because I was raised in a Christian home. It is true that I come from a Christian background. My parents, siblings, and most of my extended family are all Christians. We went to church every week of my life. I attended a Christian school, went to Christian camps and on missions trips in the summers, and enjoyed a dynamite youth group. If that’s the only thing you looked at of my life, you might assume that being a Christian came quite naturally for me. The problem with that is that there’s much more to the story than that.

Unsettling Questions

A Christian background doesn’t equal a lack of doubt. I have actually met very few people that grew up in church that didn’t doubt aspects of their faith- or perhaps the entirety of the Christian faith- at one point or another. For me, doubt entered the picture when I was in high school. That seems to be the time that most people start seriously considering what they really believe. I was too shy to ever ask pertinent questions, and the majority of what was preached from the pulpit- though biblically sound- didn’t really meet my intellectual or spiritual needs.

Not that I’m claiming to be of superior intellect. It’s just that the questions I had were never really, truly answered. Questions sprang up in my mind regarding the existence of God, the reality of Heaven and Hell, Jesus’ Deity, whether or not my faith was “strong enough”, etc. I knew what the Bible said, but I wanted to see if it made sense apart from itself. In my desperation for answers and after dealing with some serious doubt, I turned to the writings of C. S. Lewis. He gave a reasonable apologetic for the Christian faith. There were some points that I disagreed with him on, but for the most part he seemed sound in what he was saying.

Hypocritical Christians

For awhile my doubts seemed to go away, but as I reached my senior year, a change in church administration and my own intellectual, spiritual, and emotional growth brought new challenges. I didn’t have the same church leadership to rely on, and the preaching and teaching that came from this new leadership was obviously skewed. There were character flaws galore in the senior pastor (the church has recently found some financial inconsistencies), and the teaching from most of the pastoral leadership was shallow at best. Again doubt crept in. If Christianity is merely a set of rules and some basic doctrines (teachings) which a person could know by heart in eighteen years of life, what was the point in continuing down that path? If God was so great, why didn’t His Word hold anything else for a questioning mind?

I chose to attend a Christian college and major in biblical studies in spite of these new doubts I had. I wanted to give God a chance to prove Himself in spite of His followers’ foolishness. I couldn’t understand why people would follow God if His Book was really this shallow. It turned out that I learned more in my first year of college about Christianity than I could have ever imagined possible. My professors opened my eyes to the vastness of Scripture. Word studies, historical background, literary techniques, theology, and philosophy all rushed in to answer my questions.

Leaps of Faith

Of course, my experience with faith was very “cerebral” at this point. I hadn’t really experienced much testing at all. The summer after my senior year in college, I traveled the country with a youth evangelism ministry. I did so knowing that I would be paid almost nothing, a fact which worried me because I had college debt to pay off. I saw teenagers come to Christ, many of them due to a very unusual set of circumstances. Amazingly, my student loans were all paid off by November  of that year. After that summer, I began my seminary training as well as an internship at a small church in the area. Again, I was faced with inconsistencies in this pastor’s ministry. He was very obviously “fleecing the flock” as opposed to feeding the flock. The church voted to reduce his salary to keep the ministries of the church running, and the pastor left. I finished my seminary degree and helped the church out for a short time until a pastor could be found. Of course, the church couldn’t afford to pay me while it took care of its financial mess, so I looked for a job. I love teaching, so I started calling area schools. It turns out that the first school I called had a position in the Bible and English departments with a salary that was exactly what I had been praying for. My few years after college have taught me that God is truly there for me and takes care of me.

Why Doubt is Good

I’m twenty-six now, and I’ve learned that the doubts- my unbelief- don’t ever entirely go away. Problems come up, and I question God’s goodness. I still have a need to find the answers to questions that come up. I have made peace with my doubt, though. I have learned that doubt can either be a stumblingblock to keep a person from faith, or it can be the fuel needed to propel a person further into their faith. I’ve found that if I seek answers with a truly open mind, the solutions present themselves in their time. My prayer has always been: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.” (Mark 9:24) Doubt, I have learned, is not the opposite of faith. In fact, doubt is a necessary component to faith. If there was not a sensation that a belief might be wrong, it wouldn’t really be faith at all.