The potential danger of attempting to resolve paradox, or, trying to fit God into a box.

The longer I have been a student of the Bible the more I've realized that there are apparently paradoxical truths contained in it. One of those, for example, is in regard to the question of where the responsibility for man's salvation lies. The Bible clearly teaches that since man is "dead in his trespasses and sins" that the responsibility is God's; that no person can be saved without first being drawn by God, having their spiritual eyes opened by God, and being given repentance and faith from God. It's His doing. The apparent paradox is that the Bible also teaches that man is responsible. There are numerous passages that call on people to repent and believe. Other passages show a God grieving over man's unwillingness, stubbornness, and unrepentant heart. Still others lay the responsibility at man's feet, urging him to "be reconciled to God". God's anger and wrath is described as being aimed at the wickedness of man as he chooses to ignore God and willfully suppress the truth about Him that man is fully aware of.

So, how do we sometimes attempt to resolve apparent paradoxes, and what's dangerous about how we do it? It seems to me that we generally don't like unresolved paradoxes. They make us uncomfortable because they seem to be contradictions, and contradictions in a body of writing imply that the writing is not credible. Since, for good reason, we have already come to the conclusion that the Bible is credible, we naturally attempt to resolve anything that might imply that the Bible isn't credible.

One of the possible dangers of our attempts to resolve paradox is that we Christians, instead of establishing credibility can instead be found to be straining it. In my opinion, we do this by first leaning to one side or another of a seeming paradox, and then forcing an interpretation on the side toward which we are not leaning. In other words, we tend to read our own apriori bias into our interpretation of Scripture. In the process, we lose credibility, and at the same time fail to convince others of the credibility of the Bible. What are the effects? On the one hand, the skeptic who we are trying to win over reacts derisively, and is convinced that our faith is a gullible one. On the other hand, the young Christian who we are trying to bring up in the faith, is confused.

Another danger is that we tend to become entrenched in our interpretations. We build a nice little box that we think the Bible fits into so that we can feel comfortable about all these niggling paradoxes. After the box has been constructed, we do everything we can to strengthen it. After a while our box can become dogma, from which the word "dogmatic" comes. Being dogmatic isn't inherently wrong, but it can certainly lead us down the wrong path.

It's obvious that there's a time and place for dogma. Without it, we can't say anything with certainty. Someone saying, " Such and such is going to happen just as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow" might be met with, "We can't be dogmatic about tomorrow's sunrise, therefore we can't be sure that whatever your saying is a sure thing is indeed a sure thing." Similarly, there are many truths in the Bible that are incontrovertible because there are no apparent paradoxes to be found with regard to them. The resurrection of Christ is an example.

So, what should we do to avoid the dangers mentioned above? First, I think it's important that we do attempt to resolve apparent paradoxes. At the same time, we need to keep in mind the dangers mentioned above. Second, we should always consult with God in these matters. In doing that, we need to check our hearts. Are we open to the idea that we may be wrong? Are we "listening" to God with an open mind? Third, we need to tread carefully when good scholars differ on an issue. Fourth, when we are wrestling with these things, we need to subject our ideas to the scrutiny of others, and not just to others who are sympathetic to our position, or who do not have the motivation or tools to adequately examine our ideas. Fifth, we need to leave room for mystery. Our minds are infinitely tiny and limited compared to the mind of God because His mind is infinite! The Bible clearly teaches that He has not revealed everything to us. I don't think that the perception of the Bible's (and our) credibility is damaged when we say things like, "I'm not sure" or, "I don't know" or, "maybe it's like this".

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever..." Deuteronomy 29:29

People are "good" until it starts to cost them.

I was talking to someone the other day who is involved in a weekly Bible study. She was complaining that the Bible study leader was always talking about how everyone is a sinner. In an exasperated tone of voice  she said to me, "I'm tired of hearing how 'everyone's a sinner' all the time. I don't think everyone's a sinner. I think there are good people in the world. And even if everyone is a sinner, they don't always sin!"

That's a tough one for us Christians. We do believe that we're all sinners. The Bible clearly states it. But are we always sinners? And even if we are, don't people do good things? Aren't there times when people don't sin? And if that's the case, maybe we aren't so bad after all. So how do we answer this?

First, let's define what we mean by "sin" and "sinner". The word "sin" is a translation of a word that means to "miss the mark" or to "fall short". What mark? The mark would be God's original design for us. We are told that we were originally designed to be a creature created "in the image of God." Our character, moral attributes, and psychological/emotional make-up were like God's. We were loving by nature, like God is. And we were centered on God rather than on ourselves. But something happened that caused a profound change in human nature. Due to our taking part in the rebellion of the first man, Adam, we lost our centeredness on God and others and became self-centered. So the mark that we miss and fall short of  is God Himself. He's the mark!

The Bible says that this condition is shared by all mankind. It says that "there are none righteous". The Bible compares us to trees. It says that bad trees do not produce good fruit. Well, since we're all sinners, how can people ever do good things? Bad trees don't ever produce good fruit do they?

The Bible tells us that God is going to judge the whole world at some point in the future. It tells us that when He does, that He's going to judge the thoughts and intentions of our hearts. He isn't just going to be considering actions when he judges, but also the motives behind those actions. I think we might be surprised if He were to reveal to us our own motives, even for the "good" things we do.

The Bible says that (our) "hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked, who can understand them?" Because of our fallen condition, even our ability to clearly perceive our own motives is messed up. The remedy for this, by the way, is to have God do it for us. He can perceive our motives, and He will reveal those to us if we'll turn to Him for understanding. Sometimes He even does it before we turn to Him, and then we turn to Him as a result.

This was the case in my own life, and He did it at least in part through a psychology teacher at the junior college I was attending. One day, for reasons unknown to me (even to this day), the teacher stood up and made the blunt statement that all of the students in the room were selfish. An argument ensued with some students naming different people in history as examples of altruism like Gandhi and Mother Theresa. The teacher replied, "all selfish! Everything they did was out of their own self interest. Maybe they were avoiding a guilty conscience, or maybe they wanted to elevate themselves in the eyes of others, or maybe they were attempting to justify themselves before their God(s), or maybe they were trying to earn good Karma, or just wanted to win arguments." I don't think everyone in the room was buying it but, as I said above, God was doing something in my heart. He was revealing to me my own motives, that everything I did was, ultimately, for me and no one else. I was at the center of my world. It's a long story that I'll tell in another post, but the effect was profound and I became desperate for a remedy.

One thing that I think helps reveal the real person behind an action (at least to some extent) is when being "good' starts to cost something. When the doing of good results in a cost for those who do it, especially when that cost is of something that's greatly valued, you will often see a change in the demeanor of the one performing the action. Is this always the case? No. In fact there are people who have sacrificed their lives for others. Think of the man who throws himself on a grenade for his buddies. The cost for that is obviously something that he highly values. The apostle Paul brings that up when he says "for the good man someone may even dare to die". We'll leave those cases up to God's judgment, but it's obvious that there are examples of sacrificial love that we can refer to.

Nevertheless, when we see others doing "good" things, and we wonder "how could God judge him or her?", It's important to remember that He is perfectly able to see into the depths of the heart. It's something that we are not able to do, even with regard to our own hearts.

Exchange with an Unbeliever

I was reading an article on Yahoo about a fossilized bird egg that sold at an auction. I found an exchange between a couple of Christians and an unbeliever, going by the name Andrew, in the comment section of the article. One of the Christians was contending, among other things (and not very well, IMO) that the "joke was going to be on" the unbelievers on Judgment day. In the following entry I'm going to post the unbeliever's comment and then my response to him.

His post:

“Yeah, finding out men are dirt and women are leftover barbecue, all of humanity was condemned over a bad snack choice, somehow an omniscient God couldn't see it coming, an omnipresent God wasn't around to stop it, and an omnipotent God couldn't fix it...

Finding out that for over four-thousand years, the best solution to the problem of sin an all-knowing God could think of was "stab the sheep, bleed the sheep, burn the sheep, the sheep must pay"...

Finding out after that, the best he could come up with was ‘I'll be my own son who's really me, and go down and wander around claiming I'm sinless as I do morally dubious things like steal from other people, destroy their livestock, kill innocent trees for doing what I know they should be doing, and telling everyone that it's morally okay to take advantage of other people as long as they don't figure out they're being taken advantage of until after it's done... after I've done that long enough for someone to want to kill me, I'll try to act casual but narcissistic enough that they'll definitely kill me, but I can claim to be innocent, and then after I'm tortured and die a gruesome death dangling from a plank of wood, I'll completely change all the rules, stop manifesting my power in any obvious way, like I have up to that point, and tell everyone they now have to take it on faith, and then pin everyone's salvation on whether they hear the story and say 'gee, it was awfully nice of that man to be planked to death for us'...

And finding out that after laying down the laws of physics, creating all matter and energy, igniting fusion across the Universe, creating hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, setting all the planets in motion in their orbits, forming the Earth and giving rise to all life upon it...

Finding out the same mind that was moved to do all that then stopped and thought ‘and now, I think I'll make a species and then tell it to chop off part of its own genitals, murder each other for doing things like wearing gabardine blends and picking up sticks on the wrong day, lay down some rules for when they should start flinging dove blood everywhere, and then force them to abide by a stupid hat policy...’

You're right. If I die and find out that THAT'S what reality boiled down to, the joke will definitely be on me.

And you.

And everyone else.”

My response:

Andrew, I took a look at several of your replies to comments that had argued for the existence of God (among others) from different online articles. I did it just to get a feel about where you're coming from. As I did, I think I got a pretty good feeling about your position, but I also came to the realization that I am not your intellectual equal. You have obviously studied and thought a lot about these issues and make excellent points. From several of your other posts I get the sense that you’re a philosophy major.

In view of the fact that things like tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions are impossible to convey in writing, I want to assure you that I am not being sarcastic when I say that I entertain no delusions that I could match your intellect or successfully persuade you to believe in the Biblical God through logical argument alone. I don't consider it an improbability solely because of my intellectual inferiority, but also because I have come to the realization that the use of logic alone is limited in the pursuit of truth. I'm not sure of all the reasons for this but can see a few. One, logic is applied by finite minds with finite intellectual capacities, experiences, and knowledge. Two, it is easily misapplied due to a number of reasons, among them, bias, emotion, and incorrect presumptions. Another possible reason for the misapplication of logic is that there may be something inherently corrupt in our ability to reason accurately, something having to do with a corruption of the will. The accuracy of this conclusion presupposes the accuracy of the Bible in its contention that human beings have become corrupted, and thus warped, in their ability to reason accurately. I don't expect agreement from you on this point but throw it out there as a possibility.

Intellectual inferiority aside, I would still like to propose an argument for your consideration.  First, a little background about me, as it may eventually figure into the equation. I am now a 58 year old Christian. I have been a Christian since I was 21 years old. Prior to becoming a Christian, without having given the idea of God much thought, I defaulted to atheism. It's interesting to me that the argument I am about to present to you is not an argument that was ever presented to me before I became a Christian. It's also interesting that, though many similar or related arguments may have been presented to me by Christians, it did not end up being any such argument that eventually brought me to faith.

The Bible appeared to be utter nonsense to me back then. I saw Christians as a very strange group of weak, stupid, and gullible people…maybe even a little bit crazy. Your comments that derisively described the Bible’s contents and pointed out their apparent absurdities are echoes of my former thoughts and feelings about it. Even now, I puzzle over much of what I read, especially in the Old Testament. On the one hand, I marvel at the creation…the vast, mathematically precise complexity and immensity of it all. What science discovers is just a scratching of the surface, and I'd be willing to bet that that is the way it will always be. We can never get to the bottom of it all because “it” appears to be bottomless! It doesn't matter if we look at the micro or the macro. Either direction seems to be a path of infinite discovery. And at each stage of discovery we can't quite get to the point where we feel satisfied, like, “ah, now we’re finally getting to the bottom of it.” Rather, as we uncover things, we discover even greater complexity than we could have imagined. Assuming for the minute that all of these things came about by the action of an intelligent entity, how could this entity of infinitely complex creativity and precision be the same as the one described in the Bible as God? The one that, as you pointed out, demands the sacrifice of sheep for the sins of people, along with all the other apparently absurd things you described. On the face of it, the two pictures of this possible entity look incongruous. They don't seem to fit... I can relate to that sense. But does this apparent incongruity prove that they don't fit? Even if these two entities are one and the same, there is no way that I could ever prove it through logic alone. Are they the same? There is a roundabout way to begin addressing that question that I’d like to propose.

Since our presuppositions help us to come to conclusions, it's important to examine the things that cause us to form presuppositions. If we are in error about those things then when our thinking has been corrected our presuppositions may change. Since there are so many topics in the Bible that can be debated, and it seems almost impossible to resolve all of them, it's almost guaranteed that the debate will never end and people will never be brought to a point where they make any meaningful decisions. The dilemma reminds me of my college philosophy professor's statement that he wasn't interested in arriving at the truth because he loved the pursuit too much. His goal was to look for truth, not to find it (which seems nonsensical to me).

The goal in debating should be to arrive at truth. One of the ways to do this is to examine the core issues that our presuppositions emanate from instead of arguing the seemingly infinite number of peripheral issues. If we can arrive at conclusions about these core issues, then it's like taking a shortcut to the truth. With that in mind, I see the following argument as being about one of these core issues, namely, the resurrection of Christ. If one can be convinced of the credibility of the resurrection claim, then that belief becomes a presupposition that implies answers to many of the peripheral questions and, hopefully, brings the overall debate to a place where support for meaningful decisions exists.

With all that in mind, I’d like to ask the question;

Is there a compelling reason to believe or disbelieve that the origination of Christianity, a purported first century man named Jesus, rose from the dead three days after being crucified on a Roman cross?

Before an answer can be determined, some assumptions have to be agreed upon and substantiated. Just as an attorney produces witnesses to prove her case, so will this argument depend on the testimony of witnesses. And just as the credibility of the attorney's witnesses must be established before we know whether to believe them or not, so will this argument examine the credibility of witnesses.

Assumptions:

1) There is a movement that exists that is commonly called “Christianity” that has followers that are known as "Christians".

2) The origins of this movement can be traced to the first century AD.

a. All of the four records known as "the gospels" are written with references to an intact Jerusalem.

b.  Josephus (37-97 AD), the court historian for Roman Emperor Vespasian, recorded the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD. Josephus was an eyewitness to this destruction and, in fact, was utilized by the Roman commander, Titus, as a negotiator during the attack.

c.  a. and b. taken together establish that the gospels were probably written in the first century.

d. There is additional evidence that the earliest gospel (Matthew) was written within a few years of the death of Jesus. (see http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=410)

e. The gospels, therefore, existed at the time when there would have been witnesses, both hostile and friendly, to the purported events that they recorded. Anyone disseminating a record of an event into the public eye would be aware of the likely existence of such witnesses and would assume that their manuscript would, therefore, be either corroborated, or exposed as a sham. This possibility would tend to discourage the  production of fraudulent records.

3) A central tenet of this movement, that has been asserted since the first century by the earliest followers, is the belief that a first century man named Jesus was executed by crucifixion at the hands of Roman authorities and that he rose from the dead three days later.

a. That this has been repeatedly asserted since the first century is verified by Roman historians. First, Tacitus (55-120 AD) who wrote regarding Nero's suspected complicity in the burning of Rome (64 AD),

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." (from: Tacitus, Annals 15.44)

And, Josephus, who wrote,  

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (from: The Works of Josephus", book 18, chapter 3, #3) ( The parts of the quote that are italicized are possible interpolations from later copyists. That Josephus recognized the claims was probable, but that he believed them is not.)

b.  Records of the purported events also exist that were written by individuals who were sympathetic to the movement (see #2 a.-e. above). The assertions reportedly made by the first century followers of this movement seem to be consistent with these records. 

c. The assertion that these records (3 b. above), especially those recording the resurrection, should be considered credible is supported by several points, two of which are provided below. (I'm starting to realize that an adequate presentation of this argument will take on book-sized proportions. Since such books have already been written, I'm going to provide examples rather than exhaustive references) :

1. An empty tomb. From the first century onward, there has never been a question as to whether or not Jesus' tomb was empty. The question has always been "why was the tomb empty?", and people have been speculating over the answer to this question since. It would have been simple to prove that the resurrection did not take place by pointing to the tomb containing the dead body of Jesus. The fact that there is no record of this happening is not proof of the resurrection. It is, however, one piece of circumstantial evidence that points to the possible credibility of the written record. It should be noted that, among Jewish and Roman authorities, there likely existed a considerable level of motivation to prevent the circulation of the idea that Jesus had risen from the dead. The gospel records indicate that this motivation was expressed by the Jewish authorities in their request that a Roman guard be posted at the tomb itself to prevent any theft of the body. There are several explanations that have been proposed since, none of which withstand logical scrutiny. One example is that the body was stolen. If this were true, then it implies that the none of the first century followers did, in fact, have any encounters with Jesus after his purported resurrection. This, in turn, implies that these followers were ready to die for asserting something that they knew not to be true. Therefore, holding to this argument defies reason. In the words of Sir Norman Anderson, "The empty tomb, then, forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the resurrection dash themselves in vain". (From: The Evidence for the Resurrection. J.N.D. Anderson, O.B.E., M.A., LL. D.)

2. The fact that any first century person's belief in the credibility of the records would require their belief in the credibility of the testimony of women. This point greatly supports claims of the credibility of the records. Why? Because the last testimony that a first century fabricator would have pointed to in an attempt to establish credibility would have been that of a woman. Women had virtually no credibility in first-century Jewish culture, and their testimony in a court of law was considered worthless. For example, a man could not legally have been convicted in a Jewish court on the testimony of a woman alone. Again, if the record of the empty tomb were fabricated, it would make no sense to fabricate female testimony as support. It would, in fact, have hindered them in what they were trying to accomplish. The reasonable conclusion is that the writers of these records were recording actual events (perhaps even while realizing that their stories might be viewed suspiciously because they contained female testimony).

4) This man named Jesus, to whom the origin of Christianity can be traced, existed and was crucified by Roman authorities in the first century at the insistence of Jewish authorities.  (see 3 a. and b. above)

5) At least some of the first century followers claimed to have, and/or were reported to have, experienced one or more encounters with this man after his purported resurrection. (All four gospels record these experiences. In one letter, written by one of the gospel writers, John, he states that he is an eyewitness. See: 1 John 1: 1-3)

6) These followers were heavily persecuted by the Roman authorities, chief among them, Emperor Nero. This persecution included a large number of executions via various means of torture. (See 3 a. and b. above)

7) Much of the aim of this persecution was the eradication of Christianity.

8) The so-called eyewitnesses were, in all probability, among those who were persecuted.

a. Roman historians, Hippolytus (died around 236 AD), and  Eusebius (260-341 AD) documented the violent deaths of 10 of Jesus' 12 disciples. Paul and Peter were both probably killed under the Neronian persecution, Paul by beheading and Peter by crucifixion upside-down. The early followers of Jesus were certainly persecuted heavily and many were killed.

9) Due to their potential or impending suffering of persecution, most if not all of these first century followers would likely have attempted to corroborate the testimonies of the so-called eyewitnesses.

10) In light of the ongoing persecution, if these attempts at corroboration had failed , it is unlikely that there would have been a continued willingness in these followers to persist in their assertions, especially while having doubts as to their authenticity.

11) Additionally, the followers who claimed to have been actual eyewitnesses could also have avoided persecution by abandoning their assertions that they had seen this man, Jesus, after he had been resurrected. It should also be noted, at this point, that the records paint an unflattering picture of some of these eyewitnesses (known as "the disciples") and their behaviors before the resurrection. I.E. their attitudes and actions transitioned from fearful and dejected before the resurrection, to hopeful and courageous afterward.

12) In light of the historical evidence of the persistence of both classes, namely that Christianity continued to spread throughout the first century world , it's reasonable to believe that these likely attempts at corroboration were successful enough to justify the willingness of these Christians to maintain their assertions even upon fear of death.

13) Rational people do not willingly die for claiming to have witnessed something when, in fact, they have not witnessed that thing. I.E. rational people do not die for what they know is a lie.

a. I'd like to pause here and address a common objection heard when this argument is being proposed (that people don't die for what they know is a lie). The objection goes something like this: "Lots of people in history have died for what they believed. Think of the Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire, or fanatical Muslims blowing themselves up. They obviously believe that what they are dying for is the truth. How is that any different from these early Christians dying for what they believe in? It may not be a lie they're dying for. Maybe they're just mistaken or deluded." The distinction between what these people are willing to persist in asserting, even at the risk of death, must be made. On the one hand, Buddhist monks and fanatical Muslims are dying for ideas that they believe to be true. The early Christian witnesses, and those who relied on those witnesses' testimonies were dying for asserting, not an idea, but a physical, visible, verifiable reality, i.e., the resurrected Jesus. Their claims were that they had seen him. Either they had or they hadn't. They were willing to die rather than say they hadn't.

14) The Roman goal of the eradication of Christianity could easily have been accomplished by parading the dead body of Jesus through the streets of Jerusalem or displaying it in its tomb. The story that has been passed down throughout history is that there was no body in the tomb. (see 3 c. 1. above)

15) History contains no record that the Romans were able to produce the dead body of Jesus.

Therefore

1) It is reasonable to assume that these so-called eyewitnesses were in fact eyewitnesses.

2) The belief that the resurrection of this man Jesus, in fact did occur, is a reasonable belief.

3) The belief that the resurrection of this man Jesus did not in fact occur is an unreasonable belief.

The Weakness We Detest

What is weakness? If nothing else, it's something that we humans detest. Even when we detect it in ourselves, instead of admitting it, we tend to hide it. We highlight our strengths, not our weaknesses, and we're taught to do so from our youth. As parents, we proudly tell our kids how good they are at this or that. We don't like hearing them talk about some deficiency they see in themselves. We see that as being a direct route to depression, angst, and a recipe for failure in life. We may acknowledge the weakness, but quickly point out to them how strong they are in some other area. We point out to them that everyone has weaknesses and strengths, but the strengths are where we focus, and where we want them to focus. When a depressed friend or family member sadly indicates to us how they're starting to hate themselves because of perceived deficiencies, what is the first thing we do? I know I find myself cheering them up, helping them to get their focus on their "positive" qualities.

In the Bible, God doesn't addresses our weaknesses the way we do. When we perceive weakness ,we try to minimize or avoid thinking about it. God, on the other, actually wants us to see and embrace our weaknesses and, somehow, it's for our good. He doesn't just say, "yes, you are weak in this or that area... but let's focus on your strengths." His message is different, but an essential one for us to hear if we don't want to miss out on what it means to live.

Aren't we born having certain "strengths" or aptitudes? Yes, each person is unique in the combination of aptitudes that they have been gifted by God with. And much of our counsel to our kids is appropriate. It is possible to spend so much time focusing on your weakness that you miss the strengths that you bring to the table. It's also appropriate that we encourage kids not to compare their strengths and weaknesses with those of others. They are, after all, unique. We should be thanking God for what He has made us.

But it's also a fact that these aptitudes are corrupted by a deep problem that the Bible calls "sin", which literally means "to miss the mark", or "to fall short of the mark". What mark, and how do we miss it? A mark is a target. The target is the perfect image that God made mankind in. The perfect image is the image of God Himself. He, and His perfect character, is the mark.

We miss that mark for one reason, and that is that we share in the rebellion of the first man, Adam. In the original creation, before mankind fell away from God, we were in a condition where we automatically "hit" the mark. Man "did" this without even trying. He didn't have to try to follow a set of commandments that ran counter to his natural desires. In our original condition, God was in His rightful place, not just at the center of our world, but as the center of our world. God was our sole authority. God was our confidante, our friend, our father. There was no competition for God, certainly not from Adam. There were no questions that didn't have their answer in God. If there were a throne to sit on, there would have been no question as to who belonged on it. Adam and Eve were God centered, not self centered. ALL was right with the world. In fact, the Bible records God's opinion of that world... that it was "very good". There was nothing that "missed the mark"...until the Fall.

Without going in to why he did it (I can't answer that question, and mystery abounds there), Adam (and Eve) made a choice to listen to another voice beside God's. It was the undoing of all mankind and was the first time the mark had been missed, but certainly not the last. And it didn't just become the first in a line of successive "misses". It became the root of a change in man's viewpoint and mode of operation. At that moment man became self centered. Man became blind to the truth and God was no longer seen as man's sole authority. If there had been a throne, man would have perched himself upon it. Man was now at the center of his own world. Man looked to himself to answer the questions. And unless God were consulted, man would get the answers wrong every time.

This is the state of corruption in which we now exists. To call it "weakness" is an understatement. The Bible actually calls it a state of death. God describes it through the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans. In Chapter 1, Paul tells us that the anger of God is directed toward the "unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness". We don't simply ignore the truth. we aren't only blind to the truth. We actually suppress the truth. Paul goes on to tell us that as a result, our thoughts have become futile, foolish, dishonoring to God, dark, depraved, full of lies, and wrongly focused on the worship of that which is created rather than on the Creator Himself.

The results of this mindset may be seen in each of our individual lives as well as in the history of the world. Both are filled with strife, confusion, sadness, destruction, and death. Romans chapter 3 goes on to say about us, "There is none righteous...there is none who understands...none who seek for God...all have become useless...there are none who do good."  Again, to call this state "weakness" is an understatement.

So far, this sounds like bad news, doesn't it? If that's the bad news, what's the good news? The good news is that God has provided a way of escape from this corrupt nature that we have. This escape is called "salvation" in the Bible. God's way of escape covers all the bases. It first covers the problem we have with facing Him on Judgment Day, because he is the perfect judge who will judge perfectly. Nothing escapes His notice and all things will be brought to light. In the brilliant light of His judgment, our rebellion against Him will be exposed for what it is. His way also covers the problem we have with our corrupt nature and the resultant destruction it wreaks. God's provision of salvation doesn't have as its only purpose our release from judgment. His purpose is to bring us back to life! That life is one that is intended to be lived here on earth, not just in heaven.

We play certain parts in God's salvation being implemented in our lives. One of our parts has to do with how we deal with the weakness we see in our lives. God doesn't tell us to minimize our weaknesses and maximize our strengths. rather, He tells us to come to Him and admit them. He wants us to be absolutely transparent and honest with Him about everything. It's lunacy to think that we could hide anything from him, anyway! He wants us to admit our weaknesses because, as the Bible teaches, God's power is perfected in weakness. Paul says that when he is weak (in himself), then he is strong (in God's strength). Our job is to present ourselves in all of our weakness to God. We can do this, only because of what Jesus has done for us and in us. He is the one who produces fruit in us as we present ourselves to Him. In 2 Corinthians chapter 4 we are called earthen vessels. In the first century, earthen vessels were fragile, imperfect, often cracked, and used for some pretty gross purposes, like holding human waste. Earthen vessels are weak.

Paul writes that  a Great Treasure has been put into the earthen vessels that we are. The treasure is God Himself! If we try to polish these vessels up and make them look good on the outside. Or if we try to squeeze things into them so that they appear to hold something great (our strengths), then the Treasure of God isn't going to shine out of them. As we present ourselves to God and admit to Him that these things that we have depended on to make us look good are worthless then we are, in a sense emptying the vessels of useless items so that they can manifest the true Treasure that's in them. It is thus that the weakness we detest becomes a vessel through which His strength is manifested. That's why Paul can say that, rather than detesting his weaknesses,  he is well content with them.

Pet Peeves

Like many Christians, I have a desire to share my faith with others who do not believe as I do. I desire to do this because I firmly believe that God has revealed to me the wonderful purpose for life, which is knowing and living for Jesus, and I want as many as possible to experience the same revelation. I also firmly believe that, at the root of things,  knowing Him is the ultimate answer to all of life's problems. 

There are, however, several obstacles that work together to prevent Christians, myself included, from fulfilling this desire. One is the potential for rejection that exists for the outspoken Christian. This rejection is something the Bible tells us will occur. It is something that many of us, before we were Christians, engaged in ourselves when we encountered outspoken Christians. We may remember how we felt when a Christian told us about his or her "relationship with Jesus". We may remember how we used to see such people as weak, stupid, goofy, or just plain crazy. We may remember how uncomfortable they used to make us and how we just wished they would go away and we don't want to be that person in the lives of others. 

We also probably know that, at the core, people aren't just rejecting us, but are rejecting Jesus as well. Even though I believe this is true, I also tend to have a sneaking suspicion that at least a small part of what people are "turned off" by may be our approach. I've heard evidence for this in what people sometimes say. They'll mention how Christians on the radio sound, or how they always seem to be asking for money. Or they might remember some "weird" church service they went to where nothing was relatable to them. Perhaps it was highly liturgical, or maybe an emotional, Pentecostal style, service. At any rate, they didn't feel that they could relate to what they saw as the typical Christian's approach to Christianity and this, purportedly, caused them to feel repelled by the Christian message. I say "purportedly" because it's difficult, if not impossible, for us (and maybe even them) to really know what's behind their antipathy. God knows, though, and has revealed to us that Jesus, and the story of the cross are, ultimately, the stumbling block.

My own pre-conversion experience was a mix of some of these things. As a result, I often find myself looking at Christian behaviors through the lens of my former perspective. Perhaps I go a little overboard in my concerns, but it's important to me that unbelievers do not become hindered by any unnecessarily unrelatable practices, behaviors, or even beliefs of Christians. For that reason, I also think it's important for Christians to be at the task of analyzing their practices and maybe even weeding out the ones that the contemporary culture might find to be unrelatable and/or archaic.

At this point, it's extremely important to be clear about the distinction between behaviors, practices, or beliefs that are necessary, useful, or otherwise desirable, and those that aren't. It's also important to be clear that I am not advocating that the Church try to look as much like the contemporary culture as possible. It's quite possible that the contemporary culture may consider many Christian behaviors, practices, or beliefs (and messages) to be archaic and unrelatable, while Christians have good biblical reasons to consider them biblically legitimate. In such cases, God's desires trump man's. Contemporary culture is not the final judge and should not be our guide. God is our guide, through His Word and by His Spirit. The Word clearly states that the children of God are those who are led by His Spirit (Romans 8). The Word also clearly tells us not to be conformed to the way this world thinks, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). Nonetheless, there are plenty of "non-negotiables" that are sure to offend contemporary culture without adding to the offense the things that we prefer simply because "that's the way we've always done it", or "that's the way I like it. If the culture doesn't like it, oh well." 

The Apostle Paul stated, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some." (1 Corinthians 9:19). I suspect that when Jesus spoke to His contemporaries, He spoke in the language of their day, not an archaic language that was in use 400 years earlier (analogous to our using "King James English"). In 1 Corinthians chapter 14:23, Paul makes a point to the Corinthians about the use of the gift of tongues when the church assembled. His point was that if everyone were to speak in tongues while an unbeliever entered, he would likely think they were crazy (and make a beeline for the door?). The bottom line to Paul was that all things were to be done for the purpose of building up and furthering the Gospel. In Romans chapter 15:2 he says "Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification." 1 Corinthians 13:5 tells us that "love does not seek it's own". Therefore, it's important to consider our ways and evaluate them with these attitudes in mind. We should ask ourselves, "What is our purpose in doing this or that? Does our purpose line up with God's?" And then, "Are we accomplishing that purpose with this behavior or practice?"

I have lots of "pet peeves" with regard to the points I've been making, one minor example, alluded to above, is when we pray or speak using King James English. Even being more nit-picking, rather than use the language, even from our more contemporary Bibles when speaking to unbelievers, I think we should try to use words that our culture uses. That definitely takes more work, but with practice, it can be done. I'm talking about those times when we are explaining things like Jesus being the "propitiation" for our sins. Is there a way we can explain it without using the word "propitiation"? It takes a lot of words to explain the one word, but we don't lose the listener just because we're using words he's never heard before. Obviously, if we're reading directly from the Bible, we're going to read the word as written. Then it's also obviously important to explain the concept. There are other times, though, that I don't think it even occurs to us to use different words, and we don't explain what we mean when we use the Bible word. Enough about that.

One fact that shouldn't be missed, and that should temper any feelings of concern I have for these issues...God is sovereign over all. He deigns to use us weak, fragile, even bumbling creatures to fulfill His great purpose. In fact, that is one of His purposes, to show Himself, i.e. to glorify Himself through "earthen vessels" (2 Corinthians 4:7). The fact that He has so chosen means that our delivery will necessarily be flawed. He, nevertheless, overcomes those flaws unhindered. Does that mean that we should just giddily do whatever we want without concern for the cultural sensibilities of the listener? I don't think so. I think we should do our best to be sensitive to those things by first listening to the Lord's direction, seeking His wisdom. We should also still examine our approach, but without getting all het up about it.

The Greatest Understatement in History

The Discovery Institute is a think tank that consists of scientists from several different disciplines who all agree on one basic premise, that life, and the complexity of life, exists as the result of the intelligent design of an intelligent designer. Their premise flies in the face of the majority opinion of scientists throughout the world who hold to a different premise, namely that all things in existence, living and non-living, exist as a result of natural, materialistic processes that have nothing to do with any direction by an intelligent entity. The Discovery Institute's premise is the foundation of what has become known as the Intelligent Design Movement.

In an interview with CNN, leading proponent of evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins stated, "There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact." (emphasis mine)

A few years ago, a document called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was circulated and signed by some 800 scientists. They were signing their agreement with this statement, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”  Here's a list of the first twelve signees along with their credentials:

Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS

Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences

Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic

K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)

Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)

Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)

Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia

Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University

The only way that Dawkins' claim can be anything but demonstrably false is if the word "serious" is re-defined as meaning "anyone who does not doubt evolution". Minus any re-definitions  the above-mentioned document shows that there are at least 800 serious scientists who are skeptical of the basis of evolutionary theory.

The claim that life shows the handiwork of an intelligent designer, however, is actually the understatement; not of the day, year, decade, or century...it is the understatement of all time. When the complexity of the material universe is investigated by science on any scale, it is apparent that the investigation has no end. The "bottom" cannot be reached. In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the longer the investigation continues, the more elusive "the answers" and complex the investigation has become, leading many to see, not only intelligent design, but what appears to be infinite intelligence behind the design of all things. 

Even Dawkins will state that the universe has "the appearance of being designed". It must be to his consternation that as the investigation continues, the "appearance" of design, instead of being dispelled, has only become increasingly obvious. The "fact" of the matter is also becoming increasingly obvious, that the theory of Evolution has become a laughing stock to any scientist who is really serious. And I will define the term "serious" as "one who does not operate from an apriori assumption, but lets the evidence speak for itself and lead wherever it may", in other words, one who is as objective as he or she may possibly be.

Substance vs Form

Sometimes I hear mixed messages from Christians. I hear them seeming to say that being a Christian is all about faith in what Jesus has done for them. At other times it seems like they think of their faith in Christ as something they do. Sin is spoken of in behavioral terms. I've heard children taught that "even if they only sinned once, they would be deserving of judgment and condemnation to hell." I think this leads children to the erroneous notion that it could be possible to sin only once. They might think to themselves, "wow, I could be leading a perfect life, slip up once when I'm 82 years old, and go to hell as a result." Their focus, naturally turns to that "one sin" that could trip them up. I think conveying the idea that someone could only sin once, even if it is only slightly implied, is completely wrong. Why? Because the actions we call sin are actually manifestations of something deeper, something that we Christians call "the sinful nature".

Thinking that someone could sin just once is analogous to thinking that a diseased tree could produce just one bad fruit. If a tree is diseased, all of its fruit will be diseased. The presence of any action of sin indicates a sinful heart. If the heart is sinful, then that life will be permeated by sin. Just like a diseased apple tree may have some apples that look normal and yet aren't, a sinful human may have some actions that appear to be free from sin and yet aren't. For example, you might see someone helping a blind person cross a street. What could possibly be sinful about that? Obviously it isn't wrong to help blind people cross streets. In this case, as in many others, the action is not what is sinful. Then how does the analogy of the diseased tree hold up here? Isn't helping someone cross the street kind of like the so-called diseased tree producing good apples? If so, then couldn't it be argued that the diseased tree may not be irreparably diseased? Perhaps the diseased tree is only partly diseased. Maybe there's hope that with some tender loving care in the form of cultivation, fertilizer, water, or pruning that the tree could be redeemed. After all, it does have a trunk, roots, branches, and leaves. the necessary ingredients are there. It's just sick. Maybe that is also the case with human beings. If they could possibly only sin once, many of their other actions being deemed free of sin; if they can be partly good then, with a little work, why can't they be brought into a sin free condition?

Let's look back at that diseased tree. Upon closer inspection by a trained inspector, the tree is actually found to have no roots! Yikes! The tree is dead, and there's no cure for that disease! Well then, how the heck did it produce any fruit, even if it only looked like good fruit? Upon closer inspection, the fruit is found to be fake! Someone glued plastic fruit on this tree! Wow...from a distance that tree had the appearance of being a healthy tree. But a trained inspector, one who knows to check the roots, shows us that it's not only unhealthy, but is in fact, dead.

Back to the good Samaritan helping the blind person cross the street. The act, at least, is "good fruit" isn't it? Just as determining the true condition of the tree and its fruit required the services of a good tree inspector, so the accurate analysis of man's actions, including his motives (the "roots"), requires the "services" of a good inspector. The Bible tells us who that "good inspector" is. It tells us that when He "inspects" man's deeds, that He's going to look at more than the external actions. He's going to inspect motives too. The Bible tells us ahead of time what He's going to find on the day that He does that "inspection". The day, by the way, is the day that the Bible calls The Day of Judgment. The Bible tells us that even man's "righteous deeds" are as filthy rags in God's sight. He sees into the depths of the hearts of men where He finds them as rebels, sitting on a throne and wearing a crown and robes that are much too big. He finds them "large and in charge" of their lives, without any perceived need of help. "No crutch for me, thank you. Crutches are for weaklings. I'm strong, my life is rich, I can pull myself up by my own bootstraps. I'm basically good at heart anyway." But He sees them living their lives out of self interest, perhaps out of a desire to be noticed, or to produce in others (or even in themselves) a higher opinion of themselves, or to justify feeling superior or "looking down" on others. Their motives may even be to justify themselves by doing good deeds to "balance out" areas in their lives where they see moral deficiencies. These are speculations. I'm sure there will be plenty of surprises on the Day of Judgment. But the Bible is clear that all of mankind is in the same rebellious condition. It actually describes this condition as being "dead" in sin.

So what hope is there? In the case of the dead tree, apart from miraculous intervention, there is no hope. It's only good for firewood. But in our case, there is hope. It isn't a hope that we can be fixed or cured, because our condition is every bit as bad as the tree's. We're dead to the core, at the root. The only hope we have is the miraculous intervention that only Jesus can perform. Our first concern is that coming day of judgment. The Bible tells us that Jesus took our condition upon Himself and underwent the judgment that would otherwise have resulted in our condemnation. As our willing substitute He became, in God's view, sin for us, and was judged on the cross for that sin. And He can also do something else that we  need and cannot do for ourselves, He can inject LIFE into us! The Bible tells us that the Life He can inject is nothing other than Himself! That He actually lives within believers and becomes, in them, the life that they lacked!

This is what it means to be a Christian. To recognize your helpless and dire condition and your need for God's miraculous intervention, and to look to Jesus for what He has done and will do for anyone who looks to Him for salvation.

The Implications of Questioning

My family and I started going to a church a few years ago that would describe its theology as "Reformed" and "Calvinist". For most of my years as a Christian I have wrestled with some of the concepts of Calvinism, even before I knew they were called "Calvinism". I knew about them from my reading of the Bible. I wrestle with them for a couple of reasons. One, I wrestle with them because I am very concerned that God is rightly represented in the things we say about Him. It's about His name and what it means in the minds of people.  Two, I wrestle because I have an inherent sense of justice, rightness, and goodness that either must be reconciled with what I read in God's Word, or altered. I think this sense is in me by virtue of my being created in the image of God and also from the fact that God Himself has resided within me from the day of my new birth (conversion). God also tells me to "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If I didn't have the mind of Christ within and the Word of God without, I would not be able to examine anything carefully because my examining skills would be deficient. But He has given me His mind and His Word and can, therefore, command me to examine. The need for examination implies that there are matters that I will have questions about. If not, there would be no need for examination. I would already have the answers and know what is good and what is not.

A few years back, a couple from the church invited my wife and me to their house for dinner. In the course of the discussion, as often happens with me, the subject turned to Calvinism. Before I continue, I should explain the basic tenets of Calvinism. Anyone reading this who is already familiar with these tenets should just skip this part. I gleaned these from a website (http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html).

There are five points of Calvinism, all described by the acronym, "TULIP".

"T" stands for Total Depravity and asserts that the total human being--body, soul, intellect, and will, is fallen and that everyone is born spiritually dead and spiritually helpless. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself. (John. 1:13; 8:43, 47; 10:26; 12:37-40; 18:37; Romans. 7:18; 8:5-8; 1 Corinthians. 2:9-14)

"U" stands for Unconditional Election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit. Since one is born totally depraved and enslaved to sin, one's election, which would include their turning to God for salvation, cannot be dependent or contingent on any spiritually worthy action one commits. According to this point, God predestines or chooses to soften the hard, sin-enslaved hearts of certain fallen individuals and liberate them from their death not because of any merit they have but despite their demerits. In other words, He elects to change their hearts (and thereby join them to Christ and His saving work) despite the fact that they hate God and oppose Him, and have hard hearts, not soft hearts, and have sin-enslaved wills, not free wills. Thus, believers have no reason to boast about themselves or their own actions: the only thing that differentiates them from Judas, Esau, or others who never respond in faith is that God gave them grace that He withheld from such reprobates ( Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Rom. 9:11-18; 1 Cor. 4:7; Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Jn. 1:13; 15:16; Acts 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; Phil. 2:13).

"L" stands for Limited Atonement.  The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect only. This point says that while Christ's blood, life, death, and resurrection--is infinitely intensive in saving power and thus unlimited in one sense, it is not infinitely extensive and is thus limited, and not universal, in the extent of its application; for while everyone conditionally or "provisionally" shares in Christ's life, death, and resurrection (thus, if everyone believed, everyone would be joined or married to Christ), only members of Christ's body or bride or flock (elect believers) actually share in His blood ( Jn. 10:11, 15, 26; 17:9; cf. 6:37, 39; 17:2, 6, 24).

"I" stands for Irresistible Grace. It teaches that God's inward call (as distinguished from the outward call such as where the Word says "many are called but few are chosen") is perfectly effectual and sufficient. When God has chosen to save someone, He will. A hard, fleshly, sinful heart need not add anything to God's grace, such as "co-operation," for this special call or grace is invincible, overpowering all hatred and melting all opposition.  (e.g., Jn. 3:6-8, Acts 7:51; 13:39; Rom. 8:3).

"P" stands for Perseverance of the Saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time. This is not the idea that no matter what a believer does he or she cannot lose his or her salvation but the idea that "He who began a good work in you will perfect it . . " (Phil. 1:6) i.e., the idea that whenever God creates faith in our hearts and thereby joins us to Christ and His saving work, He will sustain that faith, that saving relationship with Christ, causing us, by His grace, to persevere in faith. (Jn. 6:37, 39; 10:28-29; Rom. 8:31-39)

Well, back to our dinner engagement. As we discussed Calvinism, I expressed that I had reservations about some of the points. Our host informed me that there were times in church history when people were excommunicated for questioning this particular doctrine. To this day, I'm not absolutely sure what his point was. Was he saying that I should, therefore, put my doubts aside and embrace the doctrine? If that was his point, I would have a serious problem with complying. After all, how do you put doubt aside? Was he saying that I should just ignore my doubts and keep quiet about them? I could do that, but I believe it would be dishonoring to God...not the "keeping quiet" part, but the "ignoring" part, since God is the One who told me to "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good". ((By the way, I am pretty sure my friend was not trying to threaten me or even make me think I could be excommunicated for questioning. I think he was probably making the point that this is a serious doctrine that church leaders took seriously enough to part ways over it......I think)

My initial reaction was, "so be it". If having questions would result in excommunication, then excommunication may not be such a bad thing. By the way, with regard to Calvinism, I had, and have, no reservations about the Word of God. I fully believe that the Word teaches us God's truth...not all of God's truth, but enough for the time being. In the revelation that is called the Word of God, I and many others have found a well with a bottom that cannot be reached. There is only One who can fully plumb its depths. That is the One from whose mind it comes, namely God. In His Word, He even tells us " My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55: 8,9) How much higher are the heavens than the earth? Infinitely higher. Does it not follow, then, that we should expect to find mystery in the Word?
Given God's infinite nature, shouldn't we who are finite expect to find truths that appear to contradict each other, that leave us puzzled and perplexed?

I expect it, and have found it to be the case. Sometimes it makes me feel dumb, like, "What's wrong with me? Why are these things so clear and easy to understand for other people while I find them impossible to wrap my mind around?" It certainly may be a simple matter of lack of intelligence on my part, and I don't say that facetiously...I mean it. It may even be that I am just a stubborn nonconformist and it's rebellion that keeps me in this constant state of uncertainty.
 
Any believer who has attempted to plumb the depths of God's Word can tell you that it is an impossible task to complete. As we meditate on His Word, guided by His Spirit, the Word unfolds, like a flower. Just as we think, "ah, I think I'm finally getting it." Just as we are starting to think that we can box this particular verse up and put it on a shelf, the Lord starts to peel back another petal. We think, "how many petals does this flower have?" It should cause one to pause before filing that box away. I have found this to be the case with the "simplest" of verses.

For example, just this morning, I was reading John, chapter 3. There it says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." Wait, stop, what does He mean "only begotten Son"? I started pondering the fact that the Eternal Creator, the One who is behind it all, this mysterious and wonderful Being, for whom all adjectives are gross understatements, has a Son! An only begotten Son. And He gave this Son because of His love for the world.  I cannot wrap my mind around this! Who could make something like this up? I want to peer into it, to "get it", to fully grasp it. Usually sons have a beginning. Usually fathers are older, wiser, and stronger than sons. But not in this case. This only begotten Son is called the Eternal Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace in Isaiah 9:6. And yet, this Son serves His Father, prays to His Father, calls His Father His God! This exercise could go on forever, I think. But if I am so unable to grasp a "simple little truth" out of one little verse in the Bible, how am I ever going to become settled on a doctrine that is derived from a bunch of verses from different places and contexts in the Bible? Especially a doctrine that has lots of people wrestling with it and coming to different conclusions. In my mind, this is clearly not a time for dogmatism, threat of excommunication or not.

So, I'm going to leave it at this; that God commands us to examine all things, that this command implies uncertainty, that He allows us to discover "good" in our examination so it isn't just an endless pursuit of the infinite. There are settled truths (not necessarily fully grasped) that God wants settled in our minds. There will be things that we examine that we will not be able to be completely settled about and in the midst of this examination we should keep looking to and leaning on Him for insight, and not think that we can handle it on our own.

Evolution's Problem with Morality

       "There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do." The quote is from the preacher in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. If the proponents of Darwinian Evolution are correct, that all living things evolved, randomly and by chance, from nonliving things, and that Evolution is an undirected, purposeless process, then the preacher's quote is absolutely true. If so, then it's nonsensical to speak of concepts like "sin" or "virtue" or man as being "basically good" or "basically evil". There would be no such thing as good or evil. They would necessarily be concepts invented in the minds of people for some reason or another.

       The Evolutionist might say that the idea of morality evolved because adherents have a greater chance of thriving and thus are naturally selected for survival. But how would adhering to concepts of right and wrong enhance one's chances for survival? It seems to me that those who adhere to self imposed moral restrictions on their behavior would be easy prey for those without such restrictions. Imagine two next-door neighbors, one moral and the other not. Apart from the moral influences of conscience, the police, and judiciary system, who's garage would be full and who's would be empty?
       Animals operate according to only one unwritten "code" which is "the fittest survive". According to evolutionary theory, this "code" is directed by the amoral influence of natural selection and completely devoid of any influence from, or concern about, what may be right or wrong. If some mutant gene arose that caused an individual animal to have some inkling of morality (hard to imagine, I know, but stick with me here), how would that inkling affect its chances to survive? Compare two lions, one moral and the other amoral, coming upon an injured antelope. Which lion would be the quickest to kill and eat the antelope? While the amoral lion would have no reason for hesitation, the lion with the mutant morality gene might hesitate.
       After all, the existence of morality implies choice. Consciously or unconsciously, morality pauses and asks, "is this possible action that my stomach is calling for right or wrong?" An amoral animal has no reason to pause. It's either hungry or it isn't. If it's hungry, it kills and eats. No contemplation required. The stomach is either full or empty when the lion comes upon prey and its behavior is predictable. Not so with the moral lion. So, I don't see how explaining everything coming about by natural selection can account for concepts of morality. I wonder if Evolutionists are troubled by the "coincidence" that man seems to be the only animal with a highly developed sense of morality and Genesis' contention that man is made in the image of God?

       Back to the Evolutionists claim that nature is all that exists and that survival of the fittest is the only determinant of behavior. If that is so, then how do they explain the vast differences between man and animals and how these differences enhance survival? Why does man, among a myriad of differences that could be described, think, reason, ponder, reflect, choose, appreciate, marvel? Why does man eat a strawberry and ponder or rejoice over its flavor? Why does he eat an orange and ponder how different it is from the strawberry? Why does man gaze at sunsets, waterfalls, stars, and butterflies and do this thing called "marveling"?  Why does man "waste" a lot of time talking, or writing books and newspaper articles when he could be hunting and gathering? What survival value does getting your feelings hurt or holding grudges have? Why does man feel proud?  Why does man feel deflated, encouraged, perplexed, guilty? Why does man argue, not only over the best course to take in terms of survival, but the best course to take in terms of right and wrong? Why do people have a sense of justice? Why are people incensed when they read about an injustice perpetrated on someone else? Why do they go to such lengths to right wrongs that occurred in the past? Why are we repelled and appalled when some human being actually acts like an animal and kills and eats another human being (Jeffrey Dahmer), or steals someone else's property? How and why did all this evolve (and I am just scratching the surface)? Why in the world did mankind depart from the standard animal model where every quality exists only because it enhances survival?
       Finally, why does every Evolutionist I've heard or read minimize  and suppress this kind of questioning? Why don't they embrace it? The pursuer of truth, after all, has nothing to fear from questions, does he? Truth cannot be injured or altered by questions. In an open and free inquiry, truth will always remain standing. So why are Evolutionists so afraid of anything that dares to question their version of truth?
       If the Evolutionist is correct, then so is John Steinbeck's preacher, and there is absolutely no basis to believe in God or expect a civil society. But if the Evolutionist is wrong, and the evidence just touched on here declares that he is, then what could be more important than finding out the truth with regard to God?

Questions to Consider

1. Thinking about world history or current events, do you think anything is wrong with the world? What are the indicators, or symptoms, to you?

2. What do you think the root cause is? Why are things the way they are?

3. What do you think would fix it?

4. Are you part of the problem? How? If not, why not?

5. Do you believe that the Bible credibly answers these questions?

The problem

When I was going to college, I was asked the first question by a hitchhiker that I had picked up on my way home from school. I thought about it for a while. I wasn't suffering. I was healthy. I partied with my friends every weekend. Life was pretty fun for me. Life was good. For some reason I had never thought about what might be "wrong with the world". I said to the guy, "I don't know, what do you think?"  

To that, he asked me if I had read a newspaper lately, or if I had ever taken a history class and if I hadn't noticed that the world has always been filled with war and suffering. He asked me why everyone locks their doors at night and why prisons are so numerous and full. He asked, "Why do we have fences around our yards? Why has there always been war and strife?". I must have been oblivious because I had never thought about these things before. But at that moment, the problems became strikingly real to me and, for the first time, I realized that the world is a pretty messed up place.

After I admitted that the world seemed pretty messed up, he asked me the second question above; why did I think things were the way they were?  I thought about it for a minute before telling him that I didn't have any idea and asked him what he thought. He said that he thought the root problem was that, in general, people care more about themselves than they do their fellow humans. He said that he believed that if each individual in the world cared as much for his fellow humans as he did for himself, that none of the problems we had been talking about would even exist.

Maybe you're like I was and hardly notice that anything is wrong with the world. Maybe part of the reason some of us hardly notice is that this experience of life is all we know. The way things are seems "normal", but if you think about it, doesn't it seem like the world is a very messed up place?

These words of Jesus that have widespread appeal and have often been quoted say  "love your neighbor as yourself". Most people agree that everyone should put those words into practice. Why then is there such a contrast between what we agree about and what we experience? Why does self-centeredness and selfishness seem to be our default condition? Why do our personal interests seem to so naturally take precedence over the interests of others? 

Some answers people might give

The system

Many think that the root of our problem is  "The System". They think that if we can change the system we can fix the problem(s), so they work on the problem(s) from this angle. Some think it's the educational system. For others, it's the political system.  Communism, as an example, envisions a Utopian system that will eventually sustain itself as everyone works for the common good. Humankind has been changing "the system" for all of recorded history, often violently. But no matter how many times "the system" has been changed, the problem persists. 

Religion

Others think that people must modify themselves in some way through sheer will power.  "Do this", "don't do that".  The religious answer is often one that requires people to subjugate their natural tendencies by the exercise of their will. There are examples of this expressed in most religious literature. One is found in the following article: 

"Monks undertake 500-mile journey on their knees"

"Masters Zhiyuan and Hanliang will spend two months crawling to 99 temples on their way to the Putuo Mountains in eastern China until they reach a statue of Guanyin, the Buddhist goddess of mercy. Each night the pious pair will sleep under the stars in sleeping bags without even a tent to cover them, say helpers from their home temple in Ganlu, southern China. 'They will crawl and then every third step they will stop and bow as a sign of respect to the goddess,' explained one."

( http://metro.co.uk/2010/10/19/monks-undertake-500-mile-journey-on-their-knees-552157/ )

Many, like these monks, think the problem would be solved if everyone would just follow their example.

The Bible's Answer

If we were not self-centered but, rather, generally motivated by a love for our fellow humans, wouldn't any system work? Conversely, if we are motivated by self-centeredness, then won't any system eventually fail? Could it be that failure isn't inherent in the system; but rather, inherent in the people within the system?

In the New Testament book of Galatians, the Apostle Paul writes about the human condition that we all share. It is a condition of self-centeredness that results in distrust, lying, discord, hatred, strife, envy, anger, gossip, selfishness, and separation among many other "symptoms"  (Galatians 5:19-20). The history of the world is a long display of the result of this human condition.  

But the question remains, why? Why are we naturally self-centered? Why aren't we naturally motivated by love? 

We've considered the behavioral signs and symptoms of the problem, but the Bible claims that the problem is rooted in something deeper than behavior. It claims that people "walk in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them" and that this is "because of the hardness of their heart" (Ephesians 4: 17-19).   

Regarding our condition, the Bible claims that all people are sinful, that "there are none righteous, not even one". (Romans 3:10) It teaches that we miss the mark of having perfect love, which is God's standard. The meaning of the word, "sin" is, literally,  "to miss the mark" or "fall short". We all miss the mark and fall short of meeting God's standard of love.

The thread of man's fallen, broken condition can be found throughout the Bible and throughout history. 700 years before Jesus Christ walked the earth, a Jewish prophet named Isaiah wrote, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way..." (Isaiah 53:6)

The Bible claims that this problem exists for one reason, the universal alienation of humanity from God. We have all "gone astray". Each one of us has turned aside from God to our own way.  We have each abandoned God, and our lives are marked by self-centeredness instead of love as a result.

In the Bible, the human condition isn't described as simply a behavioral problem. And it doesn't claim that we are just dull or ignorant or not paying attention. It's deeper than that. It describes us as being "dead in our sins". According to the Bible, this condition is more than just a passive ignorance toward God. It includes an attitude of active hostility and rebellion.

To make things worse, in our spiritual deadness we are unable to even perceive our own condition. The Bible tells us that we are spiritually blind as a result of being spiritually dead! (Revelation 3:17-18).

I can remember my own thinking before I was a Christian. I saw Christians as gullible, simple-minded people who believed in this mythical book, the Bible. The Bible itself made absolutely no sense to me.

Now, looking back, I can see that the reason the Bible made no sense to me was that I was spiritually dead.

The cure

The Bible claims that without God's help our condition is as hopeless as the condition of a dead fruit tree. No amount of cultivating, fertilizing, or watering can do anything to change the condition of the tree. Trying to solve the problem by changing our behavior, whether by changing the system, self-improvement, or trying to follow religious rules, amounts to trying to fix the dead tree by tacking plastic fruit onto it. There is no hope in these efforts because the problem is deeper than behavior.

The good news is, there is a solution to this condition.

God is the Great Physician, and He has the "cure" for the "disease". The Bible claims that only God can accomplish what we have no hope of accomplishing. It says that our only hope is that God would perform a miracle in us because only God can bring a dead tree to life. And the good news is He's willing to do that! But how does He do it?  He does it by giving us spiritual life!

Christianity doesn't give us a list of rules that says "do this and don't do that and you might become acceptable to God". Christianity is, before anything else, about "dead" people being given the necessary and free gift of life. One amazing thing that the Bible teaches is that the life that the Christian receives when he or she trusts in Jesus for salvation is the life of God himself! Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life". A new life begins when the Spirit of God enters into the heart of a person! This is what Jesus was referring to when He said that we all must be "born again". 

This new life is freely given to anyone who looks to and trusts Jesus for salvation. Many other things also happen. One of the first is that our eyes become opened to spiritual truth. We are able to see and understand that the Bible is God's Word. We are able to see ourselves and the human condition more clearly. We are able to see and embrace God's solution, which is rooted in Jesus' death and resurrection. As we learn to yield to God and trust in His enabling power we are able to grow into being the kind of loving people He created us to be. 

So, how does this happen to a person? Do we play any part in the process? The Bible tells us that we do have a part to play. Just as our rebellion is essentially our turning aside from God to go our own way, so our salvation involves our turning back to Him. Turning back is not a matter of us mending our ways. That would be a requirement that would be impossible to meet. It's a matter of our recognizing our hopeless, helpless condition and turning to him for what he has provided as the solution. In a passage that is, in part, very familiar to people who watch football on TV, Jesus said,

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man (Jesus) be lifted up; so that whoever believes, will in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed..." 
(John chapter 3 verses 14-20)

That day in 1974 that I gave a hitchhiker a ride was the beginning of a journey for me. It started me on a search for truth and it took a few years before I found what I was looking for. I now know that it was not only that I found what I was looking for, but that what I was looking for found me, but that’s another story.

There is much more to say and discuss about these matters. There may be questions or objections that you have about Christianity. For example, many people think the Bible contains too many inconsistencies to be considered credible, or that it contradicts science (Evolutionary theory, for example). Yet, many eminent historians and scientists have critically examined these apparent inconsistencies or contradictions only to have become Christians themselves.

Questions about the Bible should be encouraged in the quest for truth. If this quest is something that you would be interested in, please call, text, or email me at the number or address below.

Bob Humphrey

925-699-2824

bob9354@sbcglobal.net