Presuppositions

Jim over at Moral Science Club does a fine job taking on a "challenge" from The Freedom From Religion Foundation. It's the old "Resurrection Challenge" in which the skeptic points out "discrepancies" in the biblical accounts of the Resurrection to "prove" that it's riddled with contradictions. Of course, Jim didn't seem to hesitate at all. While others have turned "from preacher to atheist" (The "Resurrection Challenge" is documented by a Dan Barker who wrote "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist".) over this, Jim just hummed right along without missing a step. "I took your Easter Challenge and didn't find it too challenging." While others comment "There is no way anyone can be intellectually honest with themselves and with others and reconcile all of those discrepancies", Jim just went down the list and showed how none of it was a problem.

What was the difference? Why did Jim have no problem and the skeptics do? Why is it blatantly obvious to me and critically obscure to them? I suspect it is largely a matter of presupposition. I believe that most of our conclusions in life are based on presuppositions that form them long before they're ever made.

This last weekend I had the privilege to meet with a friend I hadn't seen in over 20 years. What fun! We chatted and caught up on the vast gap (you know, a lot can happen in 20 years) and enjoyed each other's company. We talked about what happened after we went our separate ways, where we went, and how we got here from there. Once we exhausted that synopsis, we delved into other things like our divergent worldviews. My friend was struggling over "God". Who was He? Was He? Was the Christianity he had embraced anything close to right, or was it simply his persuasion? He asked some of the standard tough questions that other people ask. Why does God allow bad things to happen? Why are we here? Why did God allow sin? You know, the standard stuff that most of us, if we are honest, are hard-pressed to answer. I know I am.

I didn't have a lot of definitive answers for my friend. You see, what I consider "definitive" he considers "speculative". Why is that? Because of presuppositions. I assume that God exists. I assume that from logic and from evidence and from experience. From that I conclude that God is good, omnipotent, omniscient ... you know, all those things that we recognize as "God". When I assume those things, the answers come more easily to me than to others. I don't chase down a "What if God is a meany?" question because ... He isn't. I don't wonder if God is capricious because He's not. When I struggle to find answers to some of life's more difficult questions, I struggle from the perspective that God is Sovereign and Good and so the answers I come to must align with those presuppositions.

Now, those of you who are predisposed to think that you're "objective" and "not given to presuppositions" are fooling yourselves. Those, in fact, would be ... presuppositions. The truth is that everyone operates from presuppositions. We all have basic beliefs from which we operate to form other beliefs. The materialistic scientist, for instance, may assume that all that there is is the material world and will, by definition, ignore the possibility of the supernatural. All his conclusions, then, will be based on that initial presupposition and anyone suggesting, "Well, maybe God did it" would be thrown out as ludicrous ... not because the evidence demands it, but because it falls outside the initial presupposition. Theists (which are too rare, actually) presuppose a God who is intimately involved in the world. Their conclusions will be drawn with that presupposition in place.

And it's not as if presuppositions preclude any other conclusions. Biblically Paul was a prime example of changing presuppositions. When he was on that road to Damascus to arrest Christians, he was operating on one set of presuppositions. By the time he arrived at Damascus, his entire underlying system of beliefs had changed. So it's not that presuppositions are unchangeable. It is that presuppositions always form the conclusions that follow them.

Jim, over at Moral Science Club, doesn't bat an eye. Believing in a Bible that can be trusted and a Sovereign God, he takes the time and effort to look for ways to correlate the biblical accounts. The answers are there and they are reasonable if you choose to look for them. He does. The skeptics, on the other hand, presuppose that the Bible is a book written by men about a mythical god. The original "challenge" is not intended to find the truth but to question it. And no amount of reasonable responses from Jim and others will move them because it requires a change at a deeper level than "Answer these questions." That is my prayer; that changes will occur at a deeper level for those who struggle with these questions. To some of us, the answers don't seem that hard. To ignore the fact that they are daunting to many people would be foolish on our part, even if the skeptics ignore the fact that they seem blatantly obvious to some of us. Let's not forget that sometimes the answers to the questions isn't what is needed. There's something deeper here.

Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen?

Samantha over at Carry Your Candle asked, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?" Well, it wasn't actually her question. It was a question from a coworker. I'm afraid my answer wasn't particularly helpful, but she did make me think. What would I say in the same situation?

To me, the answer to the question is the opening line for presenting the Gospel. You see, I believe the question perfectly illustrates our sin condition by being so wrong-headed. The Bible says that "All have sinned" (Rom. 3:23), that "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way" (Isa. 53:6). You see, human beings, by nature, are hostile to God and have decided in each and every case, "I will be like the Most High" -- "I will be God in my life." In some cases, God has intervened and changed people, but this is the standard human condition. Despite the arrogance and affront to God, we have come to believe that we are valuable beings, worthy of being treated well. No one ever asks, "Why does God allow the sun to come up each morning?" or "Why does God let me have food and clothing and shelter?" or "Why are babies born healthy?" Those are requirements of God. We are entitled to them. How dare I even suggest otherwise? But if we actually understood that we were enemies of God, creatures of His who are anxious to overthrow Him and seize control, these would be more of the questions we'd be asking.

Somehow along the way we've replaced the Creator with the Creature. We've elevated ourselves to a position that puts God under obligation to us. He owes us pleasant circumstances and happiness. We've overstepped our bounds and exceeded our charter.

It's a funny thing, though, thinking about "creatures". Very few people would complain if you chose to step on a scorpion before it could sting you. Very few people would raise a protest if you got out the ant spray and killed off thousands of ants who were going to invade your home. They're creatures. They don't have the value of humans. And, at our level, this is absolutely true. Biblically we were made in the image of God and, as image bearers, are required to respect one another. But God isn't under the same obligation. He made the "picture". He formed the creatures that we are. And, as the Artist, the Maker, He is perfectly right in doing whatever He wants with us. He owes us nothing.

So, imagine yourself a tinkerer or inventor. You make a fine toy or robotic servant or some such. One day your creation goes awry. It turns on you. It refuses to follow orders. In fact, it becomes hostile, attempting to take over your house and do you harm. What do you do? Well, of course, you don't do anything painful to it. It is your creation. You are not allowed to cause anything unpleasant to happen to it. You are only allowed to do "nice" things to it. Right? Of course not. You attempt to correct the situation or you simply destroy it. It's your creation. You have that right.

I find the question, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?", wrong-headed. It assumes that God is not allowed to do that. It assumes, instead, that God is required somehow to only allow good things to happen. If bad things happen, He has done something wrong. Nonsense! This reflects a failure to comprehend our sin condition, our rebellion, our true state. The real question is "Why does God ever allow good things to happen? Why does He allow me to live? Why does He let me take a single breath? Why do so many good things happen to people who deserve nothing but wrath?"

You see, once we begin to grasp that, we begin to be ready to hear the Gospel. The Good News is only as good as the bad news. The bad news is God would be perfectly just and right to snuff us out of existence. The bad news is that our sin deserves His wrath. Once we get that, then the answer He has provided in His Son becomes very, very good news indeed. So why does God allow bad things to happen? Well, for multiple reasons, I'm sure (Asking why God does anything is dangerous at best.), but one of them is to remind us of what we deserve and to remind us of His grace and mercy in not allowing the immediate termination of our existence altogether. It makes the Good News really, really good.

I Serve a Risen Savior

The airways and Internet is full of folks who are quite happy to tell you that Jesus never really lived or that He never actually died or that He never really rose again ... well, at least not physically. "Look," they say, "we have his bones." That's a good one. I like it. Try telling a forensics expert that those bones are positively identified as Jesus of Nazareth some 2000 years ago. That will certainly fly.

Beyond the utter illogic of it, why do I care if Jesus rose again? I figured that today, the day we are celebrating the Resurrection, it might be a good time to list out the reasons that I believe in and rejoice over the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The first objection to Christ rising from the dead is a materialist objection. "There is no such thing as miracles." Given that premise, well, it's obvious that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, at least not physically. Well, given the existence of a supernatural God (you know, a God who exceeds nature), the existence of miracles would be a given. So, starting from the premise "In the beginning, God", I'll assume that miracles can occur and someone could, if this supernatural God so decided, rise from the dead physically.

But what do we care if He did? What does it matter? Well, in the case of Jesus, the Christ, there are several things at stake. First there is His reliability. Early in His ministry, He did what He did throughout His ministry -- He upset the religious leaders. So they came to Him and complained:

The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days ?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body (John 2:18-21).

Jesus said that He would be killed and that He would rise again bodily in three days. While most people are willing to admit that Jesus was a nice enough fellow, a good moral teacher, they're not willing to admit that He was what Christians believe Him to be. But this claim (along with many others) would make Him out to be a liar at best and, more likely, a complete loon. This guy made the claim, according to John, that He would rise physically from the dead three days after He was "destroyed". Not only did John record this claim -- so did the rest of the Gospel writers at various points. So, if I am to have a reliable Jesus, the Resurrection isn't trivial; it is fundamental.

In fact, it is not merely Jesus's reliability in question here. It is also God's reliability. Peter made this argument:

"And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. For David says of Him,

'I was always beholding the Lord in my presence;
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted;
Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope;
Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades,
Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.
Thou hast made known to me the ways of life;
Thou wilt make me full of gladness with Thy presence'" (Acts 2:24-28).

Peter's argument was that God promised not to abandon His Son "to Hades" -- death. If Jesus did not rise again, God lied. Peter argues that God cannot lie -- "it was impossible for Him to be held in [death's] power."

Well, at this point, my third concern seems trivial, but it's not, because it's here and now. If I am to have a reliable source book for Christian living, it has to be that Jesus actually rose from the dead. There is no doubt. It is undeniable. The New Testament portrays Christ as a Risen Savior. They talked with Him, ate with Him, touched Him, held Him. Paul offers more than 500 witnesses to His Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4-8) and John writes his Gospel and his first epistle based on his eyewitness status (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-4). (Note that John says, "What we have heard, what we have seen" (1 John 1:1), "These things we write ..." (1 John 1:4), suggesting more than one eyewitness.) There is absolutely no doubt that the New Testament account portrays Jesus as physically resurrected. If we attempt to move that to the area of myth, we move a fundamental proposition of the Bible to the area of myth and eliminate any reliable source book for Christian living.

Of course, the ultimate reason for believing in and celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is its effect. The Crucifixion resulted in the forgiveness of my sins. That's a really good thing ... "good news". But the Resurrection gives us hope. It says that we will have the opportunity to enjoy that forgiveness beyond the grave. It says that death is conquered. It proves the power of God and the fact that we can follow in Christ's footsteps from grave to life. To Paul, it was fundamental to the Gospel. There are a lot of things that can be said about biblical doctrine and a lot of things open to discussion, but the Resurrection was, to Paul, at the core of the Gospel. According to him, "the gospel which I preached to you" (1 Cor. 15:1) had three core components. (His words were "of first importance."):

That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

That is Paul's core "Gospel", that which was "of first importance." He believed that "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Cor. 15:14).

But ... what is the effect if Christ actually was raised from the dead? He became "the first fruits of those who are asleep" (1 Cor. 15:20). Everyone dies, but Christ's Resurrection is the shout of triumph over death ... for us! "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22). It is Christ's victory over death that gives us the hope of victory over death. "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 15:54-57). Paul concludes that the Resurrection of Christ, as such, gives us reason to be bold in doing good. "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58).

There are a host of voices out there, even coming out of things labeled "church" from people calling themselves "Christian", that like to proclaim that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They think they're offering a better way. They're not. If we serve a Risen Savior, we serve the One who conquered death on our behalf. If we serve a Savior who rose bodily from the grave, we can be confident in our own ultimate victory over sin. If we serve Christ who died and rose for us as the witnesses claim He did, we have a reliable Savior, a reliable God, a reliable source book -- reasons to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord. I think that's worth celebrating.

I Don't Want to Share

Anyone who is or has been a parent has likely experienced this before. You're sitting there at dinner with a really tasty something on your plate. It is done to a perfection and it is your favorite ... and your darling little one wants some. Do you share? Well, every loving parent shares. So you put a nice tasty morsel of this wonderful food on the plate for your little darling to taste. He or she picks it up (with fingers, of course), looks at it for a moment, then hurls it across the room where the dog, cat, or dust bunnies can enjoy it. Then your little sweetie looks at you and asks for more.

Any loving parent would share, but at some point any intelligent parent would say, "It's not doing my dear child any good to hand over my good things so they can throw them on the ground." Let me put it another way. Any good parent would conclude, "Don't cast your pearls before swine." (I know, I know, "Kids aren't swine!" Don't miss the point. "Don't throw what is really good to those who will fail to appreciate it and simply waste it." Is that better?)

So, here I am, thinking about Easter. Colleagues of mine who just a few weeks ago were ridiculing anyone who could be convinced that any religion was valid (well, that is, anyone who could be convinced that Christianity was valid) are now talking about how nice this Easter is going to be. "And no one better say we need to come in and work," I heard one say, "because it's Easter." And I'm thinking maybe I don't want to share anymore.

The day that we observe as "Easter" is intended to be a Christian celebration, a religious holyday (I didn't mispell that by accident), an observance of the central issue of Christianty -- the death and resurrection of Christ. On this day we celebrate the fact that He actually rose from the dead. It is one of only two days that a large number of "Chreaster" Christians actually show up at church. You know the ones; they only go on Christmas and Easter. You can count on nearly every church in the nation having a special, clear presentation of the Gospel for the lost who they all anticipate will show up that day of all days. It is a unique day in the year, and it is uniquely Christian. And we have generously shared it with everyone else. They all get together and celebrate with family and observe "new life" (the point of Easter bunnies and eggs) and things like that. It's a day off for everyone regardless of religious persuasion. And they've turned it into a circus. Toys, candy, parties, large quantities of food ... they've taken that exquisite, perfect morsel of food we've put on their plate, looked at it for a moment, and thrown it across the room for their bunnies to eat, so to speak.

Well, I don't want to share anymore. I'm taking it back. You guys are perfectly free to believe what you want. You can laugh that anyone could possibly believe that someone could come back from the dead. You can complain that religious lunatics believe that a book is inspired by God and ought to be believed and followed. You can ignore the Gospel we offer and call it foolishness. It's your right and I wouldn't dream of taking that from you. But you can't have my Easter. It's a special, unique, exquisite day when we celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord, and if you don't want to do that, don't, but don't think you get to waste the day on other things. It's not your day.

(Note: If anyone missed it, this is tongue in cheek. I'm being somewhat humorous. Or, at least, trying.)

Is That Yours?

"That's not yours. You don't get to play with it."

That's what I want to say so many times. I don't. But I want to.

Why is it that so many people seem to want to use the Bible when they want to use the Bible and not when they don't? Have you ever noticed this? It works in a variety of ways, but it is far too common, and I can't figure it out.

Take the guy who spends all his time arguing that Christianity is stupid and the Bible is simply a work of a bunch of guys trying to start a revolution or religion or something. Nothing special. Nothing noteworthy. Only an idiot would think otherwise. So why is it that the most quoted Bible verse is "Judge not that you be not judged"? They all know that one. And when you try to point out that something is a sin, that's what they'll throw at you. They've discarded the Bible as reliable or even noteworthy, but you'd better pay attention when they toss out that one!

Take the guy who has carefully dismantled the Bible. He's likely a pastor, professor, or scholar. He can quote passages to you in Hebrew, give you the Greek derivatives, and explain the history of the passage in terms of the culture of the day. And he's quite sure that it's all a myth, a book of the times, little to do with today ... certainly not of divine origins. But when it suits him, he'll argue against your doctrines using Scripture, telling you why you're wrong. He doesn't believe that the Bible is reliable, but he will reliably inform you of why your view isn't biblical.

Let's be honest here. It's not just the anti-Bible folks who do it. It's the "believers" as well. We like the nice passages that tell us about the love of God. We like the parts that tell us how God sent His Son to die for us so that we can be saved. Good stuff! Go, God! But when it says, "Wives, submit to your husbands", wives balk. When it says, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children", fathers chafe. "If your eye offends you, cut it out" is generally cut out of our Bibles. And that Old Testament God who is full of wrath and smiting and such? Yeah, we've pretty much used our broad-tipped black highlighters on those passages. That's not the God we know. We claim the reverse of the atheist or lost scholar who discards the Bible. We claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, God-breathed, the prime source for matters of faith and practice. Yet when the Bible says things we don't care much for, well, we're just as apt to toss it as the atheist or scholar.

That's not yours. You don't get to play with it. Either take it seriously or leave it alone. Either it's the Word of God or it's a myth. It's either true or not. If it is a myth, you don't get to use it to explain to me why I'm wrong. It's a myth! But if what we claim is correct -- if it is indeed the Word of God -- we had better stop handling it so lightly. We had better read it for all it is worth, know it better than we know our favorite TV show or musical group, and put it into practice without balking at the commands. Either live it or leave it alone. Don't play with it.

Why do the Religious Liberals Rage?

The movement of Christianity outside of conservative Christianity is evident. It is post-modernism. It is relativism. And, you must admit, it really does sound nice. It is fundamentally "Why can't we all just get along?" Here's the basic view that is espoused. "Look, it's okay. You believe what you want to believe. I'll believe what I want to believe. We're all just travelers on this road to spirituality. We all are right in our perception of the truth as we see it." Now, if I could, I just gather around the fire, sing a warm verse of Kumbaya or two, and join in the group hug. The problem is ... I can't.

My first problem is the absolute violation of logic. Here's how it goes:

Bob: "Hey, John, you believe what you want to believe. I'll believe what I want to believe. We're all just travelers on this road to spirituality. We all are right in our perception of the truth as we see it."

John: "Bob, I think you're wrong."

Bob: "Well, then, you're right; I'm wrong. And I'm right; I'm right."

You see, that makes no sense. Bob can't be right and wrong. Or, in standard Aristotelian Logic (not "Christian"), a thing cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. If Bob believes that Jesus was God Incarnate and John believes that He was not, both cannot be right. Both can be wrong, but both cannot be right. It's not a matter of fundamentalism or "inspiration of Scripture" or "religious viewpoints". It's a simple matter of logic. And while we might like to say, "We all are right in our perception of the truth as we see it", you know, so we can all get along, it just doesn't work. It defies reason.

There is a second problem that, to me, is actually quite amusing. There are so many trying to argue, "Maybe we're all right." Doesn't it strike you as odd that they are making the argument? Here's the deal. If it is true that we are all right in our perception of the truth as we see it, then no one can tell us we are wrong. And if you espouse that view, you of all people can't be telling other people they're wrong. And yet how many times do you see people posting and printing the argument that people who disagree with that position are wrong? That, my friends, is a contradiction. If you believe that we are all right, then you have no reason to argue that anyone is wrong. If I believe that you are wrong in that position, you have no reason to argue that I am wrong in my position because your view is that everyone is right. Of course, you can't actually hold that view because that would make you wrong ... which, of course, can't be the case because everyone is right ... which, of course, makes me right ... oh, it's all very confusing.

People will always act on what they actually believe. If they actually believe that something is right and something else is wrong, they will act on that belief and defend what they believe to be right. No amount of "We're all right" will erase that fact. If someone tries to argue that truth is relative, then they have no grounds on which to argue that anyone is wrong. If they argue that someone is wrong, then they're arguing that truth isn't relative. It can't be both ways. And when someone argues that someone else is wrong, they are affirming the basic and intrinsic belief that there are things that are true regardless of individual perceptions. Bottom line: If there are actually people who actually believe that truth is relative and we are all right in our perceptions of what we believe to be true ... I don't want them to be taking my money at the checkout line. "Well, you think you gave me a $20, but I think you gave me a $10, so here's the change for a $10. Too bad." Yeah ... that won't work for me. And, of course, the eternal consequences of being wrong about Christianity are far worse than being short-changed.

What House is This?

Did anyone watch the TV show, House, last night? What happened there? How can a thing like that sneak into prime time TV?

For those of you who don't know, House is a show about a doctor ... named House. Go figure. He is a super-cynic, hates everyone, and doesn't mind letting everyone know. He works at the hospital, however, because he is the keenest mind there is when it comes to solving obscure medical problems. So every week he and his team faces bizarre maladies, working feverishly to save lives all while Dr. House (and his crew) diminish the meaning of life as we know it by denying the existence of the supernatural, God, oh, you get the idea.

In last night's episode, he was faced with a 40-ish pregnant woman. Her baby (I think 21 weeks old or so) had some unknown medical problems that were feeding back to the mom and killing her. As the show progressed, House did all he could for mom and child, but was ever careful to never refer to the baby as a "baby". He explained at the outset, "I don't want to get anyone's hopes up." He corrected anyone who used the term. "It's a fetus." And he finally gave up. There was no hope. If the fetus wasn't terminated, both mom and baby -- er, fetus would die. Sad. But the hospital administrator (a 40-ish woman who wishes she were pregnant) wouldn't stand for it. In the climactic scene at the end, they gathered to do open-uterus surgery to fix the baby's problem and save the mom. The cynical Dr. House cut open the uterus and started removing the fluid when a tiny hand came out and grasped his finger. You've all seen it, I'm sure -- that picture of a surgeon's hand being held by a baby's hand out of the womb. That was it. That was the shot.

Well, everyone lives. House is still cruel and cynical. The 40-ish woman is fine. The 40-ish administrator goes back to her office. Everything is wonderful. But when House checks on his now healthy patient, he assures her she will have a healthy baby. Not fetus -- baby. The mom even comments on it.

So what happened here? Fox is no better at morality than the other networks. House is certainly not an oasis of wisdom and moral values. And, sure, admitting that a 20-week-old fetus is a baby isn't the finish to the debate on abortion or any such thing. But something happened on a television network that caused them to slip in a controversial value -- that a fetus in the womb is a baby, a human being, every bit as valuable as the mother and worth every amount of effort possible to save it. Where were the censors? Where were the executives? Were they asleep at the wheel when this TV show did something right???

My Holy Week

Okay, mind you, it's just a theory of mine. It is my goal to try to correlate Scripture. If any of this upsets you, I don't find it anything worth fighting for, so, please, simply let it go. On the other hand, if you enjoy trying to piece together puzzles and are willing to set aside some long-held ideas that may not be right, well, this might be fun.

In Matt. 12:40, Jesus makes a statement about His death and resurrection:

"For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Now, the normal person, when asked when Jesus died and rose again, will tell you that He died on Friday and rose again on Sunday. This is a problem for me because this isn't "three days and three nights." I know, I know, the standard answer is "Well, the Hebrews measured days from sundown to sundown, so Friday-Saturday-Sunday would be three days." That's all well and good ... but it's not three nights by any measure. So I'm a little bit confused.

So I took a different approach. What do we know? We know that the women found Him alive on "the first day of the week." Okay, good, a time reference. Jesus was discovered alive on Sunday. Funny thing. Beyond that, we know very little. There are references to "the next day" in a variety of places regarding the last week of Jesus's life, but there are holes in the time line and little is certain. The primary reason that we believe that Jesus died on a Friday was that it says that they wanted to bury Him before sundown because the Sabbath was the next day. That's about all we have to go on. So I tried to piece together a possible time line taking into account what we do know.

Working backward from Sunday, we know that "the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56). They prepared spices then rested on the Sabbath. Mark says something different. "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint Him" (Mark 16:1). So, it appears that women bought the spices on the day after the Sabbath, prepared them, then waited for the Sabbath. That means that there would be a Crucifixion and burial, a Sabbath, a day after the Sabbath, a Sabbath, and the first day of the week. That would mean that Jesus died on a Wednesday, not a Friday.

This is reasonable. This gives us three days and three nights. He died on a Wednesday afternoon and was buried by the evening. Wednesday night is night #1, Thursday is day #1, Thursday night is night #2, Friday is day #2, Friday night is night #3, and Saturday is day #3. Jesus rose the sometime after sundown Saturday evening. This fits. Unfortunately, this pushes back "Good Friday" to "Good Wednesday". It puts the Triumphal Entry on a Friday rather than a Sunday. Well, it moves "Holy Week" to "Holy Week and a half".

But, wait, is there any reason to think that there would be a Sabbath, a day, and a Sabbath? Well, indeed, there is. Biblically, the Passover falls on the 14th of Nisan. That is, the paschal meal (which we know as "the Last Supper") takes place on the 14th of Nisan. This starts a 7-day feast called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Oh, and, as it happens, the day after the 14th of Nisan is "a High Sabbath" (Lev 23:5-7). Now, if the 14th of Nisan falls on a Wednesday, Thursday would be a High Sabbath, Friday would be the second day of the feast (but not a Sabbath), and Saturday would be the normal Sabbath. There we have it -- the exact combination needed to account for Mark's and Luke's accounts and give us exactly what Jesus said would happen.

What changes if we do this? Well, as far as I can tell, just a few traditions. Oh ... and Scripture aligns and agrees. Yeah, that's a good thing. I like it. It's just a theory, but I like it.

Homophobes, Psychopaths, and Sadomasochists

Beware the English language. It will surely bite you if you try to cross the mainstream.

Try, for instance, to state a belief that homosexual behavior is a sin. You are not, at this point, stating an opinion regarding what you see in the Bible. It is not possible that you actually believe that. It isn't remotely possible that such a statement is even true. At this point, the mainstream will rise up and bite you with a relatively new English term: "Homophobe." The term is defined in the dictionary as "a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality." If you believe such activity is a sin, you either fear or hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that.

Or, perhaps you might suggest that it is biblical to spank children as part of their training. You are no longer a sane person; you are a psychopath. Now, a "psychopath" is basically defined as "a person having no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation." Clearly the person that thinks that training a child by means of spanking cannot actually believe it is taught in the Bible. They can only be a person without regard for the feelings of others, having no sense of social obligation.

Do you actually believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that it is the Word of God and ought to be followed? Then it's not likely that you are simply a Christian of principle. No. It is most likely that you are a sadomasochist who is intent on inflicting pain on yourself and others around you with your twisted beliefs in heaven, hell and all that jazz.

It's a real easy approach. If you don't really have an argument to make here, fill it in with a bad tag. Give the people with whom you disagree labels that make them look bad. It doesn't really matter if the label fits. It doesn't really matter if the label is even connected to the idea in question. And it certainly is not the goal here to address the idea in question. Clearly that isn't going to happen. If I can just call you a name that makes you look bad, I can minimize your ideas, whether or not they're right. If I can call into question your character, your viewpoints become meaningless.

It's really a product of lost arguments. It's what we do when we run out of things to say. In the movie, Hook, lawyer and grown up Peter Pan, Peter Banning, is trading insults with his Lost Boys nemesis, Rufio. At first Rufio is winning easily, but Banning starts to get into it. The tide turns, and Rufio runs out of insults. "You man! You ... you man!" That's where we end up. They aren't going to address the discussion of whether or not such and such a thing is a sin (and, as such, bad for the person committing it). No. "You ... you homophobe!" There's no room for evaluating whether or not controlled pain can provide a good training environment or whether it can be found in the Bible. No. "You ... you psychopath!" It's the last bastion of the weak mind.

Words have meaning. Terms like "homophobe" and "psychopath" are actually significant. There really are people who are homophobic. These people actually hate or fear homosexuals. There is no rationale. There is no sense. It is simply a hate or fear of the person. That's not the case of everyone who thinks that choosing to commit the act is sinning. To attribute this to someone is to diminish the word and even strip away the value (yes, value) of recognizing the morality or immorality of something. There really are people who have no concern for the welfare of others and no sense of social obligation. These are dangerous people that need to be recognized and helped when possible. Sadomasochists actually exist, people who enjoy harming themselves and others. They need help. Castigating them is not "help". And holding a particular view contrary to one's own does not qualify someone as one. To label them as such is to strip away the meaning of the word and remove any opportunity of dialog.

And, look, Christians, it's not just "them" that do it. We are often on the receiving end of these ad hominem attacks, but we are just as often on the sending end. If you have reasons to disagree with an idea, disagree. If you don't, calling names and insulting people isn't going to help your cause. We, of all people, ought to reflect the Divine command, "Love your enemies." I just don't see how insulting them fits in with that command.

Exactly Which Inconvenient Truth

The Right Reverend Al Gore, the preacher of the morality of environmentalism, is here today. Yes, here, at my place of business. He came to speak to a sold-out crowd at Gammage Auditorium at ASU. No, I didn't go see him. I didn't have the up to $300 that people were paying to get a seat. And I had to wonder exactly how descriptive "sold-out" was for that crowd. I mean ... was there a double meaning to that term?

Mr. Gore says that the problem isn't a scientific one; it is a moral one. That's the aim of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth -- to warn people of our moral problem. I have to wonder, having never seen the movie, exactly what "inconvenient truth" should be spotlighted. We could look at the fact that consensus does not make for good science despite his best objections. We could note that there is a large and growing number of scientists that are questioning the conclusion that America or even mankind is to blame for any possible warming of the planet. Or maybe it's more personal. Exactly how dedicated is Mr. Gore to his moral issue when his speaking fee here is reported to be $100,000 plus expenses. I mean, there are a lot of people who would be willing to claim a lot of things if you paid them that kind of money each time they said it. And isn't it odd that his contract includes the condition that the media be excluded? I mean, if your goal is to get out a worldwide cataclysmic warning, wouldn't you want the media around to help? Strange. Or how about the report that Mr. Gore's personal lifestyle doesn't seem to match his loud alarms (source). One might think that with speaking fees like that and a moral issue to which he's dedicated, he'd be able to afford to cut out a lot of the things he's calling on everyone else to cut out ... if he's really so dedicated to the issue. The problem isn't that he's not doing what he's telling us to do. The problem is that human beings always act on what they truly believe. If I tell you, "There's a bomb in the room" and I don't do anything, you can tell that I really don't believe it. His actions suggest that he really doesn't believe it.

Maybe the "inconvenient truth" lies elsewhere. He claims to be religious and favors abortion. He is a Southern Baptist without any of the trappings of being a Southern Baptist. In the 2000 campaign against George Bush, both candidates were asked leading questions at various times. George Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, to which he responded, "Jesus Christ." The uproar was loud. You'd think he had said that he planned to run the White House by asking, "What would Jesus do?" ... which was exactly what candidate Al Gore answered when asked how he would make his decisions in the White House if elected. The outcry against Mr. Gore was zip, zero, nothing. Why? Likely because no one actually believed that he held any real life-affecting religious views. Another "inconvenient truth"?

Where exactly is this "inconvenient truth"? Maybe it's in the fees he charges to sound the alarm that it is our moral duty to fix the Earth. Maybe it's in the disconnect between the alarm he sounds and the lifestyle he lives. Maybe it's in the gap between the religion he claims and the views he espouses. Maybe it's elsewhere.

I don't actually have an ax to grind with Mr. Gore. He's acting exactly as I would anticipate ... living what he really believes. But if you felt a twinge (or more) of outrage at what I said here, if you felt a rise of righteous indignation, what I'm hoping is that you'll use it to test yourself as I do myself. Are you as guilty as he? Am I one who claims to believe one thing and acts another way? Are you "sold out" for Christ ... as long as He gives you what you want? If love is the principle indicator of a Christian, is it a principle component of our lives? We are called to test ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Let this rise in emotion be an opportunity to do that for ourselves.

Why Orthodoxy Trumps Faith

The Ancient Apostolic Church, according to its website, is "a new Independent denomination". I referred to an article that mentioned one of my posts over at Street Prophets, and, as it turned out, it was written by a "Father David" of this new denomination. The title of the post was "When Orthodoxy Trumps Faith", and it appears that his point was that faith is fluid and everyone can believe whatever they want. It should come as no surprise, then, when "Anthony I", the ... I don't know the actual title ... "prime apostle" of this new denomination (if that title is incorrect or offensive, please forgive me; it was not my intention to be unkind) puts up an article entitled "Changes".

In an effort to foster a spirit of unity and ecumenism with other churches, we have declared and ordered that the line “Further we declare anathema” be removed from all our papers, Encyclicals and documents.

This is an effort to reinforce our beliefs that everyone has a sacred right to believe what they feel they are called to believe. We believe that there are many well-meaning and good Christians that have not grown to the point that we have and there is nothing wrong with that in itself.

Thus it is not for us to declare their beliefs or their progress in their Christian development wrong or “anathema.”

Now, remember my recent assertion. The question is not the character or intelligence of Anthony I. I'm not casting aspersions on Father David. The character or intelligence of those men is not the point. I am drawing attention to the ideas. Nor is it that Anthony I or Father David are new at making these assertions. Indeed, it is the battle cry of most of America. We should all be free to believe what we want, and no one can say that what we believe is wrong.

To the first assertion I proclaim, "Yes! In America we are all free to believe what we want." Whew! That should settle things, right? Not likely.

You see, the second assertion is nonsense. It is nonsense first because of the first assertion. If I am free to believe what I want and I believe that what you believe is wrong, and I further believe that I have the freedom to state my beliefs, then I can say that what you believe is wrong. Simple logic. To argue the second you would first have to deny the first ... and we've just agreed on the first.

But it's also problematic for other reasons. If there is truth, and what you believe is false, you are certainly free to believe what is false, but should everyone else keep silent about it? Move off the arena of theology for a moment. Your child believes that there are little green men under the bed. Poor little tyke ... he's terrified to sleep at night. In America he's free to believe that, but what loving parent would let it go on? What loving parent wouldn't go into that room at night and tell him the truth? There are no little green men under the bed. What he believes is false. It's okay to sleep. Evil, rotten parents, telling that kid that what he believed was wrong. Who do they think they are??!! They're loving parents, that's who.

This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Would that it was as simple as lost sleep over little green men. Instead it is eternal damnation over false beliefs. Today's common wisdom says we should just keep our mouths shut and let people believe what they want. They hate to hear someone tell them that they're wrong. No one wants to hear that they're sinning, let alone that they're in danger of eternal punishment. But what loving soul simply says, "Well, let them believe what they want; it's okay if their beliefs damn them for eternity"? How is that kind or helpful?

The Church in its history picked up this habit of "anathematizing" heresies. They would gather to discuss the heresy of the day and, when they were done, they would write a paper explaining their position. They would affirm certain truths and state an "anathema" on those who held to the heresy. And the church councils weren't the first to do this. They picked it up from Paul.

But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8).

(He even repeats it for emphasis in the next verse.) Here Paul anathematizes anyone who preaches a different gospel. It would appear that Paul didn't believe that "everyone has a sacred right to believe what they feel they are called to believe." He believed that there was a true gospel and there were false gospels, and that people that taught false gospels were accursed. Paul didn't care if they were "well-meaning and good Christians that have not grown to the point that we have." When the Church picked up that habit, they didn't either. The goal, rather than "to foster a spirit of unity and ecumenism", was to foster a spirit of unity around the truth. The aim was to warn people away from error by making it too frightening to go there. That was Paul's goal. That has been the goal ever since.

It is true that we can all believe whatever we want to believe. It's the law of the land. It is, however, nonsense logically and cruelty socially to not point out error. A loving person must stick his neck out and say, "Well, actually, that's not true; this is," especially in matters of eternal consequences. It would not be kind to do otherwise. You may believe what you want, but orthodoxy -- that which is true -- always trumps faith -- that which you believe to be true.

The Real Sea Hawk

Dana over at Principled Discovery did such a good job connecting bird migration to homeschooling issues that I was inspired to return to my look at birds, the original reason I started this blog.

The osprey is found throughout western hemisphere. They can be seen year round in Florida and Baja California and the like, but they migrate from the northern areas of Canada and Alaska all the way to Chile and Argentina. Indeed, ospreys can be found on every continent except Antarctica.

Ospreys are one of the largest birds of prey in North America. They are perhaps 2 feet (54-58 cm) long with a wingspan of up to 6 feet (180 cm) and weighing up to 4 pounds (2000 g). (Like most birds, the females are typically larger than the males, up to 20% more in weight.) Their primary (almost exclusive) diet is fish (thus the common name, "fish hawk" or "sea hawk"). These birds were seriously impacted by pesticides in the late 20th century, but their numbers have since increased dramatically thanks to Man's intervention.

As it turns out, ospreys don't seem to mind at all being around humans. They are quite happy to build nests on top of man-made poles, platforms, or any elevated flat surface. (Take a drive across Florica sometime, and you'll likely see a whole bunch of these platforms, mostly with osprey nests on top.) So they have taken up residence wherever they can as long as there is water and fish nearby, and the climate is suitable.

Ospreys are amazing fishers. Their keen eyesight allows them to see fish from a height. Their flying skills will often put them in a hover over their intended prey. Their brains automatically calculate speed, trajectory, parallax, all that is required to figure out where they will need to be to land on this fish and how to get there. When the time is right, they fold their wings and plummet into the water, hitting feet first. They are known to sometimes completely submerge to reach their fish. Without giving it a thought, they sink their massive claws into the prey, holding it in such a way that when they fly it will be facing forward, making it aerodynamic. Ospreys rarely release the fish they grab. They have been known to latch onto fish bigger than they can fly away with and end up being drowned, but letting go is just not one of their options. Generally there is no reason to let go. They are powerful fliers. They have long, curved talons, spiny pads called "spicules", and a reversible outer toe all to assist them in gripping large, slippery, struggling fish. According to those who know, ospreys can catch fish up to 74% of their dives. I suspect that's far better than most human fishermen.

Ospreys tend to be monogamous, so to speak. They will typically mate for life. In fact, they will typically use the same nest year after year. (Typically a great deal of time is spent in repairs each year before any kids arrive.) The female will lay three or four eggs. These eggs don't hatch simultaneously. They spread out over 5 days or so, with the first one ending up dominating the rest. As long as food is abundant, this is irrelevant. If food is sparse, the younger ones are likely to starve. Then, after 8 weeks or so, these offspring begin to leave the nest. When the eggs are laid, the female will spend most of her time on the nest, while the male provides for her. Once they are hatched, both parents will switch off hunting and caring for the young.

Ospreys teach us a lot. They illustrate, obviously, design in nature. Their structures, from beaks to wings to eyes to talons are all "designed" to do what they do -- fishing. Evolutionary naturalists find it hard to avoid the word "design" in the case of the osprey because it is so evident. Their talons and spiculed feet would have little use if it weren't for their sole food source -- fish. And the fact that they can submerge in a dive and hold their large prey in an aerodynamic way in flight just screams "design" over "chance". They also illustrate tenacity. No fish too big, no task too large, no letting go. They will do what God designed them to do and they won't easily surrender, even when it gets tough. One thing that ospreys say to me, however, is in their nesting. They go to great efforts to make a "spiny" nest on a poorly accessible platform to defend their young against predators. Then ... they leave the results up to God. Sometimes we have trouble balancing the two concepts. Is it a lack of faith to take precautions? Or is it foolishness to fail to take precautions? Finding the balance between "taking precautions" in life and "trusting God" isn't always easy. Ospreys do what they can and don't sweat what they can't control. I like that approach.

Photo credit:
My father sent me the picture. It was taken in Carlsbad, California, by an avid bird photographer he knows. I had to include the picture; it is stunning.

The Curse of Exclusivity

Exclusivity -- it seems to be the ultimate evil. You can believe a lot of stuff, but if you believe that your view is the only right view, that's wrong. It's arrogant. It's stupid. It's ... evil.

This revulsion toward exclusivity has its roots in the post-modern mind. Post-modernism believes that truth is relative. If truth is relative, how could any truth be the exclusive right truth? I mean, seriously folks, come on! What are you thinking?! It's so obvious that the simplest mind can see that!

Of course, it only takes the simplest of minds to see that there is a problem with that. Beginning with the empirical, 2+2 can only equal one number and no others. There is only one right answer to that mathematical equation. It isn't arrogance or ignorance or stupidity that leads you to answer "4". It's simply the truth. It would seem, then, that not all truth is relative. (If you would still like to believe it is, see how it goes over with you when the cashier at the local fast food joint short-changes you. It's the right change from their perspective. How dare you try to impose your reality on them? Yeah, I think you see it, too.)

Exclusivity shouldn't be such a problem to people. It is simply a result of standard logic. Everyone knows, "We can't both be right" when our viewpoints are in total opposition. In fact, it is the only reason to discuss when we disagree. If we could both be right with opposing viewpoints, we'd simply both be right and go on our way. There would be no reason to defend a view. The opposition is right, too! But logic demands that something cannot be both A and NOT A at the same time and in the same sense. So opposing views have to be discussed, defended, resolved.

It seems, in truth, that the claim of exclusivity only becomes a problem when it comes to religion. In America, all religions have equal protection under the law. Somehow we've construed that to mean that they have equal validity. Therefore, to claim that "My religion is valid and yours isn't" is the epitomé of arrogance. All religions are valid. Interestingly, nearly all religions make the claim to exclusivity. Very few say, "It just doesn't matter." Most claim to be the exclusive way, and the only hope the outsiders have is to convert to their beliefs. So, here we are, stuck with a logical difficulty. It defies the rules of logic for all religions to claim to be exclusive and be correct. They might all be wrong, logically, but they can't all be correct. If there is "a true religion", only one of them can be correct.

It would be nice if we could all just get along. Christians do have a problem, however. We claim to be followers of Christ. Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). The exclusivity claim in Christianity doesn't come from a perspective we hold, but from the One who founded Christianity. Now, if we are to be Christians -- "followers of Christ" -- we're in a dilemma. He said it. We can either follow it or not be followers. We can't be both. Here, think of it this way. I want to be just like Ted. Ted loves polyester slacks -- wears them all the time. They define him. Me? I hate polyester and only wear blue jeans. I might say I want to be "like Ted", but if I refuse to be like Ted, it's a lie. I'm not a "Tedian".

So, here I am, a Christian with a leader who claimed exclusivity. I understand that it might be offensive to some. I understand that it might sound arrogant. And God knows that I'm not smart enough to claim I'm always right and everyone else is wrong. But I'm stuck. If I want to be a follower of Christ, I have to agree with what He says ... and He claimed to be the exclusive path to God. True arrogance for me would be to say, "I'm a follower of Christ ... but He was wrong." Hey, I didn't claim that Christianity is the exclusive path to God. The One whom I follow did. I can either follow there, too, or stop being a follower, but I can't have it both ways. So maybe, just maybe, you who don't like the exclusive claim of Christianity could cut us some slack. We're stuck here.

A "Fan" Responds

I can't seem to find the place to enter a comment, or I would. Chalk it up to a lack of Internet skills. But my post regarding the importance of the Crucifixion was the subject on Street Prophets, where they assured the reader that faith trumps orthodoxy.

I won't comment on the majority of the post. I won't try to defend my position. I won't deny that I believe orthodoxy to be important. I won't deny that I believe that it is important to believe the truth or, in other words, that orthodoxy (defined as "right thinking") trumps faith (defined as "what you believe to be true"). He says there that I believe that "spiritual bankruptcy" is necessary to get to salvation, and I can't disagree (nor, it seems, does Christ in the Beatitudes). There's no point in trying to argue these issues. Here is what I wanted to comment on.

Nothing in Pastor Shuck's original post comes out and says that Christ sacrifice was unnecessary.

I don't mind being disagreed with. I don't even mind being misrepresented. (I have never suggested that Christians must all submit to a 7-day, 24-hour Creation to be considered orthodox or believers, for instance.) I would suggest that you revisit Pastor Shuck's post. I think you will find that he specifically says that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary. Actually, what he says is "I and I imagine others have let go of the need for substitutionary atonement." He is arguing that Christ did not die for our sins because substitutionary atonement is a myth (and he argues elsewhere that neither did He rise from the dead) and that this story along with much of the Bible is myth.

While one might argue that "a group of people culturally linked by an eastern mindset" might be "free to take some liberty with details in pursuit of a larger truth", it seems that the "larger truth" of Christianity is precisely that Christ died for our sins. Shift it to metaphor or mythology if you like, but that is the undeniable message of the New Testament ... that is being denied by John Shuck.

And that is my objection -- not detail, but the primary message. Remove the Cross as essential and the Resurrection as important and you remove the Gospel in its entirety. It's not in the details; it is the message of the Bible and Christianity. Remove it and you remove any distinctive in Christianity whatsoever -- and, of course, any reliability to the doctrines of the Bible. In other words, folks, go there, and you're on your own. I'm not saying, "Don't go there." I'm saying if you do go there, don't call it "Christian."

(And may I say, in passing, that it is an honor to be noticed by someone as important as Street Prophet?)

Conspiracy?

I am not a conspiracy buff. I don't buy into the "CIA wants to read your thoughts" alarms or really believe that the government has a covert base with aliens on it. In fact, you have to go a long way to convince me about almost any of the popular conspiracies that are floating about. So this is very painful for me to write. But ...

Why is it that there is so much on TV about homosexuals? More to the point, why is it that the constant, unabating message thrown over and over and over again at me in sitcoms, murder mysteries, and TV movies is "homosexual is normal and there's nothing immoral about it"? Every character that is against homosexual behavior is a loon, a psychopath, a dangerous or dubious individual. Many of them are supreme caricatures of the "religious right." In fact, almost as often as I get a message on TV about how there is nothing wrong with two people of the same gender having sex with each other, I get a message that all religious folks are crazy. Very often the message goes hand in hand.

I don't seem to be able to escape this constant barrage. For instance, Wednesday night there was Bones on Fox, a series about a forensic anthropologist who helps the FBI solve murders by examining bones. Last night's episode was about a murder in a church cemetery. And only a fool would believe in an invisible Being you couldn't touch, taste, or hear. What idiots, these believers in the supernatural. The normally capable FBI guy that handles the tough work was constantly belittled because he believed in God. Really intelligent people, you see, know better. What theism had to do with a forensic anthropologist solving a murder I don't really understand. It looked to me like gratuitous insults. Then there was Crossing Jordan, a series about a Boston medical examiner (Jordan Cavenaugh), and the murder cases the ME's office gets involved with. In this one, a murdered mother had her unborn baby cut out. Gruesome, to be sure. Why? Well, as it turns out, a whacko religious group hates homosexuals, and this mother was one. It was almost amusing to me the way that the "righteous" characters (the ones not against homosexual behavior and the ones who had no religious beliefs), bandy about Scripture references to put those nasty religious people in their places. (I bet you could guess one of them without even trying. "Judge not that you be not judged." Yeah, that had to be in there, ripped out of context, misused and abused.) This one was particularly gratifying because it hit both of the issues. It told us that homosexual behavior is perfectly moral and religious people are nuts. And that's just from what I saw in one night.

I don't like to think that there's an actual concerted effort here. And maybe there isn't. But I've heard too many times that there is nothing at all wrong with homosexual behavior and not even once that it might be immoral to think that it's an accident. And if I could find a religious character who is not portrayed as a loon, I might think that there was just an imbalance. But there appears to be no one who is willing to express the true Christian view on the topic or to portray a Christian as a thinking, caring individual. The only views we get expressed on the topics at hand are anti-Christian. In the Jordan episode last night they even clearly and cruelly mocked the tagline of so many, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Yeah, that can't happen, right? Only a crazy person would suggest it could.

I spend a lot of time defending my faith. I have to provide reasons for what I believe. Those who disagree don't really have to offer rationale because, well, they're in the majority, and the majority rules. So it's only doubling the effort when I not only have to defend what I believe but also have to fend off what I don't believe. And when they gang up on us, making what appears to be a concerted effort to lie about our beliefs, our character, our perspectives ... well, I can see where those folks under the altar (Rev. 6:9-10) are coming from.

I Have Nothing

Many churches today are working on being "irresistible", or, at least, acceptable to the people around them. Their goal is noble: Reach the lost. Megachurches have sprung from this approach. Bill Hybels built Willow Creek from this approach. Rick Warren actually went door to door in his community asking marketing-type questions about what they did and didn't like about churches and what would make them come. He grew Saddleback Community Church to over 50,000 folks with that strategy. And others are hot on their tails, trying to emulate their success.

One of the first things to come off the sermon topic list was "sin". Jesus said, "Men love the darkness" (John 3:19), a way of saying that no one wants to hear about their indiscretions and how they need to change. Everyone knows the annoyance of the stereotypical mother who is always nagging her adult children to change, to be better, to fix this or that in their lives. No one likes that. No one. So what do we do instead? That's easy. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace ..." (Gal. 5:22). Who doesn't want to hear about love, joy, and peace? "I will ask the Father, and he will give you a Comforter" (John 14:16). Who isn't happy to hear about a Comforter? "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:4). Is there anyone who doesn't like gifts?

There really is a lot of "good news" in the Gospel. Forgiveness, restoration, new life, friendship with God, the power of God at work in us, oh, the list goes on and on and on. And to ignore or slight these is to miss the point. There's just one catch. These are not the starting place.

The rich, young ruler came to Jesus and asked for the good stuff. "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 18:18). Good work! You've recognized that Jesus is good. You've recognized that He's a teacher. You see that He has the answers to life in general and eternal life specifically. Excellent! What does Jesus answer? "Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" (Luke 18:22). The man came to Jesus full. He had his own righteousness. He had money. He had everything. All he wanted was to be sure about the hereafter. Jesus told him that the thing that was required was ... emptiness. That the young man lacked.

Jesus told a famous parable about two people who went to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. Before we dismiss the Pharisee, look a little longer. We've come to think of "Pharisee" as "hypocritical", perhaps even "legalistic". Jesus, however, had lots of good things to say about them. He had bad things to say, too, but lots of good things. Look at the real goodness of this Pharisee's prayer.

"God, I thank You that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get." (Luke 18:11-12).

Sure, sure, it's arrogant, but not as arrogant as it looks at first glance. He's doing all the right things and he's proud of it, but look what he says at the beginning: "God, I thank You that I am not like other men ..." He was proud, but proud of what he perceived God had done in his life. What's wrong with that?

Jesus said of the tax collector whose only prayer was "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" , "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other" (Luke 18:14). What was the difference? The Pharisee was full. He had what he needed. The tax collector was bankrupt.

This is the recurring theme of the Gospel. Yes, yes, yes, there is much good to commend it. We should know, appreciate, enjoy all of it. But the first requirement of coming to Christ is spiritual bankruptcy. The first requirement is a hunger and thirst for righteousness because we have none. The first requirement is the real and awful recognition of our sin and its horrors to God. The first requirement is "Nothing in my hand I bring; Only to Thy cross I cling." So when we try to make our churches more acceptable by leaving aside that particularly noxious topic of sin, we leave aside the first step. Without bad news, there can be no good news.

Does your sin bother you? If it doesn't, have serious questions about your spiritual state. Do you think that you are morally superior to others? Perhaps you haven't recognized the depths of your own depravity. Do you think that unpleasant things shouldn't happen to you? Perhaps you're not clear on where God found you. Worse, maybe He hasn't. We must enjoy the good news that God has given, but it starts with a true realization of the bad news of our sin. Remembering will teach us gratitude and humility and contentment and patience. Now who doesn't want all that?

Science is the Answer

Okay, that was a very short post and I've seen so much of this of late that I had to publish this as well.

Over at Moral Science Club in the comments to an article about abortion, an anonymous commenter says, "Why do we keep on trying to use religion to guide people's behavior when we have science?" This isn't a unique perspective. While you would expect this to be the position of laboratories and institutions of "higher learning", I've also seen it postulated by "pastors" and other "church officials". Somehow along the way much of our world has decided that "science" is the measuring stick by which all things are determined. Not only does science determine what is true about the physical universe, but it is also the decision maker about what is true about the supernatural (which, scientifically, is dismissed), the psychological, religion, and even the moral universe. Oddly enough, not even scientists seem to catch the nonsense of such a position.

Science is defined primarily as any kind of objective knowledge. That, of course, is the broadest definition. More accurately, science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. According to Isaac Newton, it is predicated on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning. Science is based in the natural world. Since the supernatural, by definition, is outside of the natural world, science can have nothing to say about it. Still, it tries. If it cannot be observed or measured, it doesn't exist. Science has spoken. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. And no one can offer a single, reasonable link between observable, empirical, measurable evidence and morality. If it is observable, empirical, measurable evidence, then it ceases to be morality and changes instead to pragmatism.

The basic requirement of science is that the information must be based on observable events that can be verified by other researchers operating under the same conditions. This, by definition, eliminates the concept of a "miracle." A miracle is defined by the dictionary as an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006). An event that "surpasses all known human or natural powers" cannot be verified by other researchers operating under the same conditions. Ergo, it doesn't exist! This, of course, is nonsense. The inability of a particular method to test for something doesn't define that something's reality. If something is defined as a singular event, a method that requires repeatability cannot have anything to say about that event's existence.

According to wikipedia, "Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study." This is because of the nature of science. The scientific method is always open to falsification. The idea of scientific study is to verify or falsify ideas. As such, science ends up quite subjective in many areas. Just listen to the news sometime to see what I mean. Eggs are bad for you. Oh, no, eggs are good for you. Drinking coffee is bad. No, it is actually good. Chocolate is bad for you. What we meant to say is that chocolate can save your life. Even the "knowns", like the Law of Gravity end up less than perfect. When approaching the speed of light, gravity approaches non-existence. Oops! So much for that Law. So how is it that a field of study that is defined as constantly in flux and readily falsifiable becomes the standard by which all truth is known?

I don't mean at all to denigrate science. Science has its great value. Science has a long history. Plato and Aristotle were early scientists. China is known in ancient times for inventing things like the compass and gunpowder. Mathematicians in India had models of our solar system centered around the Sun as early as the 6th century. The Scientific Revolution took place in the 16th century, starting with men like Copernicus and Galileo, Francis Bacon, and René Descartes. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica laid the groundwork for such givens as the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Motion. The thing to note in this revolution, however, is that most of its participants were Christians. Their idea was simple. If God is a rational being, then His creation ought also to be rational. As such, we should be able to study His creation and figure out how it works. The idea was "thinking God's thoughts after Him," a line by astronomer Johann Kepler. Newton believed that his book would lead people to believe in God. Modern science, then, has its origins in a Christian worldview. Discarding this view has not made science more stable or reliable.

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who argued, much to the delight of atheists everywhere, that the existence of God cannot be proven. To the chagrin of said atheists, Kant also argued that if there is no God, there can be no grounds for morality. For morality to have any weight, there must be justice. If you look around, you must admit that justice is not always served. Therefore, for morality to have any weight, there must be ultimate justice. For there to be ultimate justice, there must be an Ultimate Judge. This Judge must possess certain characteristics. He must (quite obviously) be absolutely just. He must be above any moral failure Himself (Good). He must know all the facts perfectly (Omniscient). He cannot be able to be swayed by outside influences (Immutable). He must be able in all cases to carry out the sentence (Omnipotent). And so on. I think you begin to get the idea. If we eliminate God in favor of science, we will have a dandy sense of what goes on in our world. Well, our physical world. Well, somewhat of a dandy sense, since what we know is constantly changing. And that's how science is supposed to operate. It's an excellent way for human beings to understand their world. It is a perfectly awful way for human beings to determine whether or not something exists beyond the natural world or whether or not something is moral or ethical. These things fall outside of the realm of "science". In answer to the question at the outset -- "Why do we keep on trying to use religion to guide people's behavior when we have science?" -- it is because science has nothing to say about guiding people's behavior, and using science for that purpose eliminates morality and justice, a result we cannot survive.

Solar System Warming

In an earlier (and clearly less than serious) article, I suggested that we should execute those of us responsible for Global Warming. Well, it appears that the problem is worse than we suspected.

It appears that NASA has discovered (or rather known for years) that the polar ice caps of several planets, dwarf planets, and large moons in our solar system are shrinking. I've seen reports from 2001, 2003, and 2007 documenting the decline of the Mars ice caps. Wow! Apparently the middle class, SUV-driving, fossil-fuel-consuming, refusing-to-recycle United States has a larger impact on the universe than we had originally imagined! Not only are we destroying our planet. We've managed to warm the solar system.

And while I might question this source, it still makes me wonder: Why is it that the leadership of the middle class, SUV-driving, fossil-fuel-consuming, refusing-to-recycle United States hasn't made their own move to alter their lives to fix this crisis? Consensus aside (because, as has been pointed out by multiple sources, "consensus" is not science -- ask Galileo), if this is such a crisis, why is it that those who are so convinced that it is such a crisis aren't acting on it themselves yet? If it is true that you always act on what you really believe, one has to wonder ...

What Truth

I've already mentioned John Shuck, a Presbyterian pastor in Tennessee. So please remember when you read this that it isn't about John Shuck, but the ideas in question.

He has decided to preach a sermon about how "Good Friday" was not good, and how the cross is not good news. In his article, Good Friday is Not Good, he gives this summary of the concept of substitutionary atonement:

Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the garden. In so doing they sinned. They committed the original sin. By sinning they dishonored God and could not be in God's presence. So they were cast from the garden. Not only that, but their sin was transmuted generation by generation. All humanity, by nature of its humanity, is in a state of sin. They owe a debt to God that they cannot pay. Humans owe the debt but only God can forgive the debt. But God just can't cancel it. So God becomes human. Because Jesus is born of a virgin, he is not tainted by human sin. Jesus, the God/human cancels the debt by dying on the cross taking the sin of the world onto himself. Jesus is substituted for us. All who believe in this story have their debt of sin cancelled. They get to go to heaven when they die. All who do not believe in this story are still in their sin. They get to go to hell.

We'll leave off the juvenile "believe in this story" approach. Any Christian knows it is not "believe in this story", but "faith in Christ" that saves. But we'll move on. He tells us how he came to the conclusion that this story is not valid:

I think ultimately, it was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that put this dogma in the museum of "fossilized beliefs that once were interesting." If humans evolved from lower life-forms and over billions of years of evolution, then the Adam and Eve story is obviously a myth.

We are fortunate to have science along now, the god of this age, to correct any foolish notions that religion might have had. Heaven and Hell, "in the image of God", and all that nonsense is fortunately available for discard, or, as he puts it "in the museum of 'fossilized beliefs that once were interesting'."

Finally, on the meaning of the cross, this is what he comes up with:

The cross symbolizes the meaninglessness of terror, cruelty, and violence for which there is no answer. If the cross is to mean anything for us today, it is that it represents the absence of goodness. It is the horror of humanity's crimes against humanity.

I know that Christians everywhere would like to respond with ire and Scripture. Don't bother. If Adam and Eve are myths, and the Resurrection is a myth, if essentially all those Bible stories are fabrications made simply to make a point, not to express truth, then arguing that the Gospel consists of Christ crucified and resurrected won't carry much weight. Save yourself the effort.

I don't seem to be able to gather the ire that perhaps I should. There is no outrage in me. I'm saddened that someone who calls himself a "Christian pastor" has decided to toss out everything that makes it "Christian." I'm disappointed that someone who associates himself with a major church organization like the PCUSA does so with complete disregard for what the PCUSA claims to believe. To me, the honest thing for people who disagree with the stated beliefs of an organization would be to leave that organization, not attempt to subvert its beliefs. And I'm confused with this position at all. If there is no need for atonement, by what means do we suppose that we can be right with God? If we just "want to" and God chooses to accept that, in what sense can He be called "just"? And if "science" is the determiner (by the way, most of science has discarded Darwin's theory of evolution because it just didn't work), how are we to determine anything at all? Science by definition is constantly in flux, finding, correcting, changing, discovering. How can we know anything if that which is our prime source is constantly shifting? It's all painted very nice, but it's all so confusing when you give it any thought.

I'm not angry with Pastor Shuck. I'm saddened by his position that eliminates anything "Christian" from Christianity. I'm disappointed by his dishonesty as a "Presbyterian" who disavows Presbyterian theology. And I'm confused by his ideas which seem to leave me with fewer answers than before. But I suspect that there would be no dialog in cases like these. I'll just be labeled "intolerant" or "narrow-minded" or some other name for believing that the Bible is actually the Word of God and science might be wrong and the discussion would end. It's sad. I know that "the truth shall set you free", but I can't figure out how this "truth" frees anybody.

Why I Am A Calvinist

Why am I a Calvinist? Many people would assume that I am a Calvinist as a product of bad teaching or poor upbringing. This would be a mistake in my case. I was raised in a good, standard, Dispensationalist, "Arminian" home. I put "Arminian" in quotes because I never thought of myself as an Arminian. I believed I was a Calvinist because those rotten Arminians believed you could lose your salvation, and I didn't. As it turned out, I was a 1-point Calvinist and a 4-point Arminian ... as I suspect a lot of you are. (And even that one point wasn't accurate.) So it wasn't upbringing or early teaching that got me here. No, it was much worse. Truth be told, I am a Calvinist for two reasons. First, I was dragged away from my original upbringing, kicking and screaming, by Scripture and evident reason. What could I do? But, second, I found that, once here, I didn't want to leave.

What Scripture and evident reason pushed me into this perspective? The easiest, clearest, first, and least surmountable was the declaration that Man is evil at his core. So insurmountable is this that most "Arminian" (I'm trying not to use the term in an insulting sense, but just as a denominator, so to speak.) statements of faith include it. It doesn't take a Calvinist to see that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Fine. We're all in agreement. The problem, unfortunately, is that we aren't. As I looked into this condition of Man, I found that very few viewpoints were taking it into account. I believed like most of you that the Holy Spirit "woos" unbelievers, "calls" to them, tries to win them over. I believed like most of you that we had to first place our faith in Christ ("Accept Him as your Savior" was the phrase) and then we would be born again. This faith was something that we came to, something that we found once we had received sufficient enlightenment to recognize our need and His sufficiency. Nice. But none of this took into account what the Bible had to say about our natural condition.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5).

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it (Jer. 17:9)?

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:9-12).

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:5-8).

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14).

You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind (Eph. 2:1-3).

And this is only a partial list. Let's face it, folks, the Bible paints a pretty bleak picture of Man in his natural condition. And yet, when I started looking into what I believed, I found that none of what I had been told took this condition into account. If the idea was that I could eventually become enlightened enough to the truth and place my faith in Him, how did that take into account that the only intention of my heart was evil, that my heart was deceitful and sick, that no one seeks for God or does good (Isn't accepting Jesus "doing good"?), that the flesh has no capacity to do anything that might please God, that natural man cannot understand spiritual matters? And, of course, there was the worst condition -- dead. I asked people. "What does Paul mean by 'dead'?" They told me, "Oh, that means spiritually dead." So, if we are, because of our sin, spiritually dead, by nature haters of God, what must occur to make us willing to lay down our arms against God and receive His gift of His Son?

"Oh," they told me, "'dead' doesn't mean 'dead-dead'." (Seriously ... that's what they told me.) "Just because you're dead in sin doesn't mean that there's anything actually dead." Yes, that's what I was told, and that's what I believed for a long time, but it became impossible to hold this bizarre position ("The Bible says 'dead' and we believe 'dead', but it doesn't mean 'dead'."). So I was forced to surrender to the weight of Scripture and conclude that natural Man is dead in sin, inclined only to evil, and completely without hope unless God first installs a new, living, spiritual nature in him.

Of course, the "evident reason" that went to work was that if the first point -- "the Total Depravity of Man" -- was as true as the Bible seems to say, then the rest must follow. God wouldn't choose to save dead people for any conditions in them; He must do it for His own good purposes (AKA Unconditional Election). He would insure that Christ's death actually accomplished the salvation of those whom He chose to save (AKA Limited Atonement). When God chose to save someone, there would be nothing that could withstand His decision (AKA Irresistible Grace). And those whom He chose to save and paid for in full would certainly be maintained to the end (AKA Perseverance of the Saints). I found that the logic was unavoidable, and that Scripture seemed to hold it up. So, I was convinced by Scripture and by evident reason to be a Calvinist against the "norm" and against my upbringing. I was dragged into this kicking and screaming, so to speak.

Then I found that I didn't want to leave. You see, nowhere in Christianity is the grace and sovereignty of God more emphasized than here. If Man is as bad as Scripture says he is and as much without hope as we believe he is, leaving him only with the option of being transformed to new life apart from any choice or any merit within himself, that is grace of a magnitude that I didn't previously comprehend or appreciate. And if it is God's choice, not Man's, that is a sovereignty I didn't see before. It is this grace and this sovereignty that I don't want to leave. To me, it's a scary world if we are the deciders. So many Christians see God as a "hands off" kind of God, letting us choose what we will and hoping (and, to be fair, working so) that we will come to Him. He's a "gentleman", almost but not quite a hostage to the sin that has beset His creation. He has a plan to overcome it in the end, but so few people are cooperating. Eventually He'll just end it all. That God terrifies me. I prefer the God who "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11), who accomplishes everything He intends (Job 42:2) -- the Absolute Sovereign. That's where I find my comfort in times of difficulty and doubt.

Why am I a Calvinist? I am a Calvinist because it's what I see in the Bible. I'm a Calvinist because it makes sense. I'm a Calvinist, finally, because it provides me with a bigger image of God, a smaller image of me, and the highest comfort in tough times. So ... what have you to offer?