Wednesday, December 19, 2012

One Perspective on Gun Control

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Connecticut, renewed rhetoric is already swirling about gun control (from both sides).  Sometimes one way to reflect on a topic – especially a controversial topic – is to tell a story.

Note:  If you worshiped with the Zoar Church family this past Sunday you have heard the story already.  You may want to skip to the observations.

This story is about a fifth century monk named Telemachus.  Although versions of it vary somewhat, church historians tell us that the account is quite reliable.  It was first recorded by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria (393-457 A.D.). You may have heard it.  In 1984 Ronald Reagan told it to the group gathered at the Annual National Day of Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C.

Telemachus was a young man who had pursued all the pleasures the world had to offer and came up empty.  One day he had a vision of Jesus Christ and became one of his followers.  He joined the Jesus movement.

He took up residence in a monastery and lived there for awhile.  But, according to Theodoret, he had another vision of Christ, this time telling him to go to Rome.  The day he entered the capital city of the Roman Empire there was a great commotion.  The Romans were celebrating a recent military victory over the Goths and the streets were full of people.

Without even realizing what was happening, Telemachus was swept into the seating area of the Roman Coliseum.  From where he sat he could see the Emperor, Honorius, in his box seat.  Then Telemachus saw the gladiators run into the stadium, line up before the emperor and give the traditional pledge; “we who are about to die, salute you!”

Suddenly Telemachus knew exactly what was happening.  Soon the gladiators were engaged in hand to hand combat.  With every clash of metal to metal Telemachus winced.  With every bloodletting gash he grieved.  Human beings, created in the image of God, were profaning God and wasting human life in a blood sport designed to satisfy a blood thirsty crowd.  What he saw he could not bear.  So he responded the only way he knew to respond.  

He began shouting, “In the name of Jesus, stop! In the name of Jesus, stop!”  The roar of the crowd made his shouts pointless, so almost without thinking he made his way down to the wall that stood between the crowd and mortal danger.  He cried out, “In the name of Jesus, stop!”  No response.

Then, in and act perhaps more out of love and desperation than courage, he jumped over the wall and onto the field.  He ran toward the gladiators shouting, “In the name of Jesus, stop!”     

Finally the crowd noticed this little monk running around yelling something and, in an effort to hear what he was saying, grew silent.  And then everybody heard – the crowd, the gladiators, the emperor – “In the name of Jesus, stop!” 

For a brief moment there was silence.  Then the silence turned to laughter.  Then the laughter turned to anger at a monk who would dare interrupt their sport.  Telemachus just kept up his sermon.  “In the name of Jesus, stop!”  He was between two gladiators now repeating the refrain, “In the name of Jesus, stop!” 

The gladiators seemed to take their cue from the blood thirsty crowd.  One swung his sword at the monk just missing.  The crowd roared!  And then another gladiator did not miss.  He ran his sword through the little monk, pinning his jerking body to the ground.  The ground turned bright red as the monk’s blood soaked the sand at the feet of his executioner.  Telemachus drew his last breath while his voice still echoed off the coliseum walls.  “In the name of Jesus, stop!” 

Then something strange happened.  The crowd did not applaud or roar with laughter.  In fact, the crowd grew completely silent.  The story goes that, one by one, the citizens of Rome began to walk out of the coliseum.  After a long silent procession the theater was empty.  The emperor watched in amazement, and then he too turned and walked out.  The gladiators stood silently over the lifeless body of a little monk named Telemachus until the doors opened and they were allowed to leave.  Then they dropped their weapons, turned and walked out.

In 404 A.D. the Roman Emperor Honorius issued an edict forbidding gladiator combat in the West.  The story goes that the edict was issued shortly after a little monk died shouting, “In the name of Jesus, stop!”

So what does that story have to do with gun control?  The answer is nothing… unless you consider yourself a follower of Jesus.  But if you are a Jesus follower the story reminds you how to respond to violence and the attempts to control it.

In my opinion, here’s the central truth.  Ultimately, people with weapons don’t stop people with weapons.  People with Jesus do.  Ultimately, people with gun control laws don’t stop people with weapons.  People with Jesus do.

Nonviolent resistance (one of the teachings of Jesus) has historically been more effective at combating violence than any other approach.  By the way, I wonder what would happen to the weapon manufacturing industry if every person who claimed to be a Christian stopped buying them.  While respecting our right to bear arms, I just wonder what possible reason a follower of Jesus would have for owning an instrument designed to take the life of another human being (unless he or she really enjoys pretty serious target practice).

Bottom line, from people like Stephen (who died praying for those who stoned him) to Telemachus to Martin Luther King Jr., those with Jesus in their hearts and on their lips are more powerful than those with weapons in their hands.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

“God on Trial… wrestling with the existence of Evil”



Recently a friend of mine sent me a film entitled "God on Trial."  It was extremely well done.  It was also gut wrenching and thought provoking.


The film is set in a WWII concentration camp.  The characters are primarily Jewish prisoners.  In their dim and dingy barracks they sit waiting to find out which ones didn’t make the latest cut; which ones will be the next to enter the gas chamber. 

While they wait, someone comes up with an idea… anything to take their minds off the inevitable.  Why not put God on trial?  God had promised to protect the Jews.  For some it was obvious that he didn’t keep his promise.  He should be prosecuted!

And they did.  I won’t give away too much information, in case you want to watch it for yourself, but the hour and a half long film is made up mostly of these inmates accusing and defending God until they reach a verdict.

I have to admit that there have been times when I’ve put God on trial myself.  For me it wasn’t so much an exercise to determine if he was guilty as it was to determine if he was there.  And there have been times when I decided he wasn’t.  Among other factors, the seemingly unchecked existence of evil in our world has, at times, moved me to pronounce God… “Nonexistent!”

Maybe you’ve been there and done that.  Maybe you’re there now.  If so, I hope you will read a little further.

I think serious reflection about the questions of suffering and evil in our world can actually help us go farther than our current questions and conclusions.  What if we used the reality of evil and injustice to move us to another, deeper question and conclusion? 

What if we asked the question like this… Since evil and injustice are unarguable realities in our world (I don’t think any rational person would argue that Nazi fascism was not evil), then isn’t that strong evidence that the opposites of evil and injustice must exist?

And if good and justice do exist, how do we know which is which?  I mean, how do we determine what is good and what is evil?  How do we know what is just and what us unjust? 

It seems to me that the topics of good and evil or justice and injustice are even more problematic for a naturalist (I guess we could use the term atheist or agnostic) than it is for a theist.  If I have no explanation for the existence of humanity beyond natural causes then how do I determine what is "good" or "evil," "just" or "unjust?" 

To a true naturalist, I don’t know how those categories make sense.  To put it another way, for a true naturalist, human suffering can't be good or bad.  It just is.

In fact, for an atheistic evolutionist (as opposed to a theistic evolutionist) human suffering and death, particularly death at the hands of a stronger power (in the animal or human kingdom), is simply the process of natural selection; the survival of the fittest.   It is not unjust at all.  It is evolution at work, a completely “natural” process.

But if we conclude that evil is real then there must be a reason we reach that conclusion.  There must be a cause (some would say a “great cause”) that moves us, like currents move ships, to that inevitable destination, that logical conclusion. 

I would argue that the “great cause,” “the one” who moves us to that conclusion is God.     

I know that answer is not very satisfactory for some.  But think about the alternative. If I reach the conclusion that there is no God, then I have to carry that thought out to the logical conclusion.  In reference to suffering, evil and injustice, that means that all suffering is meaningless. 

That means that there is ultimately no justice in the world.  That means that the lives of the 16,000 children that died today from hunger and hunger related causes meant nothing.  They lived briefly, they suffered terribly, they died and that’s it.  They passed into and out of a hellish existence and they’re gone.  For them, if there is no God, there will be no justice.

The Bible shares a more redemptive perspective that, for me at least, makes the most sense.  According to the Bible, there is suffering in the world because the world we live in is broken, imperfect, and in desperate need of healing.  From the Christian perspective that healing came into our world through Jesus Christ and someday the healing will be complete. 

I may be telling you stuff that you’ve already heard.  I know it stretches the modern (or post-modern) mind to its limits.  Some won’t embrace it as truth.  But for me it is the only conclusion that makes sense of the world we live in.

For me there must be a God who allows himself to be tried and convicted wrongly, who suffers with and for our broken world; for human beings who have decimated the planet we inhabit, who have violated one another, gone to war with each other and against our creator. 

As strange as it sounds, I believe that this God came to us through Jesus Christ; born to a virgin, laid in a wooden trough, nailed to a wooden cross, resurrected to bring healing to a broken suffering world.

I’m interested in hearing your perspective.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Hallelujahs on Halloween!

I think it’s important to be honest about how the church sometimes messes up.  If you’ve read this blog much at all you probably already know that.  But if I’m going to be honest about what we get wrong, I need to be equally honest about what we get right and on Halloween night one church (it happened to be my church) got something really right!

I have the privilege of being one of the members of Zoar Church in Shelby, North Carolina.

  For several years our church has hosted a Trunk or Treat event on Halloween night.  You may know how that works.  In a church parking lot – or in our case on the ball field – people line up their cars and give out candy to passing kids (and adults) from their trunks.  Ergo…“Trunk or Treat.” 

Each year the folks as Zoar invite anyone from our community, and surrounding communities, to come by and participate.  This year we gave out Bibles to all the children.  960 Bibles were given away, so that means around 2,000 people came through the line.  

This year my job was to help man the prayer tent.  Some people requested prayer on the spot.  Others wrote down requests on cards so people could pray for them later. 

One person wrote on their prayer card, “lost job yesterday.”  I hope she left with more than candy for her kids.  Maybe, along with candy, she received a renewed faith in humanity and God.  Maybe she was grateful to know that someone cared enough to pray.

And we will.  Prayer teams will meet.  Prayers will be offered on behalf of every individual that filled out a card.  Not generic prayers that can be applied to anybody, but real, heartfelt prayers that single out real human beings going through real struggles and need a real God to intervene.  Our faith is small but we will exercise what we have asking God to help.  Along with prayers for healing and strength, marriages restored and prodigals returned, we will be asking God to help this woman find another job. 

(I know we could get into a long discussion about why God seems to hear some prayers and sleep through others.  It’s a fair question but we’ll save it for another day.  Right now the point is that our people are praying for people because they care.  I think that’s important.)

Another woman was crying when she stepped into the tent.  She sat down and told me some of her story.  I won’t get into all the details.  It’s enough to say that she lost her faith in God and people.  She felt like both had let her down.  She was actually hesitant to come to our Trunk or Treat, but kids are persuasive and grandparents are pushovers so here she was, sitting beside me telling me her story.

Now, through her tears, she told me that she was touched by the love that our people shared with her.  She said she had forgotten that there are people in the world who really do care.  Maybe if she had been wrong about people she had been wrong about God too.  She was in the process of moving to the other end of the county and she said she hoped she found a church like ours.  I hope so too.

Between prayer sessions I stood outside the tent and looked across the field and the sea of people.

On a night when people try hard to look scary, I think our people looked saintly without trying to at all.  I saw people passing out candy, popcorn and coke…hugs, Bibles and prayers.  Some were dancing, some laughing, some crying, some praying and some seemed to be able to do all simultaneously.  That night I think I saw the church the way Jesus intended the church to be. 

As I looked around the ball field on Halloween night I whispered a heartfelt “hallelujah!” 
It seemed to be the appropriate thing to do.    







Friday, October 26, 2012

Thoughts on Imprecatory Prayer

Normally I don’t blog about sermon topics but this week I’m making an exception.  (You can hear the sermon at the Zoar Church website after 10-28-12.)   

As I interact with people who do not believe in God I’m discovering some of the reasons why.  One primary reason is the perception that “religious” people are violent and hateful.  It is true that throughout the centuries “worshipers” of all types have prayed for God to kill their enemies and some have taken matters into their own hands.  These prayers are called “imprecatory prayers,” meaning “to invoke a curse.”

Believe it or not, some are still praying these kinds of prayers.

In an interview with Alan Colmes, host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show, Wiley Drake, a mega church pastor and former vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, stated that he prayed for God to kill the president of the United States.  When asked how he could justify such a prayer he said he was “asking God to enforce imprecatory prayer.” (For more than you care to read or hear just google Wiley Drake.)

So what does the Bible actually have to say about imprecatory prayer and why even talk about it?

Well, the “why talk about it” question goes back to what I said about those who have great difficulty embracing belief in God.  The truth is some “Christians” (as well as other religious adherents) have poorly represented their faith.  So I write in the hopes of exposing the other side of the coin.

For the “what the Bible says” question, please be patient and keep reading.

In the Old Testament most imprecatory prayers are petitions for God to exercise lex talionis (the law of retaliation) on behalf of the writer… most often speaking for the Israelite nation.  The law of retaliation is found in Exodus 21:23-25.

23 …if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (NIV)

As primitive as that seems, this law was actually put into place to restrict violence.  The law stipulated that an offended person could only do to their enemy what the enemy had done to him.  Before this law was given to the Israelites there was no real restraint on violence in the world.  If you killed my mule I might burn down your barn with all your livestock in it. 

So, for example, in Psalm 137:8-9 the psalmist, as a part of his prayer, cries out…

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is he who repays you
    for what you have done to us—
he who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

No doubt the writer is imploring God to exercise retaliation on behalf of the people.  What the Babylonian invaders had done to the Israelite children, the Israelites look forward to doing to theirs.

But is this where the biblical revelation stops?  Is this all we’re left with?  You slap me and I slap you?  You kill my child and I kill yours?

The answer is no!  At least not for followers of Jesus.  Followers of Jesus Christ look at everything through the lens of his teaching and example, what Jesus said and did. 

In the Sermon on the Mount, the most influential teaching every shared with human kind, Jesus addresses the law of retaliation.  In a sense he gives us and upgrade!

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.  43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
(Matthew 5:38-45 NIV)

The teaching of Jesus moves us to a higher ethical and moral plane.  The biblical revelation finds its completion in Jesus. 

In the 1963 edition of The Baptist Faith and Message there is a line that says, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” (Herschel H. Hobbs, ed. The Baptist Faith and Message, Nashville: Covention Press, 1971 p.18.)  That line was removed from the 2000 edition but some Baptists still believe that it contains tremendous wisdom.

For followers of Jesus everything; every teaching, every Bible passage, every philosophy, every theology, is processed through the filter of the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.  What Jesus said and did is ultimately authoritative.  This is central to Christianity!  

That means that we are not free to model our prayers after Old Testament imprecatory prayers.  Like Jesus’ original disciples we ask him to teach us to pray.  And he teaches us to say, “forgive us our sins and we forgive those who sin against us.” (Matthew 6:12)

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Is Beauty good evidence for God?

Give me a minute to describe a scene for you.  Near a little mountain community called Valle Crucis, the Watauga River descends rapidly for about a quarter of a mile.  Within that stretch the river spills over natural dams and squeezes between large boulders to form deep pools of cold clear water.

In those pools (most of the time at the very bottom) trout hold still, waiting on their next meal to come rushing into their feeding lanes.

Several days ago I stood near one of those deep pools in hopes of tricking one of those trout into believing that the imitation fly floating into their watery home was not an imitation.  And on that particular day I was successful on several occasions.  The biggest success was an 18 inch rainbow.  (Don’t worry, I released it along with the rest I caught that day.)

Admittedly, most of what I just wrote was me bragging about catching a nice fish; a shameless effort to make my friends jealous.
But there is another point… I hope.  Standing there in the river, having just released the rainbow, I watched it blend seamlessly into to the water like a chameleon.  Then I looked up at the colors of fall all around me.  The river, the rocks, the multicolored trees created a scene no artist could fully capture.  I can only describe it as beautiful.

Which leads to the other point.  For centuries philosophers, theologians and artists have argued that the reality of beauty is a legitimate and convincing argument for the existence of God.  The theory is that the existence of beauty, the intricate, compelling symmetry we find in everything from biology to mathematics to music is strong evidence that there must be a creator.
However, many would say that the argument doesn’t hold water.  Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist, has made the counter argument.

I have given up counting the number of times I receive the more or less truculent challenge: 'How do you account for Shakespeare, then?'  (Substitute Schubert, Michelangelo, etc. to taste.)  The argument will be so familiar, I needn’t document it further.  But the logic behind it is never spelled out, and the more you think about it the more vacuous you realize it to be.  Obviously Beethoven’s late quartets are sublime. So are Shakespeare's sonnets.  They are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn't.  They do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of Beethoven and of Shakespeare.  A great conductor is credited with saying: 'If you have Mozart to listen to, why would you need God?' (The God Delusion, Mariner Books: 2008, p. 110)

I tend to agree with Dawkins.  The fact that there is beauty in our world is not convincing proof that God exists.  Beauty (symmetry, balance, harmony) could be the natural result of evolutionary development apart from God.  The simple fact that beauty is there does not mean that God is there.

Besides, when you argue for the existence of God based on the reality of beauty, then what do you do with all that is not beautiful?  Much of what we see all around us is not beautiful.  It is ugly! 

The ugliness of hunger and abuse and oppression and injustice is real and it does not inspire a sense of transcendence and reverence.  It inspires a whole different set of sensations that encompass everything from helplessness to guilt.

But here’s my question (and I guess an argument to which I invite your response).  How does Dawkins know that Shakespeare’s sonnets are sublime?  How do human beings intuitively know what is beautiful and what is not?  How is it that we have the innate ability to recognize beauty?  If we are simply part of the natural development of the universe then we should have no real point of reference.  Right?
Why should a blooming rose inspire a totally different sensation than hair growing out of somebody’s nose?  Why should we know that a child smiling is beautiful but a child starving is not?  In fact, if Darwinian evolution (with no greater purpose) is all there is, then some of the most atrocious injustices in this world… starvation, brutal oppression and disease are simply natural (and healthy) examples of the survival of the fittest.

But we all know that we do have a point of reference, don’t we?  We are all appalled by the injustices of this world.  We all grieve over starvation, homelessness, abuse in all forms; the list goes on and on.  And I would argue that the innate understanding that some things are beautiful and some things are ugly, that some things are inherently good and some things are inherently bad, that some things are just and some unjust has been infused into our DNA.  The question is, who did the infusing?

I have great respect for my friends who do not believe in God; who have, to this point, been unable to embrace the possibility of a dimension outside of the one in which we now live.  Many of them have given “spirituality” more thought than a lot of religious people I know and have simply arrived at a different conclusion.   

But I respectfully disagree with those friends.  I believe deeply that there is a creator, we call that creator God.  I believe that God has given us the intuitive capacity to know what is and is not beautiful, good and just.  I do not know of any other viable explanation. 

The next time I’m fishing or walking through the woods or watching the sun set, I will see beauty and recognize it.  I can only conclude that I will see beauty because there is a beautiful God.

Thanks for reading with an open mind.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?

“Is Jesus A Republican Or A Democrat?”  It’s not only a compelling question, it’s the title of a book by Tony Campolo.  Campolo does a good job of stating the positive and negative distinctives of each political party.  

The Republicans emphasize individual responsibility, a trait lacking in many of our citizens.  The Democrats emphasize collective responsibility, a trait lacking in much of our society.  The Republicans tend to be soft on the abuses of big business and the Democrats tend to be soft on traditional moral values.

 











A lot of people say that Jesus would support the platform of the Republican Party.  Others argue that Jesus would be a strong Democrat.  Both groups are passionate about their convictions.  Both groups are confident in their conclusions.  And both groups are, in my opinion, wrong!

I find it fascinating that during a time when political upheaval was pervasive, when his disciples expected him to be the next big political figure, when the entire Jewish community was looking for a Messiah (a political leader) that would overthrow the Roman government, Jesus refused!

Why?  Why didn’t Jesus lead a revolt against the Roman government and set up a “righteous” kingdom?  Why didn’t he kick out the corrupt religious leaders and establish a new regime?  Maybe it’s because Jesus actually knew how real change, real transformation happens.  (By the way, since Jesus was the most influential movement leader who ever lived, perhaps we should pay close attention to what he said and did.)

Perhaps one thing we learn from Jesus is that global transformation never happens from the top down.  It always happens from the bottom up.  Incidentally, as a matter of well documented historical record, Jesus Christ launched a movement that did indeed change the world. 

How did it happen?  According to the eye witnesses of Jesus’ ministry, he did it by transforming human hearts.  Jesus changed (and, in my opinion is still changing) the world by changing people.  I believe that Jesus is transforming humanity by transforming humans.  He is making all things new by making people new… “born again.” 

Unapologetically, Jesus invites human beings to follow him.  He is the one who offers and gives forgiveness, new life and a new kingdom.  Over the last 2000 years, millions have responded to that invitation.  Every credible student of ancient history agrees that those who believed in Jesus Christ literally changed the course of human history.  Do you want to change your world?  Then take Jesus seriously!  Trust him!  Trust him enough to follow his teachings and example!

Today, around the globe, millions are still responding to his invitation.  Millions are still trusting him with their very lives, with the way they live.  And the world is still being changed, rescued, redeemed.  According to the Bible, someday our redemption will be complete.

I suppose (actually I believe) that republican and democrat politicians make a difference.  Voting is important.  The political process is not pointless.  But of all the good that the political process does, it does not transform the politicians or the people who elect them.  In my opinion, only Jesus can do that.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Brief thoughts about a fleeting moment of transcendence

Looking into the predawn sky from the comfort of my recliner a few days ago, I experienced what I can only describe as an encounter with God.  You may be able to relate, maybe not.  Perhaps you too have been surprised by those fleeting moments when you actually feel the presence of the divine. 

The earth didn’t shake.  I didn’t hear God’s voice.  But somehow it was “real” to me. 

In these moments (I’ve had others) fleeting as they are, I simply sense the nearness of God.  I find myself grasping for words to explain it.  It’s not that God is necessarily any nearer than he always is, but in that moment, like a mist that collects on the hairs of my forearm or the warmth of the morning sun on my face, I feel his nearness.  In that moment his presence is palatable.  Maybe you can relate.

Maybe you know exactly what I’m talking about.  Sometimes in quiet reflection, sometimes in the hurried activity of the day, sometimes looking out at the ocean, sometimes sitting in traffic; the “optimum conditions” for the experience are really hard to predict and even harder to manufacture.  But it happens; unpredictably, unexpectedly, unavoidably, it happens.

Human beings, for some reason (some would say some unexplainable reason) have been known to experience what Christopher Hitchens, who recently died, called “transcendent or luminous” moments.  Of course Hitchens, a very well known atheist, would not attribute those moments to the activity of God.  As a non-believer he had to explain them using the only explanation at his disposal; kind of like a mechanic who is forced to try to fix a problem without the proper tools.  Hitchens attributed those moments to some kind of chemical reaction in our brains.

I have great respect for Hitchens.  He was an intelligent person.  He was a person who had actually given a lot of thought to life and human existence.  He had reflected and theorized about why we do what we do, think and feel what we think and feel, experience what we experience.  But in this case, I don’t think he had a very good answer.

I would argue that the transcendent moments are just that… transcendent… moments when we transcend.  Moments when the curtain that normally divides our dimension from God’s (although he occupies all dimensions – like I said, it’s hard to explain) gets pulled back and we get a glimpse into the heart of our creator.  In those moments the beauty is breathtaking.

As a believer I would recommend two responses to these fleeting moments of transcendence.

One, don’t depend on them.  There’s a reason I refer to these moments as “fleeting.”  They don’t last long.  In my experience, not only are they fleeting, they are rare.  I’ve been a pretty serious follower of Jesus Christ for around 30 years and I would guess that during that time I’ve experienced “transcendent moments” maybe a total of 30 minutes (and that might be a generous estimate).

So if I choose to be committed to Christ only when I “feel” his presence I miss out on a lot of opportunities to worship him, serve him and share my faith with others.  As I write this blog I actually feel pretty blah.  I would much rather be in a river fly-fishing.  I’m pretty sure I would be more likely to have a transcendent moment there than sitting here in my office. 

Two, don’t disregard them.  I think this is a very real possibility and it is sad.  I believe that God actually gives us these moments as gifts to be received and treasured.  But here’s the problem (at least it’s a problem for me).  I think I might miss some of those moments simply because I ignore them. 

Could it be, especially in our Western world, where we think through everything and feel compelled to explain everything and be able to qualify and quantify everything, we can actually miss out on some of the best things… like moments with God?  Could it be that even those of us who claim to be believers have a default mode that is more like Christopher Hitchen’s?  We give our brains credit for something God did.   

Just a couple thoughts to ponder. 


Thursday, September 13, 2012

Was the Earth Created in Six –24 hour– Days?


“Do you believe that the earth was created in six –24 hour– days?”  Recently someone asked me that question.  I’ll get to my answer in a minute.  But first, let’s think about the question.  It is not inconsequential.


Followers of Jesus believe that the Bible was inspired by God.  In other words, when I hold a copy of the Holy Bible in my hands I’m holding words that, in some very real but deeply mysterious way, came to us from God.  This is central to Orthodox Christianity.

But many people are made to feel like heretics because they believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are to be understood more as a poetic account of creation than a literal one.  Some are drawn to the person and teachings of Jesus Christ but are told that they can’t believe in him and become one of his followers because they believe the earth is closer to six billion years old than six thousand years old.

On the other hand, some people are made to feel intellectually inferior because they do believe that God created the world in six days.  Subtly or not so subtly, directly or indirectly, they are told that no one with a developed understanding of our universe could hold to the archaic belief that the earth is relatively young.  Which is just another way of telling a person that he is not very smart.

I would like to make two suggestions.

First, we make Jesus Christ the foundation of our faith.  This is what theologians refer to as High Christology or the Centrality of Christ.

In college I had a friend who told me that if I didn’t believe in a six day creation then I couldn’t be “saved.”  With all due respect to my friend, I think that if your faith depends on a certain interpretation of the creation story then your theology elevates creation to a place that should be reserved for Christ.  The foundation of our faith must be Jesus Christ and him alone.  

Throughout church history (at least until fairly recently) there has been room for diversity and disagreement in the Christian community, with Christ as the foundation of our faith.  C.S. Lewis, one of the most respected theologians/philosophers from the twentieth century, held to an “old earth” understanding of creation.  Check out chapter five (The Fall of Man) in The Problem of Pain. 

Honestly, if Lewis was alive today I doubt he would get many invitations to speak in evangelical churches.  Maybe we need to make sure we are still building on the right foundation.

Secondly, we make a commitment to intellectual humility.  I think one of the most profound passages in the Bible is found in Isaiah 55:8-9.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thought than you thoughts.” 

Perhaps a paraphrase of that passage could read.  “You can’t begin to figure me out, so how about practicing a little intellectual humility.”

What if we applied this to both sides of this issue?  If I work off of the assumption that God’s way are far above mine, then I might be more open minded about the creative activity of God.  I might not be as quick to determine how long it took the God of the universe to create the earth.  Perhaps I would be willing to entertain the possibility that God could have created in six days… or 4.5 billion years. 

So, you’re waiting to hear my answer to the question.  Are you ready for it?  I said, “I don’t know… I wasn’t there.”

I wasn’t being sarcastic or trying to be funny.  I was quite sincere.  I don’t know exactly (or even remotely) how the creator of the universe created, because I was not an eye witness to his creative activity.  All I have is the creation account recorded in Genesis and I don’t want to be intellectually arrogant enough to claim that my interpretation of the passage is the only possible one.

Someday when I get to heaven, if I care enough to ask God about it, he may say something like; “O yea, I created the world is six days and did it so that it appeared to be 4.5 billion years old.”  To which I will respond, “Father, that is so cool!”

Or God may say, “O yea, I actually created the world in 4.5  billion years.  Then I inspired the Hebrew writer to communicate my beautiful creative activity through poetry.”  To which I will respond, “Father, that is so cool!” 

Either way is fine with me.