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. 

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.      

Two Philosophies about Combating Poverty… and a Third Way.

Poverty in America is real.  I think most people agree with that statement.  Statistical evidence seems to confirm it. 

The National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan has studied the history of poverty in the U.S.  According to their research the poverty rate in the 1950’s was 22.4 percent; around 39.5 million people.  Throughout the 1960’s and into the early 70’s the rate declined to a low of 11.1 percent.  Then in 1980 it began to rise again.  By 1983 the percentage of poor people in the U.S. was 15.2 percent.  In 2010 it was 15.1 percent; 39.3 million individuals.   

Information from the U.S. Census Bureau helps make this percentage more concrete, and frankly more potent for me.  According to the 2010 census there are more than 16 million children under age 18 living in poverty in our country. 

Poverty is real.  It impacts millions of U.S. citizens.  In one way or another, poverty touches the lives of every American citizen.  So, two questions – What do we do about it and how?

The Bible is pretty clear about God’s heart for the poor.  Included in the law code that the ancient Israelites were to follow were very clear instructions about how to provide for the poor. They were instructed to give interest free loans to poor people and to especially care for orphans and widows (Exodus 22:22-27).  They were to leave some produce in the fields for the landless poor to harvest (Exodus 2310-11, Leviticus 19:10 & 23:22).  Property that went into foreclosure was to be restored to the original family owners at the Year of Jubilee (every fifty years).  Debts were to be canceled and indentured slaves were to be released every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-15).  (I wish we still had the debt canceling thing going!)

During his ministry Jesus cared for the poor and taught that his followers were to do the same.  In fact, in Matthew 25 Jesus describes a time when he will render judgment on those who claimed to be his followers.  Those who failed to care for the poor, the homeless, the sick and the imprisoned would be exposed as false devotees.  In that passage Jesus even tells them that when they failed to care for “the least of these” they actually failed to care for Jesus himself.  In other words, Jesus identified with the poor and marginalized.

The answer to the “what” question is pretty clear.  What do we do about poverty?  We fight it.  We combat it.  We try to eliminate it.  Then that leaves the “how” question.  And that question is harder.

There are two prominent philosophies (and resulting strategies) for combating poverty.  I think both have some merit and both need to be scrapped for a different “third way.”

Perhaps we can describe the first philosophy as a passive approach. 

This philosophy reflects the sincere belief that, in order for the poor to gain what they need most – self esteem or a sense of accomplishment – they need to be given the opportunity to achieve on their own.  It is possible to hurt poor people more than we help poor people by trying to help poor people.  In other words, the only real way to help poor people is to let them help themselves.  Get out of the way and let those who want to succeed, succeed! 

Like I said, I think this idea has some merit.  There is some truth to it.  One of the things a person needs most is a feeling of accomplishment.  Success breeds success.  I get that. 

However, there are drawbacks to this philosophy.  It fails to take a lot of reality into account.  For instance, it doesn’t address the reality of generational cycles; the fact that we all tend to repeat what we learn, even when what we learn is hurtful to ourselves and others.  Many who “could do better” and “should do better,” at a gut level have a distorted understanding of what “better” is.

Nor does it address the reality of oppressive systems.  Some people live in places, and are caught up in systems (governmental, cultural, etc.) that actively hold back poor people. These systems are designed to restrain those who really want to defect from the cycle like a prison cell restrains an inmate.

The second prominent philosophy is a more active approach. 

But it is still similar to the first philosophy in that it takes a “hands off” approach to poverty.  (By the way, I know that I’m generalizing a lot.  I’m doing that for the sake of brevity – not very successfully – and clarity.)

The strength of this approach is the willingness to do something to combat poverty.  The “something” is to, in one way or another, give money, goods and services to poor people.

Those who advocate this philosophy know that the poor can’t actually break the chains of poverty on their own.  Sure… there are a few success stories of exceptional people whose level of intelligence, talent and natural ability propel them out of the cycle of poverty like a sling shot propels a rock through a window. 

But they are the exception, not the rule.  And those who are left behind in the poverty cycle outnumber the “success” stories like cars out number pedestrians on a major highway.

However, the tendency of those who support this particular approach is to depend on the power of money.  It’s kind of like the “if you build it they will come” mentality.  This philosophy says “if you spend it they will change.”  (And we all know that change – what the Christian community calls “transformation” is what we all need.) 

But over the years it has become increasingly obvious that the “if you spend it they will change” approach doesn’t work any better than the “they have to do it on their own” approach.

Throwing money at the poverty problem fails to recognize the complexity of poverty as much as withholding money does.  You can’t buy dignity, self-esteem, a sense of accomplishment in a job well done.  The very things we want to give to the poor we can, unintentionally, take away from them. 

You can see the problem!

So the alternative “third way” might be described as a “hyper-active” approach.

The prefix “hyper” comes from the Greek preposition “huper.”  It’s most basic meaning is “over, above, beyond, across.”  It is very versatile and gets translated “on behalf of, in the place of, on account of, for the sake of.”  You get the picture. 

I think the Bible teaches a hyper-active approach to helping the poor.  We can’t be passive; hoping and praying that they find their way out.  We can’t just provide money, goods and services; believing that will be enough.  Actually, we must do more… much more!  We must invest our very selves; not just money but also time, tears, talent, creativity, relational stamina, patience, raw confrontation… the list goes on and on!

Jesus summed it up by teaching that we are to love our neighbors, including our poor neighbors, as we love ourselves.

Let me give you one example and then I’m done.  I have a friend who is a youth pastor.  We’ll call him Ed but that’s not his real name.  He does all the things that youth pastors do and more… much more!  In Ed’s youth group there is a special kid that lives in poverty.  We’ll call him Joe.  Actually Joe not only lives in poverty, he lives in a family where he experiences blatant neglect and border line abuse. 

In my opinion, Ed is taking a hyper-active approach with this kid.  He takes Joe food, clothing, school supplies and other things that he needs.  When things get too rough at home Joe calls Ed and Ed picks him up and takes him out for awhile.  Ed picks Joe up for youth activities and worship services.  Joe is a very bright kid and has the potential to get scholarships for college.  Ed is keeping him on track by helping him learn how to apply for those scholarships.  Ed is also raising money for the fees that Joe will need to apply to schools.  Ed meets with Joe’s teachers and guidance counselors at school because Joe’s mother won’t. 

In short, Ed is pouring his life into Joe’s life.  He holds Joe accountable.  He prays with him. He counsels him.  He chews him out.  He picks him up.  He is doing stuff on Joe’s behalf, sometimes in his place, on his account, for his sake.  Ed is hyper-active for Joe. 

What would it look like if, in our country, we had 16 million Ed’s being hyper-active for 16 million Joe’s? 

Three reasons not to buy into “doomsday” prophecy

When I was a kid “prophecy experts” would come to our church and roll out long time lines that, to our amazement, revealed how the end of time would unfold.  If I remember correctly, Russia and China were always key players in the inevitable march toward destruction.

I’m not making fun of the prophecy people.  I have great respect for those who remind us that the justice and judgment of God are clearly taught in the Bible and that what the Holy Scriptures refer to as “The Day of the LORD,” the time when God makes the world right and ushers in a new age, is an inevitable event.

What concerns me (and I think it is a legitimate concern) is the way that this biblical teaching gets distorted into a not so subtle message that the church of Christ really can’t fulfill their calling to disciple all nations.  (Matthew 28:19) 

You see, the teaching I grew up with went something like this.  The world is a really bad place full of really bad people and it is getting worse.  It is going to get worse and worse until finally it gets so bad that God has to intervene (the return of Christ) and wipe out all the bad people (which is always “those” bad people) and rescue the few “good” people left (the saved people) from the utter destruction that will rain down from heaven on the really bad world.

What I would argue is that perhaps, maybe, just maybe that's not the most accurate picture or the most healthy, redemptive understanding of what the Bible actually teaches about the end of the age.

I think there are three good reasons not to buy into doomsday prophecy.

1.      I don’t think it is the most biblically accurate picture of the end of the age and the inauguration of a new heaven and a new earth. 

Yes, the Bible clearly teaches that human beings sin and that a sinful world will ultimately be judged and by a righteous God.  (By the way, no one really wants a God that doesn’t judge and bring justice to a broken world.  There is something deep inside every human being that not only knows that the world needs to be set right, but also longs for a God who will do just that.)  But I think it is a misreading of scripture to understand that judgment comes, in some way, because of a failed venture of the church – which is what doomsday preachers tend to preach.

We could have long discussions around this concept and I welcome feedback and pushback, but I think that the popular idea that the world becomes such a terrible place that God has to step in and intervene comes primarily from a misunderstanding of the book of Revelation.  I think we have to remember that Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a genre that gives modern readers a lot of trouble.  At the very least we need to exercise more interpretative humility when reading the book of Revelation.     

However you interpret Revelation, it is important to see it as part of the entire biblical revelation.  Revelation is the end of the redemptive narrative.  The story begins in Genesis with rebellion in a garden but it ends with redemption as the city of God comes down out of heaven.  John, the revelator, hears a voice saying that now the dwelling of God will be with human beings and he will live with them.  They will be his people and God himself will be their God.  And he will wipe every tear from their eyes.  (Revelation 21:1-4)

It is not a picture of the last minute intervention of God after his bride the church couldn’t get the job done.

2.      I don’t think it is a very healthy way for followers of Christ to live in this world. 

In a sense, we’ve decided that we have lost the game before we take the field.  Imagine what it would be like to be on a football team gathered around your coach in the locker room before a big game.  The coach begins his pregame pep talk.  “Guys, here’s the way I see the game developing.  Your opponents are going to become stronger and stronger throughout the game.  Through the whole game you’re going to get beat up.  Unfortunately, we’re going to lose some players along the way.  And the other team is going to outscore you right up till the end of the game.  But don’t worry, just before the last second of the game we have a plan in place to get the game stopped on a technicality and you will be declared the winners by default.  Now let’s go get um.” 

I really don’t think that pep talk will create a lot of enthusiasm.  But that is essentially the speech that a lot of people get every Sunday.  We live in a really bad world that is only going to get worse.   But don’t worry, just before it all falls apart the ones who agreed to the right set of beliefs will all get “raptured” out.

No wonder most people say “no thanks!”

I think there is a more beautiful, more glorious story to tell.  Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the victory has already been won.  The redemptive movement of God in this world is in full swing!  We are somehow actually a part of it!  What we do in this world actually matters!  I think that’s a better story.

3.      It’s sort of a copout for the modern church.

Think about it.  If the world is just going to get worse until Christ splits the sky, then why try?  In fact, the thing that makes most sense is to be glad that things are getting worse (which is exactly what I think some “Christians” do without coming right out and saying it).  I mean, if we experience a really great movement of God’s Spirit in our world today won’t that actually slow things down?  The Lord will have to wait a while longer before he steps in and annihilates all his enemies. 

You can see why this topic is not inconsequential!

Perhaps there is a different and better way.  We can embrace the biblical teaching that there will be a time when the curtain closes on this age; when God in his wisdom and love brings justice to our hurting and broken world; when wrongs are righted and wounds are healed.

But instead of embracing the default mentality of inactive spectators, maybe we can rethink our thinking.  Maybe we can embrace a different way of thinking.  Maybe we can think of ourselves as active participants in the unfolding drama of world redemption.  Maybe we can be who Jesus called us to be; missionaries, evangelists in this world.  Maybe we can do what he invited us to do; make disciples of all nations.  

Maybe we can be transformed from doomsday people to new day people; people who believe that we are already participating in God’s new day now and will somehow participate in God’s new day then.