Another Reason to Believe

There are a number of reasons that I find to believe in the veracity of the gospels and the New Testament. One that always sticks out in my mind is the brutal honesty with which the followers of Jesus are depicted, and even the way in which the ministry of Jesus itself is depicted.

The first and most obviously interesting thing about the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is that they were not written by Jesus. They were written by his immediate disciples. Either Matthew or Mark were written first, depending on who you believe, with John being the latest. Luke composed his gospel account based on eyewitness reporting (Luke 1:1-4). Mark, according to tradition, composed his gospel account under the watchful eye of Peter himself.

Most of the time, when someone writes a book that is a bit of an autobiography, you expect that person to appear in a somewhat favorable light. This is not the case in the gospels. There, we find the disciples being a group of near bunglers. They are constantly misunderstanding Jesus, apparently clueless as to his teaching, and seem to bicker incessantly about who is the best disciple (Matt. 16:10-12; John 12:12-16; Luke 9:46, 22:44). They are not, to say the least, portrayed in a very flattering light.

Imagine if you were Peter, the great leader of the early church, would you be especially keen on including that episode where Jesus called you Satan? (Mark 8:33). Or, would you want to include that part where you denied Jesus three times out of fear being identified with Jesus? (Mark 14:66-72). That took some serious humility to include that, something almost unprecidented in the history of autobiography.

And what are we to make of John's gospel account? By the time John wrote, many of the other disciples were already dead. Yet, he doesn't even name himself in his own book. He only refers to himself as "The One Whom Jesus Loved," which might also be translated, "The One Whom Jesus Kept Loving." What sort of men are these who write about themselves in such a manner?

So imagine these men, these great men, Peter, Matthew, and John. All three of them are followers of Jesus from the beginning. They all had the chance to write down the greatest adventures of their lives, and instead of their books being about them, they chose to write themselves a bit part in order to introduce the world to Jesus. We would not even know of Peter's raising Tabitha from the dead if it weren't for Luke's account in Acts.

I can understand writing a biography about a great man. I can even imagine the disciples wanting to write a great book on the things that Jesus did. I understand seeing greatness and wishing to share that greatness with others. Jesus, since so many books have been written about him, must be great indeed. Yet, here is what I do not so often see. I do not often see a man that is so great that he not only compels men to write books about himself, but that he is so great that he compels men to write truth about themselves. That is the marvelous thing about Jesus, and that is why I believe his disciples. They tell the truth, not only about Jesus, but also about themselves.

Cam Newton: This is Beyond Football

I need to make a few disclaimers before I write this piece so that my biases, if any, are clear to the reader who may stop by. I'm an Alabama fan. I spent four years of my life on that campus, actually received a diploma from that distinguished University, and I will be making a trip down on Thursday to introduce my son to Alabama football, tailgating, and Denny Chimes. I also want to confess that this controversy has put me in the uncomfortable position of being proud of an Auburn football coach for defending his player. It seems obvious to me that Coach Chizik is not simply concerned about his career or his program, but that he is genuinely interested in protecting Cam Newton as an individual. I say good on him. I tip my hat to you, sir. I will never call him Coach Cheesedip or Coach Cheezit again, and that privilege is a right to every Alabama fan that I give up willingly for his manful defense of his player.

This business with Cam Newton has horrified me. It has brought me zero joy as a fan of Alabama football and the sworn enemy of all things orange and blue. It has horrified me as an American, and it has horrified me as a Christian. This isn't funny. Nothing about this is funny. To me, this is dead serious.

Let me deliver a few more disclaimers, if I may. I have no doubt that Cam Newton or his daddy is capable of taking a bribe. I believe that I am capable of taking a bribe. I believe in the falleness of humanity, the power of greed, curfews, and not letting my daughter date until she is 20, and even then I want to vet every candidate. The reason I believe in these things is because I believe in the sinfulness of humanity. All this to say that every Alabama football player could be taking bribes and it would not ruffle my worldview in the least. As G.K. Chesterton rightly notes, "It is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history...In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment." Indeed and amen. Since Cam Newton and his family are human, it is no trouble at all for me to imagine them being attracted to the prospect of a $180,000 signing bonus to a top-tier University.

Our wise forefathers recognized this tendency toward reprobation in the best of men, and therefore they designed a system of law that declared every man innocent until proven guilty. That, at the outset, may appear counter-intuitive. Actually, it might be one of the greatest strokes of genius in the history of the world. We must assume every man innocent precisely because we are prone to believe, as history and the Bible inevitably teach us, that all men are capable of the most heinous crimes. The catch is that sometimes men are innocent. Sometimes they refuse bribes. Sometimes they behave altruistically. Sometimes, men are not scoundrels. Better to set ten scoundrels free than impugn the beauty of the one man who said no to wickedness.

Therein lies my revulsion at what has occurred in the media. Cam Newton, a young man of undeniably superior talent, has been the victim of slanderous accusations with no recourse whatsoever. He has not had his day in court. Records which are protected by Federal Law have been unsealed for the world to mock. His rights as a citizen have been violated. Irrelevant charges have been brought forward to besmirch his reputation. True or false, these are matters for investigative committees who have the authority to look into such things. So that, if these charges are spurious, they may pass by without the character of an individual being assassinated. These are basic human rights over which we go to war and shoot and kill and die. This is beyond football. This is beyond rivalry. We are talking about due process and the rights of a fellow citizen, not just whether or not a young man ought to play football next week or win the Heisman trophy.

There are many things that I would like to see happen in the weeks to come. One is that I would love to see Alabama take Auburn to the woodshed. I want this to be an honorable and fair context where the best team wins. I want sportsmanship to prevail throughout the contest. I would also like to see every lawyer that graduated from the University of Alabama prepared to defend the civil rights of Cam Newton and the lofty ideal of due process. Let the man have his day in court, and let him have his privacy as well.

Jesus Said That

I always find it curious when someone who is not a Christian proceeds to tell Christians that they are not good Christians. Usually, the phrases that get used are something like, "Judge not that you be not judged!" or "God loves everyone just the way that they are." Usually, this comes about when a Christian has voiced his or her opinion about some type of behavior being sinful.

Now, the first thing that a Christian must keep in mind is that this sort of argument is not to be taken personally. Secondly, they must remember not to get angry about this because it is patently silly. Silly things should not make us angry or defensive. If my buddy Matt tells me that he is the Queen of Sheba, anger should not be my first impulse.

Once these first two impulses are squashed, the third imperative can follow. That is, we must remember that the main issue is always Jesus. Who is Jesus? What did Jesus teach? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? This is far more important than debating marriage laws, polygamy, homosexuality, or whether or not someone should vote Republican.

So if I say, "I believe that 'gay marriage' is as ridiculous as a squared circle," and someone retorts that I'm being a judgmental bigot who is unworthy to call myself a human being, much less a Christian, because Jesus would never say such a preposterous thing, I need to think, "Heeeey...this person doesn't know about Jesus very well" not "Heeeey...he just called me a BIGOT!"

Here is something that Jesus actually said, "He whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:34-36). Jesus makes some pretty big claims in this passage.

First, Jesus claims that God sent him. Next, Jesus claims that when he is speaking, he is uttering the very words of God. Then, Jesus claims to be the rightful ruler of all things because God gave him everything. Finally, Jesus says that whoever does not obey him will perish under the wrath of Almighty God. Jesus made it abundantly clear throughout the gospels that he believed himself to be the only way to get to God (John 14:6). He also defined marriage, and a great list of other things whilst he was here, including affirmations of the Old Testament.

This is how the Christian can deal with name-calling and misunderstanding. Jesus said, "It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matthew 10:25). Basically, if someone objects to the teaching of Jesus, even though it is a hapless Christian merely parroting the words of the Great Teacher, the one who is objecting falls under the condemnation of which Jesus spoke. In reality then, it could be Jesus who is the judgmental bigot who is unfit to be a human being, or he could be the King of the Universe who gets to make the rules for the creation that he himself helped make and currently sustains.

Straight Couple Wants a Civil Union

Despite having a terribly misleading title,this AP article is interesting to me on several levels. There is a straight couple living in Britain who would like to form a civil union instead of a marriage. Their reasoning, and I quote from the article here, is that "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners — we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that."

My problem is that I cannot understand that statement at all. Forget the controversy about "gay" marriage and "civil unions" for a minute. I'm having trouble following simple language of late.

I know that I said to forget the controversy, and I hope that you can because my point here is more subtle. For all of known history, the very definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. I don't think that this is seriously disputed by anyone. What some would like to do is to change that definition to include homosexual unions. I don't know what that definition change might be. It's going to have to be more complicated than it used to be. I know that for certain. Somehow, you have to define it so that we can put the whammy on polygamy, beastiality, child marriage, and the appearance of incest. (Yes, there are adult people out there who do all of these things, I've seen them on Jerry Springer. There is even a polygamist with his own show now.)

My problem today is when people start using words, words that are well defined, as if they weren't well-defined. Or, at the very least, using words as if they cannot be bothered to look them up in a dictionary. Figuring that it must be me who is the dim-wit, I took the time to look up "Civil Union" in the encyclopedia. Here's what it said, "legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals." Underscore "marriagelike" in your brain and look at the reasoning behind the straight couple's desire to have a civil union. I wonder what part of their relationship isn't marriage-like? The vowing part? The forsaking all others part?

As if this didn't cause me enough confusion, I saw that "gay activists" are supporting this couple's bid for a civil union. This didn't surprise me, and at the very least I am glad that they are being consistent. But look at their reasoning behind backing this couple, "They are being backed by gay rights activists, who hope a ruling that allows straight couples the right to a civil partnership would mean, in turn, that gay couples have the right to wed." You see that? They are hoping that this will allow them to wed.

So, let me try to sort this all out here for my sanity's sake. Remember, this is about definitions here, not just marriage controversy. The straight couple does not want to be "married" because they don't feel particularly husband or wife-like, but they still want to be recognized in a legally binding union that is legally equivalent to marriage. This gives them what they want because they can be united under law, before their peers, and get tax breaks without them having to feel like husband and wife. The gay people, on the other hand, want to get married because they want to feel like husbands and wives. Even though it has previously been impossible for one to be a husband unless one actually had a wife. They want the state to legally bind them together in a way that benefits them with taxes, gives them equal rights, and etc., which they already have in civil unions, only they want to be "wed."

I think that this is marvelous in our mad, mad world. The only thing standing in either the gay activists or this straight couple's path is this nonsense of definition and meaning. And perhaps, common sense.

But what do I know? I'm a dinosaur who believes in objective truth and www.dictionary.com.

What is Truth?

Pontius Pilate, in his fascinating conversation with Jesus of Nazareth, asked Jesus if he were a king. Jesus said, "For this purpose i was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" (John 18:37-38).

This conversation stops me in my tracks. Pilate asked a great question, and interestingly enough, John does not give Jesus' reply. He leaves the question dangling in the air, echoing down the millennia until it reaches us. I can still hear Pilate ask it. He was so close to truth that it was literally staring him in the face.

For several centuries, Christianity has enjoyed a hegemony on truth in the West. Western civilization was shaped by the Bible, Christendom enforced the Bible onto the populace to the point where unbelievers and deviants were persecuted. For good and for ill, the Bible was used and abused to force conformity amongst the Western populace.

That is, until the rise of the Anabaptists and Mennonites and others like them. They rebelled against the "church-state" paradigm. They believed that conversion could not come by the government or the sword, but only by grace through faith in the gospel. Eventually, persecution led many of them to the New World. There, Baptists would eventually be instrumental in insuring the separation of Church and State and the freedom of religion for all people, even freedom to worship the devil.

Believe it or not, that grand and great dream laid down by the early American Republic has had a major impact upon truth. As the early Baptists suspected, if given the chance to freely worship the devil, some people would. And some would be Buddhists, and some would be Hindus, and some would be Moonies, and some would be atheists altogether. Being a Baptist myself, I am altogether delighted that they have the freedom to be as wrong as they please.

For the first couple of centuries, the people of the United States spoke Bible, as did their ancestors in Europe. I do not mean that all the people in the United States were Christian; I would never argue that. However, it is apparent that they all filtered their understanding of life, predominantly, through a Biblically colored lens.

Take Thomas Jefferson as an example. He was, from what I can tell, a Christian heretic par excellence. He famously cut out the miraculous parts of the Bible, leaving in all the laws and the moral code and the ethical teachings of Jesus. It seems that he admired the teachings of Jesus. Such would have been the attitude of many in that day: the default lens for interpreting right from wrong was a Biblical one. One can hardly read a novel or or thinker who wrote from the beginning of the republic until the early 1950's who wasn't profoundly aware of Biblical traditions of right and wrong, and even the moral stories* that the Bible contains.

Now, things are on different. Christianity does not enjoy the hegemony it once did. That's not to say that its influence isn't strong and felt. It surely is. However, there is a much greater competition of ideas out there in the market. Some are compltely foreign to a Biblical worldview. Jefferson did away with the miracles. Post-Modern America has ditched most of the Christian ethic.

This brings me back around to Pilate and his question to Jesus: What is truth? I think for many, Pilate's original question may even assume too much. Instead, the question of the day might be, "Is there such a thing as Truth?"

I believe that there is Truth that is objective, real, and unchanging. I believe that Truth is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ. The challenge for Christians is now, as it has always been, is to take the gospel, the story and teachings of Jesus, and put them into the market place of ideas. The gospel is a narrative without parallel. The beauty of Jesus is without rival. He is a teacher without equal. If Christians would just see that He is the message, we could be a far more winsome and compelling people.

Does This Make Me the Bully?

Many of you will remember the very recent tragedy of the young man who committed suicide at Rutgers because his roommate recorded him in an "encounter" with another male. The young man's name was Tyler Clementi. You can read the story here. Tyler's suicide prompted a nation-wide call to end the bullying of people based upon their sexual preference. This was a call echoed by many Christians as well, myself included.

I firmly believe that no one ought to be bullied. I find it reprehensible that Tyler's roommate recorded his tryst and put it up on the internet. I can only imagine the shame that could have been mine if any of my roommates had a well-placed camera hidden in my room back in the day. Perish the thought! How awful!

Today, I saw this article about Kye Allums. Kye is a female who believes that she is male. Upon graduation, Kye wants to undergo surgery and hormone therapy to become a man. Until that time, she wants to be recognized as a man on the women's basketball team. George Washington University has honored her request and now recognizes her as a man on the women's basketball team.

You really should go and read the article. I want to give you a quote from it here for consideration, "At a time when many college athletes feel uncomfortable publicly revealing that they are gay or lesbian for fear or backlash or repercussions, Allums should be lauded, cheered, propped up and respected for being brave enough to announce his differences without shame." First, notice that Kye is always referred to as a "he" throughout the article. Secondly, notice that Kye is to be lauded, cheered, and propped up for her decision to be recognized as a man, even though she is still biologically a woman. She feels like she is man, therefore she is a man.

I find myself in a dilemma. Upon reading this article, the utter insanity of Kye's request, the fact that it was granted by George Washington University, and the fact that this decision is to be lauded initially made me check to make sure I wasn't reading the Onion. When I found out this was a real story, I immediately realized, to my horror, that if I said out loud that I thought this was absurd that people would immediately call me a bully on par with Tyler's roommates.

Is this situation absurd? Is Kye's request that she be recognized as a man because she feels like a man absurd? Is my pointing out the absurdity of the request evil and mean-spirited? Let the reader judge, but let me first give a goofy scenario that is actually true.

My grandfather's name was Nokomis Williams. My great-grandfather's name was Powhatan Williams. My father wanted to name me Powhatan but my mother refused. I got the interesting name of John Williams instead. The fact is that I have enough Native American heritage to apply for, and perhaps receive, a tribal card and Native American status. I could have gotten money for college and received the benefits of a minority. I felt at the time that this was taking advantage of the system since I am at least 4/5's white dude, live in middle-class suburbia, and I have no immediate relations to a single indian. Would I have been an abuser if I had insisted on being called an Iroquois? Perhaps not.

But what if I decided I was an African american? I have no black ancestry. But, I have always felt African American. I like their clothing. I'm a good dancer. I'm more attracted to black folks than white folks. Therefore, I insist that everyone treat me as black, give me full status as an African American, and after college I intend on dying my sin darker and take hormone treatments to look more African American.

I imagine I would get bullied. People would think that this is ridiculous. African Americans would probably be offended. Would it be wrong if people said I was being ridiculous?

Or am I just being a bully?

Election Day is Over

It is good to be a citizen of the United States of America. This morning, we awake again to a peaceful transition of power in the House of Representatives. It may not seem peaceful with all the rhetoric and accusations that fly about during election cycles, but it is. I am so very thankful that even my political enemies will ascend to Capitol Hill with mud-stained and not blood-stained vestments.

For the Christian "non-statesman", it is time to get back to the work that God has called us to do. That is, we are to "be subject to the governing authorities." And, we are to remember that "There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Romans 13:1-2). And again Paul says, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed" (Rom. 13:7). If Paul wrote this concerning a regime that would eventually chop off his head, surely Christians can pray for Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid.

It is true that some government officials are immoral rascals. It is imminently true that all government officials are capable of the most heinous crimes, even our darling favorites. G.K. Chesterton puts it nicely: "It is a part of Christian dogma that any man in any rank may take bribes. It is a part of Christian dogma; it also happens by a curious coincidence that it is a part of obvious human history...In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment."

This is why it is the duty of Christians everywhere to pray for and to support those who rule over them. We are to encourage our officials; we are to help our officials. This does not mean we are not to speak the truth to them, or that we are not allowed to disagree, or that we should not give our opinions. These things are all helpful to our leaders. We must, however, always conduct ourselves with a posture of submission, humility, and respect. We are never to speak slanderously of our rulers, and we are never to debase them by name-calling. Such things ought never to happen amongst Christians, yet it does and the faith suffers.

So Christian, pray for your leaders today. Remember that your hope rests in the kingdom that is coming. King Jesus will be here soon enough. Until he appears, obey him by submitting to the leaders he has appointed.

She Kissed His Feet (Lk. 7:36-50)

Simon was a religious man. He understood morality; he understood right from wrong. He knew what things a good person should do and what things a good person should avoid. Mostly, I would guess that Simon and I would probably cast similar votes on election day. I would guess that he and I would avoid the same places, habits, and people. One day, Simon had the privilege of having Jesus over to his house for dinner.

During the course of that meal, a very unusual thing happened. A woman who was a known "sinner" came over and began to kiss Jesus' feet. She kissed his feet. She was crying as she did this, and she was wiping off his feet with her hair. How awkward for Simon. How awkward this is for me to watch, you might say, as I read this story. I am a by-stander, these many years later, to a very intimate, and potentially humiliating moment.

I am not really concerned with Simon. I don't need to analyze his thinking. I understand him well enough because I'm like him. I relate to Simon. I think most people I know are probably like Simon.

I have also known a few women like the one in this story. That is, I have known some sinful women. I have known some, what others call, "loose" women. I only mention this to say that I know some folks like her; who do and have done the things she did. She is hardly an unusual character.

I do not understand Jesus. I do not know anyone like him. He is the odd thing in this story for me, and the one that I most want to be like. I can relate to Simon because I am Simon. And really, I think he is the most common, if not the most easily despised character in the story. I can understand the immoral woman. I cannot understand Jesus, and yet I must.

I know that the main point of this story is that the immoral woman loved Jesus more than Simon. I get that part of the story. I amen that part of the story. I love it that Jesus rebukes Simon's, and therefore my, pettiness. I need more than that.

I want to know how Jesus did it. How did he gain this woman's love, real love. She was a woman of "ill repute." She knew what it was for men to desire her. She knew what it was to enjoy a man. So, I have to wonder, how was her encounter so different with Jesus? He obviously did not pursue her as an object of lust. I want to know what he said to her. I want to know where he met her. I want to know how his kindness to her and his love for her as an individual was made so obvious to her that it broke her heart and healed it at the same time. I want to know what he did or said that was so powerful that it would overcome her probable dislike of Simon so much that she would break taboo to go into Simon's house and kiss Jesus' feet! How did he do that? I say with those gathered, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" I say this and I know who he is. He amazes me.

There are plenty of Simons in my town, and there are plenty of people of ill-repute. I want the church to be like Jesus, who was able to sit with both, who was able to amaze both. Oh that God would help the church to be amazing again like his Son is! For myself, today I must be contented to watch Jesus as the woman kisses his feet while Simon scowls, and the guests shift nervously in their seats.

Go Outside and Play

Oh yes, this is nerd pwnage at it's glorious height. This is what every WoW gamer dreams of doing to all the grand poobahs on Q&A panels. This would be the pasotral equivalent of flummoxing John Piper with a question on propitiation.



Red Shirt guy, FTW!! Oh yes, and in general it is bad form to wear a red shirt to a sci fi convention, unless you want to die before the away mission is over.

A Tale of Fat Man and Skinny Man

In a common town, in an unremarkable state, there were born on the same day two boys; one was Skinny man and the other was Fat Man. The boys grew up in the same town, and they both had an average childhood. Both of them went off to school, got happily married, and fathered a few lovely children.

When Skinny Man hit middle age, he began to notice that his fondness for donuts and cake and sweets of all sorts had begun to take a toll. Because he loved his family, and because he enjoyed playing with his children, Skinny decided to discipline himself. He began to excercise three times a week, and he rarely ate the sweets that he so enjoyed. Over a short period of time, Skinny was a pretty fit man.

When Fat Man hit middle age, he began to notice a little bulge around the middle as well. His love of cakes and goodies and sitting about had led to a tipping of the scales. Because he loved his sweets and leisure, Fatty did not change his life style. Over time, Fatty got fatter.

Skinny was an active fellow. Though he missed his sweets and sloth, he did not miss his children's baseball games, soccer games, or events of any kind due to fatigue or illness. He took his children on hikes in the mountains. He played ball with them in the yard.

Fatty liked to watch television. He loved his children, but his knees always hurt so he couldn't participate in their games. He could go to their games and watch, but sitting in those bleachers was hard on his back. He didn't go hiking much; his feet would swell. But he loved his pastries, and he ate all he wanted.

Skinny also enjoyed his grandchildren. Because he was fit, he got to enjoy with them the same things he enjoyed with his children. He could still run and play. He had more energy than most younger men. He went to all his grandchildren's games. He and his wife would take them on vacations to beautiful and fascinating places. They explored both the woods and the city.

Fatty enjoyed his grandchildren as well, but he mostly kept to his recliner in his older years. His back gave him serious problems, and he had already had a few surgeries on his knees. He didn't get to many games; he couldn't take sitting on the bleachers anymore at all. He didn't get to take his wife on many of the vacations that they had dreamed of in retirement; he simply was not able to go and enjoy it. But he did get his sweets, and he watched plenty of television.

It came to pass, as fate would have it, that both Skinny and Fatty died on the same day. Skinny had a stroke. Fatty had a massive heart attack. Skinny's self-discipline did not give him a single day of life advantage over Fatty. Could it be that all that exercise was a waste of time?

The Philosophy of a Young Earth

I want to be clear that I do not think someone who believes in an "old earth" is a heretic deserving of anathemas. I do, however, think that science has hi-jacked the plain reading of Genesis chapter one, and more importantly, science has sneaked into the mind to play the part of philosopher instead of fact finder. Science is an awesome explorer and discoverer, she is a lousy theologian and philosopher.

Most people who hold to an extremely old universe do so because it looks old. We have stars that are billions of light years away. If the universe is young, then we should not be seeing them yet. There are many examples such as this in the natural world that would indicate the ancientness of the universe. Yet, stubborn man that I am, I still believe that this place may be fairly new. I do not believe it because of science. I believe it first because of the Bible, and secondly because the idea of a young earth and universe is as philosophically possible as an old one.

Let's deal today with philosophy and earth age. I want to contend that science cannot, no matter how hard she tries, she cannot tell us how old the universe is. To age something, we have to have a definite starting date. How, I wonder, will science provide this? When did the universe begin? Most scientists, I suspect, believe in a starting point in something like the Big Bang. There may be other competeing theories, but this is the most popular. Think about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory presupposes the eternity of matter. That is, before the Big Bang, there was this massive, massive ball of everything that is that exploded into chunks of what we see now. That explosion starts the clock. That is a reasonable theory.

It is precisely at this point that I think many theologians and Christian philosophers go awry. After hearing the Big Bang theory, they then try to beat the scientist at his own game by exploring whether or not the Big Bang could work. I don't think that is the best way to go about it. I want to deal with the most glaring problem: how did that massive ball of everything begin to exist in the first place? What made it explode? Science cannot answer this for us. At best, science could tell us that it is possible that such a big ball of everything existed. Also, and let this sink in, when science tells us how "old" the universe is, it is really only telling us how long it has been since the Big Bang. The actual age of the universe would have to be infinite. It would have to be eternal. The universe, in this closed, miracleless system, has simply always been. This assertion boggles the mind theologically, philosophically, and yes, even scientifically.

Here is the second thing to think about in this debate: miracles. Do I believe that the universe is governed by unalterable natural laws? No, I do not. I allow for miracles, as do most people I imagine. Once you allow for that, and this is a big point, then there is no reason to reject a young universe creation. If I believe in wizardry, then it should not surprise me if a wizard can conjure a rabbit out of a hat, or a fireball from thin air, or a mouse from his hand. It would be silly of me to try and use science to figure out how old a newly conjured bird would be. It simply will not work. That does not mean that the wizard is being deceptive.

Imagine this, a wizard conjures a rabbit and brings it over to my house and he says, "Look what I made." I say, "OOooo...that is the oldest rabbit I've ever seen! Let me get my tools." So, I begin a scientific medical exam to check out the rabbit and age it. The wizard says, "What are you doing?" I say, "I'm trying to figure out how old this rabbit is." The wizard laughs and says, "Friend, I just conjured him on the way here." And I say, "Well, that is not what my findings are telling me. This rabbit is ten years old at least! Besides, if this rabbit isn't really old, then you deceive me by making it look so old! Why would you make an old rabbit?" I can only imagine that the wizard might respond, "Deceiving you? I just told you I made while on the way. And I made it old because I like rabbits that look like this one. What does old even mean, friend?"

Here are a couple of problems:

1) If you do not believe in wizardry, you will never take the wizard's word for it.
2) If you believe that science explains everything, you won't even bother looking at the wizard's explanation anyway.

So it is the modern presuppositions that get in the way of a young universe. We presuppose it to be old because it looks that way. We also believe that science can explain everything for us. It simply can't. Finally, we also have a hard time swallowing that a book, nearly as old as the world, could possibly be correct on the age of the earth. We don't believe much in miracles or wizards. Besides, those rubes didn't have science. How could they have possibly known how old the universe is? Or why it was made?

Unless, of course, the Maker told them.

Science Cannot Be God for Us

My good buddy Alvin sent me an interesting link on Facebook the other day. You can check it out here. It's an interesting interview with Sam Harris, one of the "new atheists" as a promotion for his new book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.

Let me give the positive spin first. I am glad that Sam Harris wants there to be absolute truth. I am glad that he thinks moral relativism is untenable for sanity. I agree to all of these things.

However, there are some things that I do not like very much at all. I find this quotation, from an interview on the John Stewart show I think, very amusing. He says:

We have a problem. The only people on the planet at this moment who think that there are truly right answers to moral questions are religious demagogues who think the universe is 6,000 years old. Everyone else seems to think that there’s something suspect about the concept of moral truth.

Yes indeed. We have a problem! Luddites, like myself of course, are the only people who think there are real answers to moral questions. I suppose the problem is that morality has been left to imbeciles and this needs correcting. There is a great post on Sam Harris over here at the First Things blog by Tom Gilson.

Insults aside, the real reason why I find this so frustrating is the seemingly obvious error being made by Harris. That is, you simply cannot construct morality from science. Science is about fact finding. You can determine, scientifically, that a child has life at conception. However, can you then use science to say whether or not the child has an equal right to life as an adult?

Gilson puts it like this, "There is, after all, a reason most people don’t think science can deliver us moral truth: it can’t. Not unless Harris has come up with something utterly earthshaking in the history of philosophical reflection." That's an amen comment for me. By that, I mean the problem is that we are scientifically smart these days, but we are philosohically dumb. I do not doubt that Harris is a stellar scientist, but he is certainly no philosopher. Think about this: why is it that science is mandated for primary and high schools and philosophy isn't? It used to be that philosophy was an essential component to an education. Isn't learning to use reason and logic as important as knowing the innards of an earthworm?

Science cannot answer everything. It can only give us facts, or at least, it can tell us how things look. But to reason from facts to morality is the job of philosophy, and dare I say it, theology.

On Being a Young Earther Luddite

I know that it is all the rage today to think that the universe is ancient beyond comprehension and that men are evolved from bacteria. It can hardly go unnoticed that the stars are really, really far off and that there are dinosaur bones scattered just about everywhere across the planet. When you add that together with Cro-magnon skull fragments, petrified wood, and carbon-14 steady rate decay, it appears as if the old age of the universe and earth is a slam dunk.

I confess that it is a slam dunk for a natural law type of person. By that, I mean the man who believes that all there is can be explained by the scientific method, by natural law, and if need be, genetics. This is the type of man who thinks that religion is a coping mechanism to keep us from realizing that when we die, we go into the void of nothingness. In order to avoid this inconvenient fact, our genes invented religion so we wouldn't turn into non-breeding gothic kids who put off marriage and procreation in favor of black attire and melancholy. In their universe, love is merely a swirling concoction of hormones and genetic pre-disposition for symmetrical faces. There is, in fact, nothing mystical about love, hate, or zealotry over our favorite college team. It's in the genes. And, most abhorrently, the true miracle of the "immaculate reception" is no miracle at all. It is a closed, cold universe headed to the void of nothingness without the faintest wisp of the comfort of metaphysics.

I am not that type of person. I do confess, however, that I have the appalling tendency to want to be liked by men. More specifically, I hate to be thought of as an idiot. So I know that my inclination that the world may be only 10,000 years old or so marks me immediately as bordering on being an imbecile. I have tried, very hard, to harmonize my young earth mentality with the ancient appearance of the universe. Toward this end, I moved back my original calculation all the way from 6,000 years to 10,000. This, for me, was a large compromise, but it will satisfy none of my critics I'm sure.

So how could it come to pass that a man with a liberal arts degree should be so foolish? Alas, I believe in magic. At least, I believe in an omnipotent Creator-God who can, with mere words, make something out of nothing. To use the words of the academy, I believe that everything we see was created ex nihilo. That is akin to Harry Potter conjuring a mouse from thin air, I suppose, to the naturalist. I came to the startling realization that if God Almighty spoke something out of nothing, it is simply absurd to then go and try to age it. Unless, of course, we surmise that when He made it, He made it look "new." This sounds altogether reasonable until we try to compare it to what an old universe might look like. Since there had never been a universe before, we must come to the only logical conclusion that this new universe God made looked just like a new universe, no matter how old we might think it looks. There is, actually, no other universe to compare it to. I guess this means that we are aging it through time as a man would age, by seconds and years back to a time when it was young.

Sometimes, people think I am old because my hair has turned gray. That is a reasonable assumption since gray hair belongs on old men. However, by a cruel twist of genetics, my hair turned gray at the tender age of thirty. If I were to color my hair more brown, and then allow these same fellows to watch me run a half-marathon next Tuesday, they might think I am doing better than one foot in the grave after all. So, just because my hair is gray does not mean I've gotten old. If you are scratching your head as to what this has to do with the age of the universe, just leave this point aside. I simply wanted to feel less old than I appear.

So, oddly, I find myself in the predicament of believing that God spoke in the Bible, that He spoke plainly, and that He has said that He made the world out of nothing. And, He has also said that He put a man on this planet, and that He made one woman out of that man's rib. I believe all of that patent nonsense. I also believe in talking snakes and damning fruit. To the naturalist, I am practically mad and particularly dangerous to a thinking society. If my philosophy were not so repulsive, I could be studied as an odd throw-back to a more primitive day. Instead, I think ridicule is the chosen attack against rubes like myself.

I am glad to have this off of my chest. I hold a sad set of presuppostions that put me at odds with the modern man. I believe in God, and miracles, and I believe in the Bible. Apparently, clinging to this sort of hocus-pocus entails the denial of medication and all scientific advancement. I believe this to be a merely childish insult. I like ibuprofen very much. I am also very fond of the idea that my son and daughter have powerful angels watching over them who obey the every whim of an omnipotent God.

So there you have it, dear reader. I am a young earther Luddite of the highest order. I am not even ashamed of it on good days. You can pray for me, if you like. Or at least, you can blame it on an unfortunate idea one of my ancestor's genes had to give me this wretched coping mechanism.

The Parable of the Miners

I have to confess that I have been glued to the trapped Chilean miner story. I prayed for their deliverance, and I have prayed for them after their rescue as well. I think one of the miner's had both his girlfriend and his wife show up for the rescue party. That guy really needs our prayers.

Their ordeal made me think: Could I survive down there without going mad? And as I thought on it, I began to realize that their situation was a great parable, which I will now share. Here it is, the parable of the miners:

There was once a group of miners in the country of Chile. They labored, day after day, in a mine that was over a half-mile deep in the earth. One day, the mine collapsed, burying the miners under 700,000 tons of earth. Though they were not crushed in the collapse, they had with them only 48 hours worth of food and water.

Those family and friends on the surface were filled with grief at the collapse of the mine, and they set about drilling to determine the fate of their loved ones. It took them seventeen days to drill a small hole to where the miners were at the time of the collapse. To their great joy and surprise, all of the miners were still alive. They had survived for seventeen days in a dark pit with only forty-eight hours of rations.

So think about this: how did they survive 17 days on 48 hours of rations, and what does this have to do with you?

If there is anyone around to discuss, we will. If there isn't, I'll just answer my own question tomorrow.

Where Does the Time Go?

May?! It's been since May since I even attempted to post something? It's like a ghost town in here.

What is going on with me? I used to be a blogging legend in my own mind. I had at least ten consistent readers, all of whom I have let down. And all those funny things I used to write down, well they are being lost by the day. What a shame.

I need a do over. A blog do over/make over. I need to get over there and fix those links that also go to ghost town blogs. I need to add content from time to time that I shamelessly steal from others. I could even do something with that thing at the top with the lightning bolts. I need to move the furniture around.

I will get on some of that tonight I think. I'm going to give it a try. Because, I think my thoughts are important enough to share, just like every other narcisstic blogger out there. So, for the two of you who have also been either very hopeful or too lazy to remove me from your readers...here goes nothing. Again.

My Quote of the Day

"I like to think that God intended me for mediocrity; it frees me to enjoy the greatness in others." ~Brad Williams

Am I Still in America?

This story is so bizarre, so "nanny-state", so irritating that it actually brought me out of "dying blog syndrome." I cannot believe that any government, local, state, or federal, has become so pampering and parental that they feel they must now make Happy Meal toys illegal for the sake of our children.

Wow. Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/where-happy-meals-are-illegal-19362009

The Rocky Road to Dublin

In honor a St. Patrick's Day, I've put up a good Irish jingle. Enjoy.

The Devil's Favorite Verse

Satan is no stranger to Scripture. If I were a betting man, I'd be willing to wager that he can probably quote it in both the King James and ESV, whichever is most handy for him at the moment. When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, the devil had no trouble twisting Scripture to try and cause Jesus to stumble (Matthew 4:1-11). The devil is still in the business of distorting Scripture, and I think that he may have a favorite verse.

How many times, I wonder, have you read an article, overheard a conversation, where the "shut down" argument employed by one party is "judge not that ye be not judged" follow with the obligatory "That's what Jesus said, you know. You have no right to judge me!!!" That, my friends, seems to be the devil's favorite argument in these silly, sinful days in which we live.

The strategy is that anytime a Christian speaks about sin, calls sin sin, or implies that something is sin, it should be immediately hooted down with "you shall not judge, Jesus said so!" and then they should be shamed for daring to speak up about 'morality'. What's sad is that it seems to work more often than not, and that is why this strategy is a personal pet peeve.

Here is the full quote that is being hacked to death and twisted by Satan in such exchanges:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and t with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but u do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye (Matt. 7:1-5).

Here is Jesus' point: whatever you judge as sinful, if indeed it is sinful, know that you are also going to incur the same judgement! So, before you go popping off about the wickedness of others, just know that you are a sinful person as well, which means you are in as desperate need of Jesus as the guy/girl you are talking to.

This point does not, in any way, forbid a Christian from judging. It is meant to keep us humble in judgement and to keep us from being arrogant in judgement and to keep us from being graceless in judgement. That, dear reader, is the point.

For example, if I have a friend who is in sexual immorality, before I go and confront them for being perverted, I need to confess to God that I also have a perverted heart. I need to seek forgiveness for the same weakeness I have spotted in my brother or sister. I need Jesus to be my savior from perversion. Armed with this attitude, I am now able to seek my brother's well-being by confronting him about his soul-damning practices.

So, if the devil parrots this silly argument around you again, arm yourselves with humility and explain the passage that they just quote. They will be surprised that you know where the quote came from, they most likely won't. And, they will probably listen to you.

May God help us to be good, gracious, gospel-speaking judges who point out sin that Christ might kill it.

Creative Writing: Mark 4:35-41

Occassionally, I write a story based on a particular passage I am thinking about. Here's one I did today. I hope you find it edifying.

I call it "Sleepy Jesus".

Look to the hill by the sea. The crowds are coming and desperate. Some are cradling sick children, carrying crippled loved ones, all of them with broken hearts. Can you see the mother with the dying child? Can you see the cloud of death over them? Can you feel her agony as sin’s curse hovers so near? He sees. He feels. He touches. He heals.

Each one healed goes away rejoicing, but he remains. They surge around him like waves. Help my baby. Help my child. Help my mother. Help my son. Help my husband. Help my brother. “If you are willing, you can make me whole!” He is willing. They are made whole. But death and rot infects everything here. There is no end of need and he must carry them all.

He teaches them. He tells them of the Kingdom of God. The press close and he goes out to sea so that they may hear. He wants to heal their hearts. He wants them to listen and live. He teaches from morning till night.

He decides to cross the sea. Sleepy, he lies on the deck of the boat. Images of hurting faces and sin-sick people fill his thoughts. Their burdens are great, and he must carry them all.

They are sinking down. Death draws them into his long embrace and robs them of joy and dreams and love. They are drowning in despair. They are sinking. They are sinking.

Lord, do you not care that we are perishing?! He wakes from dreams with a start. The boat is rocking. The men are frightened. The waves are great and the storm is strong. Peace! Be Still! He commands, and the storm ceases. The proud waves bow and rock no more. Of course he cares that we are perishing. Shouldn't they know that by now?