Can anything good come out of you?

How do we answer the question, "Why are some atheists/secularists good and why are some believers not?"

I know that the Bible says that there are none good, no not one. I am not questioning if mankind is sinful. Of course we all are. I am just grappling with trying to figure out where morality comes from. Experience shows that those who believe in God are not more likely to "better people," than those who do not believe. I know atheists who are much more concerned about the poor and oppressed and downtrodden than their believing counterparts. Why? Shouldn't followers of Christ have more sensitivity to the needs around them than someone who believes very little about Jesus, much less trusted him for forgiveness?

I think we have made too little of human potential. And before I am accused of converting to a secular humanist, let me explain. Even though I am not a secular humanist I do think we've missed how much potential we have for good. And I don't think this contradicts Scripture. (However, I may have to edit this post after the responses)

I want to start by saying that even the best of our human potential will never be good enough to satisfy the holiness of God. We will always fall short of giving God glory. I want this to be understood from the outset. Faith in Jesus is the only way to be brought to the Father in forgiveness. Now that that is clear, let me proceed.

Humans have the potential for great good. But we will never be as good as possible. Humans also have the potential for great evil. And we can be as evil as possible. Mother Theresa was a good person but she could have been even better. Jeffrey Dahmer was an evil person, and while it can be argued he could have probably been worse, I think it is fair to say he went out of his way to do evil things. We could cite more examples, but hopefully this shows what I'm trying to say. The doctrine of the fall of man does not teach that man is as evil as he could be, but it did leave him the potential to delve deep into evil without some sort of constraint. On the other hand what the doctrine of the fall of man does teach is that man is prevented from ever being as good as he possible could.

We can still be and act "good," (just not good enough). We were created in the image of God. God is good. Therefore, we were created for good. Creation was very good. When man ate the fruit of the tree it was not the tree of the knowledge of evil, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When that fruit got into the human system, they could still do good, but now they also knew evil as well as good. This is why humans, whether believers or not, do have a lot of potential for good. But in the end, they will always fall short of perfection in good.

Relucant Warrior or King Disguised

In trying to understand more about Islam, I am reading through Islam An Introduction. My comments are not directed at the author, Rosalyn Rushbrook. But I am using her information as my source of knowledge for my understanding of Islam.

In the chapter on the PM, one finds him to be a somewhat likable fellow and even peace loving. But what stood out for me was how he's like the rest of us. When we feel threatened we tend to strike back, whether verbally or physically. He seemingly allowed peaceful coexistence of Jews and Muslims unless their community came under attack. In this case he had asked they all come together to fight the common enemy. "...he would have preferred it if he had been left in peace in Madinah, but sadly, the opposition from the Quraysh tribes continued and he was obliged to take part in sporadic warfare...[even if] only a few months." (pg16) "Jihad was...primarily for defensive reasons..." (pg17)

So PM was a relucant warrior. Sounds pretty noble. But what would have happened if he had been led to the slaughter as a lamb, not opening his mouth? What would have happened if he had taken insult and turned the other cheek? What would have happened if he had commended his spirit into the hands of God? What if he would have defeated death by dying and rising again in victory?

I would say that anyone who could do that would be a King, but maybe one in disguise.

Quran burning

I hate being behind in blogging. I miss opportunities like the Quran burning in Afghanistan and the desecration of graves of Christians and Jews in Libya.

So, I'll just add my two cents worth a bit late.

First, as I understand it there is a misconception about how non-Muslims view the Quran. From a Christian perspective one would tend to think the Bilbe is to Christianity as the Quran is to Islam. (Bible:Christianity, Quran:Islam).But actually the Quran is to Islam as Jesus is to Christianity (Quran:Islam, Jesus:Christianity). So, the burning of a Quran is a bit more inflammatory (pun intended) than someone burning a Bible. It would be similar, yet not to the degree, of the outrage felt by Christians when Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in his own urine and took a photo of it. The Quran is seen as literally the word of Allah (God). In the same way, Jesus is seen as the word of God too (John 1:1 etc). So, as Rosalyn Rushbrook, a convert from Christianity to Islam, has stated in her book Islam An Introduction, "Muslims react strongly when they feel that the Quran has been treated with insult or disrespect." (p43)

And I guess "strongly react" means to kill and pillage. This is quite a contrast from what Jesus taught his disciples, which was to turn the other cheek when someone does something bad to you. Besides, the Word of God, Jesus, himself, was cursed, spit upon, beat to a pulp, mocked, a crown of thorns jammed on his head, and nails thrust through his hands and feet until he was dead. I think that kind of death is a bit more extreme than burning God's word, which by the way can be reprinted as a wise Islamic scholar said in the aftermath of the insurgence in Afghanistan.

And it seems an apology is not even good enough. It's unforgivable. On the other hand Jesus said blasphemy of the Son would be forgiven. Even he prayed from the cross for forgiveness for those who had put him on the cross saying they didn't know what they were doing. Is there no mercy in Islam, not even to those who may not know what they were doing?

Is this incident really a true picture of Islam or just an excuse to kill Americans?

And lastly, why were there no reports of Libyan Muslims being killed after the cemetery desecration of Christians and Jews?

I'm not saying the followers of Jesus have always been stellar examples of actually following Jesus. Of course, they haven't. But I am highlighting the difference between the two religions. And it is a stark difference.

The Star of Bethlehem

This is either a late Christmas post, a way early Christmas post, or just a post that happens to be about the Christmas story, mainly the star that led the wise men to Jesus.

There are many theories about what the star actually was. Was it the conjunction of two planets, three planets, a comet, a supernova, or something else? What if it wasn't a natural phenomena? Would that really matter? In other words, if all the "natural" explanations failed to provide a satisfactory reconciliation with Babylonian sky charts and the story in the Bible would that mean the event recorded in the Bible was made-up?

Not necessarily.

We could, as some would, say that the entire story is pure imagination. No Jesus, no Mary, No Wise Men, and of course no Star. But to make that conclusion one would also have to ignore Bethlehem as a real place. If the story was pure imagination the author would had to have known about the place, Bethlehem. To know about Bethlehem it makes sense he would had to have live relatively close to there. (Unless the Wise Men from Babylonia wrote the story. haha). So, if the story is made-up, it is based at least in some reality. Otherwise, Jesus would have been born in Huierty and had three eyes.

The Star of Bethlehem is connected exclusively with the guidance of the Wise Men. They were star gazers. God wanted them to come see Jesus, so he spoke to them in their language, stars. Whatever they saw or however they interpreted what they saw, it prompted them to travel to Jerusalem and then onto Bethlehem seeking out the king of the Jews. God speaks to us in our language. We can explain the voice away by attributing the sound to natural events or we can accept that when we read the Bible, a book about God, we will find supernatural events beyond and outside the scope of our small natural "world."

Bloggin through TV

We are amazed at the same sights, but attribute it to something different.

I've just finished watching the last episode of the series Wonders of the Universe by Brian Cox. I hate I missed the other three. Dr. Cox and I are both filled with wonder as we look at the same universe. He finds his wonder in evolution and I from the God of creation.

I have no intentions of even coming close to testing his observations and ultimate conclusions. He's a far more intellectual man than I can even imagine to be. But I would like to challenge the idea that the same kind of wonder can only come from evolution and not the Creator God.

Dr. Cox gives lots of facts. I have no idea if they are true or not, but since he's the expert I'm going to assume the facts are true. Again, the only thing I'm disputing with Dr. Cox is the origin of our (his and mine) wonder. Scripture is from the NASB in green. My comments are in blue. Hopefully, I've quoted Cox (correctly).

"The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it"

Dr. Cox asks, "Why are we here and where do we come from?" It seems we all ask this question and how we answer determines how we interpret the world around us.

Facts quoted by Cox:

• Our origin begins with the beginning of the universe over 13.7 billion years ago.


• The story of the beginning of the universe is our story.


• "Light is what connects us to the cosmos." Amazingly true.


• "Light is a messenger from a long forgotten era...through light we stare back at the history of the universe and discover how it all began and ultimately see how light breathed life into us." Yes, indeed. Light is what brought about life. It's our illumination of the Light that we see our darkness and thus find Life.


• "The light from the sun has traveled 150 million kilometers. There are on a clear night about 2.5 thousand stars visible to the naked eye and billions more only seen through telescopes..." He counts the number of stars and gives names to all of them.


• Lagoon nebula. 5000 light years away and can be seen by naked eye from Earth because it is 100 light years across. Hershel 36 star is 20x more massive than our Sun. There are even bigger stars in our galaxy. The Milky Way is home to 200 billion stars.


• The discovery of speed light (less than 300,000 kilometers per second) was measured by the orbit of Jupiter's moon IO. Thus, a light year is the distance light can travel in one year (10 million million million kilometres)


• When we see the light from the Sun (it being 150 million kms away) we see it as it was 8 minutes in the past.


• When we see light from the Andromeda galaxy, the light started it's journey to Earth at the dawn of human evolution (2.5 million years ago).


• In 2004 with the Hubble telescope showed us red light from around 13 billion light years away.


• The properties of light mean that red light has the longest visible wave length of light. As the light reaches our eyes the light has stretched. This means the universe is expanding. I don't know that it matters if the universe is expanding or not in terms of consequences. But what if light is not traveling in a straight line to our telescopes? What if the light is traveling around space or something completely different before it gets to our telescopes, and thus it appears that the light is taking billion of years to travel? But again, assuming it is doing all this traveling, if you go further back than 13.7 billion light year, you still have not reached Infinity.


• Therefore, "...if you rewind time they [galaxies] must have been closer together in the past...and if you go back far enough all the galaxies we know were on top of each other...The universe thus had a beginning which is the Big bang theory... And the Big bang theory does not state that every thing was (is) being flung out...Space is stretching and has been since the big bang." ...Let there be Light and there was Light. I am not trying to harmonize science with the Bible (albeit all truth is God's truth). If we detect signs of the beginning of the universe, it only means there was a beginning to it all.


• This next part is tricky and over my head. Light is only visible for humans at red. There is invisible light in the form of radio and microwaves that come to us as the first light of the universe. The light has been stretched so much that it comes to us in this form. These are messengers carrying information about the origin of our universe.


• "...Darkness vanished and the cosmos begin to fill with light..." How true!!


• "The reason any of this even exists is due to tiny density fluctuations that appeared when the observable universe was smaller than a grain of sand." But wasn't there something to begin? Why is there something rather than nothing? Or did something produced something? Why is it not plausible that something came from nothing (ex nihilo)


• Dr. Cox believes we may have come from a Chordate worm. They started producing cells sensitive to light that eventually led human life. Because this worm developed cells for sight, we can see light and thus understand the origin of the universe. But why us? Why didn't dolphins or chipmunks develop the ability to see into outer space and explain the origin of life? We have eyes to see the Light, but why don't most of us see it?

Heaven by Rob Bell

The first question Bell proposes is in relation to the staggering number of people who won't "make" (my emphasis) it to heaven.

I would say that is what we don't know. We don't know how God has been speaking to people and how they have responded. Whatever light he has given them can either be accepted or rejected. we don't know how many or how few will be in heaven. All we know is that the only way to the Father is through Christ, which Bell affirms. Like Bell I don't have a clue about where Ghandi is (or Martin Luther King Jr.).

He goes on to raise a multitude of questions in the first chapter. And some of those questions I do wonder about myself. Like the "personal relationship" one. What does that even mean? But I'm not going to dive into all the Christanese he exposes. I, too, think we should explain things better rather with the insider jargon.

Heaven. "It's somewhere else, or is it right here and now?" asks Bell. Bell begins with the story about the rich man who comes to Jesus asking about eternal life. Bell explains that Jesus' answers the man's concerns which is not "with how to go to heaven," but "how to have more responsibility in the age to come." I would agree with Bell in that the man is not asking how to go to heaven. I think the man is asking about eternal life and how to get it. I don't see the man asking for how to be a good citizen in the world to come. Bell suggest that this is what Jesus is getting at. Live to be a better person now earns you more responsibility later. "Jesus takes the man's questions about his life then and makes it about the kind of life he's living now" (p41). If anything Bell is at fault of being a postmillennialist. He equates the prophets' sayings with literally heaven on earth (p33). A premillennialist does not disregard the new heaven and the new earth imagery. I think most would agree how we live now is important.

Bell says that the man went away because he had not yet understood that greed could not enter into the age to come. But even still, the man went away. We don't know if he ever turned back to God. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I think Jesus left open the possibility that he didn't.

In defining "heaven," Bell goes on to say that it is just simply a substitute for "God." (p42) I will say that I'm still undecided on this. Kingdom of heaven = kingdom of God. This will need some more thought. He adds, "Heaven is that realm where things are as God intends them to be." (p42). The last one is easier for me than the first definition. The story of the Bible is when God's will will be done on earth as it currently is in heaven. Heaven then is "partnering with God to make a new and better world..." (p47) Well, as subversive as this image is of heaven, it certainly is not a new image. Therefore, many people who have held and are holding to this view, are considered orthodox. Why not Bell?

In reference to judgment, Bell states that heaven confronts us with our incompleteness and that we must have that "burned" off. I would agree. Some will be left with a lot, others a little. We have to be fitted for heaven. I would call this the judgment seat of Christ.

Lastly, I wanted to talk about how Bell defines "aion". He gives us two definitions. 1) an era of time with beginning and an end. 2) an intensity experienced that transcends time. I'll admit I've not looked at the word/concept in depth. But a quick glance at BDAG of "aion" states that the word means, "long period of time without reference to a beginning nor an end." Secondly, it means "eternal." Bell wants us to believe that eternal and forever are not the same thing. In my opinion this is the closest he comes to being a universalist. If eternity is just a period of intensity (in judgment, perhaps) then one goes through it and is then relieved from it. I don't think Bell ever goes quite that far. But I would say he comes close to advocating purgatory indirectly rather than universalism directly. And for that (i.e. advocating purgatory) we can blame him. If, in fact, he does advocate an intense judgment then release.

And I tried to ignore the Rob Bell hype

Rob Bell. A name associated with controversy. So, when people started the firestorm of blogging against him, i was curious what the fuss was all about.

Personally, I was turned off when I saw my first NOOMA video. It was the one where he is with his son and they get caught in a rain storm. I thought it was creative but just not for me. So, when I heard of Velvet Elvis I paid no attention to it.

But I did start to warm up to Bell when in Portugal. He had made more NOOMA videos, and I was invited to attend the launch of a Bible study among some pretty tough and rough athletes there. Through cursing and beer drinking, it was one of the liveliest Bible studies I've ever been apart of. These videos were excellent spiritual conversation starters. I still didn't like the videos themselves. But what I saw come from them surprised me. So from that point forward, I decided to let Rob Bell be. He was advancing the kingdom more than I was, and who was I to say anything against what God was doing. God was (is) using Bell.

He's had several other books come out of which none I've read. But when all the Reformers began denouncing him as a heretic for his latest views in Love Wins, I had to see what the fuss was about. If the Reformers didn't like him, he may be my new best friend. Well, I couldn't afford to buy the book. So, I thought I would just ignore all the fan fare. But just the other day it showed up at the local library.

It was an easy read although written like Bell was talking. When I finished I was left wondering what all the fuss was about. Bell never does explicitly say what he believes exactly about heaven and hell and judgment. He comes close but never actually admits to being a universalist.

So, as I blog about the book I will try to keep in mind that he's just trying to get dialogue started about the issue. I could try to comb out Bell's personal view of universalism, but I don't think that would be beneficial. Instead I just want to talk about what he actually says.

Book blogging is for me the hardest. You have to assume the person has not read the book, and even if they have you have to put your comments in some sort of context. And this does not make for brevity.

This book is about "...some of the dominant stories that are being told as the Jesus story...[A lot of people] have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better...This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy..." So, now we know what we are about to read. He wants an open discussion on the topic.

Since this is already a long post. I will stop and continue as I work my way through the major stuff of the next 200 or so pages.

The true elder brother Jesus

Besides disagreeing over the emphasis shift from the younger brother to the older brother, I disagree with the interpretation of Jesus being the true elder brother. In chapter 5 Tim Keller put forth his argument as to why Jesus is the true elder brother.

Keller does admit that the father is the one who goes out to each brother. He goes out to the wayward son coming home, and he goes out to persuade the elder brother to come into the party. I do like this quote, "It shows that even the most religious and moral people need the initiating grace of God, that they are just as lost..."

Keller also shows us his cards in how he interprets the entire parable (as if we did not already know implicitly). Keller is interpreting the parable as a sinner finding repentance. As stated before, I believe this is a valid interpretation. But Keller adds, "This, however, only brings us to the brink of Jesus's message, not to its heart." It's what follows that I am not sure I accept.

Here is the argument. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees who have accused him of eating with sinners (Lk 15:2). Thus, he told the 3 parables. Keller points out that in all three something is lost and then gotten again. But a big difference between the first two and the last one is that in the first two someone "goes out" to find what was lost. In the third one, no one goes out. This is the shock Keller attributes to the last parable. We are expecting someone to go out and no one does.

But wait. I thought the point was the elder brother. Didn't we say that the father went out to him to try to convince him to come into the party?

Next, Keller appeals to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper?" It is assumed that Cain was supposed to be his brother's keeper and therefore every other elder brother has the responsibility of looking after his wild younger brother. The elder brother is to spend his money to bring back the younger brother. Keller's lesson is that it costs someone to bring about restoration. But sadly this younger brother doesn't get a responsible older brother.

"But we do..." Keller says.

Keller is forced to put Jesus in this speculative role. Since the main thrust of the parable is the wayward elder brother, we need the means of his salvation. His means of salvation is no different than anyone else; Jesus. Otherwise, we already have the salvation part, that of the younger brother being accepted back into the family by the father.

We don't need to make up an application from the Prodigal Son parable. The elder brother is angry because of how kind the father has treated his brother. As stated above, Jesus is telling the parable in defense of why he is eating with sinners. He's eating with sinners because they need saving. Salvation from the Heavenly Father comes to sinners who accept the grace of the Father. The reaction of the elder brother is exactly the same as the Pharisee's reaction. They can't believe lost people can be saved. Jesus is not the so called true elder brother. He's the father (not the Father, although they work together for salvation's sake). Just like he's the shepherd and the woman. This makes more sense since now we have harmony among the three parables. Something dear is lost and something dear is found.

I disagree with him

It seems I am always critical of the newest and latest trends of Christian writers. Just getting started with Prodigal God by Tim Keller. It's his interpretation of the what has been previously known as the Prodigal Son.

I don't want to give too much away, but unfortunately my comments here may. Nevertheless, he puts the emphasis of the story on the older brother, the one who stayed home rather than the one who went away and was welcomed back by the father. Keller is making the point that Jesus was preaching against the righteousness of the Pharisees.

For what it is worth, Keller does have some good points. I do think we often forget to compare the two brothers as they were meant to be compared. But I am not convinced that the point of the story is the older brother.

This parable can be taught in two ways. It could be either about the "lost" being "saved," or it could be about the "saved" loosing their way. The parable can't be interpreted in isolation though. Two others preceded it. The first was about the one lost sheep that the shepard goes to find leaving the 99 behind. The second was about the lost coin the woman finds and rejoices over finding it. The last parable is the one about the younger brother who leaves and comes back to the chagrin of the older brother.

In the first the one the lost sheep was still a sheep and a part of the shephard's flock. In the second the lost coin was still owned by the woman even though lost. And in the last one, the younger brother was still the father's son before and after his run away. So, in all three the wandering lost items were still a part of the unit. Therefore, I would lean more to say that these parables are about righteous people going away and God's grace accepting them back. if we were to take these parables to mean "soul salvation," then we would have to say one can "lose their salvation."

But this distinction of how to interpret this parable is not about splitting hairs. I've heard great sermons preached from this passage calling lost sinners to trust Christ as their Savior.

Again, the main problem I have is switching the emphasis from the younger brother to the older brother. I don't see it. While I agree the church-goer needs the salvation of Christ as much as the drunkard, I can't see that Jesus focused exclusively on that here. It's possible that he did elsewhere though. If we say that this parable is about the older brother, then we must also conclude the first parable is about the 99 sheep left behind, and the second parable is about the all the coins tucked away safely in the woman's purse. We would then have to conclude also that the main point of the Good Samaritan is the two men who passed by the man on the road. And every other parable spoken by Jesus would be flipped on it's head especially those that refer to the religious leaders of the day.

In conclusion, I like some of the points brought out by Keller. But I can't buy his main thesis. Jesus is not the "true" elder brother who has the responsibility to find the wayward sinful brother. This parable is still about a God who goes out of his way to bring back his backslidden children.

Christmas sermon after the fact

I didn't get to give a Christmas sermon this year. But if I had it would have been on sin.

The background for the sermon would have come from a recent conversation I had with a former Hindu who is now a follower of Christ. After I found out he was a believer and that his background was Hindu, I asked him, "How do you talk about Jesus to Hindus, knowing that He is accepted among the many gods as just another god?" His answer was profound and simply. He said that Hindus are somewhat confused by Jesus. First, you build a relationship with Hindus, let the Holy Spirit convict them of their sin and THEN introduce Jesus as the Saviour. I think that approach would work with anyone, Hindu or not. So many times we are eager to "introduce" people to Jesus before the Holy Spirit has convicted them of sin.

I doubt I would have incorporated this next part, but it was my focus this Christmas. The Wise Men (trying to break myself from saying a number, since that is unknown). This year an Iranian told me the story of the Wise Men from Persia. This person was so excited and proud that Persian people were a part of our Christmas story. I, too, was glad to have a Persian know about Persian influence on the birth of Jesus. Have a Muslim tell you (accurately even) the story of the birth of the son of Mary and see if it won't bless you.

Lastly, the sermon I did hear for Christmas focused on Simeon. It was a great illustration for me because I was holding Ida Claire as the pastor spoke of Simeon holding little Jesus. I could just imagine how this man felt. He had been promised to see the coming Messiah. And when he went to the temple, he saw the baby and took him up in his arms.

Salvation has come. That's what makes Christmas special. Sin has put us in a need to be rescued. Thankfully, God with us in the flesh has made that rescue possible.

Part 2: Why SH is my second favorite atheist/agnostic

I decided to split these two posts because I felt they may be too long as one post. Also, if you read the first and had no desire to continue, then you could skip this one. =) How nice!

As a way of transition I thought I'd give a brief summary of the previous post. Stephen Hawking, the eminent British physicist, has come out with a new book stating that physics does not need a God to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I, on the other hand, found the newspaper article from The Times written by Hannah Devlin, and excerpts from the accompanying free magazine, Eureka, to be an exhilarating testimony to God as Creator.

When I saw how the magazine had headlined the Hawking book (i.e. "The End of the Universe by Stephen Hawking."), I knew this was going to have something to do with multiverse vs. universe. Now from the beginning I do not claim to understand even most of this stuff. Maybe that discredits my opinion. And maybe that accounts for my perceived "naive" continued faith in God as Creator. If so, I hope to always remain a simpleton.

The idea that there are possible innumerable universes out there is a profound and awesome idea. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it shows me how incredible the creative power of my God is. I mean, he created this universe and then some?!!! WOW. We do not even know all there is to know about this universe, much less what is going on way out there somewhere in space. How then can we know the mind of God? We can't even know what we know exists in our own universe, let alone know things outside our reality. If there is anything I like about postmodern philosophy, it's this. The idea of multiverse instead of a universe. At first I thought this was where Hawking was going with his support of the M-theory. I thought he was going to be the poster child of postmodern science. However, I can't decide if he is or not.

"Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology,... [SH] renders redundant the role of a creator for the Universe." ("Hawking"...Devlin, here on referred to as HD) So how does he do it?

Hawking postulates that "the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics." (HD). Gravity can cause spontaneous creation. Therefore, if gravity can cause spontaneous creation, then our universe could be the product of that event. This would also explain the rise of numerous other universes out there. "...M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing...Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation...Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist."(Eureka excerpt of Grand Design, afterward referred to as EGD)

Isn't that incredible!! There are possibly tons of things God has created that we have yet to even discover. Of course, SH did not say this, I did. This proves what I have long thought about God as Creator. He was creating worlds before ours and possible has been creating worlds after ours. He IS Creator, not he WAS Creator. God is creative, and it's his nature to create. He has not stopped on day 7. He may have begun something else on day 8. How marvelous!!

SH goes on to say, "Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not 'arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature.' Instead, he maintained, the order in the Universe was 'created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition.'" All Newton was doing was showing the grandeur of God as Creator. For those faith filled scientists, like Newton, God will be behind everything explainable and non-explainable. They will see breakthroughs in understanding the natural and physical world as gifts of enlightenment from God to mankind. Maybe even grace. But God is not demoted when he allows the scientist to understand the world He created. In fact as we find out more about the world, universe, multiverse that we are a small part of, God becomes even more glorious.

But if you are predisposed to non-belief, as Hawking now is, God gets smaller at every discovery until He disappears or as Nietzsche put it "dies." He gets smaller because he is no longer needed. What was a mystery is now formulated. By concluding that spontaneous creation due to the laws of gravity is the reason we are here, the one with no faith convinces himself/herself that they have less of a need to continue to look for something (as a God) as the first cause of the world. They have something, in their minds, more real than a spiritual being. This being acts almost like an excuse for mankind's ignorance. (and BTW I'm not necessarily arguing for the First Cause Theory either). So, as humans begin to understand more and more they become more and more enlightened and think they can afford to "kill off" God. They believe they are emerging ever so slowly from the dark into the light. In other words, it's just the next step in proper evolutionary development of the human.

But it isn't just the non-believers. We all put ourselves on the throne as King instead of submitting to God as King.

So, why does Hawking not see spontaneous creationism as simply a means used by God to eventually create us here, as the defenders of the Intelligent Design Theory would conclude as they have in the theistic evolution debate? Hawking says that the discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than the one in our Milky Way, "...makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions--the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass--far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." (EGD) First, I was unaware that God creates for our pleasure. I figured he created because he's king and wants to. Do not we exist because of his pleasure not ours? No kid ever born was asked if they wanted to exist. They exist because God wanted them to. Secondly, I'm too dull to understand how discovering other planets orbiting around other stars diminishes the idea of God as Creator. To me it only enhances it.

One great thing Hawking does for me is give credence to the idea that we are in fact situated at the perfect distance from the Sun to exist and that if nature were off by just a smidge we'd all cease to exist. "But in the case of the events resulting in the evolution of the Universe, such developments were governed by the balance of the fundamental forces of nature, and it is those whose interplay had to be just right in order for us to exist."(EDG emphasis mine)

Hawking continues, "Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the Universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago right up to the present...[This] could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer...God." (EDG)

Or I guess it could lead some us further away from God. But how? Frank Close, who does not believe Hawking's endorsement of the M-theory adds one thing pro or con to the God debate, does think that "it may raise questions about God's efficiency...[in that] God's efficiency may be called into question: if the sole aim was to create you, me, Stephen Hawking, would not one solar system have been enough?" And Hawking sees that, "if God's intention was to create mankind, then these many untouchable worlds would surely be redundant." (HD)

Again, I won't even pretend to understand this argument. But in my attempt to understand, they both seem to say that the reality of other planets orbiting other stars suggests that God wasted "space and time" (for I can't think of what else to call it). If he was so good at creating, then why are there other systems? He could have "gotten it right" with Earth. Well, I would say that maybe he got it right with Earth and got it right with every multiverse out there! I mean He is eternal and spiritual so he has a lot of time and space on his hands. Do we think God has so much to worry about here on Earth, and that he's too small to keep creating and deal with stuff on other planes too?

What would happen if one went outside and counted the stars of sky or even tried the same feat with the most powerful instrument we have? Well, God counts the number of the stars; he names all of them. (NET Psalm 147:4) To say that the discovery of planets orbiting suns somehow makes the idea of God as Creator "redundant," or "inefficient," does not seem to be a real argument. In fact, I would hope we WOULD find more stars (and what difference does it make if planets are floating around them). There is compatibility with believing in a Creator God and the science of physics, biology, and astronomy.

Since Hawking does not simply attribute the laws of physics and all that may result from their "interplay," to God, I will. His research and work makes him my second favorite atheist (agnostic) out there. And I am so thankful to God for letting Hawking discover our multiverse.

Do you expect anything less from an agnostic?

It has taken awhile for me to get to this.

And it all started with a coupon at Tescos. Lady R gets these coupons in the mail on various things at the store. She had gotten one that gives you a certain number of points on the Tesco card if you buy a magazine or newspaper. So, I was given the choice. It was September 2, 2010.

I decided on a newspaper that came with a free magazine. I figured I was getting the most for my money. The Times front cover article with the headline, "Hawking: God did not create Universe," was about the new book by the renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking. The article summarized his theories, his agreement with the M-theory, and his conclusion that it is unnecessary for "God," to be Creator.

Was this it? Had science actually proven the non-existence of God? I mean this is Stephen Hawking, who previously had suggested that religion and science were compatible in the sense of God as Creator ("Hawking: God did not create Universe" by Hannah Devlin). And now he has changed his mind and is convinced that "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing." (Hawking, Grand Design, as quoted in Eureka magazine)

I read the newspaper article and the magazine excerpts from the book. When I got through, I actually felt I had just read about God. Have you ever read Phillip Yancey's Finding God in Unexpected Places? For me it was just that. And what was really good and serendipitous was that morning before I started in on the Hawking reading I had read Psalm 95 and Isaiah 40. So for me, no, SH had not discredited my belief in God. He enhanced it.

(As a parenthesis as I was reading my mind kept going back to the two above mentioned passages. "In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care." Awe inspiring. And then, "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?" From the deepest depths to the highest peaks, it all is in his anthropomorphic hands. He made it all!! And consulted no one and was taught by no one. He is the Creator of all that is or ever will be. This is my God. Let us worship him and him alone!)

However, if you are already predisposed to non-belief, Hawking brings an electron microscopic peace (oops piece) to you. You can bank on his intelligence to satisfy your soul and mind that there is no God and no consequence for such "belief." Nothing I can say from this point forward will convince you otherwise. And frankly, if it is left to me to convince you, you will never be convinced. But even though I'll never be as intelligent as SH, I know that God will say something to you one day, if he has not already, and if you have ears to hear, you will hear his voice. What harm would it do to listen?

When is Jesus getting back here?

You know sometimes you just want to ask the question, "When is all this madness in the world going to end?" You come up against the falleness of our human kind in so many situations and in so many people. It just makes you wonder when enough will be enough.

You see crookedness in the government, both on a local level and national level and even multinational level. You meet people in your church who would rather follow man made rules than actually obeying God. You notice the faults in others so quickly yet they themselves seem oblivious or apathetic.

This is not too mention the multifaceted faults in our own self. Pride, greed, covetousness, envy, hatred, unkindness, blasphemy, self-seeking, complaining, and all out self absorption. Getting out all the logs in our own eyes could help us see better, for sure. But who wants to do that? And if we do decide to who wants to go first?

All this rebellion individually and cooperatively prompts me to ask, "When is Jesus getting back here?" Maranatha!!

Who do you think you are?

The BBC has a program that investigates famous people's heritage. I've only seen the show once, but it seems that there are some fascinating twists and turns in these people's backgrounds.

I've been doing some genealogy work too, just for fun. I signed up for the free 14-day trial of Ancestry.com so I could have access to what is normal reserved for subscribers. Two weeks is not near long enough, but it gave me a basic overview of my family's heritage.

I've learned that great grandma Pecheur may have been a full blooded Chickasaw Native American. I've learned the names of other great (etc.) grandparents. I've learned some of the movements of the forefathers, and for some even when and where they came to, what would be, the United States.

But a couple of things have struck me. The oral story is often complimentary to the written story and at the same time contradictory to the written story. People's memory of past events often change and morph. Here are some examples.

A person may have been asked on a certain census where their father was born. They may have answered in Virginia. Then, ten years later, when asked the same question, they may have said in South Carolina. And possible ten years later, the father has been reported to have been born in Georgia. Now, the person is not lying. But I imagine as people get older they forget. The father may have actually been born in Virginia, but moved to South Carolina before the descendant was born. He grew up in South Carolina and inadvertently would state his father was born in South Carolina. Or, it could be that he was told his father was born in Virginia, but ten years he had found it, it was his father's father that was born there and in fact his father had been born in South Carolina.

The same is true with birth dates and death dates. These can be off my as much as five years (maybe even more). And it's hard to find out what the true day of birth or death or marriage.

This is not to mention the family stories that can be integrated or separated or whatever. People are not lying. They are stating the truth as they know it and as it has been passed down to them. And to me, it is not that disturbing to find out a birth date is off from one census report to another. Even myself, when verbalizing what I've learned will often mix a story from the paternal side with the maternal side or something similar.

With technology and sometimes the expertise of the experts, we can find out a good deal about our ancestors. We can find out a story, one certain angle, of a relative. This is what the BBC show is trying to do; tell a story from researching historical documents. Sometimes the oral story needs altering to make it more precise after reviewing the research.

This all got me thinking about the oral vs written transmission of Scripture. I would imagine most of the Bible was simply written oral tradition. And somehow writing down oral history solidifies it, makes it true. Then, somebody in some discipline comes along and sees a problem with their research and what is written. Next, the conclusion is that the Bible is wrong, made-up of a bunch of fanciful and moral stories and thereby holds no authority or relevance for today. Check. On to the next undermine of truth structures.

Hold on. This type of conclusion and how one gets to this conclusion may have more problems than at first appears. As I said when I was doing genealogical work, I had a certain tolerance for differences in the oral story and the" documented" story. Birth dates were off, death dates were off. There is a bit of imprecision. And it really does not bother me. I don't conclude from imprecision that my forefather was possibly a historical reality, but I'm not really sure because I don't have a month/date/year for his/her birth. And even the documented (the "written version") version may not be as reliable as I like to think.

So, why should I worry and fret when someone thinks they have displaced the entire Bible because they believe their evidence proves one thing and the Bible may state another? There is a certain tolerance for imprecision when it comes to transmitting history down through the ages. It doesn't indicate fraud or deception or even untruth. It just means we need to look deeper at the story, and also it means we may just have to deal with not knowing every precise detail about the event. We know one angle or two of the event. But until we gain all knowledge, we don't know everything. And that's OK by me.

Naked God

I did something even I can't believe I did.

I gave a book away.

I came across this book, Naked God by Martin Ayers, from a friend. He had received a leaflet about it being distributed for free in their area by a local church plant within the next few weeks. As he waited to receive his copy, I decided to visit the church and get my own copy. I didn't read it right off. I figured if it was free, it probably was not going to be that great. haha My friend got his copy in the mail and had it read before I even started. He loved it and had good things to say about it and was hoping his son would pick up the book and read it too.

Fast forward a little. Since we had visited the church on and off we knew the author attended there. But we had never met him. Then, he spoke one Sunday on the parable of the wedding feast. It was one of the best sermons I had ever heard on heaven. (I think it would be worth it to listen to the mp3 file. Scroll down to the sermon by Martin Ayers). That Sunday I met a church member who asked me if I had read his book, since we had been talking about how much we enjoyed the sermon. She said he talked about the parable in the book and thought it was so good that she was hoping her daughter would read the book. She then introduced me to him.

Then, Lady R read the book and recommended it to me. So, with three people who had read the book, and all had spoken highly of it, I thought I'd pick it up.

All the hype was legit. I read it and felt refreshed and was reminded of the general mentality of atheistic or naturalistic thinking in this country. A lot of food for thought to help those who are still undecided about the existence of God. A breathe of fresh air for the believer who has been affected by the smog of the culture of relativism and pluralism and postmodernism.

With a title like Naked God I was expecting a reproduction of Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel scene of God's backside on the cover. But I guess a burning match head will be OK. =) Especially since the book is not about God being naked but "...strip[ping] away any false ideas we've developed...to reveal the truth." Ayers asks a basic question, "Is there a God?" Nothing new there, but he follows up with, "If there is NOT a God then what is the consequence, if there is a God what is the consequence, and what are you going to do about it?"

Ayers tackles head on the philosophy of naturalism, which he defines as existence without God. The consequence is a life without much purpose and machine like. For me though it brought me back to 11th grade and my own experience with naturalism in Ms. Kelly's class. We talked about the philosophy behind Jack London's works and how it was realism, an American form of European naturalism (see also here to confirm my teacher's teaching). I tried to read Emile Zola's work but it was too philosophical and above my intelligence. Nonetheless, I considered myself a naturalist who believed in God. Little did I know I was actually a Calvinist, another French deterministic philosophy with similar consequences as naturalism save only with a hope of and in God. I believed that every minutiae was planned and ordered by God. If someone fell down the steps, they were ordained to or at best there was nothing they could have ever done to have prevented it. I didn't really do much with this information. In other words I didn't develop any theology from this. I just had it in the back of my head. But my freshman year in college I saw the huge error of being a "naturalist." It really did mean denying the existence of God and accepting that all that exists is the natural world. And since I didn't know about Calvinism, I rejected naturalism and through C.S. Lewis' Miracles, I re-considered myself a super-naturalist.

I digress a bit. Ayers states it like this "...every decision we will ever make has been caused...We can't influence the world by our choices, because we're just part of the world ourselves. The naked truth is that we're not free in the way we think we are." (pg 26-7) This is the outcome of a naturalistic viewpoint.

The next section, Ayers deals with Jesus and relativism. This was encouraging to me. In a day when many have an all-roads-lead-to-Rome attitude, it is a balm to hear the exclusiveness of Jesus still being talked about. In this section Ayers also references Lewis' Miracles, but in a different way than I had. Ayers uses a quote from Lewis to show how people in Jesus' day were no more gullible to the supernatural miracles than we are in the "modern" world. (see pg 102)

And it's in chapter 14 where Ayers talks about the parable of the wedding feast. But I think the sermon is better.

When I finished the book, I was in the central part of the city on the underground transportation system. I felt like it was a book worth passing on. So, I laid the book in the seat next beside me. I prayed that it wouldn't simply be put in the trash but that someone who needed to read it would pick it up and read it. It was hard for me to give away a book. I really wanted to bring it home and put it on my bookshelf. But I kept thinking, "Freely you have received freely give."

Also, Ayers has given me permission to include a link to the first part of the book. Take a look and let me know what you think.

I'll keep this in mind

I saw these ads. I must say I'm skeptical. I'll keep this information in mind as I continue looking at Islam.
My favorite was Muhammad the defender of women's right. Really? Women seem to be oppressed in Islam to me. But I am willing to be wrong and keep an open mind as the investigation continues.

The building doesn't make the Church

"Qu'une église soit transformée en une salle communale, une salle de concert, où est le problème?...Mais ce n'est pas le bâtiment qui fait la présence spirituelle." p151

Sarkozy is right. It doesn't matter if the church building is also a concert hall or a community center as well as a church. What difference does it make? "It's not the building that makes the spiritual presence."

I figure many of the mega churches of today will be community centers and multi purpose buildings of tomorrow. Building a single purpose church building today is a poor means of spending money. When churches begin to grow, starting a building program could be the worst thing for the health of the congregation. The focus becomes raising money for the building. Everything centers around the building. The building. The building. The building.

Then, you have churches with decline in attendees. You have a big building with few people to maintain the upkeep of THE BUILDING. I'm not against buildings as some are today. I'm against church revolving around a building.

"Islam is a French religion"

"...le creuset républicain n'est pas que chrétien ou juif. L'islam est une religion française,..."p131.

Finally finished up Sarkozy's book on religion and the republic. Here are some thoughts I found as I finished up.

This statement caught my attention. And I think it may be why he said it. Islam is a French religion. What Islam could not do at Poitiers, it now does freely throughout the Republic. It has a presence.

What are the implications of Islam being a French religion? I think it's an acknowledgment of the decline of Christianity through apathy and the spiritual void left by the such rejection. As I understand it, Islam is not growing mainly through converts. It's growing mainly through immigration. The French are still non religious. They just have another faith in their "melting pot."

But if Islam can adapt itself to France, crossing over from a Middle Eastern religion to a European religion, it can conquer the world.

So, why not interact with Muslims as true followers of Christ as they move in next door? What better way to bring the Gospel to the Muslim world than by interacting with them as they settle in our communities in Europe and North and South America.

The Rules

Spurgeon's Church

After a horrible Friday night and Saturday morning worrying about our friends, upon their return on Saturday afternoon, we decided to stick with the schedule. We would go to Metropolitan Tabernacle, the church where the late Charles H. Spurgeon pastored.

What an opportunity!! I have read multitudes of Spurgeon's works and even in my early preaching days tried to use some of his illustrations. He was truly a great preacher of his day and God used him to reach London and still uses his works to reach the nations today. In fact, I was surprised to learn that his funeral went on for days and hundreds of thousands came by MT to pay their respects. What an influence!!

As we walked up the steps to the church I couldn't help but notice two signs. One read Metropolitan Taberncale Baptist Church (Spurgeon's). The other one stated that the 11am service was a Teaching Ministry and a 6:30 PM was an Evangelistic service. Funny. I thought the Church was God's not Spurgeon's. And why was there an Evangelistic service in the evening for visitors and a Teaching service for the non-visitors? Traditionally thinking is completely opposite. You try to preach to the heathen on Sunday mornings not Sunday nights. Sunday nights are reserved for teaching those who actually put forth an effort to return to church at night.

I didn't let those little signs detour me though. I was looking forward to a good church service and some good preaching. Somehow, I felt like the pastor would be Spurgeon himself reincarnated up there telling us how to live the Christian life. Exciting.

As we entered the church I knew I was in trouble though. Most of the men were in suits and ties. Now I'm all for someone dressing in a suit if they want. But usually when you see that many men dressed in suits you better hold on. My experience has shown me that the clothes people wear to church do indicate the level of formality one will find in the service.

An usher greeted us and saw we had three young kids under three among us two couples and stated forthright that they would HAVE to go to a separate room. He led us along a corridor beside the main sanctuary to a little room with a video monitor and nice neat chairs all lined up in rows. The audience would hear the songs but only when the sermon was given would they have video relay of the service.

My buddy and I found our way back to the sanctuary. We checked out the books for sell. You would think it would have be Spurgeon's works. And there were a few titles of his but most we from others. The latest was The Dark Side of Christian Counselling. And then, my favorite, a booklet entitled, "Are we Fundamentalists?" I started putting two and two together. I knew this was an Independent Baptist Church. I also was pretty certain of the answer to the question the booklet asked. What I had come to was a hard core true to type, Independent Baptist service. The kind you try to avoid.

We started to take our seats and was handed a KJV Bible and a Psalter. Other people began to file in, and I read the introduction to the Psalter. What the link above failed to reprint on the website but is clearly in the book itself was that the songs in the Psalter did not contain any non- trinitarian, sacramentist, modernistic, nor animistic hymns. I have an idea what a non-trinitarian hymn might be and maybe what a sacrementist hymn might be (anything that sounds Catholic), but what is a modern hymn or even better yet an animistic hymn? Weren't the hymns of Isaac Watts "modern" at some point in history?

The one man show begins. The pastor approaches the podium and prays for...how long? I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said at least 10 minutes. My immediate thought was Jesus and his condemnation of lengthy public prayers. Then, I was ashamed of myself for "judging". I told myself to focus on getting the log from my eye before getting the sliver out of my brother's eye. We sang from the Psalter and the music didn't seem to match well the words. All we had were the words anyway. But I figured this is how they sang in the 1600's and 1700's in London. Go with the flow. Then came the sermon...

You can watch it or hear it, if you like. You'll have to scroll down to the sermon entitled "The New Nationality." But beware it goes on for a solid 45 minutes, or at least it felt it did. And in all fairness some points were not so bad. But I thought I was going to have to burst out loud with laughter when he actually starting pointing out "true" doctrine in the infamous TULIP. He actually brought that up. Honestly, I thought my Reformed/Calvinist friends were past that silly thing. Did he actually say that Jesus only suffered for the saved ones? If you decide to listen to it, let me know what he actually said. I myself can't be bothered to find out.

I didn't take Communion, not that I really wanted to or would have, because you had to see a deacon for a Communion Card to be allowed entrance. Now I believe in closed communion, but I don't think we need to be printing Communion Cards. If you want to practice closed communion and not have any non-Christians there, have a separate service. Guaranteed few non-believers will show up.

My buddy and I returned to retrieve our wives and children. When I heard their experience of the service I lost it. I stated this was in fact a legalistic, Pharisee like, separatist, fundamental, Independent group. I wonder if Jesus would have a few words with them if he'd been there.

The room was for those children and their parents who were not able to worship. They had been given a full page front and back of rules to follow while in the holding cell. Things like no food. Children must be quiet. Children must be in the lap at all times. No moving the sacred chairs. Blah blah blah blah blah. All this sanctimonious nonsense about teaching children how to worship. And what did Jesus say about the little children? If you want your child to learn to worship properly, why not bring him/her to where the action is? And if you do think you need to provide a separate room, why does it have to be like you think the "real" worship service is? If it is a separate room, let the children be. Why not have a room where your kid can cry or scream if s/he needs to but at the same time that allows the parents to not be so self conscious of their loud kid? We've put our kid in nursery before. But she was not expected to sit still with hands folded and be quiet! And why were the parents/children/inmates only aloud to see the pastor perform on stage? That whole one man routine tells me that Bible idolatry and/or personality worship is very close by at this church.

Frankly, if I can help it, I will not be back at Spurgeon's shrine Church again. I hope to let Jesus judge them for their legalism. And it is obvious He will judge me for my lack of spirituality. Because even though I am of the opinion I was sitting in a modern day Christian Pharisee synagogue (Tabernacle as they call it), the place was packed out with hundreds of people in attendance. I simply can not get my head around that. And I have to admit, or so it seems, they must be doing something right, if I do not approve or feel welcome and at home there.

It did my soul good afterward to visit the Bunhill Cemetery, right across from the John Wesley House. What a breathe of fresh air!