Meditations on an Eyeball

Death in the garden..

2010-02-03T20:35:00.000-08:00

And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2: 9 ESV)

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2: 16-17 ESV)

At face value this is a deadly experiment—can these newly created beings obey instructions? If not, Adam and the woman will eliminate themselves—providing a clean slate for another try.

The experimental subjects were conscious, facile with language, aware and able to appreciate each other. They were able to work and maintain their environment. Did they understand death? One must assume so. It would hardly be fair for God to tell them they would surely [unknown concept] if they ate of the fruit.

In other ways the pair was limited. They didn’t have knowledge of good and evil. They saw each other without seeing. Adam at least, appeared to view the other as a pleasing extension of himself rather than a distinct individual (he didn't name Eve until after the fall).

In truth God had not created a literal: if eat fruit—then drop dead experiment. So what was He up to?

Perhaps He wanted beings that were willing to risk death in order to pursue knowledge. An exercise of free will, with a possible ultimate penalty. This is a step that God could not command, but He could create the situation. In a risk free garden this could not happen. In a garden with forbidden fruit it required disobeying God’s command.

With this reading of the text we face the abyss. Does God sometimes command us to inaction, when He really wants action?

Clearly God's command does not always express His intent. When God wanted to test Abraham He commanded him to offer Isaac as a burnt offering on a mountain. God's command was death, but His intent was a test followed by a blessing. Even Jesus, in another garden, questioned God on what was really necessary. Who can claim to know the mind of God?

The woman and Adam decided to not accept their limited existence. They were willing to risk death to gain knowledge.

In the aftermath there was cursing, dust, enmity, pain, servility, hard work, and death. But there was also vision, God-like knowledge, the joy of children, destiny, desire, relationship, and freedom.

I think they made the right choice.

Death in the garden.

2010-02-03T19:24:00.000-08:00

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2: 15-17 ESV)

With the prohibition concerning the tree, God reveals a gap between the created pair and Himself. He possesses the knowledge of good and evil and they do not. The existence of the forbidden tree establishes God’s superiority, and as if to rub it in, He places it in the garden, the center of their existence. Without the serpent, the pair might not have noticed, but once they saw the chasm it had their full attention.

Forbidden fruit—would we have been better off without it? Perhaps happier, but without the knowledge of good and evil, the foundation of ethics, what would we be? Would we know love? Could we be kind or humble? I think not. Did God really want us to remain somewhat dull, obedient gardeners, or was the menace of the deadly fruit the red pill? Was this fruit the poison pill necessary for emergence into true consciousness and self-awareness?

Is it our reach for ethics that condemns us to death? We reject the command of God, which reveals itself as the prohibition of knowledge. But acquiring that knowledge carries a heavy price—our deaths. Not the drone missile sort of physical annihilation we might expect from God, rather it is the suicidal killing of a blissful life of ease and pleasure in our private Garden of Eden. We were born there, with warmth, food, a woman to comfort and care for us—oblivious to our nakedness. And we must leave.

We become fully aware. We see that we are naked, feel pain, experience desire for and against others, toil, become responsible, and get exiled. No longer can we just pick the fruit around us. We have to work to survive.

If we quest to be like God, we discover / choose a double death: the reality of our own physical mortality, and the necessity of our own sacrificial deaths in satisfying the needs of the good, and in opposing evil. Not necessarily physical death, but whatever is required—the putting to death of always doing what we want, when we want it. God won’t kill us in this fashion; we must choose this death on our own.

God’s message: don’t enter into the knowledge of good and evil, as He has, unless you are ready to die.

And once you gain that knowledge, eternal life via the other tree is no longer freely within our grasp. Now it is only reachable through death—in this case God’s.

The Absence of God—Love in Inaction

2009-08-30T12:53:00.000-07:00

"Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was." John 11:5-6 ESV

It's hard to imagine Jesus not leaving immediately when he hears of this illness. But he chose to wait.

Earlier, when Jesus was in Cana an official asks that he travel to Capernaum (located 20 miles away) to heal his son. Jesus sends him home, saying, “Your son will live.” The deadly fever broke that same hour.

Jesus didn't need to travel the 25 or so miles from the east side of the Jordan to Bethany to heal Lazarus—he could have healed with a word. But he didn’t.

Jesus was absent, both physically and in the use of power until after Lazarus’ death. Why?

When Jesus receives word of his friend's illness he tells the disciples: “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” Jesus dissembled.

This illness did lead to death. The wrapped in grave clothes, soaked in spices, decaying in a tomb kind of death. Jesus told the disciples that Lazarus was only sleeping—unfortunately it was the “sleep with the fishes” sort of sleep. Jesus was forced to clarify.

The delay had to be on Jesus' mind—and the sisters wasted no time reminding him when he arrived: “Lord, if you had been here, our brother would not have died.” Was Jesus unhappy with his Father's direction? Perhaps the delay and obfuscation wasn't his choice—but rather the Father’s call.

John's gospel tells us this unbinding from death benefited many people: the disciples, those by the tomb, Jews that believed later because of Lazarus’ raising, as well as Mary, Martha, and Lazarus—of course.

It was for the glory of God, but I doubt Jesus was looking forward to this walk to Judea.

Martha met him on the road, before he got to the city. “Where the Hell were you?” might be a better translation of what she said. Mary stayed in the city, unwilling to face the healer and teacher that had failed her. When summoned she didn’t look Jesus in the eye with anger, she fell at his feet sobbing—those around her weeping.

Surrounded by tears, Mary’s grief streaking the dust before him, Jesus was overcome. The cost of this glory had been high.

He cried.

Justice and the Lake of Fire

2009-06-24T20:24:00.000-07:00

Justice calls out:

The punishment must fit the crime!

Created from nothingness we must choose

and be judged by the Son some day

Did we love darkness or light?

Were our actions wicked or true?

Did we believe in him who was lifted up,

or did we look away?

When we cry "Lord, Lord," that fateful day

will Jesus say, I never knew you; depart from me?

If so a terrible penalty must be paid,

first awful knowledge, then annihilation

Those He does not know—undone

The literalist calls out:

But that’s not what the scriptures say!

What of the undying worm and outer darkness?

Bodies cast into Hades, Hell, and Abaddon,

the lake of fire, unquenchable flame,

gnashing of teeth, and the rich man's torment?

That’s quite a list, frightful in fact,

but maybe this is the second death

dressed in dreadful metaphor and hyperbole

Perhaps these devices are only flashlights, weakly gesturing

Is not justice a brighter light?

The problem remains, exact reader,

how God—who requires us to do justice,

love kindness, and walk humbly,

could torture forever those that annoy Him

For us cruelty to a fly for a day would be evil

Can the source of all love require souls in endless pain?

On Judgment Day the lost will truly be destroyed,

but eternal torment is not their fate

They did not ask to be brought out from darkness

Darkness will claim them again

Justice is done and the remnant is saved

The Point

2009-04-02T21:25:00.000-07:00

In an Emergent Village panel discussion podcast, at minute 46, Tony Jones turns to Diana Butler Bass and suggests: "The point of your life is to influence the church." Diana immediately rebuts: "The point of my life is to do what God tells me to do."

Perhaps it was just the way Diana said it, but I don't think I have ever heard a clearer statement about God's will.

Some meditations on Diana's statement:

The point of my life is to do what God tells me to do.

Our lives have meaning. We are not just a collection of random walks along a meaningless pathway. Each of us has a vector and an impact on the world

The point of my life is to do what God tells me to do.

We exist as the other—independent of God. We experience free will, and are not slaves to the past. We are not driven choiceless by the forces around us. Like Christ, we have the authority to lay down our lives.

The point of my life is to do what God tells me to do.

This foreshadowing of the telling carries no direction in itself. It's the commitment to obey the command, the decision to take the step to begin the journey—without knowing the destination.

The point of my life is to do what God tells me to do.

God doesn't ask, except for a few rhetorical questions (e.g., "Who told you that you were naked?"). Normally He tells. This telling can take many forms—from a blinding light on the road to Damascus, to tiny pebbles glancing off our consciousness. But whatever the mode it serves to illuminate a way.

But what if God provides no telling for a decision at hand? There is no drawing of a line between God's business and ours. Normally we should just follow our hearts, but listen. As Heidi a.k.a. Virushead says: "God doesn't care what we do—unless He cares."

Usually justice, kindness, and humility require no telling—they call out on their own.

The point of my life is to do what God tells me to do.

God's direction is not about theories or corner cases. It's about existence, the moves we make in our lives—the choices, the doing. His direction is more about the event than the flow, the exception not the rule. We can make no presumption of preference—sometimes we are to follow our hearts, at times He redirects.

Some dis-miss the point because of unbelief. Others complain that they never hear the telling. The telling might be in Diana's and my imagination, but I am sure of one thing—that regardless of whether we are right or not about this, belief comes first—otherwise there is no point.

Knowing

2009-03-29T16:08:00.000-07:00

When Jesus taught in the temple the Jews marveled, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” (John 7:15 ESV). Jesus responded:

“My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking from my own authority.” (ESV)

This is an extraordinary statement.

Some say that the Bible is the key for knowing what is from God. They tell us to just look to the scriptures. I look to it, but far from clarity I find paradox, mystery, and dissonance—along with beauty, majesty, and resonance. The scholars and religious leaders of Jesus’ time searched the scriptures, and mostly got it wrong. They found no mention of a prophet arising from Galilee. They found verses that said no one would know where the Christ came from, and that the Messiah would reign forever. They were confused even while the Word dwelt among them. What hope do we have of correct interpretation?

Others suggest we should just look to ourselves to know what is from God. We should follow our spirit; let our soul guide us. This feels to me like playing God—not a way of knowing. We possess the knowledge of good and evil, but we don’t have the wisdom in ourselves to reliably tell one from the other. Darin, in his blog Alien Nation tells of a church retreat he attended where the leader was referencing God's command in Joshua to destroy every man, woman, child and animal of Jericho. The retreat leader asked, “Is that the God we know and believe in? A God who would order genocide and destruction?” He answered his own question with, ”No, that's not God, God didn't say that.” I think statements like this are claiming the unclaimable. I believe that one of the attributes of God is love, but I also believe He is a consuming fire—we best fear Him rather than presume to know Him or judge His commands.

Jesus’ recipe for recognizing God’s teaching does not include wisdom, emotion, experience, consultation, or scripture. He tells us the key to knowing lies within us—not in our minds, but in the exercise of our will. The path to knowledge requires us to discount our knowledge, subvert our opinions, ignore our egos, and lay down the control of what we value most—our lives. Nothing is dearer to us than our wills. In exchange for that commitment: to will to do God’s will—God reveals Himself to us. And we will know what is from God.

Ironically, my proof text is from the Bible, and my assertion that this verse is a key one is from my knowledge/ego/spirit. There is no resting point. I have no choice but to orbit in these unstable ellipses.

What if Adam had not eaten?

2008-10-31T23:33:00.000-07:00

She had watched the tree closely after her last conversation with the snake. The birds and other animals sought the fruit of the tree—often there were no ripe ones left. They did not die.

And the tree was beautiful, not just the forbidden fruit—how could it kill? The woman and Adam carefully avoided the fruit because of the Lord God's prohibition—but now with the prospect of wisdom she found herself drawn to it.

Life was pleasant. There was food, companionship and love with Adam, beauty to admire, and work. The days flowed easily and probably endlessly had it not been for the others.

The Lord God visited the garden often—mostly it was easy to be with him. But when he commanded, nothing else existed. She was attracted to him—in a different way than Adam. When she looked into his eyes she saw the moonless sky.

The snake was different. He wasn't like the Lord God—his eyes held slashes of darkness. She was surprised when he first spoke—none of the other creatures knew words. Even more surprising, he didn't agree with what the Lord God had said—how could that be? He talked about the tree and how its fruit would make her like the Lord God. More than anything she wanted that. As far as good and evil went, they were just names—she didn't care about them, but to be like the Lord God was a hunger that the snake kindled and it grew within her.

Adam stood by the tree with his wife. They had talked about the fruit and what the snake had said, and he was also drawn to the tree. Death was a scary thing, but they decided they needed wisdom. The woman reached out, plucked, and took a bite. She didn't die. She paused, and gave him the fruit. The commandment of the Lord God came back to him and he hesitated.

Adam looked into her eyes and he was alone again. How could he bear that? He took a bite.

The Miracle at Cana

2008-09-09T22:09:00.000-07:00

Jesus and six of his disciples attended a wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11 ). When the feast ran out of wine his mother suggested he fix the problem. Jesus balked saying, "My hour has not yet come." Mary wasn't deterred, she instructed the servants: “Do whatever he tells you.” The wedding gained at least 120 gallons of wine—more than 50 cases worth. Some thoughts:

Mary

Mary didn’t ask Jesus for anything, she just stated the facts: “They have no wine.” Perhaps she just expected him to go out and buy some—after all he and his six extra guests helped create the shortfall. More likely Mary knew her son's capabilities and after 30 years thought he should get started.

When she spoke with her relative Elizabeth, just after Jesus was conceived, Mary quoted a phrase out of Psalm 107: “He has filled the hungry with good things.” Perhaps that day in Cana she was thinking of the phrase right before that one: “For He has satisfied the thirsty soul.” (NASB)

The water

Jesus asked the servants to fill six jars with water—this seems odd. Filling the jars took a lot of water; this was a major task for servants already tired from servicing a wine guzzling party. Instead of giving the servants extra work why didn’t Jesus fill the jars with wine and be done with it?

This preparatory task accomplished at least two things: the servants became knowledgeable witnesses, and they became part of the miracle. The servants knew more than the master of the wedding and they knew Jesus had not played some parlor trick—they hauled the water. There are exceptions, but most of Jesus’ miracles involved cooperation: donating a few fishes and loaves, reaching out to be healed, a touch, or even removing the grave clothes from Lazarus. Even when raising the dead Jesus involved others.

The wine

You wouldn’t expect Jesus to create bad wine, but did he create the best wine that ever existed? No, that would be showing off and would shift the focus away from the newlyweds. The master of the wedding said the wine was good—he didn’t say it was great.

Did Jesus “borrow” this wine from someone's inventory, or did he transform the water into wine? Transformation seems more likely. Why bother filling the jars with water if you are just going to transport in wine from somewhere else?

Those without insider knowledge drank the wine assuming it was made from grapes—grown, harvested, pressed, the juice fermented, and aged. If this wine just snapped into existence, then it was created with the appearance of age—no grapes required. Some might argue that this was a deception, but I don’t think so. There were no labels on the jars stating vineyard and vintage.

The wine told no lies. It was good, it was needed, and it was without history.

And Mary was right—Jesus’ hour had come.

Truth in the Church

2008-06-07T10:10:00.000-07:00

For the last month I have struggled with truth. Specifically, what truth will God reveal to the community of believers. A review for the book “Paradigms on Pilgrimage ” triggered this internal debate. Among other things the reviewer states:

"Let us assume God did use evolution to create the world. Why does he allow so many Christians to think he didn't?"

This question, and its generalization struck a nerve in my psyche. Christian friends whose walk I trust are on both sides of the evolution issue. Is one side or the other in disobedience to God on this topic? I don’t think so—but then I must face the logical conclusion—that God knows what He did and He chooses to not reveal this truth in general to His Church.

This debate, and others like it are repetitions of earlier controversies. Forty years ago believers fought about rock music, five hundred years ago believers argued about whether the sun moved around the earth or vice versa, nineteen hundred years ago there was dissension on whether the new Gentile converts should be subject to circumcision, and other aspects of Mosaic law.

This first century debate, chronicled in Acts 15 included elders of the Jerusalem church, the apostles Peter, Paul, and James; Barnabas, the prophets Barsabbas and Silas, as well as a group of believers that were Pharisees. This account makes a couple of things clear:

· There was a respected group of believers involved—the leadership of the Church

· There was much debate on the subject

· They respectfully listened to evidence (e.g. Paul and Silas relating God’s signs and wonders among the Gentiles)

· God did not supernaturally reveal the answer

In the end they adopted a position, validated by the Holy Spirit:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

The writer of Hebrews refers to this period as “the time of reformation.” [chap 9:10] It was the beginning of a new covenant where some regulations imposed by God were cancelled. Some sins became not sin. But the transition in community was gradual. Even Paul, no enemy of the absolute, writes in Romans: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” and “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”

But this was not the end of it. Paul in Romans 15, 1 Cor 8, and Colossians 2 makes it clear that the final solution is that no thing is unclean in itself, and that idols have no impact on the true suitability of food. The statement adopted by the group in Jerusalem was transitional—eventually almost all Christians accepted Paul's later position on the matter, and today most of these issues seem quaint.

As individuals we are called to love, freedom, and confidence in our walk with God. But when it comes to truth in the Church, God does not call us to proofs of knowledge, unanimity, or judgment of other believers. Instead we are to "pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding"—truth in that context can wait.

Grocery Carts and Scripture

2008-04-09T23:06:00.000-07:00

Nowadays after I lock my car at the grocery store I scan the parking lot for a wayward cart. If one is around I retrieve it and wheel it into the store. For the last few months God has nudged me to do this. I don’t know why. It has a humbling effect on me–it’s not my job, and I feel stupid doing it. But I know better than to ignore that nudge.

There are no verses regarding grocery carts–the scriptures are silent on the subject. I act because it’s Jesus showing me the path I should walk today. In the course of a day there are seldom clear biblical mandates on the decisions we need to make. Of course over time there are some that apply, for example prohibitions against sexual immorality, divorce, and commands to love our neighbors. But when it comes to ordinary stuff: the financial decisions, what church to attend, the right course in disciplining our children we don't get explicit biblical direction.

It’s not through lack of trying. I know I spend time trying to understand the Bible–reading books, talking to people, meditating on scriptural passages. We want clarity, but God usually offers mystery. To cope with this mystery Christians invest large amounts of energy creating summaries of biblically supported truths. We generate creeds, confessions, statements of faith, core beliefs, doctrinal statements, etc. to codify what we believe is important. Typically these are heavily driven by scripture–but ultimately these are human creations–not the inspired word of God.

We look to the scriptures to tell us what is right and wrong, as we should. But do we look too much? No one argues with, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." That is clear. But not much else is free from debate. The Bible provides direction for living our lives, but it's an outline, not a spell checker. We want the Bible to be a rulebook, but more often what we need is a conversation with God.

P.S. When I got to the grocery store today, the parking lot was strewn with abandoned carts–at least eight. Was I supposed to roll in one or all of them? God has a sense of humor...

Modern Day Miracles

2008-03-26T22:05:00.000-07:00

Recently I was in the Seattle airport with time to kill so I wandered through the Borders bookstore in the concourse. I usually check to see if the most recent books from my favorite authors are out in paperback—so I can go home and buy them on-line. I was happy to see C.J. Cherryh's latest book "Deliverer" available in paperback. I made a mental note to check its price online and left the store.

For the next hour and a half, I was busy using my laptop, but the thought kept intruding that I should buy Cherryh's book—now. Likely this was instant gratification talking, but could God be trying to get my attention? My boarding time was drawing near when the thought popped up again—time for action.

Often I will flip a coin with these sorts of decisions—I trust God's ability to control the spin of the coin more than my ability to determine the right thing to do. [Prov 16:13] This time I decided to make the "buy it now" option tougher than 50-50. I quickly settled on picking the last digit of pi that displayed on the engineering calculator on my laptop. Yes, I am a geek. If the last digit shown was five, I would buy the book. This was the result:

For this “coin flip” the odds were 10% that my choice would be correct—not a miracle. Most people would judge it a coincidence. However, I’m convinced that God wanted me to buy that book before I boarded—I don't know why. Perhaps to motivate me to write this post...

I was over Greenland on a flight back from Europe when I experienced another coincidence. I was reading, without headphones on, when I felt the distinct mental nudge to look up at the TV. The next thing that came on was an interview with my friend Stan Ebel on his Llama ranch. Stan lives about 15 miles from me in Colorado. I had no idea he had even done an interview. The odds of this happening seem below 10%—but again, most people would judge it a coincidence.

I wish God would do astonishing "fire from heaven" sorts of miracles today. I would love to see loaves of bread and fish multiplied to feed a crowd of thousands. Apparently, God chooses to not do big miracles today, at least not in places where they can be captured by scientific instruments, cell phone cameras, or network news crews. Why is that?

Are miracles missing because science has managed to turn everything into probabilities and processes? Quantum physics tells us that a loaf of bread in Jerusalem can spontaneously transport to the shores of the Sea of Galilee—it’s just very unlikely. Scientists invoke random processes to explain the mind-boggling successes of DNA and photosynthesis—with natural selection weeding out the failures. A tumor disappearing is not a miracle, it's just the body’s defense mechanisms finally discovering and annihilating the enemy.

Perhaps God is skipping miracles because of our unbelief. Jesus did many miracles to validate who he was, but many eyewitnesses did not believe. In some regions he did fewer miracles because of their unbelief.

Even though we don't seem to get the capital "M" miracles anymore, God still interacts with us. If we are paying attention and obedient He uses "coincidences" to show us that He is present in our lives, He is in control, and He is showing us the way. These are modern day miracles.

Easter Slogans

2008-03-24T15:50:00.000-07:00

This Easter my 4 year old granddaughter went to church with her parents and little sister. Hailey agreed to go to Sunday school and afterwards Kendra, my daughter, asked her what they had done. Hailey said that they had let some balloons go into the sky while they were all saying three words. Kendra asked what the three words were. Hailey thought a moment and said: "He's In Prison."

What is Truth?

2008-03-08T18:35:00.000-08:00

I used to view myself as having a pretty good grasp of reality. This picture disabused me of that.

Original Website: http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

I didn’t believe its claim that the squares marked A and B are the same shade of gray. I printed out the image. I still didn’t believe it. I cut out the A and B squares and brought them together—they match.

Below are the two squares cut out with Microsoft paint

Since my perceptions are clearly wrong with a simple image, I don’t think I should be confident that my perceptions on other things (like people) are accurate. Clearly, when senses and human frailties are involved truth can be elusive.

Bible Meme

2008-03-05T21:07:00.000-08:00

I was recently tagged by Stephen over at Undeception for the Bible Meme. I highly recommend his series of posts on inspiration, inerrancy, and hermeneutics

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best?

I generally don't worry too much about translations--I know I can consult with the Authors (I AM writing assignment) on tough problems. I am impressed with the ESV website --it's fast and smart. The advanced search allows restricting the search to portions of the Bible (e.g. the gospels).

I do like the way the ESV handles Samuel 13:1 --it makes it really clear what's in the source documents and what's not:

Saul Fights the Philistines
13:1 Saul was . . . [1] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two [2] years over Israel.
Footnotes
[1] 13:1 The number is lacking in Hebrew and Septuagint
[2] 13:1 Two may not be the entire number; something may have dropped out

2. Old or New Testament?

For years I rarely read the Old Testament except for Proverbs, however a couple of years ago I started meditating, sometimes for months, on Old Testament passages. Specifically:

Genesis 1-3 Uncaused Light--God as a Stop-gap?
The 10 commandments--why is marriage only mentioned in a negative way (adultery & coveting)? Bible Quiz
Gideon The Faith of Gideon
The story of Saul Saul--King of Israel 2.0 A study in scarcity?
Balaam --no posts yet but lots of stuff in process, working titles: "Balaam: the for profit prophet", or "Conversations with a not so Dumb Ass on the Will of God". For being mentioned 65 times in 6 different books in the Bible, including twice in the New Testament Balaam doesn't get much press.

3. Favorite Book of the Bible?

Proverbs--all 31 chapters are interesting and if I'm in doubt on where to read I can always read the chapter that matches the day of the month.

4. Favorite Chapter?

It must be Genesis 3 based on the number of posts that I have written on it:

5. Favorite Verse?

"What does the Lord desire of you but to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly before the Lord."

6. Bible character you think you're most like?

Zechariah (John the Baptist's father). In spite of being visited by an angel at the temple within the Holy of Hollies he still wants to know "How can I be sure of this?"

7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you? Only one thing? How about two:

I Tim 2:13-15 Women and the Word--Paul's position?
Genesis 11:5-6 "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them"

8. Moses or Paul?

I must admit to being somewhat annoyed with Paul right now. Generally I love his stuff, but the occasional passages cause no end of trouble (e.g. prohibition against women teaching, long hair, etc.)

Moses' humility is very impressive. When confronted by discontents his first response is often to "fall on his face" in dismay.

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don't get?

In some ways I wish Genesis 1-3 didn't exist. The world would definitely be a different place if the Bible started after the garden. I love these passages, yet they cause so much controversy--controversy that appears to detract, and distract from the message of Christ.

10. Coolest name in the Bible?

Epaphroditus--Just rolls off your tongue

I am only going to tag one blog: zj7t, authored by mysterious blogger 7t, with this meme. I would love to see what he (or she) would have to say.

Gap and Flow

2008-02-01T23:37:00.000-08:00

Two great threats to God's way are the temptations of gap and flow. Living only in the gap is a life of abstraction. Gaps are the mysteries, paradoxes, and disagreements that lure us away from the present to places that never have nor never will exist. It is the unbridgeable distance between the created and the creator—and the impossible quest to know all there is. With the gap our intellect is challenged and our emotions are enflamed, but in the end not much happens. No one feels loved, no needs are met, and nothing but knowledge grows. Yes, books and blogs are written, endless discussions transacted on-line, but no-one’s mind is changed. Only statements of position are exchanged, and arguments probed for weakness. There is no relationship.

Living only in flow embraces the present with abandon. No sensation, feeling, or experience is denied. Everything in the universe is linked together; there are no boundaries. If we aren’t careful flow will take time and even our consciousness as its victims. Without consciousness there is no real choice—just instinct. The instinct to avoid pain and seek pleasure—without regard to consequence. Others may be involved, but they aren’t people—they're the props necessary to support our wants. There is no relationship. Then we wake up one morning and years have gone by—we know they've been wasted.

When a person is lost in gap or flow the people around them suffer. The sufferers know they don’t matter and eventually move away, at least emotionally, maybe physically. They hope to protect themselves and they hunger for the touch of someone that recognizes they exist and cares...

How can the traps of gap and flow be avoided? The danger is not in the exercise, but in the excess. Intellectual pursuits and the examination of mystery enrich our lives, but must be tempered with relationship and engagement with people—they actually matter. A life without pleasure and fun would be a bitter root indeed, but if time only exists to get us to the next game / party / tryst then we aren’t living—we are pulling down the shades of our minds and sleepwalking through the few years given to us. Yes, thinking and engaging with people is hard work, but unlike the next buzz, they have eternal value.

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Ephesians 5:15-16

Bible Quiz

2008-01-16T23:29:00.000-08:00

1. Name 4 great women of the Bible

2. Name 4 great men of the Bible
3. Name 4 great marriages of the Bible

Well, how did you do?

For question one you might have answered Ruth, Esther, Deborah, Abigail, Elizabeth, Mary, Lydia, and others.
For question two you might have answered Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, David, Solomon, John, Peter and others.
So how did you do on question three?

I came up empty.

A few marriages clearly were not in the great category:

Adam & Eve

Honeymoon in paradise, but her quest for knowledge got them evicted

Abraham & Sarah

"She’s not my wife, she’s my sister”—so much for stepping up...

Moses & Zipporah

Spent a lot of time apart. She tossed a foreskin at him in Exodus 4:25!

Somewhat more promising:

Ruth and Boaz

We read about the romance, but not much about their marriage

Rachel and Jacob

Another romance. Jacob clearly loved Rachel, but we don’t learn about their marriage other than fertility troubles

The best (?):

The “excellent wife” in Proverbs 31

Trust, financial gain and “She does him good and not evil All the days of her life” – not much else.

Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18

Obviously a great couple, who helped Paul in his ministry. But we don’t learn anything specific about their marriage.

Marriage is the only human institution established before the fall. It is used to symbolize the relationship between God and Israel Jeremiah 31:32 and Christ and the Church—and yet there are only a handful of verses regarding its practice.

Why did God choose to give marriage the silent treatment?

Things I learned from my Mom

2008-01-05T21:52:00.000-08:00

My Mom slipped away peacefully on the morning of December 26th—I suspect her last act of will was hanging on until Christmas was over. She was 83.

A few of the things I learned from my Mom:

A summer long ago, when I was 5 or 6 a big snake crawled into our back yard. You couldn't see the end of its tail, but it sure looked like a rattlesnake. My Dad wasn't around—so my Mom went into the house, came out with the shotgun, and dispatched the snake. We were impressed. From her I learned to have a bias for action.
One evening, when my younger sister Glynette was an infant my Mom asked me if I had brushed my teeth. I lied and told her that I had. She immediately called me on it—I was shocked at how quickly my lie was found out. From my Mom I learned the importance of honesty. She had a great ability to see through the fog of situations and see the truth of what was going on.
We used to have a black and white TV set that sat on a stand that could roll around. For reasons that don't seem obvious now I was holding our hamster in one hand while rolling the TV towards the downward steps into the game room. Somehow I lost control of things and needed to make the split second decision to drop the hamster and stop the TV or protect the rodent and the let the TV go down the stairs. I made the humanitarian (hamsterian?) choice and the TV tumbled. Mom made me pay to have the TV fixed. Now I am more careful when juggling things.
The same TV was a player in another episode. Dad and I wanted to watch two different shows at the same time. Mine was broadcast in color, and his in black & white (must have been the mid-60's—way before VCRs had been invented). The new color set was in the kitchen, and the black and white in the back bedroom. Dad decided that I should watch my show in the back while he watched the black and white program on the color TV. What can you say? I knew I wasn't going to win that battle so I adjourned to the bedroom. A few minutes later a chastised father came in and suggested we switch. Mom had had a "discussion" with him on who was being the more mature person. I learned that it's possible for justice to triumph over hierarchy.
I remember a time when I was a young teenager that I snapped at Mom and she began to cry. I learned that even with adults, words can hurt.
Much more recently, when faced with the diagnosis of cancer, she was not angry at God. She accepted the situation and handled it with amazing grace. God had given her a verse for her situation:

"The person who lives in right relationship with God does it by embracing what God arranges for him." (Gal 3:12 The Message)

From her, I learned the importance of accepting and obeying what God calls us to do.

The last things and the things before the last

2007-12-06T23:08:00.000-08:00

In his unfinished book “Ethics” Dietrich Bonhoeffer includes a study of what he calls the ultimate and the penultimate. The context is the Christian life and how we live it. Bonhoeffer relates that as a pastor he usually adopts one of two very different attitudes when visiting a person that has lost a loved one. He can speak the Biblical words of comfort (the ultimate), or he can silently sit with them and share in their helplessness (the penultimate). Taken to extremes the ultimate becomes the radical and the penultimate becomes the compromiser. Bonhoeffer places these attitudes in opposition in the five quoted sentences below:

“Radicalism hates time, and compromise hates eternity.”

The radical wants the black and white solution that solves the problem. The passage of time only complicates the situation and makes things muddy.
The compromiser hates eternity, because instead of a yin and yang to everything there is a final answer that does not allow temporizing.

“Radicalism hates patience, and compromise hates decision.”

The radical does not want to wait. The answer is obvious and the execution of that solution should be immediate.
The compromiser does not want closure, there are too many factors to consider, no one should be ever be wrong, or right...

“Radicalism hates wisdom, and compromise hates simplicity.”

Wisdom implies breadth of thought and a willingness to go beyond the immediate "facts" to the big picture issues at stake.
Simplicity requires that some factors be ignored and judgment applied to closeout a matter of disagreement.

“Radicalism hates moderation and measure, and compromise hates the immeasurable.”

Moderation implies limits--the radical hates nothing more than limits and the metrics that go with them.
Things without limits profoundly discomfort the compromiser. How can you "split the difference" when the positions can’t be quantified?

“Radicalism hates the real, and compromise hates the word.”

The radical sees the ideal and loathes the reality that challenges it.
The compromiser rejects any notion that important aspects of reality can be captured by language.

Bonhoeffer concludes:

"To contrast the two attitudes in this way is to make it sufficiently clear that both alike are opposed to Christ. For in Jesus Christ those things which are here ranged in mutual hostility are one. The quest of the Christian life will not, therefore, be decided and answered either by radicalism or by compromise, but only by reference to Jesus Christ Himself. In Him alone lies the solution for the problem of the relation between the ultimate and the penultimate."

Fruit From the Tree of Life

2007-11-30T23:34:00.000-08:00

Other than its location close to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Genesis doesn't tell us much about the tree of life. These two trees shared the same address—the middle of the Garden of Eden. We do know that all of the trees in the garden were pleasant looking and good for food (Gen 2:9). The last tidbit we can glean is that if Eve or Adam had eaten from the tree of life they would have lived forever—regardless of whether they ate before or after the Fall. That fruit was the ultimate jackpot if you happened to take a bite.

Did God do anything to prevent this disruptive chomp from happening? Did God make the fruit of the tree of life ugly, covered with nasty thorns, or only available on high branches? Maybe it smelled bad.

When I read Genesis chapters 1 through 3 I usually think about it in three ways. As a creation story it's a haunting tale of paradise created and lost. As the beginning of the Bible it's a fascinating introduction to the relationship of God and man, the conflict between good and evil, and of the consequences of sin. And finally it's a personal lesson, reminding me that I disobey God's commands and as a result I too am worthy of death.

The tree of life is the solution to the sentence of death in each of these viewpoints:

In the garden God places the tree of life off limits—an angel with a flaming sword blocks the way

Later in the Bible (Numbers 21) something analogous to the tree of life is introduced, but with a surprising twist. The serpent is now associated with the tree.

'While wandering in the desert the people of Israel spoke against God and were plagued with deadly fiery serpents, Moses prays for help and God instructs him “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.' ESV

Now a serpent (symbolizing sin) and wood come together as a solution. An act of will by the dying person is still required to get the prize of life. This story foreshadows the mysterious suffering servant that is prophesized in Isaiah 53.
And finally, as the solution to my death sentence, Jesus is hung on another tree, takes my curse upon himself, and offers a personal opportunity to be redeemed. This new tree of life exists in the middle of my existence. All I had to do was pluck its fruit, lay aside my life, and eat.

Index: Science & Belief, The Fall, God's Word, Walking with God

2007-11-19T19:59:00.000-08:00

Science & Belief

Monologue on a Leaf (Complexity as it relates to faith)
The Separation of Church and Science
Thought Experiment (What if God coded a message in our DNA?)
Uncaused Light--God as a Stop-gap? (Where did the light before Gen 1:14 come from?)
Meditation on a Speck of Sky (Our place in the universe)
Man would create God, but would God create Man?
Eyeball Meditations (1) --If I only had a brain (My path away from ID)
Eyeball Meditations (2)-- Why not a finger snap?
Eyeball Meditations (3) -- God in the gaps?

Genesis & The Fall

Fruit from the Tree of Life (Why didn't the serpent suggest the Tree of Life first?)
Who told you that you were naked?
Questions in Genesis

God's Word

Grocery Carts and Scripture
Bible Meme
Bible Quiz (What were the great marriages of the Bible?)
Women and the Word--Paul's position?
Did God really say?
I AM writing assignment
God's word in a Wal-mart
Authenticity of the Bible
Why did God choose Saul?

Walking With God

Truth in the Church
Modern Day Miracles
What is Truth? (Can we trust our perceptions?)
Gap and Flow (Two extremes in living life)
Things I learned from my Mom
The last things and the things before the last (Compromise and radicalism)
The Faith of Gideon
When is sin justified?
My mid-life crisis

Miscellaneous

357 Magnum Meme

2007-11-18T21:25:00.000-08:00

Heidi from Virushead has tagged me with the 357 magnum meme. It asks some basic questions about blogging. This tag was welcome because I have been suffering from blogger's block and these questions are a lot easier than the ones I am currently wrestling with. So here we go:

1. How long have you been blogging?

I have been blogging since December 2005. At that point the blogosphere was growing like mad and the basic technology had matured to the point where I could jump in relatively painlessly. Like most successful new technologies the new ideas were simple, and now look obvious, but anyone that posted material on a website before the advent of blogging knows that posting is a lot easier than it used to be.

2. What inspired you to start a blog and who are your mentors?

I enjoy writing and as I watched blogging mature I realized that it was a good match to my writing style. I tend to run out of gas on any subject after about a thousand words, which is about as long as you can expect any blog reader to hang around for. I have been a journal writer for a long time and I saw how blogging can be on-line journaling. Being in a public forum constrains me a bit, but it also motivates me to refine what I am saying. Regarding mentorship, my son Trevor preceded me in the blogosphere with In The Space Between, providing some much appreciated advice, encouragement, and for a long time was my only reader. He tracks the Web 2.0 technology closely and we enjoy speculating on what will happen next.

3. Are you trying to make money online, or just doing it for fun?

I’m definitely not in it for the money. On my Tickets Passports Money blog I plan to add Adsense and do an affiliate link—to learn the technology.

4. Tell me 3 things you LOVE about being online.

The creative aspects of posting are really fun. When I post something that works (at least for me) I feel the buzz of creating something that somehow transcends me, and perhaps is more enduring than myself.
Blogging is a new, unique communication medium. It’s not just an essay or a link. Unlike email it is a broadcast medium where you don’t know who you will reach, but the comment section provides the potential for the give-and-take of email or a forum. Through it we have the potential to tap into the energy and knowledge of millions of people.
Finding like-minded people. C.S. Lewis said, "We read to know we are not alone." The blogosphere is the same way. I link into really interesting people that I would never find in real life and through their writing feel an immediate connection. Their knowledge and their openness astonish me and motivate me to be better.

5. Tell me 3 things you STRUGGLE with in the online world.

Anyone that has a significant presence online must deal with truly scary people. I am thankful that I don’t have to deal with this, but anyone that followed the Kathy Sierra Story, or reads through the comments of popular blogs has seen that there are some real creeps out there. The misogynist element bothers me the most—for the most part I live in an environment that is supportive of women. The hatred of these guys is truly disturbing.
I struggle with writing for general interest rather for my self. I installed Google Analytics on my blogs mostly to see the technology in action, but now find myself checking it almost daily to see how many people have visited. I know that if I really wanted to build readership I should blog daily, but fundamentally that is not why I blog, and I need to stay true to myself in that.
I don’t want to be boring. I suppose I should also worry about being impenetrable—but I don’t. I’ve seen those looks in real life where the people are wondering what planet I came from, but I'll take that any day over being boring.

Monologue on a leaf

2007-10-18T22:41:00.000-07:00

Photosynthesis is complicated, a few complexes that do it are shown to the left

We can’t recreate it today

That’s a shame--it captures solar energy almost for free

A recent study suggests that photosynthesis is even more complicated than we thought

It looks like quantum computing is involved

This is bad news for those trying to replicate photosynthesis

Because we can’t do quantum computing either

Many say that only God could have created photosynthesis—or quantum computers

Because it's so complicated

I used to

Not long ago the sun was a mystery too

People have looked at the sun for thousands of years

And wondered how it could be

Einstein didn’t know how the sun worked in 1905 when he introduced e=mc^2

Now we can do fusion

Eventually I expect we will be able to do photosynthesis without a plant

Then, when we know how a leaf works, maybe we can see how it came to be

Will God change His pattern and stump science forever with a leaf?

He could do this

But so far in all the things we understand well God chooses to keep His face behind a veil.

And require Christians to live by faith

The Separation of Church and Science

2007-10-14T15:02:00.000-07:00

Psalms 104:5 “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.”

In the 1500s everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe. It was common sense. The earth doesn’t feel like it is moving (except for an occasional earthquake) and the sun, stars, and the moon move all the time. Astronomers were able to explain things like eclipses with this geocentric model, however the 5 wandering stars presented a problem. Except for not twinkling they looked like ordinary bright stars but their movements were very strange--they moved independently from the rest of the stars, they sped up and slowed down, and sometime even reversed direction. Astronomers struggled to come up with theories that explained this phenomenon.

Ultimately Copernicus, amongst others came up with the Sun centered heliocentric model that explained the motions of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The Catholic Church did not support this model on Biblical grounds—Psalms 104:5 and other references. Martin Luther reputably said, "However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

Ultimately, over the course of hundreds of years, the scientific evidence built up to completely validate the heliocentric model. Pope Benedict XIV suspended the ban on heliocentric works on April 16, 1757 and now 250 years later, very few people dispute the heliocentric model.

I think that most Christians would agree that if an immovable earth were still the generally accepted position of the church, that it would hinder people from accepting the Gospel.

Nearly five hundred years before the geocentric debates started in Europe there was another schism between science and religion—in the Muslim empire. After a very productive period from 750 to 1050 A.D where Islamic scholars made big contributions to science and math Islamic science began to decline. According to Wikipedia:

"Seminaries systematically forbade philosophical thought which comprising both natural and theological aspects of world in Islamic context. Even polemic debates were abandoned after the 13th century. Institutions of science comprising Islamic universities, libraries, and hospitals, had been destroyed by foreign invaders like the Mongols and never promoted again. Not only wasn't new publishing equipment accepted but also wide illiteracy overwhelmed Muslim society.”

The Muslin world turned away from science and its methods.

In June 2007 a Gallup poll asked people their views on the origin and development of life on earth. Sixty six percent agreed that the following statement was true or probably true: “That God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”. If you polled the physics, chemistry, or medicine Nobel prizewinners of the last 20 years, or all the physics professors in all the public universities in the US I think you'd get a different response.

Beyond just disagreeing with specific theories, many in the evangelical world have depreciated science in general and its methods. The Answers in Genesis ministry, which recently generated national press with the opening of its Creation Museum in Kentucky is an example of this. Consider the quote below, taken from their website:

“No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” (from “Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith”)

Clearly the Answers in Genesis organization has decided to subjugate science to their interpretation of scripture. I believe that this subjugation will not lead to truth, but rather to scientific illiteracy.

I’m not suggesting we promote science to the position of the ultimate authority of our lives. However when scientific experts build a compelling case (let’s say 49 out of 50 experts agree) against the prevailing interpretation of a portion of scripture then it's time to seriously consider reinterpretation.

In the past devout Christians like Isaac Newton and James Maxwell revolutionized science--now in the 21st century Christianity is becoming synonymous with scientific farce. I believe the gap between evangelical Christianity and science is hindering the cause of Christ.

Thought Experiment

2007-09-17T23:50:00.000-07:00

This post--ultraconserved-DNA describes an interesting subset of DNA research. There are sections of human DNA that are identical ("ultra-conserved") with a wide spectrum of animals (e.g. mice, rats). Scientists speculate that these sections are mission critical, and that any mutation in these areas would kill the host or the offspring and hence not pass on the mutation. The first pass attempt to verify this hypothesis failed miserably--mice with these sections deleted appear to do just fine.

I'm sure we will eventually get a good scientific explanation why this DNA is "ultra-conserved".

My thought experiment -- what if scientists discovered that encoded in the DNA of these sections were Hebrew passages from the book of Genesis that matched our best reconstructions of the original text. How would you incorporate that scientific discovery (after verification of course) into your belief system?

Questions in Genesis...

2007-09-12T22:17:00.000-07:00

I've been mulling on these questions recently. Any ideas would be appreciated....

If the serpent was so crafty (Gen 3:1), why didn't he suggest to Adam and Eve that they eat of the tree of life first, then from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Why did Adam wait to name Eve until after the fall (Gen 3:20)? She was "the woman" before that.
After the fall God cursed the serpent and the ground but not Adam or Eve. Was the fall not a curse for mankind?
In Gen 2:17 God says "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Since the word "day" used here (yowm) was the same as the seven days of creation a literal translation would suggest that God lied because Adam and the woman did not die in the 24 hour period after they ate of the fruit.

Women and the Word--Paul's position?

2007-08-25T18:45:00.001-07:00

I look forward to spending time with women—especially with my wife Nancy, my daughters Kendra and Meryn, my sisters, and my Mom. As a guy I am drawn to women for the usual reasons, but there are many other attractions. Much of that appeal comes from what I experience as a common progression when conversing with women. Many men are happy to surf along at the lightest levels of conversation--sports, politics, and the latest in plasma displays.

Women, on the other hand, usually relish the opportunity to take a conversation to a deeper level. Their honesty is frequently disarming, they teach me things about relationships, and their hearts are soft. More often than with men I get the sense of connecting with another soul--a punctuation point in the flow of my existence.

This connectedness with women gives me considerable pain when I meditate on some passages in the Bible. These passages are charter members in my list of verses I wish weren’t in the Bible. Consider 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.” (NIV)

It’s amazing how disconcerting 5 sentences can be. It is tempting to attribute this passage to an episode of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers—the Apostle Paul’s husk, lying shriveled up next to this imposter. How could the man that wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) give us this apparently misogynic paragraph?

If you have read some of my other posts (Authenticity.., Did God really say) you know that I am not inclined to take the easy way out on this passage (e.g. a writer other than Paul , or a rogue scribe injecting a passage). It's tempting for me to drop a cultural filter on this, writing it off as a message intended for a different place and time—after all braided hair is forbidden in I Timothy 2:9 as immodest. However, what gives me pause is the universalistic rationale Paul uses to defend his statements. Even in Paul's time the Genesis story was thousands of years old. By linking to this essentially timeless story Paul buttresses his arguments against the flow of time. In that context, Paul the man who in Acts 17 debated the Athenians at Mars Hill, lays out two powerful arguments:

1. I got there first (verse 13)
2. She made me do it (verse 14)

Then in an astonishing finale, Paul appears to link a woman’s salvation with childbearing and vigilant good behavior. I am aghast.

It’s encouraging that the Amplified New Testament manages to rehabilitate this final verse (all punctuation is theirs):

"Nevertheless (the sentence put upon women [of pain in motherhood] does not hinder their [souls’] salvation), and they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control; [saved indeed] through the Child-bearing, that is, by the birth of the [divine] Child."

That’s a nice touch--our salvation does come from the Son of God that was born of a woman. Unfortunately the Amplified New Testament doesn’t regenerate the other 4 verses.

I don’t have an answer to this passage. God’s Word is in this book, and God's Word, Jesus Christ, is in my heart. My heart hurts, my logic fails, and I am speechless.

Who told you that you were naked?

2007-07-31T22:25:00.000-07:00

Immediately after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit “the eyes of both of them were opened; and they realized they were naked.” What manner of eye opening was this?

Was it like the visual jump we experience when looking at the picture on the left?

Which do you see, saxophone player or a young woman? Now do you see the other?

Adam and Eve were naked--they just hadn’t noticed. Once perceived, they scrambled to cover up. Why this sudden modesty? Was it because this was the first time they had noticed their naughty bits—which clearly needed to be covered up? Did they have company--the serpent hanging around, exulting in his victory, or were there children about from already obeying God’s command to multiply?

I think they realized they had been parading around the Lord of the Universe wearing nary a stitch.

Various theories suggest human attributes which distinguish us from other animals. Language and the use of tools are possibilities, but some animals (e.g. whales) seem to communicate, and some animals use simple tools like rocks or twigs to obtain food. However, I am not aware of any creature besides mankind that has a sense of modesty. The mode of modesty varies greatly, ranging from bursas, to a string around the waist with a few trinkets attached, to nothing but tattoos--but the concept is there. Little children start out without any modesty at all, but that changes, at least for a while.

So they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Presumably the fig leaves are still in place, but the couple still hid from God. Have they become aware of more than just their nakedness? They had disobeyed God’s command. Like kids that had just broken the vase in the living room, their first impulse was to hide.

God walks through the garden and asks, “Where are you?"

Why would the omniscient deity just in from the creation of a multi-billion light year universe pretend He could not see two humans cowering amongst the trees? In reality those half-naked creatures had become something different; they had become god-like, “like one of us.” Was God treating these newly minted, god fearing creatures with respect? The same respect a parent grants when they play peek-a-boo with their toddler, or calls out "where are you” during hide-and-go-seek, even though they see legs sticking out from under the table. A parent knows that these stages are necessary for children to develop a sense of self and a model of how that self fits into the environment around them.

Adam responds, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.”

The fig leaves weren’t doing their job; they had not restored the world back to the way it was. Adam and Eve felt their souls, as well as their bodies exposed to the gaze of the Creator--and they knew fear. Likely they feared for their lives, after all God had said, "when you eat of it you will surely die."

God pursues, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

God offers an opportunity for clarification and confession. Could the serpent have told Adam and Eve that they were naked in a failed attempt to shame them into disobedience? Is this all a misunderstanding? No, sin did happen.

The man said, ‘The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.’

Adam responds to God with a pattern we know well. Yes, I disobeyed, but it wasn’t my fault. In fact this situation is really your fault for giving me that woman. Unwilling to take responsibilities for our actions, our first reaction when challenged about our sin is often to blame God. God, you created those appetites in me. God you gave me no choice. God, your commands are so unreasonable.

Adam makes no other defense and he offers no apology. The first couple were the first to fall, and the first to suffer the consequences of their sin. We don’t know if they ever repented of their sin.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Their knowledge of good and evil got Adam and Eve tossed out of the garden into a hard life. But God gave them a good set of clothes to replace the innocence they had lost.

Did God really say?

2007-07-11T00:12:00.000-07:00

In thinking about God’s Word, I’m drawn to the fifty-seventh verse in the Bible:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ”Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (NIV)

This verse is a milestone. It introduces:

The dissonance of a creature, made by God, that is in opposition to God
A talking serpent--apparently not a surprising thing to Eve
The first, and perhaps only time God is misquoted in the Bible. What God said earlier was: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book “Creation and Fall”, observes:

“The serpent’s question: ‘Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?’ was a thoroughly religious one. But with the first religious question in the world evil has come upon the scene”

Eve’s response to the serpent’s misstatement is the epitome of innocence—correction, but with deference to the questioner.

“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die’”

Bonhoeffer comments:
“The fact that Eve must qualify something regarding the Word of God—even if it is falsely represented—must throw her into the greatest confusion. It must indeed enable her to feel, for the first time, the attraction of making judgments about the Word of God. By means of the obviously false the serpent will now bring down that which is right. “

“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

There were elements of truth in the serpent’s lie--those truths gave his argument power. Humanity was not physically extinguished that day, and we do know good and evil. But God was telling the truth, something more fundamental than physical existence died that day. Before there was no need to reach for life--afterward eternal life was not something obtained so cheaply.

I too feel the attraction of making judgments about God’s Word.

I’m not saying that I have to take everything in the Bible literally. I am talking about the dangers of approaching the Word, not with humility and openness, but as an arbiter of its truth. As Bonhoeffer says, if I ask, “Did God really say…This is the question that appears innocuous but through it evil wins power in us, through it we become disobedient to God.”

I AM writing assignment

2007-07-05T23:57:00.000-07:00

Word,

Yes, Father.

I have a job for you. Now that the sons of man have gotten around to inventing writing I would like you to create a written version of yourself.

Oh...

This task presents some challenges, even for Us. For starters, it can’t have any contradictions, it has to match physical reality, it has to be historically accurate, and it shouldn’t have any similarities to existing writings—we wouldn't want them thinking we plagiarized stuff. And, although it obviously will be great literature, you’ll have to keep it to a single writing style; otherwise they will be postulating a different author for every style. Cultural biases are a no-no, and as far as vocabulary goes, you are going to have to keep it simple. Their vocabulary isn’t very big yet; only a few thousand words, and I don’t think it will do to make up new words—that would be interfering.

Hmmm… What language should I use?

That’s a tough one. I am wondering if we screwed up with the Babel thing—the whole thing would have fallen over on its own if we had just left them alone. I’m thinking Hebrew, and then Greek once it’s available—it has some nice features.

Won’t the meanings of words drift over time?

Oh...time—I forgot about that. I guess once their grubby little hands are on it we won’t be able to update it. Oh, never mind, it will give them something to argue about. They love to argue.

How about the other languages?

They will just have to muddle along with translations and paraphrasing if they are too lazy to learn Hebrew and Greek. Besides they can always ask us directly for clarification if they’re serious.

Can I farm some of this out Father?

What, too busy building mansions?

No, I was thinking that it might give a nice, multi-dimensional feel to it if I involve some of the better players.

That’s an interesting idea Son. Job and David come to mind for the emotional crowd. Moses will bore them to tears with details, but he’s good with dictation. Solomon and Paul will appeal to the intellectuals. Start with some of your own stuff, though. Write some words in stone to set the tone.

Father, I see a big problem with this. If I create a perfect written version of myself that meets all your requirements, won’t it be tough not to believe in Us?

You are always good at illuminating the flaws in things. You’re right. A perfect written Word would take away free will.

God’s Word in a Wal-Mart

2007-06-20T23:46:00.000-07:00

A few years ago I was standing in a Wal-Mart checkout line when I noticed something going on in the lane next to me. A young, poor looking family was rung up, but there was a problem with the check they were trying to use to pay. Their cart was full of essential things-- diapers, staple foods--$110 worth. I watched them fidget as the supervisor was called. As I stood there God spoke to me saying: “pay their bill.” Even though I knew it was probably God talking I didn’t act immediately. In fact I didn't act at all.

You might be thinking that a more likely explanation for the "pay their bill" suggestion would be a chemical problem in my brain, serious psychological problems, or perhaps just a compassionate nature. All of these are possible. But I believe it was God. When He speaks to me it can be a simple statement, a word, a verse in the Bible or something non-verbal. I don't think there is anything special that enables me to receive messages from God. I believe everyone gets these messages--the tough part is listening. I do test the messages for reasonableness--I don't totally trust my brain...

I debated the "pay their bill" suggestion; how should I do this? What should I say? Will they reject my offer? Should I just pay their bill, or ask that they pay me back at some later date? I admit I worried about giving them any information that they could use to contact me later. I did nothing.

The supervisor came and things still couldn’t be resolved. They asked the family to follow them to an area that wasn’t quite so public. The last thing I saw as I drove away was the family, sans groceries, driving out of the parking lot.

I wish I had handed the clerk my Visa, and put that $110 on my card. I hope that Wal-Mart experience was just a minor setback to that family. I struggle with the feeling that this event had a very negative impact on them. I will never know what happened.

What I do know is my disobedience blocked the best path for that day.

Uncaused Light -- God as a "stop-gap"?

2007-06-07T23:22:00.000-07:00

In the book "Letters and Papers from Prison" Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes: "It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case). Then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat."

In one of his essays in "Creation and Fall" written in 1933 Bonhoeffer breaks his own rule. In his concluding remarks regarding Genesis 1:14-19 he raises the "old rationalistic question" of how light could be created in day 1 and the sun not until day 4. Where did this "uncaused light" come from? Bonhoeffer discusses this apparent paradox and concludes by saying: "The light per se of the creation, the light which lay formless over the formless darkness, is bound to form, to law, to the fixed, to number; but it remains in God, it remains God's creation, and never itself becomes calculable number."

The "never itself becomes calculable number" part of his statement appears to be wrong. Bonhoeffer reasonably assumed that the specifics of the creation of the universe would be forever inaccessible to science. What he could not have anticipated was that fifteen years later, based on the principles of Einstein's general relativity, George Gamow would publish a model for the creation of the universe. This theory postulated:

Light could not travel any appreciable distance in the initial years of the early universe because any emitted photons were immediately reabsorbed by the ionized matter around it.
About 400,000 years after the Big Bang the universe had cooled enough for matter to "condense" into neutral atoms. This transition allowed light to freely travel throughout the universe. Because the universe was exceedingly uniform at that point (formless) this shift occurred concurrently throughout.
Gamow calculated that these freed photons from this transition would still be continuously arriving at the earth, "cooled" by the subsequent expansion of the universe to an equivalent black body temperature of about 5 degrees above absolute zero.

In 1948 when Gamow made this 5 degree prediction the technology did not exist to prove or disprove it. However in 1964 two physicists testing their new microwave receiver pointed it at the sky. They expected to measure just the self-generated noise of their equipment. Instead they found that no matter where in the sky they pointed they measured more noise than they could explain. At first they attributed it to pigeon crap in their antenna. But eventually they established it was photons from the cosmos, arriving with an equivalent temperature of 3.5 degrees --the light from the Big Bang. Recent satellite based measurements have refined that temperature to 2.725 +- 0.02 degrees (really!)

The light of creation that illuminated the universe for almost ten billion years before our own sun ignited has been given a number.

8 Random Facts about Vance

2007-06-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

I’ve been tagged by Dr Heidi from Virushead for the “Random 8″ blog meme.

Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
Players should tag 8 other people and notify them that they have been tagged.

So here are 8 random facts about Vance:

I hate sweet potatoes and acorn squash--there is something in these two foods that grosses me out. It is not like I am a picky eater, I will eat almost anything, in fact I like the traditionally avoided foods like broccoli and brussels sprouts. Through sweet potatoes my parents learned that sometimes a kid is serious when they say a food makes them sick...

I am an ex-believer in Intelligent Design. This blog is named for the meditation sequence that resulted in my change of heart. I didn't give up on God, I just decided that regardless of how complicated life is, science will eventually come up with credible theories how it happened. God's fingerprints won't be obvious and we will be left with another singularity like the Big Bang that defies analysis.

My favorite musician is Bill Evans, the saxophonist, not the pianist. Not a gifted marketeer this Bill hasn't worked very hard to distance himself from the late Jazz great. He is almost invisible on Amazon unless you know one of his titles. If you like Jazz Fusion you might give this Bill Evans a try.

I have this theory that all managers create a scientifically undetectable field called the "Reality Distortion Field". When multiple managers are in a room this field reinforces itself leading to some pretty scary results. The Reality Distortion Field (RDF) explains a lot of the apparently insane behaviors that businesses engage in.

When I call my parents, their first question is often "Where are you", instead of "How are you".

My advice to people that are lost while driving in a European city is to pick a random car to follow --it is unlikely that they are driving in circles. For more of my travel hints see tickets-passports-money

Unless I really focus, I totally miss the lyrics in songs. Usually for me the singers are just another instrument.

My favorite Science Fiction writer is C.J. Cherryh. If you like Science Fiction that focuses on character development rather than hardware/warfare you might try her novel Cyteen or her Foreigner series.

Here a the 8 I am tagging:

Chris

Jason

Scooper

Sevenknot

Steve

Trevor

Zaid

Zuska

Meditations on a speck of sky

2007-05-11T22:21:00.000-07:00

When I first saw this Hubble Space Telescope picture I was impressed by its beauty and the claim in the associated article that at least 1500 galaxies were contained in the image--which only covers about 0.00000025% of the sky. However, what really surprised me was the assertion that the picture would look very similar regardless of where the telescope was pointed, as long as there wasn't something "close" in the way (e.g. the Milky Way or its neighbors). To me this implied that either our galaxy is at the center of the universe (unlikely and rejected by astronomers), or I didn't know what the hell was going on.

A couple of years later I can report that this “every direction looks the same” assertion does make sense to me--although some aspects still make my head hurt. The reasons for this apparent "center of the universe" view relate to the physics of the Big Bang. A couple of key points:

The Big Bang was not an explosion in space. There was no space before the Big Bang and no time. The Big Bang not only created all the matter in the universe, it also created the framework (space) to hold it, and the time to run it.
In the Big Bang's very early phases the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light. It was space, not matter or light that was expanding so the Einsteinian speed limit was not violated. This early hyper expansion, called the inflationary phase, ended when the universe was about a meter across. One of the resulting effects was that matter, which was caught up in the expansion, became very evenly distributed throughout the universe. By the way, the spot where you are now sitting was inside that meter wide universe.
Because it started out so evenly distributed, even when matter eventually got around to clumping together into galaxies the large scale uniformity of the universe was preserved. The result is that our view of the far away universe looks the same in all directions.

As I learned about the beginnings of the universe as defined by the current, general relativity based theories, there was an unexpected harmonizing with Biblical accounts of creation. As Dr Hugh Ross points out , the most common description used in the Bible for the creation of the heavens (11 times) was that they were “stretched out”. For example: "This is what God the Lord says--he, who created the heavens and stretched them out" Isaiah 42:4 It is inspiring to me that these 2000+ year old words can be re-interpreted from formerly puzzling passages into respectable descriptions of the formation of the universe as astrophysics now describes it.

Authenticity of the Bible

2007-04-07T23:06:00.000-07:00

Recently a friend of mine asked if it bothered me that there were so many challenges to the authenticity of the Bible. I responded that that these challenges don’t bother me, because if God is omniscient and omnipotent He certainly can control what we have come to know as His Word. If God doesn’t have these “omni” attributes, then he is at best irrelevant, and more likely non-existent—definitely not worthy of our attentions or worship.

Believing in the inspired nature of the Bible doesn’t resolve the issues that are raised in Dr Heidi's post early-christian-protest, it just challenges me to find a framework that fits. I cling to a few additional beliefs including:

If a topic is important it will be repeated in the Bible
There will be things about a non-created thing–God, that created things will not be able to understand
The reason the universe exists is because God desires a relationship with us

My recent ponderings on the death and resurrection of Christ have revolved around the role of language in reaching a diverse and intellectually evolving world and wondering if the Passion of Christ was really an instantiated metaphor for what really happened before the beginning of time: “Christ Jesus, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men”. Phil 2:5-7

Saul--King of Israel 2.0 - a study in scarcity?

2007-04-06T23:29:00.000-07:00

For me the story of King Saul has morphed from being a vaguely remembered Sunday school story to a puzzling tale of why God chooses whom He chooses. Early in the story I discovered that Saul was not the first king of Israel--God considered Himself the first king. This is one of those rare cases where the second release is dramatically inferior to the first.

Scene I: A New King for Israel

The people of Israel (to Samuel):	"You have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations."
The Lord (to Samuel):	"Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them."
Meditator	Saul was really the Hebrew's 2nd King, God was the 1st. As Christians, God is King of our lives, but how often do we reject His kingship to pursue phantoms of justice, security, or prosperity?
Samuel (to Saul)	"And you shall go down before me to Gilgal... You shall wait seven days until I come to you and show you what you should do"
Narrator	"So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal.
Meditator	In spite of screwing up almost immediately Saul was king for probably 12 years or more. God selected Saul out of the whole nation of Israel. Was Saul the best to be had? It would seem so.
Narrator (about Saul)	"Now he waited seven days, according to the appointed time set by Samuel, but Samuel did not come to Gilgal; and the people were scattering from him."
Saul	"Bring to me the burnt offering and the peace offerings."
Narrator	"And he offered the burnt offering. And it came about as soon as he finished offering the burnt offering, that behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him and to greet him"
Samuel (to Saul)	"What have you done?" (with anger)
Saul (to Samuel)	"Because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and then you did not come within the appointed days, and that the Philistines were assembling at Michmash, therefore I said, 'Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not asked the favor of the Lord.' So I forced myself and offered the burnt offering."
Meditator	The importance of obeying God’s specific instructions exactly is an oft repeated theme. Many times the Lord’s direction is faint or missing, but when it is clear take note and don’t deviate. Saul's sin--not waiting for God, even when God is "late". The people were drifting away, Saul wanted to take action. He trusted the quantity of soldiers under his command more than he trusted God. Quite a contrast to Gideon sending most of his army away. So Saul "forced" himself to disobey God's command--because he had not yet asked the favor of the Lord. We want the Lord's blessing without the inconvenient or distressing obedience bits...
Samuel (to Saul)	"You have acted foolishly, you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. "
Meditator	David’s kingdom was established through his offspring –which ultimately resulted in Jesus. If Saul had been obedient would Jesus have had a different mother?! How invariant is God’s plan?

Scene II Destruction of the Amalekites

Samuel (to Saul)	"Thus says the Lord of hosts...Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Narrator	"But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed."
Meditator	God's command to utterly destroy everything did not sit well with the Israelites. Likely the disobedience came for a desire to prevent "waste", avoid offending the masses, or perhaps to be "religious". In any event not obeying God's direct command exactly is not a good idea.
Lord (to Samuel)	"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.."
Meditator	God's response to Saul's sin? Some translations say regret, others say repent--or was it just a sigh (the simple definition of the Hebrew word used)
Narrator	"And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the Lord all night. And Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul"
Bystander (when asked where Saul was)	"Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself, then turned and proceeded on down to Gilgal."
Meditator	Saul built a monument to himself for "his" big victory against the Amalekites. So much for giving the glory to God.
Narrator	"And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him"
Saul	"Blessed are you of the Lord! I have carried out the command of the Lord!"
Samuel	"What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
Saul	"They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; but the rest we have utterly destroyed."
Samuel	Stop!...Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?”
Saul	"I did obey the voice of the Lord, and went on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and have brought back Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took some of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the choicest of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord you God at Gilgal."
Meditator	Saul was not willing to take responsibility -- "the people" did this, or that.
Samuel	"Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, "to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king."

Scene III Too late -- Repentance

Saul	“I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may worship the Lord.”
Samuel	“I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.”
Narrator	"Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel."
Narrator	"Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him."

The rest of Saul's reign is really a nightmare: evil spirits, attempted murder, the ordered killing of Godly priests, consulting with a medium.

Given His omniscience I wonder why God chose Saul. But regarding God's choices you can say the exact same thing about all of mankind. Even the bright spots like Moses and David were murderers!

Is the story of Saul a microcosm of God's relationship with mankind? He creates us, selects us, we choose evil almost immediately, and things go mostly downhill from there? The only thing that makes sense is that God so desires relationship that He was willing to endure the pain and heartache of a mostly disastrous result. He chooses the best possible reality.

Where are the modern day idols?

2007-04-05T23:31:00.000-07:00

In the Old Testament idols were a big deal--two of the ten commandments are taken up with prohibitions against them. Not many people in Europe, or the Americas seem to be worshiping Baal at stone altars or wooden Asherah these days. However in a recent trip to China I saw a lot of people offering incense and bowing down to various Buddhas and other idol like figurines. I have seen similar stuff in Japan. Are these just the fading pockets of idol worshiop? Will this be mostly gone in 50 years? So what are the 21st century idols? Have idols morphed into something else, or are they a vice man has mostly left behind--perhaps the only one? Conventional wisdom says that our material things (e.g. Plasma TVs) are modern day idols--but this is not compelling to me. People typically don't worship these things or pray to them--they just want them for status or to immerse themselves in a football game. Have we elevated science to god status now? Looking to it for protection and for answers to the mysteries of life.

After Saul botched his assignment to wipe out the Amalekites Samuel tells him:"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry" This equates idolatry with disobeying God -- essentially putting yourself in the position of God.

Mike Thorburn Bayside said that anything that comes between you and God is an idol. This approach would promote a lot of things to idol status--in fact almost everything sinful or evil. This strikes me as perhaps too broad--but this would fit with the emphasis given in the Ten Commandments.

Scot Douglass in his book, Theology of the Gap says: "Diastema and Kinesis are antidotes to humanity's propensity to idolatry. The very fabric of creation speaks of the absence of God and invites those within the diasteme to seek for God elsewhere".

Yes, I agree it is arguable whether this last quote is actually in English. My paraphrase of Scot's sentences above is that life is the juxtaposition of "now" -the moment that we live in, and the untouchable past and future. If we recognize the mystery of that, then we are far less likely to seek god in a wooden statue wrapped in gold foil.

Man would create God, but would God create Man?

2007-03-09T22:46:00.000-08:00

(Meditation in Progress) I am certain that man would create God if there were no God. I am less certain that God would create man if there were no man. Given that man seems to exist, the question centers on "is there really a God?" There are many men, and hence many religions. I suppose there could be more than one true path, but Jesus discourages that alternative ("No man comes to the Father but through me")

Is Christianity really unique in its historical basis? A religion where at least some of its history is verifiable distinguishes itself from myth, and from most other religions. Many religions with no verifiable history(e.g. Mormons) have a sort of made-up feel to them. The historical veracity of Christianity certainly doesn't hurt its believability, but the path to faith doesn't usually follow an archeologist's steps.

The ongoing friction between Christianity and Science is a serious thing. I suppose it hasn't always been this way. Until science reached a certain level of maturity I doubt its explanations were any more compelling than just chalking things up to God's will. However once science achieved some predictive capability (e.g. timing of eclipses) things started to change. Over and over the church has opposed new scientific ideas (e.g. heliocentric solar system), only to eventually abandon their position in the face of compelling evidence. Why is there this historical animosity? The church has been lagging science ever since the 1st century. Will this gap ever close?

The Faith of Gideon

2006-10-21T22:19:00.000-07:00

In Judges chapter 6 Gideon is hiding in a wine press threshing grain--the Midianites are occupying Israel and are systematically destroying everything they find of value. An angel greets him with: "The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior." You can sense the eye roll when Gideon responds: "O my lord, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about..." Notice the little "l" in the first "lord" that Gideon uses here, which is reasonable given this a person that has just showed up in the wine press.

The next section is a little confusing because the responder to Gideon's question is God, rather than an angel. "And the Lord looked at him, and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?" Gideon responds with a "how" question: "O Lord, how shall I deliver Israel? Behold, my family is the least in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my father's house" Notice that Gideon has switched to big "L" for Lord at this point -- probably a good idea when you have just dissed the Master of the Universe to His face. The Lord's response is: "Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man". Traditional political/ familial power is unnecessary.

Gideon then switches his line of questioning--he reasonably wants to verify that the speaker truly is the Lord. Up to this point nothing overtly supernatural has happened--just talking with a visitor that has a high opinion and expectations of Gideon. Gideon assumes that it is the Lord’s messenger, prepares an appropriate offering, and has his doubts removed when the offering is vaporized and the angel vanishes. However Gideon isn’t done testing God. Later in chapter 6 Gideon makes his famous double request: Fleece wet and fleece dry on two successive nights. Gideon is very polite with his requests, and at this point has already called the people together for war, but I can’t help but contrast God forbearance with Gideon to another situation in Luke chapter 1 where an angel delivered a message: the angel Gabriel tells Zacharias that he is going to have a child (John the Baptist) even though his wife was barren and they were both old. Zacharias’ single request: “How can I know this for certain?….”, was immediately punished by striking him mute until John the Baptist was born. Gideon’s faith is honored in Hebrews 11:32-34 along with greats like David and Samuel--Zacharias didn't make the list. Asking how God plans to do His work, and asking for validation is consistent with great faith —but don’t ask for certainty.

When is sin justified?

2006-08-07T23:29:00.000-07:00

Recently a friend of Nancy's called with the news that her husband had left her. It sounded like the classic mid-life crisis that we have seen played out with friends and acquaintances in the last few years. This time my initial reaction was not as sympathetic as it could have been. There is always the other side of the story and I wonder what sort of environment this guy was living in. Was their life a living hell?

When I listen to women discussing these situations amongst themselves the conversation usually rolls around to a rant about how men are such Cretans--how can they do such cruel things? Do women ever consider that they might have some culpability too? In their typically body obsessed worlds the women usually make statements like "yes, she was a bit heavy, but....". I doubt that this is real reason that the split occurred. Are these guys so looks oriented that they are willing to split their net assets and totally disrupt their worlds just to be with a thinner women?

There are a lot of reasons why marriages stop working--and regardless of the cause, the net result is that straying from the marriage is a a lot more likely. In the absence of a strong commitment to fidelity is it all that surprising that some wander away from their marriages?

Then, for a moment I stood aside and considered the conversation going on in my head. In spite of probable provocations was this man's action justified? Never! It is Satan's oldest trick (Genesis chapter 3:5), to suggest that we are somehow missing out--that the restrictions placed on us by God in our lives are artificial, or heaven-forbid unfair. A sin may be more tempting to one person than another due to circumstances or even genetics, but that doesn't stop the fact that it is sin, it is optional, and its result is death. The response to our frustration as men should not be to go outside the boundaries, but rather to move towards our relationships--putting aside our frustrations, opening up communication, and reminding ourselves that death awaits outside the gates.

Meditations on an eyeball: Part 3 --God in the Gaps?

2006-06-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

Please read Parts 1 & 2 first meditations-on-eyeball-part-1

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that our God should not be the “God in the gaps”. Historically evoking God to explain the things that science can’t explain is a losing proposition—usually if you wait long enough science comes up with a credible answer. My grandparents grew up in an era when science couldn’t explain how the sun worked. I grew up in an era that couldn’t explain quasars. My kids have grown up in an era that can’t explain why the spiral arms in most galaxies, including the Milky Way rotate faster than scientists expected.

Astrophysicists theorize this phenomenon is due to “dark matter”, but it might as well be pixie dust for all they can say about it right now. I'm sure this gap in knowledge will be filled in the future. In a similar fashion science cannot explain much about living things now, but I suspect that will change too. Bonhoeffer states that God should be at the center of a Christian’s existence, not relegated to the fringes that science can’t currently explain. After all, Jesus did say that He was “The Way, the Truth, and the Life”

God avoids being seen in the astrophysicist’s telescope. It seems reasonable to me that God caused the “Big Bang” beginning of our universe to happen, but the mysteries of that event are well hidden by 14 billion years of elapsed time. Likewise, I don’t think God is going to be caught under the biologist’s microscope or DNA analysis. As we unravel the mysteries of life I predict we won’t expose the “Intelligent Designer”—instead we will uncover even deeper mysteries.

The Bible makes it clear that God did not just start things and wander off. He interacts with people, He challenges them, and He changed the whole fabric of our existence with His Son—but he does this in the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is orthogonal to the infrastructure that physics and biology provide. Physics and biology provide the structure of God's creation, but the spiritual world provides its meaning.

Meditations on an eyeball: Part 2 --Why not a finger snap?

2006-06-13T21:03:00.000-07:00

(please read "part 1" first, or this won't make much sense). meditations-on-eyeball-part-1

While I was contemplating the mysteries of jellyfish eyeballs another question came to mind. Why did God take 6 "days" to finish the creation? Why not put in place all at once with a snap of His fingers?

I don’t think it was because of lack of power. I think God could have created the universe in an instant—complete with red-shifted photons in transit from distant galaxies. But He chose not to--at least according to Genesis. It seems that something fundamental to God’s plan or His nature caused Him to go the stepwise creation route. God, as described in the Bible is does not seem to be the "start it and let it run" type. He interacts with us; he intervenes with miracles, He chooses, and He has saved us.

Today it feels like there is a stark difference between our understandings of the world's physics vs. the world of living things. Today’s physics provides the framework that everything else needs to exist. That framework, according to what most scientists believe now, with the "Standard Model", was established in the first few microseconds of the Big Bang. But the beginning and maturation of life on earth does not feel like something that was inherently established in the beginning of things. Our present understanding of physics does not explain everything, but it certainly explains everything we can interact with on a day-to-day basis.

Comparatively, our understanding of living things is at the stone knives & axes level. In drug development for example, we are just now starting to develop the ability to tailor drugs for specific tasks, rather than just creating lots of chemicals and trying them out to see if they have any useful effects. When we sequence chromosomes and look at the details it looks more like a train wreck than a designed solution.

Up until this point I had felt that it was highly contrived to suggest that the mind-numbing complexity of life spontaneously developed. With our early 21st century science we can barely explain sections of what is going on with life, much less brew it up in a test tube. Even photosynthesis, which all life directly or indirectly depends, is not understood or reproducible.

Part 3
meditations-on-eyeball-part-3

Meditations on an eyeball: Part 1 -- If I only had a brain...

2006-06-13T20:45:00.000-07:00

A few years ago I read an article in "Nature" about jellyfish eyes. I didn't even know they had eyes, but I learned that this particular type of jellyfish (Cubozoans) not only has eyes, they have twenty-four of them. While this particular species of jellyfish is well equipped with eyes there is one significant gap in their overall setup—there is no brain to use the eyes! The scientists involved with the study were pretty confident that these jellyfish manage to do something useful with these eyes other than actually look at things, but that is not the main point of their paper.

What surprised the scientists was not the quantity of eyes, but rather that some of the eyes are damn good ones. Specifically the lenses of the upper eyes are structured to support “well-corrected, aberration-free imaging, otherwise known only from the much larger eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods. The gradient in the upper eye lenses comes very close to the ideal solution.” Screwing this all up, even before we get to the brain part, is the fact the jellyfish retina for these eyes is located out of focus with respect to these well-corrected lenses. The perfectly formed image that the eye forms is out of focus by the time it reaches the retina. In the article the scientists go on to speculate how this setup is useful to the jellyfish.

My initial reaction to this section of the paper was to think how absurd it seems that this setup would evolve. What possible natural selection mechanisms would evolve a perfect eye in an organism with no brain to use it and then degrade it to boot? My friend John suggested that at one time the jellyfish might have had a brain and then lost it, but a brain does seem like overkill for a jellyfish. It seemed much more likely to me that this is just another example of God as the intelligent designer that re-used designs from other animals, and simplified them as appropriate. This would be analogous to using a GPS receiver/processor as the speedometer mechanism on a car—it’s overkill, but it would do the job.

Subsequent thoughts were more confused. Why would God be concerned about reusing designs? Why not use an optimized design for each organism? It is not like He has project deadlines to meet (running short of time on day 4?) , a lack of energy, or a crabby boss to appease. Is this jellyfish an example of intelligent design, or perhaps something way subtler?

Part 2
meditations-on-eyeball-part-2

My mid-life crisis

2006-06-07T22:25:00.000-07:00

Recently Nancy and I were talking about a man we know that appears be going through a mid-life crisis. Somewhat jokingly I said I was past my mid-life crisis. Nancy asked what my crisis had been (no motorcycle, sports car, or mistress being in evidence). Not being prepared for this question I flippantly replied that my mid-life crisis had been one of "existential despair". In retrospect, I think that was the truth. God has stripped away many of the world oriented things that I wanted to achieve in my life: to be a high level manager, be a rich investor, be a published writer. I still fantasize about being the scientific wizard, but that is pretty ridiculous. The bottom line, which has not been easy for me to find and accept is that I live in the moment to obey God's Will and His Word.

While I think it is certainly important to have plans and directions in our lives, fundamentally our lives should come down to these three things: loving God, doing justice, and walking humbly before the Lord (Micah 6:8). None of these things can be done "out of the moment"--they are intended to be the present tense attributes of our lives. The state of our existence can change (or end) in an instant. For us to pretend and/or expect that life will have a steady course or state (e.g. to be "happy") seems naive and inconsistent with God's calling and promises for us. Life is a sequence of choices--and there is always a best way. Jesus is the way, and he cannot be reduced to a formula, or a list of rules. He guides us everyday to choose good -- we "only" have to obey.