Category Archives: History/Apologetics

Jesus is the Way the Truth the Life, the rest of the world just kind of fumbles around with the idea of truth.

Jesus said I am the truth Pilate looked Truth right in the Face and said “What is truth”. Interesting article on how Harvard University started as being “Truth” in the Christian faith and now is some vague sort of “Truth”.

Harvard: No Longer “Truth for Christ and the Church”

Yesterday our pastor shared with the congregation an interesting story about Harvard University’s seal and motto. The original motto, “Truth (Veritas) for Christ (Christo) and the Church (Ecclesiae),” was adopted in 1692 and was a part of their original seal as seen below (in Latin):

The motto and shield with this original verbiage can still be found at multiple places on Harvard’s campus. It may be difficult to discern from this picture, but the Harvard Graduate Christian Community website states the following:

Interestingly, the top two books on the shield are face up while the bottom book is face down. This symbolizes the limits of reason, and the need for God’s revelation.

At some point in Harvard’s history the motto was changed to simply “Truth” and the seal changed to that pictured below:

Notice all three books are now face up. This symbolizes a belief that there is no limit to man’s reasoning and God’s revelation is no longer needed. The change in the motto reflects a change in the university’s mission. The Harvard Graduate Christian Community website states this:

Harvard University was founded in 1636 with the intention of establishing a school to train Christian ministers. In accordance with that vision, Harvard’s “Rules and Precepts,” adopted in 1646, stated (original spelling and Scriptural references retained):

2. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of him (Prov. 2:3).

3. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoreticall observations of Language and Logick, and in practical and spiritual truths, as his Tutor shall require, according to his ability; seeing the entrance of the word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130).

This is obviously no longer their mission, and thus “Christ and the Church” were removed from the motto. How sad to see a university that was founded by a minister—solidly believing that knowledge, wisdom, and understanding come only from God’s Word—now believe that truth can be found apart from God and elevate man above God as the ultimate authority.

As I was searching the Harvard website, I came across this article entitled, “Intuitive? Try God.” The article related the research done by several students and professors at Harvard showing that people who believe in God are more likely to rely on intuition then people that don’t. The article states the following:

By linking religious belief to intuition, the study supports the idea that there is something in the cognitive makeup of humans that promotes belief in a higher power. For example, the natural tendency that people have to see a purpose behind random events, or the need to reduce uncertainty in their lives — as well as the anxiety it causes — may promote a belief in God.

In other words, the reason we want to believe in God or some higher power is due to our “cognitive makeup” which is the result of millions of years of evolution and thus may afford some evolutionary advantage.

The Bible states that people believe in God for very different reasons than the Harvard researchers postulate.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18–22, emphasis added)

Oh, how the hearts of those at Harvard have been darkened, and how foolish they have become because although they know God, they deny Him. Instead of rejoicing in the truth that comes from God’s revelation (1 Corinthians 13:6), they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). We’ve come to expect such thinking from secular institutions like Harvard, but sadly, this same form of thinking has infiltrated many Christian colleges today.

I encourage you to get our book, Already Compromised, to learn more about the compromise in American Christian colleges today. Also if you’re a student preparing for college (or parent of one!) and want to explore colleges and universities that affirm AiG’s Statement of Faith please attend our College Expo and Conference November 11–12 at the Creation Museum.

Keep fighting the good fight of faith!

Christianity may be making a comeback? It was never gone.

In 2015, Christianity May Be Making a Comeback

Posted: 01/05/2015 6:42 pm EST Updated: 01/05/2015 6:59 pm EST
JESUS CHRIST

Just when everyone thought God was dead, The Creator seems to be making a serious comeback. Although non-believing cultural elites in media, academia, and entertainment may be the loudest voices in the room, a new Pew Research Studyindicates they’re becoming the smallest group in the room. Among it’s findings:

  • 73 percent of U.S. adults believe Jesus was born to a virgin.
  • 81 percent, the baby Jesus was actually laid in a manger.
  • 75 percent, wise men guided by a star brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
  • 74 percent, an angel announced the birth of Jesus to shepherds nearby.

The study indicates that 65 percent of Americans believe all four of these elements of the Christmas story, and a mere 14 percent believe none. And just when you thought these numbers reflected the Bible Belt, it turns out that 54 percent of liberals believe in the virgin birth, and for adults with postgraduate degrees, 53 percent affirm the virgin birth of Jesus.

Hollywood apparently saw it coming. For decades producers and studios have bent over backwards to reach out to special interest groups like feminists, the gay community, environmentalists, and others. But simply looking at the numbers, they finally discovered the Christian community is the largest special interest group of all. So while they’ve had some Bible movies hit and miss, they understand the Christian audience isn’t going away soon. In fact, if they’ve learned anything after the productions of Noah and Gods and Kings, they’ve hopefully learned they need to get it right. The more a movie sticks to the Biblical account, the bigger the box office.

So the question becomes, where has Christianity been? Early in the 20th century, the Church embraced motion pictures, radio, then television and now the Internet and social media. But in the vast majority of cases today, they’re not using those platforms to engage the greater culture, but instead living inside a bubble. After all, why tweet, when you can join a Christian alternative to Twitter? And don’t go to eHarmony or Match.com if you’re looking for a mate, use Christian Mingle. From the web, to publishing, to record labels, TV networks, universities and more, the last 50 years have seen a remarkable withdrawal from mainstream culture and a move back to a cloistered, protective bubble.

In all honesty, the Church hasn’t been losing it’s voice, it’s been giving it away. As a result, they’ve lost remarkable influence in the culture. It’s a tragedy, because since the founding of this country, Christianity has been a powerful engine behind social service outreaches, educational institutions, hospitals and more.

So while the majority of the population still professes religious belief, will Christianity ever regain it’s influence in the culture? I believe it can, and there are plenty of signposts:

  • Vibrant churches are growing in major urban centers around the United States. From New York City to Chicago, to Los Angeles and Seattle, young pastors who have a passion for their cities find it difficult to locate facilities large enough for the crowds.
  • A new generation of talented writers, filmmakers, musicians, and other artists are unapologetic about their faith. As a result, they’re breaking out of traditional “Christian”-branded record labels, film distributors, and publishers, and are finding success with mainstream audiences.
  • Episodic television programs like Mark Burnett and Roma Downey’sThe Bible series broke audience records in the United States. Their new series “A.D.” based on the New Testament book of Acts debuts this spring, and a remake of the epic film Ben Hur is in the works.
  • The first Ebola cases to be treated on American soil were Dr. Kent Brantly and his assistant Nancy Writebol. Both were fighting the disease in Liberia with the Christian group “Serving in Mission.” Today, massive relief operations like “Mercy Ships,” “The Salvation Army,” and “Medical Ministry International” are all driven by Christian convictions and are making a dramatic difference in the most desperate places on the planet.

Honestly, it shouldn’t be a surprise. When the Iron Curtain fell, we discovered that Communism couldn’t silence the Church, and despite horrific torture and executions by ISIS militants, Christians in that region refuse to recant. So it shouldn’t be shocking that here in the West, for all the criticism and clatter from nonbelievers, or advertising campaigns from atheists, Christianity is actually growing.

In 2015, it will be obvious that Christianity is back. But truthfully, it never left.

In the Fullness of Time Galatians 4: 4-7 First St Johns December 28, 2014

We make our beginning in the Name of God the Father and in the Name of God the Son and in the Name of God the Holy Spirit and all those who know the perfect timing of God said … AMEN

Under the heading: “There is no such thing as “coincidences” where God is concerned, for that matter anything, since God is concerned with everything about our lives, we read Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Galatian’s four short verses are loaded with teaching. Paul’s quote in Galatians 4 is particularly interesting: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son … to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons … you are no longer a slave, but a son,…”(Gal 4: 4-7)

The part that of find of interest right here is “…the fullness of time…” Some think that had something to do with Mary coming to term in her pregnancy, or something that was dictated by Joseph and Mary’s situation. But most see Paul’s short expression as an appreciation and understanding of how God does things in His time and dictates the course of events and history according to His will. The Father didn’t turn to the Son one day and for just any old reason say, “yeah, think it’s about time we do the incarnation thing.” This had been the plan since the beginning, He chooses to reveal that plan to us, first, in Genesis 3:15, at the very beginning and then just before He throws the switch to make it happen, the Father reaffirms His plan, in an even plainer way in Isaiah 9:6. The Genesis passage, the proto-Evangelium, where God promises Satan that there would be a Savior, that the Messiah, anointed One of God, would come into the world to crush Satan’s head. God the Son would crush Satan’s head and by doing so, would save us from the curse of Hell. That sounds harsh, necessary, but in your face. However the Father’s promise to Isaiah is the one that is His majestic promise that He made when Judah is about to be crushed by Assyria and to disappear as a nation, most of her people killed or enslaved. Certainly a great crisis where Yahweh promises them; “A Child is born, A Son is given, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The Israelites knew that they were about to take a harsh and long-lasting beating and they needed this promise. Isaiah could have said the same thing Paul writes: “But when the fullness of time had come…”, because Israel had pushed too far for Yahweh and He was now about to let His people know what happens when they ignore Him and get too caught up in their own plans and expectations. The fullness of time had come and Israel, at least for a few generations, would cease to exist.

Paul on the other hand tells us that the “…fullness of time…” had just occurred for the Father to fulfill His promises to Adam and Eve, and to the people of Israel by Isaiah and it happened at this intersection of time. Although Paul didn’t know it, although Jesus prophesied it, this was the perfect time for God. While they were strolling away from the temple and the disciples were admiring the view of the buildings of the temple, Jesus took them to task and said “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” Don’t become to fascinated by the things man, in this case King Herod, build, because there is going to be another turning point in Israel’s history and this temple that you find so fascinating will be completely destroyed in just a few years. In about 40 years Israel, as you know it now, will cease to exist along with the temple. The Judaism of Israel would no longer be focused on the temple and would be scattered again. A new world would begin and the Christians in Israel would be forced to leave and take Christianity into the world.

This time, that Jesus had been born into, was the perfect time for Him to come into the world and conduct His incarnational ministry. It was a time of peace in Israel, Jesus did not have to contend with wars or any kind of famine or drought. He could get everyone’s full attention on His ministry and drive it deep into their awareness so that they could readily understand their new relationship with the Father. They had time to absorb the Gospel and begin to live it before they had to go into the world to spread the Gospel. They had to unlearn the legalism of Judaism and the debauchery of paganism and to come to understand that they were saved solely and completely by grace. They couldn’t earn their way to Christ in this world or to eternity, they could only be brought to salvation in Him and through His actions, what Jesus does to save us.

The conditions were exactly right for the disciples to absorb Jesus’ teaching and take those teachings into the world. Not only was there peace, the conditions surrounding them enabled them to bring Jesus to the world. As Lee Strobel points out: “The time period when Jesus lived was ideally suited for the spread of Christianity. The vast reach of the Roman Empire primed the known world for the gospel. Roman roads allowed relative ease of travel and greatly increased the area to which the gospel spread. Roman authority also helped protect travelers from robbers and attackers. Throughout the Roman Empire, Greek was the common language, and allowed communication of the gospel between groups who lived hundreds or thousands of miles from each other.”1

The Pax Romana, that is the peace of Rome, which united the entire world, enabled Jesus’ disciples to teach and preach without the distraction of wars or other disruptions to those they preached to. Jesus’ disciples could travel and teach without being abused because the Roman Empire tolerated many belief systems. Any earlier or later, and the disciples would be persecuted before Christianity could take root. At this time Christians could worship and evangelize unmolested. God created the conditions through man, mostly the Romans, so that He could send His Son into the world to preach God’s Word and Will and so that His church would grow. The church of Jesus Christ might otherwise have been steamrolled or isolated to small parts of the world. Jesus’ appearance met other promises of prophecy. Strobel writes: “God fulfilled his prophesied time frame. Daniel predicted that the Anointed One would come and would be ‘cut off’ (killed) before the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple (Daniel 9: 24-26).”

From Paul’s writing we can see the sovereignty of God, that is God controls and is Lord of all that He has created. He planned and controlled human history so that at just the perfect time in that history His Son would appear and become the focus of the entire world. The world had never been brought together as it had under the Roman Empire and in a couple of hundred years it would be shattered and different peoples would be separated from each other, unable even to communicate. God controls the events of the world, which He does, although He permits man, because of His sin, to spread war and sickness and famine throughout the world. Then clearly God controls those who He has chosen to be Lord of their lives. For myself there is no doubt that God chose the perfect time for me to know Jesus as my Savior. Because you are here, baptized, listening to His Word, about to take His Body and Blood, He has chosen you at just the right time to be saved in Jesus.

Strobel writes: “ God had an appointed day when he would intersect human history with the promised redemption. The moment in history when Jesus arrived was tailored for the rapid spread of the Gospel. All human history is balanced on the fulcrum of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.”2 God gives us the understanding we need in order to know Him as our Father and Jesus as our Savior, and when we see it in human history, we can better understand how He works in our own personal lives. Take some time over the next week and think about how “..in the fullness of time…” God the Father, Abba, has made us His own sons and daughters that Paul writes about in this passage.

The peace of God which passes all understanding keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Shalom and Amin.

1Lee Strobel The Case for Christ Study Bible p 1634

2Ibid p 1634

Bedouin shepherds in Israel

Saw these guys during our travels around the area of Capernaum. Even today there are shepherds out with their sheep, no doubt it’s pretty lonely and not the easiest way to make a living. Shepherds doing the same thing shepherds were doing 2,000 years ago when they were singled out for the announcement that would change the course of human history. Men, probably, who probably became disciples of Jesus during His earthly incarnation and ministry.

The faithful telling of the Bible

It seems to be easy lately to think that the there is just a remnant of Christians, only a few that are left to raise up God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But then a long comes an event or a message that demonstrates that Christians are very much alive, faithful and active.

Case in point the production of the television series The Bible produced by husband and wife Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. I will qualify this upfront by saying that I really did appreciate The Bible that it really was a faithful portrayal of the Bible. It always amuses me when people call the Bible ‘boring’. That is biblical illiteracy. If I can be a little tacky, the Bible has it all violence, intrigue, sex, infidelity, charity, faithfulness, sacrifice, integrity, pride and strength. The Bible has good, bad, somewhere in the middle, ordinary people confronting extraordinary circumstances. The last thing I would describe the Bible as is boring. One of the things that always annoyed me was the way different people/beings of the Bible have been portrayed in movies and media. Jesus always seems to be sort of soft and prissy, and that just could not have been the case. He was probably a carpenter, He spent so much of His earthly ministry outside, traveling around, even out on the boats with some of His disciples. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was very much a manly man and nothing in the Bible contradicts that. Another is this idea that angels are sort of beautiful, poofy women. Again that is not biblical. Any description of angels in the Bible depicts them as male. The depiction in the television series of angels as more like ninjas would be a lot more faithful to the biblical narrative.

Angel in The Bible Does kind of create an interesting contrast with Ms Downey’s portrayal of an angel in the television series Touched by an Angel 

Forbes Magazine did a feature on the couple and their production of The Bible and future productions based on the Bible. Their success, that I would consider a lot more biblicaly based, then most contemporary productions (yea, just ask me about Noah ugh), anyway “The Bible made its debut in 2013, and even on a relatively esoteric cable channel was able to outdraw the networks; at one point Burnett had the No. 1 show in America five nights out of the week. And viewers couldn’t get enough: The Bible has sold over 1 million copies via DVD and Blu-ray….the movie spinoff, which Burnett and Downey spent an estimated $1 million to bankroll, has done $68 million worldwide…” (Zack O’Malley Greenburg, Dorothy Pomerantz  Forbes Magazine July 21, 2014 pp 55 – 60)

Clearly a faithful rendering of the Bible, not too pious, not too imaginary (yea like Noah) are greatly in demand. God’s story is the most compelling ever: “There are not a lot of books being read these days’, says Paul Telegdy, NBC’s president of late-night and alternative programming. ‘But there is one that’s being read and reread, and that’s the Bible.”

Burnett points out that a lot of contemporary television and movies are biblically based: “…he says take their dominant influence from the world’s most popular book: Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Matrix.” The Matrix??? I guess he’d know better than me. Point being is that too much media has either dumbed down the Bible, or made it too sugar coated or made it to ham handed, none of which are faithful renderings. Straightforward, human portrayal of the Bible is what God inspired the writers of the Bible to write and that has what guided the faithful for 2,000 years. There is plenty of hunger in the world for the real Bible. Let’s faithfully teach, preach and relate the Bible. The Holy Spirit will use that to lead and inspire others, we don’t need to embellish what was perfectly inspired by God.

Where the Christ child is said to have laid His first night on earth

The featured image is where, according to legend, the Baby Jesus was laid after He was born, His first day as a human, as one of us. . 11_12

The featured image is where Mary is said to have laid when she gave birth to Jesus.

Needless to say, what is now an incredible church (if maybe a little over the top) is vastly different then what it was on the first night. A stable, actually almost a cave, with animals, no doubt dirtier than we would even keep  a stable today. A very humble place, where Jesus was born. He who gave up the glory of heaven to live life as a human.

Best wishes for a Blessed Christmas, remembering that it really is about God being with us in our lives on earth. That is certainly something to celebrate, and we should, but while we have so much and we celebrate amid all the lights and warmth of modern life, the Baby was born in the dark and the cold. “…the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God…” (John 3: 19-21 ESV). We have all done evil, but Jesus came into the world, that new Baby so that we may come into the Light and it started here in Bethlehem, so that we could come into the Light and know peace with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Science and Christian apologetics

It is important. I realize that too much focus on the “apologetics”, the issues that are based more in terms of history, science, social sciences, archaeology should never overshadow faith. They should never be the reason that we are Christians, that we know Christ as our Lord and Savior. Because I am giving this issue a lot of attention is not my way of saying Christianity is real, look at the documented facts. People may find the arguments compelling, they may even be convinced, but you are going to be saved by what the Holy Spirit is doing in your soul. Hey, who knows He may be using these arguments, but the cut to the chase is that coming to know Christ as your Lord will be because of Him, not because of what you do.

Now that I’m over the Gospel disclaimer, I move along to a book that I’ve been reading by Philip Yancey. I’ve written about those writers who, if they published their grocery list, I would read it. Yancey is one of those writers and much thanks to my brother in the Lord Rev Dr Mike Ramey for this gift.

The book, “Vanishing Grace”, seems to be sort of in the series of books, “What’s So Amazing About Grace”, for example, by Yancey. He discusses the fact that Christians and the church don’t seem to really practice grace and that there certainly isn’t any grace in contemporary society.

As part of the discussion he includes a section on the relation of science and Christianity. Most would say say that they are mutually exclusive, but when God is the One who has created all that science studies, clearly they aren’t. Yancey quotes Sir William Bragg, “…a pioneer in the field of X-ray crystallography, who was asked whether science and theology are opposed to one another: ‘They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers on my hand are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped.’ For much of history the great scientists – Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz – believed their discoveries in ‘the ‘the book of nature’ comprised a form of revelation, teaching us clues about a creator God.” (p 177)

“I suggested to the panel that although science had contributed much to modern life, there are at least three important questions for which it has no answers since they lie beyond its bound. (1) Why is there something rather than nothing? (2) Why is that something so beautiful and orderly? (3) How ought we to conduct ourselves in such a world?…” (p 177)

Theology used to be considered the “Queen of the sciences”, that it was where all the sciences end up. There are those whose “faith” is in science, the evolutionists believes in Darwin’s writings even though it is not even a good hypothesis, no less ‘theory’. Their faith, compared to the reality of Jesus and His incarnational ministry, is most definitely “blind faith”. The historocity of Jesus is really beyond dispute, He is the most studied individual in history and despite fallacious attempts to discredit the original texts and writings down through the centuries the certainty of His life is more than any figure in antiquity.

Another discussion that’s been impressed on me is the impossibility of life here on earth. “Scientism” (my own creation for the ‘religion of science’) ‘science’ insists that there has to be life elsewhere. Hey maybe there is, God’s going to do His will regardless of the ‘impossibility’ involved, we’re here aren’t we? But to say that life can be blindly reproduced in other parts of the universe, despite the impossible odds of life on earth, is just not dealing with reality. “…In their heyday the Soviets swept the sky with huge antennas listening for messages. Some scientists estimated the universe the universe would reveal a hundred thousand, perhaps a million advanced civilizations. Enthusiasm cooled as, one by one the projects failed to turn up any evidence of intelligent life.” (p 178)

I would quickly note that the “SETI” program in the United States has been mostly discontinued except for sparse private funding.

Yancey elaborates on the discussion about the impossibility of blind creation of the universe. “Scientists themselves who calculate the odds of the universe coming into existence by accident suggest such boggling figures as one in 10 to the 60th power. [That’s one chance in 10 with 60 zeros]. Physicist Paul Davies explains, ‘To give some meaning to those numbers, suppose you wanted to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. Your aim would have to be accurate to that same part in 10 to the 60th power.’ Stephen Hawking admits that if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had varied by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed. That’s only the beginning: if the nuclear force in certain atoms varied by only a few percentage points then the sun and other stars would not exist. Life on earth depends on similarly delicate fine-tuning: a tiny change in gravity, a slight tilting of earth’s axis, or a small thickening in its crust would make conditions for life impossible.” (p 178)

Yancey goes on to describe the responses of the high-priests of evolution (my snide remark) and undirected creation which are to the effect, ‘hey don’t try to confuse me with the facts: “Confronted with the staggering odds against random existence, Richard Dawkins simply shrugs and says, ‘Well, we’re here, aren’t we?’ He, along with many others, sees no need to assume a Designer behind such apparent evidence of cosmic design (although in a conversation with Francis Collins, Dawkins admitted that the fine-tuning of the universe is the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter). Scientists in the U.S. are equally divided, with 51 percent believing in some form of deity.” (p 179)

“…it occurred to me, that if the odds were reversed we likely would not have had a discussion. If someone calculated the odds of God’s existence at one in 10 to the 60th power, I seriously doubt any scientists would waste their time discussing faith issues with people who believed in such an improbable God. Yet they happily accept those odds of a universe randomly coming into existence on its own.” (p 179)

Yancey goes on to write about the narrow mindedness, the denial of facts that’s often attributed to religious fundamentalists that scientists demonstrate. They are not just in denial, but they are pejorative in their attitudes towards people of faith. There is certainly antagonism by Christians towards the secular, but the antagonism of those of the faith of “scientism” is much more narrow minded and dismissive. “When I talked with the Nobel laureates later, I asked about their own belief or disbelief in God. All three spoke of a strict Jewish upbringing against which they later reacted. Martin Perl, discoverer of the Tau lepton particle, said candidly, ‘Ten percent of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens, half are creationists, and half read horoscopes each day. Why should it surprise us if a majority believe in God? I oppose all such superstition, and in my experience religion is mostly harmful. I limit my beliefs to observation, not revelation.'” Wow, that’s pretty narrow and bigoted. I know Yancey would not appreciate my lack of graciousness, but come on, really I’m just pointing out the obvious.

This obvious narrow-minded bigotry is not, mercifully, universal among scientists. But you have to wonder, people who claim to be driven by “observation”, can sure pick and choose and live in such denial. “…Albert Einstein, was more receptive to faith: ‘The scientist must see all the fine and wise connections of the universe and appreciate that they are not of man’s invention. He must feel toward that which science has not yet realized like a child trying to understand the works and wisdom of a grown-up. As a consequence, every really deep scientist must necessarily have religious feeling.”‘

“Einstein marveled that our minds are able to assemble patterns of meaning. As he told a friend, ‘A priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.’ The fact that this isn’t the case, that the cosmos is comprehensible and follows laws gives evidence of a ‘God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists.’ Yet Einstein could not bring himself to believe in a personal God such as the Bible portrays…” (p 180)

“Other scientists share Einsteins’ childlike wonder. Alexander Tsiaras, a professor at the Yale Department of Medicine, entranced a sophisticated crown at a TED conference with a video of the fetal stages from conception to birth. he had written the soft ware to utilize an MRI technique that had earned its inventor a Nobel Prize. The video compresses nine months of growth and development into a nine-minute film…”

“The human body largely consists of collagen – hair, skin, nails, bones, tendon, gut, cartilage, blood vessels – Tsiaris explains in his introduction. A rope-like protein, collagen changes its structure in only one place, the cornea of the eye, where it spontaneously forms a transparent grid pattern. As the video of speeded-up fetal development plays, this mathematician drops his objectivity, awed by a system ‘so perfectly organized it’s hard not to attribute divinity to it… the magic of the mechanism inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go.'”

“…the programmer Tsiaras remarks, ‘The complexity of the mathematical models of how these things are done is beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with marvel: How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us? It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.'” (p 181)

Carl Sagan was, of course, the  high priest of “scientism” and was usually very antagonistic to Christianity. Despite his profound knowledge of the facts, he seemed to be much more motivated by self-promotion and enhancing the faith system he promoted. But Yancey writes:”…In an exchange of letters with Robert Seiple, then president of World Vision USA, Carl Sagan clarified that even he remained open to belief in God. He viewed with wonder the beauty and simplicity in the laws governing the cosmos. Summing up, he wrote, ‘As a scientist, I hold that belief should follow evidence and to my mind the evidence of the universe being created is far from compelling. I neither believe nor disbelieve. My mind is, I think, open, awaiting better data.'” (p 182)

I really hate it when someone plays me, and Sagan was playing. “Creationism” isn’t “proved” so I’m going to be a proponent of something that is statistically impossible, unless and until such time as there is proof of God. Huh? This is a person that is in denial. People like this love to talk about their objectivity, but they have none. Sorry, but these are narrow minded fanatics that insist that you agree with them in every detail or you’re the one with a problem. I’ve been watching a television show on people and their families who are out on the street abusing drugs. Frankly the attitude seems to be the same in “scientism”, don’t judge me, don’t try to confuse me with the facts, just enable me and leave me alone in my addiction, my denial, my own little abusive world. There are many scientists that are objective and have no problem trying to reconcile the reality of the created universe and the One who created it and His Son Jesus Christ who came to reveal the will of the One through whom all was created. I have always had an interest in various aspects of science long before I was a Christian. The astronauts of the 60s and 70s were my heros, I loved reading books dealing with astronomy and space travel. One of the earliest books I remembered reading was on Clyde Tombaugh, you know who he is? I have always been fascinated by astronomy, but seriously don’t get in my face trying to convince me that this massive, elaborate, amazing universe all spun into existence by accident. It didn’t and anyone who can understand probability understands that.

Pastoral Ministry, Seel Sorgers Soul Doctors

As I’ve said before I spent 20 years working in corporate finance for some of the largest companies in the world. I also spent 29 years in the United States Coast Guard Reserve, even reserve members of the Coast Guard are operational and are expected to be as currently qualified in their position as those in the regular Coast Guard. I’ve had many and various vocations/callings and I am convinced that God has used each of those different vocations as a way to prepare me for ministry. I often find it bizarre that I’m often treated as though having a collar on means that my brain is somehow disengaged. I find it equally bizarre that those with little or no training presume to be ministers and usually have no clue what that means. Luther said that pastors are “seel sorgers”/”soul healers, to help us grow in Jesus and to confront the world as a Christian. Those who presume to be pastors don’t understand the trials of life and they often treat worship as a sort of time to have a little party instead of dealing with the realities of life in Jesus. Sure being a Christian should be celebration, but too often we treat it very lightly and then with the trials of life arise we reject God and isolate ourselves. Pastors, like me, are professionally trained to help those going through the trials to grow in their trust of God instead of being discouraged and rejecting Him, thus being a “soul healer”. So one of the books that I keep right on my desk to remind me that as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to serve those in my parish in all aspects of life, the good and the bad. So take a little time to read St Gregory’s “The Book of Pastoral Rule”. The title might seem a little authoritarian for our post – modern ears, but seems to me that we want our pastor to be a strong leader in Christ. The church of the last, at least, hundred years has been far too concerned with “people-pleasing” and too little concerned with helping people deal with the trials of life in faith in Christ. So this is a paper I did in seminary on Gregory and I hope it gives you more insight into the importance of the pastor and helps you to realize the serious and meaningful role he fills:

““St Gregory the Great (often known in the East as St Gregory the Dialogist was born in the year AD 540 to an aristocratic Roman family.” Gregory’s family was a religious one; his great-great grandfather was Pope Felix III (483 – 492), and another pope, Agapetus (533 – 536), was a distant uncle. His father was also minor church official.

Gregory’s family was well do and as such Gregory was well provided for and received the best education available, which was expected being from such a family.

Gregory had a rather auspicious career he started out as the Prefect of Rome.

He resigned from that position, sold all his family’s property and transformed the family estate into a monastery named St Andrew’s, which he entered as an ordinary monk.

Needless to say this state did not last long.

Pope Pelagius ordained Gregory to the deaconate and then appointed him apocrisiarius (i.e. papal representative to the emperor in Constantinople). He was there as a representative of the Pope and as a political representative of Rome. He also served as the abbot of the community he was a part of in Greece. He spent seven years in Constantinople he was also the abbot of his community and started a commentary on Job.

Six years later he returned to Rome where he assumed the office of abbot of St Andrews.

Five years after that Pelagius died and Gregory was elected Pope and he served until his death in 604 serving as Pope fourteen years. As Pope he daily fed the indigents of Rome, refurbished the city’s dilapidated churches and fortifications, the initiation of monastics to the Papal curia and reintroduced Christianity into Britain. [1]

The Liber regulae pastoralis was written before 590. It is also referred to as the Book of Pastoral Care.  ” … after reading the Book of Pastoral Rule, the Byzantine emperor Maurice ordered the book to be translated and disseminated to every bishop in his empire.”[2] The Bishop of Cartagena expressed reserve “that it might be beyond ordinary capacities….It was recommended to Charlemagne’s bishops…Alfred the Great in the late ninth century, translated it into English.”[3]

Most historians agree that Gregory was Augustinian in his theological perspective [during this period there were various heresies that were beaten back by the Roman church which included the Pelagians, Donatists, Manicheans]. While this is about a hundred years after these controversies, there were still elements of various heresies in the church and was a constant concern. Gregory seems less concerned about doctrine and more about practicalities of ascetic living and pastoring, as someone who had been on track for senior positions in the church from the start, he surely had to be aware of these heresies and assuring that his pastors were faithful to the doctrine of the Catholic church.

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire a large number of converts came into the church. Needless to say they were perceived as “lacking the depth of faith that had been possessed by the pre-Constantinian community.”[4] While this had been about two hundred years, apparently the church was still adjusting and two separate types of pastoring had emerged. One was to the people who wanted to lead an ascetic life that is, monks, nuns and other clericals. The other was for the lay person. Clearly Gregory was writing to the ascetics, but mostly as they related to lay people. While Gregory wrote it in the context of his position as an abbot of a monastery it seems that his perspective was more about being a pastor to pastors. His text “defined who should and should not receive ordination, identified the priest’s practical responsibilities, and anticipated many of the priest’s pastoral challenges…to resolve the tension between ascetic idealism and the realities of pastoral ministry.”[5] Gregory “went on to describe the priest’s responsibilities as a combination of the active life of pastoral administration and the prayerful life of the remote ascetic. It was Gregory who first proposed a combination between action and contemplation…”[6]

In Gregory’s book Apology for his flight to Pontus “he concluded that the ideal candidate for the priesthood was a man who had the benefits of wealth and education (in antiquity, only the wealthy received an education) but who had abandoned the pleasures of the aristocratic life and adopted the life of abstemiousness and contemplation (i.e. that life of the monk).”[7] I wonder if this was because Gregory expected priests to be educated and only the aristocracy was educated, or if this was some form of Noblesse oblige or a combination of both. I further imagine that this must have seriously limited the pool of potential candidates.

This book is written as Gregory would guide and teach the monks under his charge at a monastery, “…it develops many of the pastoral techniques employed by the abba.” The book is designed as a way for an abbot to pastor the monks in his monastery. As pastors we are not going to have a senior clergy person watching over us, so we might be well advised to keep this book handy. Read through it once, highlight the pertinent passages and then put it in your daytimer or blackberry to review the highlights once every six months or so. For those things that are pertinent for the post-modern pastor we should give ourselves a regular review to see how we are doing as compared to the ideal that Gregory presents. I know that this will maintain a prominent place on my desk.

I often feel that there are many who tend to trivialize the pastoral office, that feel they could do it just as well as the pastor. The following should be pointed out when you want to emphasize the importance of pastoring to those who might not fully appreciate the pastor’s responsibilities: “No one presumes to teach an art that he has not mastered through study. How foolish it is therefore for the inexperienced to assume pastoral authority when the care of souls is the art of arts.” [8]

“The spiritual director ought to know that there are many vices that appear as virtues. For example, greed disguises itself as frugality and wastefulness is thought to be generosity. Often, laziness is accounted kindness and wrath appears to be spiritual zeal.”[9] This is an important consideration, I know a lot of times I am guilty of the last, justifying my “wrath” by telling myself that I am being zealous as a citizen and a Christian, I’m not I’m just letting something get under my skin. It also bothers me to seen laziness accounted as kindness. So often I see a pastor confronted over a meaningful issue and instead of answering the question directly or offering to set a time to sit and discuss the question meaningfully, he just gives a glib answer and sends the person on their way none the wiser, and that person thinking “gee what a neat guy our pastor is”, when he really isn’t he just doesn’t want to take the time to truly instruct someone with a genuine concern.

In another section Gregory gives us some more guidance in terms of how pastors should conduct ourselves: “Indeed, pastors ‘drink the clearest water’ when, with an accurate understanding, they imbibe the streams of truth. But the same ‘disturb the water with their feet’ when they corrupt the study of holy meditation with an evil life. Obviously, the sheep drink that which was muddied by feet when, as subjects, they do not attend to the words that they hear but imitate only the depraved examples that they observe. While the laity thirst for what is said, they are perverted by the pastor’s works as if they were to drink mud from a polluted fountain.”[10] In my time here I have twice, two different seminarians, on two separate occasions, been in the weight room and just absolutely pornographic music was on, one time two women seminary employees were in the room. What kind of witness is that? I know I’ve been in plenty of workout areas that were R rated. What lay people see us do is a testament to them of what we are truly devoted to. This is not prudishness on my part I can’t in good conscience write down what was playing, I was a sailor for twenty nine years and I could have taught both of the seminarians in question plenty that they haven’t an education for. The first time this happened my youngest son was seventeen years old. I can well imagine what he might have been thinking associating that music with the seminarian who was there and I cringe to think what the two women who were there were thinking. I went to the first one and pointed out that it wasn’t appropriate. His response took me aback when he said “oh, sorry I didn’t notice.” We have to be diligent in noticing the things that we do that may offend our weaker brother or sister and clearly this is a theme that is important to Gregory also.

Gregory had a great concern with men not squandering their gifts to serve others. In the following quote he emphasizes the need for us, as pastors, to set outside our desires and be ready to serve: “…when one is subject to the dispositions of the divine Will and averse to the obstinacy that comes from vice, if he is already endowed with gifts whereby he might help others, then at the time when he is commanded to accept a position of spiritual authority, although he might flee from it in his heart, he should be obedient, if reluctantly by his actions.”[11] There are certainly times when I’d rather sit at home and watch the Red Sox instead of having to go and visit someone who could use pastoral care.

On the flip side, Gregory describes the man “who feels the burden of worldly cares to such an extent that he never looks up to what is lofty but instead focuses entirely upon what is tread upon at the most base level.”[12] The quote is rather extensive from here, but suffice to say Gregory is talking to pastors in terms of watching out for themselves that they can become so burdened and forget about God. But to also watch out for those who we are to care for. It is easy to recognize the need for care for the person in the hospital, for the person who is going through loss, but we often don’t see the person who is burdened down and has lost sight of God and His care. He has become buried under worry and stress. We need to be proactive with that person and also to make sure that we don’t get caught up in constant burdens and cares. Gregory seems to like to create a lot of contrasts, particularly at the end of the book. This is one contrast that is important in the pastorate, that there are many who should be serving, that have gifts for the kingdom and are using them to pursue their own desires. However there are many pastors who are just driving themselves into the ground under the weight of concerns for their congregation, for his family, for himself. Both the one who avoids serving and the one who serves to a high degree need to focus back on the fact that it is not about them, but about God. I am guilty of both ends of this spectrum and I’m not saying that everyone has to be in the ministry, but Gregory’s point is well taken and another aspect that we never seem to truly focus on in our relationship with God.

Gregory sets a very high bar for those who will be a pastor. “The active life of the leader ought to transcend that of the people in proportion to how the life of a shepherd outshines that of his flock…he should be pure in thought, exemplary in conduct, discerning in silence, profitable in speech, a compassionate neighbor to everyone, superior to all in contemplation, a humble companion to the good, and firm in the zeal of righteousness against the vices of sinners..”[13] He goes on to say that the pastor should always be the first in service. “…so that the flock (which follows the voice and behavior of its shepherd) may advance all the better by his example than by is words alone.”[14] If you expect people to be out on a summer Saturday afternoon to knock on doors for the church, you should be out there longer and farther then anyone else. Too often the pastor sees a division of labor, as it were, between the clergy and the laity, that is pastors are in their office writing and contemplating great thoughts and the laity are out doing the work of discipling and evangelizing. I have even heard some seminary students that they expect to work forty hours a week because of their family. No pastors can’t run everything, and do everything, but on the priorities of the church which are pastoral, writing, preaching, counseling, hospital visits there is also the evangelizing, discipling, welcoming, being visible to and sometimes participating in the different groups. In this day and age no one works a forty hour week, at least not those who are trained/educated professionals. The idea that the pastor should be exempt while those in the parish work fifty plus hours a week seems to me to be a modern day example of what Gregory is talking about.

Our society today does not want people to take a stand, to speak out on principle. Gregory chastises those “who fear to lose human favor, [who] are afraid to speak freely about what is right… to ‘go up against the enemy’ is to oppose worldly powers with a free voice in the defense of the flock. And to ‘stand in battle on the day of the Lord’ is to resist, out of love of justice, evil persons who oppose us. For if a shepherd fears to say what is right, what else is it but to turn his back in silence? But certainly, if he puts himself before the flock [so as to protect them]…”[15] How can we expect those in our flock to stand up for the truth at their office, their school, their team, their club when they don’t see their pastor doing it. Most importantly we have been given the responsibility. People aren’t going to like it when we defend the unborn, the aged, the poor, when the world tries to deprive Christians of their rights to witness, to pray and to worship. But we are here to serve our Lord Christ, not to be concerned about public opinion and we have to live that for ourselves and for our congregation.

“Often, however, a spiritual director swells with pride by virtue of being placed in a position of authority over others…”[16] In the modern context I think that we are prone to believe what people say to us about us, we believe too much of what we hear, and we lose the ability to be critical in our thinking on the issues and how we conduct ourselves towards those in the congregation. We get too high an opinion of ourselves, but at the same time we can let people sort of lead us around by the nose when it comes to the issues. “For he controls this power well if he knows how to use it to gain a mastery over sin and also knows how to mingle with others as equals.”[17]

Gregory discusses failure to discipline a little more: “Self-love inclines the mind of the spiritual director to laxity when he observes the laity in sin but chooses not to correct them because he fears that their affection for him will grow dull. In fact, sometimes when he should rebuke the errors of the laity, he actually softens them with flattery.”[18]

Gregory never denies that we should not exert church discipline: “Supreme rule, then, is well administered when the one who presides has dominion over the vices rather than his brothers. But when superiors correct the delinquents among the laity, it is necessary for them to be careful that when they attack sin through due discipline, they should still acknowledge themselves, as an exercise of humility, to be the equals of those they correct… Because if a leader lowers himself more than is proper, he will not be able to affect the lives of the laity through the bond of discipline. Let spiritual directors, then, uphold externally what they undertake for the benefit of others and let them retain internally what scares them about their own condition. Nevertheless, the laity should perceive, through subtle signs that appear at the proper times, that their spiritual directors are humble. In this way, the laity will see what they ought to fear from authority and, at the same time, know how to imitate the virtue of humility.”[19] I find it interesting that now to “lower oneself” does not mean to humble themselves to be an example to the laity, but to somehow compromise your position. That is to make you less credible because you lowered yourself below your position. I think we should define the word as Gregory did and make it to mean that we live as an example to the lay person.

It seems to me that we ought to seriously consider, on a regular basis, if we are giving our flock enough lessons in humility through our example.

Gregory quotes Ezekiel who is chastening the shepherds: “’You did not mend what was broken, nor did you retrieve what was driven away.’ (Ezek 34:4) Indeed, that which is cast away is retrieved whenever one who has fallen into sin is called back to the state of righteousness by the vigorous work of pastoral care.”[20]

Too many times it is a case of pooh-poohing, oh well too bad for John Smith, nothing can be done, he has to deal with his sin. It is as much our responsibility to search for the lost sheep, as it is to exhort the faithful. God chastised Israel for failing to do that, why wouldn’t He chastise us as well?

. “…the spiritual director must be careful that he show himself to the laity as a mother with respect to kindness and as a father with respect to discipline. And in every case, care should be provided in such a way that discipline is never rigid, nor kindness lax.”[21]

“In short, gentleness is to be mixed with severity – a combination that will prevent the laity from becoming exasperated by excessive harshness or relaxed by undue kindness.”[22] I think that this shows some insight that might be ahead of its time. It is so easy to keep resorting to the Law, “this is what you have to do”, but to reflect God we have to be as He treats us, with more then our share of mercy and surely less then we deserve in terms of discipline. God surely knows that so often we mess up and we don’t want to, we feel like we are often floundering and we often lose and he knows that and He waits for us to come back to Him. We need to reflect that in our ministry, to comfort those who are struggling, but to hold accountable those who simply want to see what they can get away with. God is the entirety of humanity, He can be more compassionate then any number of mothers, and He can be as stern as any number of fathers.

When advising people we must differentiate in our approach to people: Men and women, young and old, poor and rich, joyful and sad, subordinates and leaders; he goes on to elaborate in each case, for example of men and women saying that men are compelled toward the heavier burden. Likewise in terms of subordinates and leaders.[23] As in the last comment, I found this one too to be ahead of its time. Frankly it has seemed to me, in our society since at least the 1970’s, that unless someone had remarkable talent, everyone was pretty much pigeonholed the same way. Gregory is telling us for over 1500 years ago that is just not a practical or for that matter useful way to handle people. Certainly this is not a foolproof approach, for example the sick often think they are healthy, the dull often think that they are wise, those who steal that think they are giving more then they steal. It is becoming more and more evident that as a pastor one has to build and develop relationships as much as possible with those in the congregation. The days of trying to deal with all people equally and having glib, quick answers have done tremendous damage to the church and are probably the main reasons why the church has become such a non-factor. For too many generations pastors thought that they could get by and didn’t make a genuine effort to get to know the people in their congregation as individuals. You can always tell the pastor who does, the loyalty of those in his congregation and the growth in his congregation are evident.

I like his illustration with the lazy and the hasty: We should always be striving for greater things so that we do bring on the possibility of falling for lesser things: “For when the soul does not incline itself to greater things, neglecting itself, its desire increases for inferior things. And when the soul does not restrain itself by studying vigorously for higher things, it is wounded by the hunger of desire for lower things. And as a result of its neglect for discipline, it is all the more distracted by the desire of pleasure. Hence, it was also written by Solomon: “The idle are given entirely to desires.”[24] This is an epidemic in today’s society, people think that they are striving for high things such as, the right to free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of privacy, not because these are necessarily noble, but mostly so that they can look at porn, get rid of unwanted pregnancies and adopt lifestyles without taking responsibility for the things that you’ve done. There is nothing noble or compelling in the things that some people crusade for, it is simply indulging their desires. It is embarrassing when people are campaigning for gay rights as if it is some kind of noble action on their part, when others have risked their lives to free people from concentration camps, to be free from aggression or from dictators. I had two great, great uncles who fought in the Civil War, one of who was disabled and subsequently died. He suffered in attempting to free people, not let people indulge in their unexamined obsessions.

In summary St Gregory gave us the compact handbook for pastoral care. It is ambitious for the pastor to try and meet the goals that Gregory sets. However, if we do what we can to aspire and try to attain the goals he sets, we will be far better then what we would have otherwise been. Again this will be on my desk and will be a reminder that I do aspire to the ideals that Christ has given me, I will not achieve these, some maybe and others I will at least get further then I would have otherwise, but it will be in order to follow Gregory’s counsel to strive for the highest so that I will not let lower things drag me down.”

[1] Demacopoulos. George editor and translator The Book of Pastoral Rule introduction p 9

[2] p 10

[3] Wikipedia

[4] p 10

[5] p 12

[6] p 13

[7] p 13

[8] p 14

[9] p 18

[10] p 31 Part I section 3

[11] p 38 Part I section 6

[12] pp 46-47 Part I Section 11

[13] p 49 Part II section 1

[14] p 51 Part II section 3

[15] p 55 Part II Section 4

[16] p 62 Part II section 6

[17] p 64 Part II section 6

[18] p 74 Part II Section 8

[19] p 65 Part II section 6

[20] p 67 Part III section 6

[21] p 67 Part III section 6

[22] p 67-68 Part III section 6

[23] pp 88-89 Part III section 1

[24] pp 125 – 126 Part III section 15

God has given a lot of evidence for His existence

Ravi Zacharias is one of the most influential Christian apologists of our time, I’ve been reading him for a long time. I do copy a lot of things, but there is a lot of great stuff out there that others may not see and that I think is important to share and so I am submitting this for your consideration.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is beautiful and true, yet oftentimes one will ask, “How can it be true that there is only one way?” Odd, isn’t it, that we don’t ask the same questions of the laws of nature or of any assertion that lays claim to truth. We are discomfited by the fact that truth, by definition, is exclusive. That is what truth claims are at their core. To make an assertion is to deny its opposite. Rather than complain that there is only one way, shouldn’t we be delighted that there is one way?
The question really is, how do we really know this is the truth?
Whether Hitler or Hugh Hefner, religious or irreligious, everyone has a worldview. A worldview basically offers answers to four necessary questions: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. In turn, these answers must be correspondingly true on particular questions and, as a whole, all answers put together must be coherent.
Taking it a step further, the three tests for truth must be applied to any worldview: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance. When submitted to these tests, the Christian message is utterly unique and meets the demand for truth.
Consider the empirical test of the person, teaching, and work of Jesus Christ. A look at human history shows why he was who he claimed to be and why millions follow him today. A comparison of Jesus’s teachings with any other claimant to divine or prophetic status quickly shows the profound differences in their claims and demonstrations. In fact, none except Jesus even claimed to be the divine Savior. His offer of grace and forgiveness by being the perfect sacrifice of our offense is profoundly unique.
I position the sequence of fact and deduction in the following way: Love is the supreme ethic. Where there is the possibility of love, there must be the reality of free will. Where there is the reality of free will, there will inevitably be the possibility of sin. Where there is sin, there is the need for a Savior. Where there is a Savior, there is the hope for redemption. Only in the Judeo-Christian worldview does this sequence find its total expression and answer. The story from sin to redemption is only in the gospel with the ultimate provision of a loving God.
But the question can be pushed back further. Does this not all assume that there is a God? Yes, it does, and there are four stages in the argument. The first is that no matter how we section physical concrete reality, we end up with a quantity that cannot explain its own existence. If all material quantities cannot explain their own existence, the only possibility for self-explanation would be something that is non-material.
Secondly, wherever we see intelligibility, we find intelligence behind it. Thirdly, we intuitively know that our moral reasoning points to a moral framework within the universe. The very fact that the problem of evil is raised either by people or about people intimates that human beings have intrinsic worth. Fourthly, the human experience in history and personal encounter sustains the reality of the supernatural.
There you have it. Who is God? He is the nonphysical, intelligent, moral first cause, who has given us intrinsic worth and who we can know by personal experience.
The verification of what Jesus taught and described and did make belief in Him a very rationally tenable and an existentially fulfilling reality. From cosmology to history to human experience, the Christian faith presents explanatory power in a way no other worldview does. Our faith and trust in Christ is reasonably grounded and experientially sustained.
I often put it this way: God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. But He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone. Faith and reason must always work together in that plausible blend.
Many of you may be familiar with my own story. I was born to Indian parents and raised in India. My ancestors were priests from the highest caste of Hinduism in India’s Deep South. But that was several generations ago. I came to Christ after a life of protracted failure and unable to face the consequences, sought to end it all. It was on a bed of suicide that a Bible was brought to me and in a cry of desperation, I invited Jesus Christ into my life. It was a prayer, a plea, a commitment, and a hope.
That was fifty years ago. I hardly knew what lay ahead of me, except that I was safe in Christ’s hands. Now as the years have gone by and in 2014 we celebrate thirty years of ministry at RZIM, I marvel at the grace and protection of God and the doors he has opened for our team. And more and more, I am convinced that Jesus Christ alone uniquely answers the deepest questions of our hearts and minds.
• This article was posted in: Just Thinking Magazine

.
• This article was posted in: Just Thinking Magazine

God uses all creation, because He made all creation. Isaiah 45: 1-7 First St Johns October 19, 2014

Please click on the above link to hear the audio sermon:

We make our beginning in the Name of God the Father and in the Name of God the Son and in the Name of God the Holy Spirit and all those who know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him said … Amen!
“Thus says the LORD to his anointed Cyrus…” That’s rather odd, who is Cyrus?… Why is God telling Isaiah that Cyrus is His anointed? … Isn’t anointing reserved for those who are God’s? Cyrus is a pagan from Persia. Quoting from the Chronological Study Bible; “In 559 BC Cyrus the Great became the ruler and founder of [a dynasty] of Persia which expanded quickly in all directions to become a world empire. … Cyrus ultimately conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire …”1 The writer goes on to point out that those in the ancient world would ask “What God has empowered this Persian king, Cyrus?” Well ancient people had it right in the sense that God does empower us. They had it wrong in the sense of trying to figure out “what ‘god’”. Why … Ya, there’s only one God. Cyrus would have worshiped Marduk, Bel and/or Nebo. Did any of them give Cyrus what it took to conquer most of the known world? No! Why? It says right here in our reading in Isaiah; “Thus says the LORD to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held – to subdue nations before him … For Jacob [when we see that, we know Yahweh is talking about … Israel] My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect, I have called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me… I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45: 1, 4-5, 7 NKJV) So for all those in the world who like to say; “Well my ‘god’”. Well that’s all it is, their ‘god’. Even in writing that’s twenty-five centuries old, I don’t hear any mumbling here, do you? Yahweh is clearly saying … I am the LORD, and there is no other and in the Hebrew I am, there is are all forms of the name that God told Moses what His Name is, what Jesus told the Jews who questioned Him, God’s Name is the great I AM and there is no other.
Sure we can make it up, we can live a life that is deluded and full of lies. We can make these little idols in our lives and call them “god”, rely on them, but as Yahweh speaks to Cyrus, He is telling us; “I am the LORD, and there is no other”. Scripture is God’s word to us and when He tells us who He is and what He does, that’s the way it is and we need to get over anything else we think or do about Him.
There is a cylinder, which is the form of writing that the people in the Middle East used at the time, dated 538 BC that announces that Marduk chose Cyrus to conquer the world.2 Well … NO! Have you seen that cylinder? I haven’t. It is one archaeological artifact that’s certainly interesting, but what writing from that period has survived from then until now that the entire world knows? The Bible, Holy Scripture, which says very clearly, “I am the LORD, and there is no other.” We know that from 2500 years ago until now, I’m pretty sure that what Marduk “says” today, doesn’t matter to anyone.
The Babylonians had originally conquered Israel and Judah. They deported the best and the brightest of Israel to Babylon and they abused the Israelites and had shown them no mercy. Israel may have been conquered by Babylon as a judgment on the Jewish people, but contrary to the thinking of the time, that did not give Babylon the right to abuse God’s chosen people, they were still God’s elect. It’s like with my little brother, I can pick on him, but no one else better try to pick on him. In Isaiah 47 God makes it very clear to the Babylonians what happens when they picked on Yahweh’s people: “I was angry with my people [Yahweh says in chap 47] I have profaned my inheritance, And given them into your hand. You showed them no mercy: For you have trusted in your wickedness; You have said, ‘No one sees me’; Your wisdom and your knowledge have warped you; And you have said in your heart, I am, and there is no one else besides me.’ Therefore evil shall come upon you; You shall not know from where it arises. And trouble shall fall upon you; You will not be able to put it off. And desolation shall come upon you suddenly,”…(Isaiah 47: 6, 10-11 NKJV) God is now going to use Cyrus to bring judgment on the Babylonians who have abused His people. Remember when God says: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19) He’s making it very clear to the Babylonians that is the case and His vengeance, through Cyrus on behalf of His people, Israel, will not be pretty.
God tells us He’s a jealous God, well this is partly what it means, He can take us out behind the woodshed and let us have what-for, but He’s not going to stand by while we are being abused by the world. We are His, and He expects us to trust in Him, to put our faith in Him, the faith that He give us. When we fail to do that, when we sin, when we make ourselves, our own idol, He is going to discipline us. That’s a good thing, do you really want God to just stand by and watch you sink into sin, to fall away from Him and be swallowed up by the world? Would a Holy, faithful, loving father do that? No! So He will resort to discipline to get our attention, to get our focus back on Him and away from a violent and cursed world. He may use people like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus to impose that discipline, does that mean He loves us less? No, it means He loves us enough to do what it takes to keep us in His will and not lost in the world’s.
God uses many trials and enemies to focus on Him. In the movie God’s Not Dead there is a twenty-something young lady who is right on the top of her game. She has built a big-media following, she is on the go, interviewing the movers and shakers of entertainment, her boyfriend is a wealthy and powerful financier, the sky’s the limit and then one day she goes in for a medical exam. “You have cancer, the doctor tells her and you may not live.” Her response: “I don’t have time for cancer.” I’m not going to tell you how that plays out, you have to come and see the movie, but she was her own idol, it was all about her and how she had created her own world. God forces His way into that world and tells her, that it’s all about Him, not about her. She may have done all these things in her life, but at some point there will be a day of reckoning and she will have to surrender to the fact that it is all about God. We will all have that time of reckoning. For her that time was when she was told she had cancer. You can be in denial of these things, you can run your own game. But in the end God makes it very clear to all of us, that we will have to turn to Him. We may still resist, but it will be a done deal and God will have His way, just as He did with a king, Cyrus, who did not know Him and a people, Israel, who rejected Him.
Rev Dr Dale Meyer in his “Meyer Minute” for October 17 talks about how God can use the result of our sin to bless and benefit many generations. We certainly watch with concern the events surrounding the Ebola virus. We forget that there have been many serious diseases that have spread through our country. Only about 60 years ago, polio spread through the United States. Dr Meyer writes about a cholera epidemic that swept through St Louis in 1849. “The epidemic was devastating to Johann Friedrich Buenger, an immigrant and Lutheran pastor.” His first wife died in the epidemic and their three sons had died in infancy before the epidemic. He remarried and had four daughters with his second wife, two who died in infancy. He was led by God to establish the Lutheran Hospital in 1853, from which the Lutheran Foundation of St Louis, Lutheran Senior Services and Lutheran Family and Children’s services now serve thousands.3
Ebola is not of God, war and abuse are not of God, cholera is not of God and a king in the Middle East 2,500 years ago may not know God. All the evil in the world is the result of man’s sin, yours, mine, the whole world’s. We certainly don’t like it, we are certainly going to have fear about it, but as those who are saved in Christ, we trust that our fear is rapidly turned into faith. Not because of what we do, but because through the sacrifice of Jesus, we are saved, we know how the story ends, for the world, and for us individually. Remember our reading from a few weeks ago: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Rom 8:28 ESV) God will unleash evil on those, like the Babylonians, who were evil, we who are saved in Jesus, who are made holy in His sacrifice, we will also deal with evil, but out of that God will use it according to His purpose. As Dr Meyer notes: “the love of Christ motivates God’s people to meet human need and God multiplies the blessings.” How is that agape love that we have from Jesus motivating you? You trust that God is just and will repay those, like the Babylonians, who abuse His people. Since we are freed from the hate and bitterness of the world, we go on to the things of God. He guides His Israel, us, back to our promised land and by doing so enables us to serve Him and all of His creation. How can you trust that God is protecting you? You don’t have to fuss about the evil that’s going on around you, and because you are free from that, what do you do in order to serve those in the world to the glory of our God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The peace of God which passes all understanding keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Shalom and Amin.