The Clues For God

(Chapter 8 in Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God) The person who says there is a need for an absolute, airtight, irrefutable proof for God sets himself up for failure because of his absolute assumption—a great weakness of over rationalization. But if you are willing to examine clues, reasonable explanations, then the move of faith gains stability within the mind. Keller offers several clues to the questioning mind. The Mysterious Bang. Most scientists talk about a Big Bang beginning to the universe. They cite evidence of outward expansion from a single point. Working backwards, they arrive at a single point about 15 billion years ago when something happened to begin what we know now. An obvious question is, what happened prior to the Big Bang? What caused it? Was it a who? Or Who? Could it have been God? The Cosmic Welcome Mat I call this the “life has happened” argument. It is based on the reality we experience. Life in a multitude of forms. The challenge is that there are so many physical constants that must be just so, for life to happen—things like gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. Some have said that there are at least 15 such constants and any variation in one of them by as much as 1 in a 1,000,000 would unbalance the whole. Alvin Plantinga offers another way of looking at it. Suppose you and three friends were playing poker. You deal, and as you deal you get four aces. Eyebrows are raised, laughter erupts. And then you deal again, and again get four aces. Maybe you do this twenty times in a row. Your friends now think you are a cheater. You claim, “There might be an infinite number of universes and maybe we just so happen to be in the one where every time I deal, I get four aces.” Now such a statement cannot be proved either way. Your friends however, if you lived in the old west, would have their six shooters out! The Regularity of Nature This one’s easy for most of us. Stuff happens on a regular basis, like the sun coming up. The regularity of scientific events is what enables people to learn by observation. Pretty soon we learn, that in the same circumstances, water always boils at 212 degrees. Philosophers however, push beyond such common sense, and say that just because it has happened in the past, it doesn’t mean it will happen in the future. That’s pure assumption on a philosophical basis. Of course they still count on boiling water to brew their tea! The Clue of Beauty Just about everyone, at some time or another, is struck by beauty. It could be music, or nature, or literature, or art, but there is some kind of innate desire or longing that only something beautiful touches. Of course that touch is imperfect in itself, there is the longing for that ‘more thing’ which the experience of beauty hints at. And it is this hint of beauty that gives another clue to God being out there. Is it proof? Some say yes, others say no. Let’s continue to call it a clue. The Clue-Killer... Those who are opposed to seeing God in anything and who demand some kind of airtight proof are often influenced and often influence others by a promotion of evolutionary science. They say everything is really just a result of random interactions of chemicals and atoms and electrons. ...killed When they say this they suppose that talk and thought of religion and God are knocked asunder. What they usually forget is that the same premise that would push away talk of God (“It’s just an evolutionary result that enabled some people to survive better, it doesn’t correspond to any reality, it’s just chemicals and such…”, what they usually forget is that that same premise cuts the feet out from under their own idea. For ultimately, it too, is only the result of some random chemical, biological, physical interaction. (And if that is the case, then so too, any musing about anything. Meaning and knowledge have no substance, only appearance.) The reality though is that no one can live that way. Everyone believes some things, discusses some things, even if it would be only biomechanical evolution. A result of these clues (and there are many, many others) is “provocative and potent.” There will be those who say, “So at best you are only offering probabilities. No one can really know if there’s a God or not.” Keller says “Not exactly.” But that is the next chapter!

Half-Way Point

Intermission Keller pauses at the midpoint of his book to muse on what he is seeking to accomplish. He has spent seven chapters handling the most common objections he hears against Christianity. He recognizes that dismantling opposition is not the same as building positive commitment, so he is preparing the reader for seven chapters that point toward reasons for the adoption of Christianity. But before those good reasons he addresses two pertinent questions. The first comes from the common observation that there are many flavors of Christianity. Which one is he talking about? The second deals with a philosophical thorn—rationalism or relativism? Historic Christianity Recognizing both major and minor differences, Keller focuses on that which all Christians tend to agree—the great creeds of the first thousand years. “All Christians believe all this—but no Christians believe just this.” This sentence places the book at the place nonChristians can deal with the most central issues. It also places it in the point that almost every Christian wishes he would say more (like why “my position” is right!). Reasonable Faith Many modern opponents of religion (let alone Christianity) argue for a strong rationalism, or the verification principle. By that they mean that no proposition should be accepted or believed unless the argument is so strong that no normal person could have any reason for not believing it. Some Christians see their faith as that clear and so claim that people who reject/don’t accept Christ ‘simply close their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.’ Keller reminds us that the majority of scholars think such strong rationalism is impossible to defend. He notes that most people agree that every view of the truth contains a subjective viewpoint. It’s impossible not to have one. Keller offers a view that says, examine the arguments for belief, evaluate the claims, and recognize that what you settle on will be what seems most reasonable to you. (Note: Keller does not enter into the spiritual dynamics of why a person believes or not. This is not his arena for that discussion. Rather, he talks as people regularly talk about ideas. What sounds best? Why? Etc.)

What did you do Memorial Day?

A quick report for the far north! PastorServe has been helping a church in the suburbs north of Anchorage to serve their pastor. Men from our team have been visiting and preaching for Pastor Rud. My turn came over the Memorial Day weekend. This is the picture I sent to some friends and family showing our Memorial Day picnic!

Can the Bible be taken literally?

Note: I'm back after a quick/long period of celebration of our youngest son's high school graduation, the close of school-a very busy time for me, and a preaching trip to Alaska. Whew! Now, back to Keller's book, The Reason for God, which is still #30 on the New York Times Best Seller list.) You Can’t Take the Bible Literally A common criticism of Christianity is that the “Christian faith requires belief in the Bible….but today you can’t take it literally.” The usual context of this complaint is either in the realm of science (see previous chapter & post), or history—unreliable or culture—repressive. But is it so? Keller recognizes the popularity of DaVinci Code arguments but gathers good reasons to counter those claims. His first is that the timing of the New Testament documents is too early for the gospels to be legends. The first documents were written at most 40-60 years after Jesus’ death. That would mean that when they were written there were still plenty of people around who would have been eyewitnesses! Not only people who became followers of Jesus, but those who were doubters, deniers and antagonists. “For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take hold in the public imagination it is necessary that the eyewitnesses (and their children and grandchildren) all be long dead.” The reliability of the history can be seen when the apostle Paul said to King Agrippa, “These things were not done in a corner.” (Acts 26.26) The point is that they took place and no one doubted or argued that point. They were recognized as authoritative and eyewitness accounts early. In addition to the gospels being written too early to be manipulations into legends, Keller also points out that the content is far too counterproductive. For instance if the gospels were written to buoy up the early church, you would expect Jesus to ‘make comments’ on some of the debates affecting the early church. He never addresses the question of believers being circumscribed—which was an issue in the late 40’s AD in Galatia. In a similar manner, the apostles are not painted in the most enduring picture. They are seen as “petty and jealous, almost impossibly slowwitted and in the end as cowards who either actively or passively failed their master.” This content doesn’t support any idea that the gospels were ginned up in some way to support Christianity and the early church. Finally, Keller notes that the literary form is way too detailed to be legend. Those who have studied legends and myths of that era note how devoid of detail they are. Yet the gospel accounts include things like the number of fish caught or a teacher doodling in the sand. There is a growing body of scholars who argue for the authenticity of the gospel accounts as being fromm the days of Jesus. What about the cultural questions? The two most common questions at this time seem to be the question of whether the Bible supports slavery and whether it promotes the subjugation of women. Both of these questions are important and are actually helpful in teaching us how to approach the Bible. First of all, everyone must be careful not to take their own ideas of a subject back to the text and impose it upon what is under consideration. For instance, most people today hear the word “slavery” and conclude what is being talked about is the African slave trade. But during Roman times, there wasn’t considerable difference between a slave and a freeperson. They looked alike, were not segregated from one another, made the same wages and in the case of slaves, usually could acquire enough capital to free themselves. Slavery was not normally lifelong. Completely different was the African slave trade, where people were ‘owned’ forever, dehumanized, obtained by kidnapping and trafficked for profit. The Bible condemns this kind of activity! Consider 1 Timothy 1:9-11 and Deuteronomy 24:7. Different. And the practice of such by Christians should not be condoned. But neither should a reader interpose his own understanding on such a sensitive issue back upon the text. The reality is that most of us hold unexamined cultural beliefs and practices. We usually are shocked at what our grandparents may have accepted and practiced. We rarely consider how our grandchildren will consider what we accept and practice. A good example of this would be to consider how modern British people differ from the Anglo-Saxons of a 1000 years ago. Both read of Jesus, coming with angels to judge the whole world according to righteousness (Mk 14.62). Both read of Peter, who denied his master and was later restored Mk 14:67 & 16:7) Moderns seem to shudder at judgment and delight in forgiveness. The ancestors understand judgment and are appalled at disloyalty and betrayal. How could it ever be forgiven? Cultural sensitive questions about Bible meaning are best held loosely. And also with a view as to how they match with the center of Biblical teaching—for instance the person and work of Jesus.

Is Science Opposed to Christianity?

Keller points out the very modern claim that “you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold to religious beliefs.” (Although this particular claim is very modern—Dawkins, 1986 and 2006, my mom heard just about the same thing in 1929 when she went to Coe College—“Anyone who is intelligent doesn’t believe the Bible.”) Of course the question is: is that right? The most common objection is against the reality of miracles. The answer has several levels. First, science admits that it is not equipped to test for miracles as it only deals with natural causes and effects. The next step is a long reach to claim that that proves there can’t be any miracles. What kind of logic is that? Just because I not know Portuguese doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist. The idea behind it all is the assumption that since there aren’t miracles, there can’t be a God who does miracles. So is Science opposed to Christianity? There are many on both sides of the discussion who say yes. It is commonly expressed like this: Evolution and Science don’t mix. Keller points out that there are however, many scientists who are Christians and who hold and teach some version of evolution as a process but do not accept evolution as an “All-encompassing Theory.” There are four different approaches to the problem: conflict, dialogue, integration, and interdependence. Each has its supporters and strengths and weaknesses. The point is that there are many ways to approach the question, with two major emphases. First, science itself is “unable to account for everything (many things?) about human existence to every thinkers’ satisfaction.” And the second is that the “majority of scientists consider themselves moderately or deeply religious.” There isn’t an uncrossable divide between science and Christianity. To those who have a hard time believing miracles, Keller points out that when Jesus rose from the dead, even some of his followers had a difficult time with it. After all dead people don’t just rise again from the dead. Miracles are hard to believe because they are counter to the natural order and our experience. And their purpose seems to move beyond capturing our minds to capturing our hearts. “Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts that the world we want is coming.”

Keeping in Step with the Spirit--Remix

I always learn more by teaching, talking or writing than I do by mere reading or thinking. Putting it down on paper is the best of all--because I can look at the thoughts, mull them over, change them, reword them or delete them. Talking works pretty good too--except for the sad reality that I quickly forget what I said! During a recent Sunday School class we were working on Galatians 5:16-26. This section has the famous verses about the fruit of the Spirit. And it also reminds us of the challenge every Christian faces internally-a spiritual civil war between the the fallen sinful nature and the renewed Spiritual nature. Two points clicked for me this morning. First, There is a strong parallel construction between verses 16 and 18. Both verses contrast the fallen nature and the renewed Spiritual nature. In verse 16 the text says, "live by the Spirit." This is very similar to verse 18, "you are led by the Spirit." The contrasting action in verse 16 says, "and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." The contrast in verse 18 says, "you are not under law." There is something similar or parallel between gratifying the sinful nature and being under the law. It seems that in the rest of Galations, being under law means trying to earn God's favor (or salvation) by doing things He likes or approves of. In other words it means trying to get God to react to what we do. Or more precisely, trying to control God by what we do. In the most religious terms of the context it would be something like--I am following the Mosaic laws so that God is under obligation to bless and accept me. It is a religious way of being your own savior and lord. So how could that be similar to gratifying the desires of the sinful nature? Certainly not in the sense of trying to gain God's approval, because truly pagan people don't seem to care anything for God. The similarity lies in the fact that this gratification is self oriented. When I gratify those desires I am doing what I want, or what I think will best serve me or make me happy. The way it is similar is that at the center of my heart, I am acting as my own god (or savior or lord). I wonder if this is part of what Bill Bright was thinking about when he gave us that famous illustration of the throne in one's heart. Who is on it? Me or Jesus? Whether it is the desires of the sinful nature or living under the law, the focus is the same--I want what I want and I want it now! I want to be in charge. I will run my own life, thank you. I'll be my own lord! Second, This realization then helped me to understand what it is to keep in step with the Spirit. If I understand the work of the Spirit as being to glorify Jesus (John 14-16), then keeping in step with the Spirit means seeing the person and work of Jesus more and more. In essence it is keeping the gospel before you all the time. When Jack Miller (who taught preachers at Westminster Seminary) talked about doing this he said we have to learn to "preach the gospel to ourselves all the time." And isn't this the way the Spirit transforms us? Look at 2 Corinthians 3:18. "And we, who with unveiled faces reflect (or contemplate) the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness..." What is it that changes us--the glory of Jesus. The entire package of his glory--his divine nature, his human nature, his death for the benefit of his people, his astonishing and amazing love and grace. With these two insights in mind, I realized why one of my friends told me his life was radically changed when he began to begin his day by reviewing Scriptures that expressed the work of Jesus to give new life. It can change your life!

Men of Colonial Mountain Climbers--Conditioning

Guys, If you were at the first orientation meeting you heard about the need for conditioning. Most of you already know this and most of you are already doing some things to get ready for the climbs. After Pastor Paul mentioned his conditioning goal, I felt weak. And slow. And old. So I rechecked some correspondance and websites and found a fairly reliable VO2 test that anyone can use. It was developed by Dr Ken Cooper (the Aerobics guy from way back). You can find a link to it here. VO2 has something to do with measuring the volume of oxygen your lungs and body can handle. It is a pretty effective measure of cardio conditioning. If you reach a certain point, then it is likely that you'll do okay in the mountains, at altitude (apart from altitude sickness). The test is simple. Run as far as you can in 12 minutes. Measure it. Compare the charts. The link I gave is measured in meters so I had to convert mileage to meters. For old guys like me it is something like 1.25 miles in 12 minutes. I believe you younger men probably need to go farther! The other factor that you should train for is long walks or hikes. I think the trip up Umcompaghre is more than 12 minutes. grace