Where is God?

I've already been asked this today since severe storms and 68 tornados ravaged the South, which I am in the thick of living in Memphis. My thesis I am writing deals with this question, although in light of evil done by humans, not nature (or God as some see it). I'm by no means trying to "solve" this existential problem like it is an equation; it's not an equation. This is real, it is personal.

A Professor of mine likes to tell a certain Chassidic story about two Jewish men. If I remember correctly, one is just a man who is at the Synagogue to confess his numerous sins, and the other man is a Rabbi who walks in and listens to the man's prayers. The man starts confessing every little thing he has done - I lied here, I didn't follow the law here, and so on - but near the end the man stops and says, "But wait a minute God, what about you? You have taken sons from their mothers, you have let people become ill, you have let people die, you have let people starve, you have let evil prosper..." and on and on the man goes. Finally as he ends his prayer he tells God, "Well let's calll it even." As soon as the Rabbi heard this he looked at the man and said, "Oh, you have let God off so easy."

It's hard not to feel this way. Chassidism fights for the human being before God, and we want to join in some times. The person you asked me "Where is God?" also talked about how this might be an act of judgment. And while we can't rule this possibility out, I find it hard to beleive that this certain person, or any person, can speak for God. Not saying this cannot happen, but let's not jump the gun. God certainly is sovereign over nature, but this does not mean that he is wrong to not intercede when it gets dangerous. If this were the case, then many laws of nature would be unpredictable, and they would cease to be laws. Moreover, you have a slippery slope problem. When does God not intervene? When you'll just suffer a broken arm? How about a deep cut? When does this end?

We must understand a couple of things about the question itself. First of all, to question God is to recognize Him. And this is very encouraging and healthy. Moses, Abraham, Habbakuk, and Job all questioned God, and God welcomed the questions. There is nothing more encouraging to me than to have a person to wrestle with, and you have to if you want to even accept the question. What about the atheist? Who does he question? Nature? To him or her, your life is nothing more than atoms put together.

Secondly, we must understand that God cares. Even in the cold Old Testament, God looks upon his people in Egypt and cares for them. And God comes and redeems them. In the New Testament, Jesus weeps for the effect sin has upon this world. He feels the pain, and He cares.

Now the key to start to open up this issue is to understand that the basis of all existence is to have relationship. God create the world and man for relationship; not because he needed it but because he wanted it. Moreover, God create woman, not for the purpose of marriage alone, but because man was alone and needed relationship. Man needed another human being first and foremost. Man also was endowed with a relationship with nature. This relationship we have not taken seriously, especially in today's world. But God gave laws for the Hebrews that greatly respected nature. There are laws about how you should treat trees, animals, and so on. For instance, it is against the law to eat in front of a hungry dog. For the Christian, we should take the principles of the laws seriously and understand that God wants us to take care of what he gave us dominion over.

However, with the fall came the severence of all relations. God and man no longer have the same relationship because of sin, and neither does man and nature. Nature now works against man; we have to work to gain food from the ground, the animals are no longer kind but fearful of us and we fear them, and nature groans because it has lost its relationship. Now this is not say that nature has a personality, but it is to say that nature is not the way it intended to be, and it, metaphorically, hurts because of that.

So what does this mean? It doesn't mean that if we treat nature better then nature will treat us better. God does not see it that way. When a relationship is severed or hurt, things change on both ends. Neither side is the same in the way they treat each other, or react towards each other. Nature's fury is brought about by man's severence of the proper relationship with it. When you knock things out of place, they will always start to go against each other.

This also does not mean that because I lied last week, I will get hit by a tornado for judgment. Judgment comes in all shapes and forms, and we forget that death itself is judgment. Neither does this mean that nature is getting back at me for putting too much CO2 in the air. I think what this mainly does mean is that we have lost our way in our relationships with both God and nature, and because of this we have to accept that their are consequences for it that are out of our control that will hurt us. It was no different with God, an old girlfriend, and God says it's no different with nature either.

Again, I do not claim to have solved a great mystery or puzzle. I am merely hoping to give people insights to think about, especially Christians. Any atheist, if he is to be consistent, should not have any problem with what has happened. He may care, but he cannot question. The believer in God does have some things to work out, but it is much more comforting to have a God there who can be supplicated and comforting than to have nothing or anyone to truly address this issue with. God is there to listen and to be challenged. I encourage anyone who has struggles with this to pray and challenge God; if He is who He says He is then I am confident there is an answer to be realized. If not now, eventually.

Lessons from Andy Gullahorn - Part 2

A good half inch of dust built up on the pew
There were pieces missing from the stain glass
There was a broken lock on of the basement doors
You could open it if you pushed hard enough
It was winter time, the streets were cold as hell
The layed their sleeping bags along the alter rail

It was holy ground

As the word got out the sanctuary filled
of folks who had no other place to call their home
Tonight they'd share a meal, pass the bottle around
Something they were all acustom to alone
The piano was out of tune, some keys don't even work
One guy could play a song out of the hymnal book

It was holy ground

The local priest soon got word
Of the vagrants in the empty church
He was told to go the house of God
Clear them out cause after all

It was holy ground

He was met at the door by a man with open arms
Saying, "Welcome to the one place we belong"
He saw the shiny floors beneath the sleeping bags
He could hear the sound of laughter down the hall
Later on that night as they broke the bread
He asked them if there's room for an extra bed

Because it was holy ground
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This song makes you rethink many things. What is the church really for? What does the building that the church meets in really symbolize? What makes a moment holy? What does this say about how the church views it's mission now? I think many Christian's think their job is to rid the world of sin instead of being the person that reaches out to the sinner so that they can see and know God - the one who rids the world of sin. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the moto everyone uses knowadays. I agree with this in principle, but I don't know if we need the second part. To love a sinner is obviously not to love the sin no more than loving my brother means I must follow and love everything he does.

Beyond this, what makes a man who is without a home a sinner anymore than you and I? In the book, "Under the Overpass" two men decided to experience what it was like to be homeless so they went to live with the homeless for a summer. They found a lot of them were Christians who just never had someone believe in them and encourage them to get out of the hole the are in. Isn't this typical too? Christians go to "not-so-nice" areas of their town to witness to the homeless and get them saved. What then? We leave them with their Christian homeless shelter. This attitude and practice is unbiblical. We focus too much on the eternal that we forget that Jesus came to give us life now, not one day. The New Testament focuses a lot more on cultivating our new life in Christ than how to get people saved. Discipleship is what we need, not evangelism.

"Holy Ground" nails one main point: what makes holy ground is community with the Godhead and his believers or even just community amongst man. I could say so much more, but this is enough for now.

Lessons from Andy Gullahorn - Part 1

He scoped out the market
All the women and kids
So many distractions
Nobody noticed him

He had a jacket a size too big
A skull cap on his head
Had a couple of homemade bombs
Duct taped them to his chest

God loves that guy
God loves that guy

He followed his heart
to a co-worker's bed
he could have salvedged his marriage with kids
but he chose to leave instead

He thought it was love
but it was just a mirage
so he sits in his car
parked in a closed garage

God loves that guy
God loves that guy

Me on the other hand I can write somebody off
like the last check for a student loan
I can love when its convenient
But its not always convenient
Its not always the easy road
I want to look past the outside
To the well-meaning heart
To the good they forgot they had

Teach me to love, teach me to love
Teach me to love like that

He messed up again
Wanted to disappear
But he can't because he's easy to find
I see him in the mirror

God loves that guy
God loves that guy
so teach me to love, teach me to love
teach me to love like that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One of the best songs I've heard in a very long time. Andy hits the heart of what it means to love as God loves: "I want to look past the outside/ to the well-meaning heart/ to the good they forgot they had." That's it! Everyone can learn from this song; I have, and I realized better what it means to love the way I should. Beautiful...

What Progress Cannot Teach Us

Imagine this: Apple has just developed a brand new ipod. This ipod is slick and has brand new technology in it that can make even smaller with more hard drive space. During the press conference, Steve Jobs gives a catchy, alluring spill on this ipod and why everyone needs one. But right before he ends, he tells everyone that the ipod will only be used as spare parts for previous models. Everyone is stunned! This new, unique ipod is not going to be sold; it is only going to be used so that its parts that are shared with all the previous models may be used to fix defect, old ipods. We would all be scrathcing our heads. Why?

This sad illustration points to a very basic, philosophical principle that is instinctive to almost everyone: what something consists of or is made up of points to what it is for or why it is in existence. To put it philosophically, the ontology or nature of something points to the teleology or purpose of that something. The ipod's nature is to play music - that is what it is designed to do - not to be a parts dealer. Ontology and teleology, nature and purpose, are tightly connected.

It is very important to realize that by knowing somethings ontology, we can learn and, most of the time, see right away its teleology. This points to what is natural for the object. We can also learn the ontology of something by knowing the teleology of it. For instance, I know when I see a remote control that it is meant (teleology) to control a device such as a tv. Therefore, it is quite safe to assume that the buttons on the remote control (ontology) are there to actualize its teleology - change the channel, turn up the volume, etc. This link between ontology and teleology shows us the natural state, expression, and limitations of a certain object. To take away the natural teleology from the ontology (like the ipod example) brings about unnatural, perverse, and illogical teleologies.

Francis Kamm, in an article advocating embryonic stem cell research, makes an interesting point that dabbles with this link between ontology and teleology. She talks about how an embryo that is outside of a sustaining enviroment (i.e. womb) due to in vitro fertilization, and will not be placed into a sustaining enviroment, can be used in biomedical research because they will die anyways. Now the problem I find in this reasoning is not so much what is said as much as what is impied by Kamm. She assumes that an embryo outside of a sustaining enviroment changes its teleology. This means that environment, not ontology, justifies the teleology ascribed to an embryo. Now that an embryo is outside of its natural environment, it is open to any teleology we want it to be like stem cell research. I think the question should be: "Should these embryo's be in an unsustaining environment or not?" Kamm makes a subtle move though by telling us enviroment dictates teleology, which I think is a dangerous move.

What is the proper ontology and teleology of an embryo though? Well the ontology, nature, of an embryo is its DNA, and its DNA points to its teleology: to be a fully developed human being. This means that an embryo's proper environment is to be in a place where the ontology can actualize the teleology. To break this link is to mess with the natural state of an embryo.

I say all of this with great hesitation too. I am very sympathetic to embryonic stem cell research. It could change lives and it could save lives. I have a cousin who is mentally handicaped and it has brought his entire family to the brink multiple times. He is about 5 years older than me but will never hit the maturity physically and mentally of a two year old. Biomedical research can help families and lives to never have to face such difficulties. I honestly do not think though that when it comes to human life you can truly make a utilitarian argument. It is not all about numbers, which is hard to think about in this modern world. We have to respect life before we can justify messing with it.

My Soul's Longing Part 2

"Snatch me, save me, from all that short-lived consolation which comes from creatures; for no created being can fully comfort me or satisfy the longings of my heart. Bind me to Thyself with the unbreakable chain of love; for Thou alone art all sufficient to the soul that loves Thee; and without Thee everything is worthless."

- Thomas a Kempis

My Soul's Longing

"And therefore all that Thou mayest bestow upon me that is not Thyself, all that Thou mayest reveal to me about Thyself, all that Thou mayest proomise, is too little to satisfy me, as long as I see Thee not, and have not become fully possessed of Thee. For my soul can never be truly at rest or enjoy full content unless it rise above all gifts, above all created existence, and find its rest in Thee alone."

- Thomas a Kempis

Timmy Jones Concert

My good friend playing his first show; it was one of the best shows I've seen in town in a very long time...

My Girl... Prettiest One in the Land

The pouty face that gets her what she wants (sometimes)...






Scared of falling off a cliff...

Meeting the Searcher on Their Terms

I've discovered this semester, and espeicially the past few days, that Christianity has a bad name. Just in the past two days, my pastor has been called an a** hole by someone who waitressed for him last week, my church has been ridiculed, and a philosophy professor told me that the intrinsic value of a human being has become so widely held that no one needs to justify why they believe it anymore. Therefore, the ends justify the means in morals.

It has come to the point where you can no longer talk about God first. I'm not talking about the Bible, I mean just God in general. You must now start at the existential aspects of life like love, being human, and so on. You must address the here and now before you can talk about God. You have to link their beliefs or their tensions in life to God. It's a scary world out there, full of hopelessness and searching. And its tearing me apart. I spent a good time this morning praying to God to show me how to talk to these people, and help their search.

I'm searching too. All I know right now is that it is sad that you cannot say what church you go to because it turns people away. I guess that isn't too bad though. Nowadays, to talk to a non-Christian who has learned you are a Christian, you have to ask them to suspend their preconcieved ideas about Christianity. It's not looking good for Christianity in America; makes me want to move to Far East.

Animal Rights and Objective Ethics

How should we treat animals? Should we use them in experimental labs? Should we support modern factory farms?

I've been faced with these questions through reading a few articles for a class. The most interesting article I read was by Tom Regan. We is for animal rights to the point that they are equal to human beings. What I though was really interesting about his articles is he developed a ethical system called "The Rights View". This view is simple: every human being has worth regardless of race, gender, disabilities, or anything else because the are subjects of life, or participants of life. He then moves to the basis that animals, being participants and subjects of life, also have the same rights as humans.

This strong view is hard to justify and ultimately it is unsound. But I'm not focused on that really. My concern is that he never justified why he thought that humans should have moral worth. It was a given to him. This is the greatest question that is begged in our culture today - we assume that humans have worth. I am all for this of course, but we never really see if our worldview can justify such a statement. In all my studies in the university and on my own, I have yet to hear any cogent, coherent, or strong enough basis for the justification for inherent human worth outside of God. It falls apart without a transcendent referent.

So how does a believer in God deal with animal rights? Well a Christian can look to St. Francis of Assisi as a start. He or she can also realize that God created man in His image, but nonetheless gave man the responsibility to be stewards of His creation. These different roles do not neccesitate inequality, but the essence of man does. Man has a glory, likeness to God, "divine spark" that no other has. This does not mean to dominate, but the very nature of this spark is to love, care, and be responsible stewards. We must not neglect God's creation; we must take care of it and respect it.

This obviously means to treat creation humanely. At the same time, we must realize differences in moral worth from the rest of creation and humans. By this I mean that it is better for someone to kill my dog than it is for someone to kill my brother or neighbor. This also means that is possible to have animals in experimental settings that treat them as humanely as possible because it is better for an animal to be the first experiment than a human being.

I say this loosely though, realizing that there are always exceptions. What I am saying means that when a human life is at risk than an animal life would be better taken than a human life. For instance, in the disease of AIDS, it would be worthwhile to test animals, as they did when they tested for a cure for polio, for cures than to just let it continue. This assumes, of course, that no other option is viable or as effective. However, when it comes to testing superficial things such as beauty products, or other such things, we should not even feel the need to endanger lives over such trivial things. But when life, disease, and disability is in concern, I see a moral window (although very small).

Finally, in regards to modern factory farms, they are just horrible. This, however, has to do with reform of the system and not eating animals at all (although I have sympathy to the vegetarian and/or vegan lifestyle). I think it would be smart to find any possible way out of supporting large factory farms that treat animals inhumanely. Unfortunately, this is a hard thing to do, especially in bigger cities. It is important though, and something I'm looking into.

The Saints

Yes, I'll follow the tracks that the saints have trod
By the grace of God
I'll walk in the rain of His mercy
Let it soak me down to the bone
And I'll splash in its puddles
And dance in its streams as I go
And, Lord, I'll walk in the rain of Your mercy
All the way home

- from "All the Way Home" by Andrew Peterson
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If there was one thing I could ask some the Saints like Thomas a Kempis, Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Brother Lawrence, and others it would be" "How does your devotion persevere?" Now obviously the Scriptures and even these Saints give us an idea and principles to follow. But to sit with them and talk to them about their day to day lives would be different I would imagine. It would be a priceless conversation.

I struggle with my devotion daily. I do not expect to be perfect, but I do expect to become closer to God everyday. Sometimes it does not work, and I know that is fine. We all have bad days; my frustration is not with my sin but with my devotion. I think God is more concerned with my devotion than my sin as well; they are very closely related mind you. The Andrew Peterson lyrics above show it clearly: it is by His grace and mercy that I am able to follow the path that the saint's have trod.

What would you ask the saints?

Zoo Day pictures

Savannah and I went to the zoo yesterday and she graciously let me play with her new toy. Here are the few good ones I got:

Faith

Earlier this year, a documentary was released called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". It purported that an archeology team had recently found a tomb that had a man named Jesus in it. If this was the Jesus of the Bible this would have been the greatest discovery in the history of the Western world. Unfortunately it came up well short as every well-credentialed archeologist said it was nothing of the sort. Jesus was a common name and the tomb did not fit where Jesus would have been buried or the income level of Jesus' family. What shocked me however was that the documentary makers made a revealing and stunning comment to soften the public blow on Christianity - they said that the discovery shouldn't hurt Christianity at all. I was screaming in my head, "What?! How do you get that idea?"

The only possible way you can make sense of such a comment is to think one of three things: Jesus' resurrection was spiritual, Christianity is not about facts but faith, or he had no idea that Jesus' death and ressurection is the backbone of Christianity. I would guess that they would not be so niave to believe the last one. It is possible that they are familiar with the debate on Christ's ressurection being spiritual or bodily. But I would guess it was the middle one because that is a common view in today's world, especially the academic world.

But this view of Christianity is become a "Christian" mindset as well. As christians, especially in the west, have begun to lose their identity in the intellectual realm, they have not fought this but actually are now encouraging it. There is a movement happening in the evangelical crowd. It's moving to emotionalism, cliche phrases that have no honesty left in them, and even a lite form of fideism. The reason why is because the Christian worldview, throughout most of the 20th century, had no true, cogent answer to the growing western world. As It lost its indentity in as compitent, reasonable worldview, it drifted into what it was comfortable with. The result is a group that are copycats to culture, mindless in worship, and ignorant in thought. Anyone who has grown up in an evangelical church has heard the verses "God's ways are greater than my ways" and "how unsearchable are your ways oh God" taken out of context at least once. We have come to the conclusion that faith equals not asking questions and not trying to work things out. I wonder what they would do when they realized that Job, Habakuk, Abraham, and the disciples all asked questions.

Christianity has become a religion that is based on leaps in the dark and not truth. These "leap in the dark" moments are called faithful moments. Is this faith?

When Jesus coming into a town, some servants of a Roman centurion came to him and asked him to heal their masters greatest servant from a deathy sickness. Jesus agreed to come the centurion's house. As he came closer to the house, the centurion sent out his servants again and the servants said that their master did not need Jesus to come out of his way for him but that Jesus just needed to say the word and he would be confident in the healing of his servant - for has the centurion had authority to tell people to do things so did Jesus have authority to do what is in his power to do. Jesus said that he had not found such faith in anyone else he had encountered and that the centurion's servant has been healed. What kind of faith did this man have in Jesus? It was definitely not a leap in the dark.

The centurion obviously knew of Jesus and his power. He based his belief on what was true. He heard the testimony of Jesus' miracles and understood Jesus' authority. This is the very opposite many see Christianity today. Many people see Christianity in the light of: their faith makes it true for them. However, this is not how the Bible sees faith. The Bible sees it this way: truth makes their faith reasonable. Truth precedes faith, not the other way around. The centurion heard of Jesus and knew of his power, and based his faith in Jesus on the evidence given to him.

The word for faith in the new testament is "pistis". This greek word is probably best understood as having trust in something that is reliable. It is the idea of trusting in something that has been well tested. It is not a leap in the dark where you are trusting anything, whether reliable or not. Faith, in the Christian sense, is not this. As the centurion trusted in Jesus and his authority because of knowing of Jesus and his works, so do Christians trust in God. The Christian idea of faith is dependent on truth and evidence. They have yet to find Jesus' dead body and I believe they never will because the evidence does not point to his grave but his ressurection. The evidence for the resurrection is obviously not 100% and that is why faith comes in. But I have faith that Jesus did raise from the dead because the evidence points that direction. Faith is not the absence of thought or reason, it is the trusting in the conclusion that the evidence points to.

Obedience

When I was younger, and even into my late teens, I was under the impression that obedience was a necessity to having favor with God. I heard all my life that Jesus loves me, and coupled that was usually the phrase “If you tithe, Jesus will bless you.” Within the fabric of my worldview was this tension that I never liked. But I always stayed in it because the danger of denying good actions at the time was the movement of denying goodness at the same time. It was the movement that said that what matters in honesty and God is okay with your faults and doesn’t expect you to really get over them. Or we’re human and God realizes that – he cares about you loving him and not you obeying his impossible demands. This “honesty” seemed even more deadly – at least my way I was still doing good things. So I chose the approach that if I do good things, then God is in favor with me and blesses me, but if I do bad things, he will chastise me. This is in the Bible, but it is not all there is.

This thought pattern is common too. Many people I have met have this idea that we must have favor with God through obedience, or that my good works will get me one more crown in heaven, or, for the non-Christian, that my good works will get me heaven. The problem here is our view of morality. In his book “The Grand Weaver”, Ravi Zacharias points to a definitive fact that really helps us shape our view of morality: “In every religion except Christianity, morality is a means of attainment.” He goes on to explain that the Hindu and Buddhist use morality to shape and offset their karma, and how the Muslim follows his strict moral code to obtain favor with Allah and hopefully heaven, if Allah so chooses. Christianity doesn’t see morality as a way to attain anything.

But there is more. Zacharias makes a very profound statement about that cracks the door on what morality means to a Christian: “Here the Hebrew-Christian worldview stands distinct and definitively different. Redemption precedes morality, and not the other way around.” We see this in the giving of the Ten Commandments, as Zacharias points out. In Exodus chapter twenty we find a qualifier for the Ten Commandments that not only states God’s authority over law-giving but also states a very indicative statement about the Israelites. Before God gave the commandments he told them, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Here God sets before them that they should do good not because they need to attain anything, but because they are redeemed.

And this is the same in the New Covenant. In the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus looks at his disciples and says,

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. . . Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”

Notice that Jesus said, “You ARE the light of the world”. This is very important because it is an indicative statement. He is not saying, like many evangelists do, that you should be the light of the world and that you must work hard to become it. Jesus says you are the light of the world, which means you are redeemed, that you have a new nature.

Paul pointed this out too when he said, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Once again we see that good actions do attain anything but redemption gives validation to our good actions. As Zacharias says so well, “Jesus did not come to make bad people good but to make dead people alive.”

So what is morality to a Christian? I was at this point as I kept asking myself, “Why am I being obedient?” It is a valid question. If my salvation is not based on what I do, but on what I have become then what role does obedience have? If I’m made holy as the Bible says then why do I still mess up?

These are questions that I still struggle with. One thing that has really helped me to start to make sense of these longings is to realize the purpose of obedience, thankfully, is not about attaining anything; it is to honor and glorify the one who did redeem me. This is why we are light so that we may glorify our Father.

My obedience is also a very important part of my relationship with God – the Creator/creature, Father/son relationship. My obedience is in direct correlation with my closeness to God. The Bible is very clear that God never leaves you nor forsakes you. You push yourself away from Him. This is what happened in Eden. As we read Paul’s words from Ephesians, he makes a wonderful statement about how we were created in Christ Jesus (made new through redemption) for good works. We are made new so that we can once again glorify and honor our Creator. We do good because of who we are not because of what we want to become. This is obedience: submission to the nature God has given us.

Sex: The Need for a Context

Annie Dillard, in her book "Living by Fiction", said that when we lose our context, we lose our meaning. In this work of hers, she dicusses postmodernity's effect on literature then shows how it has moved to our very lives and has effected our lives in the exact same way. She starts with this gripping phrase on losing our context. What is a context? It is the pre-understood circumstances in a certain situation or issue that helps certain aspects of the situation make sense. When we read in a book, "Susie opened the door," we usually have an understanding where she is or at least the circumstances that lead up to opening the door - there is a strange noise behind the door, or she is going to bed. Without this understanding, the fact that Susie opened the door has no meaning or sense to it. In Scripture interpretation we use the context of the chapter, book, covenant, and eventually the entire Bible to understand the verse. For instance John 3:16 without the rest of the Bible is an empty, nonsensical statement, but, within the context of a Creator God who made humans who denied their place as creature as well as multiple prophecies, events, and theologies, it makes much more sense. So if we are to understand what something means we must first understand its context.

From the beginning of time, man has been trying to change the context by which we live. When this happens, we pervert the meaning of life. For instance, Hitler tried to change the context of race and ended up killing many Jews and other races because of this. Hitler said race or blood was the same as the soul; and a "dirty" race meant a "dirty" soul. He made the attributes of a person equate to the person himself. By changing the context of race and soul, he destroyed the very meaning of life itself.

And we do this everyday in our lives. I was thinking of the movie "Wedding Crashers" earlier today. I have never seen it but I was thinking of how we laugh at and celebrate our shame in this culture. Think of the movie (I'm getting the summary from the trailer and from friends who have seen it): two guys sneak their selves into weddings and try to hook up with the girls who are all emotionally charged from being at a wedding. Think of the way woman are treated in that film; they are prey for the sexual appetite of these two men. But even a more staggering thought, think of audience watching this film and laughing at this - think of the women who sat through it and laughed at it, and did not make the connection to that and the guys who harrass them and pinch their butts as they walk down the street. The context of a woman's worth has been destroyed by this culture through this type of entertainment where women become objects that satisfy instead of people to respect and cherish. When we sit there and encourage this behavior are we not admitting its legitimacy in our own lives? Remember the context is how we interpret the meaning of a statement or action. If we see women being treated this way and we see people react in such a way towards it, then the meaning of a woman's worth has been perverted. It is though Hitler has walked into the room and said, "A woman's worth is according to how well she can satisfy." Attributes once again establish the meaning of a life.

This is where the point hits. We have changed the context, which means we have made it something it was not meant to be. If the context gives legitimacy and meaning to the object, person, situation, event, issue, or whatever else, then to fall away from its rightful context is to fall away from it's very nature. Therefore the context of something is the way it is meant to be. Notice the word "meant" in that last sentence. Context gives meaning, and when we lose that context we lose the meaning.

So how was sex meant to be? What is the context for sex? I would suggest that few people actually believe, or can actually live out the belief, that sex is merely for biological reasons. If this is the case, then "Wedding Crashers" really destroys their argument. You can take this either way. If you have a problem with the way it portrays women then you admit that sex does not have a pure biological context because the worth of the women transcends the need for sex. If you want to look at it the other way and say that the portrayal of women is not wrong whatsoever, you dig yourself an even bigger whole (the Hitler hole). So sex's context is bigger than biological reasons, although it does have a part in biology (reproduction, etc).

Now the common idea of sex's context nowadays is that if the two people truely care and love for one another than it is okay to have sex. In this case no one is being taken advantage of, they both understand the responsibility, and they both are actually invested in the other. This sounds very responsible, and it is much closer to a stable context but it's not quite there. Here's why: to understand the context you must go back to the way we were made as human beings. If sexuality is a part of the human make up we must understand why it is here and the meaning of it.

The caring/loving idea has its own problems; it does not have any ground to stand on. Where did this idea come from? How does love and caring for a person legitimize sex? Who said those are sufficient qualifiers? You may say that it is a natural succession to love; meaning that when you love someone then it eventually comes to the point where sex is wanted as a natural expression for love - kissing, hugging, talking, cuddling, spending time together are all ways you can express love too so why not sex as well?

Here is what I think has happened, and it is a clever trick. We have taken certain aspects from the true context, which does have grounds, and made these aspects the ground rule. It is making something that looks similar to the original, but not the original. It is a knock off brand. It takes out certain qualities and only leaves in the ones we all like and calls it the same. This view has actually cheapen sex from its proper context. I'm a guitar player so, to me, it's like taking eric clapton's guitar and making that knock off you find at wal-mart that looks the same but costs a lot different and the quality is much lower. This is an invalid move.

The proper context for sex is marriage. The reason is not because "God said so". The reason is because that is how it was meant to be. This is the only way we can have sex fit its very nature. When God created man and woman, he created marriage. And he said that the man should leave his parents to become one flesh with his wife. Sex is the physical consumation of the marriage. It is priviledge and kept sacred for such a union. The purpose of sex is not just biological reasons, and it is not just to express your love to someone, although it is both. Sex is reserved for marriage because it has a link or relationship with it; we cannot assume they are unconnected.

Sex is reserved for marriage not because God said so but because he created it so. There is a difference. He did not create sex and THEN say you can only do it in marriage, as if a mother says to a child you can have your cookie only after dinner (this is purely a rule). This assumes a separation between the two that is not at all necessary. God created marriage and then gave it its own unique expression that demonstrates the connection only shared in marriage. It is like the cookie's purpose was to be eaten after dinner. This doesn't mean cookies don't exist until after dinner, but merely that the purpose for them is after dinner and to change that context is to lose the meaning of having a chocolate chip cookie (this points to order and the nature of sexuality, not a merely a rule). This way, sex has grounds not just in that there is male and female, but that there is marriage. God created it this way and it is not empty like the faux loving/caring sexual context that has no grounds as to why that is right. Sex is made for marriage, and to change that is to change the whole reason why sex is existent.

Shame

"Through levity of heart and carelessness about our faults, we do not see the pitiful state of our souls, but often idly laugh, when in reason we should weep." - Thomas a Kempis

One thing God has shown me in the past year, through many mistakes of watching many of the wrong movies and tv shows as well as making many wrong jokes and laughing at many wrong jokes, is one of the Enemy's greatest weapons in todays culture. The Enemy has been able to get us to laugh at our shame. Look at the shows and movies we watch: Jack Ass, Borat, anything with Will Ferrel, the Office, and much more. I own a Will Ferrel movie, I own the second season of the Office. I've seen Will Ferrel on the Tonight Show in his underwear and having everyone laugh at him. I agree with Kempis, we should weep over these things or at least feel some sorrow for the "human condition" (a term orignally used to show that man has faults in a negative light, and now we use the term to celebrate film makers because they show this "honest" and therefore beautiful depiction of our imperfect nature; man has grown to love his imperfection). Intsead we laugh. And once we laugh at our shame, we open the door to acceptance and celebration of this shame.

In Eden, Adam and Eve for the first time experienced shame when they realized they were naked. Why then? The "human condition" settled in and they found that they could no longer view their nakedness in the way it was intended. Once they decided to define things, they could justify anything and that is the reason why they couldn't justify their nakedness. Shame hits when we realize things are not as they intented to be. When we laugh at our shame we lose the way we should look at our shame, and thus we not only lose realization of things being wrong but we lose the possibility of that realization. Its a good trick, a horrible trick, a deadly trick.

Divine Revelation

This is the last and probably shortest of this series. The reason is that it does not rely on much reasoning or hard thinking. It is the most common type of revelation to be found in the Bible, but the hardest to believe or grasp. Divine revelation is simply when God shows himself without any means of Christians. It is the burning bush, Isaiah's vision, the Damascus road where Paul saw Jesus, it is the dream that Afarin experienced (the book Persian Springs gives accounts on how God reached out to Persians through dreams, visions, and even speaking to them; its not a book that proves things but it is a book that demonstrates things), and many other real events where God has spoken to man directly.

Now how do we know this reliable? How do we know its not a mere illusion? You can go through Alston's defense through religious experience, but that is not very appeasing, although helps think through these things. Divine Reveation does not rely on the actual events but on the person of God. If the God of the Bible truely exists then there is no reason not to believe these things. Is Divine Revelation proof that God does exist? Most certainly to the individual who experiences it, but I do not think that the purpose is to convince everyone. It is not a normal event because it is more important for God to make sense for your life instead of Him giving you a cool experience. Almost everytime Divine Revelation has been used it was to reach out to someone like Moses or Paul or many of the people who still are reached today by these miraculous events. And these people most definitely turned to God by the attention that God had through these miraculous events, but God wants us to understand propositions and realities in our normal lives that can only make sense through Him. God equally shows his existence in the way he gives meaning to our lives unlike any other worldview can do. A lot of times we like to take the unusual and make it the norm and say that Divine Revelation proves God exists (and that is valid to a point), but it is more helpful to say that God's existence validates the Divine Revelation.

So Why doesn't everyone experience Divine Revelation if it has such a good track record of turning people to God? Why doesn't God write in the clouds that he is there and that the Bible is true? As Dale Fincher puts in his book, "Living with Questions", God does not want to overwhelm us. It is in that moderation between silence and overwhelming us that God best reaches out to us. As Dale said, we would freak out if these things happened to us. It is in the propositional truth of the gospel that God reaches out to us with because it is solid truth that gives meaning of who you are. I know for myself I would much rather have God get my attention through giving me ideas, propositions, and truth that puts the peices together than having a totally emotional experience that, in and of itself, brings even more questions of reliability and so on. God reaches us best when he gives us things that real to us, the norm, and not the unreal or the rare exceptions.

Divine Revelation is real although rare. It is the most bizarre and unsure way that God reaches us, but it is very effective. And this is the end of this little series of Revelation. I learned a lot through it and now it is time to move on to new and exciting things.

Things to come...

So I'm almost done with study on Revelation. It needs some revision but this is merely a getting thoughts out, not so much writing a book. I'm waiting for a book called, "Persian Springs" to deal with the last part of the Revelation series. But until then I have already lined up two more studies.

The first of the two will be on sex. After reading "Sex God" by Rob Bell and thumbing through other books on sex and Christianity, I have found that no one really deals with this stuff dead on. I was very disappointed with "Sex God" because Bell just never seemed quite there and seemed more concerned about making controversial statements that makes the starbucks crowd (who I am one of) go crazy (which it did not for me). I'm hoping to deal with some of the following questions (as well as any other questions someone might want to insert): Why is sex limited to marriage? Why is it such a big deal? Why is "because God said so" a sufficient reason, if it is one? Hopefully I can get through this as to why sex is important, why it is costly, why it exclusive. I just can't wrap my head around it at the moment, it seems like the whole topic is vague and weak at best in Christianity; so we'll see.

The second study will be on Faith. The more I've been studying it the more I realize how little I have. I'll talk about what faith really is, and how it effects every moment and aspect of our lives; so much so it scares me. So I hope this all works out. It should be fun to think these things through and see how real they really are.

One last thing I'll mention in passing. It amazes me in my own life and everyone else's that I have seen how much we have, in this generation especially, seperated truth from life. Our beliefs have become privatized severly as I am failing to see many christians letting their beliefs effect the way they live. Simple example: everyone speeds. No one goes the speed limit anymore. If that is the law and it is not in contradiction to God's law then we should follow it. Every time I see an SUV speed by me with a fish emblem or a Christian sticker on it, I feel ashamed. I'm not saying I don't fail in this because I do in almost every area and that is the problem. I do not recognize the need to have what I belief about my life and the actually living to be connected. This is a big problem in my life, I needs to be dealt with.

General Revelation (Natural and Moral Revelation)

I want to discuss the next two revelations together because when you put these two together they greatly aid in the answer a very perplexing soteriological question: “What about the people who have never heard?” Whenever I hear a sermon on the gospel that focuses on the universality of the gospel (anyone who wants it can have it by accepting its message – not to be confused with exclusivism and universialism of salvation that states that all people of all worldviews will eventually be saved), they seem to skip over this question. Now I understand this to an extent because the people who have heard do not need to worry about this in a direct way. But this is important to acknowledge and discuss for the sake of the integrity of the gospel. If this is not answered, then we have millions upon millions of people ignored by this central matter in Christianity. Therefore, the natural revelation and the moral revelation (both are known together as general revelation) play an important role in God’s revelation to man.

The once championed atheist, Anthony Flew, stunned the philosophical world when he declared his recent turn to theism. He said he made this move because of the perplexing matter of not having an intelligent being behind such a complex universe. He recognized that there is someone who has to be at beginning of this all. I remember back in high school my friend was studying the first people to inhabit what is now the U.K. and these people apparently worshiped the creator god, who brought everything into existence. These all speak of a few of verses in the book of Psalms:

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.” – Psalm 19:1-4 (NKJV)

There is a language that the world speaks to man and which every tongue can understand. This language speaks of purpose, design, beauty, and harmony that need a mind behind it. This is God’s revelation to man through nature. It does not preach the gospel, does not even preach about God’s character; but it does preach that there is a God. How does that justify anything since the gospel is not even known? I will get to that in a minute. First we must understand that there is a natural revelation of God, and that this revelation is enough to assume such the existence of a creator God:

“For since the creation of world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even is eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because although they know God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” – Romans 1:20-21 (NKJV)

Here we see a difficult thing to grasp. Nature has shown God’s power and His Godhead (Godhead meaning his divine nature and thus greater than man). And many, unlike the above mentioned settlers of the U.K., did not glorify God and be thankful (this understood mostly as giving homage to God for understanding that he created everything and thus your life). Now this still seems harsh considering how many cultures started worshipping cats, elephants, and other natural things instead of making the logical connection that the originator of the world could not be from the system of the world. This is why the above verses mentioned people becoming futile in their thoughts. Man is therefore without excuse or without a defense in light of nature before them. Now again, this will better make sense and more just later. For now, let’s just understand what the natural revelation is, how it works, and what it reveals.

Immanuel Kant said that there were two things that always left him in awe: the starry heavens above and the moral law within. He recognized from mere sight that the starry heavens above are much greater than what he knows on earth. Moreover, he realized that man is naturally born with an idea of right and wrong and he could not grasp how this happens. Kant was a devote churchman his whole life and understood where this moral law came from. But for man who has no revelation from God cannot attribute this moral law to the Christian God. Once they here the gospel they can realize it but there is no connection there until then. The moral revelation is that the natural sense of right and wrong, of conscience is a revelation of God. This is a very indirect revelation however. This revelation does not necessarily make a connection to morality and a higher power, but it does make a connection from morality to judgment:

“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” – Romans 2:13-15 (ESV)

I like the Message paraphrase of these verses; they give a clear understanding of what all is implied here:

“Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God. When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God’s yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman.” – Romans 2:13-15 (The Message)

Here is the implication of the moral law: that when man follows the natural moral law they affirm God because it is not something imposed upon them but something innate within. It is in their very essence to see right and wrong, and while this does not automatically make you think of a higher power it does make you indirectly affirm that God is needed. I believe that someone who follows the law that is written on their heart would love the Christian worldview. It makes perfect sense why we are moral when we learn we made in God’s image. So the moral revelation of God is not necessarily revealing an affirmative belief that God is existent, but it does affirm, by submitting to this moral law within, that there is a God that made you that way. The way you live affirms God’s existence in this case. This is not the place to go into the argument from morality for the existence of God because it does not really matter in this case. The bottom line is that the law that God gave to Moses and the Israelites was based on his very nature and goodness. So when we follow this unaware of the law of Moses we are none the less excused by acknowledging this law as real and innate by the way you live.

Now this does not say much still does it? We still have people not knowing of God, their sinful nature, Jesus’ replacement on the cross, and his resurrection. So how can these people who just see nature and say, “Well no one I know could have made this happen. It must be someone greater than I am,” or follow this moral law that is natural to them get into heaven if they do not recognize their hopeless state?

“Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.” – Romans 2:1-2

Here we find a very important qualifier - God judges according to truth. The word truth here can be better translated as evidence. What this is saying is that God judges according to how much he has given you. As the old parable says, “To whom much is given, from him much will be required.” (Luke 12:48) The people who never had the opportunity to hear of Christ will not be damned for not hearing it, but will be judge by what was given to them through creation and the moral law. Now no one knows exactly what is taken into account and how much weight does a certain revelation hold, but God will not be unjust since he will judge you according to how much he has given you. God is very concerned with the people who will never hear as well:

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples built by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us.” – Acts 17:24-27 (ESV)

God is very concerned with every human being and has prepared each persons time and place on earth in history so that they would be able to seek him better. He is a sovereign God who has put care into every individuals place in history so that they might be able grope after him if they chose to. There are many theories that can go into this in detail but the important thing to realize is that God has not neglected anyone but has actually tried his best to draw is free creations to Him. As God said to Abraham, “Shall not the judge of the earth do right?” We trust God to be just, not blindly, but in the light of what he has revealed to us and the justice he has showed in every aspect in our lives and in his relation with man. I have no doubt that everyone who has been judged by God will feel that either they have been fairly judged or God has been to gracious to them. God has reached out to every person who has ever lived through the Scriptures, a Christian, nature, the moral law within, or through divine revelation, which will be discussed next. And people will be judge according to how much evidence or how much has been revealed to them by God. He has put each person in a specific place in history not to neglect them but to draw them to him, and we trust God to be just in his judgments because he was proved himself trustworthy. General revelation (natural and moral revelation) is very real and spoken of in the Scriptures, and it helps us understand God’s call to the lost much more completely.

The Living Revelation

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.”
- Mahatma Gandhi

“If you Christians want me to believe in your redeemer, you will have to look more redeemed.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche

There are five gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian. And some people will never read the first four.”
- Gipsy Smith

“I have met a lot of purported Christians in my day, and while there are a large number who are genuinely kind people, there are an equally large number who are paranoid, hateful, despicable abominations of human beings. I know not to fight fire with fire, but a part of me deep down inside is deeply, fiercely angry with these people. How dare they claim to be followers of a loving God when all they do is hate? How dare they profane such a perfect concept with their pitiful, petty, ignorant complaints? How dare they try to tell me that they are better people than I?”
“One of the biggest tenets of Christianity is that all people are equal before God… Nobody is better than anybody else. And yet, so many followers are full of pride and hubris and the honest belief that they are somehow better than everybody else. How can they justify this? How do they? Have they ever actually thought about anything, or are they actually the brainless robots I perceive them to be?”

I found this last quote on a blog. It’s interesting and eye-opening, and leads us to the second part of this series of God’s revelation to man. Jesus warned us of this multiple times in the gospels. He warned us that if we do not connect truth to the way we live, the gospel to the way we carry ourselves the very thing we believe becomes deniable. The realities of the gospel must reach our everyday lives – our moment-by-moment lives – or we lose our greatest influence in this world today. This postmodern generation needs more than any other generation in history a living example of God and His work. It is not that we now deny beliefs as worthless, but we do deny beliefs that do not practically affect our lives as worthless. This is the second revelation God gives to man, and the most influential in these times: Christians. We are the living revelation to man.

Jesus said: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35

Here is where it starts, the way treat one another gives people the right, which is given by God, to judge Christians. As the blogger said hurtfully above, Christians are not acting like Christians. I travel a lot playing music for youth camps and conferences and one of the saddest things I hear too often is that the youth groups are worse than any other group that these camps and hotels host. They call them spoiled, selfish, careless of others in the hotel and even the property, and many other complaints. What we find then are people looking at this and saying, “If that is a Christian then I don’t want to be one nor let my children be one.” Christians like to point the finger at the devil and “sinners” for pulling people away from the church and away from God, but I think we need reexamine this and look at the sinners from within the church that have pushed people away by the way ignore their beliefs and not apply them to their lives. Jesus goes farther though:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
- John 17:21

Now Jesus really starts to show the true responsibility of Christians. If the Christian is not in unity with his fellow Christians, people can begin to look at the church and say it is all fairy tales. From my own experience I have found that the church has somehow hurt the people who are hateful towards the church. This is not always, but more times than not this is the case. The way we live directly affects the gospel message and the credibility of it; that is a scary thought. We need to realize that what the Bible says has direct impact on the very way I live moment-by-moment. And from there, the Bible is very clear that the way I act has a direct impact on the way the world views, not just me, but God Himself. Christianity is not a vacuum that we leap into that is completely separated from life in the real world.

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden . . . Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-14, 16 NJKV)

Notice that Jesus said you ARE the salt and light, not should be but are. It is an indicative statement. That is who the Christian is, not who he should be. This is our nature that we must follow and live up to. We are to be the light among the darkness. We are to show that Christ is real in our lives and the result is that men will be able to see God in his glory. Ravi Zacharias, who is one of the most influential Christian apologists today, has admitted that his biggest struggle with Christianity and the hardest question for him to answer about Christianity is why so many Christians do not live with this supernatural transformation that they claim. Christians are losing their reputation and prestige much like Israel did when they began to forget that their lives reflected God on earth (Amos 5:2). The Christian is the living revelation that God has to man; Jesus was clear about that. God has declared his followers as evidence to his gospel’s reality, as his message to the world of how he is real, and as his very word in practical, tangible form. The living revelation to the world is what is killing Christianity right now. We must stay strong and obedient to God to show the world the reality of the gospel. God has given man his word through the Scriptures and gave man a propositional, testable, and powerful revelation in these Scriptures. Christians are the ones that show this revelation in living, tangible form. When we fail in this area we fail in showing God to be relevant to us. The Scriptures are relevant to this world whether or not we live it, but if we do not live it Jesus said himself that the world will not be easily acceptable to it. The living revelation of Christians is what will snatch a searcher long before he is able to think through the theology. C. S. Lewis said theology is practical; it is livable, and if we cannot demonstrate it then the world sees no real power in Scriptures, unless they spend the time to take it on without taking on its followers. Who wants that?

I do want to add that this is not hopeless. I know many Christians who truly show the power of the gospel through their lives. To the skeptic I want to say that while there are Christians who live inconsistently with the Scriptures, you must not take that as the final word. Augustine said that we must not judge something by its abuse. Take Jesus on and see how he lived and what he said. I believe if you do that you will find that the behavior of some purported Christians is completely inconsistent with what Jesus really says. A Christian, as the Gipsy Smith quote at the beginning implied, has a burden upon him to be that first testimony but the Christians is far from the truth. Jesus is the truth, the best a Christian can do is demonstrate this truth. The Christian truly is the living revelation to man, but he is at best a revealer and at worst a roadblock - never a falsifier.