Pastor Rob Recommends ... (January 13, 2022)

 Pastor Rob recommends …

  

The Way the World Is: The Christian Perspective of a Scientist

John Polkinghorne (2007)

 

Christians who want their witness to be taken seriously by 21^st century listeners have to account for scientific discoveries in their testimony. Christ, not science, determines a Christian’s worldview. However, science is not to be ignored. The late John Polkinghorne, a physicist and Anglican priest brought these worldviews together in a way that encourages Christians to develop their faith in a world that listens to scientists.

We Need Christmas (John 16:16-24)

Third Sunday of Advent: Joy

Sunday, December 17, 2017

The December issue of National Geographic arrived a few weeks ago.  The cover is the very famous work entitled “Head of Chris” painted by Rembrandt in the 1640’s.  Ah, we see what Geographic is doing.  It’s December, Christmas is coming, this is a magazine committed to popularizing culture, nature, and scientific discovery, and so, why not apply scientific sensibility to a world-wide cultural phenomenon, the religion behind Christmas. Why not take a scrutinizing look at the people who follow and worship Jesus, the man the baby in the manger grew up to become?

The caption on the cover confirms the intent. It says “The Real Jesus: What Archaeology Reveals about His Life.”  Do you catch all the implications within this simple sentence?  We just sang, “Joy to the world, the Lord has come.”  We think that the baby Jesus grows up to become the “Lord Jesus.”  We proclaim it, we sing it, we pray it, and we insist it is the truth of all truths.  But is this a legend, a story first century Jews made up as a part of a series of ecstatic prayer experiences?  Is the Lord Jesus not actually the real Jesus?  See the questions raised by that caption under Rembrandt’s painting on the cover of National Geographic?

With the question before us, where do we go? Where do we turn to find out the truth about “the real Jesus?” Do we turn to the internet?  You can sit and down type it into Google.  In case you wondered, Google took less than half a second to produce 33 million hits in response to this question.  Good luck sorting through all those sites, all of them based on someone’s agenda.  Where else could we go for help with this?  You might call Heather or me or Beth, Phil, or Angel for that matter.  Or Hong or Dina or Greg Meyers.  We all have seminary degrees.  Or, if you’re feeling intrepid, you may skip the professionally trained clergy and go straight to the Bible yourself.  Anyone who is literate can read the divinely inspired accounts and form their own understanding of “the real Jesus.”

National Geographic goes in a different direction.  Again, the words on the cover: “The Real Jesus: What Archaeology Reveals about His Life.” Archaeology is the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.”[i] It is a science, one that works hand-in-hand with its sister discipline, history, which is also practiced as an emotionally detached academic discipline.  National Geographic thinks that the science of archaeology will give us more fact-based truth about the historical figure of Jesus than anything we might find in biased accounts like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, written from a faith perspective.  When a historian or archaeologist declares that faith and miracles and the supernatural are all fantasy and the only things that are real are the facts science can establish, it has the potential to suck the joy right out of Christianity for me.

I love National Geographic, a magazine that comes from a worldview that stands on scientific discovery and proof as the only standard for what is real.  The author of “The Real Jesus” article, Kristin Romey, appreciates what science can say, and also appreciates the limits on scientific inquiry.  There is no way the science of historical research can prove or disprove that an angel spoke to Mary and that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus.  National Geographic tends to default to the view that the virgin birth would have been legend, not something that actually happened.  Science has no category for something that occurs outside of scientifically established natural laws. 

When archaeology and history are practiced as sciences, what they can do is give as accurate a picture as possible about what human life and human society was like in the past – in this case the late first century BC and the first half of the first century A.D.  The article in National Geographic does a thorough job of showing how scientists have over and over verified that much of what we find in the four gospels is historically solid.  The cities reported by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were where those gospel-writers said they were.  Kristen Romey shows that based on what history can prove, Matthew and his three Gospel-writing peers got the facts right.  First century Israel was mostly likely the way they described it when Jesus was born, when he lived, and was crucified.    

If you’re tempted to say, “Oh, I didn’t need science to tell me that,” allow me to push back just a bit.   As followers of Jesus, we should all be enthusiastic supporters of S.T.E.A.M – science, technology, engineering, arts, and math.  No, we don’t need science for salvation.  However, Jesus commands us to love the Lord with all our mind.  Our church has many members who stretch their minds to the limit in their work, scientific research.  As a worshiping community, we need to foster an environment in which our students are encouraged to excel in science whether it is elementary school or a PhD program or anywhere in between.  We need to bless our members who are scientists and also are Jesus’ disciples.  Their work can be an offering to God and they should glorify Him by committing to excellence in their work. 

Science matters because there are things that can be proved.  For instance, if an ossuary, a bone box, was discovered, and it was proven to contain the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, our faith would be shattered.  We stand on the belief – a belief we insist is incontrovertible fact – that Jesus rose from the grave.  So, if we found what we know to be his grave, it better empty.  Or, our faith crumples. 

However, there are realities for which science cannot account.  Researchers can say what life was like in first century Nazareth, but they can’t prove or disprove that Jesus performed miracles there.  They can’t determine whether or not an angels appeared to shepherds in Bethlehem or spoke in Joseph’s dreams.  The author of the National Geographic piece was very fair on this point.  She traveled all over Israel – Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Capernaum.  She met Christ followers from every country you can imagine.  From all over the globe, people traveled to worship Jesus on the ground where he actually walked.

At the end of her article Kristin Romey writes, “To sincere believers, the scholars’ quest for the historical, non-supernatural Jesus is of little consequence.  That quest will be endless, full of shifting theories, unanswerable questions [and] irreconcilable facts.  But for true believers, their faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of the son of God will be evidence enough” (p.68).  I appreciate her recognition of the both/and quality of the Jesus story.  There’s the Jesus who existed in history, and the Jesus who transcends and fulfills history.  They are one and the same and this Jesus is the subject of our worship. 

Christmas time sees us entering into a special season of worship.  The scientific study of Jesus gives us a framework to talk about the story in a post-enlightenment age.  But we need miracles because we need more than just what modern man’s technology can provide.  We don’t just need cures; we need hope.  We don’t just need life to be made easier; we need life to matter.  We don’t just need a few days off to rest and visit family; we need worship that reminds us we are transformed, a people made new in Christ.  The way Christmas has come to a place of importance for my own family helps me see why it is so important.

            Our kids sit around the computer with my wife Candy, and together, they play a simulation that includes a graphic with green and red wrapped presents, an old-time village decorated in Christmas lights, Christmas-related games, and a repeating track of delightful Christmas music in the background.  Beginning on December 1 and going all the way to the 25^th, there is something new every day as they click on the globe icon.  Around the time supper is ending and the time for homework is nearing, I say, “Kids, it’s time for the globe,” and they assemble on the sofa and get the computer ready.  Every year.

            In darkness of the early morning, at this time, as we are rousing, getting breakfast, school lunches made, getting ready to catch the bus that comes at 7:05, I tell one of the kids, “plug the Christmas tree lights in.”

            In this season, when we are driving home from a basketball practice or a gymnastics class or Wednesday night youth group, from the back seat I hear, “Dad, can we drive through the neighborhood and look at the lights?”  I say, “Yes.”  We do this several times, pause to see how our neighbors have decorated to celebrate the season.  Every year.

            The pilgrimage to the theater to see the Nutcracker.  Decorating homemade cookies, little trees, stars, and Santa Claus’s.  I need this.

            Four or Five years ago, I had a nasty head cold that ran all through December.  I grumbled and growled.  I wanted nothing to do with Christmas songs or lights on houses or drives through our neighborhood.  Sometime around December 27^th or 28^th, my wife said, “You were a real grouch this Christmas.”  She was right.  That has stuck with me.  I don’t want to be that.  I need the joy of the season both from our faith and from our cultural ways of celebrating and living that faith.  I need that joy.

            I think most people do.  We spend Advent anticipating his birth as we relive the story, anticipating new things he will do in our lives in the coming year, and waiting with anxious patience for his return at the fulfillment of history, when history ends and God’s kingdom is fully ushered in.  John captures this spirit of longing, waiting, and uncertain in chapter 16 of his gospel.

            There, Jesus is preparing the disciples for his coming crucifixion and then resurrection and then ascension.  They don’t understand much of what he says, but they have the words, and after he is raised from death, and after they see him ascend in clouds and the Holy Spirit fills each one of them, they remember and understand in a new light. 

            “You will have pain,” he tells them.  “But your pain will turn into joy.”  Jesus’ words recall the prophet Isaiah who says, “The Lord gives beauty for ashes, gladness in place of grief” (61:3, my paraphrase).   This is what God does.  Our sin produces pain and death, and draws us away from God.  God, through the death and resurrection of Christ, defeats death, removes our sin, and gives us blessing.  Our pain turns to joy.

            Jesus continues in John 16:22, “You have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.” Grab a hold of this promise he made to 12.  Claim it for yourself.  These words are in the Bible, handed down to the church, to us, for us.  God, in the risen Christ, in the present Holy Spirit, takes your pain, give you joy, and protects it, so that you have joy unending, joy that cannot be ripped from you.

            And finally Jesus says, “Ask and you will receive; I have said these things my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete” (16:24; 15:11).

            Based on the assessment of all the available evidence, researchers have determined that Luke, John, and the other gospel writers give an accurate picture of first century Israel.  In terms of verified reporting, John can be trusted.  We know our own stories, how much we need the joy that is promised in the Bible, in the story of Jesus.  That Jesus himself said we can ask and God will give divine, unending, life-changing joy.  Why don’t we ask him to do that?

            I don’t know the specific challenges that block your path in life right now, but I suggest, we end our time with prayer.  Ask God to be with you as we sit together in the Advent season and you face whatever it is you face in your life.  Ask God to sit with you.  And, ask God to fill your heart with Jesus’ love, so that you can know without a doubt that His joy is in you, and your joy is complete.  This is something beyond explanation, something only God can give.  And he wants to.  So ask God in right now.

AMEN

---

[i] https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS749US749&ei=huozWoH5O-GR_QaCjbqgCQ&q=archaeology+definition&oq=archaeology+d&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i20i264k1j0l8.2888.3881.0.5059.4.4.0.0.0.0.83.311.4.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.307...0i10k1j0i67k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i131k1.0.4uBrsPNZd9Q

The Spirit of Writing: Review of "Walking on Water" by Madeleine L'Engle

The Spirit of Writing

            Along with ‘Dancing on the Head of a Pen’ (Robert Benson) and ‘Creator Spirit’ (Steven Guthrie), ‘Walking on Water’ by Madeleine L’Engle is among the beautiful descriptions of the creative process that I have read.  And like Guthrie, L’Engle shows the way creativity and one’s life as a Christian are inevitably intertwined.  The Christian does not create ‘Christian art.’  The artist works very hard to create beautiful art (be it poetry, music, novels, plays, or paintings).  Because the artist follows Jesus Christ, what she ends up creating is infused with the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit speaks through the art without the work being intentionally evangelistic.  L’Engle writes beautifully about both Christianity and the creative process.

            One great insight of the book is the way science expands (not reduces) one’s faith.  L’Engle wrote this at the beginning of the 80’s, long before Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne and others taught us that science can actually grow someone as a believer and Christ follower.  L’Engle was saying this almost 4 decades ago. 

            She doesn’t trust theology as a discipline nearly as much as she trusts the way scientific discovery can grow the faith of the believer.  Perhaps this is because writers like Polkinghorne and Alister McGrath and N.T. Wright had not yet become popular in her time.  Perhaps she was listening to the wrong theologians.  But, she admits more than once her own prejudice against theology.  I found her admission to be a welcome expression of humility.

            L’Engle resides in a world of artists who that some readers may find difficult to access.  She recognizes that and tries repeatedly to close the gap while at the same time remaining firmly planted in the world of dreamers and seers and creators.  If a reader struggles to see as L’Engle sees, I recommend pushing through and attempting to see differently.  See with childlike imagination.  The world is a big place, and artists like Madeleine L’Engle help the rest of us see more of it.  

"I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review."

Science Lover Accounts for Faith

            ‘Finding God in the Waves’ is a moving tale of love of God, love of science, and the two loves finding space in one person.  I recommend this book to anyone who loves science but doesn’t want to abandon faith because of that love of science.  It is a well-told story full of feeling and twists and turns.  And depending on how you come out on the faith-atheist question, it definitely has a happy or disappointing ending.  The title makes that much clear.

            As much as I enjoyed the book, I have some specific critiques.  I will go into those in more detail in future blog posts, but will summarize them here.  My first critique is the entire notion that a true scientist will have trouble with many aspects of the Christian faith.  The author makes this assumption throughout the book.  I know plenty of scientists, MIT and UNC PhD’s, who have no trouble following Jesus and committing to excellence in their fields (chemistry, medicine, biology).  To assert that knowledge of science automatically leads to dismissal of certain tenets of the faith is a leap the author made that was unnecessary and is not the case for many scientists.

            Second, I was mostly disappointed that the author made no reference to the best resources that deal with the intersection of faith and science.  He said the internet is full of instances where atheists overwhelm Christians in debates.  He has apparently never watched the debates Oxford mathematician and devoted Christian John Lennox has had with atheist scientists; or, those of Oxford church historian and biologist Alister McGrath.  It is unfortunate that he never referred to McGrath’s work at all.  McGrath deals with questions of faith and science in depth in several of his books and is uniquely qualified to do so.  The same is true of John Polkinghorne whom McHargue also never cites.  He also make no mention of the ongoing work of the Biologos foundation.  He refers to one of the science authors who works with Biologos, but beyond that he does not seem to be aware of the best site out there for conversations about science and faith.

            A third critique comes in his clear prioritizing for scientific knowledge over faith knowledge.  He doesn’t claim that God must live within the laws of nature.  But he does believe all acts of God in this universe must be observable within the laws of nature.  Every faith axiom he proposes begins with a doubt and then the doubt is assuaged when he can account for it with brain science.  I don’t believe God is beholden to the limitations of the human brain and no matter how amazing the human brain is, it is limited.  God acts outside of the workings of the brain.  Every of God humans experience and describe is not confined to some part of our brain and how it stores information.  But, this author cannot accept anything as real unless scientific observation (mostly brain science) accounts for it.

            This leads to a fourth major critique: his treatment of the resurrection.  The author compares Oxford Bible scholar and historian N.T. Wright to Stephen Hawking in expanse of knowledge.  Wright is the ‘Stephen Hawking’ of faith, he says.  He also says the Gospels were written too late to be treated as reliable sources for events in Jesus’ life.  N.T. Wright disagrees.  In his exhaustive treatment of the resurrection he cites the gospels as reliable sources.  Wright, whom McHargue praises for his scholarship, believes the gospels and the other New Testament books can be shown to be reliant upon oral traditions that date back to the days of Jesus and thus used in a complex historical argument.  McHargue seems completely unaware of this and thus dismisses the possibility of the resurrection as an event in history.  If history is treated as a science, then history shows that the best conclusion is that the resurrection happened.  It was an event in history.  Wright shows this as does Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, each in their own lengthy scholarly studies of the topic.  McHargue has either not read this material, or disregards it.  Of course if he understood that history shows it had to have happened, it might throw him for a loop because it shows something in history happened that science cannot reckon.  He treats the resurrection as something that is not necessary for faith.  I agree that it is not.  But if one’s faith is Christian in nature, the resurrection has be a nonnegotiable.  McHargue does not deny the resurrection and he sees signs of it in creation, but there is evidence of it that he either doesn’t know or doesn’t accept.

            These are each meaty critiques that bear their own treatment, and I hope to get to each in future blog posts.  For now, I am very glad to have read ‘Finding God’ and I recommend to anyone who in interested in science and in faith.  In spite of my critiques, I rejoice at McHargue’s journey as I find his search for God moving and true.  Read this book and allow it to challenge your own thought about God.  It won’t be easy, but it is worthwhile.

Review of 'Life on the Edge' by McFadden and Al-Khalili

            The subtitle of this book is ‘The Coming Age of Quantum Biology.’  It is a book about science and I am particularly weak in my understanding of science.  Beyond that general disclaimer about me as a reader of science books, “Life on the Edge” is about the quantum realm and how it relates to biology.  The quantum realm is not fully understood, but where it is fully integrated in the conversation is physics, not biology.  I told a friend, a retire professor of biology at a major university, that I was reading a book on quantum biology.  A skeptical expression came over his face.  “Quantum biology?”  He asked.  My feeble efforts to summarize the book were unconvincing to him.

            So, that’s a couple of disclaimers.  I don’t understand science.  And I really don’t understand quantum science.  A third disclaimer is that I am a Christian pastor – a theist.  The authors make passing allusions to scripture.  There book is a science book, not a theology book.  But they cannot resist making theological assertions. 

            The first example comes on page 27.  They identify that prior to advancements in scientific knowledge, ancient people held that some kind of “vital force” or “spirit” animated nonliving things to make them alive.  “Vital forces” are terms the authors use.  Why they don’t just say “God,” I don’t know.  But that’s fine.  Here is what caught my eye on page 27.  They say, “We will [not] be claiming any kind of force, spirit, or magic ingredient animates life.  Our story is much more interesting than that.”  What?  I have heard scientists say that the only knowledge that is real knowledge is scientifically acquired knowledge.  This is the first time that beyond knowledge, I hear scientists claim expertise in the area of what is interesting. 

            So, just to summarize.  The authors assert that what they will discuss in their book, quantum theory as it relates to biology, is “much more interesting” than any type of theological contemplation.  And then they go on for over 300 pages of failure.  Because at the end, all they offer is a series of speculations that have not been proven nor gained widespread acceptance.  They say at the beginning, “It is worth remembering that even in this age of genetic engineering and synthetic biology, nothing living has ever been made by humans entirely from nonliving materials” (27). 

            The authors name as the biggest question in science as the question of how inert atoms and molecules found in rocks are transformed every day into running, jumping … living stuff.  That is the big question.  They also say, it has not happened, not by human efforts.  It has happened either by natural selection, a random process with no intentionality.  Or, it has happened by God’s intervention.  But real scientists aren’t allowed to point to God.

            By the way, I agree with that.  Once God is named as a cause, then something is happening and describing this happening is beyond what science is equipped to do.  Once God is an effective participant in the story, the story is beyond science.  Why that leads scientists to disregard God as if God doesn’t exist, I don’t know.  When they do that, they put all their trust, their faith if you will, in the scientific process of acquiring knowledge and understanding.  Natural Selection is the biologist’s god, not to be questioned, doubted, or challenged.  There is no question that cannot be answered by appealing to the evolutionary process that stands on the random process of natural selection.

            I am no young earth creationist.  I accept the evidence of a universe that is billions and billions of years old and the planet earth that is 4.5 billion years old.  I accept that living things are descended from common, simpler ancestors.  I have many scientist friends who over and over tell me this narrative is rock solid and the ground on which much of science stands.  My only problem with it all is when I hear a biologist describe it.  I find it very unconvincing. 

            The authors of “Life on the Edge” took their crack at describing the very beginning of life on earth in chapter 9.  What they share there is a narrative chalk-full of guesses and faith statements.  However, because that faith resides in a scientific milieu, it is not named and branded as such.  One thing that is clear to me after reading that chapter, something the authors would not want me to think, is this.  Life cannot happen without intention.  No undirected process will bring a nonliving thing to life, not even at the microscopic level, not even if we explain the event in terms of the quantum realm.  The authors are proposing just the opposite of what I just wrote.  But, I read the chapter closely.  There is no way, unless there is some evidence these two expert biologists do know, that life can come about through natural selection.  Natural selection is a survival process.  Prior to the first living thing being the first living thing, who or what is trying to survive.  And of course they end the chapter by saying everything they have just said is “highly speculative” (p.288).

            In the end, I find the book at many points difficult.  But that is my problem.  I have trouble understanding science most of the time.  The book is very interesting.  I might even say it is compelling.  But it is not convincing.  I cannot imagine a scientist, especially a biologist, reading this and thinking they’d want to consider the possibilities of quantum biology.  I am nonscientist, so I might be thoroughly misreading at that level.  At my level, I don’t find any of the ideas presented powerful enough to sway my thinking.  I am glad I read the book and I might recommend it to others.  But I nothing in my mind is affected by the argument made here.  

A Pastor in Search of Apologetics

Apologetics

“Reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.” 

That is the definition that came up when I typed ‘Apologetics’ into the Google search bar.  Of course apologetics is not saying “I am sorry.”  It is a defense that is rational.  But, the word ‘defense’ sounds very military, as if an attack is coming.  And, the definition Google produced uses the word ‘argument.’

In committing to be witnesses for Christ, does it mean we are entering a battle ground?  Ephesians chapter 6 puts it that way but we need to read that with care.  The fight is in spiritual realms against forces of darkness.  How that fight plays itself out in our experience comes in any number of ways.  It might be a materialist/atheist insisting the natural world is all there is and that God is a myth like the Easter Bunny.  Be it may come in the form of temptation, and usually temptations hit us where we are weakest and least suspecting.  Apologetic approaches are often not helpful in warding off temptations. 

So why raise the issue of apologetics?  Non-church goers already have an unease about evangelical Christians.  Why think of presenting our faith in terms of ‘argument’ and ‘defense? If you are a person who worships at HillSong Church in Chapel Hill, you need to know that in upcoming years I am dedicated to reading heavily in the area of apologetics.  Here is why. 

Besides the fact that I find it incredibly fascinating, I am aware of our ministry context: UNC hospital; major universities (NCCU, UNC, Duke, NC State); Research Triangle Park; our state capital.  We are located as the vortex of knowledge and power not just in North Carolina, but our place in North Carolina draws researchers and investors from all over the world.  Leaders in science and business (especially the pharmaceutical industry) are here.  Walking down the street, you never know who you will meet.  Are you prepared to explain why the best way life can be lived is in a relationship with God in Christ?  Are you equipped to answer if someone asks how Christianity could possibly be true?

That is one piece.  I want to be ready to give a grounded, evidentially supported case for my Christian worldview.  And as my base of knowledge expands, I am asking God to help me pass on what I learn to people in my church.  I want HillSong members to be prepared to enter conversations.  I don’t mean seek out arguments or to win them.  This is not about outsmarting anyone.  I am in the process of trying to become grounded in apologetics and leading our church to be grounded in apologetics so that we sound like we know what we’re saying.  Maybe your neighbor is a hard and fast atheist.  Fine, he has the right to think that way.  But does his worldview make sense?  Can you explain the conclusion that there is a God and we can meet that God in His Son, God incarnate, the resurrected Jesus Christ?  When he counters with an argument that sounds convincing and makes the resurrection sound impossible, are you prepared to respond back to him with a rational presentation?  And by the way, saying “I believe it and the Bible says so,” is not going to work because belief is not evidence and your atheist neighbor does not take the Bible as the authoritative word of God. 

The rational presentation of the faith matters.  A second piece is the experience of so many people who come to HillSong.  We have bridge-builders and construction foremen and fix-it-men; these folks like to know how things work.  Some are content, when it comes to faith, to just accept the mystery.  But many would find their faith enriched it they were equipped with a deeper, more evidence-based foundation for why we say the things we say about the Lordship of Christ.

We have in our church family physicians and chemists and pharmacists and biologists.  They possess immense knowledge about the workings of the body.  How does their work and their expertise enhance their faith, and how does their faith fill their work?  I think apologetic-thinking (that is, celebrating the natural world as God’s creation and harmonizing that knowledge with theological considerations) is the crossroads where intellect and faith meet.  Each compliments the other.

Maybe you work in a lab and your coworker, an accomplished PhD like yourself is astounded that you waste time going to church.  She wonders why a skilled scientist like you believes in a superstition like Christianity.  Can you show how your faith and your dedication to science go hand-in-hand?  Can you articulate that?

My goal is to learn to articulate meaningful, rock-solid answers to these types of questions and then to teach our church family how to have and pass on these potent answers for the faith.  Pray for me on this quest.  And join me.

God' Word at the End (2 Peter 3:8-10)

God’s Word at the End

Jesus said, “³¹ Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.  ³² But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³³ Beware, keep alert; ^[f] for you do not know when the time will come” (Mark 13:31-33).  No one knows!  When it comes to the end of everything, Jesus asserts when cannot be known.

Scientists don’t necessarily agree.  National Geographic author Andrew Fazekas reports on a study that is based on science that projects the sun will grow hotter before burning out.[i]  The increasing temperature will burn out life on earth about 2.8 billion years from now.  And, the expanding sun may get so big it eventually engulfs our planet.

Can you imagine heat that obliterates an entire planet?  It is too big for me to be able to grasp the whole idea.  The author of 2 Peter did not have such conceptualizing difficulty.  Consider 2 Peter 3:10: ^“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.”

I have previously read the projections from scientists that Fazekas cited and I have no reason to doubt them.  Based on the readings, perhaps the astrophycists are thoroughly correct.  What surprised me was how similar their description of the earth melting after the sun matures to “red giant” stage is to the way the Biblical author depicted the day of the Lord.  It is as if 20^th century physics caught up to what Christians in the earlier first century already knew. 

Of course I am being a bit playful here, but the point is God is in control.  Second Peter 3:8 says “with the Lord is like a thousand years.”  Some readers try to a make a code out of that and predict things.  So if we read in the Bible that something is going to happen in 3 days, that really means it will happen in 3000 years.  I think this may not be the best way to read 2 Peter 3:8.  I believe that verse is an indicator that God is not subject to time.  God’s purposes happen at God’s initiative and time has no bearing. 

We are subject to time.  We cannot transcend time or space.  God can and does.  God is unaffected by the possibility that the sun will heat up and expand and burn off our descendants a few million years from now.  Perhaps that is the way scientific observation accounts for what God has been planning all along.

Second Peter 3 is one of the prescribed readings for the second week of Advent (December 7, 2014).  These words about the end are joined to Mark 1.  There we see John the Baptist “preparing a way” for the Lord (1:3).  He was the set-up man.  Jesus is the Savior.  Because Jesus lived under God’s authority and is God in the flesh, the resurrected one, our hope suffers no setbacks by the realities of science.  In fact, when we are in Christ, our hope brings hope the entire world, in fact, to the universe.  God created this universe with all the natural phenomena in it.  God made it “good” and it will continue to exist under God’s watchful eye. 

In Advent, we remember that God is sovereign.  Through Jesus, the all-powerful God invites us into relationship.  We can celebrate the wonders of the universe and at the same time rejoice in our standing before God. 

---

[i] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131028-earth-biosignature-doomsday-space-science/

Review of "Evolving" by Steve Davis

Evolving by Steve Davis is one of the most refreshing books I have read in a while.  Steve’s approach is confessional and apologetic.  He tells his own story as a Christian and an educated, thinking person.  In doing so, he give an excellent rationale for why Christians can confess the truths found in the Bible and at the same time be sensible in dealing with the findings of geology, physics, biology, and other sciences.  More than common sense, the truly confessing Christian can celebrate science as a means by Christians come to read God’s “other book” or “second book.”

The “two books” mentality for me is the most helpful element of Davis’ book.  Of course one book from God is the Bible.  The other is creation, or nature.  In some works the two terms, creation and nature are set in opposition.  One is either a naturalist or a confessing Christian, but the two worldviews are inherently at odds.  Davis show that the book of nature is a way God reveals God’s self to humankind.  The idea of two books with nature being one of those books stands on Paul’s assertion that people unfamiliar with the scriptures of Israel can know God by observing creation (Romans 1:19-20).

Alister McGrath and the late John Polkinghorne both point to nature in their own writings in which they celebrate nature (including evolution as God’s means of creation) along with confessing Christ.  I have read much of their works and at times struggled to fully understand what they were saying.  Both are theologians who started as scientists and then came to theological writing later in their careers.  Davis’ detailing of his own story helped me make sense of the portions of McGrath and Polkinghorne I previously found confusing or difficult.  Maybe that is my strongest commendation for Davis.  In telling his own story, he’s illuminated mine. 

I do offer this caution in Davis’ work.  The reader is stepping into the middle of a conversation – one Davis is having with himself and with every teacher of fundamentalist, literalist Christianity who has ever influenced him (and continues to try).  He is breaking out of a shell, a specific mode of thinking.  He undergoes a worldview shift and this can be quite dramatic.  Frequently, a page or two after he communicates a thought, he elaborates his thinking including some further development of ideas.  But I wonder is some of what Davis writes comes in “insider language.”

And this leads to my disclaimer.  Steve Davis and I are both evangelical Christians.  We come from the same “tribe” within Christianity.  He is also my personal friend.  His background is more conservative than my own, but the differences are not that dramatic.  I understand his lingo.  I am not saying his terminology is inaccessible to readers who are not evangelical Christians.  I am saying I don’t know.  I often run into this myself.  When I am talking to someone who does have a background reading evangelical literature and hearing evangelical speech, I have to stop myself.  I have to ask if they are hearing what I mean in the words I say.  I truly am not accusing Davis of being too insider-evangelical in his work. 

I am saying he starts in the middle of a conversation.  His style is easy and light yet he deals with a serious topic that has the potential to alter how a lot of evangelicals understand the Bible and God.  I read along, nodded in agreement; paused to consider the implications for my own faith, and often found myself laughing out loud (Steve has that effect).  I just had a few moments where I wondered if people who don’t live in the evangelical Christian world would get the joke.

That said, evangelical Christians are the primary audience for this book.  I agree with Steve that it would be great if scientists read this and respected that not all theists are in opposition to the work of science.  In fact, true loving the Lord with “all the mind” requires the Christ follower to seek God and seek knowledge.  That’s what Davis is doing here.  I hope evangelical Christians, even those predisposed to reject evolution, will read his book with an open mind.

And read with an open heart.  Steve Davis is sharing his own story.  His goal is not to convince you of anything.  He’s saying “this is my journey.”  Go with him on it.  To be invited into someone’s story is a gift and Davis shares this gift with any who will read his book which is whimsical, smart, and helpful. 

I recommend “Evolving” to pastors, church goers, especially to seminarians, and to anyone who wants follow Jesus by reading both the books God has given us.  It is not weighed down with difficult technical language, and it will free you as a reader to go on your own journey wherever it may lead.  Davis and I are both confident that if you read both books, you will grow in faith, you will have a relevant faith, and you will see God. 

Faith Discussions

Faith Conversations

            I have recently renewed my interested in questions of origins (origins of the universe, of life, of humanity).  Some Christians believe one can simply read Genesis 1-2 and end the conversation.  It’s there in black and white, and if we tally up the generations going back to day 1 (Genesis 1:5), we can age the earth at about 10,000 years.

            Not so fast, say those who study the universe.  Physics tells us the age of the universe is in the billions of years and so too is the age of the earth.  Biology tells us all life has evolved from simple life-forms to complex.  There was not, in actual history a single Adam and Eve, but what today we call humanity evolved from ancient primates that today would not be deemed humans.  The experts on evolution declare the science to be as solid as there is.  Adherents to this perspective can be quite dogmatic and become defensive if questioned.

            On the other hand, there are scientists including some biologists, just as qualified as the ardent evolution proponents, who gladly acknowledge micro-evolution (change over time within species).  However, studying evidence they’ve gathered and looking at probability, they deny the possibility that life could evolve from nonlife or pre-living cells, and they deny that they differentiate species have common ancestry.  And proponents in this camp are just as dogmatic as those who herald the truth of evolution.

            Some of the evolutionists are also committed Christ followers.  Recently I raised questions about evolution with someone I had just met.  She is a Christian and our introduction to each other was in a church context.  She became agitated and defensive at the thought that I would dare question evolution.  I wasn’t attacking her.  I was not even attacking evolution though I did assert that there are holes in the theory and that it doesn’t prove everything its champions claim. 

I tried to emphasize that not only am I not a scientist; I was actually very bad in science classes as a student.  I tried to reiterate that I was not in a camp.  I was not denying evolution, just asking challenging questions.  But two witnesses to the conversation agreed her reaction to my inquiry was surprisingly confrontational.  In fact, my point in the conversation was that this issue can polarize people needlessly.  Instead of hearing my point, she made it for me by rushing to defend a stance (evolution) instead of discussing an issue (origins) in a harmonious tone. 

Ironically, she and I are brother and sister in Christ.  Several months ago, I had the same conversation with someone who is happily open about his atheism.  He’s my neighbor and friend and is a Geneticist.  He knows I think God created everything (whether by evolution or other means).  He does not get mad if I pose challenging questions.  Our conversation was amicable.  Why is it I could have this talk, just a conversation, with a nonbeliever, but when the same topic came up with a fellow believer, there was uncomfortable tension?

Christians need to be able to show intelligence and Christlike love in dialogues on the topics of the day.  Whether we’re exchanging ideas on homosexuality, Muslim-Christian relations, or the intersection of faith and science, Christians have to be well-spoken on the topic and loving and inviting in tone.  How we conduct ourselves in the public sphere goes a long way to determining the effectiveness of our witness for Christ. 

Today, I pray for the woman who became so aggressive when I question evolution.  I pray God would bless here today and would also give her the grace to state her passionately held views with a voice of love.  I pray that she would be able to represent Jesus at the same time that she makes her stand for science.  And I pray that I would be ever vigilant to increase my own knowledge but more than that increase my own faith.  Finally, I pray that you, the reader, would today engage in impassioned conversations on subjects of great importance.  In those conversations, I pray your conversation partner would look into your eyes and see Jesus.