One of the things which made Jesus’ teaching so effective was His use of the ordinary. He was able to use the common and usual to illustrate profound spiritual truths. The truths had always been there, but nobody had thought of them quite that way before. Or, to put it another way, Jesus gave new meaning to ordinary things. Who could ever look at a flower or a sparrow in quite the same way after hearing Jesus talk about them?

Sometimes we become so used to our environment that we lose sight of the lessons we can learn from the ordinary. It’s only when we are confronted with a different set of circumstances that we realize just how blessed we’ve been. The following tales are adapted from some journal entries I made while on a mission trip.

Consider the source

“Water is one of those things we in the West often take for granted. Just turn on the appropriate tap depending on whether you want hot or cold. If you want a drink, take it right from the tap. As with most things out here, the water situation requires a shift in thinking. Unless you’re a local, drinking right from the tap is unthinkable, and risky even if you are. Fortunately, bottled water is plentiful and reasonably priced. Presumably, bottled water wouldn’t be so commonly available if a great many people didn’t see the need for it. But the concept seems to go only so far. We were at the airline office the other day to confirm our tickets. While waiting for our number to be called, I noticed that there was a water cooler in the middle of the room. I thought it was rather considerate of the airline to provide safe drinking water for its customers. What made me do a double-take, however, was the communal glass on top of the water bottle. Nobody seemed to think it was any big deal. Lots of people used the glass, seemingly as the usual and normal thing to do. Now, maybe I’m missing something here, but doesn’t using a communal glass, sort of negate the benefit of drinking bottled water? Especially, the same glass as people about whom you know nothing? Who knows what sort of diseases the person who drank right before you might have?”

In the Old Testament, God calls Himself, a ‘fountain of living water.’ (See Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13) Jesus also spoke of ‘living water’ when He promised the Holy Spirit to His disciples (John 7:38-39). If ever there was a source of pure water, surely that is it. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that we not only have to consider the purity of the water, but also the container from which we drink. How many spiritual diseases have I picked up because I’ve drunk from a container encrusted with bad habits, unsanctified cultural bias or unscriptural tradition?

Do I even consider the source from which I drink? The Apostle Peter warns that there will be false teachers even in the church (2 Peter 2:1). It’s interesting that Peter goes on to say that these people are “springs without water.” (2 Peter 2:17 NIV) If I’m not careful about checking out the source, instead of a refreshing drink of living water, I can easily swallow deadly poison.

In contrast, knowing the source gives confidence about the purity of the teaching. Paul wrote to Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:14-15 NIV)

A free gift

“Back home, if a faucet drips we usually get the thing fixed fairly rapidly. Out here I have seen faucets left running full bore onto the floor, for hours – to no purpose that I could see. One would think that in an area which experiences water shortages that there would be a public consciousness about such waste. But more than that, and even lacking such a consciousness, what I can’t understand is why such waste wouldn’t make a drastic difference in the water bill. In a poor household you’d think that every effort would be made to shave the utility bills down to a bare minimum. Perhaps they pay a flat rate no matter how much water is consumed?”

However, when I think about it, the running faucet illustrates God’s generosity. There is no shortage or lack with Him. He pours out His blessings on us without measure. God is lavish with His gifts. He pours them upon us. “…God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit…” (Romans 5:5 NIV) In the context, the pouring out of God’s love involves Christ’s death on our behalf. How could anyone be more generous than that? The Apostle John describes this love as ‘lavish.’ “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!…” (1 John 3:1 NIV)

James mentions another aspect of God’s generosity. “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5 NIV) What I especially appreciate about that verse is that God not only gives wisdom, He doesn’t begrudge it. He doesn’t accuse or find fault. He generously and lavishly gives what we need.

But what about the water bill? While Christ does tell us to ‘count the cost’ before deciding to follow Him (see Luke 14:26-33), he doesn’t make us pay for salvation itself. There’s nothing we can do to earn it or even deserve it (Ephesians 2:8-9). It’s Jesus who paid the price. “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” (Revelation 22:17 NIV)

Tepid water

Then, there’s the matter of water temperature…

“Mr. C. pointed out that water pipes aren’t insulated out here. Since water heaters are often located some distance from the place you want the hot water, this means you have to run the water for quite a while before it gets hot. Not only does this waste water, it also requires more of whatever fuel you use to heat the water.”

In the summer you have the opposite problem. Because of the long, unprotected water lines, you have to let the faucet run a while in order to get cool water. Combined with water shortages (there are lots of times when there is no water at all) this can make for some very uncomfortable bathing.

It’s interesting that Christ uses the metaphor of tepid water to describe us at times. He had this to say to the church in Laodicea: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16 NIV)

Hmm… The next time I can’t get the temperature right in the shower, maybe it would be good to ask myself what the temperature of my spiritual life is. Am I just coasting along, going with the flow, trying to get by with a minimum of effort, or am I really ‘on fire’ for God? Can Jesus stomach what I’m doing, or is He ready to ‘spew’?

The prayer of a righteous man…

(James 5:16)

I don’t suppose that any Christian would dispute that prayer is important. Yet, in the West, we sometimes view prayer with a certain measure of skepticism or unbelief. The whole concept of prayer, particularly intercessory prayer, runs a bit counter to the rationalism which has shaped so much of our culture. Many are more than a little uncomfortable with passages such as James 5:14-18. This is an area where we can learn from the faith of fellow believers in other cultures. However, when the Bible’s teaching on prayer has not been fully understood, or it’s layered on top of pagan concepts, it can result in some interesting situations…

“We’re often asked to pray over people. After the assembly where we spoke the other night a lady brought a bottle of warm water to me. At first I thought she meant it for me to drink during the common meal which was about to be served. Though appreciating the sentiment, I wasn’t about to oblige as the water was obviously not of commercial origin. Fortunately, the lady explained her real intent before I made too big a fool of myself by refusing something meant for my enjoyment. She explained that her children were sick. She wanted me to pray for them and, in addition, to bless the water which she would then give them to drink. No doubt the blessed water would effect a cure. Well, I did pray for the children but I did not bless the water. Since I am not at home enough in the local language to pray in it, I prayed in English. I really don’t know whether this poor woman, who was in all sincerity trying to do what was best for her children, thought the water had been blessed or not. I’m sure she didn’t understand a word of the prayer, so very well may have left with the impression that I had complied with her wishes. It was another of those situations, which seem to come my way quite often, which leaves you feeling rather foolish and uncomfortable and wondering what you should have done differently. Among other things, I found myself left with a theological conundrum: Granting the woman’s presuppositions regarding blessings, (which, by the way, I don’t) would a blessing counteract the effects of tainted water? Supposing the water to be tainted, to what extent am I an accessory to the crime of giving it to her children to drink? I don’t have answers, and I doubt that there are answers in situations like this. About all you can do, is do the best you can under the pressure of the moment. God have mercy!”

Pure water

“Though there are times when there are water shortages out here, there are also times when there is entirely too much water. A few days ago, we had torrential rains. Now I really don’t know whether the drainage is inadequate, the drains were blocked, or a combination of the two. But the next morning when we got near the place we needed to be, there was raw sewage running down the street. It was flowing up out of a manhole and covered the entire width of the street. There was no alternative but to walk through it to get there. Lovely. We not only had to walk through it, we got to smell the effluent the whole time we were there. Doubly lovely. As a matter of fact, we’ve had to walk through sewage several times to get to where we were going. You know, it’s really not surprising that people get sick out here. What’s amazing is that anybody is well.”

There’s a parallel between the situation with the sewage and a lot of the spiritual information and teaching that’s given these days. People sometimes wonder why I’m so persnickety about doctrine. After all, there’s a lot of truth in what we hear from radio preachers and what we read on various websites. So what if a little is wrong? What’s the harm? Well, I suppose that the same could be said about the sewage I walked through. It was probably about 98 percent water. It’s not the water that I object to, it’s that other 2 percent. It takes very little to taint or pollute the whole. In terms of total volume, by far the greatest portion of the sewage was composed of something good and wholesome. But mix in that tiny percentage of pollutant and it was transformed into something vile and deadly. In the same way we should evaluate what we hear and read not only by the amount of truth it contains, but by the falsehood that is in it. “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 NIV)

Scripture gives us two reasons why we need to concern ourselves with the purity of the message we accept. Peter expresses the positive side of it in 1st Peter 2:2, “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation…” (NIV) We grow when we feed on the pure and wholesome.

On the other hand merely coming into contact with some teaching places us in mortal danger. Jude writes, “…to others show mercy, mixed with fear–hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” (Jude 23 NIV) We need to handle some teaching with the same precautions and care as we would the clothing of the victims of cholera or other highly contagious diseases – or which has come into contact with sewage!

In what sense are our assemblies a service?

Something has really been bothering me lately. Some of those who know me would retort that it doesn’t take much to bother me. Be that as it may, the pain has gotten bad enough that I need to try to clear my head by writing about this particular topic. What, you ask, am I blathering about? It’s that phrase, ‘church service.’

Definition needed

On the one hand, the phrase ‘church service’ is so common and wide-spread that I feel almost foolish trying to define it. We all know what is meant. When we use the term, we are referring to the time(s) the church gets together in order to worship God, partake of the Communion and listen to the Word explained. We use the phrase, in particular, for the meetings which take place on Sunday.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, I’m not at all sure what we mean by ‘church service.’ It’s not the ‘church’ part of the phrase that has me bothered. We all know (or ought to know) that the church is not a building, but the people whom God has called out of the world to Himself. But what I don’t understand is in what sense our meetings are associated with ‘service.’

Service to God?

Feel free to correct me but, as far as I know, the Bible never calls a meeting of the church a service. So, what do we mean when we call our assemblies a ‘service’? Are we really serving God when we assemble and, if so, in what sense? I have a horrible suspicion that, subconsciously, many of us have the idea that our meetings are some sort of meritorious work which will earn us God’s favor. If that’s the concept behind calling our meetings a service, then some serious re-thinking is in order. Didn’t Jesus have something to say about the people who thought that they could get into God’s good graces by their deeds of righteousness? Remember the parable of the two men who went to the Temple to pray? (Luke 18:9-14) The guy who thought he had it made because of his fasting and praying was not the one whom God accepted.

Even more dangerous than trying to win God’s favor is the notion that we are doing God some sort of favor by showing up and going through the motions on Sunday. Unless I’ve missed something pretty basic, God has desires but no needs. Even if He had needs, we certainly couldn’t supply them. “I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.” (Psalm 50:9-12 NIV)

It is when we lose sight of the transcendence of God; it is when we forget how high and mighty and holy He is that we begin to elevate ourselves and forget that it is only through Christ that we have any standing at all. We might even do the right things, but they won’t glorify God. And if we are not glorifying God through the religious activities we are involved in, it won’t be long before we start to skimp on those too. Soon we’ll just be going through meaningless motions. It was precisely for this attitude, and the actions which it led to, that God rebuked the Israelites in the Old Testament. ““A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the LORD Almighty. “It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name. But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’ You place defiled food on my altar. But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table is contemptible. When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the LORD Almighty. “Now implore God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”-says the LORD Almighty. “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.”” (Malachi 1:6-10 NIV)

Instead of rituals, God wants our hearts and our wills. If He’s got those, then the appropriate actions will follow. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6 NIV)

Perhaps things will be less confusing if, instead of calling our meetings ‘church services,’ we refer to them as ‘worship services.’ What’s the connection between worship and service? The two are mentioned together in numerous places, but seem to be separate things. I think it is fair to say that if we serve God we will also worship, but is worship a ‘service’? It may be. Hebrews 8:2-3 indicates that offering “gifts and sacrifices” is a part of service. And, Hebrews 13:15 calls praise to God a sacrifice. So, I suppose, it is legitimate to call our meetings ‘worship services’ – provided, of course, that we really are worshiping from the heart and not merely going through the motions.

Service to the saints?

Can we in any sense call our meetings ‘services’ because in them we are serving God’s people? Some translations have Paul saying in Romans 1:9 that he serves God by preaching the gospel. But the word ‘preaching’ is not actually in the text. It is supplied by the translators. Since Paul is writing to Christians and he goes on in verse 15 to say that he wants to preach the gospel to them, I suppose that we can say that speaking to the church is a service. But it seems a stretch to call the meeting itself a service.

Similarly, some translations indicate that Elders serve by overseeing the flock (1 Peter 5:2). But again, the word ‘serve’ is an interpretation by the translators. Other translations say that Elders exercise oversight. And, in any case, there is no direct linkage between the service of oversight and the church meetings. Again, it seems a stretch to call the meeting of the church a service. At best, it’s a time when leaders serve.

Service to one another?

Well, is it appropriate to call our meetings ‘services’ because during them we serve one another? After all, we are told to, “…serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13 NIV) We’re told to “carry each other’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2 NIV) We’re told to “…encourage one another and build each other up…” (1 Thessalonians 5:11 NIV)

But this raises another question. If the reason we call our meetings ‘services’ is because the purpose for meeting is to serve one another, do we actually provide the opportunity for people to do so? Not like we should! Consider the typical scenario: We come in and sit down. We listen to someone pray, we sing some songs, partake of the Communion, listen to a sermon, listen to announcements, listen to another prayer, grab a cup of coffee and, then, go home. Whom have we served, besides ourselves? Whose burden have we helped shoulder? Whom have we encouraged? Whom have we built up? Have we even had the opportunity to serve one another?

Restructuring needed

As I think about all this it seems to me that the connection between worship and service is the best reason to call our meetings ‘services.’ But I would like that to change! Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our meetings really were a time when everyone could, and did, minister to each other?

In order for that to happen, we’ve got to make some changes in the way we do things. We’ve got to create an atmosphere and church culture which not only encourages, but makes mutual ministry possible. I submit that the typical assembly, instead of enabling service, tends to hinder it. I don’t pretend to have the answers. I don’t pretend to know what to throw out and what to put in its place so that each part of the church body does minister and serve one another. Perhaps part of the solution is to quit relying so much on the sermon and open up our assemblies to sharing and participation. We’ve seen some wonderful things happen when we’ve tried it. I don’t have the answers, but it’s sure something I’m going to keep thinking about and try to implement!

Concerning foundational truths.

It used to be that just about every English speaking person in Great Britain and the U.S. had a pretty good idea of what is in the Bible. Even if they lived their lives along totally different lines, they still had a general knowledge of Bible stories, commands, ethics and principles. So, when Wodehouse wrote, “I had been dreaming that some bounder was driving spikes through my head – not just ordinary spikes, as used by Jael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones.” (Code of the Woosters) Or, that so and so was, “A bit like Balaam’s ass… If you recall, it too dug in its feet and refused to play ball.” (Much Obliged Jeeves) Or, when Mark Twain observed a comb which “…had come down from Esau and Samson, and had been accumulating hair ever since…” (Roughing It) it was a safe bet that everybody understood what they were getting at. It ain’t that way any more.

Bible illiteracy

It’s been my observation that more and more people know less and less about the Bible. That’s really ironic since the Bible is still, supposedly, the best-selling book of all time. I can’t help wonder what people actually do with all those Bibles they’re purchasing. Apparently, something besides read them. Even kids who grow up in Christian homes and go to church regularly don’t seem to know much about the Bible. I’m finding that I have to teach a lot of things that I used to be able to take for granted. That speaks volumes, not only about spiritual breakdown in the home but, about what isn’t being emphasized and taught at church. There may be more Bibles sold in more translations than at any time in history; there may be more church buildings being built than ever; there may be an explosion in the number of mega-churches; biblical information may be more readily available to a larger number of people than ever before via the Internet but, somehow, it doesn’t seem to translate into Bible literacy.

Teacher illiteracy

Even worse than biblical illiteracy among the general populous, however, is that sometimes it isn’t much better among those who are supposed to be teachers. I’ve heard several whose knowledge was neither broad nor deep.

But what is really disturbing is those teachers who promote unsound doctrine. Some do so through conviction, but others blindly follow something they’ve heard without studying it out for themselves. I question whether some even know how to check things out before they pass them on. Whether somebody has a sheepskin from seminary or Bible college seems to have little bearing on the issue.

To a large extent, biblical illiteracy among teachers reflects a failure of leadership as a whole. If teachers are incompetent it is because we in leadership have, ourselves, failed to instruct in sound doctrine and to supervise what is taught. We simply have to do a better job of teaching and enforcing the basics: those key doctrines, principles and beliefs which constitute the core of the Christian faith. To give credit where it’s due, this is one issue which the “driven” people try to address. If you’re familiar with the baseball-diamond metaphor promoted by the mega-church whose name begins with an S, you already know that they try to get people to sign onto their core beliefs through what they call the 101 class.

Aside from playing fast and loose with Scripture, which seems to be one of the hallmarks of the “driven” philosophy, there are at least two shortcomings with the 101 approach. The first is that they try to cram it all into one marathon session. There is hardly time to even state what the core beliefs are, let alone consider and reflect upon them. There certainly isn’t much attempt to show how the core beliefs and values are derived from Scripture.

The second difficulty with the 101 approach is that it is largely a one-way, passive process. People are asked to sign a document, but are not asked to state what they, themselves, believe. Because there isn’t much, if any, two-way communication or discussion of what is presented, it is more than likely that the 101 process will not uncover areas of significant difference between what the church states and the people actually believe.

Defining core beliefs

But before we can look at a better model, we have to answer a critical question: “Just what are those foundational beliefs which it is essential for everyone agree on and hold fast to?” An even more fundamental question is, “From where should we derive our beliefs?”

These days the concepts of absolute truth, and even reason, are under attack. But it seems to me that Post Modern relativism suffers from a fatal flaw. If everything is relative, as the proponents of this philosophy would have us believe, then the philosophy of relativism is, itself, relative. If everyone makes their own truth, then relativism is proven false for those who do not accept it. If reason itself is invalid, then its invalidity cannot be demonstrated by reason. In other words, relativism is self-contradictory. There really are absolutes.

Now if an absolute exists, it follows that our core or foundational beliefs should be derived from that absolute. I submit that the absolute from which we should derive our core beliefs is the Bible. When you stop and think about it, the Bible is the only constant we have. Everything else, whether it be church tradition, popular consensus, culture or authoritarian edict, is subject to change. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35 NIV)

The Bible contains a great many doctrines and teachings. Which ones should we consider core or foundational? If you’ve ever tried your hand at writing a statement of faith, you know how tricky it can be to decide what beliefs are essential and non-negotiable, and where you can allow divergent views. Fortunately, the Bible itself tells us what the foundational beliefs are.

In chapter 5, verse 12, the writer of Hebrews chides his readers for their biblical illiteracy. “…though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!” (NIV) Then, in chapter 6, he goes on to explain what the elementary or foundational truths are. “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.” (Hebrews 6:1-3 NIV)

Nine foundational areas

In this passage there is one implied, and eight stated components of basic or foundational belief. They are as follows:

1) The Bible

Though the Bible is not mentioned explicitly in Hebrews 6:1-2, our beliefs about it are certainly implied in such phrases as “teachings about Christ” (6:1). It is the Bible which teaches us about Him. In fact, the entire book of Hebrews presupposes a knowledge and acceptance of the Scriptures. Our view of the Bible will not only have a direct impact on what we believe about Christ, but also on all other areas of belief.

2) Christ

If our beliefs about Christ, who He is, and what He came to do are incorrect, then our whole belief structure will be skewed.

3) Repentance

There’s a huge difference between remorse over being caught and repudiating the wrong which we’ve done.

4) Acts that lead to death

Our society has redefined sin as a ‘mistake’ or an ‘alternate lifestyle choice.’

5) Faith in God

Popular concepts of God seem to alternate between a capricious, perpetually angry tyrant who is waiting for any excuse to fry the people He doesn’t like and a kindly, senile old man who is really unaware of what’s going on and would merely smile and pat you on the head if He did know.

6) Baptisms

The debate over the role of water baptism is one of the most important of our time. Since it is so closely associated with salvation, a proper understanding of baptism in water is crucial. Similarly, there is much confusion about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

7) The laying on of hands

Personally, I would not have thought of placing the doctrine of the laying on of hands among the core or foundational beliefs. Since it is included, however, a proper understanding of it is essential.

8) The resurrection from the dead

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the central fact of Christianity. Paul goes so far as to state, “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Corinthians 15:16-19 NIV) Yet, the resurrection of Christ is precisely what many (for example those in the so-called ‘Jesus Seminar’) do deny.

9) Eternal judgment

It’s amazing how many people out there either deny that there will be a judgment or that the consequences of it will be eternal.

Competency testing

Once a church determines what it believes in the nine foundational areas defined above, how can it make sure that everyone in leadership or a teaching role speaks with the same voice in those areas? If I had my way, every leadership candidate and every prospective teacher would be required to write a personal statement of faith which includes what they believe about these basic things. At the very least they should be interviewed and questioned about these 9 areas.

Think about it. One of the benefits of requiring everyone to write out what they believe before they could lead or teach, is that differences in doctrinal positions become obvious right away. It exposes areas where candidates are mistaken, or need more teaching.

Another benefit is that it forces candidates to think about what they believe. It’s amazing how having to write something out, exposes the weak areas in our thinking. Many a time, the process of trying to explain something to someone else has forced me to re-evaluate or re-think what I thought I knew.

It’s also a good way to test someone’s ability to communicate. All of the leadership roles in the New Testament church, with the exception of the Deacon, involve teaching. If a person is unable to clearly explain his own beliefs, is he really capable of teaching in the church?

There’s another benefit, too. A written statement of faith is a great accountability tool. If, after being appointed somebody starts teaching doctrines which are contrary to the position of the church, the written statement is documentary proof that he either lied about what he believes, or has changed his position.

Basics curriculum

The passage in Hebrews not only gives us a way to evaluate candidates for teachers, it tells us what basics we should be teaching. I don’t know about you, but I think it would be an excellent idea to develop a class covering the 9 areas which would be taught to the whole church. I think it would go a long ways toward helping us be like-minded. (See 1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2)

Presbyterjon’s foundational beliefs

“Alright,” you may be saying. “All this is well and good. But are you willing, so to speak, to put your money where your mouth is?” Okay, I will. What follows is a summary of what I believe in regard to the basics.

about the Bible

I believe that the Scriptures we know as the Old and New Testaments were revealed by inspiration to men who wrote down the divine message. I believe that the first copies of what we call the 66 books of the Bible (the autographs) are totally without error. They are totally true and to be believed. Scripture is not only still relevant and applicable in a moral and ethical sense, the texts are accurate in historical detail. Though minor textual problems exist, I believe that the texts of those first documents have been faithfully transmitted to us. With minor exceptions, the text of the Bible has been accurately preserved. While interpretations may differ, the text is trustworthy.

The teaching of the Scriptures is also consistent. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves. The God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New. The teachings of the Apostles agree in all points with that of Christ.

The Bible, and especially the New Testament, is our standard of faith and practice. Though we can learn much from the Old Testament, Christ has fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Therefore Christians are not bound by the rules and regulations found in the Law. Any message or practice which contradicts what God has already revealed in Scripture is not from God and is to be rejected.

about Christ

Who is the Christ? He is Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, he is an historical person who really lived. He is not some myth or allegory. I believe that Jesus is “God in the flesh.” He was born of a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life. He was unjustly condemned to death by Pontius Pilate. He was crucified, buried and rose from the dead on the third day after his execution.

What is the Christ? The word Christ means “the anointed one.” In other words, God appointed Jesus to fulfill specific roles. One role which Jesus fills is that of the Prophet. To put it differently, Jesus is God’s spokesman. It is He who reveals God’s will to us. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to follow what Jesus says. I must also reject any message from any source which does not agree with what has been revealed through Jesus.

Another position which Jesus fills as the Christ is that of High Priest. One task of the High Priest is to offer sacrifices for sin. Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins. His sacrifice is perfect and sufficient. As a result, no further sacrifice is necessary. Jesus also fulfills the High Priest’s duty of representing us before God. He is our advocate. One of the implications of this is that I must present my requests to God (pray) through Jesus, or in His name.

A third role Jesus fills as Christ is King. God has given Jesus all authority as well as the divine name ‘Lord.’ Because Jesus is King and Lord, I must obey His commands. I am under His protection as well as His authority.

repentance

To repent literally means ‘to change one’s mind.’ In the context of the verse under consideration, it means to change one’s mind about the the things which lead to spiritual death. In other words, repentance means that if I had the chance to do things over, I would choose not to do the things which have condemned me spiritually. Repentance is far more than sorrow over getting caught. It is changing my attitude towards what is wrong. It is to repudiate my wrong. Without a true repentance, my relationship to God cannot be restored.

acts that lead to death

This is another way of saying, sin. Sin is anything which is contrary to God’s will. We are morally accountable for our sins. The penalty for violating God’s commands, which are wholly right and just, is eternal death – that is, eternal separation from God. In addition to incurring guilt, I become a debtor when I sin because I have not given God the service which is His due. Through the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus has paid sin’s debt for the whole world. In order to remove my guilt, I must die to sin, die to self and die with Christ in baptism.

faith in God

God is One. Though He is One, He exists as a three-fold Person. Within His being are the personalities of the Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. God is eternally extant. He has no beginning or end. God is absolutely holy, righteous and good. He is love. He is omnipotent and omnipresent.

God reveals Himself to mankind through three witnesses. The first witness is that of nature. The universe which He has created, displays His majesty and power. The evidence in nature for the existence of God is overwhelming. Those who deny His existence do so not because of lack of evidence, but for philosophical or moral reasons. Similarly, it is far more logical to believe that God created the universe and all of nature than to accept that the diversity of life arose from any kind of macro or emergent evolution.

The second way in which God reveals Himself is through the written word.

The third way which God reveals Himself is through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus embodies the character and being of God. If we want to know what God is like, we can find out by looking at Jesus.

about baptisms

1) Christian baptism. Baptism is administered to penitent believers. It refers to total immersion in water. Several things occur at the time of, and by means of, baptism.

Baptism is the point at which the spiritual ‘new birth’ is completed.
Baptism is the point at which our sinful nature is removed through a spiritual circumcision.
We become Christ’s, and ‘put on Christ’ at baptism.
Our sins are washed away in baptism.
We are given the pledge of a clean conscience at baptism.
We participate in Christ’s death at baptism.
We enter into covenant relationship with God at baptism.
Just as Christ rose from the tomb, we are raised to a new spiritual life from the waters of baptism.

Baptism is not an option. It is a command of Christ. It is necessary for salvation. There is nothing inherently spiritual or efficacious in the water or act of immersion itself (baptismal regeneration). Nor is baptism a work of merit which buys salvation. On the contrary, baptism is the catalyst for our faith which enables Christ to provide salvation. It is only after his baptism that a penitent believer can legitimately call himself a Christian.

2) Baptism of the Holy Spirit. On two different occasions God sent a special manifestation of the Spirit. These manifestations were characterized by the recipients speaking in foreign languages unknown to them and other paranormal phenomena. The first occurrence was on the day of Pentecost. The second was at the house of Cornelius. Both of these baptisms occurred in special circumstances and demonstrated God’s approval and acceptance of the previously unthinkable. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something which is usual or normal. Every Christian has the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, but it cannot be characterized as a baptism.

the laying on of hands

1) During the apostolic age, special gifts of the Holy Spirit (such as the gifts of healing, prophecy or speaking in tongues) were given to individual Christians through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. These gifts were important for the growth and maturing of the church before the completion of the New Testament writings. Now that the we have the New Testament, the gifts have been discontinued. Also, the gifts can no longer be imparted because the Apostles are no longer here to do so.

2) Leaders in the church are appointed (ordained) by Evangelists or Elders laying their hands on and consecrating the candidate.

3) Another practice which might be considered ‘laying on of hands’ is the Elders of the church anointing a sick person with oil. If the sick person requests it, the Elders are to anoint him with oil and pray on his behalf. When such prayers are offered in faith, illnesses will be cured and the sins, if any, which caused the illness will be forgiven.

the resurrection of the dead

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is a foretaste or firstfruits of God’s promise that one day all the dead will rise again. Both the righteous and unrighteous will rise. They will be given new bodies which will no longer be subject to physical death and decay. The doctrine of the resurrection is central to the Christian faith. If the dead do not rise, Christ has not risen either. If Christ has not risen, then our faith is useless and futile. Without the resurrection, there is also no forgiveness of sin.

eternal judgment

Both the living and the dead will face God’s righteous judgment. Each of us will have to give account for what we have done. None of us will be justified by our own actions, for all of us have sinned. It is only those of us who have accepted the sacrifice which Christ has made on our behalf who will be found righteous. What we do in this life, and whether we accept Christ, has eternal consequences. Those who are condemned at the judgment will leave the presence of God and go to eternal punishment. Eternal punishment does not mean annihilation in the sense of being snuffed out of existence. It is an active separation from God and anything good. In contrast to this, those who are in Christ will live eternally with Him. God is preparing a new heaven and new earth in which those whom Christ has redeemed will live forever.

Well, there’s a summary of what I believe about the basics. Where do you stand on these issues?

An alternate metaphor for creation.

No matter where you stand in the Creation/Evolution debate, I suspect that this entry will peeve the socks off of you. Here’s why: I am of the opinion that most of the debate; most of the arguments for and against; most of the evidence which is bandied about by both sides, is totally irrelevant. That statement, alone, is justification enough for people in both camps to want to crucify me. But there is method in my madness. Until you’ve had a chance to figure out what it is, please put your hammer and nails away.

Now, right off the bat, a bunch of people will jump to the conclusion that I think it is irrelevant whether we were created or merely evolved. I didn’t say that. Whether God exists and, if so, whether He created the universe and everything in it – including us – is a question of extreme importance. It’s not the question, but what is said about it, which I think is largely irrelevant.

A personal odyssey

While I was growing up, just about the only things I ever heard about evolution were derogatory statements about how stupid it was and how only fools would believe in such nonsense. I don’t remember ever being taught what evolution is or having a serious discussion about what might be wrong with it. It was just ridiculed. Therefore, it was quite a shock to learn in High School biology that evolution has a logic of its own. It is something which can be believed by intelligent people. It really does make sense – provided, of course, that you are willing to accept certain premises. At the time I was too uninformed to grasp the implications of some of those premises. Nor was I experienced enough to spot some of the logical fallacies and the faulty science which was presented. In later years, when I was sharp enough to spot such things, I discovered that evolutionists don’t have a corner on logical fallacy and bad science. Many creationists have the same problem.

I will say, though, that my High School teacher went out of his way to provide a balanced view of the whole subject. Partially as a result of my respect for the teacher and his even-handed approach, I went through a stretch of several years where I believed that God created the universe and got life started, but that He used the mechanism of evolution, particularly natural selection, to develop more complex forms of life.

Sometime during my early 20s the preacher at the congregation I was attending taught a series of lessons on evolution. Much to my surprise, he didn’t go into a bunch of scientific arguments to prove evolution wrong. Instead, he approached the whole subject from a philosophic and spiritual angle. He pointed out what the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary belief are, and what the end results of those philosophies are. Frankly, I don’t remember very many specifics of what he said. But that series of talks helped me realize that I could not ride the fence. There is a clear-cut choice to be made between two opposed and irreconcilable belief systems. The creation accounts in Genesis are actually representative of a particular philosophic outlook. Likewise, evolution theory is an outgrowth of another philosophic outlook. These philosophies or belief structures are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. You’ve got to pick one or the other. Though I still had doubts, I came down on the side of creation.

Several years later, as an intellectual exercise, I tried to set all my beliefs and prejudices aside, (as though that were possible) and take an unbiased look at the question of origins. In some ways I was reluctant to do so for fear of what I might find. As it happened, the results of this quest were very beneficial and greatly reinforced the decision I had made earlier in favor of creation.

My reasons for belief

There were several things which helped persuade me that we, and the entire universe, came into being through an act of divine creation. One was symbiotic relationships. The odds of one complex organism developing into its current form are staggering enough. The odds of two completely different, yet interdependent organisms doing so simultaneously is orders of magnitude more improbable. That there are not just one, but dozens, of these relationships in nature stretches incredulity to the breaking point. The most common symbiotic relationship, and one for which I can see no evolutionary benefit, let alone necessity, is the one between male and female. Both systems must not only work perfectly, but synchronize with the other, or the species dies.

Yet, improbable things do happen. I’m told there is mathematical proof that the highly improbable often does occur. Since anything much beyond basic math goes completely over my head, there is no way for me to check the proof. I’ll just have to accept it as accurate until somebody else demonstrates otherwise. Lest somebody trot out the lottery as an example of this occurring in every-day life, let me point out the fallacy in the illustration. It is true that regardless of the odds of any one person winning the lottery, somebody does win it. But to equate the probability of winning the lottery with the probability of something evolving is a false analogy. Assuming the integrity of the lottery commission, it is fore-ordained that someone will win. There is absolutely nothing which says that evolution will occur at all – unless you are willing to concede that evolution is predetermined. And, if something or Someone is there to predetermine it, there is no need for evolution at all. If something or Someone is capable and powerful enough to predetermine evolution, then there is no logical basis for excluding the possibility that that same something or Somebody created things as they are.

Reason 2

A lot of people like to ridicule the church of the Middle Ages, often unjustly, for holding back science. Yet there is one medieval belief which evolutionists doggedly hold on to even though it flies in the face of all observation and experimental evidence. It’s the belief in spontaneous generation. In order for something to evolve at all, the threshold between the non-living and living must first be crossed. That has always seemed an impossible hurdle to me. It’s interesting that in all the brouhaha about the experiments where some amino acids were formed by shooting electrical sparks into gas mixtures, most commentators failed to mention a few things. They neglected to point out that the experiments were made under very controlled conditions. Conditions which were very, very different than anything which ever existed on early Earth. They also neglected to mention that a few acids weren’t the only things produced by the experiments. They also produced deadly toxins which would kill all life. I won’t go so far as to accuse anyone of deliberate dishonesty, but it does smell of self-delusion.

Reason 3

For many years, I’ve suspected that life, instead of evolving, may actually be devolving. In other words, each succeeding generation is, on average, somewhat less capable and viable than the preceding one. Recently I came across something which not only bears this out, but strengthens my belief in creation. To illustrate, I’ve spent a good portion of my life dealing with audio. I’ve spent more hours than I care to think about behind a mixing console, editing and designing and operating sound systems. Along the way I’ve learned that editing and the tailoring of sound is a subtractive process. It mostly involves the destruction of information.

Yes, it is possible to manipulate sound, but only if it first exists. If it isn’t there to begin with, you can’t manipulate it. Similarly, once material is removed, there is no way to re-create it, even in theory, from what is left. There are many illustrations of this. I’ll give you but one example. That MP3 you’re listening to on your Ipod contains much less material than in the original. In order to fit it into a small file size, the audio is compressed. This is done by throwing away the (hopefully!) least important information. The process cannot be reversed. The information is gone and there is no way, even in theory, to predict what should have been there. This is why MP3s can never be restored to the full quality of the original. It’s also why its inadvisable to edit an MP3 and then store it again in the same format. Each time you do, you lose even more quality, which cannot be restored.

The same sort of thing happens in genetics. There are many ways to lose genetic information. In all the experiments which have been performed, no mechanism has ever been found that increases the amount genetic information. Where did the extra information, let’s say a horse has in comparison to a fly, come from? As far as I know, there isn’t even a natural process to repair or replace the defective information caused by mutations, let alone something which would generate the extra information required for more complex organisms to evolve from less complex ones. Clearly, something else is at work. I think it points to creation.

Reason 4

The thing which convinced me the most, however, is the fact that we human beings have a sense of right and wrong. I don’t see how moral sensibility, convictions, spiritual awareness and the concepts of ‘ought’ and ‘should’ could ever be produced through a process of evolution. It simply doesn’t make sense.

God’s dilemma

Now I’m sure that there are plenty of people who are more than willing to poke holes into every reason I’ve given for my belief in creation. They’ll point out that the data I’ve mentioned is, at best, ambiguous. I agree with you that there is no definitive and indisputable proof for creation, or even the existence of God. In fact, that is precisely one of the points I’m trying to make.

So then, if God really exists, why does He make us jump through all these intellectual hoops? Why doesn’t He show Himself to us openly? Why does He leave room for doubt? On occasion I myself, have wished that God would disclose Himself more openly. But think about it from His perspective for a minute. How can God disclose Himself to us without also destroying our choice of whether to believe or not? If the Bible is correct in saying that God desires our love, how can God receive it if He takes away the choice to reject Him? God wants our love freely given, not grudging acknowledgment of His existence.

Because God, if He exists, cannot manifest Himself to us without destroying our freedom to disbelieve, there will always be a certain amount of ambiguity in the data. How you interpret the data depends largely on the philosophical outlook you bring to it. For those whose philosophic outlook embraces the concept of God, the evidence for creation is overwhelming. For those whose philosophic construct excludes God, there is no alternative to evolution. Therefore the data must be interpreted to support that theory.

Digging myself in deeper

Along the way, I’ve noticed plenty of absurdities on both sides of the aisle. For example, I think there’s a fundamental contradiction at the heart of much of the environmental movement. Many of those in the movement are fervent evolutionists. That being the case, I have never understood why they get so upset at the loss of a species or three. If natural selection and the “survival of the fittest” really are the agents of evolution, it seems to me that if a species is eliminated, it only proves it wasn’t fit to survive anyway. The fact that people get upset about it says to me that something besides evolution is at work. They are protesting on the basis of moral conviction which, itself, cannot be a product of evolutionary processes.

Evolutionists also like to accuse creationists of taking a “God-of-the-gaps” position. In other words, the only reason we need God is because we can’t yet explain something. Given enough time (and research dollars!) however, all the mysteries of nature will eventually be explained. Once we understand the mechanisms involved, there will no longer be room for belief that God, if He exists at all, created anything. There are at least two fallacies with this argument. One is that it conveniently ignores the problem of how energy or matter came into being in the first place. Regardless of the mechanism by which everything has since been ordered and arranged, how did it come into being to begin with? Evolutionists have no convincing answer.

A second fallacy is to assume that because something could occur in a certain way, that it actually did, or does, occur that way. For example, it’s possible that I could enter these words by dictating them into speech recognition software. But just because it’s possible does not prove that’s how I’m doing it. Similarly, just because there may be a purely naturalistic means of obtaining a certain outcome does not, in itself, prove that the outcome was obtained by purely naturalistic means. Nor does the existence of a naturalistic process exclude the possibility that God exists or that He is involved in that process. On the contrary, if God invented nature, we ought to expect that much of what He does is through naturalistic means.

Creationists are not immune from absurdities either. For example, one of the arguments I’ve heard in support of the young-earth hypothesis is that the oceans aren’t salty enough. The argument goes that the oceans would contain much more salt than they do if the earth was older than several thousand years. While making this argument the creationists fall into the same trap as they accuse the evolutionists of living in – uniformitarianism. But how can you possibly know how salty the oceans ought to be based on current erosion rates, or the current size of the oceans, or the current rate of precipitation, or the current salt content of the earth, etc., etc.? You’re assuming that the rate of change has stayed relatively constant. But how can you know that? You can’t.

My biggest beef with those in the creationist camp, however, is that you are fighting the wrong battle. The creation/evolution debate is not primarily a scientific one. As I stated before, it’s really about philosophy, not science. The data will always be somewhat ambiguous. There will always be another scientific factoid which throws doubt on the proof you have just so confidently asserted. You will never be able to prove creation and, therefore, the existence of God as a scientific fact. If such a god could be proven he wouldn’t be worth believing in, anyway. If God exists He, by definition, must be beyond nature and, therefore, outside the space-time continuum we experience. He transcends nature and, therefore, transcends science. You will never see Him unless you look through the eyes of faith. If we have faith, then I agree, the universe is filled with evidence which points to God. But without at least an inclination toward faith, there will always be a way to explain the evidence away – until, that is, God breaks through His self-imposed curtain and every eye beholds Him. Only then will there be no need for faith. Please don’t misunderstand me. I agree that there is value in pointing out scientific error and teaching correct science. There’s no doubt that many are helped to find Christ by your clearing away some of the misconceptions that are out there. But never forget that science, even good science, is not the answer. It’s a spiritual battle, not a scientific one. As a friend of mine pointed out, it’s not really so much about evidence as it is about morals. When you get right down to it, most people don’t refuse to believe because of the lack of evidence, but because they don’t want to submit to God’s authority. They want to do their own thing.

I haven’t actually done this, but let me pose a couple of theoretical questions which illustrate just how slippery ‘proof’ can be. For the sake of discussion, if I were to ask those in the evolution camp to describe how the universe would appear if creation were true, I expect they would answer, “Just about the way it does now.” Similarly, if I were to ask those in the creation camp to describe how the universe would appear if evolution were true, I would expect them to answer, “Just about the way it does now.” Same end state, same data, two vastly different different interpretations. How you get there depends on your philosophy, not science.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now that I’ve managed to thoroughly alienate everyone in both camps, do I have an alternative to suggest? Well, ahem, yes I do. Hang on to those hammers and nails a little bit longer.

While giving a talk on Genesis, several years ago, a speaker posed an interesting question. He asked something to the effect of, “If a couple of days after God created him, Adam took his chain saw and cut down a tree, how many rings would it have had?” The point of that fanciful question was that if the Genesis record is correct, then most of the plants and animals must have been created in a mature or adult state. That concept got me to thinking. If, at the time of creation, the plants and animals appeared older than they actually were, is it possible that the same applies to nature and the universe as a whole? If, as many think, the six creative days of Genesis refer to actual days rather than eras, it must be so.

But if the universe and the Earth, in particular, are as young as Genesis seems to indicate, why would God make them appear older than they are? When I ran the idea that the universe might look older than it is by a believing friend of mine, he rejected the notion out of hand. His reason for doing so is that God is honest. To make the universe appear a different age than it is, would be deceitful. I replied that God hasn’t deceived anyone. In His Word He’s told mankind precisely what He’s done. My friend wouldn’t buy it, even though he believes the Genesis account.

It wasn’t until just recently that my thoughts came together in some sort of coherent way. I think I now have a decent construct to explain what’s going on. First, I’ll try to describe my theory in quasi-scientific terms, then by using a metaphor.

A graph for all seasons

Since it’s a little hard to explain my concept just in words, I’ve drawn some diagrams to help you visualize what I’m talking about.

Consider a disk. This disk represents a slice of our experience at the present time. By ‘our experience’ I mean not only our individual existence, but also the state of the whole world, our universe and the whole of nature. It should be obvious that the physical laws which govern this slice of existence are uniform and consistent. If chemistry, physics, thermodynamics and the like were erratic, or were self-contradictory, the universe, and we along with it, could not exist.

Now think of the disk as being bound, or defined, by several constraints. One of them is time, another space, another matter, a fourth energy and so on. I don’t claim that these are the only constraints – there may well be other dimensions – but these are enough to illustrate the concept. For the purists among you, yes, I am aware that these dimensions, for example matter and energy, can be converted from one to another. Think of the rim of the disk as a visual representation the transforms.

What happens if we extrapolate the dimensions out into the future? The laws of physics indicate that eventually everything will reach the same, uniform temperature. All motion will cease. The universe will be in a state of equilibrium. In other words things will reach a stable, steady-state condition.

This, of course, assumes that nature is a closed system. But what if it is not? It is always perilous to predict the future of any system which is open to influence from the outside, on the basis of its current state. If there is something, or Someone, outside of the system there is no way to predict from within the system itself if, or how, what is on the outside will affect the system – unless the outside entity informs those on the inside what it is going to do. In his book, Miracles, A Preliminary Study, C.S. Lewis provides a useful illustration of this concept. He points out that the laws of physics accurately predict the trajectory of a set of billiard balls. But the actual motion of a ball will be very different from what was expected if, while it is in motion, someone interferes by poking it with a cue. The laws of physics predict what will happen if there is no interference. They cannot predict whether there will be any outside interference and, if so, what that interference will be.

Now if God exists and He has created nature He is, necessarily, outside of nature. In the absence of divine revelation there is no way to predict, from within nature, whether and how God will interfere with nature. Fortunately, we are not totally in the dark. Assuming that the Bible is what it claims to be – a divine revelation – we do know how God will interfere with the natural course of events. Nature will never reach steady state. A day is coming when God will call a halt to everything. Nature as we know it will cease to exist. The predictions of physics about the end-state of nature are wildly misleading, even though the laws are perfectly consistent and accurately describe current physical reality.

What do the physical laws tell us about origins? Following the laws backwards in time, they indicate that all of nature originated from a singular time and place. Scientists call this point in space-time by different names. Some refer to it as the singularity. Others call it the big bang. (For purposes of this discussion, whether the dimension lines come to a sharp point as shown in the diagram, or whether they form a smooth curve as claimed by Richard Dawkins, really doesn’t matter.)

But we again have the problem that physics cannot tell whether and how something, or Someone, outside of nature may have interfered in the past. It takes divine revelation to disclose it. Assuming that such interference has occurred, then just as the laws of physics point to a very misleading conclusion about the end of nature, they also do not give an accurate picture of its beginning. Divine revelation tells us that nature never was at singularity as predicted by the laws. Instead, nature as we know it came into being by a creative act. There is no contradiction. There is no inconsistency. In order for nature to function as it does, the laws must be as they are. It couldn’t be otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nature had its origin in a singularity. We can learn very little about the actual age of the universe or our earth by looking at present conditions.

A gaming metaphor

Let me give you another illustration which might make things a little clearer.

Look at this ‘screenshot’ from a hypothetical role-playing game. A character, let’s call him Gus, lives in, and travels through, a virtual world. From his perspective the mountain in the background is many miles away. The comparatively small hills in the foreground have eroded to their current state through countless thousands, or millions of years. The road he’s walking on was built by means of a government public works program and took a decade to complete. The ruins he’s passing are the remains of a previous civilization which was destroyed 500 years ago.

Gus has freedom of action. He can make decisions and react to his environment. He interacts with other characters, and they with him.

There are several important points to note about this game: a) The game program and the rules which define the game are consistent and well-ordered. If they were not, either the computer would ‘hang’ in some undefined state or behave in some unpredictable (and therefore, unplayable) way. b) Though Gus and the other characters are autonomous in the sense that they can ‘reason’ and make their own decisions, their conduct is constrained by the limits of the program which defines their environment and what actions are ‘legal.’ In other words they cannot, by definition, do anything which violates the programming of the game. c) The state of the virtual environment in which Gus and the other characters find themselves indicates little, or nothing, about the history of the game itself. d) The rules which govern the environment and how the characters behave, do not predict accurately either how the game began or how it will end. e) The game is not a closed system. It is subject to interference by any number of outside influences. f) By observing their environment the characters in the game might be able to infer the existence of a programmer and a few of his characteristics but, in the absence of communication from the programmer, it is impossible for the characters to ever know him.

Now think about the parallels between this virtual environment and our own experience. a) Nature is governed and controlled by consistent and predictable laws. If it were not, we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it. b) We possess free will and, within broad limits, are autonomous. Yet we, too, are constrained by the limits of our environment. Nature is very unforgiving when we try to violate those limits. c) From Gus’ perspective those hills have been there for thousands or millions of years. In reality, however, the programmer built them into the program only last month. Similarly, to Gus the hills look many miles away. From the programmer’s perspective they are only a few pixels distant. Gus cannot even imagine the dimensions in which the programmer lives. If God exists, He is beyond our ability to imagine, let alone comprehend. Our environment may be to us as the virtual hills are to Gus. d) The rules of the game might indicate thousands of years of virtual ‘history,’ going clear back to the formation of the environment itself. It may also project various endings of the environment. In reality, however, someone booted the computer up half an hour ago. Similarly, the actual end might be very different than the projected endings to the game. For example, there is no way for any character in the game to know that five minutes from now someone will hit the computer’s off switch. Similarly, we cannot say anything definite about either the beginning or the end state of nature merely by observing the current state of affairs. In the absence of revelation, there is no way for us to know anything about its true origins or ending. e) The course of the game might be altered drastically by external input from keyboard or mouse. The characters within the game have no way of knowing when or if such interference will occur. Similarly, if nature is not a closed system, we have no assurance that there will not be interference from the outside. f) We’re like the characters in the game. We may be able to infer the existence of a Creator from what we observe about our environment (Romans 1:20 says that His power and divinity are clearly recognizable) but, unless God chooses to reveal Himself, there is no way for us to really know Him.

Do you think my metaphor is far-fetched? Have you ever heard of the a-life movement? (Sometimes also spelled, alife.) It stands for ‘artificial life.’ There really are a bunch of people out there who are trying to write computer programs which not only simulate life, but produce life. A while back I was browsing the shelves at the local library looking for a book on Java programming. In the process I ran across Creation: Life And How To Make It by Steve Grand. It was a fascinating, yet somewhat disturbing read. Though I disagree with the man that we humans will ever be able to truly create life, he was able to program critters which did show some of the characteristics of living things. (The program is called Creatures.) One of the interesting issues which was highlighted by the program was the right of the creator to also kill or destroy the critters he created. That’s a very important insight which I only obliquely implied in my game metaphor.

Solomon wrote that there’s nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). I was feeling pretty smug about my metaphor and how it makes my concept of creation easy to explain. I was congratulating myself for coming up with such a brilliant idea. Well, not too long ago, I was reading an anthology of Science Fiction short stories. One of them was about a programmer who created a virtual environment. The characters in the environment are alive and gradually develop the technology to make computers. They end up programming a virtual environment with, you guessed it, characters who are alive and able to develop their own technology. The author states in the introduction, that the story bothered him for a long time. He didn’t say so, but I gather it was because it suggests that we, ourselves, may be the product of Someone else’s design. Unfortunately, I didn’t make note of the title of the story, or the author. It may have been Poul Anderson. In any case, there went my claim to an original idea.

All ends well that ends (a summary of this long-winded ramble)

I began this essay by saying that I think much of what is said in the Creation/Evolution debate is irrelevant. The reason I think so is that I do not believe that origins can be correctly derived from observing the present state of things. If God exists, and He created nature, then the beginning must have been very different than projecting physical laws backward in time would indicate. We’re not in a closed system. Therefore, without divine revelation neither the past nor the future is predictable with any certainty. If that is so, then much of the debate is over non-issues. In the long run, arguing about science won’t prove anything. But, then, Paul said it long before I did in 1st Timothy 6:20.

Well, there you have it, folks. Now, if you must, go ahead and break out those hammers and nails.