Many people, excluding myself, make New Year's resolutions. As I do not make them myself, I offer little in the way of advice in making them. I do say that if you make them that you should keep them. It is better not to make a vow, even to yourself, than to make one and not keep it.
I would caution, though, that these resolutions can become too focused on "me" and what "I" am going to do - for myself or for God - and less on what God may really want. But the idea behind this blog is a little different. It is more about what God has for us in the new year than what goals we set for ourselves.
Many churches and individual Christians will pray in the New Year (instead of partying) or will be praying around the new year regarding what God has planned for us in the next year. God may reveal to us what the new year will be like.
I specifically remember the new year 27 years ago in 1984 when God gave me an idea as to what that year would bring. Since Christy and I were married in 1980, we had received wonderful spiritual and biblical training, but had no ministry and had greatly struggled financially for a long time. I also was separated from my whole family, especially from my parents.
On the first Sunday in 1984 (I believe it was the 4th), our pastor began his sermon with the words 'new beginnings'. He said that some would experience some 'new beginnings' that year. Those two words rung in my ears for weeks after I heard them. I knew it was the Lord telling me about what 1984 would bring.
Three weeks later, my parents show up out of the blue (they had been living in Chincoteague and we were in northwest Pennsylvania) and we were reconciled immediately. They invited us to vacation in Chincoteague and we did so when I had vacation time in March.
While we were there, he offered me a job and paid me to move here. Immediately, I was making double what I had been before and was developing much needed skills. I also began my teaching ministry that I have been doing ever since on the Eastern Shore.
So in that year, my career began to blossom, my ministry got off the ground and I was reconciled to all my family. That little revelation from God laid the groundwork for what God wanted to do in our lives. "For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." (Jeremiah 29:11)
This year the Lord has given me a word and a Word. What does that mean? It means that He has impressed a concept and a scripture on my heart about this upcoming year. I wish that I could share it with you, but it is between me and the Lord.
So I encourage you to spend time in God's presence and asking Him about His plans for us this year and not just declare our resolutions and our plans for this next year.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Church and State
I am using the common term 'church and state' in a different way as a title for this post. My hope is that some will read it because of the title.
Anyway, I will not discuss 'separation of church and state', but a related matter. I hope to clarify certain debates and assertions that Christians sometimes make regarding political matters as it relates to the Bible.
First of all, we must recognize that God has ordained both government and the church. With that in mind we all know that the church and state perform different functions; otherwise, there would be no need for both. With that said, we also affirm that the church and state occupy the same moral universe. By that I mean that good is the same for both the state and the church. For example, certain commandments are propagated by both. "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder" come to mind right away.
So it is a good thing that the state enforces these moral laws just as the church preaches against them. But there are some good things that we have found it is best for the state not to do. We do not want the state to favor one religion (even true religion) over another. At one time, governments did this and where it still occurs it is a bad thing.
We will tolerate cults and Satan-worshipers though we know they propagate evil. That is, we tolerate them until they murder, steal, etc. So it seems best to limit the government's role in restraining certain behaviors.
Lately, however, some governments have taken it upon themselves to limit things like 'hate speech' - more so in Europe and Canada than in the US though I suspect we are not far behind. Now Christians can agree that any sort of hatred of another, expressed or not, is a bad thing condemned by Jesus and the NT. But does that mean it should be illegal? And just who gets to define hate speech? Recently, in Sweden, a pastor was jailed for preaching against homosexual behavior. And this is not an isolated incident. (How odd it is that government allows outwardly immoral behavior but outlaws speech and even thought.)
The very reason for our first amendment (freedom of speech and religion) is to keep the state from persecuting the innocent and harming those who are exercising their rights however odious their speech or religion might be. It seems that even law students today have swallowed the idea that the state has the right and responsibility to hinder some speech because it may offend or even make someone feel uncomfortable. Even Jesus would be prosecuted under such a regime. He offended a crowd of thousands by telling them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I think most Christians would agree with me on this, but there I believe that there are also times when the state and church ought to play paradoxical roles when it comes to certain issues. One is the issue of illegal immigration. I have heard some suggest that since the Bible tells us to be kind to the alien and to help anyone who is in trouble that that means that we ought to encourage the state to not enforce the law or even to do away with the law.
Here is where we have to have a mature understanding. It is right and good for the state to protect our country (that is its main duty) while the church exercises compassion on those who may have broken the law. If a criminal came to a pastor in need of food and forgiveness, should the pastor not show mercy and try to help this poor soul? Of course he should. But does that mean that the church should try to change the law so the person will no longer be a criminal? Should we tell the state not to enforce the law because Jesus preached love and mercy? Certainly not.
There is no contradiction between the church showing mercy and the state enforcing the law. The biblical injunction to be good to aliens and strangers, in my view, has nothing to do with the government setting reasonable restrictions on immigration. That would be like prison ministries advocating the release of all prisoners on the grounds of mercy.
I like something that Martin Luther said about church and state. He wanted the government to enforce the law and the church to show mercy and to preach the gospel. While the church should not try to enforce the law neither should the state be doing what God told the church to do.
I heard something really bizarre in this past week's debate over whether to let the tax cuts expire. One commentator said that lowering tax rates on the rich was immoral and he tried to use Jesus to back him up. He noted that Jesus told the rich (actually one rich man) to sell all that he had and give to the poor. Well, it is true that Jesus said this but, He never said that the state ought to do this. Jesus just might tell you to do that very thing, but it would still be up to you to do it.
I would argue that the state is immoral when it taxes too much. The state should not greedily consume our resources or do the job of the church.
There is a modern tendency for even Christians to look to government to solve all of our social problems. This is not only a bad thing, it is idolatry. Christians must always look to God for solutions and only push the state to action when it is appropriate. It is especially inappropriate when the state, in trying to do good, accidentally does harm. It is not good intentions that are needed but wisdom to produce positive results.
Anyway, I will not discuss 'separation of church and state', but a related matter. I hope to clarify certain debates and assertions that Christians sometimes make regarding political matters as it relates to the Bible.
First of all, we must recognize that God has ordained both government and the church. With that in mind we all know that the church and state perform different functions; otherwise, there would be no need for both. With that said, we also affirm that the church and state occupy the same moral universe. By that I mean that good is the same for both the state and the church. For example, certain commandments are propagated by both. "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder" come to mind right away.
So it is a good thing that the state enforces these moral laws just as the church preaches against them. But there are some good things that we have found it is best for the state not to do. We do not want the state to favor one religion (even true religion) over another. At one time, governments did this and where it still occurs it is a bad thing.
We will tolerate cults and Satan-worshipers though we know they propagate evil. That is, we tolerate them until they murder, steal, etc. So it seems best to limit the government's role in restraining certain behaviors.
Lately, however, some governments have taken it upon themselves to limit things like 'hate speech' - more so in Europe and Canada than in the US though I suspect we are not far behind. Now Christians can agree that any sort of hatred of another, expressed or not, is a bad thing condemned by Jesus and the NT. But does that mean it should be illegal? And just who gets to define hate speech? Recently, in Sweden, a pastor was jailed for preaching against homosexual behavior. And this is not an isolated incident. (How odd it is that government allows outwardly immoral behavior but outlaws speech and even thought.)
The very reason for our first amendment (freedom of speech and religion) is to keep the state from persecuting the innocent and harming those who are exercising their rights however odious their speech or religion might be. It seems that even law students today have swallowed the idea that the state has the right and responsibility to hinder some speech because it may offend or even make someone feel uncomfortable. Even Jesus would be prosecuted under such a regime. He offended a crowd of thousands by telling them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I think most Christians would agree with me on this, but there I believe that there are also times when the state and church ought to play paradoxical roles when it comes to certain issues. One is the issue of illegal immigration. I have heard some suggest that since the Bible tells us to be kind to the alien and to help anyone who is in trouble that that means that we ought to encourage the state to not enforce the law or even to do away with the law.
Here is where we have to have a mature understanding. It is right and good for the state to protect our country (that is its main duty) while the church exercises compassion on those who may have broken the law. If a criminal came to a pastor in need of food and forgiveness, should the pastor not show mercy and try to help this poor soul? Of course he should. But does that mean that the church should try to change the law so the person will no longer be a criminal? Should we tell the state not to enforce the law because Jesus preached love and mercy? Certainly not.
There is no contradiction between the church showing mercy and the state enforcing the law. The biblical injunction to be good to aliens and strangers, in my view, has nothing to do with the government setting reasonable restrictions on immigration. That would be like prison ministries advocating the release of all prisoners on the grounds of mercy.
I like something that Martin Luther said about church and state. He wanted the government to enforce the law and the church to show mercy and to preach the gospel. While the church should not try to enforce the law neither should the state be doing what God told the church to do.
I heard something really bizarre in this past week's debate over whether to let the tax cuts expire. One commentator said that lowering tax rates on the rich was immoral and he tried to use Jesus to back him up. He noted that Jesus told the rich (actually one rich man) to sell all that he had and give to the poor. Well, it is true that Jesus said this but, He never said that the state ought to do this. Jesus just might tell you to do that very thing, but it would still be up to you to do it.
I would argue that the state is immoral when it taxes too much. The state should not greedily consume our resources or do the job of the church.
There is a modern tendency for even Christians to look to government to solve all of our social problems. This is not only a bad thing, it is idolatry. Christians must always look to God for solutions and only push the state to action when it is appropriate. It is especially inappropriate when the state, in trying to do good, accidentally does harm. It is not good intentions that are needed but wisdom to produce positive results.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Two kinds of Christians
Those of us who believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience one can have subsequent to the New Birth (salvation) are often accused of making two classes of Christian - one superior to the other. It is argued that there cannot be two classes of Christians, one having this Baptism and the rest lacking it. That would put some Christians above others.
Now I will admit that some Pentecostal Christians do think that they are superior to others, but I have found that this disease affects Christians of all sorts. Some think because of their denominational affiliation or their doctrine or whatever it is that they are somehow better than others. This is spiritual pride and it is odious no matter who has it. Also, I must add that some have had a superior attitude against Pentecostal Christians because we do strange things like speak in tongues and worship God very loudly. (I personally am not all that loud.)
I must address, however, the complaint that God could not possibly have this separate Baptism in the Holy Spirit since it would actually divide Christians into two categories. This assertion, though, betrays a basic misunderstanding of what the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is for. It is not to make one holier and more spiritual (despite what the church at Corinth thought).
The Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 12) are for power to minister. Jesus explains this in Acts 1:5,8, "You shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit ... you shall receive POWER when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you shall be my witnesses." So it is for power to be a witness and not for personal holiness.
Does that make two classes of Christian? It does not. Otherwise, we would have many classes of Christian since their are different ministries and different levels of power and anointing given to those ministries. Take evangelists, for example. Obviously, Billy Graham has greater power to minister than most ministers, even other evangelists. Does that make him a higher class of Christian? Certainly not, though some Christians might think of him that way. And we often do that with ministers of the gospel in general. We put them in a different class, in our own minds, because of their ministry.
But if you talk to those ministers then you will find that they are no different from the rest of us. They have the same struggles with the world, the flesh and the Devil that all of us do. They just have power to minister to others and a greater responsibility because of that ministry.
So I hope that we can decide these matters on scriptural grounds and not on arguments based on our general sense of what we think that God does or does not do.
Now I will admit that some Pentecostal Christians do think that they are superior to others, but I have found that this disease affects Christians of all sorts. Some think because of their denominational affiliation or their doctrine or whatever it is that they are somehow better than others. This is spiritual pride and it is odious no matter who has it. Also, I must add that some have had a superior attitude against Pentecostal Christians because we do strange things like speak in tongues and worship God very loudly. (I personally am not all that loud.)
I must address, however, the complaint that God could not possibly have this separate Baptism in the Holy Spirit since it would actually divide Christians into two categories. This assertion, though, betrays a basic misunderstanding of what the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is for. It is not to make one holier and more spiritual (despite what the church at Corinth thought).
The Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 12) are for power to minister. Jesus explains this in Acts 1:5,8, "You shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit ... you shall receive POWER when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you shall be my witnesses." So it is for power to be a witness and not for personal holiness.
Does that make two classes of Christian? It does not. Otherwise, we would have many classes of Christian since their are different ministries and different levels of power and anointing given to those ministries. Take evangelists, for example. Obviously, Billy Graham has greater power to minister than most ministers, even other evangelists. Does that make him a higher class of Christian? Certainly not, though some Christians might think of him that way. And we often do that with ministers of the gospel in general. We put them in a different class, in our own minds, because of their ministry.
But if you talk to those ministers then you will find that they are no different from the rest of us. They have the same struggles with the world, the flesh and the Devil that all of us do. They just have power to minister to others and a greater responsibility because of that ministry.
So I hope that we can decide these matters on scriptural grounds and not on arguments based on our general sense of what we think that God does or does not do.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
"The Lord told me"
Have you ever heard someone say, 'The Lord told me' this or that? Did it bother you? I read an article in a Christian publication recently where it really annoyed the author when someone did this. A decision was being made in some sort of church meeting when someone insisted that God had spoken to them on the matter. The author did not like it because it seemed like sort of a trump card to him. No other opinion would matter.
I certainly understand his reaction from a natural point of view. If someone says that they have the mind of God on a matter, it would seem to end all discussion.
But this situation does not bother me nearly as much as the author's reaction, which seemed entirely negative. He did not even bring up the point as to whether or not this person might be right. Maybe they did hear from God.
Now if you do not believe that God speaks to people, then it would be understandable that you would be annoyed at such a thing. (Also, if you do not believe that God speaks to people, then I gently suggest that you read the Bible more carefully. If you do, you should quickly realize that God does speak to His children.)
Another possibility is that God did not speak to this person and only thought that He did; or worse, they simply said this to impress or manipulate whoever they were talking to. In that case, it would be best to simply not accept the 'revelation' that this person had.
So we can break down this situation rather easily. Either God spoke to them or He did not. So, then, what do we call it when someone says they are speaking on God's behalf? We usually call it prophecy, do we not? How do we deal with prophecies according to the NT?
Prophecies are supposed to be judged by those who hear it. "Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test all things (prophecies). Hold fast to what is good." 1 Thess 5:20-21 "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." 1 Cor 14:29 (I hope that you noticed that we are not to disdain those who speak in God's name, truly or mistakenly.)
Anyone with a 'Word from the Lord' or prophecy ought to let others who have the Spirit judge their revelation. If they will not submit their purported revelation to others then they are proud and should be ignored. God will certainly reveal what He desires to those who are in authority. Now this does not mean that those in authority necessarily listen to God, but that does not mean that someone who might actually know the mind of the Lord is allowed to despise or judge or usurp authority. God is not the author of confusion. If God shows you that the leadership is going in the wrong direction then you should pray for them, not cause a ruckus.
If everyone understands this, then there should be no hard feelings when one's 'revelation' is not received. I think that the problem here is that we have some who believe that God will speak to them and those who do not. Of course, if you do not have prophecy in your church, as most churches do not, then they never learn how to handle such things.
Having spent many years in Pentecostal/charismatic groups, I have heard this much more often than the average believer. It is generally handled very well, especially by older Christians who have a lot of experience in this. I have found that it is often best, even if God has shown me something, not to say 'the Lord showed me this or that'. It's better just to put it out there and hope that God shows them the same thing. And much of the time people who say this are just plain wrong. But even if they are wrong, and it is judged by mature believers, then no harm is done.
The conclusion: Everyone remain calm. Those who say 'the Lord showed me' need to be willing to have their revelation judged by others. Those who hear this should feel free to judge these things according to the Word and by what the Lord bears witness to. That does mean, of course, that we should lightly brush off (despise) what is brought forth even by immature believers or by those who are a little overzealous to have their spiritual experience confirmed.
I certainly understand his reaction from a natural point of view. If someone says that they have the mind of God on a matter, it would seem to end all discussion.
But this situation does not bother me nearly as much as the author's reaction, which seemed entirely negative. He did not even bring up the point as to whether or not this person might be right. Maybe they did hear from God.
Now if you do not believe that God speaks to people, then it would be understandable that you would be annoyed at such a thing. (Also, if you do not believe that God speaks to people, then I gently suggest that you read the Bible more carefully. If you do, you should quickly realize that God does speak to His children.)
Another possibility is that God did not speak to this person and only thought that He did; or worse, they simply said this to impress or manipulate whoever they were talking to. In that case, it would be best to simply not accept the 'revelation' that this person had.
So we can break down this situation rather easily. Either God spoke to them or He did not. So, then, what do we call it when someone says they are speaking on God's behalf? We usually call it prophecy, do we not? How do we deal with prophecies according to the NT?
Prophecies are supposed to be judged by those who hear it. "Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test all things (prophecies). Hold fast to what is good." 1 Thess 5:20-21 "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." 1 Cor 14:29 (I hope that you noticed that we are not to disdain those who speak in God's name, truly or mistakenly.)
Anyone with a 'Word from the Lord' or prophecy ought to let others who have the Spirit judge their revelation. If they will not submit their purported revelation to others then they are proud and should be ignored. God will certainly reveal what He desires to those who are in authority. Now this does not mean that those in authority necessarily listen to God, but that does not mean that someone who might actually know the mind of the Lord is allowed to despise or judge or usurp authority. God is not the author of confusion. If God shows you that the leadership is going in the wrong direction then you should pray for them, not cause a ruckus.
If everyone understands this, then there should be no hard feelings when one's 'revelation' is not received. I think that the problem here is that we have some who believe that God will speak to them and those who do not. Of course, if you do not have prophecy in your church, as most churches do not, then they never learn how to handle such things.
Having spent many years in Pentecostal/charismatic groups, I have heard this much more often than the average believer. It is generally handled very well, especially by older Christians who have a lot of experience in this. I have found that it is often best, even if God has shown me something, not to say 'the Lord showed me this or that'. It's better just to put it out there and hope that God shows them the same thing. And much of the time people who say this are just plain wrong. But even if they are wrong, and it is judged by mature believers, then no harm is done.
The conclusion: Everyone remain calm. Those who say 'the Lord showed me' need to be willing to have their revelation judged by others. Those who hear this should feel free to judge these things according to the Word and by what the Lord bears witness to. That does mean, of course, that we should lightly brush off (despise) what is brought forth even by immature believers or by those who are a little overzealous to have their spiritual experience confirmed.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Political Correctness
You may have heard the term 'political correctness' and are not quite sure what it means. I am not going to define it here, but I will give an example of it and try to explain why Christians should resist it.
I was watching television a few days ago when some so-called journalist came on the air bemoaning the fact that people in America do not like Buddhism and Islam. In fact, it was pointed out that most Americans dislike Buddhism even more than Islam. The "journalist" immediately began talking about what we ought to do about this. She jumped to the conclusion, without hesitation, that if someone does not like another's religion then they must hate that person. And if we hate someone that is a bad thing. We ought to love one another.
If there is one vestige left of Christianity in our culture it is the idea that one should love one's neighbor. But, as usual, the world has perverted the concept of loving one's neighbor to approving that neighbor's behavior, or in this case, religion.
Now it is true that if someone hates another's religion then that hatred may be directed towards a person who practices that religion. And that, of course, is wrong. We must very careful that we do not fall into hatred no matter how much we may despise the religion that person follows.
But there is another side to this coin, too. We are called not only to love our neighbors (whatever their religion is), but also to hate evil. We should hate evil actions and evil religions. Now some will object at this point and say that it is un-Christian to say that someone's religion is evil. After all, there are certainly many good people in that religion. To put down their religion is to put them down.
No, that is not true at all. Just because their religion is wrong does not make them bad people (they may or may not be), it may only make them deceived. Paul told the church at Corinth that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God." (1 Cor 10:20) Paul does not condemn the practitioners of that religion, only the religion itself. He warns against participation in it by Christians.
We need to pray for those who are in demonic bondage to false religions. Those people need God's mercy and grace so that they can be delivered from this bondage and recognize their need for Jesus Christ. We are not to support them in their deception. If we truly loved them, we would do whatever is in our power to see them set free by the gospel.
The big problem with political correctness is that it tries to tell us what to think and feel about things. We are supposed to love Islam and Buddhism and every other religion. That is multicultural nonsense. We should be discerning about these things.
Do these religions bring people closer to God or farther away from Him? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." Do we actually believe that, or do we believe that one should not witness to those who are in a 'faith community' that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord?
If we are not careful, our political correctness could be consigning those 'good people' in those false religions to an eternity in Hell because we do not wish to offend their religious sensibilities.
I am willing to offend those who are politically correct to save a fallen world.
I was watching television a few days ago when some so-called journalist came on the air bemoaning the fact that people in America do not like Buddhism and Islam. In fact, it was pointed out that most Americans dislike Buddhism even more than Islam. The "journalist" immediately began talking about what we ought to do about this. She jumped to the conclusion, without hesitation, that if someone does not like another's religion then they must hate that person. And if we hate someone that is a bad thing. We ought to love one another.
If there is one vestige left of Christianity in our culture it is the idea that one should love one's neighbor. But, as usual, the world has perverted the concept of loving one's neighbor to approving that neighbor's behavior, or in this case, religion.
Now it is true that if someone hates another's religion then that hatred may be directed towards a person who practices that religion. And that, of course, is wrong. We must very careful that we do not fall into hatred no matter how much we may despise the religion that person follows.
But there is another side to this coin, too. We are called not only to love our neighbors (whatever their religion is), but also to hate evil. We should hate evil actions and evil religions. Now some will object at this point and say that it is un-Christian to say that someone's religion is evil. After all, there are certainly many good people in that religion. To put down their religion is to put them down.
No, that is not true at all. Just because their religion is wrong does not make them bad people (they may or may not be), it may only make them deceived. Paul told the church at Corinth that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God." (1 Cor 10:20) Paul does not condemn the practitioners of that religion, only the religion itself. He warns against participation in it by Christians.
We need to pray for those who are in demonic bondage to false religions. Those people need God's mercy and grace so that they can be delivered from this bondage and recognize their need for Jesus Christ. We are not to support them in their deception. If we truly loved them, we would do whatever is in our power to see them set free by the gospel.
The big problem with political correctness is that it tries to tell us what to think and feel about things. We are supposed to love Islam and Buddhism and every other religion. That is multicultural nonsense. We should be discerning about these things.
Do these religions bring people closer to God or farther away from Him? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." Do we actually believe that, or do we believe that one should not witness to those who are in a 'faith community' that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord?
If we are not careful, our political correctness could be consigning those 'good people' in those false religions to an eternity in Hell because we do not wish to offend their religious sensibilities.
I am willing to offend those who are politically correct to save a fallen world.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Hawking's Blunder
Recently, Stephen Hawking, the world's most famous living physicist, announced that God was not needed to create the universe. This caused an immediate reaction from both the religious and scientific community. Many were disappointed in him and many rightly criticized his statement. Science simply cannot explain how physical laws came into existence.
But I am not writing to add my two cents to this discussion. Rather, I want to focus on why I think that this is surprising coming from Hawking.
Now it is well known that many scientists are atheists and find no place for God in their science. What is less well known is that it very much depends on their field of expertise. Biologists are the most likely to be atheists, but physicists are the least likely. Astrophysicists in particular are the most likely to believe in God and many are becoming Christians.
Let's examine why this is so: Biologists examine earth's living things and try to understand how they function both separately and in ecological systems. They have a overarching hypothesis, called Evolution, which for them ties all things together. In defense of this hypothesis (it is technically a hypothesis and not a scientific theory) biologists have opposed Creation Science and Intelligent Design which see the need of a Creator. So there is an animosity that has developed between many biologists and Christians who are scientists. (Ever since Mary Baker Eddy it is awkward to use the term Christian Science in a way that would actually make sense.)
In Astrophysics, there is no such animosity. More importantly, they have the Big Bang Theory (once again a hypothesis) that most physicists use to account for the existence of our universe. The 'Big Bang' states that the universe has a beginning. This means that both time and matter had a beginning. It also means that matter is not eternal which is what atheists have always insisted on.
If something happened that brought matter and time into existence, it logically follows that whatever was the cause of the Big Bang must have certain properties. It must not be subject to time and space limitations (ie., it must be eternal and omnipresent). It also must be supremely knowledgeable and intelligent (ie., omniscient and omnicompetent). And it must be more powerful than what it created (omnipotent). Does this sound like anyone you know?
It's a description of the God of the Bible.
No wonder that so many astrophysicists believe in God. To me this is what makes Hawking's statement so amazing. He seems to be ignoring what other physicists see very clearly. Not just that it is likely that Someone is behind the wonderful order of this vast universe, but that physics practically falls apart without Him.
I am not surprised that an evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins is an atheist since God may seem to him to be a threat to the reigning hypothesis of his field. Hawking, however, seems to be ignoring the logical conclusion of the main hypothesis in his own field.
I understand while Christians have reacted negatively to Hawking's statement. But I must remind us all that Hawking is not speaking in his area of expertise and that we should, perhaps, ignore all famous people who offer their opinions on things that actually know little about.
Personally, I turn off anybody, no matter how famous, who "speaks out" on a matter that they may firmly believe in, yet cannot be considered an expert on in any way. (All of us, of course, may express our beliefs and opinions, and God requires us to preach the gospel to everyone, but that is far from acting like an expert in a field in which we are untrained.) I am amused when actors will testify in Congress about some issue that they know little about, though they pretend they do. And their political views I generally find both ridiculous and out of touch with what normal people think.
In the same way, we should be wary when someone who is expert in some area speaks about things in another area. Why should the average person be interested in Hawkin's view of anything but physics?
He committed two blunders. First, he rejects the very idea of a Creator, and that is sad enough in itself. Second, he thinks that he is qualified to make public declarations beyond his area of expertise. This is almost as disappointing.
So, let's pray for him and others who think that the knowledge that they have replaces their need to believe in the living God and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Postscript:
By the way, I do not want to discourage any Christian from sharing the gospel because he or she is not an 'expert' on the faith. No, your experience of being born-again and personally knowing and walking with God makes you more of an expert than mere academic learning could ever make you.
But I am not writing to add my two cents to this discussion. Rather, I want to focus on why I think that this is surprising coming from Hawking.
Now it is well known that many scientists are atheists and find no place for God in their science. What is less well known is that it very much depends on their field of expertise. Biologists are the most likely to be atheists, but physicists are the least likely. Astrophysicists in particular are the most likely to believe in God and many are becoming Christians.
Let's examine why this is so: Biologists examine earth's living things and try to understand how they function both separately and in ecological systems. They have a overarching hypothesis, called Evolution, which for them ties all things together. In defense of this hypothesis (it is technically a hypothesis and not a scientific theory) biologists have opposed Creation Science and Intelligent Design which see the need of a Creator. So there is an animosity that has developed between many biologists and Christians who are scientists. (Ever since Mary Baker Eddy it is awkward to use the term Christian Science in a way that would actually make sense.)
In Astrophysics, there is no such animosity. More importantly, they have the Big Bang Theory (once again a hypothesis) that most physicists use to account for the existence of our universe. The 'Big Bang' states that the universe has a beginning. This means that both time and matter had a beginning. It also means that matter is not eternal which is what atheists have always insisted on.
If something happened that brought matter and time into existence, it logically follows that whatever was the cause of the Big Bang must have certain properties. It must not be subject to time and space limitations (ie., it must be eternal and omnipresent). It also must be supremely knowledgeable and intelligent (ie., omniscient and omnicompetent). And it must be more powerful than what it created (omnipotent). Does this sound like anyone you know?
It's a description of the God of the Bible.
No wonder that so many astrophysicists believe in God. To me this is what makes Hawking's statement so amazing. He seems to be ignoring what other physicists see very clearly. Not just that it is likely that Someone is behind the wonderful order of this vast universe, but that physics practically falls apart without Him.
I am not surprised that an evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins is an atheist since God may seem to him to be a threat to the reigning hypothesis of his field. Hawking, however, seems to be ignoring the logical conclusion of the main hypothesis in his own field.
I understand while Christians have reacted negatively to Hawking's statement. But I must remind us all that Hawking is not speaking in his area of expertise and that we should, perhaps, ignore all famous people who offer their opinions on things that actually know little about.
Personally, I turn off anybody, no matter how famous, who "speaks out" on a matter that they may firmly believe in, yet cannot be considered an expert on in any way. (All of us, of course, may express our beliefs and opinions, and God requires us to preach the gospel to everyone, but that is far from acting like an expert in a field in which we are untrained.) I am amused when actors will testify in Congress about some issue that they know little about, though they pretend they do. And their political views I generally find both ridiculous and out of touch with what normal people think.
In the same way, we should be wary when someone who is expert in some area speaks about things in another area. Why should the average person be interested in Hawkin's view of anything but physics?
He committed two blunders. First, he rejects the very idea of a Creator, and that is sad enough in itself. Second, he thinks that he is qualified to make public declarations beyond his area of expertise. This is almost as disappointing.
So, let's pray for him and others who think that the knowledge that they have replaces their need to believe in the living God and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
Postscript:
By the way, I do not want to discourage any Christian from sharing the gospel because he or she is not an 'expert' on the faith. No, your experience of being born-again and personally knowing and walking with God makes you more of an expert than mere academic learning could ever make you.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Other Side
Have you ever had something that you believed, or perhaps even taught, that has been misrepresented by another? If so, join the crowd. The apostle Paul experienced this when he taught justification by faith. Some of his opponents reported that Paul was teaching that the grace of God was given so freely that the more one sinned, the more grace would come. "We are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say, 'Let us do evil that good may come'" (Romans 3:8). This was a gross distortion and misreading of the great teachings on grace by Paul. Nevertheless, he had to fight this corruption of what was truly taught throughout his ministry.
In my early years as a Christian I was presented with some teachings by those who are called Calvinist. They believe that God selects some for salvation and others for eternal condemnation. Those who propagated those views tried to discredit the opposing view, usually called Arminianism, which teaches that God desires to save all, but that the choice is left up to us. (I am oversimplifying this to make a point. I am not trying to enter into a discussion about either view.)
I decided to investigate these claims concerning Calvinism and studied the Scriptures to find whether these things were so. I was also discussing these issues with some Calvinists who were prominent in our college fellowship. They represented their own view very well, but it seemed to me that they were rather biased against the Arminian view. So I read what the Arminians had to say and I found that my suspicions were correct. The Calvinists, probably unintentionally, were not properly or fairly representing the other view. I was finally convinced that Calvinism was not the Word of God.
At a later time, I heard some speak negatively about a theology called Dispensationalism. At the time, I had no clue what that was, but it was presented in a rather poor light. By this time I was enough of a skeptic that I immediately began to read up on what Dispensationalism was. (It is, generally speaking, a particular view of interpreting the Bible especially in regards to the End Times.) You can guess what happened. I became a Dispensationalist.
One problem that I found with an introduction to it by one its opponents is that the particular Dispensational minister that was quoted was quite on the extreme of the movement. He did not represent everyday, mainstream dispensational thought. To me, this is a rather cheap and all too common trick to discredit something that you disagree with. We should deal with any subject, not by looking at some extreme version of it, but by examining what the mainstream proponents of it teach.
Besides misrepresenting (perhaps unintentionally) another view because you disagree with it, there is something becoming very common that is even worse. And that is publicly condemning a teaching that you have not really researched or understood. I hear this all the time. I can usually tell when someone has not done their homework when the criticism leveled against a teaching is grossly inaccurate or even the opposite of what is actually taught.
I will give an example of this from a current controversial teaching. (Once again, I am not bringing this up so that we can argue the pros and cons of this teaching, but only for illustrative purposes.) There is a teaching that is often called the prosperity gospel. From this teaching, it is considered the will of God that His people prosper in every area of life including finances. I read an opponent of this teaching say that the prosperity gospel encourages people to go deeply into debt to finance an expensive lifestyle. This critic has little or no understanding of what the prosperity gospel is. If he had done some basic research, he would have known that this teaching is generally against any kind of indebtedness, often to an extreme. Probably the most prominent prosperity teacher, Kenneth Copeland, falls just short of calling the borrowing of money a sin. He continually affirms that neither he nor his ministry has borrowed any money for anything in more than 40 years. And he is not alone in this. Fred Price, another prosperity teacher, preaches against Christians loading up on debt to finance a fabulous Christmas and then paying it off all year.
So why does this critic say these things. Because he has not bothered to actually examine these teachings and just jumps to all shorts of bad conclusions since he is convinced, without much evidence, that this teaching produces certain kinds of results. This is the same thing that Paul's opponents were doing with his teachings. They did not sit down and listen to Paul and get the whole picture he was trying to paint. They heard a certain part of it, or someone's version of it, and assumed that Paul was trying to give us a license to sin.
How should we react when we hear or read something that strikes us as wrong? How about a little fairness, objectivity, and calm, rational thought. We should do our homework before we condemn any teaching. Also, we should do our best to not misrepresent what anyone is saying.
One other thing. When I was studying Calvinism, I learned quite a lot from them. I find that you often can learn from those whom you have deep disagreements with. God may have actually revealed some things to them that you need to hear. But if we just shut our ears to our 'opponents' then we may be missing some very important things.
For my part, I have learned much from Calvinists, non-Dispensationalists and even prosperity teachers. And this is coming from a very opinionated person. Few people will battle for his point of view harder than I will. But I hope it is never said that I have misrepresented anyone or treated any view with a jaundiced eye.
In my early years as a Christian I was presented with some teachings by those who are called Calvinist. They believe that God selects some for salvation and others for eternal condemnation. Those who propagated those views tried to discredit the opposing view, usually called Arminianism, which teaches that God desires to save all, but that the choice is left up to us. (I am oversimplifying this to make a point. I am not trying to enter into a discussion about either view.)
I decided to investigate these claims concerning Calvinism and studied the Scriptures to find whether these things were so. I was also discussing these issues with some Calvinists who were prominent in our college fellowship. They represented their own view very well, but it seemed to me that they were rather biased against the Arminian view. So I read what the Arminians had to say and I found that my suspicions were correct. The Calvinists, probably unintentionally, were not properly or fairly representing the other view. I was finally convinced that Calvinism was not the Word of God.
At a later time, I heard some speak negatively about a theology called Dispensationalism. At the time, I had no clue what that was, but it was presented in a rather poor light. By this time I was enough of a skeptic that I immediately began to read up on what Dispensationalism was. (It is, generally speaking, a particular view of interpreting the Bible especially in regards to the End Times.) You can guess what happened. I became a Dispensationalist.
One problem that I found with an introduction to it by one its opponents is that the particular Dispensational minister that was quoted was quite on the extreme of the movement. He did not represent everyday, mainstream dispensational thought. To me, this is a rather cheap and all too common trick to discredit something that you disagree with. We should deal with any subject, not by looking at some extreme version of it, but by examining what the mainstream proponents of it teach.
Besides misrepresenting (perhaps unintentionally) another view because you disagree with it, there is something becoming very common that is even worse. And that is publicly condemning a teaching that you have not really researched or understood. I hear this all the time. I can usually tell when someone has not done their homework when the criticism leveled against a teaching is grossly inaccurate or even the opposite of what is actually taught.
I will give an example of this from a current controversial teaching. (Once again, I am not bringing this up so that we can argue the pros and cons of this teaching, but only for illustrative purposes.) There is a teaching that is often called the prosperity gospel. From this teaching, it is considered the will of God that His people prosper in every area of life including finances. I read an opponent of this teaching say that the prosperity gospel encourages people to go deeply into debt to finance an expensive lifestyle. This critic has little or no understanding of what the prosperity gospel is. If he had done some basic research, he would have known that this teaching is generally against any kind of indebtedness, often to an extreme. Probably the most prominent prosperity teacher, Kenneth Copeland, falls just short of calling the borrowing of money a sin. He continually affirms that neither he nor his ministry has borrowed any money for anything in more than 40 years. And he is not alone in this. Fred Price, another prosperity teacher, preaches against Christians loading up on debt to finance a fabulous Christmas and then paying it off all year.
So why does this critic say these things. Because he has not bothered to actually examine these teachings and just jumps to all shorts of bad conclusions since he is convinced, without much evidence, that this teaching produces certain kinds of results. This is the same thing that Paul's opponents were doing with his teachings. They did not sit down and listen to Paul and get the whole picture he was trying to paint. They heard a certain part of it, or someone's version of it, and assumed that Paul was trying to give us a license to sin.
How should we react when we hear or read something that strikes us as wrong? How about a little fairness, objectivity, and calm, rational thought. We should do our homework before we condemn any teaching. Also, we should do our best to not misrepresent what anyone is saying.
One other thing. When I was studying Calvinism, I learned quite a lot from them. I find that you often can learn from those whom you have deep disagreements with. God may have actually revealed some things to them that you need to hear. But if we just shut our ears to our 'opponents' then we may be missing some very important things.
For my part, I have learned much from Calvinists, non-Dispensationalists and even prosperity teachers. And this is coming from a very opinionated person. Few people will battle for his point of view harder than I will. But I hope it is never said that I have misrepresented anyone or treated any view with a jaundiced eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)