Only for the Bold of Heart

I came across a web page a few days ago with an essay on hypocrisy. It is not a comfortable read, but for those who are willing, read below for the last few paragraphs...I hope you don't identify with this as much as I did. But in case you do, there is hope after all.


I can go on at great length about this kind of hypocrisy, and with good reason. I too am a hypocrite. This is not to say that I always do the right thing, but even when I do, it is only an outward act. I have made great progress over the years in being chaste in act and word; but I have only to see a woman and I desire to sleep with her. I try hard to be kind and patient in my outward deeds, but in my heart I often desire the death, not of my enemies—for I do not have the strength of character to make any—but of those who are merely inconvenient to me. To those whom I profess to love I am indifferent. I preach almsgiving and from time to time force myself to practice it, but in my heart I desire great riches. While I may seem to work hard to fulfill my responsibilities, in fact I wish that I had none and could indulge the sloth that is really at the core of my being. Worst of all, I stand in church and at prayer and profess to love God and put Him first in my life, when in fact I feel nothing toward God but abject fear. My faith is that of the demons, who, St. James tells us, "believe—and shudder" (Jas 2:19). My intellect, formed in the likeness of divine Reason, is bound inextricably to the truth that I cannot deny without doing violence to my own paltry reason; but my heart wishes that it were otherwise.

When the time comes for me to stand before the judgement-seat of God, when all the thoughts of the heart are laid bare, then my true nature will be made clear. I will hear the dreadful words, "Depart from me, you evildoer, for though you followed Me outwardly, your heart is far from Me." And I will have to admit that God’s judgement is entirely just. No heart as attached as mine to the things of this world can have any share in the joys of heaven. The fire of God’s eternal love is for a hypocrite like me only the eternal fire of Hell.

Of course, I know the answer to this problem. I have only to ask and the Holy Spirit can melt my stony heart and give me the desire for God I lack. He, indeed only He, can give me the love I lack. It is not something I can achieve on my own, but only if I ask for the transforming power of divine grace. And I have asked for it, at least with my lips. But did I really mean it? Was this not another act of hypocrisy? Not only do I desire evil, but I desire to desire it. If I were sincere, God could transform me.

But after all, I am a hypocrite.


You and I are just the kind of people Christ came to seek and save. That's right, the ones who want to flee when light threatens to illuminate the darkness of our hearts. Some people wonder if they've really asked Christ to save them, after all, they (we) are hypocrites. But this is where I am inclined to borrow from the Calvinists and say it isn't that much about me. My heart is dark, but Christ has shone His light into my life. He did it, not me. And by His grace God keeps calling me back each time I wander from His truth. He continually rakes the stones back away from my heart and most of the time it hurts badly. But He does it for my good.

I think of C.S. Lewis who wrote that a wicked surgeon would tire of sadistic cruelty after a time, but what if we were up against a perfectly Good surgeon who had only our best interests at heart. He would not heed our desperate cries to stop the cutting. He would continue until the operation was complete. And one day we would even thank the surgeon for continuing to cut away the corrupt flesh. How wicked indeed would that surgeon be who halted at our cries for mercy before the operation was complete.

I Need a Job with Snopes!

I've come out of seculsion to post a quick analysis of a video that's been going around on the internet strongly suggesting that Jesus revealed the name of the anti-Christ...and guess who it is!!??

For those interested, here a link to the video on YouTube.

Now, I don't claim to be a Hebrew scholar, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So here you go.

1) Aramaic is not the "most ancient form of Hebrew." It seems to me that this is a gross oversimplification of how semitic languages developed.

2) The video rightly indicates that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, but then shifts to say that if Jesus spoke those words today (because Jewish Rabbis speak Hebrew...when? I'm not sure since most Rabbis conduct worship services in language of wherever they are) He would speak them in Hebrew. This appears to be a sleight of hand. They are trying to equate Aramaic with Hebrew which is just wrong. They are both dialects of Semitic languages and close to each other on that account.

3) References made in the video to Lucifer are highly controversial. Here is the text on the word for "lightening" in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: The crux interpretum is Isa 14:12, "How you are fallen from heaven Lucifer (KJV son of the morning, hêl¢l ben shaµar)," That the passage occurs in the context of a satire on the king of Babylon no one will deny. Yet many Christians have taken this verse (along with perhaps Ezek 28), and on the basis of verses such as Lk 10:18; 1 Tim 3:6, have assumed that here is something on Satan's origin, especially his expulsion from heaven subsequent to his pompous display of arrogance. The New Bible Commentary (rev. ed., p. 600) calls such exegesis "a precarious conjecture." And E. J. Young can say flatly (p. 441), "It cannot apply to Satan." Among evangelicals Archer (WBC, p. 622) is the most open to a supernatural, cosmic interpretation. We feel safest with the application of the phrase to the Babylonian tyrant whose gross pride provided fuel for the prophet's invective.

4) In Is. 14:12-19, of the two references I noted to "cast" or "cut" down, neither use the word "bamah" referred to in the video. Perhaps it is used in other passages, but not in this one. Even so, the claim in the video is false because it indicates that those passages "that directly refer to Satan" use "bamah" and at least in Is. 14:12-19 of the two instances that I looked at, that is incorrect.

5) In my experience, the Hebrew letter identified in the video that they claim is transliterated as "u" or "o", is actually transliterated as "w" or "v." It is waw or vav. I used to say vav. It is often used as a conjunction, as the video claims. But the video uses it for a preposition "from" whereas a conjunction is "or" "but" or most commonly "and."

6) Finally, and I do not claim to be an expert on eschatology, but I'm quite sure that the anti-Christ is not identical with Satan in Scripture.

I report. You decide.

Worship

A friend of mine will be presenting a philosophy paper on forgiveness soon. What a great idea, to reflect on such a virtue? action? Anyway, Paul instructed the church at Philippi to reflect on whatever is true, honorable, right: whatever is pure, lovely, of good repute; whatever is excellent or worthy of praise, think on these things.

So I began to think about gratitude. How great would it be to write a paper on gratitude? That's what keeps overwhelming me in life, gratitude for what God has given to me, and, thankfully, not given to me. So when I worship God I am overcome with gratitude. There's a link here with love. But I think gratitude is a response one has when they have been given that which they do not deserve. Maybe that's why I weep before the Lord every time I come to Him in worship. I am overcome by His magnificence, beauty, glory. I praise Him. I am thankful for His desperate love for me. I am grateful. I am grateful for the promises Christ has given me. I am thankful for the hope that "I Will Rise"

The Psychology of Love

Harry Frankfurt is an important voice in the philosophy of action, free will, and moral responsibility. I recently read one of his more significant essays titled "The Importance of What We Care About." He began to talk about love, its psychology, and the paradox that ensues. He speaks of love as a form of volitional necessity. That is, it's not even really up to us what we love. Somehow it captures us. And we make ourselves susceptible to the liabilities of the beloved object. And it is just beyond our control.

Then he writes on the constraining nature of love. "When we accede to being moved by logic or by love, the feeling with which we do so is not ordinarily of dispirited impotence. On the contrary, we characteristically experience in both cases - whether we are following reason or our hearts - a sense of liberation and enhancement. What accounts for this experience? It appears to have its source in the fact that when a person is responding to a perception of something...as beloved, his relationship to it tends toward selflessness. His attention is not merely concentrated upon the object; The object captivates him. He is guided by its characteristics rather than primarily by his own. Quite commonly, he feels that he is overcome - that his on direction of his thoughts and volitions has been superseded. How are we to understand the paradox that a person may be enhanced and liberated through being seized, made captive, and overcome?" (bold emphasis mine)

And then I am reminded of Paul's words "I am under compulsion; woe is me if I do not preach the gospel."

Jesus said:

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

"So if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed."

I am captivated by Christ, set free, liberated by His constraint. I am my best as His bondservant. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Whoa people...what happened

I looked at my blog the other day just to see if anyone had commented on one of the posts. Up until then, I only had about 550 visits to the blog. A couple of days later I now see that I have almost 12000 hits. What is up with that. I really don't have anything that interesting to say. So either we have something truly bizare that's happened or my post counter got really messed up.

Surrendering to the Will of God

Lately I've been learning from God what it means to truly pray "not my will, but Yours." Sometimes it's hard to pray it and mean it. Scripture frequently relates accounts of God's gracious hand molding his children in ways that they often did not understand; ways that were exceedingly painful and heartbreaking. Why should I expect any less from the Master Potter? Why should I desire any less than being conformed to the image of His Son no matter how badly it hurts? I suppose this is what it means to learn to trust God. A.W. Tozer said that he whom God would use greatly, He must first wound deeply. I am reminded of the words of a poem, the author of which I do not know...

When God wants to drill a man,
And thrill a man,
And skill a man
To play the noblest part;
When He yearns with all His heart
To create so great and bold a man
That all the world shall be amazed,
Watch His methods, watch His ways!
How He ruthlessly perfects
Whom He royally elects!
How He hammers him and hurts him,
And with mighty blows converts him
Into trial shapes of clay which
Only God understands;
While his tortured heart is crying
And he lifts beseeching hands!
How He bends but never breaks
When his good He undertakes;How He uses whom He chooses,
And with every purpose fuses him:
By every act induces him
To try his splendor out—
God knows what He's about.


During these times I take great comfort in the Psalmist's oracle, "Be still, and know that I am God." Psalm 46

A prayer for the Church

For this reason I...do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. -Ephesians 1:15-23

On Making Marriage Work

Here is a great article by Bill Craig over at Reasonable Faith He hits some sensitive and important issues without pulling punches. See the text below:

Dear Dr. Craig,

Marriage is in the foreseeable future, and I would like to ask you for any advice before it happens. Can we avoid any mistakes? Would it be helpful to meet with a pastor for premarital counseling? Are there any helpful tips you could give from a Christian perspective or from your own experience?

Thank you in advance!

Zareen



Dr. Craig responds::

Jan and I just returned from Texas, where I had the privilege of marrying our son John and his fiancée Christine, so your question seems quite apropos at this time! Jan and I are more than happy to give advice when asked, so let me share some thoughts that I hope will be of help to you.

When I got married, I thought that the inevitable adjustments that everyone said to expect were basically trivialities like one person's squeezing the toothpaste tube in the middle and the other person's squeezing it at the end, or one person's being neat and tidy and the other person's leaving dirty clothes lying around, and so on. These sorts of adjustments are the stuff of jokes. I had no idea that the real adjustments in marriage were far more serious and profound.

The real adjustments in marriage stem from the deep brokenness that we all bring into the relationship. Even the most psychologically healthy of us bring into the marriage a residue of experiences since childhood that have left us scarred in different ways and to different degrees: lack of self-esteem, insensitivity, inferiority complex, drivenness, suspiciousness, insecurity, temper, and on and on. With so many people now coming out of broken homes and dysfunctional families, these kinds of problems will be even more manifold among newlyweds today.

I've heard marriage compared to two great rivers which at some point come together. Where they meet, there will be turbulence and whitewater for some time. But later on downstream the rivers truly become one, and it flows smoothly on its course. This comparison is apt. It may take you five to eight years to work through the adjustment phase before coming to a peaceful, harmonious relationship. I don't mean to discourage you but rather to open your eyes to what's ahead so that when it comes, you won't give up but will say to each other, "We can, with God's help, get through this to find the marriage God wants us to have!" The first few years of marriage, which in the Hollywood portrayal are supposed to be idyllic, are—if you handle them correctly—usually the worst, and the later years are the best.

So what advice can I give you to help you successfully through that phase to a happy, healthy relationship? Let me mention several points:

1. Resolve that there will be no divorce. Remember that according to the Scriptures God hates divorce. It is sin and therefore must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, no matter how hard things get, neither of you will bail. You will work it out. You will do whatever it takes to resolve your problems. Individually, you will be the man of God or the woman of God that you have been called to be regardless of what your spouse does. You resolve to seek holiness rather than happiness (though you know that holiness is actually the secret to happiness!) and therefore will bear the pain rather than seek the easy way out. Ironically, by choosing the more difficult path of permanent commitment, you greatly increase the chances of building a happy marriage relationship because you will provide the sort of security for your spouse which allows love to flourish.

2. Delay having children. The first years of marriage are difficult enough on their own without introducing the complication of children. Once children come, the wife's attention is necessarily diverted, and huge stresses come upon you both. Spend the first several years of marriage getting to know each other, working through your issues, having fun together, and enjoying that intimate love relationship between just the two of you. Jan and I waited ten years before having our first child Charity, which allowed me the finish graduate school, get our feet on the ground financially, establish some roots, and enjoy and build our love relationship until we were really ready to take on the responsibilities of parenthood. The qualifier here is that if the wife desperately wants children now, then the husband should accede to her wish to become a mother, rather than withhold that from her. Her verdict should be decisive. But if you both can agree to wait, things will probably be much easier.

3. Confront problems honestly. When we meet a young married couple, Jan will sometimes shock them by commenting, "Well, we hope you're fighting a lot!" (They usually are.) Fighting with your spouse is so emotionally wrenching and painful, and yet it is the necessary means by which problems get resolved and you become one. The couple that is in real danger is not the one that is fighting but the one that is not confronting. In order to avoid the pain, it's easier to sweep things under the rug and try to forget about it. But then the problems do not get resolved, and bitterness and resentment can secretly begin to grow until the marriage becomes poisoned. Don't let this happen. Screw up your courage, resolve to bear the hurt, and confront your issues squarely. Now please understand that when I talk about "fighting," I'm not talking about physical violence and abuse. I mean arguing. And when you argue, you should exercise self-control so that you fight fairly. Never call your spouse names or say things designed to wound, things that you will later regret. That is inconsistent with love. Rather keep in mind, even in the heat of an argument, that the purpose of the argument is to resolve the problem, not to hurt the other person with clever zingers. Always keep asking yourself, "How can we solve this?", rather than how you can win the argument. You win by resolving the problem and coming out of an argument with a partner who loves you and is not emotionally damaged by your hurtful remarks.

4. Seek marital counseling. An excellent counselor can see things in you that you are simply blind to and so don't even realize about yourself. It can be quite eye-opening! He can help you as a couple to adopt strategies for building your relationship, working through problems, and dealing with your children. Never be ashamed to seek counseling. On the contrary, it tells your spouse how serious you are about building your relationship and how you are ready to humble yourself and change if necessary. Having said that, I caution you against poor counselors. If your counselor isn't revealing penetrating insights into yourself and your spouse and your relationship, if the sessions are just grinding on without profit, get out and find another counselor! Ask around to find out who in your area is really good, and don't waste time and money on a poor counselor.

5. Take steps to build intimacy in your relationship.

Wives: You need to realize what your husband's #1 need in marriage is, what he wants most from you: sex! Yes, frequent, enthusiastic sex! If you do this, you will have a happy hubby, indeed. Unfortunately, here we confront one of those huge disconnects between men and women (you know, the Venus and Mars thing). A man achieves intimacy with the woman he loves through sexual intercourse; but a woman views intimacy as a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse. So if you're sensing emotional distance from your spouse, what do you do? You seem to be at an impasse. If you find yourselves in this situation, then my advice is that it is the wife who should yield and be open to her husband's advances. Otherwise what you're doing is using sex as a weapon: saying in effect, "You first meet my emotional needs or I'm going to withhold sex from you." That's manipulative and unloving. Sometime after having sex, you can then raise the issues with him that you feel have created an emotional distance between you and seek to resolve them.

Husbands: For your part, you need to remember what you're asking your wife to do in letting you have sexual intercourse with her: you're asking her to let you literally enter her body. It's hard to imagine an act that displays more vulnerability and surrender than that. Therefore you need to do all you can to build a relationship of intimacy and trust that enables her to yield to you happily. So how do you do that? Romance? Sure; but here we encounter another huge disconnect. When I as a man think of romance, I think of candlelight dinner, soft music, a moonlight walk on the beach. But to my wife those things are just externals. None of those things is to her the heart of romance. For her the heart of romance is: talking to her! Yes, just taking the time to talk with her and so to connect on an emotional level. That means setting aside, say, a half hour a day just to talk with her. The problem is, that can itself also become just one more thing to do, one more external. What's key is that during that time you connect emotionally with each other.

What we've learned is that marriage is really about being, not doing. You can be doing all the right things prescribed in the marriage handbooks and still not be "being" together. What is "being"? It's lowering one's invisible, defensive walls that we've each built around us to protect us from hurt. It means having permeable boundaries to one's spouse. Less metaphorically, it means vulnerability and transparency in relating to the other. Relating in this way to your spouse builds an emotional connection which fosters intimacy.

So how can we tell, given our blind spots and proclivity toward self-deception and rationalization, if we're just "doing" rather than "being?" Well, for one thing your spouse can tell you! But a barometer you can use to gauge this yourself is to explore your feelings and see if you feel resentment for all the effort you're putting into your marriage. If you sense feelings of resentment, that's a sure sign you're just doing rather than being.

Both of you: Perhaps the greatest enemy of a successful marriage is "growing separateness." That is to say, eventually you begin to lead two separate lives and so grow further and further apart. This is especially dangerous if the wife has a career independent of her husband. You just begin to live in two different worlds. Although it is politically incorrect, I'd therefore encourage your wife not to pursue an independent career but to be a homemaker or to be partnered with you in a common cause. That will give you so much more of your lives to share rather than following independent trajectories.

I hope I haven't laid too much on you, Zareen, but you did ask! I wish you and your wife-to-be a wonderful Christ-centered marriage which will be greatly used by God in the extension of his Kingdom!

Pursuing God

"Hymnody is sweet with the longing after God, the God whom, while the singer seeks, he knows he has already found. "His track I see and I'll pursue," sang our fathers only a short generation ago, but that song is heard no more in the great congregation. How tragic that we in this dark day have had our seeking done for us by our teachers. Everything is made to center upon the initial act of "accepting" Christ...and we are not expected thereafter to crave any further revelation of God to our souls. We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him, we need no more seek Him. This is set before us as the last word in orthodoxy, and it is taken for granted that no Bible-taught Christian ever believe otherwise. Thus that whole testimony of the worshiping, seeking, singing church on that subject is crisply set aside. The experiential heart-theology of a grand army of fragrant saints is rejected in favor of a smug interpretation of Scripture which would certainly have sounded strange to an Augustine, a Rutherford or a Brainerd." -A.W. Tozer The Puruit of God

The Blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church

Read the article on Fox News about the public execution of Ri Hyon Ok for distributing Bibles in North Korea. Friends, this is the type of commitment Christ disciples are called to make. If we are unwilling, and most Western Christians would never ever countenance rendering such a dangerous service, then is it too much to suggest that perhaps God is removing the lampstand from the American church? (Rev. 2:5)

What will it take for the church in the United States to reclaim the sense of radical self-sacrifice and discipleship that will be required for the Church to regain its redemptive power in our culture?

May the sacrifice of Ri Hyon Ok make spiritually fertile the ground upon which she was slain. May God protect those of her family who survive, if any are still alive. May we be bondservants of Christ for whom to live is Christ and to die is gain.

What is the world coming to?

Yo peeples! Check it out...I'm approved to be an adjunct...get this...professor for the Baptist College of Florida. Ok, so it's not Oxford, but hey, you gotta start somewhere!

Boy, are they scraping the bottom of the barrel ;-) I just hope they don't find out how badly I flatlined on my logic test last week.

Sometimes we just need a little inspiriation

It is good to be reminded of the depths and power of God's love for each one of us. We can easily focus on our immediate situations, problems, challenges and forget the love and the power of the One we serve. I called my great-aunt today to share with her some prayer concerns. She has long been a pillar of Christian faithfulness in my life and in the lives of many others.

Her immediate reply to my concerns was "don't focus on your problems, focus on how Big God IS!" What a timely word. He is bigger than everything we will ever face in this life. He is the One, Revelations tells us, who was dead, and behold, He is alive forevermore, and He has the keys of death and Hades. He is the One who will supply all our needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. He is the One who tells us to seek ye first the Kingdom of of Heaven, and His righteousness; and all these things will be added unto you.

The Case Against Immorality

My friend Greg Breazeale over at http://www.yearnforgod.org/ recently refered to a post by author Randy Alcorn on the consequences of adultery. I invite readers to reflect on the implications listed below and to suggest additional consequences that should be considered since this list is by no means complete:

1)Personalized List of Anticipated Consequences of Immorality

2)Grieving my Lord; displeasing the One whose opinion most matters.

3)Dragging into the mud Christ's sacred reputation.

4)Loss of reward and commendation from God.

5)Having to one day look Jesus in the face at the judgment seat and give an account of why I did it. Forcing God to discipline me in various ways.

6)Following in the footsteps of men I know of whose immorality forfeited their ministry and caused me to shudder. List of these names:

7)Suffering of innocent people around me who would get hit by my shrapnel (a la Achan).

8)Untold hurt to my best friend and loyal wife.

9)Loss of my wife's respect and trust.

10)Hurt to and loss of credibility with my beloved children. ("Why listen to a man who betrayed Mom and us?")

11)If my blindness should continue or my family be unable to forgive, I could lose my wife and my children forever.

12)Shame to my family. (The cruel comments of others who would invariably find out.)

13)Shame to my church family.

14)Shame and hurt to my fellow pastors and elders. List of names:

15)Shame and hurt to my friends, and especially those I've led to Christ and discipled. List of names:

16)Guilt awfully hard to shake—even though God would forgive me, would I forgive myself?

17)Plaguing memories and flashbacks that could taint future intimacy with my wife.

18)Disqualifying myself after having preached to others.

19)Surrender of the things I am called to and love to do—teach and preach and write and minister to others. Forfeiting forever certain opportunities to serve God. Years of training and experience in ministry wasted for a long period of time, maybe permanently.

20)Being haunted by my sin as I look in the eyes of others, and having it all dredged up again wherever I go and whatever I do.

21)Undermining the hard work and prayers of others by saying to our community "this is a hypocrite—who can take seriously anything he and his church have said and done?"
Laughter, rejoicing and blasphemous smugness by those who disrespect God and the church (2 Samuel 12:14).

22)Bringing great pleasure to Satan, the Enemy of God.

23)Heaping judgment and endless problems on the person I would have committed adultery with.Possible diseases (pain, constant reminder to me and my wife, possible infection of Nanci, or in the case of AIDS, even causing her death, as well as mine.)

24)Possible pregnancy, with its personal and financial implications.

25)Loss of self-respect, discrediting my own name, and invoking shame and lifelong embarrassment upon myself.

God or Country?

The following are some thoughts on the relationship between the Church and State that respond to a friend's comments on this topic:

Greg, I share the sentiments you expressed above. My main concern for some time now has been the confusion of earthly political entities with the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus made it clear that His kingdom is not of this world. The church and political entities are not identical. I agree that we live in what continues to be the greatest nation in the world (in a number of different ways). But the church is first, and foremost, about advancing God's kingdom.

I don't disagree with Jeff's comment that our freedoms were bought with a price, a price that should be honored. But is the church the proper venue for bestowing such honor? Or should we rather give God glory for providentially ordering the affairs of the world such that we are free to proclaim the gospel. To Jeff, I would respond: whether we are free to proclaim the gospel or not is relatively immaterial to the theological issue at hand. God-called ministers proclaim the gospel whether the state sanctions that activity or not.

I agree that Christians should work for the common good; politically, socially, intellectually. But the focus of the church should be on God’s glory and bringing the nations into His kingdom. I don’t deny that God may have, indeed, blessed America specifically or His purposes. But I take any of God’s blessings as a responsibility to use those gifts to invest in His kingdom work.

Given that our nation has become so secular and the state sanctions many things that are an abomination to God, I am not comfortable pledging my allegiance to the United States. As a Christian, my only allegiance is to Christ. I happen to live in a country that God has blessed and I am thankful for that. I think America still has some good things left in it and some good things left to offer. I even served my country in the United States Marine Corps for four years. I do not hate my country, but theologically, I must content that there is a distinct difference between America (and American civil religion) and the Church (Christianity).

Humbly submitted for reflection and edification.


Ben Kimmell

The Explanatory Power of Natural Selection

Below is a paper I wrote about a year ago on the explanatory power of natural selection to produce the information rich micro-structures required for biological life. I'm not an expert, and I am sure that those who are would find much to take issue with in what follows. But, nevertheless, here it is.



THE EXPLANATORY POWER OF NATURAL SELECTION:
A RESPONSE TO RICHARD DAWKINS



A Paper
Submitted to Dr. Jeremy Evans
of the
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary





In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
Introduction to Christian Apologetics: PHIL5301
in the Division of Theological and Historical Studies


Benjamin K. Kimmell
B.S., Florida State University, 2001
June 5, 2008

Introduction

“There has probably never been a more devastating rout of popular belief by clever reasoning than Charles Darwin’s destruction of the argument from design.”[1] So says the famous Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his best-selling book The God Delusion. In chapter 3, Dawkins declares that Darwin’s concept of natural selection represents a devastating defeat of the teleological argument for the existence of God. “Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed.”[2]
In this paper, I will examine Dawkins’ rationale for rejecting the design hypothesis. Specifically, I will argue that natural selection does not possess the explanatory resources needed to explain the appearance of design in the natural world. This examination will include an assessment of the problem of biological information. I will devote particular attention to the theoretical inadequacy of natural process (law, chance, or the combination of law and chance) to account for the existence of complex, specified information. I will include an analysis of one specific claim from experimental data that allegedly confirms the spontaneous emergence of biological information based on Qb virus replication. A further section will be included that raises some basic conceptual questions regarding the potential for natural selection to originate information. Finally, I will explore some of the claims regarding the relevance of computer simulations (Artificial Life) to the question of biological information and function.
It is my purpose to expose the basis for Dawkins’ affirmation that “the mature Darwin blew it [the design argument] out of the water.”[3] The origin of biological information has
not been settled in favor of naturalism. I intend to show that the design argument, which stands or falls on the basis of information, remains viable.

Defining Natural Selection

Natural selection is the primary evolutionary mover. It is allegedly responsible for the ability of nature to overcome the fantastically prohibitive odds against the emergence of complex biological organisms. Natural selection is the preservation of traits that aid in reproduction or traits that perform some function that is advantageous in the presence of selection pressure. It is a cumulative, step-wise process that leverages prior selected variation.[4] Natural selection was originally conceived as a process whereby pre-existing biological function diversifies. “Natural Selection,” Darwin wrote, “acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation of variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life.”[5] Darwin believed the mechanism of natural selection to be a sufficient cause for the fullness of biological diversity that we observe. Small changes within a population, when preserved, will accumulate over time until distinct species and even higher taxonomic categories emerge.[6]
The notion that natural selection is capable of producing the extent of actual biological diversity on earth has recently been challenged.
Information theorists have questioned the ability of natural processes to create the quantity and quality of information required for biological function. William Dembski quoted Nobel Laureate David Baltimore as stating that “Modern biology is a science of information.”[7] Other notable evolutionary scientists have concurred. According to Dembski, a vast informational gulf separates the organic from the inorganic world.[8] It is a myth of modern evolutionary biology to suppose that complex specified information (CSI) can be generated without intelligence.[9]

Generating CSI

Some evolutionists have suggested that natural laws and algorithms are sufficient causes to bring about the effect of CSI. In fact, they assume that CSI is generated using algorithms in conjunction with natural law without considering whether or not they are, in principle, capable of explaining the existence of CSI at all. Naturalistic accounts of information typically focus on its flow, not its origin.[10] Dembski explains that algorithms and laws equate to mathematical concepts of functions. A function is a one-to-one mapping relation between two sets of data (the domain and range). The important point to note is that mathematical functions are purely deterministic. There is no statistical variance whatever. Initial and boundary conditions of natural laws constitute the domain. The range is the physical state at time t. Mathematically, we might posit some CSI j, and some natural law or algorithm f that constitutes the origin of j. To solve for j we must posit some domain element i. Hence f(i) = j. But the origin of information has now been explained on the basis of some other variable. In order to explain the origin of information, i must now be explained.[11]

The problem of information has not been solved. The expression above illustrates simply that natural processes and algorithms are well suited to manipulate information, but they cannot create it. In fact, information seems to be subject to degrading influences much like energy is to entropy. Unless explicitly preserved by external forces, information will degrade along with the medium used to convey it. In the end, functions do not create any more information than was initially present in the data variables and function itself. In order to account for the information inherent in the function itself, Dembski deploys the universal composition function m. Hence m(i, f) = f(i) = j. Utilizing natural law or algorithms to explain the existence of CSI is much like filling one hole by digging another.[12]

The primary alternative to natural law for generating CSI in nature would be chance. The problem with this option is that it can only generate non-complex specificity or complex unspecified information. Randomly typing letters on a keyboard would result in a long string of complex information. The string itself would be highly improbable. But there is no specificity, no independently recognizable pattern that orders the data into meaningful information. Alternatively, the typist may type out the correct character string for a simple word, perhaps “t-h-e.” The typist may get lucky in typing an intelligible word here or there, but the specified sequence will maintain a relatively low level of complexity. Therefore, chance cannot be said to account for the complex, specified information that is obviously intrinsic to putatively designed artifacts.[13]

A universal probability bound (UPB) is the statistical point beyond which chance cannot be said to be a causal explanation for an effect. Liberal estimates place the UPB at 1 part in 10-50. Dembski offers a more conservative estimation of the UPB based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the duration between Plank time and the heat death of the universe. Dembski’s UPB comes to 1 part in 10-150. Any event with a probability lower than the UPB cannot be attributed to chance. Many biological organisms display a degree of complexity that would far exceed even Dembski’s conservative UPB, thus they cannot be said to be products of chance.[14]

We have seen that neither law nor chance by themselves can explain CSI. It seems safe to say that their combination cannot explain CSI either. Laws can only transmit or degrade information. The data contributions to law by chance would certainly not be complex specified information. Thus law and chance combined cannot create CSI.[15] The Law of Conservation of Information (LCI) simply entails that for any CSI x to be explained in terms of antecedent naturalistic circumstances (events or states of affairs) y, then the CSI of x was previously present already in y.[16]

There are a number of important corollaries to the LCI. The most important of which is that any closed, finite system of natural causes that exhibits CSI must have received its CSI prior to becoming closed. This corollary directly contradicts the philosophy of science proffered by materialists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. Their view of scientific explanation is purely reductive. Complex beings arise from less complex beings. But if the LCI is true, then reductive, naturalistic explanations for the existence of CSI cannot be true, even in principle.[17]

In his newly revised advanced evolutionary biology textbook, Graham Bell agrees that the origin of biological complexity is difficult to explain (presumably the explanation is difficult on any naturalistic model). “Nevertheless,” Bell states, “it has been found that self-replicating RNA molecules will appear in the culture tubes, even if the cultures are not inoculated with Qb RNA. It seems that they evolve from very short RNA sequences that form spontaneously in solutions of single nucleotides...”[18] Bell is referring to the Qb virus that infects bacteria and uses its genetic materials to encode various proteins, one of which is the Qb replicase, an enzyme that catalyses the replication of Qb RNA.[19] According to Bell, this phenomenon is an instance of molecular evolution de novo. New biological information arises from the concentration of replicase.

Bells conclusion, however, is controversial. William Dembski states that the case described above is not an instance of true replication since the virus needs to leverage the cell’s “genetic machinery.” In order for the RNA molecules to replicate, the replicase enzyme must be present. So even if the above scenario did describe an authentic instance of replication, we would still need to explain the origin of the replicase.[20]

Prominent Intelligent Design advocate and biochemist Michael Behe calls Bells discussion of the Qb RNA replication “grossly misleading.” He does not deny that RNA strands will emerge in the scenario that Bell describes, but their emergence is due to the prior presence of the replicase enzyme as well as the presence of high concentrations of nucleotides. If the two are combined, then after an unspecified temporal delay, RNA molecules will form and they will replicate (this is not surprising since the replication enzyme is present). But the RNA molecule will consist of randomly strung together nucleotides that contain no specified information. The unspecified string of nucleotides will then replicate. “But,” Behe insists, “the string codes for nothing at all. It is not the generation of information; it’s just stringing together nonsense letters.”[21] Behe’s description of the unspecified string of nucleotides is the informational equivalent of allowing a monkey to execute a series of keystrokes on a computer. The result is meaningless and Bell’s scenario utterly fails to explain the origin of complex, specified biological information. Behe concludes that “Darwinists must be pretty desperate to keep plying this old chestnut.”[22]

Other Considerations

According to Richard Dawkins, natural selection is the answer to biological diversity. It is the creative and unifying force in nature. In some significant ways, however, Dawkins affirmation is rather uninteresting. No rational person denies that natural selection occurs. The disagreement arises when the process of natural selection is attributed a creative efficacy that it simply does not possess. Phillip Johnson has argued that rather than being a diversifying force in nature, natural selection is instead a unifying force. Those organisms that are at the genetic or morphological extremes for their species are generally less fit to survive. Thus, variations from the norm are selected out of the population to preserve the core population according to its kind.[23]
The basic tenet of evolution is that organisms generally reproduce at exponential rates. A limited environment causes organisms to compete for scarce resources. Genetic mutations (as they are now known under the neo-Darwinian synthesis) may occasionally confer reproductive advantage. Those organisms that reproduce the most are statistically better positioned for survival. Traits that confer reproductive advantages may spread throughout the population and ultimately become the basis for further variation and selection.[24]

Natural selection predicts that those organisms that reproduce the most are the most fit for survival. Those most fit for survival are defined as those organisms that reproduce the most.
Success or advantage in evolutionary terms, “has no inherent meaning other than actual success in reproduction.”[25] The tautological nature of natural selection causes one to wonder about the explanatory power of a theory that adds nothing to direct observation. If natural selection is so patently obvious, then one may wonder why one needs an allegedly sophisticated scientific theory to explain it.[26] Johnson wryly observes, “When I want to know how a fish can become a man, I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring are the ones that leave the most offspring.”[27]

Artificial Life and Natural Selection

Despite claims by intelligent design advocates that novel, biological information cannot be generated by unintelligent processes, many advocates of evolution argue that computer simulations of artificial life conclusively show that self-replicating processes evolve new information. Graham Bell cites University of Delaware researcher Thomas Ray’s work on the “Tierran” experiment.[28] Bell affirms that Ray’s experiments in artificial life show self-replicating “processes” that have a minimal pre-specified variation are capable of exhibiting parasitic features.[29] The “system is something more than an eternally recurring set of computer instructions...”[30] It copies itself and numerous iterations show impressive results in terms of modeling some important features of evolution.

One major issue with Ray’s Tierran experiment is that since it copies itself, there should be some accounting for the information in the first copy. The program is a rather complex, 80 bytes in length. The project completely ignores the problem of getting 80 bytes together in a useful collection in the first place. Robert Newman, New Testament scholar and theoretical astrophysicist explains:[31]

“Each byte in Tierran has 5 bits or 32 combinations, so there are 3280 combinations for an 80-byte program, which is 2 x 10120. Following Ludwig's scheme of using all the earth's 100 million PCs to generate 1000 80-byte combinations per second, we would need 7 x 10100 years for the job. If all 1090 elementary particles were turned into computers to generate combinations, it would still take 7 x 1010 years, several times the age of the universe. Not a likely scenario, but one might hope a shorter program that could permanently start reproduction might kick in much earlier.”[32]

Other significant issues include the rate of mutation programmed into Tierran. The established rate is something like 1 mutation per 5,000 copies. Dawkins recognizes that mutations or variance in DNA replication occurs at a much lower frequency, something like 1 variant per 1 billion copies.[33]It is an open question whether copying variance at such a low rate could account for the biological diversity we see in the natural world given current estimates of the age of the earth. But it seems likely, however, that the entire universe has not existed long enough to allow for the observed diversity in biological information based mutation and Dawkins’ cumulative selection approach. Moreover, in Tierran, the discarded programs make their “innards” (usable information content) available for assimilation into newly produced copies. This is utterly unlike the way the biological world works.

Richard Dawkins created a program that he believes relevantly simulates natural selection. He readily acknowledges that single-step selection is basically statistically impossible for the features that we see in the natural world. He believes, however, that natural selection is a cumulative mechanism that reduces otherwise prohibitive odds.[34] In his computer program, he specifies a scenario such that the computer is instructed to generate a random sequence of 28 characters. The program then selects those sequences that statistically conform to a target sequence (METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL), discarding the others. In short order Dawkins’ program is able to select the target sequence.

The obvious flaw in Dawkinsian Weasel programs is that actual molecules in situ do not
have a target in mind.[35] Hence, there can be no statistical selection toward any goal since no goal exists. Dawkins acknowledges this point, but basically dismisses it and assaults what he considers to be a vain human construct “that cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution.”[36] He quickly turned to a different program that selects based on imagery. As Meyer rightly points out, natural selection can only determine function “if considerations of proximity to possible future function are allowed, but this requires foresight that molecules do not have.”[37] Attributing such foresight or rationale to inanimate molecules is grossly anthropomorphic.

Conclusion

Prior to Darwin, selection was regarded as a mental process confined to intelligent agents who had the ability to reflect and deliberate on various possibilities. Darwin argued that unintelligent processes possess the capacity to discriminate in a meaningful way among alternatives. Dembski writes that “Darwin perpetrated the greatest intellectual swindle in the history of ideas.”[38] Information is holistic in nature. It is not the “mereological sum of its constituent” parts.[39] Natural processes cannot account for the requisite information in biological organisms and the appearance of design that such information entails. We have seen that natural law, nor chance, nor chance combined with law is capable of creating CSI. Qb virus replication does not represent an instance of de novo biological information emerging spontaneously from a highly concentrated organic environment. Major conceptual questions have been raised regarding the explanatory value of natural selection given that it has often been formulated as a tautology. And major research on Artificial Life has been shown to lack relevance to natural processes in the actual world.

As stated in the introduction, the origin of biological information has not been settled in favor of naturalism. Naturalism cannot account for it, therefore Dawkins’ confident assertions that Darwin’s theory blew Paley’s design argument out of the water is perfectly absurd.
Philosopher Dan Dennett has credited Darwin’s theory of evolution as the best idea anyone has ever had. But it is much like a magician performing tricks at a distance. Modern biochemistry, molecular biology, and information theory have been handed out to the scientific community as binoculars. Science can see past Darwin’s neat trick. “It’s time,” Dembski declares, “to lay aside the tricks – the smoke screens and the handwaving, the just-so stories and the stonewalling, the bluster and the bluffing – and to explain scientifically what people have known all along, namely, why you can’t get design without a designer. That’s where intelligent design comes in.”[40]


WORKS CITED

Books
Behe, Michael. Personal email correspondence dated June 4, 2008.

Bell, Graham. Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Berlinski, David. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. New York:
Crown Forum, 2008.

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation
of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. vol. 1 of 2. Akron, OH: The Werner Company Book Manufacturers, 1904.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe
Without Design. Latest paperback edition. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987.

________. The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books, 2008.

Dembski, William. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

________. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent
Design. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

________. Personal email correspondence dated June 4, 2008.

Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Meyer, Stephen C. “The Explanatory Power of Design: DNA and the Origin of Information,”
Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design. William Dembski ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Electronic Sources

“Dr. Robert Newman,” Access Research Network, Web page: available from
http://www.arn.org/authors/newman.html; Internet; accessed June 6, 2008.

Newman Robert. “Artificial Life and Cellular Automata,” Access Research Network, Robert C.
Newman Files, March 15, 2000. Web page: available from http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_artificiallife.htm; Internet; accessed June 5, 2008.



[1]Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), 103.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Ibid.
[4]Graham Bell, Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 12-15.

[5]Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. vol. 1 of 2. (Akron, OH: The Werner

[6]Darwin, 161.

[7]William Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 139.

[8]Ibid.

[9]William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 153. A detailed definition of CSI is beyond the scope of this paper. Put simply, CSI is the defining feature of intelligent agency. CSI exhibits complexity coupled with specificity to trigger a “design inference.” For more details on what constitutes CSI and criteria for its detection see section 5.3 of Intelligent Design “The Complexity-Specification Criterion.”

[10]Dembski, Intelligent Design, 292. See his footnote 19.
[11]Ibid., 160-161.

[12]Dembski, Intelligent Design, 162.
[13]Ibid. 165-166.

[14]Ibid., 166.

[15]Dembski provides a theoretical justification for this intuition. I will not belabor the point here. For more information see Dembski, Intelligent Design, 168-169. Trial and error is a widely affirmed approach to scientific experimentation which is based on the combination of law and chance. Trial and error are the conceptual bases for computer programs that allegedly simulate evolution by natural selection. The trials are executed and less desirable outcomes are discarded. The problem with these programs is that they often contain a goal or standard by which the selections are made. This is blatant telos, the very thing that evolution by natural selection attempts to avoid. I will address the issue of computer programs in more detail below.

[16]Dembski, The Design Revolution, 162.

[17]Ibid., 162-163.

[18]Bell, 10.

[19]Ibid., 1.
[20]William Dembski. The source is a personal email correspondence dated June 4, 2008.

[21]Michael Behe. The source is a personal email correspondence dated June 4, 2008. The quote and the remainder of Behe’s position on the Qb replicase issue are taken from this email.

[22]Ibid.
[23]Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial. 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 16.

[24]Ibid., 17.
[25]Ibid., 21.

[26]David Berlinski made a similar point in The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. (New York: Crown Forum, 2008). I was unable to verify the actual reference page.

[27]Johnson, 22.

[28]Bell, 17-19.
[29]Among experts, there is a debate concerning the proper way to correctly define “life.” Since computer programs like Tierra can replicate themselves, this seems to satisfy at least one important feature of the traditional view of what constitutes life. Hence, we may now be reluctant to call self-replicating programs like Tierra merely “processes.” Should we call them “beings?” Of course these programs exhibit no self-awareness, but few people regard self-awareness as an essential property of life. Further discussion of this matter is beyond the scope of this paper.

[30]Bell, 17.

[31]“Dr. Robert Newman,” Access Research Network, Web page: available from http://www.arn.org/authors/newman.html; Internet; accessed June 6, 2008.

[32]Robert Newman, “Artificial Life and Cellular Automata,” Access Research Network, Robert C. Newman Files, March 15, 2000. Web page: available from http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_artificiallife.htm; Internet; accessed June 5, 2008.

[33]Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 124.

[34]Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Latest paperback edition (New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), 49.
[35]Stephen C. Meyer. “The Explanatory Power of Design: DNA and the Origin of Information,” Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design. William Dembski ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 128.

[36]Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 50.

[37]Meyer, 128.

[38]Dembski, The Design Revolution, 263.

[39]Dembski, Intelligent Design, 173.

[40]Dembski, The Design Revolution, 263.

Some thoughts on Old vs. Young Earth Creationism

The following is a contribution I recently made to an internal debate among Christian apologists regarding the proper interpretation of the creation narratives of Genesis and the age of the earth/universe:

I'll just add this one (rather lengthy) comment to this conversation and then happily retire from the discussion. Now, I've studied Greek and Hebrew enough to know that there is a lot I don't know. But I've talked to, and read some of the works of, highly regarded evangelical Hebrew scholars and have found that there is quite possibly much more that went into the writing of the creation narratives than a casual reading might indicate.

First, I don't know that a straight forward "literal" 24 hrs is not anachronistic. Much like reports of Jesus' sayings in the New Testament are not likely word for word. (Such was not the author's intent and would have been quite foreign to the first century gospel writer’s cognitive processes and intentions). There are numerous scholars that agree that the Genesis account of creation was originally written for polemical purposes against other ANE creation myths. Perhaps there is something of exegetical significance in this, perhaps not.

I think that "literal" 24 hrs is a gross over-simplification of the issue given what we know about time and relativity (i.e. reference frames, etc). See Gerald Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang (although I would not rely on the Jewish mystics and numerous other aspects of his hermeneutics). It should be noted that serious defenders of Christian orthodoxy have approached the creation texts allegorically. Some even thought that six days would actually be an insult to a perfect being that could do all creating in an instant.

Bruce Waltke is about as conservative as they come and one of the leading OT scholars alive today. In his celebrated An Old Testament Theology he explains that liberal theologians stand above the Bible holding up higher criticism and their "assured results." Neo-orthodox theologians stand before the Bible such that through preaching the words of the Bible become the word of God (a canon within a canon which places authority with the audience). Traditionalists place confessions/traditions alongside the Bible which often end up nullifying the biblical witness. Fundamentalists stand on the Bible. I will now quote Waltke at length:

"By 'fundamentalist' I mean here those who presume the Bible does not stray from their standards of accuracy, especially in matters of science and historiography. They presume their interpretive horizon represents truth and that the biblical writers, though writing in an ancient environment, will not stray from the "accuracy" of their modern horizon. But the ancient standards do not necessarily conform to modern standards. The only legitimate human standard by which the Bible can be measured is the logic of noncontradiction. Paradox may be incomprehensible, but contradiction is 'non-sense.' What I have in mind here is that the fundamentalists do not "stand under" the Bible long enough to "understand" it. Sometimes they, though well intentioned, advertise 'the Bible as it is for men as they are,' but they neglect the prior question of whether 'men as they are are fit for the Bible as it is." (Waltke, 77).

I will also note that many of the contemporary liberal New Testament radicals come from brittle fundamentalist backgrounds. "Show me one error in the Bible and I throw out the whole thing." Craig Evans suggested that that was what happended in the case of Bart Ehrman. (Note: Ehrman clarified his move to agnosticism was based on his inability to reconcile the concept of God with the existence of evil. Prior to that, he stated at the 2007 Greer-Heard debate with Daniel Wallace, he knew of textual variants, and had shifted to a more mainline, non-evangelical Christianity).

Waltke continues:

"Many Christians subconsciously maintain a naivete that in fact is a studied neglect toward the Bible. They resist learning about critical issues, such as the existence of differing Hebrew texts and versions of the biblical text, the need for textual critics to choose among the variant forms, the uncertainty of the meaning of some Hebrew words in the Old Testament, and so on. These types of questions make us uncomfortable because answering them requires that we place ourselves above the text. It forces us to play the role of the critic, making judgments about the history, social situations, and literary forms. This role is spiritually and psychologically difficult for the pious, but in the exegetical process, these and other types of judgments have to be made. To back away from these questions in the name of piety is to flee the responsibility God has given us. On the other hand, some sophomoric students, having cast off the original naiveté, retain a suspicious stance toward the Bible. This is a spiritually impoverishing position because being above the text means that we cease to hear the text speaking directly to us. Consequently, we are cut off from the life-giving power of the word of God.

The correct balance is to first cast off our original naiveté, prayerfully tackle difficult exegetical questions, and then reassume a stance in subjection to the text--what Paul Ricouer calls a 'second naivete,' a childlike acceptance in faith of the text's message. In practice this means that having done our critical work on the text, we insist on submitting ourselves to it, accepting its truth and its authority in our lives. This is a difficult balance to achieve, but God's grace through the Holy Spirit will generate this stance in those who pray for it." (Waltke, 82-83, italics mine).

The sense I get from some of [our exchanges] is that perhaps we have presumed to stand on the Bible before we have properly stood under it. This is a huge hermeneutical question we are dealing with here.

My point in all of this is that I am getting a sense [from some contributors] that the hermeneutical questions regarding Genesis have been thoroughly settled. I have studied this issue enough to suspect that they have not been. I am trying to "stand under" the Bible in order to understand it well enough to stand on my convictions regarding the proper hermeneutic once I've done due diligence. But this is a time consuming task. Those who claim to have listened to a few sermons from high profile evangelical leaders and have the answers simply have not done the work. Let us be workmen who rightly divide the word. I trust that is what we are all attempting to do. Let us do so with charity and intellectual humility.

I’ll now close with Waltke’s own position, which I endorse:

“I label my own position as ‘evangelical’ for lack of a better term. I accept the inerrancy of Scripture as to its Source and its infallibility as to its authority. My spiritual conviction is intellectually defensible. The finite mind is incapable of coming to infinite truth and moreover is depraved. To live wisely I need the inspired revelation of the divine reality by which I can judge the wisdom or the folly, the right or the wrong, of my thoughts and actions. But I dare not presume to understand how or what this revelation means before coming to it on its own terms. I must allow the Bible to dictate how it seeks to reveal God’s truth. I study how it writes history; I examine and learn to recognize the different forms of literature: poetry, narrative, prophecy, and so on. I consider the Bible utterly trustworthy, and I commit my life to it, but I do not presume to know beforehand the exact nature of its parts. With this posture, I continue to learn and allow myself to be taught and corrected by the Bible.” (Waltke, 77)

I do lean toward an old earth/universe position because I do think that there is sufficient hermeneutical room to allow for it and it accords well with what are generally taken to be highly verified scientific theories which are products (fallible though they are) of general revelation and rationality as an important aspect of the imago dei that remains, I am persuaded, even in the unregenerate. I don’t know what to think about evolution other than to say that the origin of life certainly did not occur by chance, neither do irreducibly complex molecular machines just magically assemble themselves all at once. Gradual transition, as necessitated by Darwin’s theory, as I understand it, has been falsified by the fossil record. But what about any kind of death or pain before original sin? I’m not sure what to say. But there are some natural law theodicies that may shed some light on the issue of pain and suffering as necessary for a rationally intelligible and morally significant world (c.f. Bruce Reichenbach’s “Natural Evils and Natural Law: A Theodicy for Natural Evils”, 1976). Would Adam have felt pain if he’d stubbed his toe against a stone prior to original sin? I tend to think that he would have, and that it would have been a good thing. There was death in the plant kingdom prior to original sin inasmuch as Adam and Eve ate the fruits of the garden. These are some issues that float around in my head and I have so much other reading to do that I’ve not had time to sort it all out. But the one thing I will say is that the issue of young vs. old creationism is not as simple as some...would seem to suggest, and I concur...that if this is going to degenerate into name calling or outright demagoguery, then we should move on to another subject that is more edifying for the saints, and will enable us to be obedient regarding Paul’s injunction to redeem the time for the days are evil.


Fides Quaerens Intellectum

My aspiring new philosopher

Check out Luke...contemplative? I'll invite readers to suggest captions for this photo in the comments section...

Getting to know baby Luke

It is always a challenging time to bring home a new born baby, but during those moments of quiet one gets those glimpses of joy and unspeakable love as one looks into the face of a new life that depends on you for his every need.

How sweet to hold a newborn baby,
And feel the pride and joy he gives.
But greater still the calm assurance,
This child can face uncertain days because He lives.

How easily we forget to look to our heavenly Father for our needs.

¹ "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! -Matthew 7:11

I will be preaching at my home church this Sunday. I am praying to my Father for guidance, wisdom, power, and anointing as I take on the awesome task of addressing the church and communicating eternal truth. I trust that my cup shall overflow, that the church will be edified, the lost mortified, and Jesus Christ glorified.

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, ²¹ to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. - Ephesians 3:20-21

God's glorious gift

I cannot express in words the marvelous gift God has given to us today. Our son, Luke William Kimmell was born today. Perfect in every way. I try to find the words to thank God for this new life and my soul bursts forth in praise. Glory in the highest...

Waiting on Luke

My wife and I are eagerly anticipating the delivery this evening of Luke William Kimmell, our third child.

"Like arrows in the hands of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them." Psalm 127:4-5

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Extolling the Grace and Mercy of God

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.

Sorrowing I shall be in spirit,
Till released from flesh and sin,
Yet from what I do inherit,
Here Thy praises I’ll begin;
Here I raise my Ebenezer;
Here by Thy great help I’ve come;
And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,
Safely to arrive at home.

Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood;
How His kindness yet pursues me
Mortal tongue can never tell,
Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me
I cannot proclaim it well.

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

O that day when freed from sinning,
I shall see Thy lovely face;
Clothed then in blood washed linen
How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace;
Come, my Lord, no longer tarry,
Take my ransomed soul away;
Send thine angels now to carry
Me to realms of endless day.

You are Everything - Matthew West

When I consider who God is, the Source of all being, the Creator, Sustainer, the Loving Lord, my Redeemer, my Everything, I cannot help but be moved by the lyrics and performance of Matthew West’s song “You are Everything.”

Somehow songwriters, artists, and poets seem to reach down into my soul and proclaim the joy and devotion that sometimes threatens to burst right out of my heart. Here is the song. Is God your everything?

Where would I be without someone to save me
Someone who won't let me fall
You are everything that I live for
Everything that I can't believe is happening
You're standing right in front of me
With arms wide open
All I know is
Every day is filled with hope
You are everything that I believe for
And I can't help but breathe you in
Breathe again
Feeling all this life within
Every single beat of my heart

You're everything good in my life
Everything honest and true
And all of those stars hanging up in the sky
Could never shine brighter than You
You are everything that I live for
Everything that I can't believe is happening
You're standing right in front of me
With arms wide open
All I know is
Every day is filled with hope
You are everything that I believe for
And I can't help but breathe you in
Breathe again
Feeling all this life within
Every single beat of my heart
You are
You are
Jesus, You are

You are everything

They finally found the missing link!!!

Guardian.CO.UK is reporting that the missing link in human evolution has finally been found. The article titled Fossil Ida: extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution seems to be really pumped about this as evidenced from the following quotation:

"This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years," said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study..."

Itallics mine. A transitional form? Will this turn out to be another in the long line of missing links that fail to live up to the hype? Is it really true that "the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken that there's nothing almost to study? I thought human evolution was as proven as gravity.

As Berlinski notes: "Although Darwin's theory is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physcis on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid." The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretentions (191)

An Exhortation from Doug Groothuis

"For the sake of the King of Kings and his eternal Kingdom, take Christian truth so seriously that you consistently and over a lifetime apply your resources to understanding it, explaining it, declaring it, defending it, and applying it. Enter the world of ideas with a deep knowledge of the truth, from which flows a confident and courageous defense of Christianity before the watching world. Seize upon opportunities to make the Gospel known as much as your wisdom and maturity allows. Always depend on the Holy Spirit for the requisite character, knowledge, and rationality for this grand task." -Doug Groothuis over at The Constructive Curmudgeon

Okay, I couldn't help this one either..

David Berlinski on The New Atheism

I just couldn’t resist posting a couple of short selections from David Berlinski’s book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Quoting Sam Harris on the irrationality of religious belief:

“It appears that even the Holocaust did not lead most Jews to doubt the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. If having half of your people delivered to the furnace does not count as evidence against the notion that an all-powerful God is looking out for your interests, it seems reasonable to assume that nothing could.”

Berlinski, a secular, agnostic Jew replies:

“On the other hand, I suppose that Harris might speculate on what is equally an interesting matter of evidence, a concept that he values in the abstract and on every occasion ignores in the particular. The Jewish people yet live, and even in Eastern Europe—even in Poland—they have returned to their ancestral homes; but the thousand-year Reich, that lies buried in the rubble of German cities smashed to smithereens, or ground under Russian tank treads, or destroyed by American artillery, or left to wander in its exiled millions across all the violated borders of Central Europe. And if God did not protect his chosen people precisely as Harris might have wished, He did, in an access of his old accustomed vigor, smite their enemies, with generations to come in mourning or obsessed by shame.” (Berlinksi, 30-31)

The End of Faith

Modern secularists desire to remove religious faith from society. They write numerous books denouncing the impact, of Christianity in particular, on Western civilization. Of course, there have also been competent refutations by leading Christian thinkers, but I invite the reader to check out the following two columns on the impact of Christianity in Western civilization and its emerging impact in Africa.

Here, Dennis Prager shows how secularism has sucked the life and vitality out of Europe.

In a stunning admission by one of Europe's longtime critics of Christianity, Matthew Parris affirms that Africa needs Christianity, not just secular aid.

More from Lewis on suffering

On the seriousness of suffering and its redemptive value:

“Bridge-players tell me that there must be some money on the game ‘or else people won’t take it seriously.’ Apparently it’s like that. Your bid—for God or no God, for a good God or the Cosmic Sadist, for eternal life or nonentity—will not be serious if nothing much is staked on it. And you will never discover how serious it was until the stakes are raised horribly high, until you find that you are playing not for counters or for sixpences but for every penny you have in the world. Nothing less will shake a man—or at any rate a man like me—out of his merely verbal thinking and his merely emotional beliefs. He has to be knocked silly before he comes to his senses. Only torture will bring out the truth. Only under torture does he discover it himself.

The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is in this matter hardly less formidable that a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed—might grow tired of his vile sport—might have a temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yield to our entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless. But is it credible that such extremities of torture should be necessary for us? Well, take your choice. The torture occurs. If they are unnecessary, then there is not God or a bad one. If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For no even moderately Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren’t.

Either way, we’re for it.

What do people mean when they say, ‘I am not afraid of God because I know He is good? Have they never even been to a dentist?”

C.S. Lewis A Grief Observed

God's faithfulness

It is easy to talk about how we trust God when times are good. C.S. Lewis, in one of the darker moments of his grief after having lost his beloved wife to cancer writes:
"I thought I trusted the rope until it mattered to me whether it would bear me. Now it matters, and I find I didn't" A Grief Observed

Yet as the tears began to wash away the pain, the questions came...why God? Why?

Lewis continues confessing his desire to suffer in his wife's place,

"Yet this is unendurable. And then one babbles-'If only I could bear it, or the worst of it, or any of it, instead of her.' But one can't tell how serious that bid is, for nothing is staked on it. If it suddenly became a real possibility, then, for the first time, we should discover how seriously we meant it. But is it ever allowed?

It was allowed to One, we are told, and I find I can now believe again, that He has done vicariously whatever can be so done. He replies to our babble, 'You cannot and you dare not. I could and dared.'"

I've never been through the tragedy that so many people of the world have endured. But in learning to walk with God, He has tested my faith. This first semester at FSU drove me to my knees time and again seeking God's power and grace. I testify that He brought me through it.

The song below was a frequent source of inspiration to me this semester as I would try to read something almost inhumanely difficult and cry out to God for help and understanding...for anyone who is walking in the darkness right now, remember, joy comes in the morning.



More from C.S. Lewis to follow...stay tuned.

How much do we really love God?

Do we ache for His holy and cleansing preseance? Do we desire to make every day a day that we can lifted up to the Lord of glory as a fragrant aroma, well pleasing to the King? Are we desparate for God? Do we long for His presence, do we hunger and thirst for righteousness?

A.W. Tozier wrote long ago that, "The whole transaction of religious conversion has been made mechanical and spiritless. Faith may now be exercised without a jar to the moral life and without embarrassment to the Adamic ego. Christ may be "received" without creating any special love for Him in the soul of the receiver. The man is "saved" but he is not hungry nor thirst after God. In fact, he is specifically taught to be satisfied and is encouraged to be content with little...The modern scientist has lost God amid the wonders of His world; we Christians are in real danger of losing God amid the wonders of His Word. We have almost forgotten that God is a person and, as such, can be cultivated as any person can. It is inherent in personalitites to be able to know other personalities, but full knowledge of one personality by another cannot be acheived in one encounter. It is only after long and loving mental intercourse that the full possibilities of both can be explored....'This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3. (A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God: The Human Thirst for the Divine, pp. 12-13).

I love Christian hymns and the messages, the pathos, the beauty communicated in music, poetry and song...Listen to the lyrics and feel the love an ministry of God's spirit...



Is this the cry of your heart?