17So that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have gone, everything has become new.
— 2 Corinthians 5:17 (TFBV)
For I did not choose to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
— 1 Corinthians 2:2 (TFBV)
One morning as I approached the cabinet in the bathroom, often known as the medicine cabinet
Typically we talk about salvation around Good Friday and easter. We are saved by his death and his return to life. And there is certainly something to be said for that. But this constant focus on the sacrifice of Jesus being largely in his death sometimes obscures other meanings that the Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have for us. I’ve recently seen some folks argue that the death wasn’t a sacrifice, because he came back to life, while Christians responded, “But it was a sacrifice! It was! It was!”
But the sacrifice of Jesus was not solely in his death. It was in his birth, his life, his death, and finally in his resurrection. In my book, Not Ashamed of the Gospel before the chapter titled “I Am Not Ashamed” (p. 17), I include this quote, in my own translation:
Though he was in the divine form,
He did cling to his equality with God,
But he emptied himself,
Taking the form of a slave,
Becoming human in form,
And being found in human pattern,
He became obedient to death,
Even death on a cross,
So God has exalted him,
And given him a name above all names,
So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
Heavenly, earthly and beneath the earth,
And every tongue should confess
That Jesus Christ is Lord
To the glory of the Father
Fox News has a current story on Senator Rick Santorum and the intelligent design controversy:
FOXNews.com – Politics – Santorum Distancing Himself From Intelligent Design Law Firm.
The senator is quite right that the case provided a bad set of facts for the desired result. In fact, the facts of the case practically guaranteed that the school board, as defendants, would lose.
But why did Senator Santorum wait until after the case was decided to say anything? Unless he was exceptionally careful to remain ignorant of the case, he had to know what was going on. The more the trial moved forward, the more clear it was that the defendants did not have a chance.
The point in this case was not a desire that students be taught scientific controversies. In fact, thus far there is no scientific controversy about intelligent design. I am not enough of a scientist to predict what is likely to happen, but I suspect that this is not one of those revolutionary new theories that will rapidly gain acceptance. Rather, I think it is likely to fade away as even those few scientists who now support it realize that it is a free floating theory, lacking any facts that it needs to explain.
Controversies in science are an excellent topic for science classes, because one can deal with the definitions of such words as “fact,” “hypothesis,” and “theory” and teach our young people how to examine evidence carefully and come to valid, reproducible conclusions. Unfilled holes in the theory of evolution are a fertile area for such study, but that is not because the theory is weak; it’s because the theory is strong, and that it’s value extends across many fields. That simply means that many fruitful areas for research will be suggested as the details of the history of life, mechanisms for variation and selection, and genetics are studied more and more.
Intelligent design, on the other side doesn’t (at least as yet) provide such opportunities. It simply slams the door on research by passing certain processes off to the supernatural. Now I don’t have any problem with things that are, at least presumably, supernatural being handed over to theologians and spiritual leaders. But the mechanisms that intelligent design assigns to the activity of an undefined designer have not been adequately studied. In many cases natural solutions are just around the corner or even now being described.
Intelligent design also doesn’t answer the theological questions. Finding that God had to tinker in order to produce certain systems hardly qualifies as a type of proof of the existence of our creator God. God is manifested everywhere, in every natural law and natural process. The very processes that allow evolution to take place are, in fact, the result of the power of God. When we study those processes we have a chance to look at God in action.
More Christians need to take a stand that intelligent design is not doing credit to our religion. The stated purpose of the Thomas More Law Center is a reasonably good one–defending the religious freedom of Christians. (I would prefer that they said “the religious freedom of all Americans, but I guess I can’t have everything.) But when they took on this lousy case they engaged in lousy law and lousy politics in the support of lousy religion.
That’s a position that needs to be abandoned.
I’ve been kind of beating around the bush about the doctrine of the incarnation and what it means as a challenge to Christians. So let’s get down to business.
The roots of my view here are in the two commands of Jesus–love for God and love for one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40). These commands are defined by the way in which God acts towards us (1 John 4:10-11). God carries out the intent of the two commands from his perspective as we are to do from ours. That’s God’s end of the incarnation–God love, God sent, God saved.
But there’s another element: God challenged. While this idea is rooted in the teachings of Jesus, I think it is best summarized in the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:16-21. I’m going to summarize even more. “God was in Christ” is the incarnation. Through the incarnation God crossed the gap from the infinite to the finite in the incarnation. That act reconciled God and humanity, that is, it brought us together. Then God gave us the work and the principle (word) of reconciliation. That’s the challenge.
When Jesus said, “Love one another just as I have loved you,” (John 15:12) he passes on that challenge to us.
Now for many Christians, possessing the “correct” doctrine of the incarnation is part of what makes us special. It’s what gives us–people who believe in Jesus–the exclusive hold on salvation. And I do, indeed, believe that it was the incarnation that made salvation possible; even better, it showed that it was possible by showing that God could and would indeed cross the boundary between the finite and the infinite, and would do so both ways. It showed that God would become kin to finite and imperfect human beings (Hebrews 2:10).
But does that really make us “special” as compared to all other people? I think what it does is make us challenged. We are challenged to love in the way that God loved. That means that we need to become gap-jumpers. To love as God does, we need to recognize that there is no gap that cannot be crossed, and that we are called to cross those gaps. Jesus was a reconciler and God has called on the followers of Jesus to be reconcilers–gap jumpers.
And that’s the other end of the incarnation.
It’s unlikely that anyone has failed to notice that I have spent no time thus far in trying to demonstrate that the doctrine of the incarnation is true. I’ve just been playing with its meaning.
In fact, I generally don’t find it appropriate to try to prove a mystery in the first place. Let’s just face the fact that a person who is 100% divine and 100% human doesn’t really make any sense to us as such. Personally, I think that if it does make sense to you, you have a problem. In one sense, the mystery is a metaphor to help us understand the divine presence in the life of Jesus. (If that sentence doesn’t either twist your brains or give you some problems, then perhaps you should read it again. Go ahead! Have problems with it!)
For me, the key to deciding whether a metaphor, mysterious or not, is valuable is in the fruit. Does it help us improve in keeping the two greatest commands (love God and love our neighbors) or not? And in my view the incarnation does help us fulfilled. In the incarnation, God crossed the greatest gap that there could be between any two entities. God is infinite, we are finite. No matter how much you subtract from infinity, infinity is not diminished. God has bridged an infinite gap in coming to dwell with us.
The theological term “kenosis” or “emptying” describes what was happening in the Christmas story. Read Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus gave up everything, becoming a human and accepting human conditions. That means that he had to live as we do. Often we think of Jesus having many special powers and full knowledge of how his life would go, but for him to live like us, to be tested as we are (Hebrews 4:14-16), he needed to work largely with powers that we have. At the same time we call him fully divine. Now that’s a mystery!
Interestingly we celebrate this emptying at the winter solstice, in one sense the low point of the year. We make it a joyful celebration, but at the other end of the two-ended cord, it’s an emptying, an end.
Christians often complain of the association of Christian holidays with pagan ones, and Christmas is a good example. It’s pretty unlikely that Jesus was actually born on December 25, but the celebration certainly fits the event. There’s no dishonor in sharing a theme with paganism. Not all pagan ideas are bad. There’s no reason to believe that every myth from another religious is filled with falsehood. (See http://www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice.htm for some information on other winter solstice celebrations.)
Myths, metaphors, and celebrations can be great, and they can help us grow.
There are plenty of comments on the Dover decision going around right now. I’d like to recommend just a couple of them, though these are only examples of many good comments. Both provide some good links to more information.
I believe that the result of this trial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. There was little doubt that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement was essentially a religious movement, and there was no doubt at all that there was no theory of ID, certainly not one that was ready for the High School science classroom. We need to teach basic science, well-established science in our high schools, and we have very little time to accomplish that. New ideas need to establish themselves, go through the rigor of scientific debate, and gain a consensus before they become part of the public school curriculum.
But I want to address another issue. Many people who share my Christian faith are concerned tonight because they feel that religion is under attack. Those who accept one or another of the views involving special creation feel that their children can attend public school only at the risk of their faith. “Godless evolution” has won the day, and they don’t even get a hearing, not even a tiny disclaimer. I could tell them how well evolution is established as a scientific theory, and I would be right. I could tell them how bad an idea it is to trust religious education to the government, and I believe that’s a good point. I could point out the evil things that have taken place when government took distortions of faith and applied them by force, and that would be valid as well.
But none of those things are likely to move that fairly large group of people right now. I think it’s unfortunate that more dialogue and education does not take place in this area. More people need to realize how many people of faith, such as myself, and how many church leaders do not see a conflict between evolution and faith.
Let me suggest something that I think should strike home, not only for those opposed to the decision, but also for all other people of faith who support it. We need to look at reforming religious education. In our churches we have a substantial amount of time available in which to educate our children, to supplement the education that they receive in public schools or even in private schools. In many churches in my area we have Sunday School, one or two youth meetings per week, and a Wednesday night teaching program. That’s a great deal of time. Right now, we’re using most of that time to tell a few stories and make them feel good.
Parents have even more time. They can get involved in helping their children with homework. If you believe that there is a place where faith needs to be introduced into the study of science, you have the power to do it. At the same time as you’re doing it, you will be spending more time with your children, building your bond with them, and increasing the chance that they will become productive citizens. I have some ideas of what should be taught, but even if what you teach is repugnant to me, you have a right and even a duty to take the time and effort to teach it.
It’s very simple.
You want your children taught intelligent design? Get with your church’s education program and get some programs on it. I teach such a program for those who hold to a theistic view of evolution through Pacesetters Bible School, and I have produced a tract on the subject called God the Creator. Those who object to any form of evolution will not like my programs, but there’s no shortage of folks willing to teach other viewpoints.
You want your children to pray? Student led prayer is legal right now. Teach your children to pray–that is, after all, a function of parents and churches–and then release them to work and lead in their own way. You really aren’t prevented from any of this. (I teach this one too. See my book I Want to Pray! co-authored with Rev. Perry Dalton.)
You see, I don’t think the courts are taking away your right to educate your children about your faith. Not at all! What they are taking away is your right to be lazy and to expect somebody else to do your job, whether you are a religious educator or a parent.
So get out there, get active, and exercise the rights you have.
We’re so used to talking about what God gives in the incarnation that my title may almost seem sacreligious to some readers. God’s gift cannot have a selfish aspect, can it? Does the cord really have two ends in this case as well?
First, at the simplest level, all relationships have more than one side to them, otherwise they could not be relationships. A mother loves her child, and in most cases will continue to love that child whether or not her love is returned, but she certainly wants, even needs to see her love returned. There will always be an emptiness if there is no response from the child.
When we state that God doesn’t really need our worship or our prayers, it sounds like we are talking about how complete, absolute, and sovereign he is. But it also makes God seem distant and unreal. Worship and prayer are both part of our communication–our two-way communication–with God. And God needs to hear from us, as he needs us to hear from him. Isaiah 66:4 says that God is going to choose to mock the people, because when he called, “nobody answered!” God looks for two-way communication.
In the same sense as the mother will always miss the love of her child if it is not given, so God will eternally miss our love, if we do not give it to him.
Now in several essays I’m going to discuss the distance God crossed in the incarnation, but for now let me say simply that there is at least one thing that a being that is essentially infinite cannot have experienced, and that is being finite.
And this is where I see God “getting something” in the incarnation.
14Since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us grasp our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since he has been tested in all things in the same way we have, but without sin. 16Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we might receive mercy and we might find grace in time of need. — Hebrews 4:14-16 (TFBV)
If we take seriously the concept of Jesus as God in the flesh–the fundamental Christian doctrine of the incarnation–we also see here God taking on the testing and trials of finite humans, living with our limitations, experiencing what it was like to be human. Now I admit this concept is a bit hard to grab hold of. It keeps my concept of the trinity pretty seriously stretched out. But nonetheless I think it follows directly from our doctrine of the incarnation and trinitarian theology.
I want to warn you where I’m going with this. Because there are two sides to the conversation and two sides to the relationship, I think that the incarnation is a challenge to us in our daily lives on earth. God gave, God crossed over, God experienced our life. As those who received the benefits of this (on this end), we are challenged in the way we think and act.
I’ll expand on that in my next entries, as I look at how the incarnation challenges us to God-like activity in worship, prayer, relationships, and charity.
Some years ago I worked for Radio Shack. One function of a salesman is to match the customer to just the right item or part. An elderly lady, clearly not too comfortable with technology, came in to buy a “telephone cord.” Now at the time, “telephone cord” could mean any of a number of things. One type of cord would connect the handset to the base unit. A few different types of cords could connect the telephone to the wall jack as well. It took a few minutes for me to get it clear that the cord she wanted connected the phone base unit to the wall jack. I was hoping both ends would be RJ-11 or 14 plugs, but just to make sure I said, “What does the other end look like? Let me show you the possibilities.”
“It doesn’t have any other end,” she replied.
Now I want you to know that I did figure out the correct “other end” for her cord, and she went home as a satisfied customer. But I think that many people tried communion with God, whether through personal prayer, meditation, or the scriptures, as a sort of one-ended cord.
I’m going to post a few entries about the Christian doctrines of the incarnation and salvation this Christmas, but first I wanted to examine this problem with our understanding of communication with God, as I see it.
I think we often see God’s action in relation to humanity as a one ended cord. On the one hand, many conservative Christians see the one and only critical element to be the sovereignty and power of God. In the Calvinist position, God chooses who will be saved and then saves them. We talk about human activity, but there is no point in the process at which Calvinism allows human activity to be significant. The cord has just one end! It may be people who are saved, but the people don’t really matter.
On the other hand, many liberal Christians put the focus so thoroughly on humanity that the only thing that matters is what a human being can do and become. God is again effectively outside of the loop. The cord has one end–it’s just the opposite end.
Now please don’t remind me that many Christians, Calvinists, conservatives, liberals, and others, are not at the extremes I’ve described. I know that. That’s why they are extremes. But I do know that the extremes exist, and I believe there are many who might not like the description who nonetheless behave as though the cord has only one end.
In terms of Biblical inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy tends to the treat the cord as having only one end. Inerrancy is attributed to the autographs, but we have no autographs. Errors are OK in the text of the Bible, just so long as they were not introduced by the original writers. Anyone can make a mistake except for them. Why are errors more important if they are introduced when God speaks to a prophet, than they are if they are introduced by a copyist? I believe the reason is simply that inerrancy is designed more to protect the doctrine of God than it is to protect the integrity of God’s communication with humanity. God’s communication must be perfect.
But communication involves two persons. The cord has two ends. God cannot communicate perfectly if the message is not received perfectly. And if the message is only received perfectly by the original prophet (conveniently unavilable to check), but not by later readers, than how is that perfect communication? That, in my view, is the weakness in this doctrine. It does not deal with how we can know God’s will specifically, but rather deals only with God’s side of the equation. The only people assumed to know God’s will are the original recipients.
Likewise salvation can be seen entirely as divine action, as simply part of our definition of who God is, or it can be seen as a way in which God interacts in people to produce a new kind of fruit.
In my next entry I’m going to talk about the doctrine of the incarnation in terms of two ends for the cord. What did God accomplish through the incarnation?
A few days ago my wife and I were showing books at a church craft show, when I was approached by a gentleman about my book What’s in a Version? “What was the right version to use?” he asked. Now when someone starts talking about the “right” version, rather than the best, I’m fairly certain where we’re going in the discussion. Usually the person is an advocate of the KJV Only position.
This gentleman rolled out most of the major arguments for KJV Only. It’s translators were the most dedicated. More people have been brought to Christ through the KJV than through any other Bible version. (I’m not sure this number is even correct any more, but it wouldn’t be a valid argument even if the number was right.) Various modern versions water down the gospel. (I discuss many of these issues in my Bible Translations FAQ.
But the key question for him, one to which he returned repeatedly was just this: “What is your final authority?” I needed to have a physical object, a text that was my final authority, or I was wide open to any wind of doctrine or any sort of moral failure.
My answer to this question is this: “God.” He pointed out that anyone can claim that they heard from God, or that God said something was true, and anyone else can challenge it on the same basis. “What’s the standard?” he repeated.
Now the problem I have is not with any particular answer, so much as with the question. Is there such a thing as an external standard that will hold us to the truth, to what is right? When I think about that question just a bit I consider the standard that this gentleman proposed: The King James Version of the Bible. If we froze the text of the Bible at the printed English of the current KJV, would we have a single standard by which everyone could check their doctrine and behavior and return with objective, verifiable data?
We need only observe the doctrinal differences amongst churches who have used, and still use the KJV as their standard to realize that this is not the case. Limiting oneself to a single text does not guarantee agreement or certainty, because of the very nature of the Bible itself. Without an interpretive framework, it’s impossible to say precisely what is Biblical and what is not. Modern schemes include the notion that God is the author of every word, and that portions can be strung together at will (a method that generates a variety of interpretations itself), the dispensationalist view that divides texts that might otherwise conflict between different dispensations or periods of time in which God used different ways of dealing with people, and covenant theology, which tends to create a more coherent theological framework and progression in God’s revelation. It is quite clear that these widely different approaches to Biblical interpretation might well produce equally different results, and we see this in practice. Debates between people using the different schemes become quite heated.
I believe the problem is simply that there is no meaningful, external standard that everyone of good faith can be guarateed to agree on. We are each called upon to choose right or wrong. We make these choices individually, and with the input of our community. We use different sources. I can say the standard is God, but you might also say that the standard is reality. I wouldn’t differentiate, because in my view God is the creator and maintainer of reality, the ultimate reality.
Now we may choose wisely or poorly. We may get our input from good sources or bad. But no matter what we do, the choice is ultimately ours, and we have to take responsibility for it. “In my opinion” shouldn’t be a dodge by which we avoid taking responsibility to support that opinion. It should be the standard claim. What I say is my opinion. The question is whether I can support that opinion and communicate it to someone else. I even have to make the choice of how to communicate what I believe. I may accept, for example, that one should not commit murder because I believe it is God’s law. That doesn’t mean I have to claim that basis when communicating with someone who doesn’t believe in God. I can then discuss why a society in which murder was legal would have severe problems.
Because I have this choice, I also have the responsibility to make it in the best way possible. No, I can’t force anyone to believe that. But I believe that reality will ultimately catch someone who violates its standards too much. Before that time, some of the rest of us may catch such persons before they get that far, so we can protect others from their stupidity.
Each of us makes the choice. Each of us would do well to take responsibility for it.
For some more information on my view of the Bible see What is the Word of God? and on choice, see Seven Kingdom Principles of Choice.
In scanning through news today I watched a segment on Fox News about a lawsuit asking that crosses erected as memorials in Utah be removed from the roadside. I did not find the story on their web site immediately; perhaps it will be posted later. But I did find two other links that I think make the story fairly clear.
First, from the Salt Lake City Tribune, the article Atheist group wants memorial crosses removed, which can be pretty much consider “pro-crosses” though it does provide the basic claims of the opposing side. Second, the story of the lawsuit from the American Atheists site, THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) CROSS BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD — ATHEISTS IN COURT TO REMOVE CHRISTIAN HIGHWAY MEMORIALS, which includes a link to the actual petition as filed.
I chose to comment on this story because I think it shows some of the problems with the debate about separation of church and state, both in the actual petition and in the public response to it. Please read the linked stories (both of them, please!) to get more details. I summarize the positions as follows. Plaintiffs: Any religious symbol on public land is bad. Respondents: We like it, so it’s good.
The latter response results in ideas such as that the cross is not really a religious symbol, just a symbol of comfort. The former can easily be challenged, as it was on Fox News, by simply showing crosses on public land in Arlington cemetary. Crosses are, in most cases, religious symbols, and religious symbols do occur legally on public buildings and on public land. (Note that I’m going to ignore Utah law, which may, in fact, forbid this type of display. That could be dealt with in a legislative way. I’m more interested in the general principles.)
I believe that we need to distinguish a wall of separation between church and state, which I believe is a good thing, and a wall of separation between church and the individual, which I believe is a problem. Often, those who do not value religion (and I think American Atheists would qualify as an organization), see any presence of religion as some kind of violation of church and state boundaries. Religious folks, particularly Christians, on the other hand, see anything that limits whatever we want to do in some particular circumstance as anti-religious, and an attack on our faith. If we want to pray at a public meeting, we don’t want to be reminded that we’re not in our home or our church, and that we have a duty to be open and inclusive. I’ve seen this same attitude in online forums in which Christians feel that they should be free to post copyrighted material that promotes Christian values and become quite irate when they are thwarted. The fact is that whether the law is one of copyright, or whether it is one of appropriate public behavior, we need to behave in an appropriate manner. Obeying God rather than men doesn’t mean violating every law that seems to inconvenience us.
So how do I see this particular case as illuminating these issues? Let me first look a bit at the case of the ten commandments display at the Alabama supreme court. This was found, correctly in my view, to be a form of promotion of religion. The response of both Judge Moore himself, and of the public, made it very clear that it was widely seen as a promotion of religion. The comparison was made to the U. S. Supreme Court building where the ten commandments are also displayed. What was the difference? In the case of the U. S. Supreme Court, the ten commandments are displayed as part of a broad panorama of historical lawgivers and law codes. Thus it is not promoting a particular form or religion, unless we are to believe that it’s also promoting Babylonian religion with the code of Hammurabi. The Mosaic law and more specifically the ten commandments are doubtless a substantial part of the history of law. But if the government singles out that particular code from all the laws of the world that have contributed to our modern system of law, then that is definitely a promotion of religion.
Again, on another topic, when someone complains that President George Bush is a very religious man, and is quite open in confessing that he is, and then claims that is a violation of church and state, I believe they are crossing this line. Now I don’t support everything President Bush has done or has said. But it is both appropriate that he is a religious person and that he is open about that. Nobody was in any way deceived about his religious faith when they voted for him. It is quite possible for him to intrude specifically religious views into public life, and that might require some other action, but that’s why we have a legislature and courts. The simple fact that he is a religious person, and that he speaks of his faith, is not a violation.
At the same time, he and his staff are behaving quite appropriately when they produce generic holiday greetings. Whatever his beliefs, he is the president of the entire United States, and it is not political correctness run amuck, as I’ve heard it called, for him to be inclusive in his holiday greetings. To the extent that these greetings are privately financed, it would also be legally acceptable, in my view, for him to send out purely Christmas greetings–legally, but I think not a good idea either from a Christian perspective or from a political perspective.
So, what about those crosses in Utah? I would ask simply this: Were all of those officers who died Christians? If they were Christians, would they have wanted their death in the line of duty memorialized with a symbol of their faith, as the crosses doubtless are? Finally, if any officer dies or has died in the line of duty who is not a Christian, or whose family would prefer that something else be used in a memorial, would the organization that sponsors these memorials provide the appropriate symbol? If we can answer yes to this, I think it is crossing the line into an anti-religious bigotry to oppose this particular type of memorial. On the other hand, if only crosses are contemplated, even if an officer who is Jewish, Muslim, or secularist is memorialized, then I would have to ask if the purpose is really simply to memorialize the officers, or if some sense of promotion of religion is not involved.
That is the weakness of the Fox News picture of the field of crosses. The military has marked graves of Jewish soldiers with stars of David, and to me that makes a vast difference. If someone who professes no faith, or a Muslim, or someone of any other faith that might not identify with a cross desires a different memorial, that should be supported. But when the cross represents the faith of the person memorialized, I believe it is entirely appropriate. The faith needs to be separated from the power of the state, not from the person.
Let me add one note to my Christian friends. I probably annoy more people with my view of separation of church and state than I do with any other view. But these political considerations are not at the root of my support of separation of church and state. My faith is the most fundamental issue there for me. I believe that any time the church becomes dependent on public money, public power, or any form of public promotion or duress, that church will be inevitably and quickly corrupted, and if it is not quickly separated from the state’s power, it will become completely corrupted. My bottom line on separation of church and state is that it is most important for the church. Our method of spreading Christian principles should be through the proclamation of the gospel and the transformation of individual lives. I believe strongly that any attempt to transform people by force from on high is doomed to failure and will do more harm than good.
