Archive | Questions RSS for this section

Biblical Womanhood 

Biblical Womanhood

What does the Bible say about Biblical Womanhood?  

Biblical Womanhood

The concept of “biblical womanhood” has gotten a “bad rap” outside and even inside the church. Actual biblical womanhood, however, is beautiful and provides a context for a bounty of good. Actual biblical womanhood is like a fortress that allows for flourishing.

Masculinity, femininity, and gender roles have sometimes been overly and legalistically defined. People have said in the past that men should drive the family vehicle and women should wash the dishes, but the Bible doesn’t say that.

Instead, the Bible calls husbands and elders/pastors to sacrificial leadership. It calls wives to submit to their husbands, and the church body—males and females—to submit to the church’s loving leadership (Heb. 13:17). That’s what the Bible says. The Bible doesn’t specifically spell out what that should look like and never says submit to abuse.

However, the Bible does, over and over again, show the worth of women. This is in great contrast
to the culture of its time. Rebecca McLaughlin has pointed out that “According to many ancient philosophies, men were more important than women. But the Bible tells a different story. God made humans—’male and female’—’in his own image’ (Genesis 1:26–28). Men and women are equally important. But they are also importantly different” (The Secular Creed).

The Bible shows the worth and defends the worth of women over and over in its pages. There are some 202 women listed in the Bible. This is significant, for example, because the Quran lists just one and the Hindu Bhagavad Gita lists none.

The Bible shows women in high roles of leadership, compliments them, greets them, and considers them fellow workers in the gospel. Jesus spoke to and cared for the outcast Samaritan woman at the well. Even Jesus’ disciples were surprised. “They marveled that He was talking to a woman” (John 4:27). Yet He was. Jesus loved and cared for women.

Of course He loved women. He created them. And He created women as part of His good design to image Himself through humanity. The world has fallen into faulty design, but Jesus always demonstrated His good, intended design.

So, part of understanding biblical womanhood is understanding that the Bible is emphatic that women have worth. Women are precious and made in the image of God. Women do not have less worth than men. Sadly, this has not always been understood or agreed with.

Within the Trinity, there is unity and diversity. God is three persons in one God, yet each member of the Trinity has different roles. God the Father sent Jesus the Son, and Jesus sent the Spirit as the comforter and counselor to be with us and help us. Therefore, within the Trinity, we see different roles but different roles do not communicate different worth.

Women are not one ounce less important than men because they are called to be helpers (Gen. 2:18). In the Bible, God Himself is described as a helper (Ps. 54:4; 118:7). Women are certainly not less important because they were created to be helpers.

It’s also important that we do not push unbiblical stereotypes, partly because stereotypes are often just based on the changing cultural climate and not on the objective truth of Scripture. Consider, for example, that pink has not always been considered a “girly” color; or consider that men in the 14th century were the first to wear “yoga pants” (i.e., tights that were sometimes even quite colorful).

By this, I’m not saying that we should disrespect societal norms. Scripture is our standard, not societal norms. So, for example, the stereotype that men aren’t supposed to cry is wrong. Jesus Himself cried. What about dancing and poetry? Are dancing and poetry more feminine than masculine? King David who killed wild beasts, slew a giant, and was one of the most elite soldiers that ever walked the earth also danced and composed poetry. Just because someone is different from society’s stereotypes does not mean that person is wrong or weird. God, not the ever- changing culture, should be our guide.

Therefore, nowhere is it written in Scripture that men must drive the vehicle, and women must do the dishes. Scripture gives us transcendent truths—truths that are true for all times and all places. Truths such as males and females are created different in order to together reflect the glory and goodness of God. The specifics of how these truths are to be lived out today are to be applied in love and biblical Spirit-led wisdom.

My Favorite Quote on Biblical Womanhood

“Because we are made in [God’s] likeness, it is our destiny to rule and reign like He does. But unlike kings and queens of the ancient world who ruled from lavish palaces, our God is a King who works. He is a King who rolls up His sleeves and gets down in the dust beside us. He is a King who makes Himself a servant and labors on our behalf… So being an heir to this kind of King means we are no fairytale princesses spending our days in ideal luxury. We are queens ruling creation under His authority. The very work we do, whether it is tallying numbers in columns of red or black or scrubbing red and black crayon off of newly painted walls, is an expression of God’s royal nature in us” (Hannan Anderson, Made for More). 

Suggested Resources on Biblical Womanhood

What explains the contradiction of humanity?

What explains the contradiction of humanity?

What explains the contradiction of humanity?

Hospitals and especially children’s hospitals are a testimony to the beauty and brokenness of our world. Humanity is capable of amazing feats structurally and scientifically. We build edifices and index illnesses.
.
We build this collectively in community. Because we are mightier together. That’s the purposive power of politics and how and why societies formed. We come together because we have to. We are not enough in and of our self. We need each other. And can’t make it on our own.
.
We’re frail and we fail. We’re weak and sometimes very wrong. We are both sinful and sick.
.
That’s why hospitals, even children’s hospitals, exist. Because we need care. We have things that go wrong—even in our own bodies. And we do wrong. To each other. Sometimes sadly even to children.
.
So, hospitals tell us something profound. They tell us something about ourselves. They tell us we are at the same time mighty—capable of accomplishing a lot. Yet at the same time monsters—capable of moral atrocities. And all the time, we are not enough on our own.
.
That brings up a question. What are humans? If we are “gods” as some say, why do we so often grovel? If we are mere germs—plagues on the earth—as others say, why are we capable of such glory? What explains the dual nature of our nature?
.
Which intuition is correct? What are we?
.
Could it be that we are neither goo nor god, but essentially goo made in the image of God? Could it be that our duality reflects flawless design yet fallen? What if we’re all not quite what we were meant to be? What we could be?
.
Doesn’t that view seem intuitive? It certainly does to me. It seems to me to be, strangely, what we see in the world.
.
We’re not exactly that thing or that other thing. We’re both together at the same time. We are mixed. An ocean of motion. We’re a contradiction of commotion.
.
We have the tendency of both sinner and saint, of a god and mere goo. Why?
.
The Bible says it is because we were made perfect and in God’s image—formed from the dirt of the ground. But that we turned and turn from God’s way. We struck out and strike out on our own. We sin. We disobey the good way He has laid out for us.
.
That, the Bible says, explains humanity’s duality. That’s how we got to be the way we are. So very capable and incapable at the same time.
.
That’s the wonder of us. That’s who we are. But if that’s true. What does it mean?
.
Is the cautionary contradiction the residue of what’s true? Does it point us to a past reality?
.
I believe it’s one of the cookie crumb trails. It’s DNA evidence pointing back to a cold case question. It may not all at once confirm a conclusion about Christianity, but it does point in a definite direction. It fits the case that Christianity argues while bringing up questions to other philosophies.
.
When I weigh the evidence and the alibis are in, there’s more mounting evidence that points to the truth of the Christian philosophy. As C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
.
Christianity not only makes sense to me, but it also makes sense of the world I see. The fact that the world is both fallen and flourishing is just one example. But it’s another example that collaborates with other evidence.
..
Therefore, I believe the contradiction of humanity points to the truthfulness of Christianity.
.
*Photo by Ksenia Kazak

Hinduism & New Age Spirituality on Suffering

Hinduism & New Age Spirituality on suffering

Hinduism & New Age Spirituality on Suffering

What does Hinduism say about suffering?

The most prominent of the six schools of Hindu philosophy is Vedanta Hinduism. It teaches that suffering comes from ignorance (maya). This view teaches that we can be freed from suffering when we recognize our oneness with the Divine. This form of Hinduism thus says since all is divine, there is truly no sin and no suffering. Salvation is thus through knowledge, the knowledge that one is actually God.[1]

It is important to realize that Hinduism “does not technically name one religion but is a broad term that includes the various religious beliefs and practices of India. Hinduism has no founder and no single authoritative text.” But, “all Hindus share some core beliefs, including the eternality of the cosmos, reincarnation, karma, the caste system, affirmation of Vedic scriptures, and liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth as the ultimate goal of life.”[2]

A second view of suffering from Hinduism is that our suffering comes from a previous life in which wrong was done. As the Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler say in The Art of Happiness, “In the Buddhist and Hindu models… suffering is a result of our own negative past actions and is seen as a catalyst for seeking spiritual liberation”[3]

We, in this life, are thus paying for the wrongs we did in our previous lives. All suffering thus has its antecedent sin, somewhere.[4] We may not understand it but all suffering is thus just.[5] This is the doctrine of karma: people get what’s coming to them.[6]

A few questions come to mind. What acts of compassion to alleviate the suffering of others do you expect from Hinduism that does not believe in the reality of suffering? Also, as we have seen, Hinduism teaches Karma, people get the suffering that they deserve in this life. Does that lead to compassion for those who are suffering? Sadly, often it does not.

Think of the caste system. If someone was born into poverty that’s what they must deserve. If someone gets sick and dies that’s what they must deserve. Hinduism holds that humans “are directly responsible for the suffering (physical, mental, spiritual, existential, and so on) that they are experiencing.”[7]

That’s very briefly what Hinduism says about suffering.

The Bible as we will see teaches that we are not divine, we are not God; we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Ignorance is a problem but it is not the problem.

The Bible teaches the decisiveness of this life, we had no other life in the past.[8] What we do matters more than we can know. It does not just affect the next life where we get a retry. It affects eternity. So, the way people live and how they treat people has a lot of significance.

Also, from a Christian perspective, there is judgment. People will get what they deserve, we can be assured of that, but it’s not through Karma. It’s through Jesus, the good and just Judge (Rev. 22:12).

Lastly, Christianity places huge importance on compassion (Col. 3:12-13). Jesus came and suffered for us to ultimately alleviate our suffering even when we didn’t deserve it. Therefore, Christians are to be compassionate and even sacrificial.

What does New Age Spirituality about suffering?

First, what is New Age Spirituality?[9] It is a mix of Buddhism and Hinduism and personal feelings. It is kind of the “mix n’ match” of religions.

It’s basically impossible to distill down what New Age Spirituality says about suffering because you’d probably get a different answer from each adherent to the many forms of New Age Spirituality. I hope here, however, to give a general perspective.

It seems suffering in this view is a result of not being awakened to our inner power. We need to relinquish negativity so that “the universe’s healing power might flow unimpeded.”[10] If someone is in your life that you’re having trouble with, then the solution is to cut them off. They are not helping your inner calm so they need to go. New Age Spirituality seems to teach that the solution to suffering is to focus on yourself.

New Age Spirituality seems very self and inward-focused. Of course, they say they are very inclusive and accepting of everyone. So, New Age Spirituality is also very pluralistic. ‘You have your truth and I have my truth. And that’s fine.” That’s what proponents of this view would likely say.

Primarily, though, suffering is something to be avoided. What is messy and unlikable is to be avoided. New Age Spirituality in that sense seems to be an escapist mentality. In contrast, “the Christian path of obedience, sacrifice, and suffering can seem foolish, even masochistic.”[11]

Suffering exists for various reasons, but Christianity teaches that it is primarily a result of sin. Sin is not really a category for the New Age Spiritualists. Christianity also differs in that it says suffering is not always to be avoided.

Jesus waded into our suffering to provide salvation. And Jesus very often calls us to also take up our crosses. And love people. Even when it is difficult. Even when it means sacrificial suffering. Christians believe that they cannot agree with everyone (for example, Jesus is the only way to God) but they are to love and sacrifice for anyone—even when they disagree with that person and caring for them requires sacrifice (think of the Good Samaritan).

Notes

[1] E. Stanley Jones, Christ and Human Suffering [New York: The Abingdon Press, 1937], 58.

[2] Tawa J. Anderson, W. Michael Clark, and David K. Naugle, An Introduction to Christian Worldview: Pursuing God’s Perspective in a Pluralistic World [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017], 269.

[3] The Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, The Art of Happiness, 200.

[4] Jones, Christ and Human Suffering, 51.

[5] Some would take this to mean that we should not relieve the sufferings of others because it really is not helping them. They are getting their just desserts for their wrongdoing. If we relieve them in one way they will just suffer in another.

[6] Jones says, “There is a deep and abiding truth in the law of Karma. We do reap what we sow” (Jones, Christ and Human Suffering 54). See Galatians 6:8. However, the doctrine of karma is wrong although God does justly mete out justice.

[7] Scott J Fitzpatrick, Ian H Kerridge, Christopher F C Jordens, Laurie Zoloth, Christopher Tollefsen, Karma Lekshe Tsomo, Michael P Jensen, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Deepak Sarma, “Religious perspectives on human suffering: Implications for medicine and bioethics” in Journal of Religion and Health 2016; 55:159–173.

[8] The Bible says that it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes the judgment (Heb. 9:27).

[9] See also “Is the world enchanted?”

[10] Nicole Watt, “A Reiki Master’s Redemption,” 95 in Christianity Today.

[11] Watt, “A Reiki Master’s Redemption,” 95 in Christianity Today.

*Photo by Min An

Is science our salvation? 

Is science our salvation? 

Science brings solutions. Solutions I thank God for. Without the breakthroughs in medicine that science has brought, my wife and son would not be alive because of a dangerous birth. The Bible tells us to be thankful for good things like science. It doesn’t say science isn’t real, or anything crazy like that. Instead, it says, “every good gift… comes down from heaven” and “should be received with thanksgiving.”

But, science is not everything. Science is not our salvation because science is wielded by humans, and humans do something that is unpopularly referred to as sin. So, in the most scientifically advanced century, there were also the most mass inflicted deaths. If the past is an indication of the future, science will continue to be a place of ethical stress and struggle. Science has been good in many cases, but science has also been used to propel genocide.

So, I’m super thankful for science but science is not our salvation. Science can’t even begin to tell us the meaning of life. It only answers questions that can be found through reproducible observations. It can tell us about the way the world is, but it cannot to us about the way the world ought to be.

Science might provide solutions, science might help us out especially physically, but our problems are deeper than that. Our problem is not just physical, it’s spiritual. And science knows nothing of the spiritual. It can’t see or do tests on what ills us at our deepest levels and so it can offer no final solutions.

If humanity is to be saved we need more power than even science offers. And we need it welded by a perfect person. Christians believe in just that person.

Christians believe Jesus is the Solution

Christ’s resurrection proves both that the world is more than meets the eye and that science, though often very good, is not our salvation. Jesus the Bible repeatedly shows, is our salvation.

“For the Christian the natural world is real and full of strangeness and wonder, but it is not the only reality or the higher reality, so important though science is, there are ways of knowing other than through science… After all, there are many sounds that humans cannot hear, but they are still objectively real and completely audible to dogs, bats and bears.”[1]

Yet, just because Christians believe more is needed than just science, does not mean Christians discount science. And just because Christians believe that Jesus is the solution, does not mean Christians discount reason.

Christianity is a reasonable religion. Or, it at least certainly claims to be. Each person has to decide for themself. But, the Bible indeed gives reasons to believe. It’s arguing for something. It’s proposing a full-orbed philosophy of life.

Christianity has been reasoned since the beginning. In fact, the Bible makes the huge claim that reason (logos) was fleshed out as Jesus walked in the flesh (see John 1:1-14). Wisdom walked the earth. Philosophy was not abstract, theoretical, and locked up in a far-away lecture hall. No. Philosophy was flawlessly lived out by Jesus who perfectly loved people and God.

Science cannot save us but it points us with a whisper and a roar to the One who can. Jesus can do the surgery on our hearts that we all need because He is knowledge and wisdom incarnate. He is philosophy. He is Logic made flesh.

Jesus the sovereign over science is the one who brings salvation. He is the sinless solution. The one alone who perfectly welds His power.

Notes

[1] Os Guinness, Fools Talk, 150.

What is the difference between self-confidence and pride?

What is the difference between self-confidence and pride?

Theologically what is the difference between self-confidence and pride?

Self-confidence

God does gift individuals. And it is good to acknowledge that truth. The manager in Jesus’ parable that invested his talents and earned a good return for the owner had to have a type of confidence (Matt. 25:14-30).

Further, God created us as a “work of art” to carry out the good deeds and mission He wants us to accomplish (Eph. 2:10). So, in a sense, we can have confidence in the self that God intended us to be. Therefore, self-confidence is not in itself bad.  

Of course, these truths need to be balanced by the humbling reality that we are sinners and that every good thing we have is a gift. What do we have that we did not receive (1 Cor. 4:7)? And we should always recall that every good gift and every perfect gift comes from God (James 1:17). It’s not innately ours. 

Self-confidence can mean prideful evaluation of one’s ability. It does not, I don’t think, have to be understood that way though. It could mean something like: confidence in who God made you to be and in your God-given abilities. If understood that way, perhaps “God-confidence” or “God-acknowledgment” would be better. 

Either way, it does not seem to me that self-confidence is inherently bad. I also think considering the opposite term can be helpful to consider: “self-skepticism” or “self-suspicion.” The Bible does say that our hearts are desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). So, does “self-skepticism” better describe what the view of ourselves should be?

I don’t think so. I don’t think self-confidence or self-skepticism gives us the whole picture. And if left with just one of them or even a balance of both of them together, we still miss something huge! We miss our self in relation to God. 

If we consider ourselves without relation to or thought of God, we’re going to get it wrong. We’ll error on either over-confidence or over-suspicion about our self. Yet, when we consider ourselves with reference to what God can and does do, we can be confident in who He has made us to be. While at the same time not obsessing about our self, because we’re focused on Him. We can have a healthy suspicion of our self but that’s not crushing. Because we know that God can and does overcome our sin. 

Pride

“Pride,” at least how I think about it, has to do with what one has done. In my mind, it means someone is proud of what they themselves have accomplished. Pride is less an evaluation of one’s ability and more so a belief that’s one’s ability is simply a result of one’s own efforts. There’s no grace in pride, given or received; all is earned. 

So, with pride, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of who humans are and who God is. God is the giver we, as humans, are receivers. God is, and we are contingent. Pride is a foolish misunderstanding of ontology. God is independent, humans are dependent. 

Notice, King Nebuchadnezzar was humbled after he praised himself and all he thought he himself had accomplished. Nebuchadnezzar found out that God humbles those who walk in pride (Dan. 4:37). When pride comes, then comes disgrace (Prov. 11:2).

We should, however, understand that there is a difference between “pride” and “pleasure.” King Nebuchadnezzar didn’t just take pleasure in his kingdom and in all that God had entrusted to him, he took pride in it. That is, he acted as if he was responsible for it all himself. He exalted himself and failed to exalt God. 

I believe it is good to take pleasure in the abilities God has given us—whether preaching, building cabinets, or whatever. In a movie about Eric Liddel, a Christian Olympic runner, he says, “God made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure.” There’s nothing wrong with taking pleasure in what God has given us to do. But, notice an important point: Liddel said, “God made me fast.” Liddel acknowledged God even in his abilities.

But wait, didn’t Liddel run? Didn’t Liddel sweat? Didn’t Liddel sacrifice? He showed amazing discipline to be an Olympic runner, right? Yes. And every good gift is from God. Including Liddel’s ability to do each of those things and also his ability to breathe and his very existence was from God. 

So, I believe one could evaluate themself as very good at what they do and that it required a lot of work on their part to become effective, without being prideful. How so? They acknowledge that it is all a gift. Discipline—a gift. Breathing—a gift. Etc.—a gift. 

Conclusion

Perhaps the fundamental difference between “pride” and “self-confidence” as we are considering the terms is this: One is an exaltation of self without reference to God, the other can be confidence in God with reference to who He has made you to be. 

The apostle Paul had a sort of confidence—we see it demonstrated through his letters and missionary work—but he also said it was not him but Christ in him (Gal. 2:20). Paul, after He met and was radically transformed by Christ, was not so much confident in himself as what God was able to do through him, though he was a mere disposable jar of clay (2 Cor. 4:7).

So, I believe it is right and good to have a kind of self-confidence in who God has made us to be even while we work at killing pride.

*Photo by Nicolas I.

New Author: Alex Rivas

Alex Rivas

We’re excited to announce that Alex Rivas will be joining as one of the authors. We look forward to hearing his heart and learning from him.

Alex Rivas

Alex is a city kid from Chicago who is seeking out God in new places. He became a believer at the age of 16 and is a recent graduate of Moody. He and his wife enjoy quality time watching movies, playing board games, discussing theology, and hosting Bible studies in their home. Alex has a love for the Lord, His word, and His church. Alex’s desire is to serve the Lord for as long as he has breath.

Why the Name “New inX”?

The name “NewinX” comes from the reality that new life, individual and cosmic, comes in and through Christ alone. The “inX” logo stands for the Christian’s identity in Christ Jesus. Second Corinthians 5:17 says that if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation.

Why an “X”? What does “X” stand for? An “X”…

  • looks like the Greek letter, chi, which is the first letter in Christos, the Greek word for Christ (Χριστός).
  • has been used as short hand for Christ for a long time.
  • reminds us of the cross where Jesus the Christ paid for the sins of all who would turn to Him in repentance and faith. So, an “X” is a good reminder not only of Jesus the Messiah but also His mission. To die on the cross. Jesus came as a little baby at Christmas but He came for the cross.[1]
  • also starts at a definite point but stretches out from there. Jesus the Christ, His coming and cross, happened at a definite time but the significance of what He accomplished stretches out into eternity.
  • has a center point and it also has four lines jetting out from that center. Jesus Christ is the center, the crux of everything, and significance and salvation jet out from Him. He brings deliverance near and far, individual and cosmic, but it all shoots out from Him at the center. As Colossians says, “In Him all things were created… All things were created through Him and for Him… and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17).
  • may be people’s way of trying to get Christ out of Christmas but the reality is, reality is about Him. So, that’s ultimately going to be an impossible task.[2]
  • “marks the spot” and is on many maps. Jesus the Christ is the true treasure.

So, “X” points to Jesus the Christ. It points to Jesus the center of it all. It points to the cross on which He died and the cosmos that is held together by His hand.

What’s the Purpose of “New inX”?

We want the whole world to intimately experience the transforming truth of Jesus. The purpose of “NewinX” is to provide truth that transforms. We want to pepper people’s lives with relevant Christocentric biblical teaching.

The world has many voices, they scream and chant their truth. We want to herald the truth—true truth—from the hills and the hollers, from wherever we can by whatever means we can. We want to use the means available to reach and teach as many as we can.

The Gutenberg Press was once that means, and it was used to great ends. Now we have various forms of social media. In the day of “Fake News,” we want to share the good news and show how it impacts every area of life.

Notes

[1] It’s also important to realize that “Christmas” is actually already shorthand for “Christ’s mass.” The English word “Mass” comes from the Latin word missa, which means to be “sent.” So, Christmas reminds us that Christ has been sent and the truth is, “Xmas” does too.

[2] Even the way we date things goes back to Jesus and His coming. A.D. comes from the Latin, Anno Domini, which means, “In the year of ourLord” and refers to the years after the birth of Jesus.

Suffering? What does Buddhism say about it?

Suffering?

Suffering? What does Buddhism say say about it? Why does it happen and what hope is there in the midst of it? How should we respond to the reality of suffering?

Why does suffering happen?

Why does suffering happen? What hope do we have in the midst of suffering? And what do the major views of the world say about these questions?

There are a bunch of different forms of suffering. Suffering because of the actions of others, because of our own choices, from loneliness, from financial distress, from the death of a loved one. Statistics say there have been millions of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 alone. Suffering is sadly part of our world.

But, why? And did it have to be this way? Does it have to be this way?

In the upcoming posts we’re going to briefly look at what Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age Spirituality, Islam, Naturalism, and Christianity say about suffering.[1]

What does Buddhism say about suffering?

Buddha said, “Existence and suffering are one.” And Buddha explains, through the four noble truths,[2] that suffering is a result of desire. Therefore, Buddhism says, the solution, the way to end suffering, is for us to end desire. To get to our resting place then, to get to Nirvana, where we no longer suffer, we must cut the root of all desire.

Issa, an eighteenth-century poet from Japan, went to a Buddhist Zen Master for help. He was grieving. He tragically lost his wife and all five of his children. In Issa’s distress and grief he went to the Zen Master. The Zen Master said: “Remember the world is dew.” That was the solution that was given, “Remember the world is dew.”

Dew is fleeting. “The sun rises and the dew is gone. So too is suffering and death in this world of illusion, so the mistake is to become to engaged. Remember the world is dew. Be more detached, and transcend the engagement of mourning that prolongs the grief.”[3]

The answer given, then, is basically, “Be more detached. Care less.” After Issa received his consolation he composed one of his most famous poems:

The world is dew.
The world is dew.
And yet.
And yet.

I appreciate something E. Stanley Jones said:

“Buddha was right in diagnosing our difficulty as ‘desire.’ It is the desires of men reaching out to this thing and that thing that return to them disillusioned, pained, suffering. We seem to be infinite beings trying to find satisfaction with finite things. The result—suffering! Yes, Buddha was right in finding the root of our difficulty to be in desire, but he was wrong in the remedy. He would try to get rid of all desire, when the fact is that there is no possible way to get rid of one desire except to replace it by a higher desire.”[4]

What’s the Christian View?

The Bible actually agrees that we have desire and that it is strong. For example, Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us that we have eternity in our hearts. Therefore, the Bible as well as Augustine and Aquinas say we have great desire but they also say our desire can be met, but only by God Himself.[5]

So, let’s think through the implications of the Buddhist view of suffering. The Buddhist view leaves people wanting to leave earthly existence altogether and arrive at the passionless state of Nirvana; that is the true solution from the Buddhist approach.

One of the problems with this kind of belief is that it does away with the significance of good and evil. And thus it also does away with rescue. C.S. Lewis said it this way: “Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.’ The Christian replies, ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’”[6]

The Christian view of suffering looks at suffering as much more multidimensional. From a Christian perspective, there are many reasons for suffering:

  • sin and wrong desire
  • war and human conflicts
  • living in a fallen and cursed world in which there are physical calamities such as hurricanes and pandemics
  • health issues and physical infirmities
  • economic distress
  • humans sinning against other humans in various ways
  • the abuse of secular and religious authorities and even at the hands of parents within the family structure
  • Suffering, for the Christian, can also happen as result of living for Jesus the Lord[7]

For the Christian, the solution is much different too. The solution is not leaving earthly existence, the solution is Jesus coming to earth. And Him always having the right desire and doing the right thing and suffering in the place of humans.

Notes

[1] Of course, in the space we have, we cannot come close to an exhaustive account of each view. Instead, we’ll look at what I believe is a fair representation.

[2] This is what the four noble truths say: (1) Suffering is an innate characteristic of existence with each rebirth and (2) the cause of that suffering is desire. (3) We can therefore end all suffering by ending all desire. And (4) we can end all desire by following the eightfold path.

[3] Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk, 126.

[4] E. Stanley Jones, Christ and Human Suffering (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1937), 49-50.

[5] As Psalm 16:11 says, “In the LORD’s presence there is fullness of joy. At His right hand our pleasures forever more.”

[6] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

[7]See Apologetics at the Cross.

*Photo by JD Mason

Does science disprove miracles?

Does science disprove miracles?
Are miracles possible? Does science disprove miracles?
 
We must first ask, ‘What even is a miracle?’ We must also consider our assumptions as we ask the question. Then we’ll be in a better position to consider miracles.
.

What is a Miracle?

David Hume, a skeptic philosopher believed a miracle is a violation and even a transgression of a law of nature. That view assumes the impossibility of miracles at the outset. It makes sense that someone who doesn’t want to believe in God, or God’s interference with our affairs, wouldn’t want to believe in the possibility of God’s intervention.[1] So, I understand where he’s coming from. 

His view, however, is not the only option. People have explained what miracles are differently. And not all of them think miracles violate the laws of nature.
 
C.S. Lewis said a miracle is “an interference with nature by supernatural power.” Lewis’ approach allows for the possibility of miracles. Lewis explains that when God performs a miracle He does not suspend “the pattern to which events conform” but instead feeds “new events into that pattern.” Just as an airplane does not violate the law of gravity but instead nullifies its effect with its power.[2]
 
Though it seemed impossible for a long time to a lot of people we know now that airplanes can fly. And airplanes do not violate or momentarily do away with the law of gravity. Instead, they in a way ‘overpower’ gravity. Airplanes don’t suspend gravity but exert force to overcome the effects of gravity.
 
It seems to me to make sense that God can “interfere” with or “overpower” the regular operation of the world. It would seem God is able to affect His own creation since He is simply, as Lewis said, writing in “small letters something that God has already written… in letters almost too large to be noticed, across the whole canvas of Nature.”
 
Some people object that they’ve never seen a miracle or that miracles don’t agree with what we know about the universe in which we live. John Frame says, “In almost all our experience, things happen in regular patterns, to some extent describable by scientific law.” That is true. “But,” Frame goes on, “there is nothing in this experience to persuade us that irregularity is impossible, or that everything always behaves naturally and regularly. Experience tells us what is happening; it does not tell us what is or is not possible, or what ‘always’ happens. We have not seen what everything always does, for we have neither seen everything nor seen things always.”[3]
 
So, different people think about miracles differently. Augustine, instead of saying a miracle was a violation of nature or contrary to nature, said miracles were something outside our knowledge of nature. Thomas Aquinas explained that a miracle is not contrary to nature but goes beyond the order that is typically observed in nature.
 
Why do people think about miracles so differently?
.

The Importance of Starting Places

If you start with just nature you end with just nature. If we start without God, we end without God. And if God is not, then He’s not able to act in the world we live in. So, if all there is, is natural, there is no supernatural. No miracles.
.
Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe? How we answer that depends upon the assumptions that we have before we answer. Our starting place matters.
 
If God is, then He is not constrained to rigid patterns but is free to carry out His intentions.[4] Who or what is there to constrain the Creator? As Peter Kreft has said, God has more power in one breath than all the winds of war, all the nuclear bombs, all the energy of all the suns in all the galaxies.[5]
 
The laws of nature beginning in space and time are limited and finite. God, however, as the Creator of space and time and the laws of nature is infinite and unlimited. God certainly is not limited by His creation. If God made the Big Bang bang, He can certainly make miracles.
 
If, as Greg Bahnsen has said, the “God depicted in the pages of the Bible actually exists, then it would be preposterous to try and rule out the possibility of miracles.”[6]
 
Also, if a person believes in a competent Creator that is wise and involved, then it makes sense for them to believe in the consistency of the laws of creation. If, however, that is not one’s belief about the Creator, then it doesn’t seem like it makes sense to expect that consistency. Instead, profound surprise would be in line. Why is the world controlled, not chaotic?!
 
For a person that believes in a competent Creator, it would also make sense that they would believe that the Creator could intervene with the laws of nature. Again, if that’s not one’s belief, it would not have to be intervened with for things that seem out of the ordinary to happen because in that case, there wouldn’t be reasons to believe in ordinary. If there are no laws of nature, no ordinary, then how could one have an idea of what a miracle would even be? If there are laws of nature, wouldn’t it make sense that the Law Giver could supersede those laws?
.

Is Science able to Disprove Miracles?

As we think about science and miracles there are a few questions we should ask. What science could disprove miracles? How? By what proof?[7]
 
Science can neither prove nor disprove miracles. “Science is unable to investigate unique events. Because science depends upon repeatability, and unique events don’t have repeatability, science is, in a certain sense, powerless to prove the presence or absence of a miracle.”[8]
 
“Science does not tell us what always happens. It certainly does not tell us what can or cannot happen. Science’s laws are only generalizations from our observations of how nature usually works. They do not forbid exceptions. Miracles do not contradict the laws of science any more than a gift of extra money contradicts a bank balance. It is an addition, not a subtraction… Supernatural events do not contradict natural events.”[9]
 
Therefore, no. It seems science does not rule out the possibilities of miracles.
.

Should we Believe every Miracle Claim?

Although airplanes can fly, we still know that it is not the regular pattern that objects fly.
 
No. We should not believe every miraculous claim. Just because science does not disprove the possibility of miracles doesn’t mean they’re common. The existence and effectiveness of science in some ways prove that miracles are uncommon.
 
Christianity gives us reasons for both believing in miracles and being hesitant at claims to miracles. Christianity gives us reasons for believing in the incredible even while making us only believe things if they’re credible. How so?
 
First, the Bible gives actual reasons for believing in incredible things like Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. You can count the reasons. And it doesn’t say we should just have faith in random outlandish things. Second, we should only believe things that are credible because many people, and certainly the wicked one, would have us blinded to the truth. So, we should only believe things if they prove to be credible. Faith is never to equal foolishness.
 
In the time of the Bible, people didn’t just willy-nilly believe everything without question. Jesus’ first followers often doubted Him and had to be shown proof. Things in that day seemed too fantastical to believe too. Even if they didn’t have the scientific method as we know it today, it doesn’t mean they had no sense of the way the world typically worked.
 
Jesus’ followers knew it was not typical for a person to die and rise from the dead. They didn’t expect to see a person walking on water. There were a whole host of things that were confusing and unexpected surrounding Jesus.
 
Yet, if Jesus was truly God as the Bible states, then it makes sense that miraculous events accompanied Him. Jesus’ original followers had doubts. I sometimes have doubts too.
 
One of the most difficult things for me to believe is that God is going to remake the world. He is going to fix every wrong and make everything right—physically, emotionally, spiritually. That’s hard to fathom. But, that’s what the Bible says (e.g. Revelations 21). 
 
Yet, as I think of what God must be capable of if He made and sustains the world, it bolsters my faith.
 
It may blow a one-year-old’s mind that after they eat and wildly enjoy one “smash-cake-cupcake” I can pop another one out of the fridge and into their face. They certainly don’t have categories for how I could do that, but just because they, with their limited capacity cannot comprehend, does not mean that I cannot do it.
 
In the same way, I honestly cannot comprehend how God could rework and remake the world and fix every wrong and make everything right—make a new creation, a new heaven, and a new earth in which perfect rightness just always is. But, I’m the equivalent of a little baby with a happy birthday bib on. So, it makes sense that it doesn’t make sense to me.
 
God, I have to believe, is capable of more than I can fathom.
.

Does Science Disprove Miracles? 

So, no. Science certainly doesn’t disprove miracles.
 
Honestly, for me, I think it proves God is certainly capable of intervening. He is always upholding the very laws that allow for the very existence of science. If there weren’t typically regularity, we wouldn’t possibly even notice irregularity. It wouldn’t exist.
 
If God didn’t uphold the laws of the universe with His power, randomness would reign. In which case, we wouldn’t observe miracles but instead complete unpredictability. Sometimes light is X speed, sometimes light is Z speed. Sometimes gravity is crushing, sometimes we float off into an endless void. 
 
Science is actually more and more showing the vast extent that is required for intelligent life to exist in the universe. Thus, if anything, science is showing us that God has been intervening the whole time.
.

Notes

[1] See e.g. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, 51.
 
[2] Michael F. Bird and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?: A believer and non-believer examine the evidence, 22.
 
[3] John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015), 146-47.
 
[4] Frame, Apologetics, 73.
 
[5] Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue, 105.
 
[6] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith ed. Robert R. Booth (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 226.
 
[7] Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith Essays in Christian Apologetics (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1988), 64.
 
[8] Ian H. Hutchinson, “Miracles and Science” 6 in The Dartmouth Apologia: A Journal of Christian Thought [2019 Spring Edition].
 
[9] Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 65.
Photo by Casey Horner

Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?

Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?

Can an outside hand reach into the fishbowl of our universe?

Newton, a scientist that also happened to be a fish, was a keen observer of the ecology of the fishbowl. He was surprised to observe regular patterns in his fish universe. But he did. 

For example, Newton observes that food daily falls upon the surface of the water at the same time each day. It is a law of nature. It’s just the way the world is. 

Newton observes other natural phenomena like the temperature of the water. He further notes that each death of a goldfish results in a distant flushing noise and then in reincarnation of that goldfish. Newton, awestruck by his discoveries, publishes his findings in his magnum opus entitled Fishtonian Laws. 

Many read his groundbreaking work and are convinced that the laws of the fishbowl are unassailable. After all, the patterns observed have always been that way and so always will be that way. No outside source can act within the fishbowl. The reality is food appears every day and as a goldfish dies, a new one appears. That is the unbroken chain of events we observe. That is the way it’s always been. How could it be different? Who or what could act on these laws of nature? 

We are in a closed system; the aether of the universe—in which we live, move, and have our being—is constrained by an invisible force. There is an unknown unobservable wall that keeps us from knowing what is outside nature, what is outside the physical universe. There is no way for us to know the metafishbowl. 

In the post-Fishtonian world, there were still whispers of the metafishbowl—of the supernatural hand of God—but most of those stories were dismissed as baseless dreams. After all, even if there were a God that set up the fishbowl, he no longer acts in the fishbowl. Such a being is wholly other and transcendent and would not care about lowly fish. 

Everything just goes on swimmingly by itself. We shouldn’t expect an outside hand, right?… There is no reason to think an outside being or force could act within our world. 

Or, does something smell fishy about this story?

Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?

Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?

Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?

Christians believe that when understood correctly there will ultimately be harmony between God’s word the Bible and His world because He is the author of both.[1] Christians don’t believe that there is a contradiction between Christianity and the way creation was carried out. Although, various Christians believe various things regarding evolution and the age of the earth.

Also, it is important that we remember that evolution does not entail the beginning of the universe. Evolution does not offer a reason for the existence of space, time, or matter. In biology, evolution is an explanation of how and why various species have the characteristics they have. Evolution seeks to explain the evolution of different forms of life, not necessarily the origin of life. Christians believe, as the Bible clearly states, that God made the world out of nothing. They, however, disagree on a lot of the particulars.

Christians have Various Views

Various Christians, for example, have various explanations as to the age of the earth. Christians don’t believe that science contradicts the creation accounts. Even while Christians hold various views as to their understanding of the creation accounts. I will say though that this is a topic that many are very dogmatic about. Avowed atheists as well as many evangelicals. Many disagree on the dating of the earth but they’re doubled-down on their dogmatism.

I, however, think a healthy dose of humility is helpful. As well as a willingness to listen to and even learn from and be sharpened by those that come from a different direction.

Again, it’s important that we realize that there are Christians with opinions on both sides of the age of the earth and evolution spectrum. The Bible’s position on the creation of the earth and the humans that inhabit it is not a contradiction. Confusion for some, confidence for many, and consternation for others, yes, but that does not at all prove a contradiction.

Here’s a flawed analogy: A buffet of food doesn’t prove there is no right choice, it just makes finding the right food maybe a little bit harder. I think we can appreciate that there are options and be patient with the person that picks salad.

Here is ‘the buffet’ of choices regarding how humans and the world got to now. I believe there is one choice that is clearly at odds with Christianity, and others that I don’t find as compelling but the presence of choices shouldn’t stop a person from considering Christianity.

     Random “Chance”

This is a naturalistic explanation that has no place for God. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga would say this view is incompatible with Christian belief.[2] I agree. I also believe it is false (see “If God created the universe, what created God?“).

     Intelligent Design

This view advocates that there is a creator/designer of some sort. “The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”[3] This view can support a deist or Christian view of the world. It certainly doesn’t prove Christianity, but it doesn’t necessarily contradict it either.

     Evolutionary Creation

This view holds that God used evolution to make the world, or at least life forms, the way they are.

      Old-earth Creation

Advocates of this view believe that God created the world over a period of ages or epochs. They believe the account given in Genesis is a faithful poetic explanation of the earth’s origins. The Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom) used in the Genesis creation account can mean various things (e.g. a period of 24 hours, a vague amount of time, a year, long age).

     Young-earth Creation

This view holds that the earth was created in six literal days six to twelve thousand years ago.

God certainly could have created all things in six literal days, or He could have used a process to bring humans to the state that they are now. “God may have created organic life directly or he may have evolved it from inorganic life by natural processes; nothing we know for sure in either theology or science, God or nature, makes us absolutely certain of either answer.”[4]

There is more than one plausible interpretation of the creation account. So, people interpret the Genesis account in different ways and believe different things regarding how old the earth is. I personally believe we should hold our beliefs regarding the creation of the world with charity.

Christianity does not regulate what one’s belief must be regarding the specific age of the earth. Or how exactly humans got to now. This is a topic Christians can and do disagree on.

Yes, Christians answer differently. But that does not disprove Christianity. Christians believe that there are faithful ways to understand what science says with what Scripture says, even if they sometimes disagree on what those faithful ways are. One Christian author even said, “Whether [God] completed the job in six literal twenty-four hour days or over a longer period does not really matter (Christian opinions differ over how we should interpret Genesis 1). What is important is the fact that God is the creator of all things.”[5]

Notes

[1] See John Lennox’s helpful book, Seven Days that Divide the World.

[2] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, YEAR), 12.

[3] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution.

[4] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 107.

[5] Vaughan Roberts, God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Storyline of the Bible, 27.