God's Not Dead

We just watched God's Not Dead last week, a well-made independent movie about a college student's efforts to convince his atheistic philosophy professor and the rest of the class that God is indeed real.

I knew almost nothing about the movie, coming in, and was pleasantly surprised, as I was watching the opening credits, that it featured not one, but two former superheroes that I used to watch regularly in the 1990's: Kevin Sorbo (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys) and Dean Cain (Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman). It was fun seeing them again, despite the fact that they portrayed the movie's two biggest jerks.

My purpose with this post is not to review the movie ((I highly recommend you go see it!) or to summarize the logical arguments for the existence of God (I covered that already in my previous posts), but rather to touch on something far more real: how do we, as Christians, react when disasters strike in our lives?

I hope I'm not revealing any major spoilers for you, if you haven't seen the movie yet, but in a tense moment, a major character reveals that it was a loved one's premature death that drove them to abandon their faith in God.

For some reason, despite scriptures to the contrary, mainstream churchgoers have the impression that if they serve Christ, their lives should be peaches and cream. No troubles should ever touch them, and they should be happy all the time. If God truly loves His children, should He not protect them from hardship, sorrow, and pain?

Despite my mother's and wife's health issues, I feel tremendously blessed to not have had people in my life dying prematurely, or touched by cancer, or worries about losing our home. And yet I know that there are brothers and sisters in Christ who have had to face these things. Think about this: if I do not abandon my faith when I hear about brothers and sisters who are going through tragedies right now, why should I doubt God when tragedy comes knocking at my own door?

Case in point: Many of you know about the tornado that struck Arkansas last week, killing 15 people. A news article described a mother who not only suffered two broken legs and a broken pelvis, but also lost her two young sons. Her husband is suffering from head trauma, and all that is left of their beautiful home is the concrete foundation. She has suffered all this loss, that to many of us is unphathomable, and yet her faith in Christ is unshaken. Her friend, who is a photographer and a blogger, came to visit her and took her picture, as she lay there in her hospital bed, bruised, bloodied, and broken. She asked her, if she could use the picture in a future post, after her friend recovered from her injuries. Instead, the woman in the hospital bed urged her friend to post the picture now, in order to "show them what my God can overcome." That's faith in action; a faith that not only does not abandon God when He allows tragedy to strike in our lives, but a faith that shouts from the housetops that victory over all adversity can be found only in Him. It's the faith that no matter what happens, God's wonderful plan for His children will not be derailed, and we can overcome it all, through Christ who has already overcome the world, through His death and resurrection.

Creation vs. Evolution (Part 2)

This post was written on the occasion of the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, which my wife has just blogged about and which you may view here, for a limited time (forward past the 13-minute countdown at the beginning). The image above was captured during Ken Ham's presentation.

Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) created some waves a few months ago, when he made a video bashing Creationists and stating that a belief in evolution is required for scientific advancement, invention, and discovery. To this day, I have yet to see him explain his reasoning. Needless to say, this drew a lot of attention from the Christian community and ultimately led to an invitation from Ken Ham, to debate evolution with him at the Creation Museum, in Kentucky.

This was the thesis statement for the debate, as composed by Answers In Genesis: “Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.”

I did not really expect either man to make an open-and-shut case (after all, this has been a hot-button issue within the science community long before the infamous “Scopes Monkey Trial”), but was looking forward to hearing what they both had to say.  Now that it’s over, I wish to present some analysis of the debate here.

First, let’s put the terminology used in the thesis statement within the context of the debate.

Creation
While there are several plausible interpretations of the Genesis account of Creation, Ken Ham subscribes to the most literal of these, in which, about 6000 years ago, God took 6 literal, 24-hour days to speak into existence the entire universe, all earthly life, and humankind. Because of this, the debate pretty much devolved (pardon the pun) into an argument over the age of the earth and the universe, instead of its origins.

Only Viable Model
This was perhaps the most ambitious portion of the thesis. While the scientific community-at-large dismisses Creation and Intelligent Design as unscientific religious propaganda, Ken Ham went out to completely reverse that opinion. In order to do this, he would have had to not only prove that this model stands up to every rigorous test that has ever been proposed, but also that Evolution, the Big Bang, and all other theories have undeniable holes. This was an impossible task, given the time constraints of the debate and the limited knowledge of both men.

Historical and Observational Science
A pillar of Ken Ham’s argument, vehemently but inadequately disputed by Mr. Nye, was the difference between “historical” and “observational” science. Mr. Ham pointed out that Creationists and Evolutionists usually agree on the causes of events currently observable (hence “observational science”). But analysis of past events, particularly ones that occurred long before there was anyone around to record them, is subject to a great many assumptions, which depend upon the scientist’s point of reference or worldview.

Modern Scientific Era
This seems to me to establish a timebase for Observational and Historical Science, as well as, possibly, refer to the vast knowledge and observational capability that present-day technology affords us. This terminology wasn’t referenced much during the debate, but I find it interesting that Ken Ham thought it important enough to make it part of the thesis statement.

To be continued…

Creation vs. Evolution (Part 1)

This post was written on the occasion of the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, which my wife has just blogged about and which you may view here, for a limited time (forward past the 13-minute countdown at the beginning). The image above was captured during Ken Ham's presentation.

As a born-again Christian with a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, I firmly believe that science and God’s Creation go hand-in-hand. And although Christians disagree about how literally to interpret the first two chapters of Genesis, at the core of our faith is the undeniable fact that we are all the result of God’s design, not the product of random natural processes.

We know and respect two organizations that promote this worldview: The Discovery Institute in Seattle and Answers In Genesis in Kentucky. The former is a leader in the field of Intelligent Design (ID), which holds that the Laws of Nature are too perfect and the intricacies of life too complex to be the result of random chance. I think that, for the most part, the group agrees with the generally accepted age of the Earth and the universe.

Answers In Genesis, headed by Ken Ham, a former science teacher and devout Christian, goes a step further to claim that God created everything about 6000 years ago, in six literal, 24-hour days. Many find this ludicrous, but until my wife and I read some of their literature, we did not know that there is actually quite a bit of evidence that agrees with that premise, and there are many respected scientists in a diverse range of fields, who also hold to this belief.

 “What’s the big deal?” you ask. “Aren’t science and religion incompatible anyway? You can’t prove or disprove the existence of God using scientific methods, so why even argue about it?” The fact is that there are many staunch atheists in the scientific community, who believe that God is merely a man-made notion, created to explain the unexplainable. They believe that if they can prove that we all came to be here through purely natural processes, then there would no longer be a need for anyone to believe in God.

Rainbows, for example, seem so magical that it’s easy to believe they’re put there by our Creator, to reassure us that the Great Flood will never again be repeated. Oh, but what they really are is light passing through tiny water droplets, resulting in a prism-like effect. Ah, since we now know how rainbows work, then "clearly" the Genesis account of Noah’s Flood must be baloney. Yeah, sure.

Likewise, the Theory of Evolution is man’s attempt at providing a Godless alternative to how we got here. And since the process would require great spans of time to take life from an amoeba to an intelligent human being, a young earth would blow the whole thing out of the water.

Why are atheists so against anyone believing in God? I’m not sure. I was once one myself (not a god, but an atheist), and although I thought religious people were wrong to believe in anything supernatural, I still respected their beliefs and did not try to dissuade them. Yet, I did not realize at the time that if God did indeed exist and if He did create me, then I also had the responsibility to obey and follow Him. His moral law would also apply to me, and I would indeed suffer the consequences if I did not accept His gift of Salvation. But if atheists can prove that God did not create us, then we have no obligation to Him (were He even to exist), and there is no moral standard by which we need to live. I think that at their core, atheists do not want to be held accountable for what they do.

Calvinism and Arminianism (Part I)

John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. Click on each, to go to their respective Wikipedia articles.

I had already been saved for several years and thought I knew a lot about Christianity and the Bible, when I began fellowshipping with one of my colleagues at work. He was a very sincere Christian and devout Biblical scholar, but some of his views were so contrary to mine, that I was taken aback. The points he was making and the terminology he used were like second-nature to him.  So much so, that neither of us seemed able to understand where the other was coming from!

That was my first exposure to Calvinism and Reformed Theology. I did not grow up in any church, and when I got saved, I was mentored with (I would later discover) an Arminian worldview. But at the time, I did not know that's what it was called, or even that there was another view, some of whose doctrines were diametrically opposed to mine... but yet, well-founded in scripture.  Since my initial discovery of the two views, I have had numerous deep discussions with Calvinists.  I still lean Arminian, but can definitely see both sides of the coin.

Recently, I had a run-in with a young and very zealous Calvinist, who pretty much picked a Theological argument with me.  He didn't say anything I hadn't heard before, but he knew his supporting scriptures much better than I knew mine, so I just backed out of the discussion.  I couldn't help but rehearse the experience over and over in my head, until I came to two revelatory conclusions, which I would like to share with you now.

I will not try to summarize the two beliefs here, but you can click on either portrait above (even though they may not look like links), to read Wikipedia articles on the theologies these men ignited. (If prompted about scripts or active content, please allow them to run.) Instead, I will focus on some core concepts and leave the deeper digging to the curious.

Both belief systems hold that humanity is inherently sinful and, but for the Grace of God, unable to seek reconcilliation with God. This is called total depravity. Closely tied to this concept is the idea that no works of man can atone for his sins and earn him salvation from an eternity in Hell. Jesus' blood is the only atonement, and a calling from God is the only way one's eyes are opened to the unmerited Gift that is free for the taking. These ideas are well-founded in scripture and you will be hard-pressed to find a Calvinist and an Arminian who will disagree on these points.

However, where the two will greatly differ is in answer to the question, "If God is Love, and He created us, why doesn't everyone go to Heaven?" Perhaps they don't consciously think in these terms, but a lot of the doctrinal differences appear (to myself, at least) to stem from their differing answers to this single question.

To be continued...

A (World)View of "Camelot"

Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer this past Tuesday, leaving behind a tainted legacy. He was the liberals' champion and the conservatives' arch-enemy. But this post is not about his works or where his soul might be resting right now (if it is resting at all). There is something he said at a dinner, more than 20 years ago, that has shed a spotlight on a current issue. The following is an excerpt from Yahoo's biographical article on him.

When a Moral Majority fundraising appeal somehow arrived at his office one day in the early 1980s, word leaked to the public, and the conservative group issued an invitation for him to come to Liberty Baptist College if he was ever in the neighborhood.

Pleased to accept, was the word from Kennedy.

"So I told Jerry (Falwell) and he almost turned white as a sheet," said Cal Thomas, then an aide to the conservative leader.

Dinner at the Falwell home was described as friendly.

Dessert was a political sermon on tolerance, delivered by the liberal from Massachusetts.

"I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly?" Kennedy said from the podium that night. "There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance."

"Tolerance" has a become a buzzword and a banner, used by the secular left, to push an agenda of relativistic morality (or none at all) and gain acceptance of practices and beliefs that have historically been frowned upon by the populace-at-large. Drug use, sexual promiscuity and deviancy, abortion, and entertainment being some of the most obvious examples.

How ironic that Kennedy confessed a belief in (absolute) truth, but in the same breath denied the possibility that anyone could know it. By accusing such people of intolerance, he himself demonstrates a similar intolerance toward those very same folks.

In general, many vocal non-Christians accuse Christians of being intolerant, just because we espouse to the immutable truths found in the Word of God. But God Himself is the very image of tolerance. Anyone who's read the Bible cover-to-cover knows how infinitely patient and forgiving God is. Just look in the Books of Judges and 1 and 2 Kings, how often the Israelites rebelled against Him, and yet He always heard their pleas of repentance. Jesus patiently tolerated not only the doubts and nearsightedness of His own disciples, as well as the humiliation of imprisonment, torture, and the cross. How many sinners does He even today allow to live to a ripe old age?

On the other hand, God told the Israelites, as they were about to enter Canaan, to mercilessly and utterly wipe out the nations around them. He warned them that if they failed to do so, their heathen neighbors would be a stumblingblock to them and lead them astray. Naturally, God's chosen people disobeyed, and we all know the results. Likewise, I think Christians as a whole have been too tolerant of society's moral slipping and sliding, to the point where we have not only become the extremist minority, but we and our children are being assaulted every day by the filth that runs through our streets, like open sewers (paraphrasing from a Carman song).

Is there a way back? Some, looking at Revelation, say that things will just keep getting worse and worse, until He finally makes His triumphant return. But I say, even if the Titanic's sinking, we should not just sit there playing fiddle, but get as many as we can to the liferafts.

So don't let the atheists shoot you down with accusations of intolerance, hatred, and judgmentality, for they are guilty of the very same thing they accuse you of. Invite them to remove the beam out of their own eyes, before they start looking for slivers in yours.

As you can see, I don't tolerate people who call me intolerant. ;)

I Played Against John Stockton... AND BEAT HIM!

For those of you who don't know who he is, John Stockton is one of the greatest basketball players to ever grace the hardwood. Probably the best player the Gonzaga Bulldogs ever had, Stockton was drafted by the Utah Jazz NBA team, in 1984. Spending his entire pro career there, he amassed an impressive list of accomplishments. He was voted one of the NBA's all-time best 50 players, led the league in assists, was an All-Star most of his career, and alongside "The Mailman" Karl Malone, led the Jazz to consecutive trips to the NBA finals (both times barely losing to Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls). He retired several years ago, and although we live close to his hometown, I lost track of what he's been up to.

Well, last night, I took my son to Laser Quest, while my wife attended a choir concert (totally not my thing, and although I offered to endure it, she said she would have a better time by herself... who am I to argue???). In case you don't know what Laser Quest is either, they're a chain of establishments where you play laser tag. You play in this maze-like arena, equipped with a laser gun and sensors. As you tag other players (and get tagged yourself), the computer keeps track of everyone's scores. At the end, you get to see how well you did. It's great exercise and way less painful than paintball.

Anyway, so we played one game, and as we got in line for the second, I spotted him. John Stockton himself was there, with his wife and kids. I suspect it was their first visit. I don't do well talking to strangers, much less famous strangers, so I was content to just glance over at him once in a while, and not ask for a picture, autograph, or say anything stupid, like "Wow, you're one of my favorite players!"

When it was over, I paid attention to see what his callsign was, and although I was disappointed that we apparently never tagged each other, we were both in the top half of the scores, with me edging him out by a few points. I guess I'll have to be content that even though I did not have the guts to chat with him, I can claim that I was able to best him at something... although if it was a one-on-one game of hoops, he would have mopped the floor with me!