How does the Holy Spirit spark and build faith?

God is the one who brings rebel humans back to himself. How does he do this? Is it by academia, intellectualism, and fine sounding arguments? Proofs and statistics?

You can't prove that God is alive, or that Jesus is God by history, archeology, or science. You CAN see that the Bible's Jesus/God is viable, possible. That's encouraging in itself, that Jesus, God With Us, is certain to have lived, gained a following, taught and was reported to perform miracles, was crucified and appeared to his disciples. If any of these were sure to be false, Christianity wouldn't be a viable intellectual option.

But all that stuff is definitely true, and so Jesus' true resurrection, the reality of his miracles, and his divinity are all possible. But it's not an open and shut case.

Indeed, I have observed in life, and read in the Bible, that true faith in the living God, King Jesus, is sparked and built upon four foundations:

1. Transformed communities and lives. The New Testament testifies about the way relationship with Jesus changes lives, and changes community. People realize who the true God is and turn away from idols/worshipping themselves. People live pure lives and become unselfish. People love each other and cross barriers to do it. Communities function and build each other up. They help the poor and foster healthy relationships. This is reviewed over and over in Acts and is what Paul emphasizes in his letters as well.

2. Signs and wonders. Jesus does frickin' sweet stuff to demonstrate his authority. He raises the dead, gives sight to the blind, and animates paralyzed limbs. This is big-time in the Gospels and Acts.

3. Power over sin and demons. Jesus works in us to take away sins that oppress us and that we can't beat ourselves. It doesn't make me better than other people but it does make me better off than I was before. In addition, demons who terrorize and possess people are helpless and weak when Jesus confronts them.

4. God coming through on his promises. God promised Abraham he would bless him, make him in a great nation, give them land, bless all nations through him. He make Israel his chosen nation and gave them land. He promised King David of Israel he would always have a descendant on the throne. Indeed, the prophets, once Israel and Judah were exiled, emphasized more than anything this future Davidic Kingdom that would go on forever. And in Jesus, God fulfilled these promises. Jesus promised his kingship would spread slowly and cover the whole earth. Despite the marginalized hands (fishermen, women, etc.) he left his kingdom in, his promise is coming true.

If you're skeptical about #2 and #3, I might suggest that we are in a unique position as modern Westerners: we're entire nations of self-worshippers. Throughout most of history 99% of people have understood their weakness and fragility and have turned to God or false gods worshipping idols. We see this as silly because we think we control our own destiny, worshiping ourselves. These self-worshipers are found in the Bible too, but they're mostly kings. But most Americans struggle constantly with self-worship! Considering this difference between us and most cultures, I would caution against arrogant skepticism in this area. I dare to suggest that God isn't keen on demonstrating with signs and wonders to self-worshipers, nor are demons particularly concerned about us.

Most importantly, we come to #1, transformed lives and communities. If you are a Christian looking to reach others, ask God to transform you (or show you how he has) and look for a transformed community. If you are a Christian struggling with doubt, I wouldn't be surprised if you're disenchanted by your own sin or a dead community. If you are a non-Christian and don't see lives and communities that have the power of King Jesus in them, I am very sorry that the weakness of man has failed you. I pray that God shows you a community filled with his power soon, as it is here that the Gospel is demonstrated in power.

What is the Gospel? It is the message about our world: A world that should be good is bad all the way through, from nature to nations to families down to my own arrogance and self-worship. Meant for life dependent on God but turning towards ourselves instead, we live warped, twisted lives collapsing on themselves. God arrived personally to reintroduce himself. His name was Jesus, and he is King. He's not a normal kind of king, as instead of conquering right off, he suffered and died, demonstrating his love and making amends for our sin. He rose from the dead to announce his new kingdom of love and life with God again. How to get into the kingdom? Recognize the truth of this message, choose to believe it and Jesus welcomes you in to live forever with him.

Adventures in News Headlines

The latest: "Georgetown University Hid Religious Symbols at White House Request"

Apparently, when the President speaks somewhere, the White House's policy is to put up blue curtains and U.S. flags to make the podium area look as generic as possible. In this case, Obama was speaking at Georgetown Univesity, which is Catholic, so there were some religious symbols up very high, higher than the curtains go. So they covered those with some blue cloth, just like everything else.

There was a misunderstanding, with people accusing Georgetown of "going secular." So I guess this story is intended to clarify that the "cover-up" was at the White House's request.

But doesn't this headline mislead even more? It implies that Obama, whom some Christians actually believe is the anti-Christ, forced a religious institution to hide its religious symbols. Actually, what Obama did is ask them to hide everything distinctive about Georgetown University so that the President could appear on a generic blue background.

The Historical Jesus and His Seminar

I believe the Bible and take it at its word for all matters of theology, faith, and Christian religion. If the message of the Bible (and along with it the events the message is taken from) is not 100% inspired and true, then Christianity is of little value.).

That said, even though I will always rely on the New Testament itself (and an educated understanding of the culture it arises from) for information and explanation about Jesus' life, I still enjoy reading up on "historical Jesus" studies. It's fun to see what people think. It's not something a Christian should bother with unless they're curious, since the New Testament, not academic theories, is our authority on Jesus' life. But the historical Jesus world of academia can be fun for Christians who are interested in understanding the historical method.

A great introductory text on this topic is Jesus As a Figure in History, which I am currently re-reading and will review on this site sometime soon. In the meantime, though, I need to get some annoyances about the Jesus Seminar off my chest.

The Jesus Seminar is a group of about 75 Biblical scholars who, over the course of a few years, met together and systematically reviewed every one of Jesus' sayings and deeds and voted using degrees of certainty on whether or not the sayings/deeds were authentic. They have kept a high profile in the media and have begun to sketch out their take on Jesus' life. They accept about 20% of the Gospels as authentic and characterize Jesus as an irreverent hippie who throws out catchy sayings and had no interest in building followers, starting a revolution, or talking about religion or the end of the world.

The Seminar is not diverse in that it does not cover the range of scholarly views about the historical Jesus very evenly. Also, the entire idea of voting on who Jesus was is an intellectual disgrace. Do your scholarly work, develop a hypothesis, and dialogue; we don't need a majority vote to prove anything. Besides this, their system of voting is arbitrary and makes no use at all of sound statistical theory.

I have three huge gripes against the Jesus Seminar and anyone who studies the historical Jesus similarly:

(1) To propose without hard evidence that the authors of the synoptic gospels made stuff up is self-righteous and arrogant. These authors were much closer to the situation than us, had much more information than we have, and were part of a religion that held truth as a high value.

It is arrogant and self-righteous to contend that Mark and Luke were too affected by their subjectivity to tell the truth and that it is our job as modern scholars to discover the real truth. That is to claim the Gospel writers as subjective and ourselves as objective. But the Seminar's subjectivity is proven by the fact that their presentation of Jesus happens to be a fun-loving and harmless hippie who would fit right in in the modern Western world.

Some argue that it is anachronistic to say Mark or Luke would only want to write what really happened, but this is going too far. The Gospel writers DID care what really happened; they just understood that events needed to be selected and explained, and they didn't have the same sense of exactness and precision that we do. They did not fake objectivity, but did seek to communicate actual events. Note Luke's own claim to heavy research and his and John's assurances that their Gospels are true. Also note the careful way that Luke and Matthew use Mark and Q as sources, never changing the events in earnest; only tiny details are changed.

(2) The Jesus Seminar takes legitimate historical tools, such as dissimilarity (authenticity correlating with difference from its author's perspective), oral repeatability (authenticity correlating with how easily non-readers could have memorized it), and multiple attestation (more authentic material comes from more sources) and tears them away from true historical inquiry by using them like a divining rod, beating each saying/deed over the head with them individually to see if they stand, and then quickly forming a conclusion.

These historical tools must be used in a synthesizing manner, looking at the whole situation and connecting Jesus with the world of Christianity, Judaism, and Rome. This is real science, not crudely using the historical tools as a litmus test on each saying/deed. The very nature of their work, deciding on each deed/saying individually, is nonsense.

Historical tools such as dissimilarity are more useful from a "top-down" approach. That is, starting with the big picture and working down to the details. The tools should be investigating, in order, "How does early Christianity fit at the beginning of Christianity," "How was Christianity sparked in 1st-century Palestine," "How does Christianity fit among Judaism, Hellenization, and Rome," "How do the apostles and early church leaders make sense in the early church," and finally, then, how does Jesus help explain all of this? Each succeeding queston should rely heavily on the questions that come before. Instead, the Seminar looks at each saying/deed without regard with what must be explained, and thus bastardize the historical tools from serious historical inquiry.

(3) Despite their poor use of historical tools, the Seminar's work could still be very useful. Thanks to them, we know with great certainty that Jesus did say lots of counter-cultural things, that he did travel from town to town, that he did die on the cross, etc. This would be a great way to start a barebones framework of what any analysis of Jesus MUST include.

The key, though, is that this framework is INCOMPLETE. If you rely on sayings being easily remembered and being different from what the early church thought as criteria for what is authentic, then you are by default going to get a Jesus without mission or theology. That's fine IF YOU REALIZE THE PICTURE IS ONLY A VERY INCOMPLETE SKETCH AND THAT MUCH MORE ABOUT JESUS IS TO BE DISCOVERED. It leaves the historical Jesus as a shell of the real Jesus, and that is ok if you confirm that it is only a shell.

However, the Jesus Seminar's leaders and others like them regularly neglect to note that their Jesus is a shell of the true Jesus, and so they put forth an Zombie Jesus (i.e. a mumbling, oversimplified shell of the real thing). Zombie Jesus is by the very nature of their criteria oversimplified but they put him out there as the real thing anyway. Just because, because of the limits of their tools, they cannot verify Jesus' theology and mission DOES NOT MEAN HE DIDN'T HAVE THEOLOGY OR MISSION. This is a serious logical error and makes much of their work useless drivel.

I wrote this blog post because at 5 a.m. this morning I woke up and couldn't stop thinking about this stuff. And the very nature of my thoughts--that I would need a highly intellectual discussion to reassure my own faith--brought about doubt in my own faith, because it shouldn't need to be so academic. I fought through the doubt and made sense of the situation while lying there half-awake.

In the meantime, I realized that Western culture itself helped this doubt along... 99% of the world's cultures believed in gods almost universally, and a message like Christianity is powerful to them. Only our culture is so philosophically arrogant that we think we should stop believing in gods before carefully investigating and even "trying on" the other 99% of earth's worldviews.

Christianity, then, the vast majority of the time, is neither advanced nor believed by virtue of academia. Instead, it rests on the power of God, often in three ways: the power of the Christian worldview to explain life; the power of signs, wonders, and transformed lives and communities; and the power over sin and demons that Christ offers.

Christianity is the true God's revelation about himself. It is historical and is real, yes, but we get too entangled with untying a knot that we can't totally untie (ancient historical reconstruction). For faith purposes, all we need to see is that true Christianity is historically VIABLE, not that it is an academic certainty. I get lost in this tangle too often.

It makes me wonder: How can I make myself more available to the living God and to see his power at work in the world around me? Move to a different country? Simplify my life? Become a missionary? Just be more honest? Something small and subtle?

Thoughts?

Easter in Context: Jesus as a Political Figure

Is Jesus political?

I'm not asking whether Jesus a conservative or liberal. Considering the large cultural gap between us and first-century Palestine, the answer to that question requires you to translate our political/economic circumstances over 2,000 years and 10,000 miles, which, depending on your ideologies, can lead you to many different conclusions.

What I am asking is, back in the day, as a Jewish man in Galilee, a subject of the Roman Empire, was Jesus a political figure? What I've heard from many fellow Christians is that Jesus was NOT political, and that misconceptions of him in his day, from the general population (who wanted to crown him king) and from the Roman government (who wanted to snuff out all political competition) allowed a small group of Jewish leaders to have him crucified because he offended their religious sensibilities. I have been told that Jesus' kingdom was SPIRITUAL, not political.

The Bible disagrees. Jesus was an entirely political figure. The common evangelical perception of Jesus as a spiritual leader who accidentally got mixed up in political business so he could die for our sins is false. That doesn't negate the other beliefs evangelicals have about Jesus, which are still true. Jesus did die for our sins. He is God. He was both priest and prophet. He is alive today and we can know him personally. But Biblically, all of these components of Jesus' identity are best understood in the context of the Davidic king who came to take over the government and rule this world forever. Indeed, Christianity is most accurately described as a failed first-century Palestinian political movement.

Religious vs. Political

A patch of fog we must see past is the unique way that Western culture sees religious belief. As Westerners, we compartmentalize our religions, not allowing them to affect any other part of our lives. This has good results (separation of church and state) and bad results (knowing someone for ten years without knowing what they believe). The important thing, though, is realizing that first-century Near Eastern people did not think like this at all.

In Jesus' culture, religious and political ideologies were inseparable, and virtually any religious belief would have political connotations. There were state gods, and pledging allegiance to those gods mean you were loyal to your nation. Winning wars meant your god was strong. Losing meant your god was weak. Indeed, from an ancient Near Eastern perspective, the gods, not humans, were the prime movers and causes of major world events, including the rise and fall of empires.

Judaism was no different. Read the book of Kings and you'll see what I mean. The messages of prophets were principally to KINGS, about how they ruled and what kinds of religions they set up. They are evaluated and rise and fall based on God's will. Our God (known to Israelites as YHWH to distinguish him from other gods) was Israel's best general and, in the best of times, their true king.

Not surprisingly, then, when Jerusalem was conquered and most of the population was killed or carried off to Babylon, this led to doubt in YHWH. Is God weak? Is He dead? The compilers of the Old Testament believed He let Israel split and fall because she had not followed Him. But the prophets whose books they compiled also spoke of a bright and glorious future, when a Davidic King, possibly God himself, would personally take over and become king of Israel, ruling the whole world forever and bringing all peoples under his authority. So the people looked forward to this event while living under the foot of the Roman Empire.

The King arrives

In the middle of all this, Jesus appears, and methodically, progressively reveals himself as that coming king. That's not all he does, of course. He also clarifies the law, demonstrates himself as YHWH's representative with powerful signs and wonders, and demonstrates priestly authority by disrupting the temple. But mostly he reveals himself as the guy who has come to take over the government and rule Isreal--and earth--forever. These were the cultural expectations, and Jesus planned on delivering on them.

That's why he so intentionally echos the prophet Zachariah as he enters Jerusalem. Zachariah wrote, "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Episodes like Jesus' entrance to the City of David on a donkey are not accidents; they were done on purpose to make a statement. You can't blame the people for praising him as their king in that moment; that's just the message he was trying to send!

The majority of Jesus' teachings are also about the physical kingdom he is bringing. When he's not teaching about the law, or prayer or forgiveness, he's teaching what his kingdom is like. The teachings don't describe a typical earthly kingdom, but they do still describe one. He says that the kingdom will not come by force immediately (and indeed, he is not assembling an army). He says that the kingdom will be inclusive, including Gentiles, sinners, etc. The main requirement will be humility before God. He teaches about how valuable the kingdom will be, and how it will last forever. He teaches a LOT about how there will be an in between time, when he will be gone for awhile before returning in glory. And, finally, he teaches that he will have to suffer in coming into this political power (this point is never understood by anyone he tells). All of these themes speak about the real monarchy Jesus planned to bring to earth.

Indeed, it is only because Jesus was so SUBTLE about his future political kingship that he wasn't arrested and killed by the Romans earlier. He intended to have it all go down in Jerusalem, and that's what happened. If he would have spoken more plainly at all times, Roman authorities may have crucified him then and there, in Galilee or on the way to Jerusalem. Why put up with a would-be king?

Explanatory power

Thinking through the Gospels in this context makes sense of a lot more of the story, and makes it clear this is the context that the Gospel authors intended. It explains the Bible more coherently than saying Jesus brought only a spiritual kingdom. Take the Pharisees as an example. The conventional evangelical perspective on the Pharisees and Jewish leaders is that thought they were perfect and were arrogant. Then Jesus called them out on it and they didn't like that, so they had him arrested and executed. This was the perspective I held as recently as a couple weeks ago. Yet does it make very much sense?

Let's "try on" the political context instead: The Pharisees are upper-class Jews looking forward to the redemption of Israel, and throwing off the yoke of Roman oppression. Their "passive-aggressive" strategy for revolution is to emphasize their distinctiveness as YHWH's nation by observing YHWH's law very closely. Those who separate themselves as true Israelites from the mainstream culture via the law will be recognized as the true Israelites by the eventual coming King, and will be in a great position when he arrives.

So the Pharisees were looking forward to God coming to rule as much as any Jewish group. On many theological points, Jesus agrees with them: they both believe that the law is very important and that our bodies will one day be resurrected. Their problem with Jesus is the kingdom he's claiming to bring. The Pharisees are wealthy; Jesus prefers the poor. They're law-abiding; Jesus hangs out with sinners and emphasizes humility. They're Jewish; Jesus proclaims that being Jewish isn't a prerequisite to getting into the kingdom. Jesus is gaining popularity and is moving towards Jerusalem to make his move. If he was assembling only a spiritual kingdom, they couldn't have cared less, but there is no such thing as "just a spiritual kingdom" in that worldview. It's no surprise they begin to plot his death!

Jesus' arrest is also better explained in a political context. The council wanted to arrest him during the day, but the crowds were so expectant for him to reign as king that they might riot if the seized him. Therefore, they need to arrest him at night, hidden from the crowds. Since they had no idea where he slept at night, they bribed Judas to take them to Jesus' late-night hide-out spot. That way, the mob wouldn't have any say in his arrest, and when they presented him to the mob in the morning, arrested, beaten and defeated, the crowd will realize he was a false king and will turn on him. Whaddya know, that's exactly what happened!

Indeed, he is mocked by Herod, soldiers, the priests, and just about everyone else he comes across. The jig is up and he is proved as a false king; just a failed revolutionary without even a little success in stirring the political plot. The ultimate insult is the sarcastic sign put above his cross: "THE KING OF THE JEWS." At the lowest point in Luke's narrative, even one of the men he is being crucified with mocks him. Ouch!

It is also at this point that the most compelling line of Luke's Gospel is delivered by the other criminal on Jesus' other side: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." It's a very strange thing to say; after all, Jesus had just been thoroughly exposed as a fake and is dying as the criminal utters the words. This man had insight everyone else lacked at the time, and in fact he would have looked downright stupid had not something happened a couple days later...

Resurrection

In a surprising (but ingeniously foreshadowed) twist to the story, Jesus rises from the dead!! He hasn't been defeated at all! Suddenly, more of his teachings made sense. He had to suffer but defeated death. We will be resurrected and live forever with him in the new kingdom he is bringing. He will go away for a while while we tell all nations about this kingdom and invite them to join it! Then he will come back in glory and power and set up an eternal kingdom on a transformed earth (not the "popular" definition of heaven that we're used to). We will be resurrected with him and live forever in this kingdom because of the great work he has done on the cross! Talk about "good news"!!

And yes, all the other Christian doctrines are there as well. His death was an atonement for our sins, he is a personal God that we can know, and reconciliation to The Living God is a free gift of grace that we could not earn ourselves. But all of these truths exist in the context of the political sense of Jesus' first coming, and the ultimate political authority he will return to take hold of.

Summing up

So Christianity, then, is basically a failed first-century Palestine political stance: We choose to be followers of Jesus who believe is King. It's failed in the sense that the Romans crucified Jesus, but we as Christians believe that the crucifixion was part of the plan, that he was resurrected, that he is gone temporarily, and that he will return to rule forever.

It's a wonderful kingdom that unites its citizens with God and with each other in perfect love and unity. His rule casts out fear and death. It makes amends for our sin. The kingdom starts early in the communities of Christians on earth now, spreading Jesus' love and the good news of his kingdom. It's a real kingdom. I hope you'll join me in citizenship. It's open to everyone, and unlike Roman citizenship, it's free! All we need to do is realize our place before God (a very humble place) and choose to follow Jesus into his kingdom.

Thanks for reading, and if you're in the Columbus area and would like to discuss this further, share your opinion with me or hear the reasons I believe in this outdated political stance, let me know! Happy Easter.

The Bible as a Jigsaw Puzzle

Imagine a beautiful 15-foot by 20-foot painting of a mountain. It’s grand. It’s beautiful. It’s full of fun details to understand or just marvel at. This is the Bible of early Christianity.

Now imagine someone takes that painting and turns it into a 30,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. This is our modern Bible. Hundreds of years ago, Stephen Langton and Robert Estienne sliced our scriptures into distinct portions of regular size. Our chapter numbers, verse numbers, and subheadings break the Old and New Testament up into bite-sized portions that fit together nicely but are found more often on their own.

Most Christians could tell you all about the individual pieces, and have even memorized a few. Some Christians could tell you about the piece with part of a climber’s hand on it, or the one with the head of a mountain goat on it. They’ve seen some pieces with snow on them (they thought those pieces were just blank), and some with grass. They’ve even seen the piece with the mountain top on it, although it didn’t look much like a peak all by itself.

Christians have favorite jigsaw pieces that they motivate their lives with. They name their organizations and fellowship groups after the most well-known puzzle pieces. They are even so dedicated as to study a whole section of puzzle once piece at a time, squeezing meaning and reflection out of each piece, not skipping a single one.

And yet, ask those same Christians about the huge tree near the base of the mountain, and chances are they’ll have never seen it or even heard of it. Or the team of hikers? They’ve heard of that, and have even been pointed to a piece or two with a part of a shoe or a hat on it, but have never seen the whole hiking team together. In fact, most Christians, although they could tell you that the whole painting is certainly, definitely a painting of a mountain, have never actually seen the mountain for themselves. Or ask a Christian what this or that section of the painting is of, and they’ll have no idea, except to say, “That’s the bottom half of the mountain,” or “That’s the top half.”

This is a strikingly accurate analogy of our modern Bible reading experience. Our Bible, hundreds or thousands of years after its writing, was split unnecessarily into 1,200 chapters and 31,000 verses. Beyond that, new editions constantly add their own subheadings. We have verses memorized, we dedicate ourselves to verse by verse studies, we craft mission statements based on verses, we depend on them for encouragement, and we recognize verses just by their “John 3:16”-style references.

And yet, very seldom do we take a couple of the puzzle pieces, put them together and realize that what we thought was a mountain peak actually turned out to be a tent at base camp. We rarely realize how connected to each other Bible verses are. We do vaguely know of the overall story, but to describe what one book is about as a whole, or Paul’s main points to the Philippians, or the thematic differences between Matthew’s Gospel and John’s Gospel is a task we’ve never even considered.



Why do we persist in reading the Bible this way, myopically focusing on one piece at a time and missing out on the beautiful larger strokes God has given us through his scriptures? I suggest that Christians must stop reading Bibles with subheadings and verse and chapter numbers, and instead read a presentation of the Bible without such arbitrary divisions. I personally only know of one such Bible currently in print, and I strongly recommend it: The Books of The Bible, a presentation of the TNIV published by the International Bible Society. Reading the Bible without distinguishing between the individual pieces has energized and put a fresh perspective on my Bible reading over the past year. It’s like reading a whole new book and seeing the whole big picture—and smaller sections of the picture as well—like I’ve never seen it before.

But is this extreme measure necessary? Reading a whole new Bible without ANY numbers? After all, most of us own several chapter-and-verse-equipped Bibles that are fully intact and contain every word. The whole picture is there, right? I would argue that this isn’t good enough, for two reasons.

First, looking at the original image of the mountain is clearer and more satisfying than looking at the puzzle version with dividing lines all though it, even when it’s all put together. In the same way, even if you read three chapters at a time, your effort to understand the passage as a whole is constantly interrupted by tiny numbers every dozen words or so. Why put hurdles in your way every 15 yards when you’re trying to run a marathon?

Secondly, although we may have Bibles that contain all 31,000 puzzle pieces put together in the correct order, we’re so used to being fed one puzzle piece at a time in church, on the radio, in conversation, on merchandise and in books that unless we eliminate the verse numbers altogether, they naturally control the framework in which three think about the Bible. For example, you likely didn’t even notice that I said “read three chapters at a time” in the paragraph above because three chapters at a time is a perfectly normal way to read.

And yet, why end at three chapters? Just because of arbitrary divisions installed in the thirteenth century? What’s that have to do with anything? Since the chapter markers were added hundreds of years after the books were written and often end right in the middle of an important passage, it would make more sense to stop reading when there is a natural break in narrative. But because of our tendency to think of our Bible reading in terms of chapters, this concept barely computes.

A common reason one might contest this and argue for a Bible with chapters and verses is for the sake of referencing particular sentences. The Bible, with all 66+ books together, is incredibly long. If you need to tell someone about Jesus feeding 5,000 people, it’s easier to simply say, “Luke 9:10-17” than it is to say, “In the first half of Luke, when Jesus is still doing his ministry in the Galilee area, in the middle of the passages that focus on Jesus’ disciples and their understanding of his identity, we find…” That’s reason enough right there to keep the verses in, right?

Actually it’s just the opposite. Think of the puzzle analogy again. What makes more sense: to say, “At the intersection of the 55th piece from the top and the 209th piece across, there’s a man with no gloves on,” or, “Down near base camp, in the cluster of tents, next to the campfire, there’s a man with no gloves on”? The first way may be more exact and quck, but which way promotes better understanding of the photo as a whole? Which one is more helpful to the reader in the long run? Which way assures that the man with no gloves on will not be taken as a crazy person?

In the same way, referencing parts of the Bible without chapters and verses promotes a full understanding of a section in the context of the book and of the story of the whole Bible. It also discourages taking the Bible out of context. Besides all this, I would guess that most Bibles published without verse/chapter numbers are like The Books of the Bible in that they feature chapter references someplace convenient but out of the way, such as the corners of the pages.

It’s amazing what the Holy Spirit does through our crude treatment of the scriptures, bringing meaning to us from just a couple of pixels. However, why work against His effort to help us understand His Word by focusing in so narrowly? I suggest we each get a copy of Books of the Bible or a similar Bible presentation, and allow the Holy Spirit to help us see the beautiful paintings his human authors create in full.

Book Review: Darwin On Trial

Darwin On Trial was written by Phillip E. Johnson in 1993. From what I can gather, this is the book that started a phenomenon. Within the pages of Darwin On Trail, we find the genesis of the modern Intelligent Design movement. This is a book written by a Christian, but with very little to say about Christianity and a great deal to say about science and evolution. Johnson does not pretend to be a scientist. He is lawyer that specializes in the nature and structure of arguments, and this is the field in which he attempts to remain throughout the book, dissecting the arguments and logic of biologists and paleontologists.

I think that Johnson does make some good points throughout the whole of the book, though past the midpoint the focus shifts from scientific theories towards legal matters and education systems. This book is at its best when confronting traditional evolutionary theory with challenging questions about the fossil record and assumptions made concerning classification and evolution. This book is at its worst when Johnson portrays the scientific community in a negative manner and links scientific theory with philosophical speculation.

Whenever the matter of common ancestry comes to the front, Johnson sounds like a broken record, his common response being that relationship between organisms does not imply common ancestry, and that evolutionists are biased in their interpretation of the data because they assume from the beginning that evolution is a valid theory. Johnson uses this line of reasoning to address everything from lack of transitional forms in the fossil record to the development of theories such as punctuated equilibrium and neutral theory. On one hand Johnson makes some good points. If our observations do not confirm our hypothesis, then should we not begin to question the validity of the theory which our hypothesis is based upon? Johnson says that instead biologists and paleontologists simply modify the theory of evolution to account for their observations, and therefore the theory can never be falsified, as it has the potential to always explain every observation.

However, I think that Johnson is neglecting the vast amount of evidence that we do have in support of evolution when he follows this line of argument. If every observation we made required a modification of the theory of natural selection, then there would be a problem. But this is not the case, and evolution has a great deal of predictive power as a scientific theory. Therefore, biologists and paleontologist can assume the validity of natural selection and evolution when they interpret their observations.

I have no doubt that Johnson is an excellent lawyer. Like a good prosecuting attorney, Johnson presents the reader with a collection of evidence and demands the conviction of scientists and evolution. However, the courtroom is not the place for this discussion. Instead, scientific research should determine the validity of evolution. Johnson gathers together statements from various scientists, his witnesses, and various aspects of evolutionary theory, his exhibits, and asks that the reader, his jury, reach a guilty verdict. But scientific research is carried out in a manner completely unlike the courtroom setting: instead of witnesses there are theories, instead of exhibits there are experiments. Hypotheses, experiments, observations and conclusions are formed, carried out, and evaluated in the context of the greater body of scientific literature, which is comprised of thousands of scientific papers and various books written by thousands of scientists over the last couple centuries. The validity of a theory is not determined by the conclusion of a few individuals, but the consensus of the entire community. It is in this rigorous, academic environment that evolution must make its defense.

Book Review: Consciousness Explained

Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett is a book from the early 90s about the nature of consciousness. I wanted to read it because I think consciousness is a fascinating idea that is important to the nature of faith.

In my opinion the three most mysterious questions in science are how life began (or can begin), how consciousness works, and how the universe began. I have a high degree of confidence that we will figure out the first question within 100 years. I am not sure about the second question, and the third question I am confident we will never figure out. With the second question (consciousness), I often suspect that it will take some radical changes in the understanding of science and our universe before we make serious progress.

There is one single immutable fact in life: You exist, and are experiencing life. Everything else can be taken with a grain of salt. How can the phenomena of experience be explained scientifically? I understand how the human mind could have evolved through evolution and cultural evolution. I understand that our behavior and beliefs could have evolved, but what is the explanation for me actually feeling/thinking/experiencing all of this?

I am a firm believer in naturalistic methodology, and am not satisfied with the idea that there's a separate, supernatural entity experiencing everything, and that consciousness will never be explained because we are separate from our bodies, merely undetectable observers and/or controllers. I'm not alone; Dennett absolutely abhors the idea.

Dennett claims to have a solution to the problem, a scientific "theory of consciousness." Unfortunately, he takes far too many rabbit trails and uses far too many words to say such puny little things.

What I was looking for in this book was a scientific hypothesis on consciousness that is fully explained and defended. Too much to ask for, I guess.

Instead, Dennett distracts readers with cool little experiments that demonstrate how our minds process data very differently from how we often assume. These are neat concepts to be aware of. But they don't get to the heart of the consciousness problem: Why am I experiencing this?

Dennett barely ever gets around to explaining why. He goes on for hundreds and hundreds of pages about how we see red dots turn green at the wrong time and how people who are blind can still see things subconsciously, etc.

Between droning on about this topic for virtually the entire book, Dennett reveals his thoughts on consciousness in a few sentences distributed evenly in the text: There is no explanation of consciousness necessary; if we can explain all the various FUNCTIONS of the brain, we have explained consciousness.

Dennett believes that since, outside of scientifically observable functions of our brains, we cannot scientifically observe "consciousness," it is all a farce and we need not worry about it.

Now, this is an interesting idea and for all I know very well may be correct. But why did I just read a 600-page book when all I needed were those couple sentences? It's a frustrating realization that I spent 30 hours reading a book when I could have just looked up "functionalism" on Wikipedia and been done in 10 minutes.

The reason for Dennett's long-windedness is that of a magician: Distract the audience with lights and sounds long enough and you can slip a fast one by them.

Dennett "entertains" us with stories of how weird our brains are and how our senses don't work like we think, and expands it all into a 600 page marathon so that he can slip in a couple sentences that translate to "I'm a functionalist" without us noticing.

Dennett further adds to the trickery by refusing to use standard definitions and terms for philosophy of the mind. He does this out of arrogance and succeeds at making it so hard to understand what he's saying that you assume it's an original idea (far from it). Unfortunately for me, I took the time to understand every sentence, and as a result wasted a lot of time.

Functionalism may or may not be correct, but Dennett did not argue for it. He pulled a bait-and-switch: He distracted us with lots of naturalistic explanations for functions of the brain, and while we weren't looking, he slipped in the idea that function is all that matters, hoping we wouldn't notice. For someone who read his whole long egotistical book, this is infuriating.

Whether functionalism is right or not, though, this book has helped me confirm a suspicion I had: There is nothing we can say/do to detract from the specialness of consciousness. No matter what explanation we come up with, including functionalism, it is still incredible that I am experiencing looking at this monitor and feeling the keyboard under my fingertips and reflecting on the whole process. It should blow your mind no matter your opinion/theory. And it should make you marvel at the mystery we experience as human beings, wondering about our true nature and purpose. Having a scientific explanation doesn't change this.

One last warning to those reading the book: Dennett relies heavily on the idea of memes, which is a pseudoscience first proposed by Richard Dawkins, up there with astrology, alternative medicine, six-day creationism and bigfoot. It is a theory followed by those who prefer their ideas to be right rather than be either analyzed or scientifically useful. When you hear someone talking about memes as if they're real, you can be sure they've chosen to stunt their intellectual growth by clinging onto this pseudoscience without actually caring to investigate the field of the evolution of ideas, where it is laughed at. For more info on memes, visit the Metaverse.

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, one of my next two posts will confront his anti-intellectualism. Stay tuned!