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!

Politics and Perspectives

A blog that I frequent often is Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist. The author, James Kidder, does an excellent job of providing updates on anything in the news related to evolution, intelligent design, and the ongoing debates. Recently, he has posted several short articles about Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her opinions about creationism, intelligent design, and the teaching of such subjects in schools.

I do not think that Intelligent Design is legitimate science, something that I will expound upon in the future; therefore, I do not think that we should be teaching Intelligent Design in our schools. Unfortunately, it seems that matters of both science and religion often are used and abused by politicians to develop a good public image and gain more support. One day a politician may support the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools; the next day the same person may caution against such action. Perhaps they are being manipulative... or perhaps, like many people, they are not sure what they believe about evolution?

I will probably never vote for a "Christian" candidate because I think that my political ideology should direct my support of candidates and policies. My religious perspective certainly directs my political ideology to a degree, but my religious preference should not direct my support of candidates and policies. I will certainly not support a candidate simply because he shares my religious preference.

I think this same reasoning can be applied to the natural sciences. I do not want a "Christian" science because I think that science should be directed by methodological naturalism. I suppose you could argue for a different scientific ideology, but science has always been directed by methodological naturalism... that is the whole point of science, to find naturalistic explanations for observable phenomenon. To explain observable phenomenon with a non-naturalistic explanation such as the presence of an intelligent designer is simply non-scientific... according to my scientific ideology. Intelligent Design is developed from a scientific ideology that is directed by a religious perspective, usually Christianity. Seriously, if the creation stories of Genesis were not in the Bible, would the theory of Intelligent Design even exist?

"We're just plain gullible."

Not a lot of time to post this week... I just started a full-time job and my marriage is two months old, so I'm busy. But I thought I'd link to this article and leave a quick comment. I have a big-time post series coming up sometime soon, the kind of ideas that (for me) are faith-changing.

Many of you (the three people reading this) have probably heard of Todd Bentley and the enormous "revival" happening in Lakeland. Bentley has stepped down and his marriage is possibly ending. The change in opinion from the author of the above article is amazing. This pentecostal was convinced Todd Bentley was healing hundreds and then thinking it's all fake because of marriage problems.

What were you thinking before, J. Lee Grady? Everyone has personal problems; a broken marriage doesn't make Bentley's ministry a fake. There are plenty of other reasons.

Now, let me make this clear: Bentley's or anyone else's worship down there in Florida is no less legit than mine. Our worship pleases God by his grace, not by our attitude or orderliness or emotions or level of perfection of theology.

On the other hand, the reason Christians were buying into the healings was admitted freely and insightfully stated by J. Lee Grady: "We're just plain gullible."

I suppose it's just human nature to trust something that matches your ideology without thinking critically about it. But I have to admit I am amazed again and again the extent this is true for charismatic-minded believers. Some thoughts:

• The format of these "healings" were just silly. People would come up on stage, either claim to be healed or ask to be healed for this or that, Bentley would interrupt them mid-sentence and push them over, they'd be dragged off stage and you'd never see them again. Not exactly in view for all to examine.
  
  
• The "revival" really didn't demonstrate many people at all moving from "skeptical" about movements of the Spirit to "believers." Indeed most everyone who went down there was charismatic before they heard about it. The reason it was larger than the past was new MARKETING: internet marketing and broadcasts, specifically.
  
  
• The day that someone performs 1000s of legit healings in a couple months time, there will not be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands showing up. There will be MILLIONS. Millions and millions and millions. All the healings will not fade away into unverifiability within a week. They will be touring the talk show circuit, all over the newspapers, etc. The "secular media" will not be able to keep it under wraps but will have to embrace it. If this really happens, everyone will hear.
  
  
• Just because something appears, on the surface, to be a "healing" doesn't mean crap. Lots of things are hard to explain or appear miraculous that aren't. Think magic tricks.

I certainly believe God is capable and willing to do incredible, unexplainable things here and now. But I think, as Christians, it is imperative that we think critically and skeptically to separate what God's doing from what we're making up.

As for those eager for a new movement of the Spirit to overcome our world, I recommend reading this post.

Who is responsible?

At the end of Some “Evil” Thoughts, Joe posted a YouTube parody of the “Mythbusters” television show. In this video, two guys try to disprove God’s existence by testing the effectiveness of prayer. The video is a funny parody, but what caught my attention were these lines:


Jamie: Well the proof that most people cite is that they pray to God, and he answers their prayers.

Adam: Right, like uh when you pray for someone who’s really sick to get better.

Jamie: But that sick person may be getting better due to modern medicine, the skill of a surgeon, or just through their body’s natural healing.

Adam: Exactly, God could be claiming credit for stuff that he has nothing to do with.


I can respect the desire to perform a scientific experiment with controlled variables, but I think this video brings to light a wrong perspective our society (Christian and non-Christians alike) has about God.

Our tendency is to separate events into two categories:

1) caused by God
2) not caused by God

Only the most direct interventions into our world, such as the healing of a terminally ill person or the parting of the Red Sea, make it into the first category. Everything else falls into the second category, which itself has three subcategories: human causes, natural causes, and coincidences.

But if we look to the scriptures, we find a different perspective about God’s interaction with his creation. The Bible reveals to us that God is ultimately responsible for everything, from the rise and fall of civilizations to the provision of food for the birds.

Perhaps we are due for a change in our thinking. While events may appear to be due to human or natural causes, or even pure chance, ultimately God has his hand in all events. Therefore, we should praise him for all good things, and not look down upon the benefits of modern medicine and science, through which God brings healing. In the same manner, we must recognize that even our best treatments and scientific advances are only possible because God makes them possible. He is worthy of all our praise.

Some "Evil" Thoughts

I just got done commenting on a post at one of our favorite blogs, Beyond the Firmament. The post is titled The Problem of Evil. This is a tough topic for Christians and outsiders to Christianity to wrestle with. I definitely recommend reading Gordon's post. Here's some further thoughts on the subject from myself:

Philosophical debate about "the problem of evil" often proceeds with the deck stacked beforehand. We accept the assumption that there is nothing worse than physical pain, no possible result of an event worse than death.

But most cultures throughout history (including the cultures that gave us the Bible), have believed there are plenty of things worse than pain or death.

Our misunderstanding is commonly reflected in our Western understanding of the cross. How many Good Friday services have you been to that described in gruesome detail just how painful the crucifixion was, telling us how he had to push himself up with his feet to breathe, how much flesh was torn because of the cat of nine-tails, etc? Or how about Mel Gibson's passion movie? Talk about graphic violence.

Certainly Christ's death was extraordinarily painful. But I challenge you to find one statement in the New Testament that points out or emphasizes how excruciatingly painful his death was. You won't find one.

On the other hand, you will find statements all over the place about how Jesus was humbled/humiliated in his death. This is because Jesus' choice of humility over honor is much more significant to the Bible's original readers than his choice of pain over comfort. To them there are plenty of things worse than physical pain.

Furthermore, I have been reading straight through the Bible and am in the middle of Kings. And I have not found one tiny hint of concern for the afterlife or trembling fear of death that we in Western culture are obsessed with. We think of death as the worst possible result of life, but to the ancient Israelites, there were plenty of things more important than life's end, such as concern for your descendants. I think they were smarter than us, because eventually death comes for us all, no matter if it is soon or far off!

This leads to some problems for people who rely heavily on the certainty that there can't be a God because of evil in the world. Here's a typical YouTube from an atheist who shows pictures of starving children in Africa and challenges us to tell those kids there's a God.


Apparently these kids would have been better off never being born???? Chances are the kids already believe in God, so I don't have to tell them there is one. But I challenge an atheist like this one to go relate to those starving kids what is said in his/her video: If there was a just God, he would not have created you, because your life would be better off never happening. I'll go out on a limb and say the kids disagree.

Obviously, people suffering as a result of the unfair dealings of men is a tragedy that the church should be ashamed of not doing enough about, as that atheist rightly points out. But to argue that the presence of pain and death proves there is no God is to make two mistakes:

1. It devalues the lives of these starving children, because it diminishes the value of the very gift of life, telling starving kids that if there were any justice in the world they wouldn't have been born.

2. It wrongly imposes our attitude about what ultimately matters most on the majority of cultures in the world who didn't think like us at all. It's a philosophical arrogance to say that we know what's really bad and good compared to non-Western peoples.

Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of evil. That discussion is still a good conversation to have. But hopefully this post illustrates some problems with the debate as it's usually carried out.

The moral of the story? Leave the God-proving to the experts:

Book Review: The Language of God

In his book “The Language Of God,” Francis Collins addresses the question: “In this modern era... is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews?” If you are unfamiliar with Francis Collins, then allow me to enlighten you. Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project, a thirteen year long project that involved thousands of scientists and lab technicians. This great endeavor culminated in the mapping of the entire genetic sequence of humans. Francis Collins mentions his involvement with the Human Genome Project throughout the book, but the project is not the focus of his writing. Instead, Collins hopes to enlighten his readers about the theory of evolution, its place in our understanding of life, and how it relates to our faith in God.

“The Language Of God” is divided into three main sections. The first section takes on an autobiographical feel as Collins describes his upbringing and early perspectives on religion. The second section focuses on the origins of the universe and life. Also included is a scientific explanation about DNA and genetics that is very accessible to the general reader. In the third section, Collins proceeds to outline the different perspectives about evolution and creation. The book ends with encouragements for Christians and atheists to recognize both the capabilities and limitations of science, as well as the place of faith in our lives.

I picked up this book expecting a detailed explanation of how genetic evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation of the diversity of life that exists today. Collins certainly delivers in that respect, and in ways that are very accessible to someone without a doctorate in genetics. However, there is more than scientific jargon bound between these pages. Reflections on his own faith journey are a valuable insight into how the reader can begin to incorporate these concepts about genetics, evolution, and the origins of the universe into his own understanding of scientific theory and spiritual belief. Collins reveals the shortcomings of both atheism and Intelligent Design and eloquently provides the reader with a third option that compromises neither the theory of evolution nor a belief in God.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the evolution/creation debate, regardless of your current position or religious attitude. Collins speaks to both the ardent atheist and the devout believer. There are words on these pages for both the mind and the heart, a pair too often in conflict, which Collins challenges the reader to reconcile in harmony.

Inerrancy: Does God tell the truth?

In my last post, I mentioned that I completely trust the scriptures in matters of doctrine (a collection of beliefs) and ethics. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? This is the matter of inerrancy: the idea that the scriptures are completely free of any error in regards to all matters of history, chronology, and science.

Most evangelical Christians would contend that the scriptures are inerrant. Usually, this belief is founded upon the concept that God cannot deceive, and that any error in the “Word of God” would be an intentional deception by God. There are certainly passages in the Bible that assert its veracity, but I think these passages are communicating about the infallibility of the scriptures, how the scriptures reveal the definitive truth to humanity about Jesus Christ and our relationship to him, and not the historical, chronological, or scientific data of the scriptures.

I think this because it only makes sense in context of the intended message of the scriptures. For several posts, Joe and I have been discussing the importance of viewing the scriptures as our greatest tool for understanding the person of Jesus Christ and what he means for our lives. If this is the central point around which all the scriptures orbit, then I am inclined to think that anytime a passage in the Bible mentions the truthfulness of the “Word of God,” the message is that the Bible is our only truthful source for understanding Jesus Christ (not history, chronology, or science).

At times the Bible is a history book, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Certainly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are biographies and thus have a historical component. I do not think that these books are wrought with errors. On the contrary, I think they communicate accurately about very particular events in history, but not because of a special act by God.

I think that all the historical, chronological, and scientific information in the scriptures is information that the human authors already possessed through their own experience and research. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect in these matters, so there may be historical, chronological, and scientific errors in the scriptures.

I do not think this is a deception by God because I believe that God’s primary role in the creation of the scriptures was the inspiration (the granting of insight into divine truth and wisdom for applying divine truth) of the human authors. I do not believe God granted the authors access to special information regarding history, chronology, or science. Instead, God allowed the authors to use what they had learned through normal experience to communicate his messages to people.

So the historical and chronological information in the Bible is no more or less accurate than most historical and chronological information that we possess. But what about scientific information? Over the past 2,000 years our understanding of the natural world has changed drastically. It can be difficult to find reconciliation between the scriptures and current scientific theories… but it is not impossible.

Trading in fortune cookies for Biblical understanding (3/3)

(This is part 3 of 3 of a series on Biblical exegesis. If you haven't yet, please read parts 1 and 2 before reading part 3.)

If we take the Bible seriously by reading large portions at a time, trying to understand the gist of entire books, connecting each sentence to the one before it, etc., we may not agree on exactly what it’s saying, but we will have a more truly Biblical basis less corrupted by our own philosophy and agenda. God’s Spirit will work through this understanding to further add to our understanding of Jesus Christ as God.

Here are some practical steps we can take:

Get some decent background materials to fill you in on the world the Biblical authors were writing in. One I’m reading right now is Introducing the Old Testament by John Drane. I’m loving this book. It is written from a scholarly perspective but is not hostile to Christianity. It is honest about when books were likely written, the accuracy of the early stories of Israel’s history, etc.

Ultimately, I recommend purchasing a copy of the International Bible Society’s “Books of the Bible” and making it your regular reading Bible. Besides having great book introductions and a more sensible book order, it gets rid of all the numbers and inserts more thoughtful passage breaks, making it natural and easy to read the Bible with the intention of figuring what you’re reading is actually about.

Most people I present this idea to contend that the reference advantage of chapters and verses are too advantageous to shirk, but “Books of the Bible” still keeps the numbers in the corner so that you can find the general area. What it does do is force you to see the context in which the passage being referenced is in. What a shame!

Since I have started using “Books of the Bible” I started a full read-through of the book and am currently in the middle of Kings. My understanding of Genesis-Samuel has increased ten-fold by reading this Bible.

No matter what the solution, though, it is time to trade in our fortune cookies for a true understanding of the Bible, if we want the good book to direct our faith in Jesus.

A final note: Will I be citing scripture on this site?

I make it my goal at this point to never cite scripture in the format “Book #:##,” even if I’m talking to someone in person. Instead, I’d rather say, “In the middle of Book X, when Character X is doing Y, the prophet Z says to him, ‘blah blah blah blah.’” Not only will this force me to recognize the context of the scripture I am sharing, but it will force the person I’m talking to to think about where the verse is coming from as well.

I intend to employ the same strategy on this blog.

Trading in fortune cookies for Biblical understanding (2/3)

(This is part 2 of a 3 part series on reading the Bible. Please read part 1 if you haven't yet.

In the last post, I talked about why reading the Bible in short bursts (a verse, a paragraph, or a chapter at a time) doesn’t make a lot of sense, as the Bible is 66 books and not 31,000 Bible verses. I said that we’re not getting a clear picture of what the Bible is about this way.

But if we’re not learning what’s truly in the Bible, what are we learning?

Without strong training and concentration, our understanding from a typical Bible comes not from the Bible itself, but from our own experiences, our own theology, or some random thought that pops into our heads.

I have heard a lot of people refer to this as “leaving room for the Spirit” to teach. But that’s silly. In helping understand the Bible, the Spirit should be working in cooperation with the books, not apart from or against them.

I’m not speaking purely on minor points. I would argue that 80% or more of what a Bible reader learns actually comes from what he already knows about theology and his/her own ideas/experiences that he/she remembers as he/she reads the Bible, not from what the Bible is actually teaching.

So what am I saying, that the whole of Christian understand and teaching is totally wrong?

The odd thing about all this is that of course God’s Spirit still works mightily as we read the Bible in any form. A few posts ago I referenced Woodrow Kroll’s “Back to the Bible” radio program, saying it sometimes has very little to do with getting back to the Bible. I said that because Mr. Kroll will sometimes talk about one verse of the Bible for an entire teaching. What does that have to do with understanding the Bible?

Some might portray this as a high respect for the Bible, positing that every verse has a wealth of wisdom for it. The truth is this: That’s absolute nonsense. If you want to show a high respect for the Bible, read everything the author had to say instead of one sentence. Reading one or two sentences like Kroll sometimes does on “Back to the Bible” does not teach us the Bible authors’ agendas. Instead what we get from “Back to the Bible” is teaching on Mr. Kroll’s theology, life experience, and wisdom.

And here’s the tricky part: I still appreciate Kroll as a man of strong, ethical and wise faith in God, and he has a lot of meaningful things to say that God’s Spirit works through him to provide. So why complain, right?

I have to complain because of the potential misuse this kind of “Bible teaching” leaves us open to. Sure, Woodrow Kroll is a nice guy, but what about the people who argue that the Bible says ”God hates fags”? Or what about the people who argue the Bible says that the heavy beat of Christian and secular rock music make it inherently evil? What can someone like Kroll say to them?

He’d probably say they’re taking the Bible out of context. This is the catch-all phrase to denounce someone else’s “Biblical” belief. But we need to stop using this phrase until we ourselves start taking the Bible more seriously as a piece of literature. The sad, sad truth is that most Bible readers are taking the Bible out of context in the same exact manner as those they denounce. The reason it seems better when we do it is because our message our is positive and loving, or because our message fits in with a more mainstream doctrine. And although that doctrine may have come from the Bible originally, as we study the Bible, we usually rely on the doctrine instead of its source.

Skeptics are starting to catch on and are unfortunately reading the Bible with cynical, misguided views about whether or not the Bible’s God is truly loving, rational and forgiving, which he is. If we do not start reading the Bible in true context these problems will only escalate!

In the next post, I will give some suggestions about how we can better read and teach the Bible.

Trading in fortune cookies for Biblical understanding (1/3)

This blog has been dominated so far by discussion on the nature of the Bible. We haven’t covered science, politics, the end times, movements of the Spirit, or any other such topics. I’m not surprised since our understanding of the Bible builds a foundation for our opinions on the other subjects.

And although my first few posts may have raised your suspicion as to my dependence on scripture, let me make something clear: Although I believe treating the Bible as the center of Christianity is misguided, I also think the importance of the Bible for Christians cannot be overstated.

It is not the center of our faith, but it is the infallible, authoritative source and God’s word on his nature, the nature of our lives, and our relationship to him.

Therefore it is of highest importance to me to take the Bible seriously, to find out what’s really in it and to corrupt its message as little as possible with my own agenda.

What’s the problem?

I have come to believe that our most common Bible-reading techniques to not meet any of the three above objectives. The main problem is how much we read each day. Reading a verse, a paragraph, or a chapter at a time is a really bad idea.

Reading, studying, discussing, and preaching on the Bible in short bursts doesn’t take the Bible seriously in that it ignores the Bible’s self-established format of books. When you read any other book, do you commonly cite one sentence to make an important point? How about reading it one paragraph or one page at a time?

Worsening the situation further is that our current Biblical divisions (chapters and verses) are totally arbitrary and don’t have much to do with the original authors’ words. Would you read a book that someone else had gone through first, inserting lines and divisions all over the place that had little to do with the actual book content? The Bible is a collection of 66 books, not 31,000 fortune cookies.

The combination of reading such short segments and breaking them up with little numbers all over the page is that it is very hard to tell what the books of the Bible are truly about. Knowing, though, that we are supposed to glean truth from the Bible nonetheless, we concentrate harder or pray or expect revelations from God’s Spirit to just reveal what the heck we’re reading.

The Bible isn’t supposed to be boring or difficult to understand. Just the opposite, it’s the most exciting and transcending book ever written! With a little historical/cultural background info, a notebook to take notes in, and someone with which to discuss what you’re reading, I can’t imagine or more exciting, enjoyable, motivating, or spiritual process.

In the next post, I'll expose more of how the way we tend to read the Bible is so... unbiblical.

I hope my church converts to this format.

Found this one on YouTube, put together by BlueFishTV.


Oddly enough, instead of making me think about how much emphasis is put on Sunday services, it just got me thinking about how I can't wait for football season to start.

Infallibility: Can we trust the Bible?

In my last post, I offered thoughts about what Christians mean when they refer to the Bible as the “Word of God.” While discussing the role of human authorship in the scriptures, we must confront this question: Can we trust a book written by sinful people.

Because God was actively involved in the creation of the scriptures, I believe that we can completely trust the scriptures when they speak on certain matters. These matters would be doctrine and ethics. Doctrine is a collection of beliefs (usually in the form of statements) about God and humanity. We develop doctrinal statements through the process of theology, which is the study of God. Ethics are beliefs about what is right and wrong, and by extension Biblical ethics are beliefs about what is right and wrong according to the Bible.

Christian theology must rely primarily on the scriptures to develop our doctrine; they are the most reliable resource available for understanding God. No mere man could fathom the reality of God. So through the centuries, God gave insight and wisdom to the authors of scripture so they could write truthfully about the character, attributes, and values of God. When Jesus Christ walked the earth, those qualities became manifest in the man who was “the image of the invisible God.”

The Bible should be important to Christians because it is our most valuable resource for understanding the person of Jesus Christ and our relationship with him. In his series “What is at the center of Christianity,” Joe writes that Jesus Christ is the center of our religion, and the Bible points us towards him. The greater purpose of every book of the Bible is to draw the reader closer to Jesus Christ.

My simple thought on Biblical ethics goes like this: a Christian’s beliefs about right and wrong should be based on God’s beliefs about right and wrong, which we learn through studying the character, attributes, and values of God found in the scriptures, and direct statements about right and wrong found in the scriptures reveal aspects of God’s character and values. The Bible is not a set of rules or instructions, but it does help us understand the character and values of the God we are called to emulate. It is written in Leviticus, “Be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy."

So as we come to the Bible with a desire to understand and know Jesus Christ better, I believe that the scriptures will not fail to guild us into a greater understanding and deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. This is the explicit purpose of the scriptures, and it is the matter on which they are infallible. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? In my next post, I will discuss the issue of inerrancy.

Codex Sinaitacus Uploadicus

The oldest full copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, is going digital..

That's pretty neat. It means anyone can look at it for themselves. Of course, they can't read it unless they know Koine Greek, but it's neat, nevertheless.

The CS has been studied for a couple hundred years and has been an important text for figuring out what the original authors of the Bible meant. It, of course, has been important in the authoring of modern English translations, such as the NIV, TNIV, ESV, RSV, NASV, etc. So it's neat that it's online, but it's not world-shattering.

Looking up stories on Google News, I was surprised and pleased for the most part with the way the press has handled it. They did not run with the popular "The true Bible is so different from the one in your house" story. (It is clear most of the stories on the Codex Sinaiticus are written from a press release.)

There were exceptions, though:

• TechRadar reports that the CS is different from today's Bible's in that it doesn't include the resurrection. But the CS affirms the resurrection in all four Gospels. What it doesn't include are the last 12 verses in Mark (which contains all of Jesus' resurrection appearences from Mark, not his resurrection). These twelve verses are noted as probably unoriginal in most modern translations of the Bible.
  
• Slashdot made the same mistake. Whoops!! (I'm not sure how this site works. Was this on the front page, selected by the editors? Perhaps not.)
  
• The AP contends that the CS has "a few interesting differences" from my Bible, such as missing the resurrection appearences of Mark. But my Bible, which is TNIV, makes it very clear that those verses likely don't belong.
  
• This website highlights the many differences between modern Christian belief and this ancient manuscript. (Actually that site is a nice jab on the unbiblical thinking of most Christians. I found it to be quite humorous.)
  

I have to admit, I do hear Christians quote the end of Mark more often than I'd like. But its absence from the CS is neither troubling nor surprising. (Nor is it indicative of the level of difference between the rest of the CS and a modern Bible.)

Overall I am pleased with the media's reporting of the event. The only thing that makes me sad is how many Christians are surprised to discover the end of Mark doesn't belong there!

Inspiration: Who wrote the Bible?

In Part 2 of “What’s at the center of Christianity,” Joe mentioned that the Bible is often referred to as the “Word of God.” What does this mean?

Many Christians believe that God inspired the Bible. This type of inspiration is different from that of an artist who responds emotionally to some external factor (nature, people, etc.) by creating a work of art. The authors of the Bible were not merely responding to an experience with God, but God himself was active in the creation of the text.

But how was God involved? Are the words of the Bible a heavenly dictation or human musings? Neither option is very appealing. Either God directly manipulated the authors, or the text was written by humans… who are prone to mistakes and misunderstandings.

We do have Biblical text that was dictation from God. We call it prophecy, and you need only turn to Isaiah to find a very obvious phrase like, “The Lord has spoken this word.” The mark of a good prophet was speaking only the very words of God… often to people that did not want to hear the truth. In the Old Testament we have a collection of prophetic oracles, words directly from God, which were written down. But what about the Psalms, the narratives, and all those letters?

Perhaps God and the authors worked in some type of partnership. Each author brought his own personality, style, and cultural background into the writing. God brought insight and wisdom so that the authors could understand and explain things that only the mind of God could comprehend. Most books in the Bible were written to address particular situations, and through insight and wisdom from God, each author was able to respond to those situations with divine truth and understanding. The words themselves belong to the author, but the ideas they express belong to God.

If the authorship of the Bible was a partnership between God and men, then can we trust the written text? To address this question it may be helpful to discuss two terms: infallibility and inerrancy. I will discuss these concepts in my next post.

Book Review: Misquoting Jesus

Do you remember that controversial 2006 movie about Mary Magdelene and Jesus having a kid and the Catholic church changing the Bible and cryptology and the Mona Lisa?

Me neither. But about the time that came out, so did, conveniently, a book called “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,” written by Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman.

I only read the back of the book, whose three bullet points told what Bart Ehrman would “reveal” inside: The King James version is not very good, John 8:3-11 doesn’t belong there, and Biblical authors threatened with curses those who would change their words. I thought, “These are the spine-tingling revelations he has to offer?” Three less controversial scholarly facts about the Bible I do not know of.

Later I caught Dr. Ehrman on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. There he offered the same pedestrian report: That story about the adulteress and Jesus writing in the sand? Probably not originally in John’s Gospel. He of course neglected to mention that this is explicitly noted in almost every modern translation of the New Testament. Stewart and Colbert, however, were impressed. They seemed blown away by how easily Ehrman shot holes through the supposedly perfect scriptures.

I still hadn’t read the book, but I became very angry, because Ehrman argued unethically: He was relying on his reader/interviewer’s ignorance about scripture in order to mislead them by making a common truth sound like a Da Vinci Code-esque secret.

So last week after criticizing him in this way for the 12th time, I figured I better actually read the book before I badmouth Dr. Ehrman any more.

My feelings after reading “Misquoting Jesus” are mixed. On one hand, I was surprised and pleased by Ehrman’s love of textual criticism and his passion for the general population to understand it. His stories about early textual criticism adventures make his subjects seem exciting the same way Indiana Jones makes archeologists seem like movie stars. I’d say 80% of the book consists of Dr. Ehrman trying to convince me how cool textual criticism is, and I have to say: I’m convinced, and I thank him for that.

But this alone makes me wonder. Why title the book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why?” Combined with the publishing date, it comes off like confirmation of the ideas in The Da Vinci Code, when really the thesis is, “Textual criticism is cool and you should learn about it.” I’d like to think Ehrman was pressured by publishers with the publication date and the title in order to sell copies. However, his misleading comments on talk shows and wrong ideas he lets readers of his book believe cause me to question his integrity as an author.

A note before I launch the rest of the review: Ehrman and I happen to disagree on the battlegrounds of early Christian theology. I think the basics of theology we have now were mainstream back then; he posits that perhaps dozens of Christian theologies were equally vying for supremacy, and our current theology just won out. He mentions this a few times, and I can respect his (non-mainstream) scholarly view and not criticize the book on those grounds. There are plenty of other reasons.

Ehrman reports there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of differences between New Testament manuscripts. This is likely true. He also says that some changes were made for theological reasons. Also not a lie.

My problem is that Ehrman lets people who want to see the Bible as totally untrustworthy run with those thoughts and imagine the world of The Da Vinci Code is true, that the message of the original Gospels are lost, that Biblical textual criticism is in complete chaos, and that the Bibles we have in our homes are irrelevant to the real thing.

Ehrman, of course, knows for a fact this is not true. And when you read his book closely, he can’t help but admit the facts. He concedes at points that the Bible’s manuscripts are not any harder to reconcile with each other than any other ancient book. He concedes that the vast majority of differences are irrelevant, accidental, and easy to fix, and that the ones that are on purpose are because a scribe was trying to make more clear what (s)he thought the text meant. Ehrman knows that manuscript differences are a basic consequence of hand copying texts, a practical reality of not having a printing press or a laptop, not insidious scribes with political agendas.

Ehrman concedes, at points, that what the large number of differences between the New Testament manuscripts speaks to is that there are so many more old copies of the New Testament than there are any other ancient book. The more copies, the more errors/differences. But also, the more copies, the easier it is to figure out which copy was right.

Ehrman affirms all this, and yet he writes in such a way that (in my opinion) encourages people who want to believe the Bible is profoundly different from the originals. Although he knows it, Ehrman never explicitly points out that the original Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John always had Jesus rise from the dead and that none of them ever had him sleeping with Mary Magdelene.

Ehrman also never explicitly mentions that modern translations of the Bible all take into account the most recent textual criticism. He could certainly assure us that the Bible we have is largely up-to-date and formed by consensus of good textual critcism. Instead he focuses on three examples of minor points he disagrees with the mainstream consensus on, implying the falsehood that Biblical scholars’ Bibles look much different from ours.

In short, he makes mountains out of molehills, and if you read closely, you see that he even has to admit that they’re molehills.

So then, if he knows the Bible is more dependable as any other old book, what is his final argument for agnosticism? As it turns out, it has nothing to do with doubt over the basic reliability of the New Testament in a practical sense. He knows what a silly and ignorant perspective that is. Instead, Ehrman paints a philosophical picture of the nature of ideas, positing that the stories change from person to person no matter how reliable they are trying to be. He says the New Testament stories went from Jesus’ followers to others, then into the New Testament, then copied by scribes, then read and interpreted by you and me. His idea is that once someone states an idea, it means something totally different to every person, and the original person can never truly be understood, even on some basic level.

What??

Believe it or not, this is Ehrman’s reason for losing faith in Christianity. As a Christian, he put the Bible in such a tight little box as to need to defy basic practical realities of copying texts, people telling the story in their own words, etc, and be a magical book that’s passed down through history in a vacuum. He doesn’t lack faith because of the way the Bible is, but because of his (ridiculous and contrived) worldview that two people’s ideas are just never enough alike as to be the same. And so he is an agnostic.

There are plenty of reasons to be an agnostic, but this one I don’t get.

Haven’t you ever talked to someone about a topic and realized you totally agree even though you’ve never talked about it before? Or how about if two people witnessed the same event, spoke about some details differently but ultimately agreed on the story? Ehrman can’t wrap his mind around this idea and loses his faith as a result. I’m stunned.

Ehrman’s book makes some good points. He points out how cool textual criticism is, and tells fun stories about its history. He also rightly points out that most Christians have a flawed view of the Bible, thinking that it is some magical perfect book never influenced in the original texts or their copies by human personality.

But in the end, his book is misleading. His title is misleading, and he purposely avoids striking down silly views like the resurrection not being in the original Gospels so that people keep believing a lie. He lets people go on thinking that the many manuscript differences argue for the Bible’s unreliability, when the large number actually speaks to the large number of manuscripts and our potential to get closer to the originals than for any other ancient work.

I would assume, because of his bizarre view on the nature of ideas, he does not see his misleading words as unethical. But I am deeply troubled by them and am sad that so many people have been taken in by his book.

What's at the center of Christianity? (3 of 3)

Sorry I said I’d post this yesterday and I’m just getting to it today. Life is unpredictable! This is part 3 of a series of posts on the center of Christianity. If you haven’t read part 1 or part 2, please read those first.

In those two posts, I challenged the way we ask the Bible questions, wondering if it’s the lens though which we should see Jesus/God and our relationship to him instead of a spiritual encyclopedia to serve our questions. I have just a few closing thoughts:

I typed in “Bible answers” into Google, and the very first link, at Bible.com, was typical of the results. Twenty topics are covered on that page, and none have to do with answering the question “Who is Jesus?” or “What does who Jesus is mean?” Instead, they include masturbation, school shootings, finding a spouse, tattoos, beer, gender roles, being gay, and smoking.

My mom once bought me a shirt that had a picture of a Bible on it along with the words, “When all else fails, read the instructions.” I appreciate my mom’s high reverence for the Bible, but to think of it as life’s instruction manual misses the points it’s making, as well as insulting our own ability to think things through if we’re given a framework to work with. It’s silly to suggest that the Bible addresses some of these topics, like school shootings and smoking, since they didn’t exist when the Bible was penned. Still other topics are not addressed directly, while others are of secondary importance at most.

If you investigated that site more, you might say their answers are taken out of context, and there are better, opposite answers elsewhere in the Bible. But why not avoid the controversy by not asking those questions at all? After all, if the Bible is not the center of faith, maybe we should look to who is at the center in order to answer those questions. The Bible does not point to itself for all the answers, but points beyond itself to a man who was God in the flesh.

If we look at Christ’s life, his death and his resurrection, and use the Bible to think about the implications of these events, I argue we would then be better equipped to answer those 20 questions than if we did a Bible word search and just went with what we felt like it said.

And even better than that, revolving our faith around Jesus would allow us to go beyond addressing the issues we care about by actually molding and influencing the questions we even want addressed, fixing my agenda to make it God’s agenda.

Jesus is the center of Christianity, and the Bible is the important, authoritative middle man, telling us about Jesus and fleshing out some implications of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, so that we can know him accurately and respond accordingly.

Let’s never cut out the middle man. But let’s also never mistake the middle man for the for the ultimate source of faith, hope, love and all things. It’s Jesus Christ.

What's at the center of Christianity? (2 of 3)

This is part 2 of 3 on Christianity’s center. I suggest reading Part 1 before you read this part.

After posting yesterday that we need to depend on what the Bible says about Jesus (and then depend on Jesus for everything) instead of depending on the Bible for everything, I realized that sounds like I don’t take the Bible seriously. I do take all of it quite seriously, and I think we’re lost without it. I think the whole thing from Genesis to Revelation is the Word of God. But I have a beef with what other people sometimes mean when they say the Bible is the “Word of God.”

I never want to jump to conclusions that since the Bible is the Word of God, the Bible is more or less God’s substitute teacher for us. God does have important messages for us in the Bible but to use the Bible to confront other things besides those messages is nonsense.

Imagine a religion where people believed Shakespeare was God. Clearly, even if he’s God, his plays are for entertainment. If you started using them for other purposes, you might end up becoming a cannibal, biting your thumb at people, talking to your friends in early modern English or thinking the best result of a conflict is for everyone to just die. It would be downright crazy.

Yet think about the way we approach the Bible with questions. If we take it as our ultimate authority on all matters, then we end up assuming every possible issue is in there if you just look hard enough.

At The Bible Answer Machine you can do just that, asking any question about anything and getting the Biblical answer. Luckily, it barely works, so not too many people are running their life via the Bible Answer Machine. Still, the perspective of that site is very much in line with how most of us use the Bible.

On the other hand, if Jesus is the center of Christianity, and the Bible is our “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Jesus,” then what sort of questions should we be asking it? I would argue for these sorts of questions:

Who is Jesus?
What did Jesus do?
What sorts of principles and values does Jesus emphasize?
How should I respond to Jesus?

Of course, only 12% of the Bible, generously, is directly about Jesus’ life. Much of the Bible is about our faith in Jesus or the history of faith. So when reading those parts, we should ask these sorts of questions:

What are the implications of what Jesus did on earth, in terms of who I am and how I live?
What are the implications of Jesus being God in terms of the way the world is and my role in it?
What are the implications of Jesus being the fulfillment of the Old Testament?
What kind of life should I live, and what should I do, in view of who Jesus is?

Since the Bible is about Jesus, all these questions, and others like them, are questions the Bible is designed to answer, questions that the Bible expects you to ask. The more I read the Bible asking these questions, the more blown away and taken in I am by both the Bible’s message and, more importantly, Jesus of Nazareth himself.

Tomorrow I’ll wrap up what’s going through my head on this topic.

(Click here for part 3.)

What's at the center of Christianity? (1 of 3)

It's an easy argument that human culture's most influential person has been Jesus of Nazareth.

It's silly, right? He was a typical Jewish Rabbi in a Roman occupied state with a few wise teachings and--allegedly--some unexplainable acts, like healing diseases, restoring sight for the blind, and commanding the weather with his voice.

Let's put aside whether we think he actually performed those miracles. We know what he didn't do: He didn't lead an army. He didn't run for office. Nor did he write a book. On the contrary, he was executed over some theological objections to some of his teachings' implications. On paper, you or I should be more famous.

Nonetheless, this otherwise trivial contributor to human history is quite relevant--to history, to religion, to politics, and to culture, and will continue to be into the next few millennia. Why?

Something convinced those men and women who made up his first followers that he was alive despite his public hanging, and that he was God incarnate (God in human form). They started telling people. As a result, here I stand today, one of a couple billion who thinks this guy is it.

In one sense, that's what Christianity is, to think that Jesus is the one, the man who is not like other humans, the human who shows us the face of God.

Yet we don't seem to pay attention.

I'd like to spend my first three posts exploring a pressing question: Why do we treat the Bible as the center of Christianity when Jesus of Nazareth should be?

You may think I'm asking a stupid question; the Bible is the authoritative book about Jesus, so the more central Jesus is, the more important the Bible, right? I affirm that statement. But I've observed that we often accidentally replace Jesus with the Bible at the center of our faith thoughts instead of explaining him with it.

Often on weekdays I listen to a radio program called “Back to the Bible.” Now, setting aside that this program sometimes has very little to do with getting back to the Bible, why would Christians want to title a radio show like this in the first place? Why not call it, “Back to who Jesus Is” or “Back to what the Bible has to say about Jesus”? Last week on this show they talked for two entire days about one single verse of Job, scrutinizing over the sequence of Job mourning and shaving his head and worshiping. Little to no mention of Jesus. Whaaa??

Once again, I say: What are we putting at the center? “Back to the Bible” is the not a fringe show. In fact, I'd say "Back to the Bible" represents the way most serious Christians think about their faith, if not all the time then some of the time.

I suggest we be more careful to depend on what the Bible says about our all-encompassing almighty master instead of depending on the Bible as the all-encompassing almighty master. The difference can be difficult to see.

In the next post, I'll talk about the kinds of questions the Bible has answers for.

(Click here for part 2.)

Head Scratchin' and Thought Hatchin'

In 1956, at a Christian revival meeting, a preacher prays for a boy with polio and declares him healed. The preacher encourages the mother to take the boy’s braces off his legs, if she has real faith. The boy collapses onto the ground. They keep the braces off anyway, and later, his legs swell and he is taken to the hospital.

Christians insist the Bible is our most reliable guide for life. But what does it say? This website claims the Bible condemns rock music, this site emphasizes the “Biblical” teaching that the sun revolves around the earth, while these people proclaim hate for practically everyone, based on “adhering to the teachings of the Bible.”

What’s the deal?

These are fringe nutcases, right? Probably, but they also speak to the more subtle ways we manipulate our own faith. Why are these activities able to masquerade as Christian? Why is the faith so easy to hijack for whoever’s agenda? I know Jesus referred to his followers as sheep, but I think he meant we blindly follow Him, not every flimsy idea that floats by with the label “Christian” or “Bible.”

The solution is simple: our brains. We contend that Christianity would be a lot better off if believers learned to think. God created our minds, and He transforms and renews them as He jolts us to life by revealing Himself through Jesus Christ. Our brains might be the best tool we have for following Christ and understanding what he has to say. As a scarecrow once said, “My head I’d be scratchin’ as my thoughts were busy hatchin’.”

We strive to understand Christ and the Bible, but when there is a moment of confusion, instead of thinking it through, we fall back on traditions, our instincts, or just whatever random thought happens to be on our mind. Worse, we rely on our own agenda, which our old, self-reliant flesh wants.

Enter the blog.

This blog exists to encourage, talk about, promote, and advocate the idea that Christians should use their brains. Basically, we want to be an incubator for hatching genuine thinking about faith in Jesus. To accomplish our goal, the authors plan to do the following:

• give our opinion on spiritual matters in commentaries and other blog posts
  
• keep up on religion in the news
  
• produce thought-sparking videos
  
• provide interesting and educating links
  
• compile and write resources
  
• review books, and
  
• interview important thinkers of our world.

Four promises

There are plenty of melancholy ramblings that miss the point out there, so the authors of this blog will enhance your blog-reading experience by adhering to four unbreakable laws:

Enjoyable. We will make every effort to craft each post as relevant, enjoyable and well-written. This blog is not for our vents and rants. We want you to be able to depend on us to provide regular fuel for your spiritualized brain. We hope you will subscribe to our RSS feed or visit regularly to get your fix of things to think on.

Open conversation. Being young and uninformed on many topics, we will boldly speak opinions in the hopes of hearing your views and the information we’re ignorant of. This blog will be unique in that over the course of time you will likely change our minds on many topics as we converse as a community about Jesus Christ in posts and comments. Please leave comments!

More than criticism. We promise to avoid merely tearing down others or poking holes in what braver men and women do and say. We will never criticize without offering an alternative viewpoint, strategy, or methodology that we think makes more sense.

Centrality of Jesus. Hopefully the dominant theme of this blog comes to be the outrageous unmerited reality that we can know God and know about God because he showed up on earth and turned it upside-down. We want to be people who are so excited about God’s grace that we can’t stop talking about it. Every topic we speak on will be used to emphasize this point, never to detract from it.


What else to expect

The only question left is, what will we actually talk about day-to-day here? The answer: anything to get those thought eggs a-hatchin’. Early topics beside the centrality of Jesus will include how we read the Bible, science and faith, the end times, the inerrancy of scripture, the Holy Spirit, and current events. But none of these are the meat of the blog. The meat is, as Reese Roper once said, “Use your mind to use your soul.”

And so begineth The Faith Thought Hatchery. Welcome. Please visit daily or subscribe.

About the Contributor: Adam

When I was younger, I learned some about God, Jesus, and the Bible through my church. During high school, I thought about God, religion, and Christianity, but my ideas and opinions were not informed; they were only my personal musings. It was not until college that I began to honestly explore Christianity and the Bible.

I attended Muskingum College four years, and I graduated with an undergraduate degree in Biology. At heart I am a scientist, and I enjoyed every biology class I took, and I value everything that I learned in those classes. My professors were good people that I still admire.

During college, I became involved with a Christian group on campus called Campus Crusade for Christ. I learned about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit on conferences and retreats with Campus Crusade. But I also learned about Christianity through exploring the Bible, taking classes in Biblical studies, and having long conversations with good friends. Both of these sources were vital in developing my beliefs about Christianity and the Bible.

I have learned that Christianity is more than commands or rituals. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who had lived on earth, and he was more than human. He was deity incarnate, literally God in human form. Jesus was the answer to the problem that had plagued humanity for millennia: the separation between a righteous God and a disobedient people, a separation that warranted our death. Jesus paid the penalty for our disobedience when he died on a Roman cross, defeated death when he was resurrected three days later, and offers anyone who trusts him eternal life.

I spent my first year after graduation working with Campus Crusade in central Ohio. When my internship ended, I decided to join the full-time staff of Campus Crusade. Through my experience in college ministry, I have talked with many people, listening to their thoughts and perspectives on Christianity and the Bible. Some ideas seem more reasonable than others. Some ideas sound absurd. But these discussions have always helped me to better understand and articulate what I think and believe.

There are still many questions that need addressed. What about evolution? Is the Bible reliable? Is Christianity the only legitimate religion? Where does postmodernism fit into all of this? I hold strong opinions on some issues, but I want to learn more, hear what other people think, and dialogue about these important topics. Discussing these topics openly and honestly has only served to deepen my faith and appreciation of my God. I hope that this blog can serve you in the same manner.

About the Contributor: Joe

Click here to visit Joe's personal website.
Click here to view all posts contributed by Joe.

Although I grew up a religious kid, it wasn’t until I attended a yearly Christian weekend retreat in junior high that I was told there was a conflict of interest between my faith and science. Concerned, I asked my dad, a strong Christian example in my life and in the lives of many, what he thought.

“It’s not very important whether Adam and Eve were real people or whether Genesis is a literal history,” he said. I was confused.

Anyway, it didn’t matter much because around that time at one of those retreats my eyes were opened to the more basic details of life: The world is tragically broken beyond man’s repair and I am just as much a part of the hurt as anyone else. But God wouldn’t stand for it and arrived on earth to simultaneously introduce himself to us and bridge the gap between people and him, proving to be a very different God than anyone would imagine. I was told that if I believed in Jesus as the real deal, I could enter a new, eternal world in harmony with God.

Over the next couple years I grew in knowledge and maturity in Christ. Part of that was struggling with belief and the dependability of scripture. I used the internet to research all the arguments, but found them unsatisfying in a genuine search for truth.

Meanwhile, I flailed spiritually, at best, during my first semester of college. But my sisters managed to drag me to a Christian conference where I learned that Christ is truly at the center of everything and is a trustworthy caretaker of my whole life.

Since then, so far that’s been true, and I have learned more and more how to serve Jesus with everything in me. This has included a leadership position in our spiritual movement on campus and a very fulfilling year-long internship with a college missions organization.

But part of that growth in spiritual maturity that has surprised me. As I took really good classes—classes on the Bible and ethics, classes in scientific disciplines, and classes on church history and ancient Near East culture—and talked through all these topics with my friends, I came to believe in the important role learning and our brains should play in our faith.

Many I knew were at the same time rejecting this, trying to rely solely on authority and tradition or trying not to “quench the Spirit” with too much intellectual fluff. For me it was the opposite. The more I opened my mind and made my faith vulnerable to new information, the more excited and sure I got about being a Christian. Academic classes and intellectual freedom were becoming an important driving force in my spirituality.

These days, I live in Columbus, Ohio with my beautiful, intelligent, Christ-like wife. I am involved with Xenos Christian Fellowship and am a freelance writer looking for full-time work. I’m starting to think I should eventually go to seminary to learn more about the Bible.

I pray that this blog causes thoughts to hatch in your brain as well as mine.