tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15979244928964754232024-02-07T20:56:00.183-05:00Quest ForumsSeeking Meaning TogetherStanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.comBlogger305125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-38466427921763657452020-07-03T08:00:00.000-04:002020-07-03T12:37:36.772-04:00Reflecting on C.S. Lewis—"On Ethics"Though the world often seems very different today than it did in the middle of the previous century, the truth is that we are still in the midst of the debate between Christianity and Postmodernism that C.S. Lewis witnessed in its infancy. His thoughts in response to it are therefore still highly valuable. And in his essay “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcOYXH9IwOo">On Ethics</a>," he reframes this debate in a way that helps bring fresh perspective to the picture.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hXOQZ7TQ_PY" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<b>Sharing the Starting Point</b><br />
<br />
Lewis begins by lightly chastising those who wish for us to return to Christian ethics. It comes as a surprise, but serves as a way to bring attention to what he sees as the true issue at the heart of the argument between the ethical codes of Christians and non-Christians. There is, in fact, only one ethical code. It is expressed most clearly and comprehensively in the Bible, but all other scriptures and philosophies express largely the same ideas.<br />
<br />
This is because morality is part of the common inheritance of mankind. No matter where we are from, what we believe, or when we have lived, we have all been able to grasp that there are goods to be pursued and evils to be avoided. Though Lewis balks a bit at the term here, the shorthand for this concept is the Natural Law. The truth available to reason shows all of us the way we ought to behave.<br />
<br />
Don’t get me (or Lewis) wrong. I am not saying all systems of belief are equally valid. Rather, where ethics are concerned, all systems of belief start from the same point and then diverge. We need to focus on the divergence at times. That is part of what allows us to recognize Christianity as the best belief system. But morality is not created by Christianity. Morality already existed when Jesus lived, died, and rose again. Christianity makes sense of morality, it completes it. That means there is not, in this sense, such a thing as “Christian morality.”<br />
<br />
The debate goes wrong, therefore, when people talk about returning to or abandoning Christian ethics. The problem as Lewis describes it is in the assumption that we can enter a moral vacuum in which we have the opportunity to choose from a variety of ethics like flavors at an ice cream parlor. The only reason to choose an ethical system would be because you already believe it is important to live rightly. The choice would be a duty, an obligation. But if you perceive such a duty, then it means you are already seeking to behave morally. You have an ethical system before choosing an ethical system.<br />
<br />
<b>Choosing the Emphasis</b><br />
<br />
The choice is not really between whether to have ethics or not. It is what ethical categories you want to emphasize or deemphasize. One of the examples Lewis uses is nationalism, and since that is on the rise again, it is worth reviewing. The key tenet of nationalism is that your highest obligation is to your people, your ethnicity. If others must be sacrificed for the good of the volk, so be it. In fact, outsiders should be sacrificed so that only you and your kind can prosper.<br />
<br />
We find something like this written into the ethical system we all inherit. It is natural to be more concerned for the wellbeing of our families and neighbors than to worry about people thousands of miles away. You would not be instinctively inclined to kill your son for the sake of someone you have never met. Nationalism raises this impulse to be the highest virtue. It attempts to use its authority to commit atrocities.<br />
<br />
The problem, however, is that the same ethics that tell us to care for our own people also tells us to care for strangers. It teaches us that human beings all have something in common, a shared dignity and destiny that should be respected and protected. A robust understanding of ethics sees that these two understandings can be held simultaneously and that they ought to be because they are both parts of the moral law. Nationalism does not create a new morality. It is merely a contraction, a distortion that ignores the whole for the sake of a part.<br />
<br />
Most people see Nazism as evil (thankfully), so the argument is pretty straightforward there. But this same concept applies to issues with which growing numbers of people in our culture see no problem. Far more commonly than with nationalism, it is often argued that Christian ethics should be abandoned because they do not permit self-realization. Someone wants to enter an altered state of mind with drugs or alcohol; another hopes that clothes and surgeries can change his sex so that he can feel more at ease; others believe that sex should be free and that “love” is good whether it is natural or not. They all say we need a new morality that celebrates these things so that we can give up the old one holding back their enjoyment.<br />
<br />
They’re just missing one thing, though. The idea of self-realization is not one that they cut out of whole cloth. The old (read, “only”) system of ethics taught that it was a necessary thing. We see this in the Declaration of Independence describing the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. We also see it in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+22%3A39&version=NKJV">Matt. 22:39</a>, where Jesus quotes the Old Testament commandment to “love your neighbor <i>as yourself</i>” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+19%3A18&version=NKJV">Lev. 19:18</a>). It has always been true that you should care for yourself.<br />
<br />
Understood in that light, supposedly “new” ways of thought are not actually revolutionary. They are merely juvenile and reductionist. Like nationalism, they contract their view of ethics to a single point, borrowing injunctions that they want to follow while ignoring others that go hand in hand with them in order to temper excesses. Feeling good does not require the destruction of the body, and sex cannot be divorced from procreation and commitment. Saying otherwise is underdeveloped, not evolved.<br />
<br />
<b>Approaching Ethics as Christians</b><br />
<br />
If we are to speak of Christian ethics, it cannot be as something that is utterly unique. Everyone lives by the same code, or at least by pieces of the same code. The unique thing that Christianity does is in calling us to respect the entirety of morality rather than choosing to fixate on small parts of it. The other unique thing it does is in providing a solution for our moral failures.<br />
<br />
None of us actually does or can keep the moral law perfectly. We all stumble at points, either willfully or by justifying our behavior with reference to one aspect of the law while ignoring others. Christianity did not describe morality, moral failures, or the cost of such failures for the first time. What it did, as nothing else does, is say that we do not have to make up for failure ourselves. Christ did that for us on the cross. The salvation He offers allows us to be free from guilt. And that freedom allows us to see ethics in a new way. Rather than in obligation we are free to act in gratitude, loving God and His designs because of the love He shows for us. Rather than a contraction, we have the full picture. That is what we want others to see.<br />
<br />
For everything that I have said here in repeating Lewis, “Christian ethics” is still a useful phrase. I highly doubt I will stop using it and variants of it. People need to know that their behavior alienates them from the source of life. Sin comes with a cost, and the Bible spells it out succinctly. But it is useful to be reminded that we do not have a monopoly on morality. If we did, it would be impossible to convince people of their need for Christ. But the truth of the ethics we all share, at least in part, means that we have a point of contact. And that means we can build on it for the world’s sake and the Lord’s glory. The mission of the Church has not ended just because people think they have found something new.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-91376665996620475842020-06-15T17:01:00.001-04:002020-06-15T17:18:57.354-04:00The Potter's Process—06/15/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NdyRmkKsxJ0" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
If you haven't "liked" the Facebook page for The Potter's Church, you can do that at <a href="http://facebook.com/PottersChurchWestmoreland">facebook.com/PottersChurchWestmoreland</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-40654718796767198362020-06-01T08:00:00.000-04:002020-06-01T12:36:36.145-04:00The Church and the Armed ServicesToday, we're looking at a question that often gets asked around Memorial Day:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why should/would the church honor military service when Jesus was committed to non-violence?</blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W6fJb8Ej7cM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
I love these types of questions because they are so multifaceted and give me the opportunity to take a deep dive. First, let’s take a look at the underlying assumption. The person who asked this takes it for granted that Jesus was committed to non-violence. So, was He?<br />
<br />
<b>Jesus on Violence</b><br />
<br />
There are certainly some passages that point us in that direction. The most often quoted is from the Sermon on the Mount, in which the Lord said, “I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+5%3A39&version=NKJV">Matt. 5:39</a>). Along with that, you have the moment in the Garden of Gethsemane when Peter attacked one of the high priest’s servants to defend Jesus from arrest. The Lord chastised him for it, saying, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+26%3A52&version=NKJV">Matt. 26:52</a>; cf. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A47%E2%80%9351&version=NKJV">Luke 22:47–51</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A1%E2%80%9311&version=NKJV">John 18:1–11</a>).<br />
<br />
Clearly, Jesus did not have a martial personality. However, it is not a cut and dried case to say that He condemned all violence. He interacted favorably with a centurion, remarking on the soldier’s great faith and granting the miracle he requested (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+8%3A5%E2%80%9313&version=NKJV">Matt. 8:5–13</a>). There is no note of condescension or any instruction to the man that he needed to give up his profession.<br />
<br />
Similarly, Jesus’ precursor, John the Baptist, was approached by soldiers as he preached the message of repentance. When they asked him what they should do, he did not tell them to leave the army. Instead, he instructed them to “not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A14&version=NKJV">Luke 3:14</a>).<br />
<br />
Along with those two examples of the gospels not passing judgment on the military, there are a few other difficult sayings of Jesus that tie into the discussion. In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+10%3A34&version=NKJV">Matt. 10:34</a> He says, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Then, in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A36&version=NKJV">Luke 22:36</a>, He tells His disciples, “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” These comments both have to be taken in their proper context, and they are not meant to be understood literalistically. However, they make the point that Jesus expected His followers to have to fight on occasion.<br />
<br />
This, we must also point out, is just from the gospels. The entire New Testament needs to be brought into our understanding of this issue. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A4&version=NKJV">Romans 13:4</a> says that governments have been instituted by God and that their power to punish and wage war is a righteous one. At the end of the Scriptures, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.+19%3A11%E2%80%9321&version=NKJV">Rev. 19:11–21</a> tells us that Christ will return to wage war Himself. And this is to say nothing of all the battles in the Old Testament. Speaking biblically, if there is a case for pacifism, it is not a strong one.<br />
<br />
<b>Force and Persuasion</b><br />
<br />
This raises another question. If we cannot be quite so certain that Jesus was committed to non-violence, then why did He say the things that suggest it? Here, we come upon the real mistake. Modern people have a tendency to conflate Jesus’ statements about the persecution of Christians with the policies of nations. But that is to compare apples to oranges.<br />
<br />
The Lord had nothing to say directly about the practice of politics. We can apply many of His principles to them, but they were not His focus. They are ultimately too petty and particular to have deserved it. Instead, He remained dedicated to the salvation of souls and to preparing His followers to face a world that would be hostile to them. In response, He wanted them to show love such as they had been shown by God. Rather than becoming an insurrectionist movement that sought to overthrow governments, Christianity was designed to overwhelm opposition through a consistent willingness to suffer and sacrifice for others. Our witness is to be marked by perseverance, not violence.<br />
<br />
The reason for this is pretty straightforward. If Christianity were meant to be violent, then conversions would be made by force. Force does not permit voluntary action. However, love requires voluntary action since it begins as an assent of will. God desires for us to love Him as He loves us. Therefore, God does not desire conversions by force.<br />
<br />
<b>Just War Theory</b><br />
<br />
That concept is what underlies the teaching of Jesus. War is something else. Obviously, war is not a good thing. It leads to suffering and death on a dreadful scale. But for all that, war is not the most evil thing. Very often, it is necessary. For this reason, philosophers and theologians have developed what is known as “Just War Theory.” At its most basic, it instructs us to determine whether a war ought to be fought in order to avoid a greater evil, and whether we can fight in a way that avoids excesses.<br />
<br />
The United States has a military history replete with examples of the efficacy of Just War Theory. From the Revolutionary War fought to free us from tyranny, to the Civil War fought to free the slaves, to the Second World War fought to free Europe from Fascism, we have engaged in war for the sake of liberty. That has made a positive difference in the world and is something worth celebrating.<br />
<br />
I would not be so foolhardy as to suggest we have always done so perfectly. Crimes have been committed in some of the wars we had good reason to fight, and we have had some wars that were arguably not worth fighting in the first place. That is part of the reason why Just War Theory is important. We cannot be blindly devoted to our military. We have to be able to recognize and condemn immoral behavior. Everyone knows that our history has not been perfectly good. Fewer people today seem to understand that it has not been utterly bad.<br />
<br />
So I say again, our military is worth celebrating. Christians do have good reason to honor American soldiers. These men and women have bled and died to defend us and to advance the cause of freedom that is at the heart of the American experiment. And that devotion to freedom finds its root in Christianity. The United States seeks to stand against the tyranny of nations because Christ stood against the tyranny of sin and death. We do all the good that can be done in this world, inspired by the promises God has made for the next. And every soldier who has died for his nation has followed the example of the Lord by laying down his life for his friends (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A13&version=NKJV">John 15:13</a>). On days like Memorial Day, that is what we commemorate. It is right to honor our military for the best of what it represents. We bring no dishonor on our Savior by doing so.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-209812276049966102020-05-27T13:10:00.001-04:002020-05-27T13:26:20.117-04:00Launch Date Incoming! The Potter's Process—05/27/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YhtaWJ3cLPI" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-9417577383282829882020-05-15T15:06:00.000-04:002020-05-15T15:13:17.308-04:00The Potter's Process—05/15/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YkFAlRDBfPA" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-56787188522251381882020-05-04T08:00:00.000-04:002020-05-04T12:21:47.868-04:00Extolling ExemptionsAs you may know if you’ve been following along with my “Potter’s Process” series, I am currently working to plant a new church in the Greensburg, PA area. One of the biggest sticking points, though really not an area of immediate need, has been making a decision on whether and when to pursue non-profit and tax-exempt status. The biggest issues are that it is costly to get and I could really use some expert help (which would cost more). To a lesser extent, there are some theological issues involved (I say “lesser” only because I am beginning to approach the conclusion they are not problematic).<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D5fqQAzJQik" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
While working on this, though, it has continually come to my attention that there is an effort underway to eliminate tax exemption for churches. The highest-profile example of this came from former Democratic Presidential candidate “Beto” O’Rourke. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-church-of-tax-exempt-status-gay-marriage">Last October,</a> O’Rourke said that churches who refuse to celebrate aberrant sexual behavior should have their exemptions revoked. To have reached the stage where a mainstream politician could say it is a sign of its growing importance among the left.<br />
<br />
In spite of my own uncertainty on its necessity in my particular case, I still feel it is important to defend the tax exemption of churches. There is a logic behind it that we need to know so that our opponents will not be allowed to simply have their own way.<br />
<br />
<b>Appealing to Tradition</b><br />
<br />
The first and weakest defense is that it is traditional. Secularists will often say that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for churches to have a special status under the law. Since they make that accusation, it is important to be able to say that the very Framers of the Constitution did not see a violation.<br />
<br />
Still, it’s shaky ground. Tradition on its own is not a true argument because people in the past got things wrong just as often as we do. The problem is in how easily progressives go about dismantling traditions in favor of their contemporary conception of the goods of society. They would do well to review G.K. Chesterton’s famous <a href="https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/">metaphor of the fence</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Consider] a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”</blockquote>
<br />
Traditional things are not inherently useful. However, at some point in the past, enough people thought they were useful enough to enshrine them. Before judging them for it, we need to do the work of understanding why. Otherwise, we might wind up tearing down the fence that keeps the wolves at bay.<br />
<br />
<b>Standing for Freedom</b><br />
<br />
If tradition itself is the weakest defense, the strongest is in the reason the tradition initially came to be. Most cultures throughout history have excluded religious institutions from taxation, but they largely did so because taxes were actually paid in order to support the churches. That has not been true of the United States because that actually would be a violation of the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. But America has still never taxed churches because doing so would quickly turn into a prohibition of the free exercise of religion.<br />
<br />
It is a matter of liberty. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/#tab-opinion-1918127">McCulloch v. Maryland</a>, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Governments with the power to tax churches could make those taxes so burdensome as to make the churches inoperable. In order to afford them, churches could have their beliefs dictated to them by the state. There would then no longer be freedom of religion. Tax exemption exists to recognize this reality and to defend the rights of believers to challenge temporal authority rather than having to conform to its whims.<br />
<br />
Some leftists might complain that this is an unfounded fear, but O’Rourke’s comments put the lie to that. They do not want to tax churches out of a sense of fairness. They want to do it in order to punish churches for not submitting to secular ethics. That is really all the reason we need to keep demanding tax exemption.<br />
<br />
<b>The Work of Churches</b><br />
<br />
It might be the only one we need, but it isn’t the last one. Another is the social value of churches. Many atheists say they have none. That is, quite simply, ridiculous. Christianity teaches that people ought to love one another (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+22%3A39&version=NKJV">Matt. 22:39</a>); have a strong work ethic (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thess.+3%3A10&version=NKJV">2 Thess. 3:10</a>); avoid sins like theft, murder, adultery, and lying (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A19&version=NKJV">Mark 10:19</a>); that they should be good citizens (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+13%3A1%E2%80%937&version=NKJV">Rom. 13:1–7</a>); and that they should be hopeful (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Pet.+1%3A3%E2%80%935&version=NKJV">1 Pet. 1:3–5</a>) and joyful (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A11&version=NKJV">John 15:11</a>). You can disagree with the salient points of Christianity, but its propensity for making people better is indisputable.<br />
<br />
The state has an interest in fostering citizens such as churches make. On top of that, the state is not as well placed as the churches to make them. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable for the government to encourage churches rather than opposing them. One of the ways to do that is by not burdening them with taxation.<br />
<br />
<b>Profits and Motives</b><br />
<br />
Finally, there is the argument for tax exemption that is probably the most practical even if it is not the most powerful. It holds true of all non-profit institutions, not just churches. The concept of taxation is closely linked to profit. Governments cannot add to the economy by spending. That is redistribution rather than actual wealth creation. In the same way, non-profits do not add to the economy. They do not return investments or create capital. All they do is take previously created wealth and put it toward higher ends than economic ones. And, of course, their earnings are offered to them voluntarily by those who wish to see the ends pursued.<br />
<br />
Eliminating tax exemption would make charity far more difficult. Without profit, it would be much harder to cover the costs of operation. And without deductions, people might be less inclined to give to charitable causes. That is not the only or the highest factor in charitable giving, of course. But it certainly is one, and removing it would certainly result in a drop in such giving. That would occur across the board, not just to churches. Nor can churches be singled out for the loss of tax exemption. The opponents of Christianity seem not to know how far-reaching their efforts would be if successful, or how much damage they could do to their friends who also rely on non-profit status. If leftist organizations want to give it up, they are more than welcome to do so. But it is obtuse to suggest they can do so at no cost, and evil to suggest that their choice should be imposed on all others.<br />
<br />
Once we actually know the case for the tax-exemption of churches, we can see that it is on very firm ground. It is not merely traditional, but flows from reasons that gave the tradition great strength. The secularist innovators are the ones without a leg to stand on. Their goal is not equitable taxation. It is the silencing of voices that they do not wish to hear. To give in to them is to submit to vile totalitarianism, however mild its form may initially appear. We have rights. We must stand for them, and know why, if we wish to keep them.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-50955399416885993502020-04-27T08:00:00.000-04:002020-04-27T10:11:30.119-04:00Darkened UnderstandingThe internet is an incredible tool that has opened seemingly limitless opportunities for connecting, learning, and communicating. Of course, it has also been subject to a number of abuses just as any tool can be. Some are obvious, but for today, I want to discuss one of the more subtle examples.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vjc6zEj5Jrk" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<b>Sticking Together</b><br />
<br />
Internet culture has an unfortunate propensity for creating enclaves. It is very easy for someone to find spaces where everyone agrees with him and where disagreement is not tolerated. Such disagreement elsewhere, he then thinks, can only come from a handful of ignorant, malicious, and backward people. This is an example of confirmation bias, and it is rampant. The more monolithic the space is in thought, the less critical thinking becomes.<br />
<br />
Christians are often accused of having enclaves and of engaging in confirmation bias, and there is truth to the charge. We gather as churches so we can hear the things that we believe and encourage one another in belief. Not everyone does so critically, and no one can or should do so all the time. And sadly, Christians are often guilty of not evaluating their beliefs carefully enough. That can make us come across as foolish, arrogant, and even cruel.<br />
<br />
The adversaries of Christianity are fond of pointing out failures of this type. However, there are a few problems with their criticism. First, while it is a problem, Christians are not as guilty of confirmation bias as our opponents want to make us. This is true as a simple matter of necessity. We have hardly any control over the organs of culture. Entertainment, science and education, and journalism are all enclaves of secularist thought. Politics is about the only sphere where we have an equal say. It is not that the world is without Christian actors, researchers, teachers, and reporters. But they are a negligible minority.<br />
<br />
I do not know if anything can be done about that. It seems unlikely to change, at least anytime soon. That is beside the point though. The focus here is on the fact that Christians cannot avoid the opinions of the wider secular culture. If we have any contact at all with the world, which the vast majority of us do, then there is no way for us to miss just how much disagreement there is with our beliefs among those with cultural cachet. We are constantly confronted with the need to understand our faith well enough to hold it under regular bombardment. And doing so means needing to understand what those on the other side actually believe, as well.<br />
<br />
The same is not true of secularists, and this is especially evident on the internet. On many social media sites, the vast, vast majority of users are antitheistic. They spend so much time together, offering constant affirmation without challenge, that they cannot fathom the need to think critically about their worldview or to actually investigate what the Bible teaches. They are more guilty of confirmation bias than we are. But most frustratingly, they seem to believe that they are not guilty of it at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Failing to See</b><br />
<br />
This meme can, depending on who uses it, illustrate the attitude I am describing:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjty30EwDhqZMiKP5POj3XkO3HYfhVPERxSU-R1c2XI3RuzKu15zWBF6ajZog8mkzUOMnuH7LJ8QqnQmr0J0GSsDMFvFYX4UP8gc7ZUEPI6_COMiWH6ozn3z8AQpSx3UdPNjfND6YsG6Pa8/s1600/do-you-see-that-man-over-there-timmy-yes-jesus-1067532.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="769" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjty30EwDhqZMiKP5POj3XkO3HYfhVPERxSU-R1c2XI3RuzKu15zWBF6ajZog8mkzUOMnuH7LJ8QqnQmr0J0GSsDMFvFYX4UP8gc7ZUEPI6_COMiWH6ozn3z8AQpSx3UdPNjfND6YsG6Pa8/s320/do-you-see-that-man-over-there-timmy-yes-jesus-1067532.png" width="208" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Interestingly, I cannot tell who originally made it. I think it is slightly on the flippant side, but it does actually express enough of the truth to be something that a Christian innocently created. But I have seen it most often shared by atheists as a joke. Apparently, that is what passes for clever among them. They mean to show the absurdity of Christian belief. The message, they think, is offensive, and seeing it portrayed so blatantly should make us question our faith. This is what we believe, though. For 2000 years, Christians have prayed that those who imprison, torture, and murder them would seek forgiveness and be saved. The problem with the atheists’ use of this meme is in their inability to understand why it is a good thing.<br />
<br />
It’s nothing new. In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+4%3A15&version=NKJV">Mark 4:15</a>, Jesus says that there are many for whom “Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts” after they hear the gospel. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+1%3A21%E2%80%9325+&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 1:21–25 </a>says that the message of Christ is foolishness to the world. Paul builds on the words of Jesus in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Cor.+4%3A3%E2%80%934&version=NKJV">2 Cor. 4:3–4</a> by saying:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.</blockquote>
<br />
And similarly, he says in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph.+4%3A17%E2%80%9319&version=NKJV">Eph. 4:17–19</a> that<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.</blockquote>
<br />
The lesson of these verses is that those in the world do not possess the acuity to grasp the value of what Christ offers. They cannot perceive it because they want to avoid the accountability it teaches and its call to a reformed way of life. And what do people do when they cannot understand something? They mock it.<br />
<br />
<b>Knowing the Truth</b><br />
<br />
But how can I say that? How can I be so sure that I am right and they are wrong? How can it possibly be a good thing to welcome a murderer into paradise? I can say it because unlike them, I have actually done the work of reviewing the implications of my own belief and of theirs.<br />
<br />
Let’s take theirs first. If we reimagine the atheist version of this meme, it would look like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXx_bz4P0gXdPurrxv4HNxL85gu5kVmG2lY4sRW6cwqOJIVabl_HgxbqEcjfKuRpa5hOqqOzBngYfF8r2c1DJANyFqvkRoq_xK9giav75glU_zQX4EmCTAjnjZ3OlC0f26sD0M_1ltto88/s1600/black+background.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1249" data-original-width="1600" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXx_bz4P0gXdPurrxv4HNxL85gu5kVmG2lY4sRW6cwqOJIVabl_HgxbqEcjfKuRpa5hOqqOzBngYfF8r2c1DJANyFqvkRoq_xK9giav75glU_zQX4EmCTAjnjZ3OlC0f26sD0M_1ltto88/s320/black+background.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Empty. Nothing. If there is no God, then there is no afterlife. There is also no value in this life. Without a Creator to instill purpose, life is quite literally meaningless. That would also mean that the concept of justice is absurd. Timmy and his family were nothing more than a random, temporary collection of atoms. They didn’t matter, they were just matter. Their lives and deaths counted for nothing, and in the end, they had the same worth as their killer: none at all.<br />
<br />
Given that this is the only logical conclusion of atheist thought, their application of the original meme gives us another interesting insight into their minds. In spite of the fact that justice is impossible under a universe such as they imagine, their opinion of Christianity is formed by the way it offends their sense of justice. They do not think it is fair that someone could do something so horrible, but then be forgiven simply for having a change of heart. They judge it to be evil that a criminal could receive the same reward as his victims.<br />
<br />
That is inconsistent, for one thing. Why be mad when “nothing matters, lol”? Of course, it is because they cannot internalize what they say they believe. It is too far removed from reality to be lived even if it is claimed to be true. But more than that, it is nothing more than a repetition of the original sin.<br />
<br />
In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+3%3A5&version=NKJV">Gen. 3:5</a>, the serpent tempts Eve to disobey God by telling her that “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” In the same way, atheists implicitly argue for being able to take God’s place. When they complain about God’s injustice (as they see it) when He is either too harsh or too kind, it is their way of saying that they know better than He. Such arrogance is literally as old as history. So not only is their worldview contradictory, but there isn’t even any novelty to it.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, we can also grasp the fullness of God’s message of love to us. Yes, murderers can be forgiven. So can liars, adulterers, homosexuals, and thieves. And they don’t have to earn it or make up for their sins. They just have to ask, trusting in Christ. This is for the simple fact that the price Jesus paid on the cross was far greater than any debt that sin can accrue. As the Son of God, the sacrifice of His infinite life became the infinite reservoir of mercy. There is only one sin outside of that, the sin of unbelief that fails to access it.<br />
<br />
Judgment is not in our hands. It is in the hands of the Lord, whose nature establishes the very concepts of justice and holiness. We can fail to understand that, since the fullness of it is beyond our finite minds. I still often do, myself. But we should not have the hubris to think our ignorance is an argument against God.<br />
<br />
<b>Moving Forward</b><br />
<br />
That’s what really gets me. I am saddened by how many people are blind to the life found in Christ, but I am frustrated when they think it makes them clever. It just shows how little thought they have given things. And I am also frustrated by not knowing what to do about it. Atheists are actually a miniscule portion of the population, so I suppose if enough Christians invaded their online spaces, it would undermine their blind faith in their ascendency. But I really can’t see that being constructive. I tend to think, in spite of what I am doing here, that the answer is not going to be found on the internet. Or at least, not in any comments section anywhere. Their immediacy breeds flippancy, not deep thought.<br />
<br />
Maybe that is just me, though. I tend to avoid futile things, but perhaps others will see things differently and will dive into the internet’s dark corners to confront the emptiness of atheistic thought. I will just stick to leaving a record of the truth, and to encouraging offline relationships where I think conversation can be more fruitful. They exist there too, after all. As Christians do their own part where they can, we can hope to break the biases, open eyes, and share God’s love. Whatever it ends up taking, we will find the way. The Lord’s word will never fail (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is.+55%3A11&version=NKJV">Is. 55:11</a>).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-45320760810404375322020-04-20T08:00:00.000-04:002020-04-20T08:42:33.614-04:00Reflecting on C.S. Lewis—"Meditation on the Third Commandment"This entry in our ongoing reflections on the essays of C.S. Lewis looks at 1941’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FXGflU-2lQ">“Meditation on the Third Commandment.”</a> Interestingly, I am not entirely certain which commandment he had in mind. And don’t say, “Are you blind? It says the third one right there!” I copied it, thank you very much. My point is that different traditions count the commandments differently. For Catholics, it is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex.+20%3A8&version=NKJV">Ex. 20:8</a>, “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” For Protestants, it is <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex.+20%3A7&version=NKJV">Ex. 20:7</a>, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Lewis does not actually say which one he had in mind, and I do not know what Anglicans (which is what Lewis was) consider it to be.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/toVUcOxG3oI" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
I point that out because it could have been potentially confusing, but the context of the article does lead me to be fairly certain Lewis is following the Protestant tradition. Though he never explicitly says anything about taking the Lord’s name in vain, it is less of a stretch here than seeing a connection to the Sabbath day. He is advising against the formation of a Christian political party, which certainly could lead to dangerous misuses of God’s reputation.<br />
<br />
This one stuck out to me both because I have an interest in politics and because it is not very difficult to shift the perspective from the mid-20th Century British situation to the early-21st Century American one. We only have two viable political parties and no one is talking about making a new, explicitly Christian one. However, the Republican Party is largely considered to fill that role. And the dangers of it doing so are very similar to the ones Lewis suggests.<br />
<br />
The most salient point is when he says,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Whatever [a Christian political party] calls itself, it will represent, not Christendom, but a part of Christendom. The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological. It will have no authority to speak for Christianity; it will have no more power than the political skill its members give it to control the behaviour of its unbelieving allies. But there will be a real, and most disastrous, novelty. It will not be simply a <i>part </i>of Christendom, but <i>a part claiming to be the whole</i>. By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal. [Emphasis in the original]</blockquote>
<br />
Two things happen when Christianity is too closely associated with a particular party, and we are seeing them happen here. One is that Christians are seen as nothing more than tools for the Republicans. The other is that Christians question the faith of other Christians who are Democrats.<br />
<br />
This is unhealthy. Faith is supposed to be higher than politics, not in service to it. Obviously, there is a place for faith in politics. I have made that point many times, and it is how Lewis concludes the essay. But membership in a particular group is not a purity test.<br />
<br />
There are many Christian Democrats. I feel very strongly that they do not do enough to control the excesses of their party, which is a failure of Christian education. Any Christian who does not know that abortion is evil or that transgenderism is a disorder has not been taught God’s word properly. And of course, not everyone who calls himself a Christian is one. But positions on social issues are not the deciding factor. Faith in Christ is. My hope is that every Christian in the Democratic Party will recognize the truth and reform their association. I am unwilling to say they are not Christians simply because they do not leave it.<br />
<br />
The same goes for Republican Christians. The President, the leader of their party, has been guilty of many excesses. Too many of these Christians treat allegiance to Donald Trump as being a litmus test for allegiance to Christ, ignoring how often Trump is out of alignment with the Lord. They justify, if not outright praise, the man’s every act. They do so even when he is clearly wrong, and they do so when he changes positions midstream.<br />
<br />
This close identification is a dreadful peril to the faith. If politics rather than grace are at the center of it, then fewer people will be drawn to God. Policies will keep them locked outside the gates before they can approach the Lord who loves them. And we, not God, will have set those gates up. That is not the way it should be.<br />
<br />
Again, I believe Christians should be politically active. But we need to stop giving power to parties. Christians, Democrat and Republican, need to be able and more willing to criticize their leaders. They need to effect real change that crosses party lines because it flows from their higher, shared allegiance. And, as Lewis says, the best way to move forward is by changing hearts in society rather than changing laws. We must be about the work of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, showing people their need for salvation and the goodness of living life in Him. That is the only affiliation that will matter in the end.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
</div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-45846043977938653202020-04-17T08:00:00.000-04:002020-04-17T11:01:11.051-04:00The Potter's Process—04/17/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_3PWdWn87JU" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-80519816095443414212020-04-12T08:00:00.000-04:002020-04-12T08:34:58.364-04:00Easter in IsolationIn our increasingly fragmented society, churches have been one of the few places where people of many different types can gather together and grow to know one another. Those of us who value that connection have therefore been especially troubled by the isolation prudentially undertaken to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Not being able to go to our services, or choosing not to do so for our own safety and that of others, has been a sacrifice.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vUA6sXW93FM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
At no point has this cost been more apparent than today. Easter Sunday is the holiest day on the Christian calendar, and though we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ every week (and ought to every day), this annual commemoration at the season of the actual event is an especially joyous occasion. It is also one of the most fruitful opportunities for spreading the gospel of salvation from eternal death, a time when many people are more willing than usual to go to church and hear the message of hope that faith in Christ brings. To not be able to gather today is painful.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, I am among those who believe that it is necessary. There will be other opportunities. Things will eventually return to normal. In the meantime, it is an act of love to do all we can to keep others safe. Plus, while obviously not a replacement, the internet at least provides a stopgap for connecting and evangelizing. We can take heart in knowing that the mission does not stop even if the method changes.<br />
<br />
It’s in my nature to look for perspective when things go wrong, and I believe I have found a particularly appropriate example for today. At a time when we are all essentially locked in our houses, it is easier to connect with the experience of the disciples.<br />
<br />
<b>Waiting for the First Day</b><br />
<br />
Following the arrest of Jesus, His followers scattered and went into hiding (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+26%3A56&version=NKJV">Matt. 26:56b</a>). An interesting but rarely asked question is, why did they remain in Jerusalem? If they were afraid of sharing in their Master’s fate, why not immediately attempt to return to the relative safety of their home region to the north in Galilee? Two of them actually did leave, but not until early on Sunday morning (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A13&version=NKJV">Luke 24:13</a>). If the crucifixion took place on Friday, why wait so long?<br />
<br />
The likeliest answer is that they would have been noticed going. Judaism does not measure days in the same way Western culture does. We operate on a morning/evening cycle in which the new day is reckoned to begin with sunrise and waking from sleep. Jewish people have always seen each new day as starting with dusk and going to bed.<br />
<br />
This means that the sabbath day actually starts on Friday evenings. It was for this reason that an unnecessary attempt was made to hurry the crucifixion (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A31%E2%80%9337&version=NKJV">John 19:31–37</a>), and it is also why Jesus was hurriedly buried (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+15%3A42%E2%80%9347&version=NKJV">Mark 15:42–47</a>). These things needed to be done so that no work would have to take place on the sabbath, in keeping with the regulations of the law of Moses (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex.+20%3A8%E2%80%9311&version=NKJV">Ex. 20:8–11</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.+21%3A22%E2%80%9323&version=NKJV">Deut. 21:22–23</a>) More than that, it was also the sabbath of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.+23%3A4%E2%80%938&version=NKJV">Lev. 23:4–8</a>). It was necessary that everything be completed before nightfall.<br />
<br />
One of the things forbidden on the sabbath was travel. So, on a day when no one was allowed to go far and a time when every Jewish man was expected to be in Jerusalem rather than leaving it, the disciples were stuck. Attempting to leave before Sunday would have made them conspicuous, and even then it would be dangerous. They had remained until late on Friday, probably hoping that some miracle would save Jesus from death. After it didn’t happen, it was too late to go. They had to wait out the next few days in hiding.<br />
<br />
<b>Sharing the Experience</b><br />
<br />
This is the situation we find in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A19&version=NKJV">John 20:19</a>, where we read that the disciples had the doors locked and feared every moment that they would be discovered. While the differences are apparent, are not the similarities to our current situation, also? For one thing, there was nowhere they could go. For them, it lasted only a few days, while for us it has been weeks. They literally could not leave that room while we have been merely restricted, but we all know something now of what it is to be shut in by our circumstances.<br />
<br />
For another, the security they thought they had was shattered. All throughout Jesus’ ministry, the disciples had missed the point of His coming. They believed He was there to drive out the Romans and establish a new, earthly kingdom. Once the Romans killed Him, that hope evaporated. It left them with nothing. How many of us are going through the same thing right now? Normal life seemed so safe, so regular, but then something literally microscopic blew that life away like chaff in the wind.<br />
<br />
Which, of course, leads to the third similarity. Loss of present security leads to future uncertainty. With the death of Jesus, the disciples had no idea what they were supposed to do. Everything they had worked for over the last three years was gone. How could they possibly move forward? How were they even going to survive? Not everyone is asking those questions now, but many are. The shadow of death hangs over us in a way it has not done in more than a century. The reasons might not be the same, but the fear is just as real.<br />
<br />
And the answer, then as now, is Jesus. In the moment of the disciple’s deepest despair and isolation, Christ entered past locked doors and barred windows to offer them His peace (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A19%E2%80%9321&version=NKJV">John 20:19–21</a>). All their lost dreams and current terror were based in their own plans, plans on which they could not possibly count and which they could not hope to fulfill through their own power. But what the Lord plans, He completes. His death, which had appeared the end of everything, was the beginning of forgiveness. And the life He now lives beyond death is the source of eternal blessing for all those who learn to trust Him above everything that happens in this life.<br />
<br />
This is the hope that carries me through troubled times, the hope I wish to share with everyone I can. It is not that being a Christian makes all bad things go away. It is that being a Christian means bad things will be overcome by unfathomable good. The proof of that is in the living Christ, whose resurrection is a certain fact and whose love I have experienced in my heart. All of us suffer doubts and loss, but we can look beyond them because Jesus is alive. He is alive, and everything can be overcome as we cling to the hope of that life. In the darkest hour, His light still shines.<br />
<br />
We may not be all together, but we are not alone, either. Believers are united in Christ no matter the distance between us. And we are united with Christ to the very end of things and beyond (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+28%3A20&version=NKJV">Matt. 28:20</a>). No door is strong enough to keep Him out, no quarantine can keep Him away. Look to Him, and you will find comfort. Stay safe, stay hopeful, and have a blessed Resurrection Sunday!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-73648360666695868852020-04-07T10:47:00.000-04:002020-04-07T10:47:01.247-04:00The Potter's Process—04/07/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e5QD_3GVKag" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-16278964553479276282020-03-31T08:00:00.000-04:002020-03-31T10:33:51.923-04:00Putting the "Commune" in "Communion"I had a conversation with another minister recently and felt that the topic of our discussion deserved some additional thought. He told me about how he had previously made the habit of providing individual Communion packets for anyone who wanted them. These small, hermetically sealed packets contain a small piece of bread and a bit of juice, making them convenient for travel. My pastor friend felt that handing these out made it easier for people to come to the Lord’s Supper wherever and whenever they were.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2e6nrZ7MGEE" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
However, he recently gave up doing so. He is a Methodist, and someone had pointed out to him that without the proper consecration, the elements were incapable of imparting grace to those who took them. It was, in essence, nothing more than a very unsatisfying meal. To actually be proper Communion, the bread and the cup needed to be blessed and administered by properly-recognized elders or pastors. People could not just take them home and eat them on their own timing.<br />
<br />
A couple of things struck me about this. First, I had never realized how different Methodist beliefs were from my own in regards to communion. The short version is that they see it as a sacrament, whereas I see it as an ordinance. For them, it is something that actually confers grace. Of course, that needs its own explanation. You can essentially think of it as access to God’s power. This is distinct from the Catholic view in which the sacraments confer sanctifying grace, i.e., working for salvation (an oversimplification, but the essential truth and all I am going to say about it for now).<br />
<br />
For me and those in my tradition, it goes too far to say that Communion “accomplishes” anything. Certainly, it can be a time when we feel God’s grace. However, it does not give us grace. Grace is already and always given to those who trust in Jesus Christ. The purpose of Communion is to remember the giving. The quintessential passage on Communion, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+11%3A17%E2%80%9334&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 11:17–34</a>, does not say anything about receiving anything from it. It does give warnings about taking it in an “unworthy manner,” which is to say, taking it wantonly rather than as an act of devotion. But what that passage really makes clear is that Communion is about calling to mind that Christ died for us and that He is coming back for us.<br />
<br />
As you might see from these descriptions, there is actually a bit of a fine line between what we believe. There is grace in my experience of Communion, and there is memory in his. Certainly winds up being different in practice, though. Perhaps the biggest problem, from my perspective, is the distinctions it sets up between the clergy and the laity. I accept the idea of the “priesthood of all believers.” Taken from passages like <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Pet.+2%3A9&version=NKJV">1 Pet. 2:9</a>, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.+1%3A6&version=NKJV">Rev. 1:6</a>, and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.+5%3A10&version=NKJV">Rev. 5:10</a>, this is the concept that no one in the church is part of a special class. We all have equally valuable ways to minister in God’s kingdom, and there is no warrant for the notion that only the ordained can perform the functions of the church.<br />
<br />
Since that is my position, I would never conceive of consecrating the elements of Communion. It would also never cross my mind that other Christians should require my say-so to give or receive the ordinance. It is an act of devotion that any of us can administer at any time.<br />
<br />
That said, I still would not do what my friend previously did, and I do not actually think that has anything to do with the differences in our doctrines. I think, in fact, that orthodox Christians of almost any variety would disagree with what he did on different grounds. In fact, if he thought about it, he would probably say he had been wrong for the same reason.<br />
<br />
You see, more than being a question of consecration, Communion is a matter of… well, communion. It is a corporate activity. Look again at 1 Cor. 11:17–18 and 33–34. Paul repeatedly says that this is something the church does when they “come together.” The Lord’s Supper expresses relationship. It does, obviously, represent the vertical relationship between God and man. But it is also important to think about how it represents the horizontal relationships among Christians. It reminds us of Christ’s sacrifice, while also reminding us of how we are united to one another in Christ’s sacrifice. Therefore, it is wrong, in general, to take Communion alone. This is something that is supposed to be done as a church.<br />
<br />
Now, I say “in general” because I can certainly think of situations where I would not consider it to be wrong. If someone locked in solitary confinement in a POW camp were to use rice and water to remember the Lord’s death, I would still consider that to be Communion. Of course, someone in such dire straits would probably be more mindful of other believers than any of us. But the point is that unusual circumstances do not undermine the principle.<br />
<br />
Communion, if taken alone, loses half its impact. Anyone who wants—not “has to” but wants–to take Communion alone is not being mindful of the Lord’s body, His church (1 Cor. 11:27–29; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+12%3A27&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 12:27</a>). It is about personal convenience rather than private devotion, and is therefore unworthy. People in such an error, rather than being encouraged with easier at-home Communion, should be enjoined to appreciate the full life of the community and to share in it. That does not necessarily mean it has to be a lot of other people (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+18%3A20&version=NKJV">Matt. 18:20</a>). It just shouldn’t be done solo. Whatever else we believe about this practice, I think we can all agree on that.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-43207809119813196012020-03-27T08:00:00.000-04:002020-03-27T09:23:00.331-04:00The Potter's Process—03/27/2020 (Location Found!)<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lHc-hTuoHro" width="560"></iframe></span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-71969752110805630942020-03-25T08:00:00.000-04:002020-03-25T10:13:23.288-04:00Theistic Evolution's TrapI’ve been reading through the book Theistic Evolution, a compilation of essays by some of the leading thinkers in the intelligent design (ID) movement. It’s a very thoroughgoing treatment of the weaknesses of theistic evolution (TE), which is the belief that<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
God created matter and after that did not guide or intervene or act directly to cause any empirically detectable change in the natural behavior of matter until all living things had evolved by purely natural processes.<br />
—Wayne Grudem, “Biblical and Theological Introduction,” <i>Theistic Evolution</i>, p. 67.</blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4Dwr09e9ggk" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
This belief is contrasted with ID, which is a broad category but includes all those who believe that God has been directly involved in the creation and the ongoing maintenance of the universe.<br />
<br />
The book has been an interesting, though difficult, one to read. There is a good deal of technical language, and I was especially unfamiliar with the concepts in the first half of the book dealing with the science behind ID. However, I would still recommend it to anyone interested in learning the weaknesses of the evolutionary worldview.<br />
<br />
One thought occurred to me while reading that I considered particularly worth sharing. I had it after rereading Grudem’s definition of TE on p. 784, and it struck me as something I did not see at all mentioned anywhere in the book.<br />
<br />
The whole purpose of TE is to square religious faith with science by saying that neither has anything to say about the other. Its proponents are perfectly willing to accept all the conclusions that atheistic scientists draw about the natural world. They do not even see evolution as a method that God employed and guided to form life in the universe. They consider it to have been totally aimless, so that anyone would be fully justified in assuming there was no God to make it all happen. That way, they do not have to upset those for whom religious faith is anathema.<br />
<br />
The book goes to great lengths to point out the futility of this approach. If you encourage a worldview in which God needs not been seen, then you do nothing to encourage people to look for Him. But on top of this, none of the authors (to my recollection) points out the logical conclusion of TE that undermines the entire proposition.<br />
<br />
Evolution (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism) assumes a purely materialistic process. Lifeforms do not come into existence or adapt as the result of any spiritual or intellectual process. It is all the result of random chance as physical elements react. The atheistic evolutionists believe the physical matter came from nowhere. The theistic evolutionists believe that God put it there and left it alone. Either way, though, the result is that everything in nature is predetermined.<br />
<br />
In an unguided universe, nothing is directed. It simply moves forward until it bounces off of something. Then it moves in its new direction until it bounces off of something else. There are no choices being made. This means that the only actual cause in the universe is the first cause, whatever it was that put everything in motion. After that, the parts simply run like gears in a clock.<br />
<br />
Leaving aside the implications of this view for atheism, let’s focus on what it means for TE. They say that God is the “first cause.” God was powerful enough to make everything and to set it in motion. Most of them would also affirm that God is wise enough to know everything that goes on in creation. This would mean that God knew every move that every part of His creation would take before He even set it in motion. In fact, His setting it in motion in the particular way that He did would have predetermined every one of those movements. It all followed the path that He set for it.<br />
<br />
If that were the case, then it could not honestly be contended that “God created matter and after that did not guide or intervene” in nature. In such a purely mechanical system, nothing could be random. God did not simply sit back and watch it work. It could only work in the way He intended.<br />
<br />
This puts those who believe in TE in between a rock and a hard place. First off, it puts them at odds with the atheists whose sensibilities they do not want to offend. Ultimately, God is in control and can be observed to be in control by the fact that He created the universe (since, logically, something outside the universe had to give it its beginning). Secondly, this position is not orthodox Christianity.<br />
<br />
It shares certain similarities. Most Christians accept the fact that God knows everything that would ever happen, and that nature follows laws that absolutely determine its behaviors. However, Christianity affirms that this determinism has limits. God imposed these limits by giving free will to humanity. When we abused that free will, seeking our own desires rather than relationship with God, it had a ripple effect that affected all of creation (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+3%3A17%E2%80%9319&version=CSB">Gen. 3:17–19</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+8%3A18%E2%80%9322&version=CSB">Rom. 8:18–22</a>). This was not God’s desire. It was not how He wanted the world to be, but how He allowed it to be. He allowed it so that He could show us grace and give us the chance to turn back to Him. That very freedom is theological proof that materialistic determinism is untrue.<br />
<br />
Theistic evolution is forced to deny the existence of this freedom since it would mean that God acted in nature after the creation of the universe. While seeking a compromise, TE instead ends up speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It inadvertently speaks of God’s predeterminate control to those who do not want to hear of it, while also denying the existence of grace to those who rely on it. It is a contradictory system of thought.<br />
<br />
Many Christians are drawn to TE because they see it as a way out of struggling with the world. But if they think deeply about it, they will see it is nothing but self-defeating nonsense. If we want to maintain our faith, then we have to follow it in the way that God has set it out for us in His word. That does mean we will have to argue for it with people who refuse to recognize it as the truth. But better to be in conflict than to be incoherent.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<br />
<br />Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-13018669636946718782020-03-21T14:54:00.005-04:002020-03-21T15:02:34.894-04:00Facing the CoronavirusWhen in the midst of a very difficult situation, it is impossible to know how we will look back on it once the crisis has passed. We may discover that we were worried over nothing. Or, we may find that it was nothing in comparison to what happened as it advanced. I hope, and tend to think, it will be the former. But every word of comfort and wisdom is of value while in the middle of trouble. I thought, then, that it would be a good idea for me to share a few reflections on our present challenge with the coronavirus.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i2-UAZu5wBI" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
To begin with, it is important for us to avoid erring too far in either direction in our response to the outbreak and the measures being taken to stop its spread. The more widely recognized mistake has been overreaction. There ought not to be shortages of basic needs, but store shelves are empty because people convinced themselves they needed to overstock. Desperation often leads to irrational decisions. The best thing to do is to take a proper view of the situation, follow expert recommendations, and remain calm. If we take reasonable measures to prevent the spread of disease, then there is no need to panic.<br />
<br />
However, there have also been people who have swung to the opposite extreme. They have downplayed the danger, seeing it as no more than a manufactured crisis, and are busily criticizing those who are attempting to keep the virus in check. Let me say, I empathize with something in this view. The media have a tendency to sensationalize everything in order to keep eyes glued on the screen, and politicians always look to capitalize on crises. Also, it is entirely possible that this disease will make a very small impact once all is said and done. But that is not the point right now.<br />
<br />
The point is that, justified or not, disruptions are rampant and they need to be dealt with. Many people cannot work. Others have lost considerable investments. People are infected in almost every state, and it is likely that the number of infections will rise considerably. Above all, sadly, people have died and more losses are expected. Panic is not justified, but concern certainly is. You cannot simply tell people that they should not be afraid. You have to tell them that fear can be overcome. And you do have to take seriously the risks of an epidemic. We’ve seen quite a few come and go with little damage, but we have also seen them devastate populations. Pride and contrarianism are not healthy responses to requests for social distancing. Rather, they are just as irrational as panic.<br />
<br />
So much for my advice, such as it is. As for comfort, I would invite you to see it in the paradox that fear can bring us peace. Fear comes from two sources. We are afraid of what we do not know, and we are afraid of what we know we cannot control. We like to believe that we have our lives well organized, that the answers to all questions are available and that we have the power to keep everything the way we want it to be. Even though we know better, it is what we want to be true. We do what we can to ignore the uncertainty of life. Sometimes, though, that uncertainty breaks through. Right now, it is washing over all of us. When we are impotent and ignorant, it frightens us. When everyone is, even people in positions of power, it has the potential to terrify us.<br />
<br />
But it should not terrify us. It should humble us. It should remind us of how small and weak and fragile we are. We cannot trust in ourselves for answers. If we cannot trust in ourselves, in our knowledge or our strength, then where should we turn? For we must turn somewhere. It is in human nature to lean on something. And the only sure foundation is God.<br />
<br />
God, the Creator of all things, knows everything we do not. The world does not work as He originally intended it (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+3%3A17%E2%80%9318&version=CSB">Gen. 3:17–18</a>), but He is still in ultimate control over it (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+42%3A2&version=CSB">Job 42:2</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.+135%3A6&version=CSB">Ps. 135:6</a>). Nothing escapes His notice, and nothing can overpower Him. He cannot become ill or grow weary (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is.+40%3A27%E2%80%9331&version=CSB">Is. 40:27–31</a>). His victory over suffering is assured (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+15%3A54%E2%80%9357&version=CSB">1 Cor. 15:54–57</a>).<br />
<br />
Peace comes in recognizing this in the face of our fears. Worrying gets us nowhere (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+6%3A25%E2%80%9333&version=CSB">Matt. 6:25–33</a>). When we learn to let go of our own need for control and instead trust in God, we find that is what we actually needed all along. It is difficult to give up that control on our own, so when life confronts us with situations that shatter our illusions, they actually help to point us to the reality of our reliance on the Lord.<br />
<br />
What is most important to remember, however, is what it means for the Lord to be in control. It means that His goals will be achieved. And His goals are not always the ones we think they ought to be. We want this disease to go away. We want to go back to work, get back our money, and have stores backed up with food and goods. Our focus is here and now. It shouldn’t be.<br />
<br />
Things may soon go back to normal. There is nothing wrong with hoping that they do. We should pray that they will. But God’s focus is on eternity. He gives thought to the troubles of this life, but He also uses them to draw us to Himself. He may wipe out this disease, and we should thank Him if He does. He may, instead, allow it to follow its present course. If He does, it will be because we need the reminder of our reliance on Him. When this life is poor, we should think on what is truly and ultimately desirable.<br />
<br />
God has promised to eliminate all suffering forever (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.+21%3A1%E2%80%935&version=CSB">Rev. 21:1–5</a>). He has a plan for accomplishing that, so when we suffer for a moment, we should realize that it is nothing in comparison to the joy that is in store (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+8%3A18&version=CSB">Rom. 8:18</a>). And we should also remember that God’s solution to suffering was not to get rid of the cause of suffering. You might think He should have, but you must remember that the cause of suffering is sin, and the cause of sin is human choice. God could have wiped all suffering away by wiping humanity away, but He did not. Instead, He decided to suffer as one of us, and to suffer for all of us, so that we will be saved if we trust in Him.<br />
<br />
That is the greatest lesson in times like these. Each of us needs forgiveness because none of us can save himself (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps.+49%3A5%E2%80%9315&version=CSB">Ps. 49:5–15</a>). We must turn to Jesus Christ if we hope to overcome fear and death for eternity. Only He has been victorious over them. The moment we believe in Him, and every moment afterward when we turn to Him, is one in which we experience that victory with Him. We wait for its fulfillment, but we can know that it is coming. There can be no greater comfort than that.<br />
<br />
The world needs to hear the message of the gospel right now. Of course, it needs to hear it all the time. But this is a moment when circumstances will have much of the world ready to listen. Those of us who know it is true need to cling to it. And, as it gives us peace, comfort, and confidence, we need to share it. If we can be recognized for what we have and what the world does not, it will be a shining light to draw them to God. Let us take that as seriously as He does, keeping our focus where it belongs no matter what temporary threats we face. Stay safe. Stay sane. Stay positive. And stay committed to the purpose the Lord has for you and for all those who follow Him. That is the best thing we can do when facing what this fallen world has to throw at us.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-24436299744033184242020-03-03T08:00:00.000-05:002020-03-03T10:17:49.992-05:00Reflecting on C.S. Lewis—"Religion and Rocketry"More than any other, it was C.S. Lewis’ essay “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXchXFfbAaQ">Religion and Rocketry</a>” that drove me to start this series of reflections. The subject he discussed in it was too intriguing for me to allow it to go without comment.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mArZhfuFNXU" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
This essay was first published in 1958, but it actually reflects concepts that had appeared in Lewis’ writings at least as early as 1938’s <i>Out of the Silent Planet</i> (if not earlier, but that is all I am familiar with). The question at the heart of it is what it would mean to Christianity if extraterrestrial life were to be discovered. Could our faith survive if we meet with intelligent species from other planets? It was a fantastical notion in the 1930’s when Lewis began his space trilogy, but it became a bit more conceivable with the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the USSR and the beginning of the “space race.”<br />
<br />
<b>Why Talk About Aliens?</b><br />
<br />
Let’s start by saying that even though we are talking about aliens, we are doing so as a thought experiment. Lewis felt that their existence was highly improbable. I believe it is impossible. Even so, there is no harm in considering the hypothetical possibility even if the actual possibility is beyond belief. In fact, it is necessary to consider it. There are a few competing worldviews that fully expect to find extraterrestrials, and they hold the hope that this will disprove Christianity. We have to be able to tell them that, even if life is found elsewhere, it will do nothing to fundamentally alter the truth of Scripture.<br />
<br />
Speaking of the opponents of Christianity, Lewis pointed out that they actually want it both ways. According to some, a universe empty aside from our own world would be proof that there is no God. They believe that such vast wastes would show us to be nothing more than an accident. God, if He existed, would either make a smaller cosmos or He would fill it more efficiently. According to others, however, the existence of life on other planets would also be proof that God does not exist. That knowledge would eliminate humanity’s supposedly unique place in creation, making us no more than one kind among many. And if that were the case, it would be ridiculous to think we were of any special consideration to a deity. Secularists have made it so that they can be right either way, which means that they have not really proved anything.<br />
<br />
<b>Humanity's Place in the Universe</b><br />
<br />
Is the second suggestion stronger, though? If there are aliens out there, wouldn’t it show that we are not as special as we like to think? Lewis argues that it depends on what you mean by “special.” Nothing in the Bible suggests whether or not there is life among the stars, so contradicting it is off the table. It treats us as being special to God. It does not, however, say we are central or alone. There are many living species on the earth, but humans were made specifically in God’s image (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+1%3A27&version=CSB">Gen. 1:27</a>). The Israelites were one race among many, but the Lord made them His own treasure (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.+7%3A6&version=NKJV">Deut. 7:6</a> NKJV). He has made all mankind, but Christians are exclusively His children (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+8%3A14%E2%80%9317&version=CSB">Rom. 8:14–17</a>; <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=CSB">1 John 3:1</a>).<br />
<br />
It was once believed that the earth was at the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies revolved around it. This notion was dispelled by the works of Copernicus and Galileo, who showed that our planet is actually the one doing the revolving. As our knowledge has progressed, we have come to realize that our sun is just one star, of relatively average size, out of countless billions. We know that we are not, either as a matter of positioning or of scale, important in creation. But this knowledge has done nothing to dispel the belief that we are important to God. That is because our faith does not depend upon where we are. It depends upon what He has done for us.<br />
<br />
<b>The Redemption Question</b><br />
<br />
Lewis’ thoughts primarily dwell on what God has done for us, as well as on what He may have done for the hypothetical aliens. In spite of the physical variety that those hoping to find ET have imagined, they tend to expect to find souls much like ours. They assume those from other worlds will have similar passions, similar weaknesses, and similar failures. They assume, in other words, that aliens will be sinful.<br />
<br />
Is that necessarily the case? Lewis thought not. He was able to envision the possibility of innocent aliens, creatures that had never experienced sin and were therefore in no need of salvation. They would, in essence, be what we were meant to be before the fall in Eden. He also thought that, even if there were other intelligent but sinful creatures, sin would not necessarily have to be dealt with in the same way.<br />
<br />
The best way to look at this is by realizing that the Bible does speak of other intelligent creatures. Some of them are innocent, having never fallen. Others are as sinful as humanity. They are simply not the inhabitants of others worlds, but of the spiritual world. Angels and demons are both like us in being moral beings. Angels never departed their allegiance to God, while the demons did. However, once the demons made their choice, it was apparently irrevocable forever. There is nothing to suggest that they have a path to redemption.<br />
<br />
Aliens could be cast in a similar mold. It is conceivable that they could be without sin, that they could be sinful but without the possibility of redemption, that they could have an offer of redemption different from our own, or that they could require redemption through the same means that we do. But not one of these options would do anything to disprove the redemption of humanity that was provided through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever else the case may be, we can be confident that God became one of us and gave His life so that we could be united with Him.<br />
<br />
Before finishing here, I have to discuss one small difference of opinion with Lewis. He thought that any and all of the possibilities of alien redemption were on the table. I do not. I disagree with him on similar grounds as I did when discussing pain in animals. Humanity, as I have contended, is special. We were uniquely created in the image of God and He directly breathed the breath of life in us (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+2%3A7&version=CSB">Gen. 2:7</a>). Our fall affected not only us, but all of creation (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+8%3A19%E2%80%9322&version=CSB">Rom. 8:19–22</a>). This means the entire universe, not merely the earth. And, in order to correct this damage, God took on human nature. If there is sin among the stars, it started with ours. Its cure can therefore only be found in ours. That is assuming such creatures would even have eternal souls in need of saving, which would also be an open question. They certainly would not be subjects of their own incarnations. That is something that must truly be unique to our world and race.<br />
<br />
As I said, though, that is a small difference. The greater one is between Christians and alien hunters, and we need not fear the possibility of their success. Nothing they find will have the power to show we have been wrong. The most beautiful irony is that it could even prove us right. How amazing would it be for observers from afar to step off a flying saucer and ask, “Have you humans recognized yet what Christ has done for you?” That would be really out of this world.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-78267634450366460572020-02-28T08:00:00.000-05:002020-02-28T10:22:01.776-05:00The Potter's Process—02/28/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/olQtSBM7cYE" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-91201264791540155572020-02-24T08:00:00.000-05:002020-02-24T10:10:58.521-05:00Reflecting on C.S. Lewis—"The Pains of Animals"When going through C.S. Lewis’ essay “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhK6iuYEqdA">The Pains of Animals</a>,” I have to admit I was at a bit of a loss. Some of the concepts were hard to follow. I am not sure I fully understood all of the distinctions he was attempting to make. I’ll do my best to summarize them before discussing my main takeaway, though.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zY1PGpN-2Ik" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
This essay was part of a debate that Lewis had with C.E.M Joad (did no one just use names in England back then?) over elements of Lewis’ <i>The Problem of Pain</i>. Joad wanted Lewis to offer a more complete explanation of how the existence of God could be squared with the fact of pain in animals. It is one thing for moral creatures (i.e., humans) to experience suffering. If we have free will, then we must face the consequences of our decisions. However, the animals are not moral creatures in the way that we are. Why should they be punished when they do not have the capacity to choose between good and evil?<br />
<br />
<b>Thinking about Feeling</b><br />
<br />
In reviewing his thoughts on the matter, Lewis seemed to depend on the distinction between sentience and consciousness. Sentience is the mere ability to feel, while consciousness is the ability to think about what you feel. Since animals do not possess the latter, they cannot experience pain in the same way that humans do. Therefore, their pain is essentially a null value.<br />
<br />
Lewis also related this to memory. Since animals do not have the minds that we do, they cannot formulate and organize memories in the same way we do. Our ability to analyze the past is vital to determining how to behave in the present. We learn the sources of old pains, which teaches us how to avoid them. Animals behave almost entirely on instinct, which makes their pains something for which they are not responsible and cannot avoid. They just happen to them as vagaries of life.<br />
<br />
<b>Objections </b><br />
<br />
That’s it in a nutshell, and I have to say that I find it utterly unsatisfactory. To be fair, Lewis is very straightforward about this just being a theory, not even his actual firmly held opinion. But there are just so many problems with it (again, if I understood him correctly). First is his theory on memory and consciousness in animals. I have to assume he never owned a boxer. But I have had them all my life, and my personal experience of their intelligence leaves me with no illusions but that animals are capable of thought. I have taught those dogs too many things, and seen them learn too many things, to be in any doubt of that.<br />
<br />
As I often do, let me spell out what I am not saying. I am not saying that dogs are moral creatures. They do not have our capacity for telling right from wrong. All I am saying is that you can look into their eyes and see their minds at work. Something of ourselves is reflected in them, even if to a self-evidently inferior respect. And their experience of pain is certainly not as innocuous as one tree falling on another. The only reason Lewis was even asked about this is because we can empathize with the pain of animals, and we do so because our pains have a noteworthy similarity.<br />
<br />
One could argue, as Lewis does somewhat, that domesticated animals are a special case. Their close association with us makes them different than most other animals. But that falls short, too. That assumption does not provide a clear enough line between those animals in close contact with humans and those that are not. It does not explain whether or why they experience pain differently, and our observations of them would lead to the conclusion that they do not.<br />
<br />
<b>Unexamined Assumptions</b><br />
<br />
I was forced to wonder, why did Lewis go to such great and, frankly, irrational lengths to explain away the suffering of animals? The answer came in the subtle assumptions he made about the nature of creation. Lewis was, in a strict sense, a creationist. He believed in God and believed that God had made the universe. But he was not what we would call a “young-earth creationist.” He took at face value many of the factual claims of modern science. If they said that the cosmos had existed for billions of years or that all life had evolved from a common ancestor, that made little difference to him. It did not disprove the existence of or eliminate the necessity of God, so he was willing to defer to the expertise of others in areas he did not understand.<br />
<br />
We should be fair enough to see the humility in that. It is, however, the source of his difficulty in this discussion. One of the key assumptions in science is uniformitarianism, the belief that all natural processes are going on now as they have always gone. Light has always traveled at the same speed, radioactive isotopes have always decayed at the same rates, and sedimentary buildup and glacial carving have always advanced in mostly measured steps. It is basically (if not entirely) through uniformitarianism that science has come to the conclusions it has about the age of the universe.<br />
<br />
There is no way around that. Science has to work on that assumption, or it cannot work at all. Experimentation is meaningless if you cannot count on the replication of results. The problem is that many people think the debate stops there. If science says something, it must be true. They make the mistake of not recognizing the limits of science. It can only tell us how things happen. It cannot say anything about why they happen, nor even if they have or will always happen in the same ways. Those questions belong to higher forms of study, to philosophy and theology.<br />
<br />
Lewis struggled with the concept of pain in animals because he thought this particular scientific assumption was innocuous, a mistake he rarely made. Had he looked at it more closely, recognizing why it did not necessarily have to be true, he might have come to a different conclusion. And, speaking biblically, it is untrue.<br />
<br />
<b>The Biblical Understanding of Pain</b><br />
<br />
It is taken for granted, by Lewis and many other Christians, that science is correct when it tells us that animals existed on this planet for eons before humans came around. But if that were true, then these creatures would have been living and dying, causing and experiencing pain, long before we introduced the consequences of morality into the equation. The closest Lewis comes to explaining this is to say that Satan perverted the animals by interfering in their evolution, making some of them into carnivores. He is not attached to the idea, but it seems to be the best he could do.<br />
<br />
The Bible, however, says something very different. It says that, up until and through the creation of humanity, the world was “very good” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+1%3A31&version=CSB">Gen. 1:31</a>). Conversely, it tells us that death is the “last enemy” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+15%3A26&version=CSB">1 Cor. 15:26</a>). If death is the great enemy that God intends to defeat (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+15%3A54%E2%80%9357&version=CSB">1 Cor. 15:54–57</a>), then can we really be expected to believe that it was part of His original desire for the universe? But if it was not, then how could it have been happening before we were made? How could He have called it good?<br />
<br />
The first mention of death in the Bible does not occur until <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+2%3A17&version=CSB">Gen. 2:17</a>, where God tells Adam that it will be the consequence if he eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Even if you do not take it literally (though I do), the point of this passage along with <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+3%3A17%E2%80%9319&version=CSB">Gen. 3:17–19</a> is quite clear. We are meant to see that man’s fall from innocence introduced suffering and death into the world.<br />
<br />
You might then ask why, if we are at fault, the animals were also punished to suffer, as well. I would say that “punished” is too strong a word, however. “Subjected” is better. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+1%3A28&version=CSB">Gen. 1:28</a> tells us that when God created us, He gave us dominion over creation. This was not to mean dominion in the sense of tyranny, but as that a steward has over a household. As the last element of creation and beings made in God’s image (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+1%3A26%E2%80%9327&version=CSB">Gen. 1:26–27</a>), we were intended to be the crown jewel of the universe. Our fall changed everything because we were over everything.<br />
<br />
This is what we find described in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+8%3A19%E2%80%9322&version=CSB">Rom. 8:19–22</a>. God allowed everything else to be dragged down with us so that nothing will be glorified ahead of us. He made our redemption possible, and with us, the redemption of everything else. Think about it. If we alone had been cursed with death, then the world around us would have quickly overwhelmed us in its goodness. How would the ground be cursed for our sakes (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.+3%3A17&version=CSB">Gen. 3:17</a>) if corruption were not introduced to everything on and in it? Imperfect creatures could not have survived for any length of time on a perfect world, so God gave us an imperfect one suited to our newly broken natures.<br />
<br />
Animals experience pain, then, not because of anything they have done, but because they are collateral damage to the decay humanity introduced. Their troubles are a reminder that we have hurt more than ourselves. They do suffer. We do not just imagine it to be so. It has nothing to do with their capacities, and everything to do with us.<br />
<br />
<b>Knowing How We Know</b><br />
<br />
How can we know this, though? How can I be so sure that the foundational assumption of science is wrong past a certain point, and that things worked differently up until the time that Adam threw a wrench in the gears? Well, as I have spoken of many times before, the answer is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is something that is known to have happened. The witness of His earliest disciples, coupled with the knowledge of their integrity, the accurate recording of their words going back to their own day, and the lack of any credible alternative, should leave us in no doubt that Jesus is alive.<br />
<br />
If He lives, then we must ask why He died. And in His own words, He told us it was to be “a ransom for many” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A45&version=CSB">Mark 10:45</a>). We can then find in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.+5%3A17&version=CSB">Rom. 5:17</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor.+15%3A21%E2%80%9322&version=CSB">1 Cor. 15:21–22</a> that Jesus’ mission was to bring life where Adam had brought death. The Lord makes right what we have made wrong. If death were not a consequence for sin, but was instead part of the normal life of the universe before humanity even existed, then there was no point in Jesus dying and rising again. But, Jesus died and rose again. Therefore, death must have been a consequence for sin. And the price has been paid. We who have faith in Christ are merely waiting now for the final collection.<br />
<br />
There is a certain comfort in the difficulty that Lewis had with this topic. It is somehow good to know that a brilliant mind can struggle with something that I can see has an easy answer. Well, not easy. Nothing is ever easy when we are talking about suffering, even if it is the suffering of animals. But it simple. We made it all go wrong. The Son of God will make it all go right. That is the obvious truth when we are willing to let go of the assumptions that cannot answer our questions. And what a glorious truth it ultimately is.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-44726600853885901132020-02-19T16:48:00.000-05:002020-02-19T16:48:13.057-05:00The Potter's Process—02/19/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_0E8lsVQnUg" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-35750977748835704682020-02-17T08:00:00.000-05:002020-02-17T10:00:57.351-05:00Reflecting on C.S. Lewis—"Unforgiveness"Go through the words and speeches of just about any apologist or preacher, and it stands a good chance that you will quickly come across some quote or allusion from the works of C.S. Lewis. It is certainly true of me. Aside from the Bible itself, I do not think any other source appears as frequently in my own efforts or has been as much of an influence. Hardly an outside-the-box choice, but the glamour of uniqueness is unnecessary when you have something reliable. As one of my favorite strips of Calvin and Hobbes says, “Go with what works, I guess.”<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6NGBTNS0rI" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
I’ve recently been enjoying an anthology of Lewis’s essays, things that for the most part are less well known than <i>The Chronicles of Narnia, Mere Christianity</i>, and <i>The Screwtape Letters</i>. And while I am not even done with it yet at the time of my writing this, a few things have popped up that I felt would be worth sharing here. I will call it a series since I have at least three in mind, though I can’t say whether I will go further than that yet.<br />
<br />
My plan is to provide the essays themselves when possible, and also to provide a few of the summary thoughts that they brought to my mind. I won’t claim to be adding anything to them, since that hardly seems possible. It will be more my attempt to get them down to brass tacks, or at least my interpretation of the key considerations. And hopefully, that will be an encouragement to attend to the words of the man himself.<br />
<br />
<b>Excusing vs. Forgiving</b><br />
<br />
For today, I want to talk about the essay “Unforgiveness” from 1947 (which you can listen to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3vE9bT9L8&t=7s">here as read by Ralph Cosham</a>). The contrast between forgiving and excusing was what fascinated me the most. We don’t often think of the difference, if we even think that there is one. But the distinction is vital. Forgiveness is at the heart of Christianity, so we need to make sure that is what we teach, seek, and offer. If we make the gospel into one of excuses instead, we are robbing ourselves and the world.<br />
<br />
So let’s look at the difference. Like Lewis, we may as well start with excuses since they are the most common and the most easily understood. An excuse is more often made than offered, by which I mean it is something we extend ourselves rather than being given it by others. It is self-justification. When we do something wrong, we attempt to establish why it is not our fault. We point to mitigating factors, unknown elements, and inherent weaknesses as reasons why we should not be held accountable for what we have done. We expect others to accept our reasoning and reassure us that we are okay, even to thank us for doing the best we could.<br />
<br />
Forgiveness, conversely, is more humble and vulnerable because it must be given to us. We cannot grant it to ourselves. The most we can do is ask for it, but the only hope we have to receive it is by being honest enough to admit we do not deserve it. As Lewis says, forgiveness is for the inexcusable. It is for the things we have done not out of ignorance or limitation, but selfishness. Such things cannot be excused or explained away. They can only be confessed and, if the one we have wronged is willing, forgiven. If they love us, and if the wrongdoing has been made right, then they will extend the grace of saying they will not hold it against us even though it would be just to do so.<br />
<br />
<b>Receiving and Extending Grace</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Understood this way, forgiveness is obviously the more valuable of the two. But it is so hard to seek. Excuses are easy. This seems to be especially true when it comes to God. If we hurt another person, having to look them in the eyes may cause a pang of guilt that leads us to be actually contrite. With God, though, it is very tempting to see Him as being too great for us to bring Him sorrow, too wise to think we could be expected to do better, and too magnanimous to hold us accountable. Sometimes, we ask for forgiveness but actually mean that we should be excused. We tell God, in essence, He shouldn’t care.<br />
<br />
The irony is in how poorly we handle it when the roles are reversed. When we have been wronged, how hard is it for us to grant forgiveness? How often do we even want to accept the excuses of others? We automatically expected to be treated with compassion, while at the same time struggling to offer it.<br />
<br />
We must try to do better than this, and we are told to do better than this in Scripture. It is the lesson we find in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+18%3A21%E2%80%9335&version=CSB">Matt. 18:21–35</a>, both in Jesus’ direct teaching and in the parable He uses to illustrate it. The servant who had accrued the greater debt could not bring himself to overlook a lesser one. In so doing, he proved that he did not accept his master’s offer as forgiveness. Instead, he saw his manumission as something that he had been owed. He saw himself as excused rather than as being in need of saving. He lacked grace, and so he could not receive it.<br />
<br />
There’s a better way. We have to let go of our reasons why we should not be held accountable. Instead, we need to admit of our failures and ask that they be truly forgiven as the inexcusable wrongs that they are. And when we are ready to do that, we will also be ready to stop focusing on the bad reasons that others give us for the things they have done to harm us. Then we can extend them the same mercy we have been shown. Anything less than both sides of true forgiveness is just a worthless counterfeit. Let’s not give ourselves any excuses for using it.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-90592251064086326182020-02-13T17:34:00.001-05:002020-02-13T17:44:41.155-05:00The Potter's Process—02/13/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nPlBaRLIsTw" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-38322588053353635332020-02-08T14:31:00.001-05:002020-02-08T14:35:37.412-05:00Iron Sharpens Iron Ep. 4: Predestination or Free Will?Introducing a very special episode of "Iron Sharpens Iron"! In this video, I join DJ Allan of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKt4kK8vkzC_WmHkjSe_SgA">Homegrown Ministries</a> and George Mains— author of <i><a href="https://assuranceofheaven.com/">Assurance of Heaven</a></i>— to discuss the difficult topic of predestination.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/055kQc9TUJg" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-29210118186062594332020-02-06T10:06:00.001-05:002020-02-06T10:16:11.882-05:00The Potter's Process—02/06/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7YRE12Zwc54" width="560"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.efca.org/resources/document/efca-statement-faith">Evangelical Free Church of America—Statement of Faith</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-88227883799840769362020-02-03T08:00:00.000-05:002020-02-03T10:08:47.689-05:00Choosing to Turn AroundWhile driving home from work one night, I decided to stop for dinner at a local barbecue place that I’m fond of. However, a few minutes later I ended up missing the highway exit that would have taken me there. Instead, I had automatically passed it while taking my normal route home. Angered at myself for forgetting, I turned around at the next exit and headed back for the food.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F-KpvHlL-4c" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
This story might feel like it came completely out of left field, but it struck me as a good little illustration of something we all experience. We do a lot on instinct and out of habit. My being hungry was not something I chose to do. It could be argued that the restaurant I selected was also the result of subconscious forces. And obviously, heading for home when I meant to get a meal did not involve a decision. Not all of our actions are the result of conscious choice. But some of them are, and it is important to hold onto the distinction. What I did have control over was turning around.<br />
<br />
The obvious truth is that human beings have special minds capable of willing and choosing. We aren’t helpless robots. We have a valuable freedom, and with freedom comes duty. If our choices are our own, then we are responsible for them.<br />
<br />
That’s where the trouble comes in, and where some people chose not to accept this truth. There are philosophies that say consciousness and free will are illusions. They say that mind is nothing more than matter, and that thought is the result of random chemical processes in which there is no purpose or meaning. We think that we think, but in reality, everything we do it predetermined by physical motions that we cannot subvert.<br />
<br />
It’s actually pretty clever to try to live that way. It presents a different type of freedom. If instinct and reaction are all we have, then we are free to follow them wherever they lead. There is no responsibility, no accountability, no consequences to fear. No one can be at fault for choosing to do what they do, so they cannot be punished for it. If anything goes wrong, it is the fault of nature, not the individual.<br />
<br />
As much fun as that might sound, though, it has the distinct disadvantage of being ridiculously untrue. My little detour is just one proof of that among the thousands of big and small moments each of us experiences every day as we plot our course through life. Again, I don’t doubt that there is more to our minds than our conscious thoughts. People often give in to their desire for drugs, pursue destructive relationships, and even kill others without really thinking. But that does not show them lacking control. It shows them losing control, making the choices along the way that bring them to undesirable ends. We can pretend that isn’t so, but it doesn’t actually help us.<br />
<br />
Help for the bad decisions can only come when we realize we made them. Maybe not the whole way through, but we chose to make them happen. Both sides appear very clearly in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is.+53%3A6&version=CSB">Is. 53:6</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We all went astray like sheep;<br />
we all have turned to our own way</blockquote>
<br />
Sheep are just about the dumbest animals we know of. They’ll wander aimlessly because they don’t know any better. The prophet Isaiah tells us that is what we become. But unlike sheep, we become that way because we resolve to forge our own selfish paths rather than following God’s. We want to find ourselves, and instead, we lose everything. Thankfully, it doesn’t have to end there. Isaiah 53:6 concludes by saying,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And the Lord has punished Him<br />
for the iniquity of us all.</blockquote>
<br />
This was the promise that accountability for our chosen faults could be wiped away, but not through convincing ourselves that they don’t exist. Instead, God chose to love us in spite of them and to pay the price for them by taking our place and accepting our punishment. We cannot run away from the fact that we sin, missing the mark through selfish and self-destructive decisions. But we can be forgiven for them by trusting in Christ.<br />
<br />
We live in a world that wants us to forget that and instead pursue a broken vision of freedom. If you know the truth, don’t let the pressure get to you. These philosophies often sound smart and look appealing, but they are empty. Don’t be afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes. And if you are hearing this for the first time, don’t miss the obvious. You have a choice to make. Make the right one, and you will find actual freedom. If you have wound up on the wrong road, turn around.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1597924492896475423.post-35380152054663748642020-01-31T08:00:00.000-05:002020-01-31T09:54:19.183-05:00The Potter's Process—01/31/2020<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/god2B6eGPMc" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: center;">~~~~~</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Have a question about the Bible? Want to share this article on Facebook? Interested in becoming a patron of Quest Forums? Check out the links in the sidebar!</i></div>
Stanley Pricenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01700781274615419121noreply@blogger.com0