Conversation - part 2

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Although Derek answered right away to my post, his tone was still quite accusatory and so he didn’t provide any real sense of gratefulness for the chance to discuss these ideas. As I read his post, I tried to consider why he communicates in this manner and what his previous experiences might have been to lead to this attitude. Of course, there are also some weak arguments and historical misinterpretations, but that is normal and just shows a lack of maturity and knowledge. 

Another brief comment... Notice that he did not really respond to my point about the resurrection of Christ. He is happy to debate my faith in my wife's love for me but is not willing to concede that historical evidence of the resurrection is actually evidence of something that is scientifically unexplainable. This is probably the heart of the whole debate and the point where each one of us must make a choice either to accept the claims of Christ or to deny them. However, it does not mean that we should stop the conversation. On the contrary, engaging with kindness, asking good questions and graciously pointing out truth is the very least we can do for those who do not agree with us.

This was his 1st post in direct response to me:

The concepts of justice and fairness do not come from Christianity. Any example of "justness" you can give me will almost surely come from a pre-existing culture that wasn't exposed to Christianity. 

Moreover, what evidence do you have of the claim that Christianity itself has anything to do with modern concepts of equality and fairness? What about the fact that Christianity has been, and in many ways continues to be, the direct enemy of scientific progress and social equality? What about the wars that have been fought in the name of christianity?

As for the barbaric concept of 'hell', would you ever personally decide to torture your child eternally if they didn't obey your commands? Because that is what your god is doing, according to the bible. If you believe in predestination it's worse, because then god is knowingly setting people up to go to hell just for fun (god decides to make people disobey him before they are even born, just because it pleases him).

Let me address one of the fundamental issues of Christianity which typically gets ignored. You state, "faith and evidence go hand in hand" which is quite interesting to me. If you consider the definitions of "faith" and "evidence", you will find that if one has evidence, then they cannot have faith. Likewise, if one has faith then by definition they cannot have evidence. So, pick one. The "faith" you describe having in your wife's love is not the same "faith" in god that is described in the bible. The bible goes out of its way to define faith as 'belief without evidence', while the 'faith' you have in your wife's love is better described as belief, given the fact that supporting evidence exists.

You can say you believe in god one way or another, but saying you have 'faith in' and 'evidence for' something is a logical contradiction.

Commentary:

Let's deal with the concept of justice a bit. There are many examples of justice in early cultures but all of them are based on the privileges or rights of certain people over others. Males had privilege over females, owners over slaves, adults over children, and so forth. The uniqueness of biblical justice is incredibly clear in the Mosaic Law. One example is the right to punish children. Before Leviticus, it was always the right of the parent to kill their own child if they disobeyed, if they brought shame to the family or if they did not meet certain physical requirments such as gender. This is even true of later cultures such as the Romans who would leave any unwanted child exposed until they died. Mosaic Law forbid the killing of children by demading that the parents first bring the child before the assembly with their accusation. The assembly would then confirm or deny the parent’s accusation and initiate the killing of the child. Note that there is no record of this ever happening anywhere in the biblical or historical record! The consequence is that accountability exists for both the child and the parent. This stands in sharp contrast to the practice of the Egyptians (who demanded the death of every Israelite male), the Cannanites (who practiced child sacrifice to Molech) and even current practices in traditional Muslim culture and the killing of the pre-born through abortion.

In my written response I tried to bring in a broader perspective from Scripture about what it means to love, to learn and to take responsibility for our decisions before God and before others. I also dug in a bit to try to demand some accountability from Derek in his own process of learning. There was far too much to deal with here and so my response ended up to be quite long.

My response:

Thanks so much for your ideas. I'm not sure how much further we will get with this discussion, but I'm willing to extend it a little out of my concern for you. It makes me sad that people are not able to see the strong correlation between correction, discipline and love. This is at the core of your comments on hell but extends to almost every aspect of learning and relationships. When you truly love someone, you provide a setting in which they will grow and take responsibility for their own life and their own growth. I do this all the time as a father and as a teacher. I do all I can to provide the information that is needed, the setting in which to learn and the guidance and support for growth in a relationship of trust. But it is up to my students and my boys to take ownership of the learning process. A beautiful example of this is found in Isaiah 55 "Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance."

God has provided everything we need in Christ. He is the evidence of God's unfathomable love for each of us no matter who we are. He is also the evidence of God's righteous judgement on sin, having received the punishment for sin in my place. Take a look at Romans chapter 5. Again, separation from God is my choice, not God's.

We have to talk about justice as well because, in a closed materialistic view of the universe, no one ever receives the justice they deserve. What can you say to someone who was abused constantly by their father or mother? What can you say to someone who watched all their relatives tortured and killed in concentration camps? What can you say to someone who has no remorse or regret after killing others just because they don't like their skin color or their religion? No one ever gets the punishment or the compensation for the pain and hurt we receive or cause. Justice must be available, but it is an ideal that is not possible outside of an eternal perspective (where the eternal, spiritual reality is an active and integrated aspect of our reality).

But please don't tire me with the obvious fallacy that Christianity is the enemy of scientific progress and social equality. People are the problem and those who oppose science (knowledge of the material world for the purpose of responsible stewardship of that world) and equality (that every person has God-given value and potential) are certainly not "loving God with all their heart and their neighbor as themselves". And wars are usually an issue of pride and selfishness, irregardless of supposed religious claims or Marxist ideology. The one exception to violence is the claim that you are protecting a people group from the violence of their oppressors, but this is almost never done with pure motives.

I'm disappointed that you don't see the correlation between faith and evidence. It is simply not true that they are contradictory or that the Bible defines faith as "belief without evidence". Of course we need to define what evidence means. Do you mean "that which is possible to physically measure or test"? Or do you mean "that which can be shown as logically true"? Dependence on logic is itself an act of faith, especially for those who "believe" that logic is even possible from an evolutionary perspective where matter is "god" and there is no designer or mind behind what exists.

Beyond this, we have the difficulty of our very limited knowledge and understanding of the material universe. Thinking that our understanding is comprehensive or that the material universe is the only explanation or the full explanation of “all that is”, is very dangerous. I’m not confident that I have enough evidence for anything but I still have to function as a husband, a father, a son, a friend, a student, a teacher and in many other contexts in the areas of philosophy, music, health, economics, education, emotions, commitment, self-control, etc. “Faith” in this sense is the living out of my beliefs based on my current understanding of the world - everyone does this, whether or not they admit it, and it is not wrong or contradictory. You certainly have your beliefs and you will act on them, filtering new information that you collect based on how each piece of data fits into your current beliefs. It will take a real transformation or significant event in your life (or mine) to change our belief structure and move us in a completely new direction.

I've enjoyed interacting with you on this and you present some good questions, even if they are quite common to a materialistic perspective of the world. So I encourage you to dig deeper and I will certainly do the same!

Questions for you:

How have we come to our modern concept of justice and why is it so important to us? How would you address the claim that Christianity is the enemy of scientific progress? Do you see a contradiction between faith and evidence? Why or why not?

Conversation - part 1

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

This post begins a series of posts in order to review an online conversation with Derek that began in January of 2020. As I have reflected on this discussion over many months, my intent was always to invite him to work through this conversation again, contributing his ideas and commentary, which would give a more complete context to the thought process behind the words we actually used. But now, going again to the YouTube entry where this conversation took place, Derek has deleted all of his entries and so there is no way for me to contact him. This makes me very sad. I don’t know what has happened to him, but I pray that he has found answers that satisfy  his deepest needs. Maybe my interaction helped with this and maybe not, God knows.

It began with a random video that was a negative response to a video on the value of the 10 Commandments. The video response itself was nearly worthless, so I don’t recommend it. Neither do I particularly recommend the video on the 10 Commandments posted by Denis Prager, though he does have some very valuable insights on this topic. As I looked through a few of the comments that day, one conversation caught my attention. If you are interested in the thread, you can access it on Youtube here. 

Derek was responding to a comment by Matthew who had tried to highlight the ​​differences between covetousness, jealousy and greed. Derek and Matthew had interacted briefly but Derek was digging deeper with the following questions. Unfortunately, I did not save those earlier posts from Derek.

His original questions were as follows…

1) How can god be moral if he created, actively maintains, and keeps occupied, hell, even when it is the case that it's solely for the thought-crime of unbelief? What about his kill count that is so much larger than that of Satan himself, as stated in the Bible? How is this "loving"?

2) How do the concepts of original sin and inherited sin make any sense? Or, if you would rather answer this more precise question, why EXACTLY do you believe that babies, long before they can retain memories, let alone understand what is meant by "good" "evil" "god" "original sin" "satan", etc..., are destined for eternal damnation from the get-go, just because of some guy making an honest mistake (didn't know evil from good) in the ancient past?

3) As I demonstrated in my previous comment, faith and evidence cannot both be tools of the Christian, by definition of these terms. Which, then, do you choose as your foundation? Honestly, if it is faith, we have no reason to speak, because I would agree that faith is perhaps the most true reason that you believe. If you choose evidence, then you must do two things in turn: explain why the bible emphasizes faith so strongly (in contrast to your evidence-based viewpoint), and show me what demonstrable evidence, physical or logical, you have in favor of your beliefs.

Commentary:

When I wrote this, my intention was to communicate the value of his questions, which seem to be sincere and indicate that he is looking for real answers to real questions. He is concerned about protecting the innocent, defining morality, faith and the ultimate source of knowledge or truth. We can see that each of these questions cannot be adequately addressed by hard data or science and demand a recognition of something outside of our sensory experiences to even be able to ask the questions in the first place! But I tried to take the questions at face value without attacking any misconceptions. I wanted to show him that a discussion of these topics could be done politely and without accusations in order to invite deeper understanding between us and maybe even friendship.

My response:

It looks like Matthew has not responded to you - so in the interest of continuing your reasoned and polite discussion, I'd be happy to share my thoughts.

First: The problem with the whole discussion here is that we all live with a concept of justice and fairness that is built into our western culture. If you look at primitive tribes now or in ancient times, specifically those with little or no exposure to a biblical view of the world, then you see that these assumptions are definitely not universal.

So, if you will allow me to address your 3 questions above, here are a few ideas. You are welcome to respond or disagree because I know that we come from different perspectives on this...

1 - Hell may be a lot of things but it is primarily "separation from God". The imagined torture or punishment of hell as a tool or creation of God is not possible because it is simply where God is not present and therefore does not intervene. An eternal hell is simply a result of my choice to pay for my own sin and not accept the payment available through Jesus' death. Hell is my choice so no one can ever say that God chooses hell for someone. BTW: if you don't believe there is a hell or a God, then this is probably irrelevant information. As for death, everyone faces it. There is no escape from it but we certainly can and do hurry it along for ourselves and for others. There is no evidence that a "kill count" is higher for anyone (except for certain humans in history that you can probably name).

2 - This is directly connected to the first issue - a faulty understanding of what hell is. Babies and anyone else without the mental capacity to choose right from wrong are not destined for hell, thanks to God's grace and mercy. Original sin is simply our inherited disposition to choose our own way and separate ourselves from God (and from everyone else). I see this in my tendency to do what is not good and hide it even from myself.

3 - Faith and evidence always go hand in hand because no one can ever fully know something that is outside the capacity to measure or test. Evidence points to the truth about my wife's love for me and I also believe (have faith) that she loves me and I act on that belief. Historical evidence, eyewitness accounts and the lives of those eyewitness afterward point to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, but it also demands faith because it is outside the workings of the natural world.

I've provided brief answers according to my current understanding of the Bible. Hopefully I will have better answers in the future, but please accept these for now ;)

Questions for you:

What do you see behind his questions? What is his motivation? Which perspective is closer to your beliefs and how would you support it? Could I have provided a better invitation for continued discussion? What do you think his response will be?

A Theology of Stewardship

Right now I'm struggling a bit with what to spend on Christmas gifts this year. It is often interesting to hear how much people are spending, what they are buying, what they are not buying and ultimately their level of satisfaction with what they bought or received during the Christmas season. We can attribute many of these things to how we grew up and our parent's attitudes about money as well as on our own ideas about the purpose of money and material possessions. But, after all the discussion, it really comes down to our theology (as everything does!) to evaluate our motives and what we should celebrate or even condone.

What do I mean? I'm so glad that you asked!

There are three theological (or philosophical) positions regarding material possessions.These perspectives are not defined by how much we own or do not own, but rather by how we think about what we own (or what others own). I've outlined these in the table below but there are many other facets to these perspectives. It's also interesting that one person may have a perspective of poverty regarding work but another perspective when it comes to giving or buying. So we can see that people are not necessarily consistent in their application of these perspectives in every area or over the course of their lifetimes.

My intention should always be to adjust my thinking and practice toward having a stewardship perspective in every area of my life.

The basic premise here is that neither a poverty nor a prosperity perspective is really biblical and my intention should always be to adjust my thinking and practice toward having a stewardship perspective in every area of my life. This falls in line with God's original intention (and command) for humanity from the Garden of Eden, before the Fall. Our responsibility was and is to care for God's creation, knowing that all we have comes from Him and we are 'owners' only in the sense that we are personally responsible for how it is cared for under God's authority and direction. We will have to give Him an account for how we cared for creation, understanding that it was only placed in our care as a part of His gift to us. One aspect of our bearing of the Imago Dei is a deep desire to care for others, although this has been corrupted by sin to become a need for control, power over others, a consuming desire for comfort and safety, or a hoarding of resources for our personal benefit.

Here are some of the more basic perspectives:

	Poverty	Stewardship	Prosperity
Property is	A right for me regardless of my personal investment or the sacrifice of others	A blessing which demands my accountability to God and to others	What frees me from responsibility or accountability to others
I work to	Survive, often in pursuit of caring for my own material needs, comfort or safety	Serve God and to bless others	Consume, often in pursuit of status, position or influence
Spiritual people are	poor (free from material possessions)	faithful	rich (evidence of their faith)
Ungodly people are	rich (greedy and selfish)	disobedient	poor (evidence of their sin)
I give	Because I have to	Because I have been blessed by God (a reflection of His character)	Because I want to get something back
I buy	Anxiously, without joy, without thanking God	With discernment and after I have prayed	Spontaneously, selfishly and carelessly

When we look at Scripture we can see how these theologies played out in nearly every story. We can also look through history and see both the pain and the joy of these perspectives. The difficult part is to look at our own lives and understand that every time we have chosen a prosperity or a poverty perspective, it has damaged our own lives, our relationship with God and our witness to God's grace and goodness in the lives of others.

Every time we have chosen a prosperity or a poverty perspective, it has damaged our witness to God's grace and goodness.

Let me just give you one brief example. We can look at Solomon, the richest man in the history of the world. His original motivation was using his wealth to honor God and to make Israel the center of worship for God in the building of a beautiful temple. It is hard to guess his deeper motives, because they are not clearly defined in Scripture, but there appeared to be a shift in his thinking at some point. The book of Ecclesiastes tells us that as he looked for meaning in wealth, pleasure, power and even folly (or insanity?), he found that nothing satisfied his desires. My understanding is that he tried everything but did not truly understand his role as a steward of God's resources. Wealth did not make him an evil king, neither did it make him a good king. If he was a good king at any point, then it was because he took his responsibility to God and to his people (as a steward) seriously.

Jesus uses a parable that we call "The seed and the sower" (Matt. 13) while there are related ideas in many of His parables. This sets a biblical understanding of the concept of investment. Jesus explains this to His disciples in terms of the spiritual investment with the seed being the Word of God, which actually provides a foundation for the practicality of the principle in the physical realm...

1. God has invested in us, giving us knowledge, tools, skills and resources that can be used in many ways.
2. Our use of those resources can result in blessing (financially or otherwise) based on many variables.
3. Ultimately He is responsible for the growth (blessing), but this does not lower or negate our responsibility to use wisely what He has given, to discern wisely the circumstances which will result in potential growth and to base our investments on the correct motivation.
4. Our motivation should always be to serve God (the worship of God) and to bless others (also the worship of God). When this is done correctly, it takes the emphasis completely off of the resources (or personal benefit) as the motivation and places the emphasis correctly on the One who provides everything good in the first place.

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:6-7

Interpreting our Experiences

It is interesting to see the conclusions people draw these days from the news or from their own experiences and then, claiming to understand the motives of others, make broad generalizations and theories about society, culture and even history. This may be partially due to the immediate access most people have to the news and how that is shaped by the biases and perspectives of those channels we choose to use to receive that news.

Books are also being written at a furious pace about our personal experiences and how these have shaped our understanding of reality. And, of course, we can't deny the experiences of others because we have not walked in their shoes. We must be gracious and sympathize with the challenges they have faced, acknowledging their reality is not necessarily accepting their reality as mine. But, in the name of compassion, we must let it impact us at least at an emotional level and let it begin to shape our interactions with people who have experienced something similar. Are you struggling with keeping all this together? Are you trying to absorb all these experiences into your thinking and live in a manner that allows harmony and congruency between conflicting ideas and experiences? Really, I'm struggling with this myself.

I was reading a post the other day and comparing it to my current studies in 1st Timothy. You can read the post here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/08/dogma-drives-the-christian-life

But it is a good reminder of several things...

In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul shows us that his experiences (or testimony) do not provide the framework for understanding the faith. Rather, the faith provides the framework for understanding his own experience. The post-modern (or post-Christian) tendency is to interpret everything in terms of our personal (or our group’s) experiences. But this is folly and leaves us nearly blind to the realities of life and the bigger picture of Who God is and what He is doing. When I see myself first as an American man or first as a member of any group instead of first as an image bearer of God, fallen and yet redeemed by Christ, then I have made my experiences or my community more important than the reality of what God has established and what He has done in Christ. But when I honor who God is and what He has done first, then I find myself in the place He has put me for His purposes and for His glory, not mine. This then allows me to appreciate my suffering as a tool to learn dependence on Him, my work as an opportunity to participate in His redemptive purposes, my relationships as a molding process toward godliness, my physical and material blessings as a gift from His hand to in turn practice generosity with others.

Paul’s experiences do not provide the framework for understanding the faith. The faith provides the framework for understanding his experience.

Paul summarizes this well in his letter to Timothy. Even when Timothy was struggling to deal with false doctrine in the church in Ephesus, establishing godly leadership, programs to care for the needy, to develop focused vision and godly character in a dramatically secular culture, Paul reminded him of his overriding priority to honor God first. First Timothy 3:16 is a hymn to honor Christ’s identity and His work, the centerpiece of the faith, not our own experience.

My identity and faith must be first in Christ, anything else is insufficient for understanding who I am, why I am alive or how to live moment by moment.

Are you interpreting the faith (Christian life and practice) based on your experiences in life, your interactions with the church or individual Christians, your suffering or your disappointments? Or are you interpreting your experiences in light of who God is and what He has done in Christ for a world in desperate need of Him?

Society - 11 years later

A few days ago I found my notes on "A Healthy Society" which was the basis for many of the posts I wrote on this blog in 2010. You might read the original post titled Society part 1. But now, after 11 years, I see a much deeper application of these ideas which addresses the current trends in our society, the dangers of an unhealthy society and the potential for healing in broken societies.

The current challenges are very complex, but at the root it is essentially a breakdown in both the family and the church which has left the government (or the secular, non-familial community) as the primary building block for all of society. We can dig into this more and recognize that the family was the first to be attacked by our society, destroying the role of the father, then the mother and even the role of gender as a defining element of being human. So, for some, this means that the traditional family is only "a relic of an oppressive construct" even as studies show that children with both a mother and father have the highest potential for emotional, social and economic stability. Our deepest human desires center on fathers who are present and engaged at meaningful levels with our mothers and with us. And we know, looking at the spiritual impact of this shift, that our experience with our own fathers is one of the greatest influencers of our view of a heavenly Father. Does my father value me or not and why? This, above everything else, provides me with my identity as a person.

Of course the impact of these realities regarding the family have metastasized into a social and political nightmare that is not just unhealthy but incredibly destructive. In fact, now we are even encouraged to ignore the science which identifies the human distinctions between male and female and applaud those who have challenged and "overcome" these distinctions to become "something new". Those who are unwilling to recognize the "power and beauty of these transformations" are viewed as oppressive and unloving while those who suffer severely from these transformations (against all wisdom) are ignored.

In my original post, I noted that "there is no circle/community in a healthy society which primarily honors SELF. The individual is very important in a healthy society but he or she always exists in a community where God, parents/family and others are honored." The trend that is resulting in the destruction of the family and the church as primary building blocks of society seems to place self at the center, the place of utmost honor. However, it does this in a way which is quite deceptive because it provides no context for the individual apart from political connections. There are no meaningful relationships which give the self identity except those relationships outside the family or the church. This is furthered by new fissures and fractures within the church that serve to promote a new concept of the self outside the identity that God has given us or our shared identity in Christ.

Now, not only is honoring our parents (by honoring their role and responsibility) and honoring God (through the worship and service of the church) minimized, but also the societal and political constructs no longer protect the value of the individual and his or her foundational relationships which provide each one with identity and purpose. This essentially leaves us with no purpose at all except for trying to define ourselves or redefine ourselves and demanding that everyone recognize this self-imposed identity. Self has truly become the center but is now the center of an empty and meaningless universe because there are no meaningful connections.

But, there is always hope! Our first hope is forever in Christ, who is our peace. He is able and willing to address the deep needs of our heart for identity and purpose. He is able to heal the hurt that seems to consume us, even when no one else is willing to identify that hurt. The next step, however, is to restore the role of the family in our own relationships. How am I honoring my own parents, even with their faults, and recognizing the life and value they have given me? This can be very painful, but it is the first step to forgiveness and healing in my own life. How am I taking responsibility as a father for the spiritual and emotional health of my wife and my children? Am I doing this with the understanding that I am under the authority of Christ and must submit to Him in my own heart in order to care for those around me? Am I willing to do what is right and do I have the courage to stand for truth and address with grace the lies of the world in my own life, in my work and all my conversations? It is only when we address these issues that the church will have any hope of restoring its influence for good in our broken society. It can then defend and support the values of the family because the families within the church understand and live out the values that honor God and truly value others. When the family and church take again their proper role, society is transformed and government takes its proper place and influence for the good of every individual. It is at that point that society can again honor others, giving the individual the value that God has given them as made in His image, responsible to care for others and accountable to our Creator and the purpose He has given us.

Jesus' words in Matthew 22:37-39 again take a deeper meaning, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind... Love your neighbor as yourself." These commands free us from the emptiness and slavery of self-definitions and establish meaningful relationships which give us both identity and purpose.

Meditate on it day and night

“Meditate on it day and night” (Psalm 1) - this is a reference to continual thinking, processing and discussion over a lifetime as you dig deeper into the symbolism and ambiguities of Scripture in light of the bigger picture of life. This means that any one part of Scripture, taken as a single entity, can lead us the wrong direction because it is so different from our current perspectives and cultural orientations. We tend to ask the wrong questions and come to the wrong conclusions because we are not thinking in the same direction, have not processed it adequately, want to fit it into our current theories or simply don’t have enough information. There is a compelling need to see the full scope of the Bible and its story of God in relationship with humanity in an intimate and personal way. This Story becomes my story because I see myself in the struggles, the failures, the rebellions of others. This is a very helpful, transformative and hopeful process when it develops in us a profound sense of humility, responsibility and fear of God.

But, this phenomenon of “letting this story become my story” is also happening in the postmodern, post-truth world. This extreme version is called “narratology” and can be a very powerful and sometimes very subversive tool for creating a new thought process in others. It began with Satan in the garden of Eden when he told Adam and Eve a story that they adopted as their own. But, as it was only part of the truth, it led them to disastrously wrong conclusions.

Which stories are you listening to these days? Are there cultural stories being told that are focussed primarily on emotional connections? Are there stories being told which are intended to make you feel guilt or shame? Are there stories that purposefully ignore the issue of original sin or emphasize our differences as the root source of conflict? Are there stories that blame certain groups of people instead of our individual (or humanity’s) rebellion against God? Are there stories which make God in man's image instead of man in God's image? Beware of these stories! These are usually meant to manipulate and always point us in the wrong direction even as they contain elements of truth. These stories lead us away from recognizing and honoring the image of God in every person. They lead us to think we have the answers ourselves apart from our repentance and God’s forgiveness. These stories lead us away from the sufficiency of Christ and into slavery and hatred. They lead us to depend on religious, philosophical, financial, works based or even political solutions to society’s struggles. They lead us to manipulation and fear-based control of others. But in the end, it is me who is deceived.

This brings us back to the original idea, “Meditate on it day and night.” Unless we let God’s Word impact every area of our thinking, asking to “be transformed by the renewing of our mind”, we may be trapped in the same way that Adam and Eve were trapped. Every morning my prayer is, “God, open my eyes to see as you see, to love others as you love me, to reject the lies of a broken world so that I can honor you and value others.” I don’t have all the answers, but I know where they can be found and they are not in the ideas of those who do not know God and have no desire to honor Him. Truth is always rooted first in God’s revelation through His Word and confirmed by the leading of His Spirit at work in my heart. “Your Word is truth.”

If you want to learn a bit more about Jewish Meditation Literature, see the Bible Project's video on this topic at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhmlJBUIoLk

Discrimination and gender identity

Ok, I know this is not in line with my usual topics! But it is an important issue because it is central to human rights, education and especially to viewing others with compassion and love. Everyone bears the Imago Dei whether they realize it or not. So, in that sense, it is very important to talk about.

In the US there is debate in 2021 about new proposed legislation, commonly termed the "Equality Act". You may or may not agree with the premise and I don't dismiss your opinion. But it is also important to think and discuss such things beyond the political or economic implications in order to think more deeply about how such ideas are good (in the deepest sense) and how they contribute to or detract from human flourishing in a global and timeless, universal sense.

I read recently a piece by the Washington Post titled "Dozens of LGBTQ students at Christian colleges sue the U.S. Education Dept., hoping to pressure Equality Act negotiations". You can find it here. This article provides a perspective on a situation where those outside of a biblical worldview might respond with “How can Christians possibly think that discrimination against those in the LGBT community is right or acceptable?” And, speaking from a biblical worldview, I completely agree. But there are at least 2 serious incoherencies that the article is unable to identify.

The first is that the so-called Equality Act ("equality" is another topic for another day) is purported to be the best solution because it would restrict or terminate state funding for any universities which hold to a biblical and historical view of marriage and sexuality. But in fact it is not the best solution. No law will terminate discrimination nor will it give people new values or motivation for caring for others or valuing people for who they are. Laws do not change beliefs, they simply reflect the beliefs of those who vote for them. (They may not even do this well because people may be uninformed or deceived regarding the intent or outcome of the law.) Of course this does not excuse those who have been cruel or uncaring to these students who felt discriminated against in these universities! Very few will nor have excused their unkind words or unhelpful actions. But we have to ask ourselves, “Are there individuals who have been discriminated against because of their views on gender or sexuality at non-Christian universities? Was that discrimination a result of government funding or the written policies on behavior or dress codes at those universities? Would limiting or terminating state funding at state institutions solve these cases of discrimination?” The answers are obvious. So, the only possible and logical conclusion is that financial or legal punishment of a university for its standards of behavior and stated views on marriage and sexuality does not benefit anyone who claims to be discriminated against because of their sexual views.

The second is that the Equality Act creates new victims of those who are trying to be a blessing and support to current victims of a destructive social narrative and furthers the damage to those currently victimized by this destructive narrative. Is it true that a man can be a woman? Is it true that the very nature of my identity can and should be changed by social constructs or by how I feel about myself today? If so, then we are living in a social mirage where nothing is real or as it seems. Is it fair that those most vulnerable in our society, those suffering from gender dysphoria, children and teenagers, those suffering from sexual or emotional abuse resulting from dysfunctional family contexts should be lied to about the value and the nature of being human? Our value does not lie in our sexual orientation, what we do or how we think. Our value lies completely in being made by our Creator who loves us and made us for a purpose. When we attempt to destroy or redefine our identity, the image of God in us, it only results in tragedy, unrealistic expectations of ourselves and others and, eventually, self-loathing. It also promotes a society which does not value human life, does not value the mothers and fathers responsible for creating human life or value the children who are best able to flourish in a home with both a mother and a father who love them most and know them best.

There is another issue that is less important but no less valid. Consider for a moment my options when choosing a university or a coffee shop or an online vender. It might be wise for me to do some investigation to see if their values agree with mine or if they don't. If I plan to spend money, especially several thousand dollars at a university, I would want to know who is benefiting from my investment and the educational philosophy that guides their teachers and course content. If I don't agree with their values or don't want to advance their values with my hard-earned dollars, then I will choose somewhere else to spend my money. There is always another option! Let me be clear that I still am not condoning anyone's unkind or discriminatory actions or attitudes as individuals. But I am always discriminating against certain businesses or organizations because either I refuse to read their material, promote their ideas or buy their products. Is this wrong? Absolutely not. Did these students have a choice about where to go to school? They are free to choose just as they might choose to go to McDonalds or to Chick-fil-A. So I am a bit confused as to why, when they knew the values of their chosen institution, they are not abiding by the agreements they signed to honor those values before they spent their money there. This is similar to nearly every other case of supposed gender identity discrimination when trying to place blame on institutions and not on individuals.

Is it right to deny valid funding or accreditation status for those universities whose values and programs are in line with and serving the needs of thousands of students and American citizens? I don't believe so. All organizations have values and they are entitled to those values when they are not purposefully destructive, promoting hatred or violence against a group of people. When we assume that value statements promote hatred, we are actually doing ourselves a disservice by intentionally or unintentionally interpreting beliefs as aggressive when they simply define boundaries. When I say "You are not my wife" I mean this as a boundary which defines reality, not as an aggression against anyone who is not my wife. If they misinterpret this as hatred, the problem lies with them and not with me. Of course, truth can be communicated in unloving or harsh ways, but truth is always the most loving and helpful for us because it helps us truly understand ourselves and the world around us.

I am currently on the board of an international organization and helped to develop recent additions to their Statement of Values. All board members, staff and volunteers must sign off on this every year, which is a normal procedure to ensure that the values of the organization are understood and will guide beliefs and actions within the organization. I should also mention that this is an organization that serves the educational needs of Christian families in a global context, so everyone involved already has an understanding of these truths. Here are the 2 statements:

• The Bible upholds the value of the individual as well as biological gender, both male and female, as stewards of the image of God. We hold to the biblical and historical definitions of gender as essential to a healthy understanding of our God-given identity (Genesis 1:27).
• The biblical definition of marriage, exclusively between one man and one woman in a committed, lifelong relationship, is the only relationship within which the gift of sexual intimacy is properly expressed and where children are best nurtured and prepared for life (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6, Hebrews 13:4, Ephesians 6:1-4).

If you want a statement from me, I will provide it here. But I warn you that taking it out of context is lying to yourself and lying to others about what I have said. Here it is:

• I am unwilling to sign any document or knowingly support any project or organization that promotes the fallacy that men can be women or women can be men. I will not lie to myself, our society, our children or further complicate the suffering of those with true gender dysphoria by claiming otherwise.

One more thought for us. Relationships can be difficult, irregardless of our values. Christians are called to the 'ministry of reconciliation' as described in II Corinthians 5:17-20. This is not an easy calling but it is essential for me to understand this as it relates both to those within the church and outside of it. Sometimes reconciliation is really hard in my own house between my wife and me because we are so different but have most of the same values. Sometimes reconciliation is really hard with those who have no idea of their value in God's eyes because our values are so different. But working in both these settings and everything in between is a moment by moment task that brings glory to God and a deeper purpose to my life as a follower of Christ. "We love because He first loved us." (I John 4:19)

If you are interested, you can find a good article on other potential impacts of the Equality Act here.

Recognize and evaluate assumptions

 How do I recognize and evaluate my own assumptions?

This is a question which I believe has always been important but is becoming important in a new way now. Having worked in education now for so many years, the importance of critical thinking has continued to receive more attention. However, critical thinking in public conversation seems to be highjacked by a tendency to ignore our own assumptions and to devalue the thinking of others. This is sadly not accomplished by reasoned arguments but by emotional reactions and even attacks on the other's person or character. Unfortunately, this may be partly due to the social media phenomenon which moves us away from personal relationships and accountability where people would value the relationship as much as the content of the conversation.

Now, in order to evaluate my assumptions and the assumptions of others, we must learn to ask good questions. Here is one to begin with. Is critical thinking important? And, if true, is a growing ability to think critically necessary for everyone in a society? I don't want to make this assumption without a way to back it up, but I have found no valid rationale for answering these in the negative. Certainly there are differing values about education and beliefs about what type of education is important and who should be educated. But if a community values education for its members, and not simply a process of indoctrination and behavior modification, then critical thinking is an essential ingredient of that process. The elements of education would be to develop an understanding about how we learn, what is valuable to know or do and why those are valuable for the individual as well as the community. The product would then be a member of that community who understands the values of that community and is able to contribute in meaningful ways to improve and even to lead that community through its internal and external struggles and successes.

If we take a look at a particular example, we can see a deep divide between critical thinking and non-critical thinking in relation to assumptions. This example is taken from the Smithsonian Institution in its recent "guidelines for talking about race". You can read more in the Newsweek article, but I will not post the "guidelines" here. Go to https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333 My comments will deal with the "guidelines" themselves and not the article about the guidelines by Marina Watts. Note that these were later removed from the display.

After reading the content, my first questions should be "What are my assumptions about this information? and How do these assumptions impact how I read and interpret this information?" Only after doing this, can I begin to ask questions such as "What assumptions does this information make? Are these valid assumptions, providing proof of their validity? Why or why not?"

In a brief examination of my assumptions, I must recognize several things. First, I come from a background of European immigrants to the US around 1900 who worked hard to make a living and did not depend on a government or system to supply what they did not earn themselves. I also must recognize that my constant and intense exposure to the Bible has set a standard for my thinking about life which is not common to the majority of those in the US, although a biblical perspective has had a major impact on the structure of American society and government over the last 400 years. I must also recognize that my experiences and education, living extensive periods in 4 countries, an intercultural marriage, work in ministry and education and much more, gives me a different view of life than many of my peers with a European ancestry. I recognize that I am opposed to ideas which set one system of values above another simply because they come from a group that is different than me. I am also opposed to the idea that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any set of values makes that people group of less or more value. Finally, I am strongly in favor of the idea that when a group holds a particular set of values, those must still be questioned and never assumed to be "right". This is because I believe in a God who provides absolute standards against which all human values can be evaluated, not for the advantage of one group over another but for the blessing and benefit of all.

But now I will also need to evaluate the assumptions of the authors of these "guidelines" and possibly the assumptions of those in the Smithsonian Institute who allowed the publication of these "guidelines". I hope I am not too critical here, so I encourage you to evaluate my perspectives and share yours! We cannot learn and grow in our understanding if we are unwilling to consider other perspectives - especially of those who disagree with us!

Let me first examine the title. It reads "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States". So, the information which follows is ASSUMED to be authoritative and somewhat complete on the topic. In addition, since it is provided by the Smithsonian Institution, the reader would ASSUME that it is not only authoritative but historically accurate and based on quality testing and peer-review, otherwise it would have no place in an institution of such quality. But we can see from a cursory reading of the information that this is not the case, nor is any proof or reference to academic studies provided for our consideration. 

Actually, the title is quite confusing when we ask ourselves a simple question such as "Is the color of one's skin a major determining factor of their values and culture?" A simple study will show that values are determined by the family background, education, social structure and language of each person, not their skin color. We must also recognize that many values shift over time for both individuals and people groups. Further complicating the issue is the increasing multiculturalism and cross-cultural relationships within our society. If a person has a French father and Indian mother, their values will be different than a peer with a Nigerian father and German mother. Which of these 2 people is white? How has their "whiteness" impacted their values and culture? "Whiteness", if there is such a thing, has no significance here at all.

Another problem with this title is the phrase "in the United States". We would ASSUME that the author knows at least something about people of European ancestry currently living in the United States. But this is not evident in the document. The first clue is that the designation of "white culture" is used in place of a more descriptive and precise term such as "European culture". This would at least provide a distinction between the more individualistic values of western society from the more collectivist values of African, Asian or Middle Eastern societies. But, of course, there are varying degrees of so called "whiteness" in all of these societies and significant differences in values between each of the European countries (many of which do not match these "guidelines").

So, we already have many reasons to doubt the validity of the content. But when we take a look at the content itself, we begin to wonder "How could this serve to significantly describe any group based on color? and How could this provide a foundational context for talking about race?" The only possibility is if these guidelines somehow transcend skin color to describe a group of people (whether caucasian or not) and classify these values in a category called "whiteness". This begins to lose all meaning because it is really not about color at all but something else entirely. Another follow-up question might be "What is the motivation or agenda behind providing such misleading information?" Let me provide just one observation.

In the first category, rugged individualism, it is said that in white culture "individuals [are] assumed to be in control of their environment, 'you get what you deserve'". I would recognize that no one is fully in control of their own environment, even if they think they are. Our skin color has no influence on the actual control of our environment, but this is not really what is being communicated here. So what is the author trying to communicate? I believe the statement has more to do with how one interacts with their environment and the responsibility they might, or might not "own" in order to change their circumstances. If you feel you have no control over your level of education, your job prospects, your relationships, your personal contribution to society, then you are less likely to try to change it, believing that your actions will have no impact on the outcome. If you feel that your actions do have some impact or that the more effort you put into changing your circumstances, the more likely they are to change, then you are more likely to try. We can also examine the statement "you get what you deserve" and try to think of what other options there are to this perspective. Here are a few: "You don't get what you deserve. You get what you don't deserve. You don't get what you don't deserve". None of these statements are always true for any group of people or for any individual. There are statements that could be shown to be more true, such as "Many people get what they earn but few get what they deserve." Is this closer to a "white" assumption, as described by the author? I don't think so - this assumption still has nothing to do with the color of one's skin but rather on their family background and their perception of reality.

But all this begs the question, "What is the purpose of providing such misleading information?" This is much harder to evaluate without knowing the author, their background and their personal values. Without that information, we can easily move to more dangerous and uncertain conclusions. But I believe I am safe in assuming that there is a serious misunderstanding of how multiple cultures and value systems have contributed to American society and how all of us, from every background, have benefited from this blending and exchange of cultural ideas. We learn the most from those who are most different from us. It is not clear to me if the author is judging "white culture" as bad or good and maybe that is not the purpose of these "guidelines". However, I am making the assumption that whatever the author assumes "white culture" to be, its values are ASSUMED to be different than the values that are held by every "non-white culture" - whatever that means!

I might make some further assumptions in the form of questions, and these are a bit more disturbing. Who is the intended audience for these guidelines and why? Is it possible that the intent in these guidelines is to divide and alienate people of one skin color from another? Is it possible that the color of one's skin is so important that there are people who would reject the values others hold simply because they have a different skin color? What is the purpose of promoting any division between groups within a society except to gain political power or material advantage?

What are your assumptions regarding these "guidelines"? How does your background and experience influence those assumptions? Are you willing to evaluate your assumptions as they relate to this information? Why do you believe (or not believe) that this process of critical thinking is important in developing an understanding of our world and how we interact in our society?

Connecting faith and life

I few posts back I wrote about "Real Value in Christian education" and mentioned several aspects of a Christ-centered education that provide unique and powerful connections between life and learning. We can now look more closely at the first of these connections:

1. Christ-centered education connects faith to life (God's law is central to all learning and to all decisions because I know He desires what is best in the long term.)

First, it would be helpful to have a clear understanding of what is meant by "faith" and by "life". Faith, in particular, is a difficult term these days. It can refer to a set of beliefs about God or about anything else. It can also mean that you "trust" something or someone in the sense that you believe it will happen or that person will be true to their promise. This is the context of the Greek word πίστις (pístis), which can also be translated as "belief", "faithfulness", or "trust". Webster's definition is 1 a : devotion to duty or a person : LOYALTY b : the quality of keeping one's promises. 2 a : belief and trust in and loyalty to God b : belief in the doctrines of a religion c : firm belief even in the absence of proof d : complete confidence. This is not quite the same as Mark Twain's comment that "Faith is believing what you know ain't so".

But, as I read the Bible, I see a deeper context for understanding faith. First, real faith always results in action. This is what led Abram to leave his home for a land that God had promised and even to risk everything to obey God's direction to sacrifice his son. This is faith that sees beyond the material and the short-term for something much bigger. Of course there were serious problems and mistakes along the way because those people who tried to live by faith did not always accomplish this. But God was gracious and provided what was needed, sometimes at the last moment. God is faithful even when we are not. In this sense, faith is the living out of our beliefs in our daily activities and relationships.

There is another aspect of faith that is connected to the word "fear". When we fear that something will go wrong or we will get hurt, this is also a "confidence" that our actions or the actions of others will have a certain consequence. Therefore, it is wise to avoid those situations or people who will cause damage because we have a healthy fear of them. So, when we read in the Proverbs that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom", we can be confident that God is always able to do what He says He will do. Sometimes this is a promise for our good and at other times it is assurance that those who do evil, who are unjust, unmerciful or mock God's name, image or character, will receive appropriate punishment from Him. Faith in God, much more than faith in man, directs us to do what is right in God's eyes and is also a blessing to us and to others. This faith comes from a righteous "fear of God" and overrules any "fear of man" because we know that God always has the greater power and will judge men by their motives as well as by their words and actions.

When we define "life", we must mean more than life in the physical sense. Animals and plants are alive, and may have a certain sense of satisfaction from living, but they don't contemplate or celebrate life in a spiritual dimension. Life should be more than survival, but rather a joyful, purposeful state of mind and heart, a knowledge and appreciation of growth in every area while in community with others who share that knowledge and appreciation.

This leads us to Isaiah 55, a rich example of the connection between faith in God and life in the context of learning.

Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance.

This is also the message of the Gospel: God is calling us out of our pain, our alienation, our confusion, our sin, into a full and deep understanding of Him and His truth. This truth stands in sharp contrast to the voices of our culture and the conflicting voices of our own soul about who we are. It is only in the recognition of His truth (as made clear in Scripture) that we can understand that His grace reaches even to us, who live so far from that truth.

Here we see that God's intention is for our good and our blessing. But it is not for us alone. We are blessed fully when we are also a channel of blessing for others. This can be seen in the 10 Commandments or "10 Words" which God has provided for us and are also summarized in Matthew: Love God and your neighbor. You can read more about how the 10 Words are a foundation for blessing on my post and I would also suggest Dennis Prager's book or video for an introduction to further study.

God's Law is not restrictive in a harmful sense but provides boundaries and direction in life in order to guide and stimulate our growth and our reinvestment into His Creation and every aspect of life and relationship. When these boundaries and truths graciously underpin the context of learning, they provide meaning and purpose in the learning process, leading us to a life of blessing and productivity with an eternal purpose.

Comparing the scope of faith and science

Introduction

When we discuss faith and science together, we might encounter seemingly incompatible concepts and perspectives, but this should not be the case! Instead of having to decide between faith and science, we need to come to the discussion with a clear understanding of how they support each other. This approach demands that we know which questions to ask and where to go to find the answers.

Here are the basic questions that must first be dealt with: What questions does science ask and how does it find the answers? What questions does theology ask and how does it find the answers? How does each area of study evaluate conclusions and measure the accuracy of those conclusions? And maybe even more important, which questions cannot be answered authoritatively by each area of study? (This Worldview chart outlines the primary differences between 6 dominant worldviews.)

Note that here I will refer to faith, theology and philosophy interchangeably, although they are not strictly equal. Theology is the study of what is known about God. Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions of existence, which are heavily influenced by what we know or assume about God. Faith is simply how one lives out their beliefs about God and the world.

Remember that "science" simply means "knowledge" (Latin: scientia / know) and that each area of knowledge has its own scope which we commonly split into various "sciences" such as sociology, chemistry or philosophy. (See my chart outlining some of these categories.) But many people take a more limited definition of science while assuming that the natural and applied sciences have the ultimate authority in every area of knowledge, which is precisely the fallacy that must be addressed.

Background

Some of my motivation for addressing this subject came after watching Ken Ham host Bill Nye in a tour of The Ark Encounter. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2t_bAg8Abo) This is almost painful for me to watch because neither one of them seem very concerned about listening to the other's questions or providing clear answers, only proving their own point. What makes this more difficult is a lack of real intellectual connection because their foundational beliefs are so radically different. It seems as though they are speaking different languages. It may be that if Ken would simply give clear answers to the science questions from Bill while clarifying which other questions are really issues of worldview, it would help to direct the conversation and provide boundaries for each of them. Ken's questions to Bill could then be limited to how worldview impacts the interpretation of science because worldview is Ken's primary area of strength.

Which circle is bigger?

Since many people consider science more authoritative than faith, let's begin there. The areas of biology, geology, physics and the like are considered "hard sciences", which means that they deal with measurable and observable data. The hard sciences include the natural, formal and applied sciences. Common questions include what is the median temperature of Santa Monica from 1950 to 2000 A.D.? or what are the anatomical differences between the gorilla and the spider monkey? or what is the speed of light? All of these investigations are accomplished with the use of measurement and can be repeated and recalculated for near absolute accuracy. The challenge for scientists then is to take measurable data and draw conclusions about patterns. These patterns are then grouped into theories about historical data and potential trends for the future. Science has beautiful and useful applications which have led to a huge increase in the storage, processing and retrieval of information, productivity, communication, health, longevity of life and care for our planet.

Faith is actually an application of our worldview which does not deal directly with measurable data but with philosophical questions that draw information from many fields of study including science and philosophy. Philosophy (which depends heavily on theology) is not a "hard science" and is traditionally included in the social sciences. This is the study which is most directly related to our worldview. Common questions include who is God (or is there a god)? who or what is man? is there a purpose to the universe and our existence? is there a good and evil or right and wrong? and how can we know anything at all? Note that all humans deal with these questions at some level because it is part of our built-in thought process and requires us to draw conclusions from many areas of study as well as from our personal experiences and interpretation of those experiences. If we agree that we can know anything, we can also know that these questions must be important. Why? Because we can examine records from every civilization addressing these questions and how their conclusions impacted their society.

The diagram below illustrates the 2-way interaction between knowledge and faith. What we believe is influenced by our knowledge, but our beliefs also have the power to override our interpretation of new data and experiences to fit them to our current worldview. Those beliefs then determine our actions, which is the outworking of our faith.

Notice that faith (the application of our theology) impacts every area of study, incorporating concepts from many areas of thought. It does not depend on the details of science alone but must consider scientific data as a viable source for confirmation of certain conclusions. Science, however, has a more limited scope and can draw philosophical conclusions only as theories because philosophical concepts such as love, morality or existential purpose cannot be measured directly. This means that science, by definition, cannot ask certain questions while faith has a right to claim scientific perspectives as long as they are not directly refutable by scientific data.

Potential problem areas

This is precisely the area where many people become confused. Does scientific data show the Bible to be in error? Is evolution or a random origin of the universe already proven as true? Is creation, the flood or the existence of God even possible? These are good questions but they must each be evaluated by filtering out what science can or cannot authoritatively address. By definition science can only speculate about origins of the universe, creation or the existence of God. Evolution is also not a proven fact because it is classified as theory and there is no hard evidence for macro-evolution (the gradual and randomly selective change from one species into a difference species).

This leaves us with the questions about supposed scientific errors in the Bible and potential errors in the historical accuracy of the Bible. Science can address both of these questions. The question of historical accuracy has been addressed at length and the Bible has profoundly and authoritatively proven its accuracy in every area that can be measured. Those events that are supernatural such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, and therefore beyond the scope of science, cannot be either proven or disproven by science. But it is also clear that some supernatural events, specifically the resurrection of Christ, have an amazing quantity of historical proofs that cannot be denied by thoughtful investigators. If we investigate the supposed scientific errors contained in the Bible, we see that more and more of these have been resolved in recent years to show that the Bible had the correct information before scientists "discovered" them. One example is the common human genome that identifies one common ancestor for all of humanity, although this was not thought to be possible just a few years ago. The global flood is another interesting study and, as it has not yet been proven false by scientific data, theologians can continue to assume that it is accurate, having sufficient data to support this perspective.

It is also important to remember that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a historical record that also includes poetry and accounts of visions and prophetic messages. It was written by 40 different authors including shepherds, priests, poets, fishermen, lawyers and a physician, between 1900 and 3400 years ago. Theirs was a very different culture than ours in a time with very different values, technology and perspectives about life. This requires that anyone who studies the Bible does so with a knowledge of that culture and the ability to interpret the text in that light. Those who believe the Bible to be the authoritative and inerrant Word of God have a foundation for life and knowledge that is beyond value because the Bible provides wisdom from our Creator about every area of life. Those who do not trust the Bible to be authoritative or inerrant are limited to a human perspective on life and the natural world. It is that simple.

Conclusions

If you have followed the logic so far, you can now come to some conclusions about the seeming contradictions of faith and science. First, according to logic, faith and science cannot be both contradictory and true on any given piece of scientific data. I would add that the existence of logic is evidence of order and purpose in the universe and that logic is dependent on faith, not faith on logic. Second, it is not possible to build a theological perspective (or worldview) on the basis of scientific data alone because there are questions that science simply cannot answer. Third, any theological perspective that claims to be true must be willing to address or explain the data common to human understanding and experience including scientific data. Fourth, one's philosophical perspective will always be more complex and broader than their area of expertise and have a tendency to color or filter their interpretation and application of data into patterns that fit that perspective.

If one claims to have a biblical worldview, then the acceptance of biblical truth provides a foundation for each area of study and gives that study meaning and purpose within the bigger picture of God's design and purpose. If one has an atheistic or materialistic worldview, then the assumption that nothing exists outside the measurable and material universe always overshadows their approach to each area of study and only gives each study a practical or utilitarian purpose. In this sense, a person with a materialistic worldview has no concern with or basis for an opinion on the existence of God except by the fact that it raises objections to their assumptions about the world.

We are like children playing on the floor, each one with their own toys. Suddenly one of us looks up and says, "Hey, you can't play with that! Give it to me!" But then the parent comes in and says, "Okay, time to put away the toys." Who has the greater understanding? It must be the parent who gives the children the toys to play with while there is still time to play. The "toys" of the scientist or the philosopher no longer have value if no one is around to play with them anymore. It's not the toys that matter, but each of us who are loved and cared for by our Creator in spite of our ignorance or misinterpretations of reality.

Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, has said:

He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done.

In a study of many lives of great scientists, it is evident that faith in the Creator God informed both their worldview and their scientific discoveries since they "knew" the reality of a God who had created the world with order and purpose and enables us to know Him partially through a growing understanding of His creation. All of modern science is founded on this reality and a continued "trust" in the laws of nature and logic established beyond our own power of reasoning. Faith informs the natural sciences and enables us to interpret and apply them with an assurance of certain outcomes whether or not we choose to believe in God.