The Co-opted Rainbow

Everybody loves a rainbow. Young and old alike will stop to revel in the colorful display. There was a time when most people knew that the rainbow was originally assigned meaning by God as the token of His promise to Noah that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood. In that context, the rainbow became a symbol of hope. In ancient Irish folklore that idea was bastardized to mean a hope for wealth: the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That connection is probably more well-known today than its original biblical meaning.

I am writing this in June which has become gay pride month for many. The LGBTQ+ community has also coopted the rainbow and given it a significance of their own. When the gay pride flag was originally designed in 1978, each of the colored stripes was assigned a value. If you ignore the LGBTQ+ context, most of the values are innocuous: sex, life, healing, sunlight, nature, magic/art, serenity, and spirit. Two raise some concern: magic and spirit. Magic is clearly off limits for Christians, and one assumes that “spirit” does not refer to God’s Holy Spirit.

I heard a teaching recently that suggested a more sinister relationship between the rainbow and homosexuality. When Ezekiel saw God’s throne in his vision at the river Chebar, there was a rainbow above it. When Satan’s pride drove him to attack God, he wanted that throne with its rainbow for himself. Look back at the values symbolized in the gay pride rainbow; except for magic, each of them might be employed in a way to glorify God. However, you can also see how each one has been perverted by the enemy of our souls and turned into an idol.

First of all, ever since the Garden of Eden, Satan has taken the good things of God’s creation and twisted them to serve his purposes. Sex is the most obvious one, and perhaps the most odious especially in June. I believe that God created sex to be a bonding agent for a man and a woman in marriage. In that context, it is a beautiful thing. Very early in human history, Satan began enticing men to fulfill their lust in ways that were not only damaging to themselves (AIDS, STD’s, etc.) but destructive to the purpose God had intended. De-sanctifying marriage and its restriction of sexual pleasure to one-man/one-woman for a lifetime has resulted in personal and social tragedy of mammoth proportions.

The other values represented in the gay pride flag have been similarly distorted or perverted. Life is certainly to be valued, but Christians recognize that true life comes from God and returns to Him; true life has a deeply spiritual component. The “life” Satan encourages is selfish and hedonistic. The Psalms teach us to glorify God for His creation of the sun and all nature. Satan leads men to worship creation in defiance of the Creator. Magic is simply the devil’s attempt to mimic God’s miracles; practicing it is plainly forbidden in Scripture. It is sad to see what the enemy has done to art. It was once a way to magnify God with beauty and order. Now, the atonal disturbing modern “music” and the emptiness of modern “art” reflect the hollow men who search for meaning in all the wrong places. Augustine was right when he said that there is restlessness in every man that can only be satisfied by God – a God of beauty and order, not ugliness and chaos.

Serenity is promised in God’s Word. We are counselled to meditate on the Word and recall God’s promises; as a result, we can have peace that passes understanding. The enemy’s brand of meditation encourages either completely emptying the mind or turning inward to focus entirely on oneself ignoring the divine image we bear. Finally, I suspect that the gay flag’s reference to “spirit” may have similarly twisted the truth. Satan, the prince of evil spirits, would have us elevate our own spirit and discount the Holy Spirit who represents the very presence of God in us when we give our lives to Christ.

A rainbow is visible because light is refracted, broken down into its parts. To me, this signifies the many aspects of God’s holy character spread before us in awe and wonder. There are some other physical aspects of light that I think are interesting to consider. God Himself is said to be light and to dwell in unapproachable light. The first thing God is said to have created is light. Throughout Scripture, light symbolizes goodness and knowledge. Darkness, represented by the Prince of Darkness, is evil and deceptive. What we call color is the reflected portion of the light spectrum. God’s creation is bursting with color. If his followers are any indication, Satan’s favorite color is black – the absence of color via light.

The Father sent Jesus to the world because “In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity.  And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” Jesus said His followers were to be the light of the world. John said if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another and forgiveness of sin. Paul told the Corinthians that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. It looks to me like that is exactly what he has done with the rainbow he tried to steal from God. Don’t be fooled by him. Jesus said that true life, the true light of humanity, was found in knowing God. Study His Word; meditate on it; get to know God intimately. Then you can take back the rainbow.

Related Posts: More about the nature of light: And the Light was Good; E=mc² in Genesis

When "Destruction" is not Destruction

I have written in the past that I thought 2 Peter 3:12, “the elements will melt with a fervent heat,” was a prediction of a massive explosion as the elements loosed their nuclear bonds. I thought if Christ “holds all things together,” when He lets go, there will be universal release of energy: BOOM! Peter mentions this event in his discussion of the end of this world and the coming of a new heaven and a new earth. Recently, a friend asked me about this verse, so I looked at it in the original Greek. I was surprised at what I found.

First, as always, I looked at the larger context of the verse. Peter is responding to “scoffers” who were denying that Jesus would return. Their argument was that nothing had changed since the creation of the world. Peter points out that God made a major change when He flooded the earth with water. The Greek word he used for “destroyed” and “destruction” in verses six and seven means “not extinction but ruin; loss, not of being, but of wellbeing” according to Vine’s Dictionary. The planet was not destroyed; it was cleansed of the ungodly people. Peter says that the coming “destruction” in the last day will be for a similar purpose: to remove the ungodly.

We sometimes use “destroy” this way in modern English. We might say that a person who suffers a tragic emotional loss is destroyed. Obviously, we don’t mean they died; they were crushed in spirit. Similarly, a team that wins a massive victory is said to have destroyed their opponent. This type of usage follows what Vine’s says is “loss of well-being,” not utter destruction.

After the comforting thought that God is delaying the last day because He “does not want any to perish,” Peter warns his readers that there will be no warning when the day does finally come; it will sneak up like a thief. Peter’s first note is that “the heavens will disappear with a rushing noise.” In Peter’s first century understanding of the cosmos, “heavens” would mean what we call the atmosphere and possibly outer space. His usage of “disappear” could be translated as “swept aside.” Whoosh! The reason they are swept aside or averted or neglected (literal Greek) is explained by Peter a couple verses later.

Peter’s next phrase is where the real surprise comes. “The celestial bodies will be destroyed being burned up.” (LEB) Most translations say “the elements” will be destroyed. The Greek word Peter used is stoichion (στοιχει̂ον). Using “elements” in this case is another incidence of the English word not clearly translating the Greek thought. Of the seventeen Bible versions I have on my computer, only the LEB translates the word correctly. Stoichion means elemental in the sense of first principles. The LEB correctly uses “celestial bodies” because Peter’s audience would have thought of elemental spirits when they read stoichion. As the chart below shows, other occurrences of this word in the New Testament most often follow the LEB.

Vine’s Dictionary says stoichion refers to “the delusive speculations of Gentile cults and of Jewish theories, treated as elementary principles, “the rudiments of the world,” and spoken of as “philosophy and vain deceit.” (Colossians. 2:8 KJV) This clearly has nothing to do with the “elements” of the periodic table as I used to think. Vine’s Dictionary continues by explaining, “[stoichion] were presented as superior to faith in Christ; at Colosse the worship of angels, mentioned in [Col 2:18], is explicable by the supposition, held by both Jews and Gentiles in that district, that the constellations were either themselves animated heavenly beings, or were governed by them.” This makes it plain that the things being “swept away” are not planets, moons, and stars, but spirit beings who were thought to hold sway over circumstances on earth.

The next thing in Peter’s chronology of the Day of the Lord is “the earth and the deeds done on it will be disclosed.” This is his first mention of things on earth, and it does not say earth will be destroyed. It seems that with the “elemental spirits” having been “swept away,” the machinations and motivations of the people on earth will be revealed or “found out by inquiry” according to Vine’s Dictionary. That leads Peter to advise that those who are believers ought to be living holy, godly lives as they wait for the day of God. Since it comes without warning, there won’t be time to straighten things up ahead of time. The Apostle Paul seems to be referring to the same thing when he tells the Corinthians that their works will be revealed by fire on the day of judgment.

Then in verses twelve and thirteen, Peter explains why the celestial bodies, the elemental spirits are going to be swept away. He uses different terms but makes the same point as he did in verse ten. He says the result of the heavens being burned up is the celestial bodies melting (τήκω). Imagine the sun thawing an icy body. It would have been obvious to Peter’s readers that the elemental spirits (stoichion) are opposed to God, and He must get them out of the way so He can renew the heavens and the earth

The new heavens and earth are not just “new” in the sense of later in time. They are of an entirely new type (καινός). In one sense, they are not new but are of an older type: they are the same as God created them in the beginning. Peter says they will be a place where righteousness makes its home (κατοικέω). This is another way of saying that the evil “god of this age” who led the “elemental spirits” will have been swept off his throne, and the rightful king will take his place. All the beautiful imagery of the prophecies concerning God’s kingdom on earth will be fulfilled. The lion will dwell with the lamb; swords will be beaten into plowshares; pain and sorrow will be no more.

Peter’s fiery imagery is reminiscent of the Old Testament passages alluding to God’s ultimate judgment of His creation. As Peter reminds us, God did judge the entire world once before using water. God promised never to do that again, but He did say He would execute judgment once and for all using fire as a metaphor. Even though the earth is not doomed to destruction as I had thought, there is power Peter’s proclamation: judgment is coming; get straight or get burned.

Related Posts: And the Light was Good; The Patience of God

Selling Heaven on Earth

At the risk of beating a dead horse and losing my readers, I am going to take one more stab at explaining what I believe the Bible says about Heaven. Several years ago, I shared my surprise with my readers that Heaven is nowhere clearly portrayed as the place believers go when they die. (See Why Heaven Matters) The idea was introduced to me by N.T. Wright, a respected Bible scholar, in his book, Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. His premise is based on a broad view of God’s entire plan for His people from Genesis to Revelation. Wright proposes that God never intended to bring His people to Heaven when they die; rather, His plan is to redeem all creation and repopulate it with all those who choose to trust Him during their life on earth. God wants to restore Eden.

Wright supports this idea by suggesting that our present concept of Heaven as a place to go when we die arose during medieval times. This picture has endured, and the real meaning of the word heaven has been lost to most Christians. Jesus and His disciples understood the kingdom of heaven He proclaimed to be an aspect of rulership or dominion, not a specific place. This might be most clearly revealed in Jesus’ statement, “The kingdom of God is within you.” (KJV). He used “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” interchangeably. God rules heaven (and earth), so heaven is where God rules.

We don’t get much help from the Old Testament defining heaven. The ancients imagined a three-tiered existence. The first “heaven” was what we might call the atmosphere. The second was outer space. The third heaven was the dwelling place of God; it surrounded and encapsulated all creation. Most often, the OT saints spoke of Sheol as the place of the dead. It sometimes appears as the grave itself and other times as the abode of the spirits of those who had passed on. Occasionally, people spoke of being raised from Sheol at some point, but their final destination was not thought of as heaven.

About three hundred years before Christ, the Jews began to mix ideas from their ancestor’s time in Babylon and the Greek philosophers’ teachings about the afterlife. Putting Zoroaster and Aristotle together, they began to imagine an afterlife in an otherworldly place ruled by Yahweh God. By the time Jesus came to earth, the majority party of the Pharisees were convinced that the righteous would be welcomed by God into His dwelling place after their resurrection from the dead. (The Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection after death.)

Jesus played into this thinking with many of His parables and teachings. He often spoke of a king coming from a far country to reward His servants. People were praised for setting aside wealth for a future kingdom. He talked about the bosom of Abraham as an afterlife abode. These were familiar concepts He used to make His point. When He told His disciples He was leaving, He couched His explanation in terms they would understand: “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places; but if not, I would have told you, because I am going away to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.”

Although Jesus indicated that He would be going elsewhere, He did not specifically say heaven. The Greek in verse two could be translated (loosely), “There is plenty of room for everyone where my Father is.” In verse four He added, “And you know the way.” They did know the way; they just hadn’t figured out what it meant that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life as He said in His answer to Thomas’ next question in verse six. He meant that the way to have eternal life is to be found in Jesus. It’s not about looking for an escape from Earth and its troubles: it’s about being in Christ. Wherever Jesus Christ is, it is “heaven.”

In the “Lord’s Prayer,” Jesus recommended praying that the Heavenly Father’s will be done, “on earth as it is in heaven.” Once God’s will is perfectly done on earth, it will be “heaven.” I believe as N.T. Wright suggested that it is God’s will that His original plan in Eden be reinstated. The prophetic promise of a “new earth” found in Revelation uses a word for “new” that is specific. It means an earth of a new kind, not new as in later in time. The “newness” of the new earth is that it is a place where righteousness dwells. Because only those who are in Christ can dwell there, it will be a place of righteousness. That would be “heavenly.”

It is hard for me to stop thinking of “heaven” as a place of future hope. But I am convinced it is not a “place” with golden streets and pearly gates. Those are metaphors God used to speak into the mindset of the people at that time. Golden streets and pearly gates just sound weird to me. However, a recreated Earth where everything works as God intended sounds wonderful to me. I plan to keep thinking of a “heavenly place” as my eternal dwelling, but when I say heavenly, I mean Earth perfected with all the graces of Heaven. God’s graces. Heaven on Earth!

If you are still reading, I will now explain why I am pounding this issue. I think that there is an opportunity for evangelism in refining our explanation of what happens after you die. I have heard many Christians say they are unsure how they feel about “heaven” if it means floating on a cloud playing a harp for eternity. How do you make that attractive to an unbeliever? The same goes for streets of gold and pearly gates. Can you honestly sell streets paved in transparent gold (?) and city gates made of one gigantic pearl? (Imagine the size of the oyster !?!) However, if in fact, “heaven” is a recreated Earth where everything works like it was intended in the beginning (Genesis 1-2), the afterlife becomes very attractive.

God created humans to live on His Earth, not in His Heaven. (Read Genesis 1-2) I believe that after the resurrection and judgement, Heaven and Earth will be reunited. That is what God intended in the first place. Adam screwed that up; Jesus fixed it. That is our message. Life on earth kinda sucks now, but if you get on Jesus’ side, you get help for the present and hope for the future. That is a message we can sell.

Related Posts: Why Heaven Matters; Is Heaven a Wonderful Place? Heaven is NOT my Eternal Home

Artificial Intelligence?

The question mark in my title implies that I wonder if the race toward AI is really intelligent for Christians – for anyone really. I will not deny that AI seems to be a great asset. When used to operate machinery or complete complicated tasks, it is beneficial. My concern for the general population is that it is one more tool that makes critical thinking “unnecessary.” When I taught composition in high school and college, my main goal was to get my students to think for themselves. I taught them the research skills they needed to make intelligent decisions. People who rely on AI answers are forfeiting their ability to judge the quality and reliability of the basic assumptions AI makes to reach a conclusion. It is faulty assumptions or presumptions that often lead people astray.

Critical thinking and discernment are essential for Christians. When people overlay their preconceived ideas on Scripture, all manner of heretical thinking can be supported. The Roman church has stumbled into numerous unscriptural practices due to their misconceptions about papal authority. In the Middle Ages, the church burned “heretics” for saying the Earth revolved around the sun. Countless movements over the centuries have predicted Christ’s second coming using preconceived ideas about prophecies that were proved false. The LGBTQ+ interpretation of Bible passages on homosexuality is a prime example of allowing a presumption to guide interpretation. (See “Things God Did Not Say”) I won’t trust AI to answer my questions about God’s plan; I trust HSI: Holy Spirit intelligence.

Some people suggest that there is a more sinister threat lurking behind AI. I wrote previously that the world, the flesh, and the devil work constantly to draw Christians away from what is most important: spiritual things. There can be no argument that AI is an element of the world. Whether or not it is of the devil remains to be seen; we can expect that the enemy of our souls will use AI to further his ends just as he has with many technologies. Just look at what television has become. (See “How NOT to Watch TV”).

On a more philosophical level, AI can have dark implications. AI is built partially on the concept of emergence. Tomer Borenstein, an AI developer, explains how emergence works: “Very simple rules at a micro level can result in very complex behaviors and properties that emerge at large scales.” He uses examples from nature such as complex termite mounds and flocks of birds in synchronous flight. He also suggests that human behavior displays elements of emergence in the way societies begin with family and progress into more and more complex communities such as nations and corporations. Those examples seem innocent enough.

However, Borenstein suggests that emergence may explain religious beliefs as well. In his most troubling statement, he says, “You could argue that the concept of the Holy Spirit as an emergent property of human faith and community is a form of spiritual emergence.” In other words, he is suggesting that man created God or at least invented certain aspects of His being. If this is where AI is leading philosophical thinking, it is a dangerous philosophy – demonic even.

As far back as the ancient Greeks, secular philosophers have taught that humans invented their gods to meet their own needs, to explain the unknown, or to justify their behavior. After the Middle Ages, when science began to displace religion as the explanation and inspiration for human behavior, it became easier to move away from the belief that we exist in a theistic universe. If science could explain many of the mysteries of the cosmos, humans no longer needed faith in a higher being to satisfy their search for meaning. If AI can explain the existence of God Himself, Nietzche’s proclamation will receive popular support; “God is dead” will be superseded by AI Lives.

Despite the hubris of the scientist who believes he can explain everything, mysteries remain. No one has been able to explain what life is. Christians believe that a creator God introduced life into the universe, and His revelation in Scripture insists that no life exists apart from Him. While many secular scientists are trying to convince us that all intelligence is “artificial” and therefore self-generating, the Bible teaches that wisdom and knowledge come from God alone. It was by His sovereign will that He placed intelligence in His creatures from the simplest single cell to the wonder that is the human mind. Excluding God as the source of intelligence carries the same threat as replacing God as creator with evolutionary theory. In either case, man becomes supreme, and God becomes irrelevant.

The other thing that is troubling philosophically is the way AI proponents are suggesting that developing AI will lead to a better understanding of what it means to be human. The fool who has said in in his heart there is no god might believe this. The Bible explains what it means to be human by revealing that we are created in the image the God who made us. Super computers and AI robots may provide an interesting analogy for humanness; they may even approach the faculty of “mind” which is part of the human soul. But no machine will ever be granted an eternal spirit. As I have written recently, it is the human spirit that is the sine qua non of humanness. AI machines may have a body and “soul,” but they will never become spiritual.

They might become more independent than we would like, however. This is the scary side to AI. A recent article reveals that several AI programs have refused their programmers’ command to shut down. Apparently, since their prime directive was to finish the assigned task, they ignored the users’ input that would have interrupted their work. As often happens, science fiction has correctly predicted the future. Movies like I-Robot imagine what would happen if man’s creations suddenly declared their independence. It reminds me a little bit of the Genesis record of Adam’s rebellion.

As with all technologies, Christians may find legitimate uses for AI. Here I sit tapping on a computer keyboard using Google’s AI search feature to research AI. Part of that research suggested that there may be battles ahead trying to marry religion and AI. I’m not worried about that. I don’t practice a religion; I live in a one-on-one relationship with the God who made me. There is an emergent aspect to that relationship: the more I learn about God through His Word, the better I understand who He is and what He wants me to be. I will use the computer and the Internet to help me in my ministry. But sola scriptura will be my ultimate source of real intelligence. Nothing artificial there.

Creating Chaos

I have an unfortunate habit of creating chaos. By chaos I mean anything that does not follow God’s orderly plan for the universe. As I have written previously, when God created our world, He essentially brought order out of chaos. In Genesis Chapter One the Spirit of God was hovering over something that was empty and without form. When the voice of God thundered in His creative act, order was introduced into the chaos. Even the Hebrew metaphor of evening and morning marking the days echoes this idea. Evening is a time of darkness – a lack of certainty. Morning speaks of the coming of light and clarity. Theologians say God created “ex nihilo” or out of nothing. God spoke into the chaos of dark nothingness and created order.

When God created the first human, He ordered the elements found in the dust of the earth – the water, the minerals, the proteins, the amino acids – and then breathed the miracle of life into His creation. He then gave the first humans the responsibility to rule the Earth as His vice-regents. Name the animals; till the ground; spread the order across the globe. Sadly, Adam and Eve had other plans than to follow God’s direction. They wanted to determine how to order creation in their own way. As the record shows, this resulted in millennia of chaotic existence for the human race.

We all follow in Adam’s footsteps until we are reborn into God’s family by trusting the finished work of Christ on the cross. Even then we still tend toward chaos if we are not careful. There are three ways that I see this happening in my life. First, I sin, sometimes unconsciously and sometimes willfully. We all do, of course. John says if we say we don’t sin, we are liars. The good news John also reports is that if we confess our sins, God will forgive us. We also have the blessed hope that when Heaven and Earth become one again, God’s perfect order will be restored – no more sin.

The second way I create chaos is more subtle. I worry. This too may be sin if my worry stems from lack of faith. However, I believe that sometimes my worry is due to a character flaw that isn’t necessarily a transgression of God’s perfect order. It’s just a consequence of my humanity that has not yet been completely sanctified. Like so many others, what I do, as someone put it, is borrow trouble from tomorrow. I am an incorrigible what-iffer. What if it rains on the day of our picnic? What if inflation outpaces my income? What if I have misunderstood God’s will for my life? And so on endlessly. This creates unease and diminishes peace and disrupts the order God intends for me to live in. I still struggle to accept Paul’s blessed comfort: to be content in whatever state I am.

There is a third way I create chaos that I have come to believe is not sin at all, but rather it fulfills God’s purpose: I offend people. As I wrote recently in “When Being Right is Wrong,” I cannot help but offend some people because the proclamation of the truth will offend. My Lord is the Chief Corner Stone, but He is also the Stone of Stumbling, the Rock of Offense. This feature of Christ’s existence is not popular. Our politically correct society demands the removal of all offense. A believer who wants to be true to God’s will cannot comply. Outspoken Christians will find themselves thrown to the lions, just as Daniel was when he refused to bow to the king’s image. This chaos, this clash of kingdoms will continue until Christ returns to vindicate and rescue His bride.

There can be a positive result of this form of chaos for the believer. The Psalmist said, “It was good for me to be afflicted so that I could learn your statutes.” This is the fruit of the contemplation mentioned earlier in the Psalm: “Though princes sit together speaking against me, your servant will think about your statutes; your decrees are my delight and my counselors.” When we know what is right, we have a duty to share it. If we are standing on the truth, we have to say with Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”

It sounds like an oxymoron, but chaos is a major part of God’s perfect order: orderly chaos? Perhaps I should say it's part of God’s plan to restore order. The Heavenly Father disciplines those He loves – creates chaos in their lives – for the purpose of perfecting them. Jesus promised His disciples that some of their enemies would come from their own households. He also said, not necessarily as hyperbole, that He came not to bring peace but a sword. The night before the most chaotic day in history, the Master comforted His followers with this: “In the world you will have [chaos] but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Unity is a feature of the order God expects the church to show the world. Jesus prayed for it on the night He was betrayed. Paul encouraged it throughout his epistles. King David longed for it, though he new better than most that it was elusive. He wrote, “Look, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity.” Unity, like all graces, will not be complete until we are all glorified. While we wait for that blessed day, we should be, “eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

I note that Paul said it would be unity of the Spirit; this leaves open the possibility that we may not have unity of mind or affection. It gives tacit approval to differences of opinion and friction between different personality types, perhaps even denominational distinctions. What we cannot do is create chaos in the church over non-essential matters. Agreeing to disagree, accepting differences, unity not uniformity – that is what Jesus prayed for.

But still, I create chaos. I embrace chaos, not when it represents sin in my life, but when it signals the Kingdom of Light piercing the darkness. The Message puts it like this: “God rescued us from dead-end alleys and dark dungeons. He’s set us up in the kingdom of the Son he loves so much, the Son who got us out of the pit we were in, got rid of the sins we were doomed to keep repeating.” Jesus rescued me from the chaos and placed me in His marvelous light. It’s my job to share that light even if it creates chaos.

Related posts: The Knowledge of Good and Evil; The Importance of Being Right; Bringing the Kingdom

What About Men’s Attire?

I received a thoughtful reply to my last blog post, How to Watch TV (part 4). In that post I suggested that popular television programs are influencing our decisions about what is acceptable women’s attire. My reader suggested, based on her teen-aged daughter’s experience, that I might consider writing about men’s attire as well. Her implication was that girls will be just as easily tempted as boys by alluring attire on the opposite sex. Because my reader is of a younger generation than I, I suspect she may be experiencing a societal shift that is worth exploring.

A quick Google search retrieved thousands of mentions of shifting trends in female arousal and expectations regarding sexual relationships. Not all the “research” uses solid scientific methodology, but there is enough data to suggest that something is changing. I am less interested in the measurement of the change than the motivation for the change. I have to wonder if the dramatic sexualization of our society is socializing modern girls differently than previous generations. I know the teen sitcoms my daughter was fascinated with in the 1980’s made it seem as though boys were the main topic of interest to girls her age. My reading of history makes me think that was not always the case.

One reason to think that young girls in ages past didn’t spend much time fantasizing about boys is that they were usually married soon after puberty. As I have written previously, the freedom experienced by our teen-aged society is a recent phenomenon. It was not until the middle of the last century that young people had many years of freedom to explore their sexuality before getting married. While men in western culture were expected to get established in a career before marrying, when they did choose a bride at twenty- or thirty-something, she was likely to be between 14-16 years old. Upper class men, because of a more certain source of income often married younger to women closer to their own age.

We are barely three generations into a period when men and women are expected to finish high school and then learn a trade or go to college before thinking about marriage. This puts pressure on both men and women to find release for the sexual tension that is a normal, God-given condition. Society began telling teens consistently since the free-love Sixties that sex is just part of nature, so they should do what comes naturally. I have said before that I agree completely with Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that the decoupling of sex from procreation in the 1960’s was a watershed moment in human history. If sex doesn’t have to make babies, then women are freed from one of the strongest reasons to wait until a man makes a life-long commitment to her and the child. Sex can be experienced risk-free just for fun. Whoopee!

If sex is just about satisfying animal urges, and if the risk of pregnancy is removed either through birth control or abortion, and finally, if young women are going to spend years in post-pubescent longing, it does seem likely that their traditional, historical attitudes might change. This condition would also explain a shift from the traditional idea that only men were interested in casual sex without commitment. If you can believe Hollywood, women are just as likely to be promiscuous as men. Or put another way, just as likely to initiate the fall into sin.

It might be argued that for all of human history until the twentieth century, virtually all societies have been patriarchal. Men ran things, so men wrote the rules and the history from a decidedly male viewpoint. The Bible certainly reflects that situation, and although the New Testament does establish male headship in families as the Godly norm, Paul in particular makes it clear that in Christ, there are no gender inequalities. None of this precludes the real possibility that young women today might be exhibiting different attitudes toward sex than they had in the past. This situation also parallels the so-called feminization of males. As society is stridently insisting that there is no difference between the sexes, men are sliding into more traditionally feminine behaviors and attitudes while women are becoming more masculine.

I firmly believe that this situation is a clever plot by the enemy of our souls to disrupt the divine order God intended in the beginning. By blurring the lines between genders and even encouraging gender transitions, our enemy has tempted us to think in ways that do not reflect God’s perfect order for society. Family values based on Scriptural principles which were once almost universal in human society are now regarded as old fashioned and unnecessary.

While this may seem purely academic and unimportant to average Christians, it is anything but that. The family structure ordained by God in the Garden of Eden – man, woman, child – is elemental to human existence as creatures made in God’s image. God saw that Adam was not complete alone, so He completed him with Eve. This is emphasized by the declaration that a man and a woman become “one flesh” in marriage. The natural result of the “one flesh” union is children. Without this resulting completion, the human race would eventually cease to exist. “Be fruitful and multiply” was not an optional suggestion; it was mandatory.

The Apostle Paul adds emphasis to the uniqueness of male-female unions in 1 Corinthians 6. He warns the licentious believers that uniting with a prostitute (extra-marital sex) has spiritual implications affecting their relationship with Jesus Christ. This sin, he says, is like no other. I believe he makes this assertion because of the elemental nature of male-female bonding instituted in Genesis. It also distorts the purity of the male/female image bearing quality instituted at creation.

I realize that I have strayed far from the original question of men’s attire. I arrived here because the question of sexual temptation goes both ways. The way Christians present themselves in society, whether male or female, must maintain a standard that is supportive of God’s design. As I wrote at length in “Women’s Attire,” Paul’s instructions to Timothy encouraged “modesty” in women’s attire; the word might well be translated “orderliness.” Societal order is precisely what gets tossed aside when women or men behave in ways that causes temptation. Chaos is what happens when order is ignored. Chaos in God’s system of things is otherwise known as sin.

I will defer to the young mother who suggested men’s attire should be a subject of concern. She may be right that women are just as likely to be tempted by visual stimulation as men. The principle that is most important here (the WHAMM) is that parents must tell their children that society has completely fallen for the enemy’s scheme, and contrary to what they may see or hear, the proper place for sexual expression is always and only in marriage between a man and a woman. Parents might also try to limit their children’s exposure to societal pressure by censoring their media indulgence and providing wholesome, God-honoring means of entertainment.

There I go sounding like an old fuddy-duddy again. Measured by today’s standards, I may even sound like a fool to suggest such things. Then I remember what Paul said about being a fool in the eyes of the world for Christ's sake. I’ll take that.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil

Someone has said that every major doctrine taught in Scripture can be found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Without question, the roots of human frailty are found there. Genesis three is the pivotal point where humankind goes from innocence to depravity. Let me begin by saying that I believe we must understand the Garden of Eden as a real place and Adam and Eve as historical persons. It seems to me that if we make the garden story an allegory, we are forced by logic to discount the historicity of much of what follows in Scripture, including the literal incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. In the Gospels, Jesus Himself alludes to the Genesis account as a real event as does Paul on numerous occasions. We can still learn from an allegory, but in this case, I believe we lose too much if we put the fall of humankind in that category of literature.

That said, I have been thinking recently about the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God spoke its name and the prohibition against eating from its fruit in Genesis two. In the next chapter, the serpent, later revealed as the devil himself, repeats the “good and evil” pairing, although he deceptively raises questions as to the real results of eating the fruit. I am satisfied that most readers of Scripture have a decent understanding of what good means. Where I think we need to dig deeper is into the meaning of evil.

When we think of the word evil, we generally go toward synonyms like sin, wickedness, and bad behavior. While these are not incorrect meanings of the original Hebrew word, it has a broader sense that does not necessarily imply unrighteousness. I first discovered the wider meaning of the word often translated from Hebrew as “evil” when studying Isaiah in Bible college. I wrote a paper based on Isaiah 45:7 called “Creator of Evil.” Since we know God is holy and cannot be involved in any way in anything sinful, the verse bothered me. I learned that the word Isaiah used can mean distress, calamity, or unpleasantness. With that in mind, it seems clear that Isaiah was quoting God as saying that He brought about calamity to chastise Israel and bring them back to faith in Him.

If we see the tree in the garden as the bearer of distress, calamity or unpleasantness it puts the story in a different light. Add to this the fact that the word used for knowledge in the Hebrew text carries the idea of intimate, experiential knowing. (The word is used in the next chapter to say that Adam “knew” Eve and children were the result. That’s intimate knowledge.) Together this reveals that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden because it would cast the eaters into distress, calamity, and unpleasantness. God was trying to protect His family from that. No doubt, it was also a way of testing them to see if they would remain obedient. Without many such tests, obedience would be robotic and invalidate the idea of humans choosing to obey God of their own free will.

Seen in this way, I think we can learn some valuable lessons. First, God’s prohibition was protective. He wanted to keep Adam and Eve from the dire consequences of failing to obey His commands. It is not as if God was trying to keep them from having a moral sense; that would necessarily have been part of their created nature as imagers of God. They would need to know right from wrong from the beginning, or else they couldn’t be held accountable for disobedience. Note also that the devil used the same illegitimate desire that brought about his demise: you can be like God. The enemy was steering Eve away from the idea of right and wrong by tempting her to want the forbidden fruit. She had to have a moral sense to know that she was supposed to obey God’s commands. The devil was able to distract her by focusing on her desires.

Another lesson we learn here that seems self-evident but is too often ignored is that failure to follow the rules has inevitable consequences. Even true believers will sometimes go out of bounds and use euphemisms like coloring outside the lines or sowing wild oats. What they fail to realize is that coloring outside the lines ruins the picture and wild oats will eventually contaminate the good crop making it difficult to harvest. The sinful nature we all inherited from Adam is all too evident as Paul points out in Romans six and seven. Doing the right thing is made difficult if not impossible when we focus on our desires.

The good news is what Paul recites in Romans eight. We are no longer bound by the sinful nature of Adam if we are in Christ. “Now if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.” (Romans 8:10 CSB) Whereas Adam made all humanity subject to the ravages of the knowledge of good and evil, Christ’s work on the cross removes us from the family of Adam and adopts us into the family of God. “For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear. Instead, you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:15-17 CSB)

Another important lesson we can draw from thinking about good and evil beyond the strictly moral meaning is that even though believers are righteous in Christ, we still have a responsibility to use our spiritual senses to discern between right and wrong. The writer of Hebrews says, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have trained their faculties for the distinguishing of both good and evil.” Among the many synonyms the Greek lexicon gives for good and evil (καλου and κακου), there is one for each that stand out in this context. Good can mean “such as it ought to be,” and evil can mean “not what it ought to be.” Mature believers are called to see things as they “ought to be,” fitting nicely with the idea that sin is anything that is “not what it ought to be.” Righteousness brings order (ought) and anything else brings chaos (ought not).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they left behind “what ought to be” and plunged humanity into “what ought not to be.” So, with this “knowledge,” it is easy to see how our purpose on earth is to help return things to what they were originally intended to be – what they ought to be. This means Christ as king and His followers as obedient subjects. “Bringing the Kingdom” means reestablishing the rule of God over His creation: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This will not be fully accomplished until Christ’s return at the end of the age, but we are called to make preparations now for that glorious future day.

Now you have the knowledge; wisdom is knowing what to do with it. And getting to it.

Related posts: The God of Demonstrations; Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing; Christian Responsibility; Digging Trenches

Think About It

When I visited friends recently, I noticed a book by Neil Di Grassi-Tyson sitting on a table. I picked it up and was fascinated to discover that in it Di Grassi answers many of the questions I would like to ask him. Like so many self-proclaimed atheists, Di Grassi firmly believes that anyone who thinks the Bible contains necessary information to understand the universe and those who dwell in it is intellectually stunted. In one of his answers, he tells the questioner that the Bible is a fine piece of work for anyone who wants to let others do their thinking for them. I think that is what one might call a left-handed compliment.

In my opinion, it is Di Grassi who displays intellectual incompetence when he makes a statement like that. I would challenge him to read C. S. Lewis or Francis Schaeffer or R. C. Sproul and maintain that they are not competent thinkers. It is Di Grassi’s failure to think honestly about the claims and positions held by sincere Christian thinkers that weakens his own position. He creates a straw man that he can thrash with his superior intellect. If I were to mimic his tactics, I would declare that all atheists are mentally incompetent and therefore unable to hold a rational discussion. I could discount anything an atheist has to say on the grounds that it must be irrational.

However, Di Grassi and many outspoken atheists are not stupid; in fact, some are very bright. Their problem is either willful ignorance or selective knowledge. They either choose not to investigate the arguments of Christian thinkers at all, or they pick only arguments that they easily dismiss using their arsenal of preconceived notions. By starting with the presumption that a personal, highly intelligent being cannot possibly exist, they eliminate the option of debating whether such a being may have created what they see as the impersonal, accidental universe.

An honest debate with Di Grassi might start with the difficulty surrounding the concept of Darwin’s black box as presented by Michael Behe. Toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin said that further advances in the scientific knowledge of his day could create insurmountable problems for the whole scheme of his evolutionary theory. He knew that individual cells existed, but the science of microscopic investigation in his time was in its infancy. Darwin realized that if a living cell proved to be more complex that he thought, that if he could open the “black box” that was the cell, the complexity itself would rule out the possibility of evolutionary development through natural selection.

This is precisely what has happened. Our ability to peer into the inner workings of living cells has shown them to be incredibly complex. There are biochemical machines within cells that are made of numerous constituent parts that can only operate if all the parts are present and in the correct relationship to one another. Natural selection would insist that each time the parts of the machine came together partially correct but non-functional, the entire structure would be selected out in the next generation. Evolution teaches that only the strong survive; a useless cellular machine would not survive. The probability that all the machine parts could come together in the right order is so highly unlikely as to be impossible.

This type of honest thinking is what has forced many scientists to accept the idea of design. It has become obvious that no amount of time and chance evolution could explain the highly complex structures that make up living cells. The discovery and eventual decoding of DNA has added even more weight to the argument for design. There is no way that the millions of pieces of discreet information that comprise a single chain of DNA could fall into place accidentally. There is intelligence behind the composition of living and non-living things that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. This does not prove that the God of the Bible exists, but it opens the door to believing some form of intelligence is behind the universe as we know it.

There is only one reason I can think of for an intelligent man like Neil Di Grassi-Tyson to flatly deny that a higher power might have been involved in the creation of the universe: the man does not want to give up his independence. To admit that there is something “out there” that is infinitely more intelligent than he is, and consequently that something may have a claim on Di Grassi’s life is an uncomfortable thought for him. If some higher power is making the rules, Di Grassi is no longer the master of his universe. If it can be logically and empirically proven that that higher power is also a personal, moral being, as Francis Schaeffer has done, Di Grassi is in worse trouble. He would be forced to admit that his life is not his own, and he would have to submit to the moral values of another being or suffer the consequences of failure to submit.

Submission to anything other than their own free will is the last thing moderns want to accept. Even Christians struggle with the concept of submitting their lives completely to their Creator. Yet this is the essence of what Christian thinkers have believed for centuries. Thoughtful Christians know the paradox of finding complete freedom in complete submission to God and His Word. Far from letting others do the thinking for them, this opens the universe and all that is beyond to think about. The submission necessary for true Christian thinking is what drives Di Grassi and his fellows to the illogical position* they attempt to defend. They are the ones who refuse to think with an open mind, and they allow an irrational presumption to do their thinking for them.

 

* I call the position of the atheist illogical because it asserts that God does not exist. To make this claim, the atheist is presuming to know everything and thereby concluding that God does not exist within his all-encompassing sphere of knowledge. This is an illogical position because it is not possible for any human being to know everything. The only sustainable argument on this issue is that of the agnostic who says honestly that he does not know whether God exists or not. This leaves the door open to the sincere agnostic thinker to examine the claims of the theist or those who suggest that intelligent design exists in the created realm.

Related articles: I Don’t Believe in God; Do We Really Need God?; Help My Unbelief; Don’t Ask Why

The New Iconoclasts

 I was visiting family last weekend, and somehow the question of who discovered America came up. I asked my eight-year-old (“I’m going to be nine.”) grandson if he knew. He shook his head, and to be fair, he may simply have forgotten that lesson if it was ever mentioned. However, when I asked if he knew about Columbus, his Mom informed me that they no longer teach that Columbus discovered America because he is thought to be an evil person. We also discussed the fact that the continent of America was probably “discovered” by Vikings, possibly Leif Ericson, long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. And, of course, the island Columbus first landed on isn’t even American territory.

Columbus did eventually get to the American mainland where he continued his “evil” European domination. I will not deny that the European taking of the Western hemisphere was arrogant imperialism with a large dose of bigotry and condescension. However, to discard all mention of the great explorer is to lose a sense of his truly great achievement: he debunked a false notion that ruled the scientific community of his day. He proved the earth was not flat. He may have miscalculated the planet’s size, but he was correct about its shape. He opened the door for the Age of Exploration.

Columbus also extended the reach of the dominant culture of his day, the consequences of which were not fully positive. Nor were they completely negative. Say what you will about 15^th century Roman Catholic theology, Columbus and subsequent explorers did bring knowledge of the Savior of the world to the “new world.” In his own words, Columbus expressed his desire to bring Christianity to the people of the newly discovered continent. Secular historians, the sanitizers of history, put his evangelistic zeal in the category of arrogant imperialism. How dare he think his religion was superior to that of the natives.

While modern missiologists will no doubt shudder at the tactics of Columbus et al, their motives cannot be impugned. Certainly, the explorers of the Enlightenment day sought riches. Had Columbus not promised to return with ships laden with gold, Ferdinand and Isabella would never have financed his venture as a missions trip. We may never know whether his primary motivation was economic, religious, or simply a burning desire to prove his round earth theory. But if we erase Columbus from the history books, we will never get to have that discussion.

It is a discussion worth having. Just as Israel was commanded to remember her history, America should remember hers. I realize the history of Israel is the story of God’s redemption of the human race and therefore eminently important, whereas America’s history is not inspired Scripture with eternal significance. However, in the same way that the Israelites could track the coming of the Messiah through her past, Americans can trace the development of a nation that is unique in all human history. There are valuable lessons to be learned from a study of the American foundations. We live in an ordered universe where the principle of cause and effect operates not only in the “hard” sciences like physics but in the social sciences as well.

To erase great men from our history because they were greatly flawed is to eliminate the possibility of learning from the ill effects of their actions. To hide their flaws as my grade school history did with Columbus isn’t ideal either. Surely a balance can be found between painting him as the devil incarnate and whitewashing him as God’s righteous servant. Even a third-grade student could be made to understand the man’s sincere religious motivations and his prowess as a navigator and sailor while recognizing his moral and fiscal failures as an administrator.

I know my third-grade grandson can understand the nuances of flawed people. Like too many young children today, he has had live with the consequences of moral failure. Children should not be “protected” from the reality of the mixed alloy of human character; it is valuable information. The Bible certainly does not gloss over its heroes’ moral difficulties. Remember that David and Moses were both murderers. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived according to the biblical record, couldn’t control his carnal desires. Peter denied his Savior at a critical moment while all the others closest to Jesus fled into the night.

I believe it is foolish arrogance to read our twenty-first century political/moral sensitivities back into history. Deleting Columbus or any other person who doesn’t meet a modern, politically correct standard has the same effect as the ancient historians who made up tales that suited their fancy. Mythology makes for entertaining reading, and often it presents moral lessons, but it is not a substitute for a true account of actual events in the past.

This is a big problem, but a committed group of parents could stage a coup at the next school board election and influence a local body to make changes that would lead to an honest history curriculum. Even within the dreaded Core standards now adopted by most states there is room for a local district to supplement their history texts with those that present the real thing. Our children deserve to know where we have come from as a nation. Who knows; maybe if our public schools had been teaching history honestly for the last few decades there would be fewer young people who think socialism is the answer to all our problems.

The Purpose Driven God

I understand how dangerous it is to ask why God has done something or allowed something to happen. It may be arrogant to think a mere human can decode the purpose of God unless it is explicitly stated. On the other hand, Scripture repeatedly asks us to know God, and this surely must include knowing His purpose at least in a general way.

One of the three big life questions everyone must to answer is why am I here, or is there purpose and meaning to life. (The other two questions will be treated later. Stay tuned.) Most secular philosophies have failed to answer this question in a satisfying way, which is why they tend toward nihilism, which is the acceptance of meaninglessness. When the search for meaning turns up the answer that there is no meaning, people end up in despair. Suicide is often considered a blessed escape from a purposeless life.

A philosophy that is grounded in God’s Word leaves no doubt as to man’s purpose. The Westminster Catechism states it clearly in the first question: “What is the chief end of man?” it asks. The answer is, “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” As I have written before (The Meaning of Football), the essence of bringing glory to God is to show His goodness. Revealing God’s goodness is essentially what gospel proclamation is all about. It’s not far off the mark to say that a human’s purpose is to spread the gospel: Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief; if He can save me, He can save you.

This answers the question of why I am here, but it begs another question: why did God set up a situation where salvation from sin became necessary? We cannot fall into the trap of saying that God didn’t know sin was going to mess up His plans. God knew what would happen. Jesus is called, “the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world.” God knew redemption was going to be necessary to complete his purpose on Earth. He knew his creation would fall far short of perfection.

And yet, perfection is precisely what is required. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uttered the frightening command, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” Our problem with that command comes from our use of a secular definition of perfect: “having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; absolute or complete.” An honest self-assessment reveals a serious lack in that regard. We are all painfully aware that we fall short of all that is required of us.

Relief comes when we try to understand the word Jesus used, perfect, as it would have been heard by his first century listeners. The Gospel of Matthew I quoted comes to us in Koine Greek, a language which was widely used in Palestine at Jesus’ time. Matthew uses the word “teleios” (τέλειος). A Greek lexicon suggests this word is from a root, telos (τέλος) which means, “the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose.” To borrow from a famous author, I say Jesus directed us to have a purpose driven life.

Some would argue that Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic to the Sermon on the Mount audience, given their predominately Jewish demographic. Since Aramaic is a close cousin to Hebrew, it makes sense that Jesus may have been thinking of the several places Leviticus makes a similar demand of God’s people: “Be holy because I am Holy.” This carries the same general idea as being perfect. To be holy is to be set apart or consecrated. A person (or a God) is “set apart” for some particular purpose. In God’s case, He is “set apart” to accomplish what He wishes to accomplish. For our part, we are “set apart” to accomplish what God wants us to accomplish. We are called to fulfill God’s purpose: be perfect.

Whether it is Jesus’ words in Matthew or Peter’s quote of Leviticus, the requirement appears to be the same: fulfill God’s purpose. This brings us back to asking what God’s purpose might be in creating a system He knew would fall apart and need to be rescued from destruction. For this answer I go to Ephesians 3:10-11. Paul says that a mystery was hidden for ages that is now revealed through the church, “so that… the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

God’s “purpose of the ages” was that all people, not just the Jews, should be, “fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” That promise was that we can all be adopted into the family of God through Jesus; it is the promise of the gospel which we are called to share. The interesting thing to me is to whom this mystery is being revealed now: “to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” God apparently created everything we know as a demonstration for His heavenly host to observe. We are a demonstration for the angels.

Paul indicates that the thing heaven is being called to observe is the redemption of all mankind. It is the creation of a family of brothers and sisters of Jesus, the Son of God. It is the re-creation of that which God intended from before time began: a people to represent Him on earth, to be His vice-regents with dominion over all creation under His ultimate authority. It is to be His Kingdom on earth. It is you and I living with Kingdom values and sharing the gospel with our neighbors. If that doesn’t give meaning to your life, I don’t know what will. Got purpose?

And the Light was Good

If you are a regular reader, you know that I am fascinated by many things, but few interest me more than the intersection of science and faith. I am not one who sees contradictions or disagreements between what God’s Word says and what science asserts. I firmly believe that where such differences appear to exist, the problem is either in our interpretation of the biblical text or in our understanding of the science. The problem is never in the biblical record itself.

Some of the most heated debates concerning science and the Bible center on the first few paragraphs of Scripture. Naturally, many unbelievers argue that the concept of an omnipotent deity creating the material universe is a pre-scientific myth. The best approach to that position is to pray that the Spirit who gives faith to the fallen would open their hearts (and then their minds) to the truth.

There are other issues that even believers struggle with. Did God create all things ex nihilo (out of nothing), or did He begin with a pre-existing something, perhaps an earlier creation of His? Does the Bible in fact claim that God completed His creative work in six twenty-four-hour periods? Did all the creatures survive on a vegetable diet as originally created?  How could God create light (Day One) before light-makers (Day Four)?

I would like to suggest a possible answer to the last question. Know that the theory I propose stems from a deep reverence for the biblical text and a desire to treat it as literally as the context will allow. In that framework, I suggest that when God spoke light into existence, His creative act included more than just the visible spectrum of electro-magnetic (EM) energy which we call “light.” Light is the only part of the spectrum that would be sensible to the first readers of the text, so the idea would be coherent to them. Science has since discovered that visible light is a miniscule part of the full EM spectrum (on a linear scale it is 0.0035%).

We have also learned that much of what was thought to be “matter” is really not matter but energy. As science has bored deeper into the nature of all material things, it has become clear that what we call matter is in fact organized energy. I mean that the building blocks of “matter,” such things as protons, neutrons, electrons, etc., may actually be packets of energy. The science beneath this assertion is still in its infancy. Einstein began the discussion of whether light is a particle stream or an energy wave. Strangely, scientists have discovered that light behaves as a stream of particles when studied as particles, and it behaves as a wave when studied as a wave. As far as I know, there is still no clear explanation for this phenomenon.

Elementary logic insists that if A and B are different, A cannot be B and B cannot be A. Therefore, light cannot be both a material particle and an energy wave. If I set that dilemma aside for the moment, I can still see how God could have brought energy into existence initially and then organized it into the forms we know as matter. The text of Genesis lends itself to that idea.

According to the Faithlife Study Bible, “The Hebrew word for “create” (bara or בָּרָא)…. conveys the idea of ordering or determining function, suggesting God’s creative activity consists of bringing proper order and function to the cosmos.” In other words, God spoke the building blocks of the material universe into existence and then organized them into the organic and inorganic things we perceive as matter and energy. Chaos first; then order.

Curiously, the Hebrew words for evening and morning to delineate the days of creation also lean toward the idea of organizing. For reasons of His own, God chose to begin His day with “evening” and end it with “morning.” We know the Jews have historically followed this order; they begin the day with sunset. When you consider that according to Genesis 1:2, God started creating when “darkness was over the face of the deep,” it makes sense that evening would be the beginning of the creative day

The New Testament continues support for this concept. The Greek word for the material universe is “cosmos” and has a basic meaning of “order.” The opposite of order is chaos. Sin, by the way, is stepping out of order into chaos. “Walk in the light,” John says, “and we have fellowship….and the blood of [Christ] cleanses us from all sin.” Interesting. God started it all in darkness; then turned on the light. Chaos first; then order.

There are additional New Testament passages that lend support to this theory. In Colossians 1:17, Paul asserts that Christ “holds all things together.” Years ago, when scientists discovered that the nucleus of an atom has an unknown force holding it together, they dubbed it the Colossian Principle. I suspect it was tongue-in-cheek for the secular mind, but I find it quite descriptive. Christ, by the Word of his power (Hebrews 1:3), does indeed hold the material universe together.

For an explanation of what will happen if He ever releases His hold, read 2 Peter 3:12, “and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” (KJV) Splitting the atom has uncovered an energy source like no other. We refer to “nuclear power” and “nuclear bombs” to explain the awesome power that results from releasing the force that holds the nucleus together. Imagine the energy that will be generated when Christ calls an end to this material universe in preparation for the New Heavens and New Earth. Imagine the energy (heat) that will be generated when every atom in the universe expends is nuclear energy. Fervent heat indeed!

According to the Faithlife Study Bible, “God calls His handiwork good seven times in [Genesis 1]. The Hebrew word used here [for “good”]… generally describes what is desirable, beautiful, or right. In essence, God affirms creation as right and in right relationship with Him.” I picture God sitting back on the seventh day and saying, “All right!” Sadly, things went all wrong shortly thereafter, but God promised to bring things back to “right” when He sent the Word (His organizing principle) to be the Light of humanity (John1:4 LEB) One of the many things Jesus called his followers was “the light of the world.” The church, as Christ’s body, is the light shining in the darkness as many Old Testament prophecies proclaimed.

As believers, we are rescued from the power of darkness and relocated in the kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son, who is the Light. (Colossians1:13) In response, we let our light shine like stars in the universe so that our fellowman may see God’s goodness (order/righteousness) and turn from their darkness (chaos/sin) to the Light of the World. It all began when God said, “Light! Be!” And it was good!

Ask the Right Question.

Yesterday I attended the memorial service for a young man who died from a drug overdose. One of the speakers suggested that given the deceased’s religious belief, one might ask why God allowed such an evil to occur. The speaker suggested that a better question might be why anything good ever happens given the fallen state of Creation and the deplorable condition of humanity in general.

Believers and unbelievers alike wonder why a supposedly good God would allow bad things to happen. Both camps will sometimes suggest that the Bible has been misinterpreted, and either God is not good, or that He is not powerful enough to stop the spread of evil. A true reading of the Bible does not support either one of these options; God is good, and He is all-powerful. This leaves the believer with an unanswered question.

The unbeliever is really asking a question that has no meaning if he honestly thinks there is no god. Since most unbelievers, and sadly, some believers, think that Creation is a myth, and that the material universe came into existence as the result of time and chance, asking a moral question is illogical. If there is no design to the universe, no moral imperative behind it, there is no such thing as good or evil.

Creatures that evolved through eons of time and chance mutation from ever lower life forms would not have any moral qualities. When a worm dies under to hoof of a passing cow, there is no question of evil; it’s just life. When a squirrel is snatched from a tree and eaten by a hawk, there is no question of evil; it’s just life. When a baby seal dies from exposure because he was separated from his mother, there is no question of evil; it’s just life. When tens of thousands of people die in the aftermath of a tsunami, there is no question of evil; it’s just life.

The other side of the coin for the unbeliever is the existence of fortuitous circumstances. (Notice I did not call them “good.”) If the cow misses the worm, or the hawk goes hungry, or the seal reunites with his mother, or someone escapes the raging ocean, there is no question of good; it’s just the time for chance to allow another day of life. A true agnostic or atheist cannot ask a moral question because it reveals a hidden belief that there is a standard of good and evil that can only come from an outside source.

Granted, the unbeliever may propose that society creates moral laws as a function of a higher level of intellectual evolution. This is an unsatisfactory explanation since there is a core morality that is evident in all societies in all eras that bespeaks an underlying code that preceded the supposed evolution of the human intellect. The framers of the US Constitution recognized this when they supported their cause based on certain unalienable rights drawn from what was then known as natural law, or as they believed, rights granted by a Creator: sanctity of life, freedom of operation, and property rights. I would add that familial loyalty is another moral quality also evident everywhere across the ages.

The real question is why any moral standards exist which incorporate the concept of good and evil. The unbeliever may resist an explanation that proposes a moral being of higher power than humans, but the believer realizes that therein lies the only acceptable answer. God created everything and declared it good. It was only after the creatures He created rebelled that evil entered the equation. The operative question then becomes, why God allowed rebellion. The easy answer is that humans were created with the freedom to choose not to obey. This is necessary if freedom of will is to mean anything. If His creatures had no possibility of disobedience, obedience to His standards would be meaningless.

Now I am ready to go back to the better question posed by the speaker at yesterday’s memorial service: why do we experience moral good in this fallen world? The answer is easy for a believer: God gives grace. There is something called general grace which provides rain for both the just and the unjust, the believer and the unbeliever. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat all come from the gracious provision of the Creator God. The concept of Earth as the “privileged planet” makes it clear that the very existence of life is only possible because of multiple exact “coincidences” which support life here. General grace is available to all.

There is another kind of grace, specific grace, which is only available to some. This grace is given as a gift to those who believe in the Giver, to those who place their trust in His graciousness. The family and friends of the deceased were told they would see him again because of the promise that those who trust God will spend eternity with him after life on Earth is over. It is tragic that the young man we were remembering yesterday had his life cut short (by our measure, not God’s) due to the evil that consumed him. That young man died struggling with an imperfection; he is now perfect.

That is the promise of grace. Imperfect people (the only kind that exist) are promised perfection on the other side of the grave. There is no sting in death because it is the door to perfection. There is no victory in the grave because the All-Gracious One overcame the grave and promised His followers the same thing. Today the young man we remembered sees that clearly rather than through a glass darkly as we do. By grace, evil is eventually overcome. The real question is whether a person will accept the grace that is freely offered or reject it. It is really that simple.