Does any of it really
matter? Seriously…is the origin of Humanity so important that it becomes a
barrier to open dialogue regarding other matters of life? Is existence
transient or is it eternal? Are there any objective answers to all of this
stuff… and where does faith fit in?
At what point does an
objective persuasive argument about God or science, creation or evolution, become
subjective? Is there an absolute truth that answers all of the evidence
regarding life, its meaning and our place within it? Could it be that the
boundaries between scientific study and philosophical argument are too
insurmountable to overcome? I have heard great intellectual thinkers discuss
the intricacies of physics as they attempt to explain that an eternal universe popped
into existence from nothing. I have also listened to those that discuss the age
of the universe in such a way that they describe the universe as having no
beginning and it is indeed infinite. I have also heard scientists talk about
the evidence of physics pointing to a beginning of the universe in a big bang,
but what actually is the truth?
I have then heard
these same people argue that God does not exist because they have never seen God,
and have no evidence of God to prove his existence. People who use their personal
experiences of God as evidence for his existence are often refuted as offering
only circumstantial evidence but not fact. They might argue that people who are
witness to ghosts or of aliens are as equally valid in their assertions of
truth, as those who say they have experienced God; these people believe it
happened to them so why doubt them?
The argument centres
around who can corroborate the evidence presented. DNA evidence could be used but in the case of God, it is difficult to quantify
this unless you are prepared to accept that humanity was created in his own
image; we can use science to explore the nature of God through the complexity
of biological study… We can also use eyewitness accounts to corroborate the
facts, particularly if more than one witness statement confirms the events as
described. However, even with the four Gospels and some early writing from 1st
century philosophers and historians, some still doubt the eyewitness accounts
as being factual, preferring to classify them as circumstantial evidence.
If it is to be believed
that the Gospels were being formed within five years of the event of Jesus, and
that the manuscripts were being copied using the high standards of oral and
written tradition that a pre-printing society could manage; with the earliest
manuscripts published by AD50, it isn't inconceivable to consider perhaps, that
on reflection, the quality of the evidence was at best, an expression of what
they believed took place; embellished by the writers own understanding of the
events, rather than a factual account. Indeed we know that the writers used the
eyewitness accounts of many others in the formulation of the Gospel accounts,
with the Gospel of Mark used by both Luke and Matthew as a reference for their
own text. Why did they do this? They did it so that the truth of the Gospels
would be authentic recollections of the events that took place.
I find that in the
middle of all of the arguments, that logic can often break down and that objective
opinion can quickly become subjective... as one wise Vulcan Science officer
once said; ‘Logic is the beginning of wisdom.’ (STAR TREK: The Undiscovered Country). How open are we to
accommodate thinking that might be abstract from our usual understanding of
truth? There needs to be consensus that it isn't necessarily about the amount
of corroborative evidence available, but the quality of it. Just because people
are claiming that they have been abducted by aliens and sincerely believe it, doesn't necessarily lead to the truth of alien existence. In law, it can often
be the case that although there seems to be enough primary evidence to
establish that an offence has been committed, the lack of corroborative
information can lead to a misappropriation of justice. “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.” (Spock)
The focus for making
an argument for or against something is to discern fact from opinion.
Facts are objective, and are derived from some form of scientific observation
or the application of a theoretical model that supports an assumption made and
as such, are probably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic,
then the person making a case for a position of belief must present a series of balanced opinions, allowing the reader to make up his or her mind. The argument may start off with
factual content but may become hypothetical extrapolations that form a logical
conclusion because there isn't enough corroborating evidence to support a particular
view point. However, the logic of the argument and the hypothesis proposed makes
sense because the foundation on which the hypothesis was formed, was in fact
based in truth.
Offering opinion
without fact relegates the idea you are presenting as being subjective; an opinion held by the individual
who is stating a position and as such, are always biased towards their world-view If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, then it simply
means that you are trying to persuade people through personality or association,
e.g. a newspaper headline might state: "Youngsters are the prime cause of
trouble in this area". This is presented as an objective fact but is
clearly a subjective statement.
We are all naturally
perceptive of what is truth and what isn't. We are also naturally curious to
find out for ourselves or test whether this truth is real or whether it is
false… our inquisitive nature wants us to question the validity of factual
statements, or indeed of fiction – 'Can what the writer proposes actually be
conceivable?' As well as our nature, we have assimilated knowledge and
experience that becomes a lens for our reasoning and a basis for our understanding.
Our accepted positions on social, moral and ethical standards are constantly
being nudged forward by society through the ‘law’ dispensed in the courts, through
parliamentary legislation, and through our culture. Some would argue that
change is an integral part of that progress.
The secularisation of
western society has led to a marginalisation of ‘religious belief’ or indeed,
the observance of traditional patterns of religious life, which have
underpinned the identity of our civil relationships. This has led to a fall in
church attendance within the UK and Europe, where the positive influences of a
Christian culture have gradually been eroded by large sections of society. In
the UK, there is a call from humanists and atheists, for the separation of
religion and education. Some of these groups lobby the government for the closure
of ‘faith-schools’, or at best, to put in place legislation that forces these
schools to relegate their own teaching in order to adopt the humanist agenda
under the veil of equality.
There can be an
undercurrent of hostility when people mention God in some public settings with
well-publicised stories of officials seeking to ban religious observance in
public meetings within local government. Determinism is a natural progression
of a materialistic world view, where our own needs, override our understanding for
the possibility of a future life after death. Indeed, some commentators talk
about it being mere fantasy that as rational human beings, we would hope for a life
after death. They would argue that we are governed by specific brain states or
periods of cognition where we instinctively serve our own needs. However this
view I believe devalues the character of humanity and the free will that
Christians believe humanity has in determining his or her own future.
To negate
life-after-death as mere fantasy helps those who reject God, to reject a
morality derived from a Divine perspective outside of their own human nature. This fits well with their concept of self. When Christians challenge standards
of behaviour or trends in culture, it is easier to dismiss this if we have
dismissed the source of the Christians moral standard. Our ability to think
for ourselves, develops intuition that enables us to make connections within the
knowledge we have assimilated. This enables us to think abstractly when there
is no physical or concrete evidence to support our thinking, allows us to
consider something that is theoretically possible, when set against an alternative view.
Within this framework
of self, we can find structure for our thinking from within our own ethical
standard and as we gain experience in exercising our reasoning of self, we form
logical conclusions that make sense to us. However, this only works when those
assimilating the information have reason and have discernment. Not everyone has
the same intelligence to use reasoned argument; to know what is true from what isn't; except for a feeling they may get within themselves. This leaves some sections of
our society vulnerable and exposed to fraud when listening to charismatic and persuasive
speakers making subjective comments, leaving them unduly influenced by
personality, rather than reasonable argument.
So how can we use our
logical deductions to provide the objective evidence needed to cement truth?
Can there truly be objective evidence that is not an interpretation of a
theoretical hypothesis, reducing it to a subjective thought? Science would like
to believe that it holds all of the keys to objective investigations into the
natural world. A scientific investigation would seek to replicate conditions
for certain phenomena to occur by eliminating the external factors that might
corrupt the results. This ensures that useful data can be extrapolated clearly from the
test. Monitoring the conditions of the test or being able to control them eliminates
any random causation that could skew the figures in favour of any one
particular set of data.
In biology lessons when
I was 13 years of age, we learned about the reproductive system of frogs
because there was an obvious visual link to the fertilisation of the egg. This aided our understanding of human reproduction: the subdivision of the egg into more
complex cells that ultimately lead to life. Most schools had a pond so that
you can watch the process happen and you can relate the science to the
theoretical models. As a technology teacher, I talk about battery cells and the
creation of an electrical charge based on the movement of electrons from one
material to another through an electrolytic. We can put a piece of copper and a
zinc coated galvanized nail into a lemon, attach a voltmeter and watch the
reaction create a voltage. Scientific models help us make sense of our
environment but cannot answer the wider philosophical questions for the implications
of the conclusions it reaches. Questions which every child in the world expresses
as, WHY?
In the evolution
timeline for example, there has not yet been an adequate scientific model to
explain the cause of the Cambrian explosion. This is a point in the
evolutionary scale where simple single celled organisms rapidly developed into
complex organisms. One recent explanation is that one set of animals had
developed the potential to evolve different body shapes adapted for different
environments but had no need to instigate the change until a global flood
necessitated that these creatures adapted. This triggered the markers already
present within their DNA, to rapidly evolve the animals to suit their new environments and to fit within the evolutionary timeline which determined how long this should take…
hardening shells, growing bone, evolving predatory behaviours etc.
But time is a factor.
It is still not clear how complex organs such as the eye, evolved over the time-scales established in the evolutionary cycle and how quickly DNA markers
were coded with the new chromosomes that sparked life. When we look at the
evidence for these new theoretical models, they are all only circumstantial in
form, providing only a basis for inference about the facts discovered. Humanity
searches for truth from what it believes it understands to be true; we need to
see it to believe it. But it is arrogant presumption on humanities part to
believe that it can learn all there is to know.
Government scientists tell me
that in controlled conditions in a laboratory, my car can give me 42 miles per
gallon of diesel during a constant 56 mph journey, yet in real world terms it is
more like 33 miles per gallon. Just because we think we know something doesn't always mean that it is right. There are always causal factors that can skew
arguments in favour of one viewpoint. It always depends on the number of
assumptions one has already made in order to pursue a specific line of
reasoning. If I make a factual statement like the sky is blue, your
understanding of my view point either agrees or disagrees… it could be an
overcast day where the sky looks grey, and so you would disagree with me. You
could however, be in an aircraft high above the layer of cloud, where the sun
is still shining brightly, and see the blue sky. It’s a matter of perspective.
A statement of fact
can also be used to command someone’s behaviour. I could be driving my car and
my wife is helping to guide my manoeuvring backwards: ‘Stop reversing or you
will hit the other vehicle.’ This command is only truth if indeed the car is
reversing and there is another vehicle directly behind me? I could decide
however to ignore the command, confident in my own understanding of the
situation, and continue to inch backwards, successfully completing my manoeuvre
without hitting the vehicle. My triumph would make the original command to stop
false. However, in other circumstances, it would be best for me to obey the
instruction and not be so arrogant to reject my wife's help as I would never have heard the end of it if I had hit the car!
The atheist who
states that there is no God – fact! Is indeed, talking from their perspective
of all of the learning that they have received; their experiences in
identifying the existence of God and perhaps, an inability to think abstractly
about the world we live in, beyond the parameters of scientific study into the
natural world. It is always interesting to hear how often someone who rejects
God has to reaffirm their position when discussing matters of faith. Some
people are simply not naturally open to the possibility that God exists.
Scientists discussing the Cambrian explosion for example, have to ensure that
their theoretical models into the multiple causes for the birth of a wide
variety of animals that grew out of that period, fit within our existing
knowledge. This is important as it validates the earlier investigations carried out, and allows science to continue to reject out of hand, any ideas which may offer an alternative explanation for life to Darwinism.
Statements of fact
that are beyond our current understanding, have to establish a number of
credible markers that can lead to truth. To negate the logic is to reveal an
opposing truth. To state that some birds can fly for example, carries with it by
implication that some birds cannot fly. To state that all birds fly would be
false because we know that some cannot. For us to be able to make logical
arguments, we often have to make a set of assumptions based on what we already
know to be true. As we apply this truth to other situations, we can apply it in
whole or in part to the subject being discussed.
Truth can only be
certain when all the variables of an argument are true however, there are
circumstances where we could say that certain things could happen within a
mixture of ‘either/or’ conditions, contradicting any assumptions made.
I love a
cup of tea in the morning. It has to be brewed perfectly to my taste for me to be
able to fully enjoy it. Firstly, it needs to be in a china cup – not porcelain or
clay. Secondly the tea bag has to stand in the hot water to within 15mm’s of
the brim before being stirred and then ‘mashed’ against the side of the cup
prior to extraction. Then the tea bag is removed before the milk is added. This
has to be a small dash of milk, not a dollop!
The complexion of the
tea needs to be reddish brown in colour for it to be correct and I can always
tell if you have put the milk in with the tea bag before adding the hot water
because the colour, taste and texture are wrong. Instead of the crisp reddish
brown complexion, the tea has a similar appearance to that of painting with
acrylic when you are mixing colours and have added to much white paint, making
it look creamy rather than tonal. There are so many variables in this analogy
that you can rarely get a cup of tea looking and tasting the same way twice!
Yet all of our efforts at getting the best ‘cuppa’ still results in tea. It
just may not be to our taste.
Many of the
assumptions we make about the way the universe was created and the way we view God
can be likened to this analogy. When we look at all of the variables contained
within the evidence presented, we can see how desperate it was to get all the
elements of matter and energy correct for the creation of life as we know it. Similarly,
we may not be comfortable with the complexion of God that we find because one or two of the
elements we have used to base our assumptions on, are being skewed by a filter
we have used to interpret what we find.
Humanity deploys many filters when
discerning the validity of the existence of God. Some question the arrogance
that Christians display in declaring Jesus as the only way to find God. Some
find the tone of Christians to be condescending, aloof… failing to see that we
all have wants and needs – hopes that we all cling to which the Christian can
easily dash when they declare that life without God is meaningless.
Some would argue that
science doesn't present a picture of humanity that is faulty like religion does, rather the opposite. Science revels in man’s ingenuity to conquer the
natural elements of the known world and his ability to rule over it; even to feel
that he can control it. When confronted with the question of how the universe
came into being, we find that because there is no concrete science behind an
answer, that a philosophical argument is given. Well the universe just popped
into existence from nothing… there was no God involved in creating it; the
universe formed in a vacuum of nothingness; well there was nothing at all in the
beginning, not even the vacuum. Others will argue that nothing created the
universe because it is eternal; it has always been in existence… When one universe
dies out because it has used up all of the energy and matter available, from
the resulting nothingness, a new one will be born.
I always feel quite
bewildered with science's descriptions of the beginning of the universe because they are similar to the arguments made for the development of complex
life forms during the Cambrian period. Quantum Mechanics always seems to be an element of
chance – the same sort of accusation that is levelled at theists for believing
in God as creator. Reasoning becomes subjective rather than being objective,
based more on personal perspective rather than possessing any known truth.
Persuading people that the science does work, when it is often too complex for
the average person to truly comprehend, ends up by its very nature, a
subjective argument, being overly influenced by the writer and making the
context less objective.
Sometimes we cannot
say that something is definitely true, although it may seem plausible. Similarly
we cannot reject the idea totally out of hand. It may just be that we have not
established all of the parameters to our understanding yet. Sometimes we can
have two separate elements for an arguments which in isolation are both true,
but when combined produced an irrational logic that is false. We cannot always
be certain that because one approach works, that a similar condition and
outcome can be re-produced at a later date; there is a probability there; but there
is always doubt.
Christians are able
to look at evidence objectively as scientists are able to, and are willing to
refine their understanding of truth by our investigation into the
mystery of life. It is science that tends to try and fill the gaps in their
understanding of the created world with random theoretical models. The
interpretation of the facts is important to Christians because it gives
structure to faith. Christians have the gift of the Holy Spirit whose function
is to assist us with the discernment of our world; to interpret what is truth.
Truth resonates in our hearts because the Holy Spirit works through all things;
He works through our humanity to bring revelation. Faith isn't blind; it isn't a psychological crutch or a superstitious throwback to a less enlightened world-view. Christians are not restricted in their faith to take on new knowledge or
understanding.
There are many
conspiracy stories that have been floated into popular culture about the nature
of Jesus’ death and resurrection. For example, Mohammed's interpretation of
Jesus was to dismiss his divinity in favour of his own context as that of a prophet. However, Jesus
stands out amongst all other religious figures as the one true representation
of God. Some find this position to be arrogant… Why Jesus? The Quran states
that Jesus was a good teacher but nothing more. More than that, the Quran
teaches that the Bible has been corrupted over the millennia and by default of
being a relative newcomer; the Quran is the only true interpretation of God’s
word.
We examine Jesus
because he stands at the centre of the Bible between the Old and New
Testaments. The Old Testament looks forward to Jesus and the New Testament
points back to him. ‘But why the God of the Jews you might ask? Well, to answer
that we need to go back to the time of pre-history and the early Patriarchs at
the beginning of civilisation, where we find a figure called Abraham. God
promises to Abraham that from him would come a mighty nation, a royal priest
hood, and a people of such a number, that his descendants would be as great as the
stars. When God made this promise to Abraham, he was childless and in his 80’s.
His own wife Sarah, laughed at Abraham as he recounted his encounter with God.
Fast forward to
the Jewish nation trapped in slavery by the Pharaoh of Egypt. In order to
release the people of God from the hands of this king who believed he was
indeed god, Yahweh sent a messenger, Moses, to warn Pharaoh of what would happen if he
did not release the people from captivity? Pharaoh believed he had a divine
right to rule and that his kingdom was protected by a variety of gods. We know
this to be true because of the historical evidence found by archaeology through
fragments of ancient finds.
In the Biblical story
found in Genesis, we read that Moses challenges each of Pharaohs ‘gods’ by
bringing on the nation of Egypt, a series of plagues that directly attacked
these gods. One-by-one Yahweh reveals to the world that he is Lord over all
earthly things through the demonstration of his supernatural power over creation.
God’s triumph over Pharaoh and the subsequent release of the people was
evidence to the near eastern cultures, that the people who worshipped Yahweh
had a powerful God.
Jesus’ genealogy is
described in the beginning of John’s Gospel. Jesus was descended through the
Jewish people, through the house of King David, and is the rightful heir to the
Kingdom of the Jews. Hence the sign that Pontius Pilate had placed on
Jesus’ cross above his head; King of the Jews’.
Pilate said, “So you are a king?”
Jesus responded, “You say I am a king.
Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who
love the truth recognize that what I say is true.” (John 18:37)
It cannot be disputed
that Jesus was a real person; it cannot be disputed that he was tried by
Pontius Pilate and that he was crucified. It is clear from the eye-witness
accounts that Jesus was indeed dead and that he was resurrected to new life.
The amount of corroborative evidence points to the truth of the account found
in the Gospels, so it’s your call if you choose to accept it.
How can I be certain
of that? Well, there was no body to show. The Romans and the Jewish Chief
Priests and Temple Guard, who wanted to end this civil uprising, were guarding
the tomb. It was in their best interest to make certain that this whole saga
was laid to rest and that life in Jerusalem could return to its normal path. The
grave site was known and the location of the disciples after Jesus’ death was
easy to identify due to their high public profile. If Jesus’ body was in the
hands of the disciples, then they would have been hunted down by the Roman and
Temple authorities and the body would have been dragged out into the open for
all to see.
The disciples
themselves, if suspected of such deeds as harbouring a dead body, would have been
considered to be ritually unclean and would never have been allowed into the
temple to preach. If the Roman or temple authorities had hidden the body, they
could have dragged it out at any time and ended this little sect by revealing
the decomposing corpse; they did not.
To suggest even, that
the disciples, who ran-for-their lives at their first confrontation with the
temple guard, could influence people to suggest that they had seen Jesus after
his death, is pretty incredulous. The disciples can be clearly seen acting
cowardly and cowering in an upper room; even returning to their family
businesses. It was the women who initially responded to Jesus, not the men. Those that say that the visitations of Jesus in his resurrected body were just hallucinations caused by grief, have to consider how many witnesses
corroborated the story of Jesus walking, talking and eating with them.
As time goes on,
there is more and more evidence for the validity of the Gospel stories and the
accuracy of the translations. In fact it is actually more accurate to get a
modern translation of the Bible than use the original ubiquitous text of 1611,
the King James Version. English is a clumsy language and often, when the Hebrew
and Greek texts used words that did not fit with English meaning, the chosen
word in English slightly skewed the interpretation of the original text –
modern translations correct this.
So where does that
leave us? Well, I would suggest it leaves us with the teachings of Jesus. When
we look at his life, his teaching and his actions, we can see the nature of
God. His was a message of love and reconciliation; of revelation and
repentance; of compassion and a call to action. If Jesus is who he said he was,
then the father also, is who he says he is. As the author of life, God has the
objective moral authority to determine the way that we should live. In
accepting who God is, we must naturally live as he determines or be cut-off
from that relationship. However, Jesus is the key.
Without Jesus, we
would not be able to comprehend the mind of God behind the creation of the
world. The Universe had a beginning and God is the mind behind it. Nature is
testament to his intelligent design because of the intricacies of the ecology, the
geology and the biology contained within the physical realm. Having this
understanding draws us into the spiritual relationship that we can have with
the creator of the universe because our existence is not a random coincidence.
How is it that the quantity of energy and matter, being so finely balanced in
order to create life, is able to sustain us in a world that provides for
mankind’s every need? What would be the odds on getting it right?
There is no other
logical conclusion to the creation of life without an intelligence born from a
designer. Chemistry can lead to Biology and Physics has shown that matter can
be created and destroyed. Some may argue about man’s suffering and peril from
natural disaster but that this alone is not enough to prove that God is not part of
the world that we know… Or you might ask why God only revealed himself to humanity from
around the time of the Bronze Age? You might argue that only science has answers to life and only
science brings meaning to the natural world; life is just coincidence,
probability or just plain chance.
However much we may
argue against the existence of God, we cannot escape the original reason why
that is so. Why are we so quick to dismiss the argument for God? In the
narrative of the garden of Eden, our hearts desire is revealed; To know all
that there is to know; to use our natural inquisitiveness to doubt what you are
told until you have seen it with your own eyes or touched it with your own
hands. When our nature rebelled against God as it still does today, we allow
sin to flood in. It isn't that God is missing in the natural disasters that
plague the different geologically sensitive areas of the world. It is more
likely that the real answer is that the world was never meant to be this way;
the world has been ravaged by sin which leaves humanity exposed to it’s many
hidden dangers like a cancer.
God did not intend to
expose us to an existence that reveals our frailty – sickness; disease;
tumour’s; malignant cells; obesity; heart disease; sexually transmitted
diseases; war; famine; drought; death. Turning from God and going our own way
did that. So please stop blaming God when these calamities happen. God is
merciful in his dealings with us by offering us the freedom to choose to live
for him or to turn away from his protection. Jesus restores our broken
relationship with God as evident in his body that bears all the scars of our
broken humanity when he was condemned to die on the cross by the very people he
came to save.
When we are in
difficulty, God is with us. God is always for us and never stands against us.
God doesn't send disease or death, and is certainly not the author of our
present troubles. We might not want to believe this truth but we don’t know
whether we can trust it. We have our own minds, we know what is right from that
which is wrong – Why do I need God? Why is finding God such a mystery? Why does
God stay hidden?
Life is enhanced by
the freedom God gives to those who trust him, by placing a hope inside each one
of us for the things to come: “I have learned that there can be no true despair
without hope.” (Bane: The Dark Knight Rises). When we dismiss God, we also dismiss his promise
for forgiveness and for the new life he offers in return for our repentance and faith; we
can become hopeless. We have been given the free will to find this grace
because without it, we would not know how to love God when we find him.
When we truly examine
ourselves and stop making excuses for our human nature, we may actually begin
to make sense of what Jesus says of himself and of our nature. We are in a
battle between our own ambition of self and that of Gods. This battle is spiritual and
the enemy fights hard. When trouble comes, the enemy whispers in our ears that
God isn't here to save us. When things are going well and we achieve a level of
prosperity and contentment that we feel that our efforts deserve, the enemy
again whispers in our ear that we do not need God.
We convince ourselves
that in the natural rhythm of life, there will be hardship and that is OK. We can
settle for a life that has compromises and think that that is OK too. But that
is not how God sees it. We are his precious, precious children. He is all
knowing and is aware of all of the questions we might want to ask him, before
we have even asked them. He knows our prayers before we even make the request of
him but more importantly, because he knows all things, he knows what is best
for us. Sometimes it may be difficult to accept God when we feel and experience
the highs and lows of life, and wonder, where is God in the cyclical nature of
our emotions?
Dealing with our
emotions is the hardest journey we will make in life. Some of us are constantly
anxious and suffer tremendous panic attacks that rob us of our peace; some lack
the security in themselves to be confident in who they are; some are
self-seeking, pursuing their own interests instead of that of others; we can lack
self-esteem or have too much of it. Yes, even logical people who want answers
to the meaning of life have emotions. A relationship with Jesus equips our
hearts and minds to understand the nature of God and helps us to manage our
emotions as we experience the many trials we are exposed to as we live life. As
Christians, we live our lives filled with the Holy Spirit and are re-born in
mind, body and spirit.
Unfortunately, we are
still us! If we were Jesus, we would make a lousy Jesus (Jamie Stilson: Power
of the Ugly). When people look at the church and look at Christians, they are
going to get mixed messages because we are broken people that God has rescued
from the wilderness of life and in who he has given a sense of purpose to reach out to the world with the Gospel. God's grace empowers us to reject our sinful nature and so as a church, we have felt we needed to tell everyone else how they should live too.
God’s grace mixes with our human nature and the way that we act and what we say may not always help others to see the church at its best because we don't say things in love. It’s unfortunate too, that those who want to discredit Christianity and Christians will always pick out these faults as hypocrisy – it’s our nature to do this – we have newspapers and magazines full of it. In humility, the church has to do some bridge building to make-up for the wrong choices it has made in the past.
God’s grace mixes with our human nature and the way that we act and what we say may not always help others to see the church at its best because we don't say things in love. It’s unfortunate too, that those who want to discredit Christianity and Christians will always pick out these faults as hypocrisy – it’s our nature to do this – we have newspapers and magazines full of it. In humility, the church has to do some bridge building to make-up for the wrong choices it has made in the past.
Since
God has so generously let us in on what he is doing, we’re not about to throw
up our hands and walk off the job just because we run into occasional hard
times. We refuse to wear masks and play games. We don’t manoeuvre and
manipulate behind the scenes. And we don’t twist God’s Word to suit ourselves.
Rather, we keep everything we do and say out in the open, the whole truth on
display, so that those who want to can see and judge for themselves in the
presence of God.
If
our Message is obscure to anyone, it’s not because we’re holding back in any
way. No, it’s because these other people are looking or going the wrong way and
refuse to give it serious attention. All they have eyes for is the fashionable
god of darkness. They think he can give them what they want, and that they
won’t have to bother believing a Truth they can’t see. They’re stone-blind to
the day spring brightness of the Message that shines with Christ, who gives us
the best picture of God we’ll ever get.
Remember,
our Message is not about ourselves; we’re proclaiming Jesus Christ, the Master.
All we are is messengers, errand runners from Jesus for you. It started when
God said, “Light up the darkness!” and our lives filled up with light as we saw
and understood God in the face of Christ, all bright and beautiful.
If
you only look at us, you might well miss the brightness. We carry
this precious Message around in the unadorned clay pots of our ordinary lives.
That’s to prevent anyone from confusing God’s incomparable power with us. As it
is, there’s not much chance of that. You know for yourselves that we’re not
much to look at. We've been surrounded and battered by troubles, but we’re not
demoralized; we’re not sure what to do, but we know that God knows what to do; we've been spiritually terrorized, but God hasn't left our side; we've been
thrown down, but we haven’t broken. What they did to Jesus, they do to us—trial
and torture, mockery and murder; what Jesus did among them, he does in us—he
lives! Our lives are at constant risk for Jesus’ sake, which makes Jesus’ life
all the more evident in us. While we’re going through the worst, you’re getting
in on the best!
We’re
not keeping this quiet, not on your life. Just like the psalmist who wrote, “I
believed it, so I said it,” we say what we believe. And what we believe is that
the One who raised-up the Master Jesus will just as certainly raise us up with
you, alive. Every detail works to your advantage and to God’s glory: more and
more grace, more and more people, more and more praise!
So
we’re not giving up. How could we! Even though on the outside it often looks
like things are falling apart on us, on the inside, where God is making new
life, not a day goes by without his unfolding grace. These hard times are small
potatoes compared to the coming good times, the lavish celebration prepared for
us. There’s far more here than meets the eye. The things we see now are here
today, gone tomorrow. But the things we can’t see now will last forever.
(2
Corinthians 4: The Message)
Jesus is the only human
that was able to dismiss his sinful desire in favour of doing what his father
wanted. His treasure can be found not solely in the person of Jesus, but in his
life, his teaching, and his actions. The legacy of his walk with the father has
transformed the world as we see it today. When we fall in love with the
treasure that Jesus offers, we can find truth and can find peace from all of
our emotional insecurities. As Forest Gump that great philosopher of Hollywood stated: "I may not be a smart man but I know love when I see it." (Jamie Stilson: Power of the Ugly). We are all made up of the broken pieces of an earthly
vessel – as Jesus rebuilds our lives he puts those pieces back into the order
they were always meant to be. With God as the foundation, live in celebration
of the person we have become in Christ, rather than live in the doubt of what
we used to be.
So what is truth? –
You are.
