Random Access Memory

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 1^st 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.

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.