In advanced biology we have been talking about animal behavior, which to the biologist, is influenced by evolutionary processes - namely natural/sexual selection. This weekend I was listening to Radio Lab on NPR and this story came on. I found it very interesting, not only for some of the science tid-bits scattered about, but more so because of the (tragic) story of George Price. I don't think I am too far off base to say that to some (large??) degree what he attempted to do was live a Christ-like life. He failed as we all do.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/dec/14/
Food for thought.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
I've been reading a bit about the life of Chuck Colson. Here is a post from a blog where the author reflects on Colson's statement that God is the explanation for everything. Check it out:
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/02/the-explanation-for-everything/
His discussion at the end on natural vs. supernatural explanations is interesting to me. Here is the highpoint:
We apply the explanation that fits the question. If the question is how things interact on a natural level, then we ought to look for answers on the natural level. We certainly ought to follow that trail as far as it can take us. But there are limits to what science can investigate. It cannot speak to whether there is a God, or an afterlife, or human souls. It cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can it explain what is ultimately good, or what the purpose of existence is. For that, we must look to other types of explanation.
I absolutely do not object to searching for a natural theory of origins. (Wherever did I give anybody that impression?!)
I seriously doubt that science will succeed in that search (especially the origins of the cosmos and the first life), but I have no objection whatever to learning whatever we might be able to learn about them scientifically. My only objection is to some scientists’ insistence that the only possible explanation for everything must be naturalistic. This is scientifically and philosophically unsupportable, in the first place; in the second place, it defies knowledge we have of God and His work in the world.
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/02/the-explanation-for-everything/
His discussion at the end on natural vs. supernatural explanations is interesting to me. Here is the highpoint:
We apply the explanation that fits the question. If the question is how things interact on a natural level, then we ought to look for answers on the natural level. We certainly ought to follow that trail as far as it can take us. But there are limits to what science can investigate. It cannot speak to whether there is a God, or an afterlife, or human souls. It cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can it explain what is ultimately good, or what the purpose of existence is. For that, we must look to other types of explanation.
I absolutely do not object to searching for a natural theory of origins. (Wherever did I give anybody that impression?!)
I seriously doubt that science will succeed in that search (especially the origins of the cosmos and the first life), but I have no objection whatever to learning whatever we might be able to learn about them scientifically. My only objection is to some scientists’ insistence that the only possible explanation for everything must be naturalistic. This is scientifically and philosophically unsupportable, in the first place; in the second place, it defies knowledge we have of God and His work in the world.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Let's get it going...
Maybe with some new blood in the group (that is the Egan's) it is time to try to rejuvenate the blog. It will probably end up just me and Bjorn venting back and forth...no need to kid myself. Anyways, some nice stuff below from our President and a guy name Richard Wilkinson, who I heard of from none other than Rob Bell. Some very thought provoking stuff.
For anyone who still thinks Obama isn't a Christian it is time to think again. A far cry I would say from Gingrich's statement of how he would treat his enemies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50WYM-1SjQQ). And the data presented by Wilkinson causes me to really question the policies that many in our country are so adamant about.
For anyone who still thinks Obama isn't a Christian it is time to think again. A far cry I would say from Gingrich's statement of how he would treat his enemies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50WYM-1SjQQ). And the data presented by Wilkinson causes me to really question the policies that many in our country are so adamant about.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Our puzzle piece
I was struck today by a chapter in Hole in the Gospel that talked about the feeding of the 5000. In this chapter, Stearns talks about the perspective of the little boy in the story who offers up his food to the disciples.
"As the little boy, who had given his lunch, looked on, can you imagine the joy he must have felt, seeing his gift multiplied by God to feed thousands of hungry people, many of whom he probably knew? It was his lone "puzzle piece" that completed this miracle of God. When we, as Christians, are willing to lay our pieces down on the table, we, too, can take part in God's "multiplication." But, if we are unwilling, we will assuredly, miss out on every opportunity to be used by God in a powerful and amazing way."
I am thankful for this today. I never read this passage thinking of the boy's perspective on this miracle. I'm left wonder what are my "pieces" that I am holding onto...what do I need to lay on the table before the Lord to be given the chance to take part in God's multiplication!
May I not be overwhelmed by the enormity of the task that God has given us, but be able to focus on what my part is in this great story...
"As the little boy, who had given his lunch, looked on, can you imagine the joy he must have felt, seeing his gift multiplied by God to feed thousands of hungry people, many of whom he probably knew? It was his lone "puzzle piece" that completed this miracle of God. When we, as Christians, are willing to lay our pieces down on the table, we, too, can take part in God's "multiplication." But, if we are unwilling, we will assuredly, miss out on every opportunity to be used by God in a powerful and amazing way."
I am thankful for this today. I never read this passage thinking of the boy's perspective on this miracle. I'm left wonder what are my "pieces" that I am holding onto...what do I need to lay on the table before the Lord to be given the chance to take part in God's multiplication!
May I not be overwhelmed by the enormity of the task that God has given us, but be able to focus on what my part is in this great story...
Thursday, March 10, 2011
"New England recently surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least churched, least religious section of the United States."
I read this piece and thought it might be appropriate to share with a few of the New England dwellers I am so fond of...
10 Reasons New England Suffers For Mission
Friday, February 11, 2011
Blind Salamanders Revisitied
A few months ago I provided a link to an article from Scientific American that discussed the blind salamander and Christopher Hitchen’s musings about the follies of faith. The thing that I was really reacting to, and the reason I posted anything in response to this article, was because of Hitchen’s reference to Job 1. Interestingly, Bjorn continued this focus in his recent post “…Because He is Love”. What follows is not meant to argue with Bjorn but provide my thoughts on this Biblical reference. More than anything, this is for me and I am sure not everyone will agree with my thoughts. I do hope that my thoughts below will not appear argumentative or condescending but rather serve as an opportunity to flesh out my thoughts more thoroughly than I have previously.
The image of God “giving and taking away” is one I have a hard time reconciling with the love, grace, and compassion of the Christ I see in the New Testament. I know the line appears in scripture (and in a popular song), but does that mean that Job’s interpretation of God giving and taking is appropriate given what we know about what God wants to do for all of humanity (John 3:16)? The reality is that Job is much deeper and more complicated than one verse found in Job 1. In my view, the focus of Job is on the fact that hardship in life is not easily explained and that God can do whatever He wants (Job 42 in particular). In fact, there are at least two places early on in the reading of Job where one can see incompatibilities between Job’s image of God and what we know about God because of Christ (Job 7: 20-21; Job 9: 22-24). I would argue that Job’s view of God might have been appropriate in that day when the “fire of God fell from the sky” (Job1: 16) and people didn’t know the natural explanations for storms or lightning. Ultimately, what apparently makes Job’s response appropriate, is that his heart remained in the right place as he grappled with his “earthly-situation” and God’s role in his circumstances (Job 1: 22). God did not hold it against Job for questioning or, I would argue misunderstanding, His role in the process.
I truly believe there is a better way to look at the “giving-and-taking-God”. I believe that this alternative view - a view that I see supported by a number of other Christians – could be referred to as the “allowing-God”. This is clearly just a semantic twist that relates back to the all important question of God’s sovereignty. But I believe it is an important twist that is discussed well by Philip Yancey (in the clip below from Biologos). I don’t see it as necessary for Christians in general to take this view. What is more, I don’t think it is particularly helpful for those going through some deep, profound tragedy to be told God is “giving and taking”. Rather I see it as potentially destructive, not necessarily for the Christian whose view of the world is already revolving around a sovereign and loving God, but for the seeker who is longing to know that love. Moreover, my problem with the “giving-and-taking-God” is that it doesn’t align with what I have learned from God’s Word or Works (to use Collin’s term for Creation). What I have learned from Scripture is that Christ is going through Life, the good and the bad, with us. He has bled for us, He has cried for us, He has prayed for us and I believe he continues that today as well.
So what is God’s role in the process? Several years ago I came across this quote from a Buechner devotional that sums up well how I view God working and interacting in our lives. This view of God and his interaction with our lives is extremely compatible with the way I see the world working (and it harkens back to Bell’s “Marker Trick” below) and God’s desire to speak to us; it is compatible with God’s desire to be glorified in the “everydayness” and “crises” of our lives. It goes like this:
The question is not whether the things that happen to you are chance things or God's things because, of course, they are both at once. There is no chance thing through which God cannot speak - even the walk from the house to the garage that you have walked ten thousand times before, even the moments when you cannot believe there is a God who speaks at all anywhere. He speaks, I believe, and the words he speaks are incarnate in the flesh and blood of ourselves and of our own footsore and sacred journeys.
Chance things are God’s things. I do not see God as a tinkerer where He manipulates events but allows them to unfold and emerge. I see God as speaking to us at all times, not just when something great happens or when something not so great happens. What he does want, and I believe this is clear from Scripture (unlike God’s role in the tragedy of life –Job provides few answers anyways), is to be glorified by our responses to our circumstances. I also believe God is continually trying to speak through the unfolding of life. As Buechner said in another place, “I choose to believe that he speaks [and the words are]… fleshed out in the everydayness no less than in the crises of our own experience.” I am beginning to see that our circumstances in this world are all pointing to God (both His presence and, dare I say, even His absence). And despite the fact that our earthly circumstances are in large part influenced by the emergent nature of Creation and our freewill as humans, God is working to get our attention by allowing. I do agree, that we see only dimly now and that some day we will see clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12) so I am in no way claiming to have it all figured out – obviously. But for me, this perspective is one that offers me hope, is consistent with the emergent properties of Creation that I have come to understand, and beckons me to find God more in the seemingly mundane (1 Corinthians 10:13) and significant portions of life.
The image of God “giving and taking away” is one I have a hard time reconciling with the love, grace, and compassion of the Christ I see in the New Testament. I know the line appears in scripture (and in a popular song), but does that mean that Job’s interpretation of God giving and taking is appropriate given what we know about what God wants to do for all of humanity (John 3:16)? The reality is that Job is much deeper and more complicated than one verse found in Job 1. In my view, the focus of Job is on the fact that hardship in life is not easily explained and that God can do whatever He wants (Job 42 in particular). In fact, there are at least two places early on in the reading of Job where one can see incompatibilities between Job’s image of God and what we know about God because of Christ (Job 7: 20-21; Job 9: 22-24). I would argue that Job’s view of God might have been appropriate in that day when the “fire of God fell from the sky” (Job1: 16) and people didn’t know the natural explanations for storms or lightning. Ultimately, what apparently makes Job’s response appropriate, is that his heart remained in the right place as he grappled with his “earthly-situation” and God’s role in his circumstances (Job 1: 22). God did not hold it against Job for questioning or, I would argue misunderstanding, His role in the process.
I truly believe there is a better way to look at the “giving-and-taking-God”. I believe that this alternative view - a view that I see supported by a number of other Christians – could be referred to as the “allowing-God”. This is clearly just a semantic twist that relates back to the all important question of God’s sovereignty. But I believe it is an important twist that is discussed well by Philip Yancey (in the clip below from Biologos). I don’t see it as necessary for Christians in general to take this view. What is more, I don’t think it is particularly helpful for those going through some deep, profound tragedy to be told God is “giving and taking”. Rather I see it as potentially destructive, not necessarily for the Christian whose view of the world is already revolving around a sovereign and loving God, but for the seeker who is longing to know that love. Moreover, my problem with the “giving-and-taking-God” is that it doesn’t align with what I have learned from God’s Word or Works (to use Collin’s term for Creation). What I have learned from Scripture is that Christ is going through Life, the good and the bad, with us. He has bled for us, He has cried for us, He has prayed for us and I believe he continues that today as well.
So what is God’s role in the process? Several years ago I came across this quote from a Buechner devotional that sums up well how I view God working and interacting in our lives. This view of God and his interaction with our lives is extremely compatible with the way I see the world working (and it harkens back to Bell’s “Marker Trick” below) and God’s desire to speak to us; it is compatible with God’s desire to be glorified in the “everydayness” and “crises” of our lives. It goes like this:
The question is not whether the things that happen to you are chance things or God's things because, of course, they are both at once. There is no chance thing through which God cannot speak - even the walk from the house to the garage that you have walked ten thousand times before, even the moments when you cannot believe there is a God who speaks at all anywhere. He speaks, I believe, and the words he speaks are incarnate in the flesh and blood of ourselves and of our own footsore and sacred journeys.
Chance things are God’s things. I do not see God as a tinkerer where He manipulates events but allows them to unfold and emerge. I see God as speaking to us at all times, not just when something great happens or when something not so great happens. What he does want, and I believe this is clear from Scripture (unlike God’s role in the tragedy of life –Job provides few answers anyways), is to be glorified by our responses to our circumstances. I also believe God is continually trying to speak through the unfolding of life. As Buechner said in another place, “I choose to believe that he speaks [and the words are]… fleshed out in the everydayness no less than in the crises of our own experience.” I am beginning to see that our circumstances in this world are all pointing to God (both His presence and, dare I say, even His absence). And despite the fact that our earthly circumstances are in large part influenced by the emergent nature of Creation and our freewill as humans, God is working to get our attention by allowing. I do agree, that we see only dimly now and that some day we will see clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12) so I am in no way claiming to have it all figured out – obviously. But for me, this perspective is one that offers me hope, is consistent with the emergent properties of Creation that I have come to understand, and beckons me to find God more in the seemingly mundane (1 Corinthians 10:13) and significant portions of life.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Philippians 3: 7-11
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)