Surrendering Our Will to God

Winston Churchill was a master orator. He embodied the tenacity of a people whose once far-flung empire could boast that the sun never set upon it, but who were themselves on the verge of defeat. In the face of the Nazi onslaught, Churchill’s tone captured the spirit of an embattled but unbroken populace:

“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

When resisting the spread of tyranny, this “never say die” attitude is both encouraging and necessary for survival. But misapplied - by for instance human beings mired in rebellion against their Creator - it is another matter entirely.

Human beings possess free will. What begins as a desire to control oneself and one’s immediate environment routinely evolves into a desire for more and more power. It is this self-will that is at the crux of the human condition. Most of the misery in the world is a product of people stubbornly pursuing their own satisfaction, seeing the world through the lens of selfishness and carnal desire, refusing to empathize with their fellow human beings, seeking first their own advantage. This urge to dominate has marred the history of every race and culture on the planet.

Christianity recognizes this condition as part of the natural order of a fallen world: we are born with “original sin,” the desire to thwart God’s will, the desire to accomplish our own will. This, we believe, is a natural part of every human being, a function of the life we inherited from our original parents. But pursuing this path to power, sadly, is the “wide road” against which Jesus warned; the “narrow path,” the path leading to salvation, is the path upon which reconciliation with God can occur, through the redemptive work of our Lord and Savior.

While we are not free to save ourselves – we lack that power – we are free to reject that gift that God has offered, and to continue to fight Him – on the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields … the classroom, the workplace, the bedroom. We can continue to insist that our ways be done, and not His.

Or we can follow a different path - the path of surrendering our will to Him. Recognizing that a perfect Being rightly deserves our respect, our obedience and our love, we can bend our will to Him, replacing the rebellion that wells up within us with a song of praise. Is it not fitting and right that we give worship and devotion to the One who breathed life into us, whose thoughts continue to sustain us, and who offers us the potential for everlasting joy in His presence?

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Luke 16) But, as Jesus also taught, “if you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8)

It is never too late to chart a new path, a path in pursuit of Truth. It is never too late to replace selfishness and anger with love, empathy, understanding, and compassion. It is never too late to approach this all-powerful God, with fear and trembling, but also with confidence that He patiently and with open arms awaits our return.

As this eventful year comes to a close, there is no time like the present to prepare your surrender.

Surrendering Our Will to God

Falsifiability, Eckhart Tolle and the Power of Selflessness

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 236

In this episode, Jim discusses the importance of spiritual “falsifiability”, using the claims of Eckhart Tolle as an example. Can spiritual claims be evaluated evidentially? If so, can these claims also be falsified with evidence? Jim also evaluates the role of “selflessness” in relation to spiritual authority.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Falsifiability, Eckhart Tolle and the Power of Selflessness

The Miracle of Christmas

Throughout the world this winter day, Christians from all walks of life and all nationalities, both young and old, are celebrating the miracle that unites them - the birth of the Savior. But to the growing number of atheists, this celebration makes little sense. Having accepted the materialist's view of reality, they have limited themselves to thinking that nature is all there is, or was, or ever will be. Ignoring the futility of such a barren worldview, they think they have the corner on reason as they insist that miracles like the Incarnation are simply not possible.

This is circular, and quite limited, thinking. Beginning with the assumption that nature is all there is, is it any surprise that they end up where they began, with the conclusion that miracles do not occur? And without the possibility of miracles, they conclude Christianity must be false, without ever bothering to examine the historical evidence that supports it. But, of course, for a Creator powerful enough to create the universe from nothing -as the Big Bang corroborates occurred - and intelligent enough to create practically infinite varieties of life through the assembly of amino acids into DNA, entering this world as a flesh and blood creature isn't really an obstacle. Insisiting that this is impossible is roughly similar to a fish in an aquarium insisting that nothing exists beyond the tank. To the fish, the tank may seem to define the limits of reality, but that is simply because his frame of reference is so limited.

This Christmas season, it's worth remembering that the real miracle of Christmas is not that God became man, but the manner in which He did it. When Jesus came into this world, Augustus Caesar ruled a Roman Empire that was making its might felt in all directions of the compass. But Jesus wasn't born into wealth, power or privilege. Swaddled in rags, He drew his first breath in the lowliest of circumstances, welcomed by parents who could barely care for Him and who needed to flee the country in order to protect Him. He was born to a people that were themselves powerless. Defying expectations of a conquering messiah, He walked among men and women as a simple carpenter, seeking neither to form a church nor raise an army. Instead, He preached a message of repentance, and then He voluntarily lay down his life in fulfillment of the prophecies of old.

In so doing, He showed us the meaning of real love - love that seeks not reward nor return, love that is given selflessly and without limit - the kind of love we each long for, but seek in the wrong places. He emptied Himself so that he could fill us with the love that could restore the relationship broken when man chose to use his free will to rebel against his creator. Possessing infinite power, He chose to serve, rather than be served. Without ever putting quill to parchment, his teachings nonetheless reverberate down to us 2000 years later, with the same transformative power that rocked the Roman Empire, and then the world.

The Psalmist says:
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?"

What is man?

To the atheist, nothing more than an animal. An intelligent animal, to be sure, but nothing more. But to the Creator of the universe, man holds a much revered place and this "pale blue dot," isolated in the backwaters of an ordinary galaxy, is the crown jewel of His creation.

That He would bother with us at all - indeed, that He would become one of the "lowliest" of us - is the true Miracle of Christmas.

The Miracle of Christmas

Should God Reveal Himself More Clearly?

God gave us free will so that we can freely choose Him, for freedom of choice is essential to love. But, the skeptic counters, many people do not believe God is real. Why doesn’t God reveal himself more clearly? This question has considerable surface appeal, as it plays on our intuitive sense of fairness. Despite the vast number of people who believe that the evidence for God’s existence, and for Christ’s deity, is more than sufficient to ground a solid faith, there are always others who say they might believe “if only….” And if God really does want all to be saved, why doesn’t He provide them with that extra level of proof?

Before attempting an answer, it’s worth taking a closer look at what the skeptic is really saying: “I’m not interested in what your evidence shows. It’s not enough to satisfy me. I want my personal standard to be met. Satan knew of God’s existence and still rejected Him. Why can’t I get that level of proof?”

This is an odd challenge, because it ignores the objective nature of “evidence” and instead focuses on the subjective nature of a person’s response to it. It moves from considering what conclusions the evidence might support to considering what more could be added to make the conclusion even stronger. In the criminal courts, it is not uncommon to present a compelling case which, after days of deliberations, results in a “hang” and the need for a retrial. Eleven jurors might be completely convinced as to the truth of the charge, but one juror can insist that he needs more evidence. Now, perhaps that one has found something that no one else could see, despite days of discussion; more likely, the lone juror is unwilling to convict – to follow where the truth leads – for other reasons. If he follows the skeptics’ lead here, that juror might say: “I’ve heard of cases in which there is a confession to the crime and still the jury did not convict, so I am justified in voting not guilty here until I get the kind of evidence that I want.”

Like the skeptic in the present challenge, this juror is making a statement, and not an argument. The fact that greater evidence could be produced in support of a claim is a given; it is true for all possible claims at all possible times, because perfect proof is not possible. But this assertion is not an argument that the evidence that was produced is insufficient. In fact, it does not address the weight and convincing force of the evidence at all.

Returning to the original challenge, what is it that would convince the skeptic? The answer: total knowledge of God, the same kind of knowledge Satan may have had. That means the skeptic wants full knowledge of that Being which embodies the ultimate perfections, that Being from whom derives all things good and worthy of praise and apart from whom there is only deprivation and evil for time without end. Full knowledge of that Being would also entail full knowledge of the consequences of accepting or rejecting His offer of life with Him. Satan was some type of spiritual creature; we know little about him, other than that he used his will to oppose God. But we are all human beings, and as such, we have intimate knowledge of man and his nature. Could we really face that level of knowledge? Would it not be apparent to all that the choice to accept God would be coerced and no longer free? Free will would become a mere fiction.

God set the level of evidence of Him in a way that is fitting to our nature. He does not reveal more because what He has revealed is sufficient, which explains perhaps why the vast majority of all who have ever lived have sought in some way for the God they know is there. We are without excuse, the Bible says, for the knowledge of God is written on our very hearts. We may blur that knowledge with the frantic pace of our lives, or silence it with our insistence on having things our way. But what we have been given is enough to ground our faith, if we only use our minds and our ability to reason to assess what has been revealed to us. But for those who choose not to believe, there is freedom to pursue that course, a course marked by self-will and the quest for control.

Yes, the evidence could always be better. But imperfect human beings rely on imperfect knowledge all the time. The evidence we do have is worth considering, and it may well change the course of your life... if only you give it the chance.

Should God Reveal Himself More Clearly?

Four Annoying Things About Tebow

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 235

In this episode, Jim reads an articulate letter from a listener describing why so many non-believers are annoyed with Tim Tebow. Jim also discusses the death of Christopher Hitchens and responds to listener email related to the “falsifiability” of Christianity.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Four Annoying Things About Tebow

Why Would God Create A Universe So Vast?

Gaze skyward on a clear night and let your mind roam a bit. Look upward from any spot on Earth and you’ll see millions of light years into the distance, and millions of years into the past. And everywhere you look, there are stars, grouped into solar systems and galaxies, numbering into the untold billions. And around each star revolves material, sometimes planets larger than our own. Yet scientists tell us that the closest possibly Earth-like planets would take us millions of years to reach, while the planets closer to home are simply uninhabitable. The atheist and the theist, considering this same canvas, reach two quite different conclusions. For the Christian there is awe – despite our knowledge that we are not the “geographic” center of the universe, it does appear that the universe was fine-tuned and created with us in mind. Though we are located on the periphery of an unremarkable galaxy, we seem ideally situated to gaze back into the creation event. To the atheist, by contrast, it seems like such a, well, waste: no rational being would go to the trouble of making so much just to populate a tiny planet. The vastness of the cosmos, for them, proves that either there is no God, or he is certainly not a God interested in the lives of people here.

Is there an adequate answer to this challenge? Can we still have confidence that despite occupying a location in the universe that is infinitesimally small and seemingly remote, we can rightly claim that all of this was made for us?

Examining what underlies the atheist’s challenge is an appropriate starting point. From a human perspective, their argument seems compelling. Imagine for a moment a plan to house two scientists at the extreme reaches of Antarctica. A proposal to build a small city and to pave the streets with gold would be exceedingly foolish. The conditions would make construction extremely difficult, the cost would be astronomical, the dangers overwhelming, and most importantly, there would be no need. Anything more than the bare essentials to keep the scientists alive would be wasteful; any plan to build more evidence of irrationality.

If God wanted to build a home for humanity, wouldn’t a single planet have been enough? Or a single solar system? Why would He do so much more? The answer, I submit, lies in a proper understanding of God’s attributes. Unlike human builders, God suffers no limitations. He is omnipotent. It is as easy for him to construct 100 billion stars as it is to construct one. While this creative activity may require effort- a working of the will - it does not require “work.” In fact, like the artist who paints a portrait as a gift to a loved one, the very act of creating may itself be an act of love. The artist is free to situate his subject in any surroundings he chooses, and if challenged as to why he didn’t simply paint the person’s face, he would no doubt be surprised at the foolishness of the question. After all, his creative energies were directed at something much bigger than simply the central feature of the work. Moreover, his expressive artistry depends on the complete picture, and how it interacts with the central feature; painting only the face would, practically speaking, eliminate the artistic aspect of the work.

Unlike men who labor for what they build, and who must conserve resources or energy, an omnipotent being has no more need to scrimp than would a computer programmer who can populate his simulation with a million characters as easily as he can with one. It is simply a matter of desire, not one of power or purpose.

So why would God go to such apparent extremes? The answer may lie in the fact that Earth lies in a very distinct location both within the universe and within the timeline. Moreover, Earth’s unique set of characteristics - the location and size of the moon, its period of revolution, the distance to the sun, etc. - allows for scientific study of the created order. It may simply be that God intends for us to reach out to Him through the use of our minds, to understand Him better by studying what He has created for us. Or perhaps, He simply wanted us to "enjoy the show," the master artist outdoing Himself for our benefit.

When the U.S. military seeks to get someone’s attention, the phrase they use to describe the level of their efforts is “shock and awe.” An apt phrase, it seems, for understanding God’s approach as well. For when one contemplates the immensity of the power and intelligence necessary to create – from nothing – something so vast and so organized, we should feel shock and awe. We should turn toward Him, not in arrogance and pride, but humbly, with fear and trembling.

But knowing that He loves each of us personally, and has a plan for us - well, that may be the most amazing miracle of all.

Why Would God Create A Universe So Vast?

What "Timeless Truths" Can Tell Us Part II

My last post ruminated on the nature of “timeless truths” – such as the laws of geometry and of logic - and what worldview better explains the existence of such permanent concepts. I argued that the existence of eternal and unchanging ideas necessarily required an eternal and unchanging mind to ground them. A commenter disagreed, raising two interesting challenges. The first was whether my point was that the value of pi was dependent on an eternal and unchanging mind to recognize it; if so, he felt I was mistaken, as the value of pi remains constant because it is basically built into the definition of what a circle is.The second challenge stemmed from my description of the mind of God as eternal and unchanging. As he put it, “If it is eternal and unchanging, how could it have any thoughts at all?”

Unpacking the assumptions which underlie these questions is the first step in understanding the cause of the disagreement. The challenger assumes that circles simply exist - that they always have and always will. Consequently, it stands to reason that a value such as pi – a measurement relating to a circle - would always be the same, regardless of whether or not a mind existed to recognize it.

The problem with this challenge is that it takes as a given the very thing which is under consideration: the existence of “ideas” such as mathematical concepts by which things like circles can be quantified or measured. After all, there are no perfect circles – or lines for that matter – in nature; these things exist only in our minds, and things in nature more or less approximate them. Our intelligence allows us to “see” how various relationships exist, and to make use of this understanding to gain valuable knowledge of, and mastery over, nature.

What we are discovering as we learn more about these abstractions, and these relationships involving concepts such as lines, angles, energy, mass, logic, etc., is that they are in fact a language of sorts. Using these concepts, we can construct equations which communicate information about things that exist as abstract ideas, but that have practical application. For instance, using the rules of geometry, equations can be constructed that would allow a person to determine distance to an object by knowing the height of the object and the angle to its top. Using the laws of physics, equations can allow scientists to harness the energy of the atom. Using the laws of logic, conclusions can be drawn about things that must necessarily be true if certain premises are true. These equations are not simply visual aspects of solid objects; they speak to us about the way things must be if certain other things are true. They predict what future events will take place if certain current events are set into motion. Their predictive power is based on an assumption of the stability of nature, but that stability cannot itself be proven but must instead be understood and accepted intuitively. In all these ways, concepts we can access with our minds are "speaking" to us in a language that is somehow known to our minds.

But we did not invent this language, and we know it. We are engaged in the processing of discovering it. Since languages come from minds, we have to ask ourselves why this language is there for us to find. After all, it predates the appearance of man on this planet. Atheism says it just happens to be that way. The "language" of thought just exists, in the same way that rocks exist. This answer might explain why a rock is there, but not why calculus works and will continue to work into the future. Theism offers a better explanation – an eternal mind exists which grounds these laws and rules of nature that we can discover through the use of our minds. That’s why we see them and animals cannot.

But how can a "god" who is "eternal and unchanging" have any thoughts at all? This question assumes that God thinks it the same way that we do – in a linear and temporal way. We make decisions one step at a time, building knowledge as we move forward through time. But time does not apply to God in the way it applies to us. When we "change," it means that new circumstances have affected us in some way, causing us to improve or decline in some fashion, or to shift our approach. There is nothing new for God. He sees all things and all time in his eternal present. He knows all things. Therefore he has no need to change. No new thoughts occur to him because all possible thoughts are present all the time within his infinite mind. He can spend infinite time contemplating each of an infinite number of thoughts.

Now, I cannot explain how this works, anymore than a fish could explain how human beings move through their medium without gills and fins. My temporal limitations prevent me from fully grasping how this works. But positing that an omnipotent being cannot think is a contradiction - it asserts that limitless being is in fact limited.

The language of logic tells us otherwise.

What "Timeless Truths" Can Tell Us Part II