When discussing the validity of the Christian faith, the topic of evolution must be looked at. Many teachers and professors in middle schools, high schools, and universities often teach evolution as a fact. However, the THEORY of evolution is increasingly being exposed. We know more today than Charles Darwin did when he first published: On the Origin of Species, in 1859. Today I want to share a couple important things that we know, and the scientific data that we have, that Darwin did not have access to. But, first, what is evolution, and what evidence is there for it?
Intro to Evolution
Darwin theorized that the organisms and living things that the earth has today are the result of millions of years of natural selection. Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands to observe the unique animals. He was especially intrigued by the finches. He observed that the finches each had different beaks, and they used them for different reasons and in different ways. This led him to the idea that organisms adapt over time, in order to survive. Life is the "survival of the fittest." It is natural selection. The animals with the ability to live survive, while the others die.When a certain organism is able to survive they reproduce, and pass those survival traits on to their offspring. What is interesting is that we did not learn about genes until the early 1900's. This part of Darwin's theory was proven to be true--that organisms pass down traits to their offspring.
We also must differentiate between micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution is adaptation within a kind. A perfect example would be Darwin's finches. They adapted in order to survive, but they remained finches. They never turned into mammals, or any other kind of organism. They stayed finches. Macro evolution teaches that over millions of years all the species we have today came from a common ancestor--that common ancestor being a single cell organism. While micro evolution has proven itself to be true, macro evolution lacks any real evidence.
Evidence against Macro-Evolution
One of Darwin's main concerns with his theory of evolution was the lack of transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are the "in-between" forms of organisms. For example, the organism that would be in between a fish and an amphibian. Here is what Darwin said: "Why, if a species has descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms (On the Origin of Species)?" Darwin saw that there was a lack of transitional fossils to support his argument. He thought, however, that over time transitional fossils would be found, and that his theory would be proven. However, we sit here over 150 years later, and still have a difficult time coming up with any transitional fossils.
A second argument against macro-evolution is our current knowledge of cells. We know much more today about cells than Darwin did. Darwin thought a cell was a very simple blob of living goo. However, we now know how much is going on in a single cell. It is like a mini factory! There is a nucleus, mitochondria, vacuoles, ribosomes, cytoplasm, and much more. Each of these parts has a specific job. Our bodies are made up of trillions of these complex cells. Amazing! Life is extremely complex, and we know that now. Darwin did not know the complexity of life as we do today. Because of the complexity of even a single cell, Darwin's theory that everything evolved from one living cell become unlikely. Especially considering the question: How did that first cell receive life? If cells and life are simple (as Darwin thought), life could theoretically derive from certain conditions. However, knowing what we know about cells and life, the possibility of this is highly unlikely. Scientists have been trying to create life from non-life for over a century, yet they have failed. So, if scientists can't even create life in a lab how could a life-filled cell come naturally and by chance?
A third argument has to do with the complexity of cells. There is something called a flagellum, which is an amazing machine that enables a cell to move. A flagellum is extremely complex. It is made up of 40 protein parts which all work together for the purpose of moving the cell. However, if you take out any one of those 40 protein parts, the flagellum does not work. It become useless. Macro-evolution teaches that organisms evolve slowly and over time. It would be impossible for all 40 protein parts to randomly assemble themselves into a fully functioning flagellum. And, according to evolution, the cell would not randomly assemble protein parts, unless it had a function. Therefore, evolution is shown to be highly unlikely because of the flagellum. This is called irreducible complexity. It is when we find something that could not have evolved over time, but must have been created.
Conclusion
Darwin had certain things right in his theory. Micro-evolution, or adaptation within a species, has been proven to be true. A parent passing down their traits to their offspring has also proven to be true. However, macro evolution has no evidence. There is even evidence against it when we view the complexity of the cells. However, when someone comes to the conclusion that evolution is not true, they have to accept the fact that organisms were created. The naturalist explanation of everything is suddenly invalid. They then have to accept the fact that there is a creator, someone or something bigger them themselves. Many people do not like to face this reality.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Is God really real? Moral Argument
There is something that all people have in common. There is something that is recognized by Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, and everyone in between. This recognition by all people is the idea that there is evil in the world. This is evident to all. It is hard to find a sane person who looks back at the holocaust, and does NOT admit that it was a horrible, evil, and wicked event. It is difficult to find a sane person who likes the idea of a neighbor being brutally murdered. Evil is in this world, and we as people recognize it. For this very reason, many are convinced that there is no God. This was an idea held by C.S. Lewis. He was at one point an Atheist. He looked at all the evil in the world, and did not think a God could exist if there was so much evil in the world. However, the fact that there is evil eventually led Lewis to a belief in God.
We as people are able to recognize evil. We can distinguish between good and evil. We as the human race have a moral code written on our consciences. However, where do these morals come from? How are we even able to differentiate between good and bad? Many people say that human beings have evolved over millions of years to what we are today. Where then did we as humans get consciences and morals? How did we evolve the ability to differentiate from right and wrong? How are we able to recognize something as evil?
Scientifically speaking, and assuming that evolution is true, is there such thing as morals? Is there such a thing as evil? Is it even possible to differentiate between right and wrong? Could an ability to see what is evil and what is good somehow evolve through natural selection?
C.S. Lewis discusses this idea of morals in the first portion of Mere Christianity. Lewis was once an Atheist. After further thought he was led to believe that there was a God, and he eventually became a Christian. He came to the conclusion that there was a God after he began to think about evil. He knew it existed, and he didn't like it. But, just the fact that he knew that there was evil in the world, showed him that there has to be an outside source that put the idea of good versus evil inside of him. This source must be a higher power of some sort.
If there is no higher power, then we would not have the ability to even see evil, if evil was even real. Because, everything would be based off of survival. There would be no natural or moral law. The only law would be survival of the fittest.
The idea of morals, and the ability to differentiate between good and evil, is something that points to a higher power. If you would like to learn more about this thought, and in more detail, I would encourage you to read Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis does a much better job than I do in detailing this argument.
We as people are able to recognize evil. We can distinguish between good and evil. We as the human race have a moral code written on our consciences. However, where do these morals come from? How are we even able to differentiate between good and bad? Many people say that human beings have evolved over millions of years to what we are today. Where then did we as humans get consciences and morals? How did we evolve the ability to differentiate from right and wrong? How are we able to recognize something as evil?
Scientifically speaking, and assuming that evolution is true, is there such thing as morals? Is there such a thing as evil? Is it even possible to differentiate between right and wrong? Could an ability to see what is evil and what is good somehow evolve through natural selection?
C.S. Lewis discusses this idea of morals in the first portion of Mere Christianity. Lewis was once an Atheist. After further thought he was led to believe that there was a God, and he eventually became a Christian. He came to the conclusion that there was a God after he began to think about evil. He knew it existed, and he didn't like it. But, just the fact that he knew that there was evil in the world, showed him that there has to be an outside source that put the idea of good versus evil inside of him. This source must be a higher power of some sort.
If there is no higher power, then we would not have the ability to even see evil, if evil was even real. Because, everything would be based off of survival. There would be no natural or moral law. The only law would be survival of the fittest.
The idea of morals, and the ability to differentiate between good and evil, is something that points to a higher power. If you would like to learn more about this thought, and in more detail, I would encourage you to read Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis does a much better job than I do in detailing this argument.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Is God really real? Teleological Argument
In our journey to explore the validity of our Christian faith, I continued with our students the idea of a supreme being. Do we have any evidence to support the idea that there is an intelligent designer behind creation? This is a summary of the discussion and the main points of it:
In discussing the possibility of a supreme being, or an intelligent designer, it is important to look closely at the world around around us. Look at the universe, look at our solar system, look at our planet, look at ourselves. Now let's ask this question: is our universe one of order, or one of disorder? Do things appear to be guided and set in place? Or does everything seem to be going about at random? If our universe was created and set into place by a higher power, then there would definitely be evidence for this. Just as a building reflects the builder, so our universe would reflect the creator. But, if the universe came into existence by chance, or by random occurrence, then it would be just that; random.
What does science tell us about our universe? Let's take a look at our planet. We know that the earth is the perfect distance from a perfect sized star that we call the sun. If the sun was any bigger, or if we were a little closer to the sun, our planet would be too warm for life to exist. If the sun was any smaller, or if we were further from the sun, our planet would be too cold for life to exist.
The rotation of the earth is also very interesting, and something we must consider. The earth makes a full rotation in 24 hours. It takes the same time to rotate each day. This is obvious, considering the length of our days stay the same. It would be odd if one day was long, and the next was suddenly and unexpectedly short. Instead we see a reflection of amazing order.
The revolution of the earth around the sun is also quite remarkable. It takes 365.25 days for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun (the .25 is the reason for leap years). The Earth must travel about 585 million miles to make a full revolution. The time it takes for the earth to do this always remains the same. The earth's orbit around the sun does not change. Once again, amazing order is reflected.
Let's take a look at the human body. Our bodies are made up of trillions of cells. Molecular Biology tells us a lot of the complexity of cells. Each cell is like a little factory, with many parts, and specific jobs for each of those parts. The things that are going on in our body at this very moment are absolutely amazing. Our bodies are not a reflection of disorder, but of order.
Through what we discover through science we are able to see the systematic, planned, and order that we are able to observe all around us. Now considering this, let me give you an example that one our students shared this last Sunday, as we discussed this topic: Do we ever see a building or a structure come from an explosion? When a bomb goes off does the debris and shrapnel ever come together perfectly to create a structure of any sort? It never has, it never does and it never will! It would be ridiculous to suggest that this would be possible.
So, is it possible that the universe we see today (including ourselves) resulted from a "big bang" which took place billions of years ago? Is it possible that such an event of disorder, such as the big bang theory suggests, resulted in a universe of incredible order? It is evident and logical that some other power, being, or person was behind the creation of the universe. This higher power is the one who put everything into place. Let's not be ignorant of the order around us. Instead, let's observe it and come to the rational conclusion that our universe is not random, but planned and designed.
This is known as the Teleological argument. In summary, our universe is one of order. The idea that what we have today came from a random explosion is absurd. The more we look deeper the more we find order, and the more we find the work of a supreme being.
In discussing the possibility of a supreme being, or an intelligent designer, it is important to look closely at the world around around us. Look at the universe, look at our solar system, look at our planet, look at ourselves. Now let's ask this question: is our universe one of order, or one of disorder? Do things appear to be guided and set in place? Or does everything seem to be going about at random? If our universe was created and set into place by a higher power, then there would definitely be evidence for this. Just as a building reflects the builder, so our universe would reflect the creator. But, if the universe came into existence by chance, or by random occurrence, then it would be just that; random.
What does science tell us about our universe? Let's take a look at our planet. We know that the earth is the perfect distance from a perfect sized star that we call the sun. If the sun was any bigger, or if we were a little closer to the sun, our planet would be too warm for life to exist. If the sun was any smaller, or if we were further from the sun, our planet would be too cold for life to exist.
The rotation of the earth is also very interesting, and something we must consider. The earth makes a full rotation in 24 hours. It takes the same time to rotate each day. This is obvious, considering the length of our days stay the same. It would be odd if one day was long, and the next was suddenly and unexpectedly short. Instead we see a reflection of amazing order.
The revolution of the earth around the sun is also quite remarkable. It takes 365.25 days for the earth to make a full revolution around the sun (the .25 is the reason for leap years). The Earth must travel about 585 million miles to make a full revolution. The time it takes for the earth to do this always remains the same. The earth's orbit around the sun does not change. Once again, amazing order is reflected.
Let's take a look at the human body. Our bodies are made up of trillions of cells. Molecular Biology tells us a lot of the complexity of cells. Each cell is like a little factory, with many parts, and specific jobs for each of those parts. The things that are going on in our body at this very moment are absolutely amazing. Our bodies are not a reflection of disorder, but of order.
Through what we discover through science we are able to see the systematic, planned, and order that we are able to observe all around us. Now considering this, let me give you an example that one our students shared this last Sunday, as we discussed this topic: Do we ever see a building or a structure come from an explosion? When a bomb goes off does the debris and shrapnel ever come together perfectly to create a structure of any sort? It never has, it never does and it never will! It would be ridiculous to suggest that this would be possible.
So, is it possible that the universe we see today (including ourselves) resulted from a "big bang" which took place billions of years ago? Is it possible that such an event of disorder, such as the big bang theory suggests, resulted in a universe of incredible order? It is evident and logical that some other power, being, or person was behind the creation of the universe. This higher power is the one who put everything into place. Let's not be ignorant of the order around us. Instead, let's observe it and come to the rational conclusion that our universe is not random, but planned and designed.
This is known as the Teleological argument. In summary, our universe is one of order. The idea that what we have today came from a random explosion is absurd. The more we look deeper the more we find order, and the more we find the work of a supreme being.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Is God really real? Cosmological Argument
A large portion of our nation still believes that God exists. However, there is a growing number of people who claim that there is no God. Many people have the idea that science and evolution have proved that God does not exist. As Christians, we cannot avoid these supposedly "scientific" claims. We need to look into them, and see if there is any validity. We need to be people of truth. If God is really real, we will find this to be truer and truer the more we dig deeper.
I am a Youth Pastor in Rochester, MN, and I am taking our youth students on a journey to discover the truth. Many of them have a lot of questions about our faith--why does God allow suffering? Why did God create people, knowing that some of them would go to hell? Considering that there are thousands of religions, how can we know that the Christian faith is the right one?
Before we get to these questions, we need to start at the beginning. This starts with our basic belief of God. Is God really real? We are even going to take it a step back further, and ask if we can even know if there is any evidence for a supreme being of some sort.
Before we go any further, I want to make one thing clear. Anyone who says that science has proven that there is no God and that Christianity is false is ignorant of what science is. The scientific method is as follows:
1. Ask a question.
2. Do background research.
3. Create a hypothesis, or a educational guess that can be tested.
4. Test that hypothesis through observations and an experiment.
5. Analyze the data from the experiment to come to a conclusion.
So, is it scientifically possible to prove that a spiritual and invisible God (which is what the Christian God is) does not exist? Absolutely not. Why? Because the hypothesis that the invisible and spiritual Christian God does not exist is not able to be tested by an experiment or through observation. So, by the definition of what science is, it is impossible to scientifically prove that God does or does not exist. However, we can still look at the universe, our planet, and organisms, to help us discover if everything came by chance, or if there is a God, a supreme being, or some sort of intelligent designer behind it all.
So, is there evidence for a supreme being? Can we know that there is a God of some sort behind creation? I believe yes. Last Sunday our youth discussed something called the "Cosmological Argument." This is something Lee Strobel discusses in: A Case for a Creator.
In ancient times, many people groups believed that the universe was eternal; that is never had a beginning point. Today we know that this idea is false. To summarize it, Einstein had the idea (or hypothesis) that the universe had a beginning point, and it was later validated by using the Hubble Telescope. Scientists found that galaxies and stars are all moving away from each other. If we were to rewind this, the stars and galaxies would come closer together, until everything is in one place.
So, we know that our universe had a beginning point. This is where the Big Bang Theory comes into play. The main atheistic view is that about 13 billion years ago, there was a "Big Bang," of the matter which existed at the time. This big bang was the beginning of the universe, as everything that was created from this beginning point went flying away from each other. A couple other views include wormholes, multiple universes, and even aliens....
The Christian view is that God created the universe, and put it into motion.
From these viewpoints, and from pure logic, one can conclude that one thing is for certain: there has to be something that is eternal, without beginning or end. If you take a moment and think about it, there must be something or someone who never had a beginning. Some ancient cultures thought this was the universe itself. As Christians we believe that God is eternal. However, what do atheists believe today? Is the matter which collided together to create the big bang eternal? Are gases that created a reaction eternal? The interesting thing is, there has to be something that never had a beginning point. What was this thing? Or could it be a being? I think so.
It might just be my Christian bias, but I believe it is much more logical and even scientific to say that there is an eternal God who created the universe, our planet, and everything on it, than to say that matter has always existed, and one day it randomly collided together to create the universe, which includes everything we see here on earth.
Through experimentation and observation, science tells us the requirements for life to exist on a planet. This includes things like: the perfect distance from the perfect type and size of sun, the right amount of oxygen in the air, the perfect tilt of the axis of the planet, and liquid water, just to name a few. With the many other requirements needed in order for life even to exist, the odds of this happening are 1/1,000,000,000,000,000. How you pronounce that number I don't know, but I do know that life is extremely rare, and logically impossible if the universe is just an accident which came about by chance.
However, the idea that a God created everything, and created the Earth to sustain life, is not such an illogical or non-scientific thought after all! Unless one truly believes that what we see today, the complexity of life and our universe, happened by chance.
We have gotten to this point without talking about something very important, which is the fact that there must have been something or someone to cause the universe to come into being. The idea that the matter which already existed randomly and by chance exploded is ridiculous. There is always a cause when we have an effect (Kalam's Argument). When we look at the universe today, it would be quite ignorant to say that it all happened without a cause of some sort, along with some serious direction and designing!
What conclusion have we come to today? There is definite evidence for a supreme being of some sort, and intelligent designer. Logic and science tell us this, unless you truly believe that matter is eternal. The complexity of our universe, our planet, and ourselves also shows evidence for a creator. While this will not change the mind of the atheist, it should at least provoke some thoughts. It will also strengthen our faith as believers, to help us truly believer what we claim we believe, which is the fact that God is really real.
I am a Youth Pastor in Rochester, MN, and I am taking our youth students on a journey to discover the truth. Many of them have a lot of questions about our faith--why does God allow suffering? Why did God create people, knowing that some of them would go to hell? Considering that there are thousands of religions, how can we know that the Christian faith is the right one?
Before we get to these questions, we need to start at the beginning. This starts with our basic belief of God. Is God really real? We are even going to take it a step back further, and ask if we can even know if there is any evidence for a supreme being of some sort.
Before we go any further, I want to make one thing clear. Anyone who says that science has proven that there is no God and that Christianity is false is ignorant of what science is. The scientific method is as follows:
1. Ask a question.
2. Do background research.
3. Create a hypothesis, or a educational guess that can be tested.
4. Test that hypothesis through observations and an experiment.
5. Analyze the data from the experiment to come to a conclusion.
So, is it scientifically possible to prove that a spiritual and invisible God (which is what the Christian God is) does not exist? Absolutely not. Why? Because the hypothesis that the invisible and spiritual Christian God does not exist is not able to be tested by an experiment or through observation. So, by the definition of what science is, it is impossible to scientifically prove that God does or does not exist. However, we can still look at the universe, our planet, and organisms, to help us discover if everything came by chance, or if there is a God, a supreme being, or some sort of intelligent designer behind it all.
So, is there evidence for a supreme being? Can we know that there is a God of some sort behind creation? I believe yes. Last Sunday our youth discussed something called the "Cosmological Argument." This is something Lee Strobel discusses in: A Case for a Creator.
In ancient times, many people groups believed that the universe was eternal; that is never had a beginning point. Today we know that this idea is false. To summarize it, Einstein had the idea (or hypothesis) that the universe had a beginning point, and it was later validated by using the Hubble Telescope. Scientists found that galaxies and stars are all moving away from each other. If we were to rewind this, the stars and galaxies would come closer together, until everything is in one place.
So, we know that our universe had a beginning point. This is where the Big Bang Theory comes into play. The main atheistic view is that about 13 billion years ago, there was a "Big Bang," of the matter which existed at the time. This big bang was the beginning of the universe, as everything that was created from this beginning point went flying away from each other. A couple other views include wormholes, multiple universes, and even aliens....
The Christian view is that God created the universe, and put it into motion.
From these viewpoints, and from pure logic, one can conclude that one thing is for certain: there has to be something that is eternal, without beginning or end. If you take a moment and think about it, there must be something or someone who never had a beginning. Some ancient cultures thought this was the universe itself. As Christians we believe that God is eternal. However, what do atheists believe today? Is the matter which collided together to create the big bang eternal? Are gases that created a reaction eternal? The interesting thing is, there has to be something that never had a beginning point. What was this thing? Or could it be a being? I think so.
It might just be my Christian bias, but I believe it is much more logical and even scientific to say that there is an eternal God who created the universe, our planet, and everything on it, than to say that matter has always existed, and one day it randomly collided together to create the universe, which includes everything we see here on earth.
Through experimentation and observation, science tells us the requirements for life to exist on a planet. This includes things like: the perfect distance from the perfect type and size of sun, the right amount of oxygen in the air, the perfect tilt of the axis of the planet, and liquid water, just to name a few. With the many other requirements needed in order for life even to exist, the odds of this happening are 1/1,000,000,000,000,000. How you pronounce that number I don't know, but I do know that life is extremely rare, and logically impossible if the universe is just an accident which came about by chance.
However, the idea that a God created everything, and created the Earth to sustain life, is not such an illogical or non-scientific thought after all! Unless one truly believes that what we see today, the complexity of life and our universe, happened by chance.
We have gotten to this point without talking about something very important, which is the fact that there must have been something or someone to cause the universe to come into being. The idea that the matter which already existed randomly and by chance exploded is ridiculous. There is always a cause when we have an effect (Kalam's Argument). When we look at the universe today, it would be quite ignorant to say that it all happened without a cause of some sort, along with some serious direction and designing!
What conclusion have we come to today? There is definite evidence for a supreme being of some sort, and intelligent designer. Logic and science tell us this, unless you truly believe that matter is eternal. The complexity of our universe, our planet, and ourselves also shows evidence for a creator. While this will not change the mind of the atheist, it should at least provoke some thoughts. It will also strengthen our faith as believers, to help us truly believer what we claim we believe, which is the fact that God is really real.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
The Hometown Syndrome
When we as Christians look at the Bible, we read of many amazing things that Jesus did. From feeding the 5,000, to walking on water, to casting out demons, and healing every kind of sickness, disease, and disability, Jesus did it all. However, there is a story in Scripture that appears in three of the four gospels. This is when Jesus goes to his hometown, Nazareth.
This story takes place in Mark 6. Up to this point in Mark, Jesus has already raised the dead, healed a paralyzed man, cast out demons, and calmed a storm, just to name a few. His fame began to spread all over Israel, as a man who spoke with authority, and backed up what he said with miracles. However, in Mark 6, when he went to his hometown, everything was different. In verses 5 and 6 it says: "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith." I will repeat that part one more time: "He could not do any miracles there, except..." Jesus could NOT do any miracles there. And, the miracles that he did were "exceptions."
I read that verse growing up, and was always bothered by it. Then this summer I heard a word from an evangelist that sparked a lot of thought in me. Eric Samuel Timm was preaching and he mentioned this passage. He noted that he had also been bothered by it in the past. Until he realized something. Jesus's power never had any limitations, it was the people that put limitations on Jesus.
That is just as true today as it was back then. Christ's power has no limitations, yet people still put their own limitations on Jesus. In this passage I can see Jesus going into his hometown. Seeing people that he grew up with. His old neighbors. His old friends. People who already had in their mind who they thought Jesus was, and what he was capable of. So, Jesus comes strolling in, wanting to preach the good news that the Kingdom of God is near, and perform miracles. Then, he runs into a roadblock. These people don't believe that he can do what is rumored about him. They hear that he healed the sick, and raised the dead. But they think: "I know Jesus. I know what he is capable of. He can't do that stuff!" They had a "lack of faith."
The church in America has been around for a few hundred years now. You go on the street and ask someone if they know Jesus, and they have at least heard of him. They probably know that he died for us, or something like that. Many people grow up going to church, going to confirmation, or maybe youth group. Everyone thinks that they know who this Jesus guy is, and what he is capable of. Some don't believe he ever really existed, while others think he was a good guy who did a lot good deeds. So, when they hear that he can heal, they laugh it off. They doubt it. They don't believe it. But then in other countries, where the gospel has gone in recent times, we hear of amazing miracles. I just went to Africa last month, where churches are constantly seeing God demonstrate his power. But we wonder, why doesn't that happen here in America?
The reason: the Hometown Syndrome. America has become Jesus's home town. Everybody recognizes his name. Everyone thinks that they know what he is capable of. They place limitations upon Jesus. Because of this, Jesus doesn't do any miracles. The only miracles he does are "exceptions," just like in Mark 6. We still hear of miracles in America, but they are very rare.
In other nations, where miracles occur more regularly, the church is constantly praying. They see a need, and they pray. They pray for someone with cancer, then after they pray they tell them to go to the hospital to get a scan, because the cancer is gone in Jesus name. They expect Jesus to move.They have no limitations on Jesus. They have no preconceived notions. No ideas of what Jesus is capable of, outside of what the Word of God tells them. So, God moves in His power.
In other nations, where miracles occur more regularly, the church is constantly praying. They see a need, and they pray. They pray for someone with cancer, then after they pray they tell them to go to the hospital to get a scan, because the cancer is gone in Jesus name. They expect Jesus to move.They have no limitations on Jesus. They have no preconceived notions. No ideas of what Jesus is capable of, outside of what the Word of God tells them. So, God moves in His power.
Jesus does not want the demonstration of his power to be rare. We need to stop placing limitations upon Jesus's power. This change starts in the church. Jesus has the power to do miracles, and he wants to do them through each of us. So, let's start praying for and expecting miracles. Let's start being bold and start stepping out for people who need a miracle. Let's truly expect of Jesus what we claim we believe, which is, Jesus heals.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
The Irrelevance of Relevance
There is an idea among many Christians today that we as the church need to become more relevant to the world around us. I completely agree with this! If the church is not a relevant source of influence within society, then we as the church are not operating the way God intends us to. However, many Christians have gone in the wrong direction in regards to becoming more "relevant."
I believe that the intentions of many Christians to become more "relevant" are honest and good. They want to reach out to the lost around them. I am all for that! However, many Christians believe that in order to properly reach the world we need to become more like the world, so we can better relate to them, and so they can better relate to us. In doing this they believe that they will become more "relevant" to those people.
In this attempt to become more relevant, Christians become completely irrelevant to the very people they are trying to witness to. If a follower of Jesus is no different from an unbeliever, why would anyone want to become a Christian? God commands us to be holy, a people set apart (1 Peter 1:16). We cannot neglect holiness for the sake of relevance. If relevance take priority over holiness, we then need to begin to question our motives and our intent. We can still be relevant and keep our holiness. In fact, part of the church being relevant is by the people within the church living holy lives. By doing this, Christians are no longer the people that can't party on Saturday night because they have church the next morning. But instead, the church is a people set apart from the world, not living for themselves, but for God.
Then there is the idea of making church services more "relevant." Let me be real and honest, I enjoy having drums, fancy lights, and sub-woofers at church. However, if our main focus to reach people is our cool music, we have lost the point. It needs to be about Jesus! If people aren't coming into our churches and eventually staying because of Jesus, then we are not accomplishing the mission that Jesus gave us to make disciples (Matthew 28:19), and we are becoming eternally irrelevant.
So, if our current attempt to be relevant is not the right way to reach the lost, what should we do? We need to be the church that God calls us to be! We can't forsake our holiness in order to be relevant. Instead, we need to stick to the message of Jesus, which transcends all periods of time and is always relevant! We as the church should not try to do anything else to win the lost! We shouldn't try to reach the lost with loud and "relevant" music, or by being like them, but through the message of the gospel! It is only when we stick to Jesus, and what he did, that the church is truly relevant. Otherwise, in our own attempt to become relevant, we will become utterly and sadly irrelevant.
I believe that the intentions of many Christians to become more "relevant" are honest and good. They want to reach out to the lost around them. I am all for that! However, many Christians believe that in order to properly reach the world we need to become more like the world, so we can better relate to them, and so they can better relate to us. In doing this they believe that they will become more "relevant" to those people.
In this attempt to become more relevant, Christians become completely irrelevant to the very people they are trying to witness to. If a follower of Jesus is no different from an unbeliever, why would anyone want to become a Christian? God commands us to be holy, a people set apart (1 Peter 1:16). We cannot neglect holiness for the sake of relevance. If relevance take priority over holiness, we then need to begin to question our motives and our intent. We can still be relevant and keep our holiness. In fact, part of the church being relevant is by the people within the church living holy lives. By doing this, Christians are no longer the people that can't party on Saturday night because they have church the next morning. But instead, the church is a people set apart from the world, not living for themselves, but for God.
Then there is the idea of making church services more "relevant." Let me be real and honest, I enjoy having drums, fancy lights, and sub-woofers at church. However, if our main focus to reach people is our cool music, we have lost the point. It needs to be about Jesus! If people aren't coming into our churches and eventually staying because of Jesus, then we are not accomplishing the mission that Jesus gave us to make disciples (Matthew 28:19), and we are becoming eternally irrelevant.
So, if our current attempt to be relevant is not the right way to reach the lost, what should we do? We need to be the church that God calls us to be! We can't forsake our holiness in order to be relevant. Instead, we need to stick to the message of Jesus, which transcends all periods of time and is always relevant! We as the church should not try to do anything else to win the lost! We shouldn't try to reach the lost with loud and "relevant" music, or by being like them, but through the message of the gospel! It is only when we stick to Jesus, and what he did, that the church is truly relevant. Otherwise, in our own attempt to become relevant, we will become utterly and sadly irrelevant.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
The Slippery Slope of Liberal Christianity
There was a movement that began in the late 19th century that has had a very negative impact on the church. Today this movement is as strong as ever within the church, specifically the western church. It is important that we are aware of what this is, as it will affect the future of the church in America in a very serious way. This movement that I speak of is that of Liberal Christianity.
The term Liberal Christianity does not refer to "Liberal" in a political sense, rather a theological one. What does that mean exactly? Well, at the core of Liberal Christianity is the thought that the Bible is not the infallible and inherent Word of God. Therefore, the Bible is treated by Liberal theologians in the same way as other ancient documents are treated. In doing this, the ideologies of Christianity are drastically changed.
Liberalism's roots were in the Enlightenment, or the age of reason. This is why man's reason and logic are equal or even elevated above Scripture in Liberalism. Where a Conservative theologian or Christian uses the Bible as the authoritative rule of faith and conduct, a Liberal theologian or Christian reads Scripture through the lens of modern thinking and reasoning. If the Bible says something different than what science is theorizing or people are philosophizing, then the Bible is either wrong or we are reading it wrong, according to a Liberal Christian.
An example of an issue that is in an interesting phase in America right now is the topic of homosexuality. It is obvious in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. This is really not an argument. However, many in the Liberal camp say that homosexuality is not a sin, and they accept the gay lifestyle. While I believe strongly that we should love homosexuals, the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin. However, Liberal Christians will not accept that homosexuality is a sin, because of their own reasoning. "Why would homosexuality be wrong if homosexuals are not hurting anyone?" "Why should we stop them from marriage if they truly love each other?" "People are born gay, so why should we change or oppose what God has created?" These are questions we have all heard from those who are in support of gay marriage, often times from Christians. This all stems from Liberalism, and denying the infallibility of Scripture in favor of mankind's own reason and logic.
If Scripture is not our foundation as Christians, we might as well make up whatever we want to believe out of thin air; Liberalism basically does this already! Our God has spoken to us through his Word, and we must stand firm to what God has spoken. Even if the Bible goes against our own human ideas of values, we must submit to God's values. We cannot get to the point of taking what we like from Scripture, but ignoring what we don't like. We can't get to the point where something is not "from God" because it doesn't make sense to us. God's Word is truth. When we put our own reason at the same level as Scripture, we get Liberal Christianity, and we get a mess. Liberalism truly is a slippery slope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)