Slow Down! No Growing Too Fast!

It is desirable that children grow big and tall. But how fast is too fast?  When our triplet children were in diapers 27 years ago (our older daughter was age 2) there were moments when I imagined the day they would learn to do “that” for themselves.  There were also times (not always—I did, and do, really love them!) when I longed for their learning to talk and feed themselves, and for the day the house would become quiet as they would go off to school.  Well the time did pass.  And later looking back from the day of their high school graduation, and as it dawned on me that our home was finally to become quiet after all, uncomfortably so, I wondered with great sadness how the time had gone by so fast.

How fast is too fast and how slow is too slow?  Interestingly, the need for growth that applies to children also applies to our universe.  But the rate of growth for the latter deals with factors much more precise.  Before the discovery of the Big Bang, back when scientific opinion declared that the universe always existed, it was also assumed that the same was held together in “perfect” balance.  The fact of gravity did raise bits of concern that one day these heavenly bodies known as stars would “notice” each other and come to fall into each other (how romantic!).  But Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity brought an end to that notion of a stable and “static” universe (by static is meant unchanging and unmoving).  The new insights arising from relativity demanded that our universe cannot be static.  It must be either be expanding or collapsing.  Out of that insight alone French physicist and clergyman, Georges Lemaitre hypothesized an expanding universe out of a “primeval atom.”  Scientific discoveries, which soon followed, beginning with Edwin Hubble’s observations through the telescope at Mount Wilson, added to the case that our universe has been (and continues today) expanding out from an absolute beginning in the singularity of the Big Bang.  An entertaining and informational survey of the whole story can be found in the book, Show Me God, v.II, by Fred Heeren. (Daystar, 2000).

Only later did it become clear just how precise this expansion rate had to be, when measured against the necessary requirements for a universe that can host life of any kind.  The basic problem is, if the expansion rate had been too slow, all matter would quickly have collapsed in on itself into a gigantic black hole.  In that case there could be no galaxies, stars, and planets at all.  On the other hand, had the expansion rate been larger, all of that potential matter would have so quickly dissipated that it could not gravitationally form into galaxies, stars, and planets either.  While this basic theme should be fairly clear, what is most astonishing is just how razor thin that allowable expansion rate is which allows for the kind of universe in which it is possible for any kind of life to exist.  Stephen Hawking put it this way:

“Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, so that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?  If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state.” (A Brief History of Time. (Bantam 1988), p.122,3).

The very rate of expansion is therefore an additional indication of design in the very creation that exists by the Word of God (Genesis 1:1,2, John 1:1-3, Hebrews ll:3)  Truly, “The Heavens declare the glory of the LORD and the firmament proclaims His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).    

Just a "Philosophy"?

There is much that I have admired about Bill O’Reilly and his “No-Spin Zone” as he lays out the major national and world events of the day on his TV show.  But on the evening of the 28^th of November (2012), he involved himself in a gross misrepresentation of the very faith body he was apparently seeking to defend.  In an interview with the president of the American Atheist Association, David Silverman, O’Reilly stated repeatedly that “Christianity is not a religion, but a philosophy.”  As my wife and I were preparing supper in front of our TV, I commented to her, “This is amazing!  The atheist [with whom I of course disagreed fundamentally] is speaking more truth than is the Catholic!”

This is no time for defending the tenets of our faith using the strategy of fundamental rhetorical overhaul.  O’Reilly is confusing effect with cause.  Christianity is a religion by the standard and commonly agreed-upon definition.  While Christianity stands in contrast to other the major faith systems with our message that God has come to our rescue in Jesus Christ (top-down salvation), as opposed to the standard model of works-righteousness (bottoms-up) of the other world religions, Christianity nevertheless shares the common theme that religion has to do with the relationship of humanity with God, together with all that that means.

Christianity is not a philosophy.  This does not mean Christianity is irrational!  Far from it!  Furthermore, Christianity does speak about effects that reasonably follow from the activity of God in Jesus Christ.  In Romans 12:1, where the words are typically translated “reasonable worship,” the original word in the Greek is “logikan,” from which we get our English word “logical.”  Put another way, Paul is saying that, given all God has done for us in Jesus Christ, it reasonably (or logically) follows that we present ourselves as a living sacrifice to Him by means of our service to others.

But the aforementioned refers to effects and not the source cause.  The grand message of the Bible is about the magnificent love of God which caused Him to send His only Son Jesus Christ into the world for our salvation.  John 3:16 is what Christmas and indeed Christianity as a whole is about.  How absurd that Christians be asked to blunt such a message for the purpose of gaining or maintaining acceptance with the larger culture.  Given God’s great gift to the world at Christmas it follows after that fact that we should now share His love around. 

Who Can't Use a Good "Vacuum?"

Yesterday’s theme resumes tomorrow, although today's posting is related.  But first a joke: Ole (as in the bumblers Ole and Sven) was playing “Trivial Pursuit” when he got a question from the science category.  “If you are in a vacuum and someone is talking to you, can you hear him?”  Ole thought about this for a moment and then asked, “Is the vacuum on?, or off? “

The planet Jupiter is in the middle of the night sky these days.  And it is lovely to look at, especially with a telescope.  But take notice: If Jupiter was not out there we would not be here to reflect on its absence.  Jupiter is not only beautiful and bright.  Its presence is absolutely necessary for the possibility of life, certainly advanced life, to exist anywhere in our solar system.  Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system and it is actually larger than all of the other planets combined, including Pluto!  Wait a minute, Pluto is no longer officially a planet, but even if it were added, it is so small that it wouldn’t make a hair’s difference to the equation.

No why is this important?  Is it important to you personally?  Is this practical knowledge?  The answer is, it is even more important than being able to freshen up the living room carpet with a “Hoover.”  Jupiter’s presence is a matter of life and death.  There are different kinds of vacuums.  There is the carpet vacuum.  A vacuum is also defined as a space that is completely empty of matter.  The former depends on the principle of the latter in order to suck up dirt from the carpet.

Yet there is another phenomenon that, practically speaking, also sucks up unwanted matter.  That is where Jupiter comes in.  Because Jupiter is so amazingly huge, its gravity force effectively sucks up the dangerous cosmic debris (meteors, etc.) that is constantly flying through our solar system.  Were the bulk of them to hit our planet, it would completely destroy our atmosphere.  But instead, Jupiter sucks them up so that this debris instead lands in its atmosphere.  And we can take a deep breath.  Take note of this phenomenon at http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/11/explosion-on-jupiter-did-the-planet-take-a-hit-for-earth/.

Our existence on earth is not a matter of just a few factors, but a multitude of them.  There are so many factors that must be just right concerning our placement in the universe that the evidence adds up to the existence of our providential God who designed our home.  Check out these extensive requirements which are actually fulfilled at the “Reasons to Believe” website: www.reasons.org.

Let's Not Stop With the Very Beginning

The very existence of anything at all (which is everything there is!) is a sheer miracle that lies outside the possibility of scientific explanation.  I encourage your review of my previous blog posted November 15, 2012, where the scientific case for a transcendent Creator of the universe is laid out (“transcendent” means to stand outside of any arrangement that is under consideration).  For fuller treatment of this theme I recommend to you that book which has most influenced me, The Creator and the Cosmos by astronomer Hugh Ross (NavPress, 2001).  Dr. Ross also founded the think tank, Reasons to Believe, which harmonizes mainstream scientific discovery with the inerrant Word of God, the Holy Bible.  Their website is found at www.reasons.org.

 

Yet the mystery of our cosmos does not stop at that beginning, but continues from its unfolding all the way into the present.  Many people imagine that the Big Bang was a chaotic explosion whose results were much like the destructive effects of a nuclear bomb.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Consider today the single matter of “cosmic background radiation” (see my posting cited above).   One of the characteristics of this radiation from the glow of the initial blast is (was) that it is absolutely smooth…well, almost.  Its smoothness stands as one of many facts which point inescapably to the absolute beginning of the universe by an extremely hot Big Bang.  But at the same time, it is such a smooth glow that, when it was first discovered, the scientific community thought this characteristic stood against any notion that the Big Bang had potential to produce substances like galaxies with stars.  Only after further refinement of their instruments did they begin to detect the existence of extremely tiny ripples which are now understood to be the stuff (matter) that forms the beautiful points of light we see on a starry night.  Indeed, it is the same stuff that forms our own planet on which we firmly plant our feet with eyes fixed upward.

 

Please bear with me for a moment.  Have you wondered why the two words “cosmology” and “cosmetology” are so similar?  It is because they both come from the same Greek word, cosmos, which means, “orderly arrangement.”  The outcome people expect to receive when going to their hair stylist is similar to what the ancients perceived when they looked up into the heavens; that some Intelligence is responsible for making it beautiful.

In the next few postings I will frequently refer to the word “contingent.”  The word means that something is not logically or empirically required (“It doesn’t have to be exactly this way”).  In the context of our cosmos, it is universally recognized that it was not required that our cosmos have the exact properties that it actually does.  On countless levels our cosmos could have been far different than it actually was when it began.  One of those factors that could have been different (and only slightly so would have made all the difference) is the characteristics of today’s central theme, “cosmic background radiation.”  In order for anyone to be present at all (that is, exist), the characteristics of the initial cosmic radiation had to be well-nigh exactly as they actually are.  Had the ripples been either greater or smaller than 1 in 10 to the 60^th power, that is, one in ten followed by 60 zeros,[1] there would be no galaxies, no stars, no planets, and no “us” to discuss the matter.

 

---

[1] Hugh Ross. Why the Universe the Way it Is. (Reasons to Believe, 2008), p.209.

Why Singling Christians Out as “People of Faith” Distracts From the Big Issue

Christians are people of faith, and that by simple definition.  We neither deny it, nor are we embarrassed by it.  By the standard usage of faith defined as trust, in the example, “Jon, You have shown yourself trustworthy in the past, I have faith that you will finish your project,” we Christians likewise place our faith in the God who is shown to be reliable.  While, biblically speaking, faith is distinguished from fact (2 Corinthians 5:7), faith is not in contradiction to fact.  Faith rather is the logical stepping out onto a foundation shown to be secure.  A leap in the dark without substantial grounds is not faith, but instead credulity.  Faith, by definition, is the reasonable activity of entrusting ourselves to that very foundation which we have good reasons to believe is capable of bearing our weight.  For Christians this means specifically entrusting our lives to Jesus Christ as truly God’s Son, whose death on the cross paid for our sins, and whose resurrection from the dead is an actual fact that, by extension, leads to our own resurrection to everlasting life.

So today’s blog title is not a denial of the centrality of faith in the Christian life.  My objection to the term “people of faith” is not what it affirms about Christians, but rather what it implies (apparently denies) about everyone else.  Are Christians and adherents to religious belief in general the only ones who exercise faith?  What about secularists who deny the authority of religious dogma?   And what about materialists who affirm as truth only what we manage to reason by our own thought processes, and as knowledge only that which is apprehended by empirical analysis of the material order?  May secularists and materialists truthfully claim freedom from the so-called “superstition” of religious faith?

It is highly significant that the Bible never entertains that possibility.  The Scriptures instead assume (without judgment) faith to be a universal human activity.  At the level of the ordinary and the mundane, daily decisions are carried out only by means of healthy doses of faith.  We hardly ever take time to reflect on how much of human interaction involves mutual trust of one another.  In terms of the large picture “Who is god?” kinds of questions, namely, Where did we come from?, Why are we here?, What is the point of life?, and How should we live?, the pervasiveness of faith becomes more weighty.

On December 10 at 7:00 pm at Everett (Washington) Community College I will be debating atheist, Jim Corbett of the Humanist Association of North Puget Sound on the following question:  “Does God Exist?  Where Do the Facts of Science and History and the Insights of Human Experience Point?”  He (I hasten to say I am glad to call him friend) has already disavowed all exercise of faith.  To the arguments I laid out in previous blogs that the universe had an absolute beginning out of nothing, he replied in the presence of the last audience that my evidentiary case was of no consequence since, as he stated, it is more reasonable to leave those questions unanswered than appeal to the existence of a so-called “god” in order to account for the universe.  I think, at bottom, that it is best for an audience to listen to both sides of our debate so as to come to one’s own conclusion about where the evidence best leads.  But I leave with you the reader this question:  On what grounds does my opponent build his case?  Is it on a body of solid scientific facts?  Or is it built on faith…faith in something that cannot, even in principle, be demonstrated?

The Bible never expresses interest in faith as an abstract concept.  Its question is, instead, on whom (or what) is our faith founded?  If one’s life is not founded on the Maker of heaven and earth who for our sake sent His only Son, it is not because faith is absent, but because it is wrongly founded on an idol.    

Our Sure Confidence

Pastoral duties take priority over my regular blog this morning.  I will be officiating at the funeral of a young man (just a few years older than me!) who quickly died of a very aggressive cancer.  As a Christian, he is about to be buried into the ground by our “sure and certain hope of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  Christ’s resurrection changes everything about both life and death.  It gives believers in (“into”) Him confidence that we will be with him, together with all the saints who have trusted in His finished work on the cross, forever in heaven.  Of course this confidence is fulfilled on the other side of our grave.  We live, in this respect, by faith and not by sight (Romans 8:24,25).  It so happens, however, that as Jesus died in history, his resurrection from the dead also happened in history.  Scripture treats this centerpiece of our faith as a historical fact (1 Corinthians 15:20).  And historical research, as I will lay out in the future, solidly supports the facticity of Christ’s resurrection.  Such an amazing reality!  What happened in Christ within time has ramifications for all of eternity.

Caught Unprepared

”Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15)

I love and respect Florida U. S. Senator Mark Rubio.  So I am sad to relate his recent response in an interview by GQ Magazine.  Following on his statement concerning “six thousand years of recorded history” (no problem so far), the interviewer followed up with the question what he thinks about the age of the universe.  It has been noted by conservatives that the interviewer’s question was unfair since it was not directly relevant to Rubio’s role as Senator.  Some of his supporters suggested Rubio shouldn’t have gone into “enemy” liberal territory at all.  I absolutely disagree with their caution!  Conservatives have been taking the defensive strategy for far too long.  We ought, on the contrary, to so believe in our message that we are bold to reach out, not merely to sympathizers, but to movers and shakers on the other side of whatever argument is under discussion.  And we ought to receive challenges from our “opposition,” not as trials but as opportunities to step forth with our superior ideas.  In order to do that, we must be prepared.  Mr. Rubio is especially prepared for the specific activities of a U.S. Senator.  But as an ambassador of Christ, a status every Christian shares as the highest calling of all, he needs to be prepared for the wider challenges that are actually being posed by our neighbors.

Although I have been a pastor for 30 years, I recently stepped aside for a four-year hiatus before re-entering the clergy.  During that “intermission” I drove a “Shuttle Express” van, carrying scores of passengers a day between the airport and their homes, hotels, and meetings.  It was a wonderful experience since I love driving and I enjoy meeting people and “shooting the breeze” with interested guests.  Occasionally I had opportunity to engage at a spiritual level.  The rules of the company were to avoid politics and religion when several parties were on the van.  My own policy (which had specific company approval) avoided direct initiation of spiritual matters, but I had my ways of encouraging conversations in that direction provided the others showed interest.  On one occasion there was only one passenger in the van as I drove her to the airport a half hour away.  We chatted about our shared interest in hiking in the North Cascades and also of her love of Holden Village, a Lutheran Camp which lies in the middle of it all.  When I shared that I had been a Lutheran pastor she volunteered that she (incidentally a lawyer) was an atheist.  I can only summarize the ensuing conversation, but let me share its most important aspects.  I asked her, “Would you please tell me what led you to become an atheist?”  She replied, “I don’t want to embarrass you.”  I replied in turn, “I am in fact very interested in knowing what you think.”  So she said, “I am an atheist because of the Big Bang.”  After a pregnant pause on my part I replied, “I too believe in the Big Bang.  The Big Bang demonstrates that the universe had an absolute beginning out of nothing…How can you square that reality from the Big Bang with your atheism?”  I did not expect her response.  She replied, “Well, it’s really not very important.”  The conversation continued energetically in a cordial spirit, but turned directions.  As I left her at the airport I chose (and choose) to believe I had sowed seeds of doubt about her atheism by offering far sounder grounds for belief in God.

I often reflect, with frustration, how many times we Christians fret about our “opposition” and therefore miss the opportunities they bring our way, many of them as underhanded lobs that might easily be hit out of the park.  I applaud Senator Rubio for going into the ‘lion’s den.’  But he was inexcusably ill-prepared for the challenge he encountered that day.  Not only was a huge opportunity missed, but an image of religious conservatives was sadly perpetuated that we are very poorly informed about matters of science.  My position on the validity of science and where the best mainstream science leads is being laid out in my postings.  My point here is not specifically to argue with young-earth creationists.  It is rather to say that if we wish to be respected as fellow participants in the rigorous exploration of the world in which we all live, we need to demonstrate that we both know and care about the data in question.  Senator Rubio said that knowing the age of the universe is impossible because it is a mystery that will never be answered.  That is simply not true for reasons I note in my blogs concerning what we can see as we look across the history of the universe.  This is all public knowledge that is conceded by scientists on both sides of the “God debate.”  Rubio gives hints that he knows nothing about any of these things.  I have already argued that these facts provide a superior case for God’s existence.  In the name of the God of the Bible we must use these tools.  If Senator Rubio doubts their validity he ought at least to give evidence that he knows both what the arguments are and why.    

Don't Be Left Out!

This Thanksgiving Day, as I get ready for our worship service at church this morning (yes, my sermon is done!), I simply want to leave you with C.S. Lewis’ great statement, “A Word About Praise,” from his collection of essays, Reflections on the Psalms.  You may reference it from here: http://revnorman.blogspot.com/2008/10/ from-word-about-praise-in-cs-lewiss.html

Have a blessed Thanksgiving Day with all the joys in the LORD this occasion brings!

My Authority part II

On the authority of the Word of God I accept more than one authority in my quest to know the truth about God’s creation.  To accept the Bible as absolutely truthful firstly leads me to accept the witness of nature as truthful testimony to the creative power of God.  Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to suppress the witness of nature for the purpose of protecting a pet belief about God.  Romans 1:18-21 commands us to the contrary to receive nature’s message as trustworthy.  This means in my witness to others that I will always draw on the accepted facts of mainstream science as opposed to urging others to believe in so-called "Christian science."

 Second, to accept the Bible as true implies that the testimony of both nature and Scripture must in actual fact harmonize.  If they are in conflict one of them logically must be false.  While it is possible for a scientist to misread nature, it is also possible for humans to interpret the Bible wrongly.  That means we need to be as careful about biblical interpretation as we are about our study of the natural order.  

So it follows thirdly that our acceptance of the Bible as God’s revealed word is motivation for us to study its text for all its worth.  This calls for hard work and care.  It should not trouble us to recognize that the Old Testament is written largely in the Hebrew language, which is far different than English not only in its vocabulary and grammar, but also in its manners of expression.  This does not mean English translations are useless!  But it does put us on notice that there will be subtleties in the original language that are difficult to translate into English.  In my personal study of the creation passages(in the Hebrew) I have come to the conclusion that the creation days of Genesis one are not intended as literal 24-hour days, but rather long indefinite periods of time that are consistent with the history of the universe in terms of Big Bang cosmology. 

I have carefully and thoroughly laid out my position in my paper titled, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look: Ten Exegetical Reasons the Days of Creation are Non-24-Hour.” I do not intend to further explore the fine points of interpreting Genesis in my blog.  Instead of rehashing my position here, I invite you to request a free copy of my essay by e-mail.  You have my promise that I won’t hound you.  But you can hound me in the comments section if you would like.

My Authority

I have so far referenced the Bible sparingly.  Not, however, from a lack of confidence in its authority.  To the contrary, my strategy has been to demonstrate the power of the words of Genesis to speak truth about nature by highlighting from its correlation with the natural order that the Bible is truly the revealed Word of God.  All across recorded history the Bible alone has declared that the universe had an absolute beginning.  All other religious beliefs, including modern secularism, have held that it is the material order that is eternal, while all the “gods” merely come and go.  In my essay, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look,” I list nine ways that the Bible has demonstrated its supernatural nature by its anticipation of modern scientific discovery by thousands of years.  The Bible, and Genesis in particular since this is our present focus, is the inspired, error-free, and revealed Word of God.  It is written for our instruction (2 Timothy 3:16).

I love the first chapters of Genesis and I revere its message.  It demands (in the best sense of the word) my most serious attention precisely because it is the Word of God.  You may notice from my assent to the Big Bang that my position on the interpretation of God’s Word in Genesis 1 may be different from yours.  I look forward to addressing that wonderful challenge in the near future.  But time demands that this moment I post what I have just written and take off for other engagements.

No Scientific Escape

I am not arguing that the scientific community is coming to Christianity en mass on account of the Big Bang paradigm.  While it is true that the number of scientists (especially astronomers and physicists) responding favorably to the Gospel is increasing for the very reasons I have described in recent blogs, resistance to religious faith remains strong.  Because our culture tends to measure value in terms of popularity and numbers, it is tempting to question religious belief (Christianity in particular) in the absence of the “scientific vote of approval.”  If the Big Bang has such strong positive implications in favor of God as creator (Genesis 1:1), then why doesn’t the chorus of Christian believers include more outspoken scientists?

It is important therefore that we hold scientists accountable by asking of them the right questions.  And scientists, in the name of the scientific method, ought to welcome this. The problem before us is not a matter of science against religion.  Neither is it a problem of faith in conflict with reason.  Science is a very laudable field of study (and a very broad one it is!).  The Bible actually demands that we pay attention to (and not suppress) the witness of the natural order (Romans 1:18-23).  The real challenge is instead that scientists are human beings just like the rest of us.  As with us all, scientists have the same kinds of private ambitions (including over protection of one’s turf) as the population in general.  In the same way that “possessing” a Bible is no guarantee that an adherent to their religion will act in a God-pleasing manner (Romans 2:17-24, so also the title “scientist” is no guarantee, in itself, that the same person will follow the scientific method consistently.  This is no slam against scientists!  This truth about human nature is the very reason the scientific method is held up as the goal, even as it is adhered to imperfectly.

When certain scientists argue that the Big Bang does not point to a transcendent Creator, we are all entitled to ask, “Exactly why?”  Certain kinds of answers tend to follow from the mouths of skeptics on this matter.  Exactly what these “answers” are will be examined next.

Massive Upheaval Part II

We are considering the staggering scientific discovery from the 20th century that the universe had an absolute beginning out of a “zero-volume singularity.”  That realization has completely overthrown the previously-held scientific consensus that the cosmos “always existed.”  This new paradigm, though subject to on-going limited revisions, rests on very secure foundations for the host of reasons I list in my November 15 posting.  The question that logically follows from this discovery is, how is this absolute beginning of the universe to be explained apart from a transcendent Creator (“transcendent” means, to stand above and outside of the material universe) who called it into existence?


It is crucial that we define the words “nothing” and “zero-volume singularity.”  Atheist Lawrence Krauss argues in his recent book, A Universe From Nothing, that something will always arise out of nothing because physics tells us that nothingness is “inherently unstable.”  Similarly, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow argue in their recent book, The Grand Design, that gravity was the cause of the creation of the universe out of “nothing.”  A common disconnect appears in both of the above statements that is frequently repeated across popular literature.  They both appeal to an existent entity first in order to account for the appearance of something out of nothing.  The problem with their line of argument is, prior to the Big Bang, “nothing” means literally the absence of anything at all.  Exactly what is it that was supposed to be unstable when nothing yet actually existed?  Exactly where did Hawking’s gravity come from that was supposed to have brought all things into existence?  For a fuller treatment of these kinds of challenges I recommend the book God and Stephen Hawking, by Mathematician and Philosopher of Science, John C. Lennox of Oxford University.

According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, at the Big Bang, all of space, time, matter, and energy came into existence out of nothing.  This reality removes the cause of the universe from the realm of science.  Quantum Mechanics is often pitted against Einstein’s theory.  Yet quantum mechanics can’t exist it all without the Big Bang since prior to that initial explosion there was absolutely no space nor time, nor matter, nor energy for anything at all to perform anything at all.

 While science cannot account for the beginning of all things, the Bible boldly proclaims, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Massive Upheaval!

It is difficult to imagine a discovery in recent science that has greater world-view implications than does the Big Bang.  With the new recognition that our universe is expanding, the previous belief that it always existed has now been overthrown and replaced by the realization that our universe had a beginning out of nothing.  Back when the intellectual culture had believed the universe was eternal, the prevailing reasoning led to the conclusion that it was also self-existent.  And that notion led to the presumption that appeals to God for our existence are neither necessary nor rational.  Renowned (former) atheist, Antony Flew had championed that very thinking with his widely acclaimed 20^th-century essay, “The Presumption of Atheism.”  He there argued that rationality is on the side of naturalism so that the burden of proof for creation must belong on the shoulder of the theist (believer in God).  But with the growing realization that the Big Bang is actually true Dr. Flew changed sides and came to believe in God.  In his recently published auto-biography, “There is a God,” he explicitly reversed the burden of proof onto the shoulder of the atheist to account for the beginning of the cosmos out of nothing without appeal to a creator.  Stay tuned for my up-coming entry titled, “No Scientific Escape.”

What We Can See There From Here

We were not present at the moment of creation.  However, that fact is not relevant to the question whether we can know anything about it.  Yesterday’s blog argues why.  Since distance in the context of the cosmos is measured in the amount of time light travels from distant objects to our eyeballs, looking across the heavens amounts to looking back in time.  Because of the lengthy light journey required, the more distant the object, the farther back in time we are looking.  Think of a movie watched backwards.  If we tolerate watching it in that direction all the way to the end of the track, we will be taken to the movie’s beginning.  And we will have occasion to observe every other event in between.  Of course we can count the same number of events whichever direction we choose.  Looking forward, we see the unfolding of the universe from the Big Bang event.  But if we look backward we notice something even more profound.  As I briefly stated yesterday, we observe that our universe (all of space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning out of nothing in what Stephen Hawking calls the “zero-volume singularity.”  About that event, Christians declare with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Cosmologists and the scientific community in general also concede that the Big Bang is an utterly secure paradigm for a universe whose history had an absolute beginning.

It is a secure paradigm for the two reasons that we both observe the over-arching pattern unfolding from the Big Bang and we can also measure its specifics.  This means we can test the measurements again and again.  In light of today’s title, what specifically can we both see and measure?  We observe that all galaxy clusters are flying away from one another after their beginning (all galaxies are the same age).  We also observe that they are farther apart now than they were in the past, and that this expansion has been slowing down (for reasons I will describe later, this same expansion is now accelerating).  We also measure that the universe as a whole is cooling down.  Scientists also discovered in 1964 the remnant glow of the initial blast of the Big Bang.  And then in 1992 they discovered seed-like “imperfections” in that otherwise uniform glow which eventuated in the actual formation of galaxies and stars.  Was this Big Bang a chaotic accident?  Absolutely not!  But that matter is for a later time.  Stay tuned for more on the present material!

We Can See There From Here

 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

                I recently encountered another blogger who wrote that (apart from the text of Genesis) we can’t know anything about the creation of the heavens and the earth because we were not there.  That statement is partly false and partly true.  It is of course true that we literally “were not there.”  Only God was present at the beginning.  But it does not follow from that that we cannot know anything about that beginning.  This last weekend, looking through a backyard telescope, I saw the tiny deep green disc of the planet Uranus and the deep blue dot of the planet Neptune.  At that moment I was looking back in time, that is, back into the past.  It took their reflected light 2.4 hours and 4 hours to travel from their respective surfaces to reach my eye as I looked through the lens.

                The point is, there is a lot more in life that we can personally witness (an event down the street or across a valley) than by merely being immediately present.  Amazingly this truth includes time itself.  When we look into the heavens we are in fact only looking into the past since every bit of light we see took time (a lot longer than most of us have been around) to finally reach our eyeballs.  That is exciting news!  This truth gives us a window into God’s creation.  I believe the Big Bang happened.  For me that event demands a “banger,” who is Almighty God.  Conviction of the truth of the Big Bang does not rest on conjecture.  Using our best telescopes scientists actually observe past events (in on-going motion) within our universe which is expanding out from an initial “zero-volume” singularity.    We know from observation therefore that all time, space, matter, and energy came into existence out of nothing.  More detail on that observable list of facts which point to the absolute beginning of the universe out of nothing will be forth-coming.  Stay tuned for my next blog!

Pastor Gary Jensen

Zion Lutheran Church

Snohomish, Washington

Why Offensive as Opposed to Defensive?

               Stated bluntly, Christians should be in the offensive mode because we have possession of the ball!  This is not a matter of whistling in the dark.  Many Christian scholars argue today that, in terms of public evidence that is broadly conceded by both sides of the “God” debate, Christianity is in a stronger position than at any other time in history.  Briefly stated, that body of factual evidence which points to the existence of the God of the Bible can be summarized as follows:

·        The absolute beginning of the universe (all of matter, energy, space, and time) out of nothing in the Big bang points to a transcendent creator of all things.

·        The initial conditions of the Big Bang were not chaotic, but extremely fine-tuned (some factors within billionths of a percent) to meet the requirements necessary for our universe to be habitable for advanced life.  This precision affirms a “Super Intelligence” (Fred Hoyle) behind the design of our cosmos.

·        The presence within DNA (inside the cell of every single creature) of enormous amounts of language and information point inescapably to an intelligent Designer of life.

·        Other arguments in favor of the God of the Bible include both the solid historical foundation for Jesus of Nazareth and His resurrection from the dead and the broad witness of human experience, including our consciousness (self-awareness), our freedom, our experience of moral law, and our sense of guilt that results from breaking our own conscience (see Romans 2:1f).

For a fuller treatment of this body of this evidence please request a copy of my essay, “The Prints Are Everywhere.”  Over time I will more fully flesh the evidence out piece by piece.  And I will continue to expand on my rationale as a biblical Christian, that we all embrace the offensive mode in our witness to the truth of the Triune God.

Gary Jensen, Pastor

Zion Lutheran Church

Snohomish, Washington

“On the offense” Does Not Mean Being Abusive

Being on the offense does not demand of Christians that we be abusive toward others.  Neither does it require Christians to be pushy about our doctrine.  Of course we believe our doctrines.  It means instead that we share an inner conviction about the truth of our faith in the Triune God, so that we seek, prayerfully, to wisely move others toward their own faith in the living God (Colossians 4:5,6).

Consider the Apostle Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 3:15.  The first thing he states is ‘In your hearts reverence Christ as Lord.”  Primary to our engagements with others is our inner foundation of faith in Christ.  How that conviction plays itself in our daily lives involves the interplay between the leading of God’s Spirit according to specific circumstances.  Notice how the above verse continues, “Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you.”  Peter is not demanding that in every situation we unload a set of arguments.  He is urging each of us to become acquainted with the solid foundation of our faith in order that we may comfortably respond as opportunities present themselves.  Thirdly, Peter closes with the important qualifier, “yet do so with gentleness and respect.”  The Gospel of Christ is, at bottom, a liberating message.  We need to avoid situations where people are unnecessarily put on the offensive so they will be open, perhaps another day, to move in the direction of considering more of the truth of Christ.

How, in practical terms, can we more effectively be on the offense while maintaining engagement with other people that is comfortable to both parties?  It is my privilege on this very beautiful sunny day in Snohomish, to be at a seminar led by Greg Koukl of the organization “Stand to Reason.”  He is instructing Christians on extremely effective strategies for engaging with non-believers in Christ.  I cannot recommend him highly enough, and I urge you to visit his website at www.str.org

 

Why "Offensive?"

This is my first blog.  Having just moved into the blogging sphere last night I have not begun to decorate my site with photos.  I don’t yet know blogging lingo.  I have yet to assemble a brief bio, although I assure you, I am who I will say I am in just a few days!  I’m not a “techie.”  I intend to improve my space over time…hopefully quickly!

On its face, “offensive,” as it appears in my address appears as an offensive word.  Who wants to be around offensive people?  On the other hand, if I was a quarterback, I would expect of my offensive line that they take that posture very seriously.  An effective defensive team, of course, is crucial to winning the game.  But it is not sufficient.  Victory only happens when the entire team (primarily the offense) scores more points than the opposing team.

I decry Christians who are offensive in their methods and manners.  Of the arrogant the Apostle Paul writes, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Romans 2:24).  In our engagement with others we Christians are, to the contrary, to “treat all people with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it is urgent that gentle and loving Christians embrace the theme, “Christianity on the Offense.”  We have solid grounds for commending the Christian message to our secular culture as absolutely true.  I will be laying these grounds out in a public debate on December 10, 7:00 pm, at Everett (city of) Community College here in Washington.  The debate question will be “Does God Exist: Where Do the Facts of Science and History, and the Insights of Human Experience Point?”

As for my blog, I will argue that it is both biblical and reasonable that we Christians should posture ourselves not on the defense, but on the offense!