My Two Worst Witnessing Blunders Part II

More recently, a little less than a decade ago, as I was driving for Shuttle Express, I was given the assignment of driving a van load of people to a conference at a university campus in our Puget Sound region. As I was driving I asked the group (seated behind me) what the conference was about. One passenger enthusiastically informed me that they were all about to meet, and indeed, be physically embraced by, the “Hugging Prophet” from India whose name was Amma (Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi). Before I knew it, the same person then asked me both how long I had been driving for my company, and what I did before that. I replied, as was my manner, “If you can believe it, I am a Lutheran pastor in my other life” (which as I now think about it, might not have been my best choice of words in light of the fact that people from India tend to believe in reincarnation!). He (obviously the group leader) in turn said to me, “I would like you to explain to everyone on the van what you believe as a Christian.” I was floored at the opportunity laid before me. Such sweeping openings are very rare.

As I drove down the freeway I proceeded to tell the ten or so people on the van that God forgives our sins freely, apart from works, by declaring us righteous and therefore not guilty through Jesus Christ. I prayed then and later too, that such news would penetrate their hearts. After all, what I had said to them was absolutely true. And for me the doctrine of justification is the greatest news of all. Nevertheless, upon further reflection I concluded, and still maintain, that in light of the person they were determined to meet, I might have instead connected the Gospel specifically with the embrace they were seeking from the “Hugging Prophet.” The doctrine of justification I had conveyed is a marvelous teaching. Yet it does not hang in mid-air, but instead flows from the reality of the One who hung on the cross at Calvary for the sins of the whole world. Furthermore, the death of His Son is the expression of the love of God (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, Philippians 2:5-11). The love of the God of the universe does not settle for a mere “hug” (as nice as hugs are!). In the mystery of the Holy Trinity God the Son laid aside His crown and left heaven to come for our rescue by taking our sins upon Himself at the cross. This amazing story of the passion of Christ can (and indeed does) include the doctrine of justification. 

Correct doctrine matters enormously in our witness of the Gospel. But my reflection on the Scriptures reminds me that that doctrine is connected to at least two stories. Its content is connected first to the story of the incarnation, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the communicating of that Good News needs to be connected, in some way, with the stories of the people we are addressing.

My Two Worst Witnessing Blunders Part I

“Give me a drink.”  --  Jesus Christ (John 4:7)

I share these two accounts neither to shame myself, nor to instill such high standards for others that no one can ever achieve them. The old adage, “hindsight is 20-20,” while sometimes painfully true, can instead serve the constructive purpose of inspiring Christians to consider how we may each speak more effectively in future encounters as God may give us, with people of other faiths. I am not suggesting that God cannot use our feeble endeavors. He not only can, He also does! So I am not urging tears of regret, but instead a joyful anticipation of our next opportunity to share with another person a portion of the Good News of Christ. God inspires helpful examples in Scripture, and most especially in His only Son. In the Gospel of John chapter 4, for example, Jesus employed the common human experience of thirst in his “chance” meeting of a single woman beside a well in Samaria, as a platform for lovingly leading her into the kingdom of God. The exciting question is what can we learn from His example?

Years ago when I was returning to America after a study tour of the countries of Israel and Jordan, I was sitting next to a native Jordanian who was also a Muslim, on a “Royal Jordanian” airliner. As a proud native he expressed much interest in my perceptions about his homeland as I recounted my experiences from the bottom to the top of Jordan. Far and away the three most important sites on that tour were Wadi Rum, Petra, and the ruins of the ancient “Decapolis” city of Jerash (Gerasa). Eventually we two travelers, one a Muslim and the other a Christian, then turned our conversation to religious questions.

I thought it important (at the time) to focus on the Holy Trinity. After all, I thought, that concept would clarify a major theological difference between Islam and Christianity. Well, to make a long story short, even though we parted at the end of the trip on friendly terms, this was not a productive discussion. Neither was it a long one. Indeed, we had early on come to the point where we agreed that it would be best for each of us to find something to read on our own for pleasure instead.

As I have thought back on that engagement I have often considered how I might instead have approached relating Christianity to a Muslim sitting next to me on a plane. I am not suggesting the simple avoiding of our differences. Indeed, the best alternative (as I imagine it) would still have been a controversial matter for a Muslim. But I would have focused directly on Jesus (Muslims do believe in Him in some sense, including the teaching that Jesus was born of a virgin). I would have highlighted the love of God (that God indeed is love) by connecting the heart of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, with His giving Jesus to the world, and further (if circumstances allowed it) tying Jesus with the very heart of God Himself. Muslims think of God as vastly more remote from His human creatures, than we Christians understand God to be in Jesus Christ (think of the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15).

To be continued...

So You Say "The Big Bang Never Happened!" Part III

Dr. Psarris asserts that the Big Bang fails because, as an attempted scientific explanation, it violates the first law of thermodynamics (that matter is neither created nor destroyed).    This is one of the most obvious illustrations of the nature of his confusion.  The six points of observational data listed in the last posting do NOT serve to scientifically explain the beginning of the universe.  Indeed they cannot, for the reason that they are themselves part of the very object of study which demands an explanation.  Rather than providing an explanation, the data instead identifies a problem, or rather the challenge (the existence of the cosmos, complete with a history trail which leads all the way back to its absolute beginning), that is laid bare by the tools of scientific investigation.  So rather than offering an explanation, the Big Bang poses a problem which demands an explanation—an explanation, furthermore, which science can never, and therefore will never, even in principle provide. 

Psarris repeatedly asserts in his lecture that the Big Bang is materialistic (and atheistic) by its very nature.  That is both logically nonsense, and it is historically false.  The Big Bang indeed highlights the question for which only the transcendent God (one who stands completely outside of the natural order) can provide as a possible answer.  In short, the Big Bang absolutely demands the existence of the God of the Holy Bible God as the creative Agent who brought it all into being.  For this reason, it is significant that in truth (contrary to Psarris) the first opponents of the Big Bang were atheists, not Christians.  Albert Einstein, Sir Arthur Eddington, and Sir Fred Hoyle, as atheists, initially resisted the Big Bang precisely because its implications pointed to the notion of a transcendent creator.  It was only with resistance that the first two came to embrace the Big Bang because of the weight of evidence.  It is a controversial matter, as far as I can tell, whether Hoyle ever came to accept the Big Bang.  But what is certain about even him is that his long-standing resistance to it had been based precisely on its theological implications.     

In summary, Dr. Psarris’ repeated attempts to discredit the historicity of the Big Bang on grounds that it violates the laws of science fail.  Not only has he involved his audience, as we earlier noted, in a confusion of categories (description vs. explanation), he has also built his objection to the Big Bang on the “red herring” fallacy.  To state as he has that the Big Bang cannot scientifically explain the origin of the cosmos, accomplishes nothing whatsoever to undermine the status of the actual scientific data that is alleged to support that very beginning.  Raw data cannot be dismissed out of hand simply on the charge that it apparently explains nothing.  Psarris likewise has done nothing to invalidate the data (partially listed in the previous posting) that he philosophically brushes to the side.  The big Bang did indeed happened.  That it did, raises the kinds of questions only the Bible can provide (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 11:3. Etc).