Sunday, July 5, 2015

Carl Sagan, meet Alexander Campbell.

It was Solomon who wrote "There is nothing new under the sun." In our own modern age, a great many might dispute that, offering as proof all the technological marvels we have that Solomon could not have even imagined.  Along with such marvels follow all sorts of ethical questions and dilemmas never once debated or even conceived in an age in which the iron wheeled chariot was the pinnacle of technology.

If one compared the state of mankind just within a period beginning with 1800 and going up to present, there would be great justification in declaring there is greater difference in the state of man between 1800 and 2000 than in all of human history up to 1800.  Solomon's observation might seem to have been made obsolete.  If once true, it surely cannot be maintained any longer.

The error is in the premise of the objection. Solomon's observation wasn't based upon the genius of man to invent. The truth of his statement is not nullified by the trappings of technology or the ever changing streams of philosophical thought. Nor is the truth of his statement invalidated by a society that has no room for any kind of truth other than that of the most relative type.  Solomon based his statement upon an understanding of the human heart, and even though civilization has undergone many transformations over many millenia, the human heart has always remained the same.

Carl Sagan is credited with popularizing the statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."  That dictum has been repeated innumerable times, sometimes in reference to scientific or pseudo-scientific claims, but more often than not in reference to religious claims.  Quite often the deployment of that dictum is itself used as a means to imply the claims in question have weak, unsupportable evidence. Rather than being a sentiment of an open mind to potentially extraordinary things, it becomes a means to justify an unwillingness to consider anything deemed in advance as impossible.

But then Solomon did say there is nothing new under the sun. Would it surprise you Carl Sagan is not the first to hold to that dictum?  Would it surprise you to discover that dictum was uttered, not in the digital age, not in the modern age, not even in the industrial age, but in an age which the modern mind considers somewhat less enlightened than its own?  In 1830, only two and a half decades removed from 200 years, a young preacher set out on the reformation of the Church. This young preacher by the name of Alexander Campbell wrote this in the first number of the first volume of the Millenial Harbinger.

"The more ordinary the fact, the more ordinary the testimony necessary to establish it. That AB, aged 90, and confined for some time with sickness, died last night, requires only the most ordinary testimony to render it credible. But that CD lived to 140, enjoying unabated vigor of mind and body, requires stronger testimony. But still all facts happening in accordance with the ordinary and natural laws of things, require but good human testimony to make them worthy of credence. 'Tis only extraordinary and supernatural facts which require supernatural testimony, or testimony supernaturally confirmed. This is the point to which we have been looking in this essay. And now that we have arrived at it, I would ask, How has the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists been confirmed?"

The age of Alexander Campbell was characterized by a particular trait - all the Churches of his day, regardless of the name on the door, held to the absolute authority of scripture.  Mr. Campbell could appeal to those things written within the pages of the bible, and though there may be disagreement as to the interpretation, there was no disagreement as to the truthfulness of the text.  In this modern age the task is more difficult, but not impossible.  It is more difficult because this current generation has its doubts even of the existence of God much less the authority of words written.  With all that said, even 200 years ago it was clearly recognized that within scripture are some incredibly extraordinary claims; indeed, claims considered extraordinary right from the very beginning.

But the task is not impossible. Those who demand extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims while reserving for themselves what that extraordinary proof shall be are in reality no different than those men who came to Jesus demanding a sign.  These men were well aware of all that Jesus had been doing. They were well aware of the testimonies, not by one or two, but by hundreds and thousands, of the numerous miracles and healings being performed by him. Yet such demonstrations were not sufficient for their minds.  Just as Herod Antipas had hoped to see Jesus and have Jesus perform some miracles for him, these men demanded signs of their own choosing.  For them, extraordinary evidence was nothing more than a dog and pony show to be performed at their demand.

Such willful blindness was not unique in the day of Jesus, for it is evident in the heart of those today who would insist upon all sorts proofs of their own choosing before they will believe. And to ensure such proofs never occur, they are made to be as absurd as possible. In its conceit, the heart has determined "If God will not perform a sign of my demanding, he obviously does not exist." 

I am not at all suggesting the opposite path is total acceptance of all that has been put forth. I am myself at heart a skeptic. But I am not an unreasonable skeptic.  I will consider not only the evidence itself, but the very nature of that evidence.  Unlike many of the closed enlightened minds of this age I will not declare God an absurdity simply because I don't like all that would necessarily follow from belief.

In the course of this blog I plan to return often to this theme of faith, evidence, and extraordinary claims. I plan to set forth, in opposition to even many of the Church, those reasons why scripture gives us the knowledge that we might plant our feet on the firm foundation of God. This will include discussion about the nature of scripture.  The things I write are primarily for those who say they believe, but are seeking something better than what they are being taught. But I also plan to write for those who, confused by the conceit of this modern age, are at the least willing to  give the testimony of God a fair hearing. That is all I can ask from them. As to those whose minds are made up and whose purpose is to ridicule and mock, I leave them to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

A Change of course for the Church

This blog is devoted to God's Truth.

At one time it was sufficient to merely make that statement and the premise that Truth existed was accepted without question. We now find ourselves in an age in which such a premise is not only not found acceptable, but the nature of truth is debated and sliced into almost innumerable divisions and nuances. Though truth is abundant, it is obscured by a great heap of error masquerading as enlightenment.

I am not interested in debating the nuances of one kind of truth over another kind of truth.  As philosophies rise and wane so will all the various divisions which pass as human wisdom. What was accepted by a society 30 years ago as undeniably true is likely to be replaced by its inverse as the children shed themselves of their parents quaint ideas.

For there to be Truth that is enduring, it must of necessity be founded upon something greater than the whims of a generation. The great failure of our society over the last 100 years has been the erosion, and ultimate rejection, of a source of Truth that resides outside human wisdom.  Those things which were once exclusively the domain of God's Truth have been ripped from the moorings of solid bedrock and have been reestablished upon the ever shifting sands of feeling.

The result could not be more astounding than to awaken one morning to find the sun rising from the west. Gender is no longer how we were born, nor is it even genetic. It is what we feel.  Our ethnicity is no longer defined by our DNA, but is instead defined by our internal and emotional self-identification.

When Bill Clinton became president, he was hailed as our first black president by Toni Morrison in an article in the New Yorker, 1998.   President Obama complained to his friend and adviser David Axelrod that he felt he was the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in the Oval Office.  A male high school student who wishes he were a girl is not to be barred from using the girls restroom. The myth of transgendering is foisted upon us with the belief that what amounts to cosmetic surgery magically makes that which was male into female and vice versa.

All of this is seen as truth in our society, but the real truth is this: What our society upholds as supreme authority is nothing more than the basest desires of a godless heart.

The Church in America cannot abdicate its responsibility for such upside down thinking, for like those who "knew not God, or the great work he did for Israel", those who claim the name of Jesus have proved themselves  as unfaithful servants.  The sin of the Church runs from utter disbelief of what is written in scripture to those who would use the things of God to lord over their neighbor.
The Church's disbelief is not an issue of liberal versus conservative. Highly credentialed scholars are paraded in documentaries informing us how the real Jesus was nothing like the one created by the Church.  Still others tell us why what is written in scripture cannot be relied upon.  Christians band themselves together petitioning lawmakers to pass only those laws amenable to their faith.  Argument rages around the display of the 10 Commandments, while the weightier matters of God are left as dry bones in a waterless desert.

Like Israel of old, the Church in America prefers the chariots of human strength and the wisdom of men over the strength and wisdom of God. Our society has no reason to gaze in wonder upon the living God, for the Church that bears his name has replaced the glory of his transcendent image with an inglorious image of its own  creation.

By God's grace and power, there are those among us whose faith is genuine, but that faith is too often judged in accordance to the unrighteousness of the rest. The temptation is to follow the example of Elijah and seek refuge in a cave out of sight of one's enemies. Great evil flowed across the land of Israel. A poisoned stream issued forth from the house of Ahab and Jezebel making sick all who drank from it. But in that dark, stale cave, God made known to Elijah there were at least 7000 men who were faithful to him. Such a tiny number in comparison to the millions that consisted of ancient Israel. Yet Elijah took heart.  His faith would not rest in numbers, but in God.

Luke gives account of the parable of Jesus concerning a widow who presented herself before a godless judge, repeatedly entreating his intervention. Day after day she brought her request. Out of pure frustration, the judge finally relented and granted the woman's desire. If a godless judge can be prevailed upon to grant the request of a woman with no status, how much more will the God of all creation speedily answer to the cries day and night of those who are his?  (Luke 18:1-8).

We cannot leave this parable without paying particular attention to Jesus' very last statement. "Nevertheless,  when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?"  Faith will indeed be found everywhere and in great abundance, for faith is fundamental to the human heart, whether one self identifies as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, or even atheist.  The question haunting the mind of Jesus is whether he will find a genuine faith in God when he returns.  Unless the Church in America changes its course and again stands with genuine and submissive faith in God through Jesus and not in the things of men, the answer for America could well be "no."