The God who knocks???

             You might be strong enough to beat someone into submission, but even the strongest person in the world can’t beat someone into trust and love.

             In Christianity, God is described as the all-powerful creator.  As such, he could easily create humans as robots, who submit to his will without fail.  Alternatively, he could have created humans with free will but then cowed them into submission through fear and intimidation.  But that is not what God is described as doing.  Instead, he creates humans with free will and gives them the opportunity to run free – to turn their backs on him and escape.  He does not run after them.  He does not yell at them, demanding that they return and worship him.  He does not reach out his arm and grab them and pull them back in.  If they don’t want to be with him, he lets them have their choices (“…gave them over”).  He is described as calling out for them (“Adam, where are you?”) or as knocking at their door (“Behold, I stand at the door and knock…”).  How can it be that the all-powerful creator God waits for permission to come in?  He is described as being in the “still small voice” not in the “thunder and lightning.”  We can live our lives ignoring him.  We can even shake our fists at him and curse him.  He warns us of the consequences, but does not prevent us from walking away.  He lets us choose our path. 

             There are some who turn back, if ever so slightly, to say “here I am” or to open the door and let him in.  To those who cry out “help!” he is right there, ready and waiting to draw people back.  He says, as one point “…how often I wanted to gather you together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!”  But there are some who give him permission.  They voluntarily, freely submit.  We do not have the capacity to love God or even trust God – we need his help for that – but we can give him permission to transform us.

             This is how I understand the message of Christianity.  God does not beat us into submission.  He allows us to freely reject him.  But to those who turn and cry out for help, no matter how far away they are, he is right there, ready to do what they cannot do themselves.

Does God have Free Will?

             If you are trying to engage someone in a productive discussion on some particular point of disagreement, it is often helpful (necessary?) to go back to a starting point where you both agree and then find out where the divergence of thinking actually occurs.  In doing this, you often find that the point of disagreement is not really what you thought it was.  In that vein, I was recently thinking about a particular line of argument in my head and I thought it would make sense to go back to a statement everyone would agree with.  So, working backwards in my mind, I eventually settled on the following question as a starting point for agreement: “Does God have free will?”  I considered it to be a rhetorical question.  I said to myself “Of course the answer has to be ‘yes.’”  Everyone would agree that God has free will.  It seemed like a great starting point for the line of discussion I had in my mind. 

             When I first considered this question, I considered it so obvious that I thought even people who don’t believe in God would agree with it.  Specifically, I thought everyone would agree with the following statement:

 

“If there is a God of any consequence, then the one fundamental characteristic he[1] must have is the characteristic of free will.”

 

             Well…I’ve come to realize that not everyone agrees with that statement.  At first I was incredulous.  I really was.  But the more I’ve considered the issue, the more I’ve come to realize that it’s a trickier question than I first imagined.  I’ve come to realize that it is not the obvious starting point at which everyone would agree.  But I’ve also come to realize that it might be a rather valuable starting point from which to consider the whole issue of free will and determinism.  That issue, when debated and discussed, is almost always focused around the human condition – i.e. do humans have free will?  But in all of my reading on the issue of free will (which, granted, is limited), I have not come across any serious in-depth discussion of free will as it might relate to God.[2]  I know, of course, that not everyone believes in God and so many might say “why argue about something that doesn’t exist?”  But, as I phrased the question above, I think it is a useful line of thinking for anyone, including those who do not believe there is a god of any kind.  The point is, our views about free will and determinism are really exposed if we start asking about free will for a being, hypothetical or not, that has characteristics of being all-powerful and all-knowing.  Can such a being have free will???

             Exploring this question has not changed my original view:  I still think the answer is a resounding “yes.”  I still think that God obviously has free will.  But I can see now that part of the reason I feel that way is based on the very fundamental views I have about reality.  Those views are not shared by everyone!

             An example of the pathway this question takes is to rephrase it to something like “Can God do what He wants?”  Again, my first reaction is “of course God can do what He wants.”  But, then, someone might say “If God knows the future, then is He is bound to act according to that future, so He is not free.”  That’s a common problem with an all-knowing God.  But I think most people would say that God is outside of time and space – i.e. is not constrained by time and space – and therefore it’s not at all clear what it would mean for God to “know His own future.”  God is not living through time, waiting for certain events to happen and then making a decision (free will decision?) about them.  But, then, you have to wonder if free will has the same meaning if you take time out of the equation.  For example, can cause and effect happen in a realm devoid of time?  I’m sure a few philosophers have wrestled with that question and written books on the topic.  But, as for me, I’ve never experienced life outside of time so I have no idea how timelessness works.

             OK, so fine, that’s plenty confusing.  Maybe a similar question would be that, if God is outside of time and space, what does it mean for God to “want” something?  The word “want” as we typically use it, has a basis in a universe constrained by time.  If you “want” something, it implies that you don’t have it now but you would like to have it in the future.  Thus, it quickly becomes clear that you would have to define “want” differently when it comes to God (or any being existing outside of time), and so the question gets messy.  So, then you have to ask “can God want anything?”  And down the philosophical rabbit hole we go!  As is often the case, philosophy becomes a task of carefully defining the terms, which can often prove rather difficult and never-ending.

             One question we often ask with respect to free will has to do with responsibility for one’s own actions.  So, what about the question “Is God responsible for His own actions?”  Here we might have a clear answer.  We could ask it another way: “Can anyone or anything else be responsible for the actions of God?”  If the answer is “yes”, then doesn’t that make the “anyone” or “anything” the real God?  And so we would be asking the same question of that “anyone” – are they responsible for their own actions?  The buck has to stop somewhere unless there is one big circle of causality, which seems illogical to me.  So, I would say “yes, certainly God is responsible for His own actions.”  Is there anyone who would disagree with that?

             So here is where this line of thinking seems to help identify points of divergence.  I, personally, make a direct link between “responsibility for your actions” and “free will.”  I cannot conceive of any reality in which you can be responsible for your own actions if you are not free to decide those actions.  If God does anything, He is responsible for it.  And, if He is responsible, then He “chose” it.  And, if He chose a course of action, then He could have chosen otherwise.  If He could not choose otherwise, then who or what prevented Him from choosing otherwise?  If something can prevent God from choosing otherwise, then that person/thing becomes God in my opinion.  Here’s where the concept of God’s free will diverges from a concept of man’s free will.  The question of “could I (a human being) have chosen otherwise?” is harder to answer.  As a human being, I could be compelled by some other force or thing or being, and so the answer to the question is not as obvious.  But, when it comes to God, well, God, by definition, cannot be controlled by any outside force.  The answer to that question has to be “God is not compelled by any other force to make the decisions He makes” in order for God to be truly God.

             I suppose this line of thinking is a lot like asking if God is the “first cause.”  To me, that is part of the definition of God.  In fact, some would argue that it is the need for some “first cause” that is the best argument for the existence of God.  You can’t ask “who caused God?” or “who created God?”  God is not created and is not caused.  Personally, I do find the argument logically reasonable, but I don’t see it as the best argument for the existence of God – at least not the existence of a living God – as I discuss elsewhere <here>.

             In future entries, I am going to be building on the idea that God has free will.  But I acknowledge here that not everyone will accept that concept at face value.  I would certainly be interested in hearing the ideas of others on this topic.

---

[1] I know that a hypothetical “god” could be he/she/they/whatever, but writing that out every time is tiring to me and so I’m using the shortcut “he”.

[2] If you know of any such discussions, I would appreciate being sent a reference or link.

Prayer: From ACTS to APPLE PIES

             For a lot of people, prayer basically means asking God for things.  For others, it might even be defined more nebulously as "expressing your thoughts to the heavens."  But, for the Christian, prayer is a lot more than just asking God for things.  As we read the prayers recorded in the Bible, and various teachings on prayer in the Bible, we can see that there is a lot more to prayer than just "asking".  Certainly people prayed for God to do certain things or provide them with certain things, but they also used prayer to express thanks to God and to praise and worship God.  Sometimes people's prayers are primarily about confession of sin.  And there are many other examples.

             In order to highlight the different aspects of prayer, someone (I don't know who) came up with the acronym of "A.C.T.S.".  I think this one is pretty well known in many Christian circles, where A=adoration (praise), C=confession, T=thanksgiving, S=supplication (asking).  It's quite a useful acronym.  One of my Bible study teachers in college modified this a bit to the acronym "TACSI" (pronounced "taxi") where the I=intercession.  This latter acronym was to help emphasize the difference between asking for things (supplication) and praying for others (intercession).  There's a lot more to it than that, but that is for a future discussion.

             Anyway, over the years I have had quite a few occasions to teach on the topic of prayer and, through my own personal study, I realized that there were additional "types" of prayer.  I tried to come up with a new acronym that could incorporate these additional types of prayer to help people remember them.  At one point I had settled on "TACL RIC" but I always thought it was a bit too goofy.  Eventually, I have settled on "APPLE PIES", which I would like to briefly present here.  This acronym outlines seven "types" of prayer and two important characteristics of prayer.  I thought it might be useful to anyone who is trying to learn more about prayer.  It's easy to remember the acronym, but remembering what each letter stands for does take a bit more work than ACTS!  Personally, though, I've found it quite useful in my own prayer life.  So, here is the brief definition of each word in the acronym, along with a few relevant scripture passages:

 

A:  Appreciation

      Showing appreciation by giving thanks to God for the things He has done.

Ps 95:2, Phil 4:6, I Thes 5:18

 

P:  Praise

      Praising God for His character.

Ps 100:4, Ps 103, Heb 13:15

 

P:  Posture

      Physical - and mental - posture in prayer.  Physically kneeling in prayer is obviously not required but should not be ignored, and should be coupled with the critical character of humility.

Ps 95:6, Is 6:5, Eph 3:14

 

L:  Listening

      Being still before God and listening for His guidance.

Eccl 5:1-2, Jn 10:27, Js 1:19

 

E:  Examination & Confession

      Asking God to examine your heart and confessing sin.  Often coupled with listening.

I Jn 1:9, Ps 32:1-3, Ps 139:23-24

 

P:  Petition

      Asking God for what is on your heart.

Matt 7:7-11, Jn 16:23-24, Js 5:17-18

 

I:   Intercession

      Seeking that God would intervene for others.

Ex 32:9-14, Luke 10:2, Col 1:9-12

 

E:  Expectation

      Pray with faith.  Pray with the expectation that God hears and will answer. 

Jas 1:5-8, Dan 3:16-18, Ps 103:2

 

S:  Submission/Commitment

      Yielding to God's will or expressing to God what you are going to do in response to God's goodness.

I Sam 1:11, Jn 6:66-69, Ps 37:4

 

            There is a lot than can be said about each of these nine types and characteristics of prayer, and I hope to expand on these in the future.  But, if you want a quick example of how these different types of prayer can come together in a single prayer, read Neh 1:4-11.  I count at least seven of the nine entries all packed into these eight verses (and the remaining two of the nine are implied).  I encourage you to see if you can identify all nine.  I'll put together a more detailed review of this passage in the future.

  

This is presented under CC BY 4.0.  You have the right to distribute this in any manner, modify it, etc.  I only ask that you acknowledge your sources.

Christian Apologetics and Its Goals

             [Note:  This entry is written for Christians.  Not that anyone else can't read it, but I'm not sure it will mean a whole lot outside of the Christian faith.]

 

             In my opinion, trying to "prove" Christianity through science is a challenging endeavor that is not worth the effort.  It's like visiting your neighbors to the east of you by travelling west.  Yes, you might eventually get to your next door neighbor's house that way, but why?

 

             Christian apologetics, in my mind, should have the goal of showing that Christian beliefs are reasonable and logical within the new scientific findings of the day.  This is extremely helpful and important for Christians, because they need to know and be assured that their faith is on solid ground.  It can be useful in talking with those who do not believe, because a major roadblock to belief can be the sense that Christianity is illogical and primitive.  But, in general, I just don't see it being a great pathway to belief these days.  There are shorter paths.

 

             Let me illustrate what I mean with an example.  Specifically, the effort to prove that God is the creator of the universe.  There is a lot of apologetic work towards fitting Christian belief into what science has discovered, or at least theorizes, about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on this planet.  Or, alternatively, a lot of apologetic work trying to expose the weaknesses of some of the scientific theories.  This is, in general, good and valuable work, and worthwhile for Christians to engage in.  But what is the goal?  I feel like the (often unstated) goal is this:  to prove that science is wrong.  In fact, it seems that the goal is to prove science wrong to such a compelling extent that scientists will be drawn to abandon their scientific beliefs and turn to Christianity.  I believe that many Christians expect that the arguments being mounted by Christian apologists are so air-tight that everyone should become Christians based on the sheer force of these arguments alone.  In my opinion, this is a misguided view because:  1) the arguments aren't that convincing (i.e. there are always counter-arguments to the counter-arguments), and 2) the arguments don't achieve what we hope to achieve (e.g. convincing someone that the eye is too complex to have evolved randomly is a long way from solus Christus).

 

             This does not mean that such apologetic work is a waste of time.  Far from it.  But the focus should be on helping Christians to see that their faith is reasonable and that they don't need to worry about whether science has discovered some new thing that voids basic Christian beliefs.  It is important to show that Christian faith is reasonable, as I have discussed elsewhere [here].

 

             However, when it comes to trying to help people who do not believe, I think Christians should be more direct.  To be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus Christ.  It means to believe that Jesus Christ existed and still exists today.  It means to believe that Jesus Christ was God and is still God today.  It means to believe that His death paid the penalty that was due from each one of us personally.  It means that we believe in Jesus Christ so strongly that we commit to doing whatever He commands us to do.  It's all about Jesus.

 

             So, what's the most direct way to Christian belief?  To meet Jesus in a personal and convincing way.  That's as direct as it gets.  How does that happen?  Well, if you believe as I do, that Jesus is constantly seeking every person and trying to draw that person towards belief, then the direct route is to try to remove whatever blinders there may be that prevents[1] Jesus from getting through to them.  What are the blinders that people have?  When it comes to the academic world, the biggest blinder, by far, is the complete rejection of the miraculous.  This is the means by which God can communicate with the unbeliever (and believer too, for that matter).  Christian belief has, at its very core, the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Without the miraculous, there is no Christianity.  Thus, when a person rejects any possibility of the miraculous, there are no remaining options by which Jesus can get their attention.  Each individual needs to experience Jesus in some personal way.  If their eyes are shut to His work and their ears are closed to His voice, then our only avenue to help them believe is this:  try to get them to open their eyes and ears!  Everything else is just wasted effort.

 

             It is true that sometimes a big roadblock for belief in Christianity is the general idea that Christian belief is illogical and/or primitive and that science has shown that Christianity is demonstrably false.  This roadblock should be addressed, but only addressed with the following goal:  to show that Christian beliefs are rational and could be true.  We don't need to show that they are, in fact, true.  Once you personally encounter Jesus and realize that He really is alive and really is God, everything else will come into focus and become clear. 

 

             Why not take the direct route?  See Jesus at work.  Hear Jesus.  To try to take the route that passes through the path of:  "you can't rule out a God" to "there must be a God" to "God is the creator" to "the Bible is true" to "Jesus was a real person" to....it just seems to me to be a really really long road to take when Jesus is already standing right next to the person and trying to get his or her attention! 

---

[1] I know it seems weird to suggest that human beings can prevent God from interacting with them (isn't God all-powerful?), but God chooses to allow people to persist in their unbelief if that is what they choose.  He doesn't force belief.

8. Can the body die? Can the soul die?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  Yes, both the body and soul can die.  But death has different meanings for each.  The body dies physically.  The soul can have a spiritual death.

 

Key Passage:

             Mt 10:28 – Jesus refers to "those" (presumably human enemies; maybe satan) who can kill the body but not the soul.  And then He refers to "one" (presumably God) who can “destroy” both soul and body in hell.  This establishes that both the body and the soul can "die", but that they do not have to die simultaneously.  Further, it implies that the "death" of your soul is a more serious consequence than the death of your body, because you should fear the one who can destroy your soul. 

             A different word is used in reference to "destroying" only the body <apokteino> when compared to the word used for "destroying" both body and soul <apollumi>.  To me, this implies that there is likely a distinction between what it means for the body to die and what it means for the soul to die.  This makes sense to me based on the fact that the soul is spiritual [see here]:  spiritual death is different than physical death.

             By the way - how could a monist who accepts sola scriptura read this verse and still be a monist???

 

Caveat:

             None - as long as you understand that the body and soul don't die in the same way.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             James 5:19-20  James says that when you help someone become a believer, you "save a soul <psuche> from death <thanatos>".  This is a different action than saving a body (or physical flesh) from death.  There are many who save bodies from death or, I suppose more properly stated, delay the death of another, since eventually all bodies die.  Clearly, this verse implies that saving a soul from death is of greater importance than saving a body from death. 

             I Jn 3:16  "He laid down his <psuche> for us…"  This could be a difficult passage, because it may seem odd to think that both Jesus' body and soul died on the cross. Did Jesus’ soul die?  You could say that the term "laid down" refers to a sacrifice of his <psuche> but not the death of his <psuche>, but doesn't really fit the context, in my opinion.  Instead I think it is helpful, and consistent with other relevant new testament scriptures, to think of the death of the soul as being the same as the soul being “in the state of condemnation.”   Thus, when we think of Jesus soul dying, it is equivalent to saying that His soul was in a state of condemnation.  Through His death on the cross, we are told that He "bore our sins".  To take our sins upon Himself involves being in a state of condemnation.  Yet He escaped.  He "regained" His soul, meaning that His soul is (obviously) no longer in a state of condemnation but in a state of life.

 

Discussion:

             I don't see how it is possible to read Matt 10:28 and still be a monist.  If the soul is one with the body, and especially if the soul is one with the body and is all material, how is it possible to kill one without the other?  I know that some people love their monist ideas such that they will do all sorts of gymnastics to work around a verse like this.  In the end, by the time their gymnastics are done, they have pretty well redefined monism to be dualism!

             With respect to the death of the soul, the following seems true to me:  human beings all start with a dead soul – a soul in the state of condemnation.  Through faith in Jesus they can change that state – they can have a soul in the state of forgiveness and a state of eternal life.  Their soul is saved.  Jesus started with a living soul, which He freely gave over to death – to condemnation [I John 3:16].  But His resurrection overcomes that soul-death and He is now living – eternally living.  Man was dead but can become alive.  Jesus was alive, was dead, and is alive again.

             I don't know how much science has to say about life after death.  It's tough to experiment with.  There are certainly "near-death experiences", and those seem very interesting.  They can be studied for reliability and the facts of the cases can be verified.  But, in the end, I don't personally put a lot of weight on those experiences as being evidence for life after death.  I believe that there is life after death because Jesus taught that there is, but I don't feel that I, personally, can verify that until my body dies.

             Of course, the <sarx> certainly dies and decays.  That is clear in scripture and observable by science, since we can examine a dead body and observe its decay over time.  But science is outside of its realm if it claims that there is no non-material soul that survives beyond the death of the fleshly, physical body.

 

Return on Investment

This entry is specifically for Christians.

I’d like to talk today about the idea of “return on investment” (ROI).  It’s a term usually used in business  and is a measure of the gain or loss generated on an investment.  It is the net profit divided by the cost of investment.  ROI is expressed as a percentage rather than as an absolute amount.  Investors want to maximize their ROI.  If they do, they are doing well!  In general, I think, business people are looking for a ROI that is around 5-10% and are probably quite happy if it is a bit higher.

An interesting thing about ROI is what can happen when the investment is small.   For example, if you buy a stock for a penny, and the next day it increases by only 1 cent, have you made a good ROI?  Yes – you’ve made a great return!  You’ve made an ROI of 100%.  Of course, if all you bought was a single stock, then you didn’t make much.  But if you could find a lot of those investments you would be extremely successful.

I’d like to apply this to investing in our own lives.  I’m talking about the Christian life here.  Our goal is to grow and to become more Christ-like.  To do so, we have to invest in various activities and disciplines that help us along this path.  It’s hard work. 

Anyway, it got me to thinking about the ROI for various activities that help us grow as a Christian.  Are there some low cost, high ROI type of activities that we can do?  Some “penny stocks” that give a great ROI?  It seemed to me that those would be worth considering. 

So, I thought about this from my own personal perspective and experience.  Are there some activities that I have engaged in in my own life that didn’t require a huge investment, but paid back with a big return?  Yes, in my personal experience there are some.  In fact, I identified three high ROI activities that, in my personal experience, are an excellent investment for your own spiritual growth.

Without further ado, here are my top three in reverse order.

#3.  Writing things down. 

For as long as I can remember, I’ve always had a bad memory.  By the time I got to college, I was already organizing my personal life around that limitation.  I knew that I had to take good notes in class and that I had to write down my schedule or I would forget.  And, at the encouragement of some good friends, I started also taking my own personal notes whenever I would study the Bible or pray for things.  It became a habit for me. 

Now some of you are not blessed with a bad memory – or at least you don’t think you have a bad memory.  You think “I don’t need to write this down – I’ll remember.”  And, probably, you usually do remember, at least for a time.  But I bet you forget in the long run.  Admit it.

The other thing you need to add to an investment of writing things down is to hang on to your writings.  And, occasionally, look back at them.

I consider this a very low investment.  All you need is a writing utensil and a piece of paper (or electronic device – easier to store things).  Everyone can do it.  It takes a bit of discipline.  But that’s about it. 

What’s the payoff?  The payoff is being reminded of what God has done for you.  Despite your claims about having a good memory, you will forget.  It is human nature.  One thing in particular you will really forget is how desperate or lost or clueless you felt before God intervened.  We tend to diminish our feelings after the fact.  Thus, one of the things I try to do is to write out my feelings when I am in the midst of some difficulty.  Once the difficulty has passed and we “lived through it”, we tend to minimize how bad it was.  And, along with that, we diminish what God did, as if it wasn’t that important.

Scripture is full of examples where God tries to help us out with “memory aids.”  Many different characters in the Bible were told to build a monument of some sort, or establish some type of ritual or remembrance to help us not to forget what God has done.  Passover is a remembrance.  Jacob built an altar after his dream so generations after him could remember what happened.  Jesus told his disciples to “do this in remembrance of me.”  If we don’t, we forget.

So, the first low investment item on my list involves:  1) writing down your thoughts, prayers, etc., 2) keeping them somewhere, and 3) reviewing them every once in a while.  It’s not that hard to do, and it pays back good dividends.

#2.  Giving thanks. 

I’m talking about giving thanks to other people and I’m talking about giving thanks as a form of prayer.  Here’s another low investment, high payback activity that not only benefits you but also encourages the people around you.  It’s a true win-win situation.  Can you ever lose by being thankful?  Can you ever be too thankful?  Not in any practical way.  It’s just a good habit to develop.

My first experience with this was in third grade.  I guess my parents had taught me the importance of thanking people already.  One day the teacher was handing back our graded tests, so she had to go around to each kid in the class and give them their paper.  When she was all done she went back up to the front of the class and launched into a lecture on manners.  She said “I passed back this test to every single one of you and not one of you thanked me…except for Kevin.”  It felt good to be acknowledged but, since I was also very shy, I was mortified.  Hah!  I probably avoided thanking her after that so I wouldn’t get singled out again.  But it did impress on me how my thanking her, which was an incredibly simple act that I didn’t even think about at the time, had a big impact on her.

The only effort you have to expend in order to be a good “thank-er” is to be observant when other people are doing things that they could be thanked for.  I’m guessing that the other kids in my third grade class never thought that being handed back a piece of paper was a service to them.  It doesn’t have to be over the top, but when you are interacting with others, it is a simple thing to ask yourself “is there someone I should be thanking here?” 

Even God appreciates thanks.  There is an interesting situation with Jesus where he heals a group of ten lepers and tells them to go show themselves to the priests so that they can be declared clean (Luke 17).  All ten are healed but one of them, when he sees that he has been healed, comes back and finds Jesus and gives him thanks.  Jesus expresses a bit of wonder than only one came back to give thanks and tells the man that his sins are forgiven.  That’s a pretty good ROI right there!

Prayer is something Christians are commanded to do.  It is just communicating with God.  It shouldn’t be that hard.  But it is!  I didn’t list prayer itself on this list because I find that prayer requires a significant investment – although the benefits are huge.  But giving thanks is one aspect of prayer that can be just plain easy.  Prayer includes asking God for help, praise, confession, commitment…a whole host of things.  But, by far, the easiest type of prayer to give is a prayer of thanks.  Thank God for the things that have happened to you during the day and for the situation you are in.  In most cases (not all, of course), it is simple.  It just takes a bit of time and a little thoughtful recall.  And so, giving thanks is another low cost, high return activity that I put second on my list.

#1.  Scripture memory.

Memorizing scripture is something we make kids do in Sunday School, but I don’t know a lot of adults who spend any time on this discipline.  In my opinion, that’s a mistake.

Now I know the first thing many of you will say:  “I can’t memorize things.”  As I mentioned before, I’ve known that I had a bad memory all of my life.  But in high school and college I committed myself to working on memorizing scripture and I asked God to help me do it.  Personally, I believe He did.  At one point, when I was in my early twenties, I had about 10% of the New Testament memorized.  Admittedly, today, I could not recite any of the long passages I had memorized back then.  But they are still in my mind.  They still affect my thinking.  I remember the principles even if I can’t quote them word for word anymore.

The second thing you might say is “why should I memorize anything – I just Google it.”  In the old days, people would say “that’s what a concordance is for.”  It’s true – those are good tools.  But the “return on investment” for scripture memory is much higher than you might imagine.  It helps you to connect scriptures together and it really helps you when it comes to the practical application of scripture.  Your mind is constantly looking for connections as you go throughout the day.  When you have memorized scripture in your mind, it gives you the chance of connecting scripture with the situation you are in in real time.  Sure, you can always look up different topics in the Bible and find a list of relevant verses.  But that is rarely what we do.  Instead we just try to figure out the right thing to do in each successive situation we are faced with.  If we have a memory bank of scripture to draw on, it enables us to think more Biblically.  Further, our mind is great at categorizing things that have personal meaning to us.  Frequently there are situations that I find myself in where I recall a verse that has personal application to that situation.  It’s not something you would find searching in a concordance because, in general, it’s not a passage that has a broad meaning on the topic.  But it means something to you.  Those situations are very valuable from a Christian growth perspective.

I would also say that scripture memory gives the Holy Spirit a bigger vocabulary.  I know that sounds weird.  But does God speak to you?  God speaks through scripture.  When it is there in your brain, He can bring it to mind at the right time to help guide you and direct your life.  Personally I have found that to be a profound influence on the direction of my life.

When I memorize scripture, I don’t do anything fancy.  I simple write the verse out on a card and then review that whatever chance I get.  College seemed like the perfect opportunity because I recall spending a lot of time standing in line for something or other.  And every time I stood in line, I pulled out my stack of verse cards and started working on trying to memorize the next verse.  It doesn’t require any deep thinking.  You don’t even have to have studied out the verse or know what it means.  All it takes is a little discipline.  If all you ever do is work on scripture memory during the times you are stuck in line waiting for something, you can accomplish a lot.  Try it!

The payback from scripture memory is lifelong.  Once scripture is in your brain, it has been my experience that it is always there to be recalled.  Sometimes I still have to look it up to remember the exact wording, but I know where to go and I know it is there somewhere.  Verses I memorized thirty years ago come to my mind in direct application to something I am facing today.  That is real payback!  So, to me, scripture memory is the best ROI for a low investment effort that you can get. 

…

So, that’s my list of low investment activities that can really help you grow as a Christian.  I’m not suggesting that we ignore the hard things – the high investment activities – we can’t.  But why not add these low investment activities as well.  When it comes to Christian growth, we need all the help we can get!

Scars

          An important part of my job is to talk to people who are considering undergoing surgery to implant an experimental device.  There are lots of things to talk about and people usually have a lot of questions, as they should.  “How do I know the device will work?”  “How long is the surgery?”  “Will I have pain after the surgery?”  And, at some point in every conversation, I am asked “What about the scars?”  People want to know if they will wake up with railroad tracks on their arms and hands and neck.  “Will my scars be permanent?”  It is a reasonable concern.  It is a concern of cosmetics:  how will I look?  Yes, there will be scars.  There are some things we can do to get scars to heal better.  Over time they will fade to some degree.  But twenty years from now, if all I could see of you was your arm, I could pretty well guess what surgeries you had done just by seeing the scars that remain.

          Are scars permanent?  What does it mean to call something permanent?  I know what the person asking me means.  They want to know “am I going to have scars for the rest of my life?”  Probably.  Actually they are almost certainly permanent.  As long as you don’t define “permanent” as the same thing as “forever”!

          If you don’t believe there is life after death, then you have to anticipate that gradual decay after death.  Your body will decompose.  And, yes, over time those scars will fade away for sure.  So – are scars permanent?  Certainly not if that is our destiny.

          But if you are a Christian and believe what the Bible says about our eternal destiny, then you believe there will be a resurrection.  The details are surely sketchy, but it seems very clear that our resurrected bodies are perfect.  Clean.  New.  No scars.  So – are scars permanent?  Not if that is our destiny.

          So, no, as far as I can tell, scars will never really be permanent…that is, except for one very famous case.  This case was made clear to us in the famous story of “Doubting Thomas”.  Thomas didn’t believe that Jesus had appeared to the rest of the Disciples.  He wanted proof.  He wanted to see this risen Jesus with his own eyes.  And, within a few days, he got his chance.  Thomas is in a room with the other disciples and it happens again:  Jesus appears in the room.  And what does Jesus say to Thomas?  "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side…”  What is the implication?  The implication is this:  the scars from the crucifixion that Jesus had endured are still on his hands and still on his side.  Still there in Jesus’ new resurrected body.  Permanent scars.  A perfect body with permanent scars.  An ultimate oxymoron for sure.

          If you believe there will be a resurrection of the dead, and an eventual eternity in heaven, you may have never given much consideration to how you will know Jesus when you run in to him.  Well…I suppose there are many ways…but one sure way is to take a look at his palms.  There will be a lot of beautiful hands in heaven.  They will be perfect.  No hardened callouses.  No crooked arthritic joints.  No scars. 

          Except for two hands.

          You know, scars aren’t always just a cosmetic issue.  Sometimes they are painful.  Makes me wonder…are truly permanent scars painful?

Construction Toys and the Universe

          I’ve always loved to construct things.  I had some Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs to build with when I was really little.  Lincoln Logs are fun, but there is not much you can build with notched logs other than a building of some sort.  Tinker Toys allow for more creativity.  But still – there are just some round hubs and some struts of different colors – after a while, you tire of them a bit.  After you’ve built the biggest tower you can make, then what?

          I’m not sure when I got my first Lego kit, but it must have been around grade school time.  The basic brick, though, isn’t much more useful than a Lincoln Log – it still is pretty much for buildings.  What really excited me about Legos was that they had gears.  Gears were, to me, the greatest things ever.  They are kind of magical.  You move one gear and that can cause a whole bunch of gears to move.  You can slow things down or speed things up.  There was nothing more exciting to me than a gear.  Well, that is, until I got my first motor!  Motors are even better.  You plug them in and they generate movement all by themselves!  No more need to crank things.  You can put together a creation, turn the motor on, and watch the whole thing come to life.  The excitement of creating something that can do “something on its own” still fascinates me to this day.  If I could build these things all day, I would.

          There was a great toy store in the town where I grew up that I loved to visit.  I would immediately go to the “construction toy” and “science toy” section.  On one such visit when I was in Junior High, I came across the greatest construction toy ever.  It was the ultimate – the Holy Grail of construction toys – and I immediately became obsessed with them.  These were the Fischertechnik kits.  Most kids in the U.S. have never heard of them probably.  They are made in Germany – in fact all of the instructions were in German for most of the kits.  But they are superior in every way to Legos – especially if you really like gears and motors and robotics.  They are superior…and more expensive…which was a problem.  I think my parents must have bought me one of the basic kits as a gift.  Here is the first kit I got: http://www.fischertechnik-museum.ch/museum/displayimage.php?album=3&pos=21.  Gears.  Pulleys.  Wheels.  They are interesting because it takes a little bit of learning to get the hang of how to assemble them together.  They are inherently three dimensional, unlike Legos which are inherently two dimensional.  They interlock in a manner that is solid (also unlike Legos, which always fall apart).  And the basic block looks just as boring as the basic Lego block:  a plastic rectangle with a knob on one end. 

          Once I got the hang of putting the Fischertechnik parts together and could build all of the example models in the first book, I was totally hooked.  I spent my time outside of school either trying to create new things with the parts I had, or else staring – meditating – at the back pages of the instruction booklet where it pictured all of the other kits available.  Whenever I worked mowing lawns or did other odd jobs, I spent that time calculating which kits I could buy with the money I was going to make.  Eventually I worked my way to getting the Hobby 3 kit (http://www.fischertechnik-museum.ch/museum/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=3 ), but I could never save enough money to get the famous (to me) Hobby 4 kit (http://www.fischertechnik-museum.ch/museum/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=4 )...something I surely dreamed about while in high school.  Oddly enough, I still don’t have that kit, though it does occasionally show up on ebay.

          One thing that made Fischertechnik kits so fascinating for me was the ability to bring motion into the things you constructed.  Motors of different kinds.  Then sensors.  Gears of all different styles – worm gears, gear track, planetary gears, conveyor belts…great stuff as far as I was concerned.  I’m old now, but I still have these kits.  Some days I think I’m more of a collector of these kits than someone who actually uses them.  Just don’t have time to “play” with them anymore.

          Because of my fascination with these types of kits, I began evaluating what made a “great” construction toy design.  One of my personal criteria is that a really well-designed construction toy should only require a limited number of parts.  What I mean is that you should be able to create other things by assembling the basic components together into a new component.  This is hard to do, and also very much against what the marketing arm of any company would suggest!  Thus, for example, most new Lego kits are themed and each kit is composed of many new and often unique parts in order to create, for example, a castle or a Star Wars scene or an excavator.  The fact that you have to have unique parts to create new things seems like somewhat of a “failure” to me.  If you had really well-designed basic parts, you should be able to create anything, right?  One construction toy that seems to follow this principle pretty well are K’nex.  Those toys came along when I was in college (and perpetually broke) so I never played with them until my kids had some.  But they tend to have a limited set of parts – connectors and rods of different lengths – that are used to make a lot of interesting things. 

          What’s the point of this bit of rambling?  It is just to think about the ultimate construction toy, and it meets my “limited number of parts” criteria in spades.  I’m talking about matter.  What are the parts you need?  There are only three:  electrons, protons, and neutrons.[1]  I find that incredibly fascinating.  If you’ve read anything on this blog, you know that I am a supernaturalist, so obviously I attribute the creative genius behind this “construction toy” to God.  But even if you are a complete naturalist, you can surely appreciate that, despite the incredible complexity and diversity in nature and in the universe, it can all be constructed with these three parts.  However, just for a second, imagine God, sitting at a big desk, getting ready to create the universe.  Personally, I kind of imagine it in the form of a Far Side cartoon.  God reaches over to his cabinet in which all of his parts are stored and – guess what? – the cabinet has only three big drawers labelled “electrons”, “protons”, and “neutrons!!”  I find that funny and amazing and completely fascinating all at once!  As a Far Side cartoon, I can just imagine the cartoon including God’s wife off to the side saying “Be careful with that – remember what happened last time when you starting pushing neutrons into that uranium molecule you made!” 

          As a supernaturalist, I believe there is at least one more part required to turn those three components into living things, and maybe at least one more part further still to turn those components into human beings, but that is for another story.  I just think it would be a lot of fun to sit down at a table and start assembling three little pieces into anything anyone could imagine.  That would be the greatest!

---

[1] I’m ignoring quantum physics here.  And why shouldn’t I?  Why should I listen to people who don’t know how to comb their hair and who can’t come up with better names for things than “quark” and “charm”???