The Uniqueness of Religious Doctrines

This is the final short paper for my Philosophy of Religion class. This has been a great experience and I have learned so much. In this essay, I am considering Paul J. Griffiths' thoughts on the uniqueness of religious doctrines.

----------------------------

Griffiths answers those who subscribe to the pluralistic view of religions. His main point, and the focus of his essay, is that many religions include a number of particularist and exclusivist doctrines which contradict the pluralist view. Griffiths argues that there are five important dimensions of religious doctrine. While they overlap, each has its own unique contribution to doctrine. Griffiths uses Christianity – specifically the Anglican variety – as well as Buddhism as his primary examples.

The first dimension addressed is Religious Doctrines as Community Rules. Religious doctrines function as rules which outline the conduct of the members of the religious community who subscribe to a particular faith. Griffiths states: "This dimension of religious doctrines is perhaps the most basic of all; from it the others flow." (p. 590) While all five dimensions have areas where they overlap, this first dimension significantly impacts the other dimensions more than any other. It is the central dimension of all five.

Next, Griffiths discusses Religious Doctrines as Definitions of Community Boundaries. Religious doctrines are central to dictating the boundaries for behavior and belief. Often these boundaries are created to exclude things from the community which are considered untrue, inadequate, or misleading. They are the barriers that protect the community from unwelcome behaviors and beliefs. For the Christian, these can include topics such as the understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ or the Trinity.

The third dimension, Religious Doctrines and the Spiritual Experience of Communities, entails the spiritual experiences that shape the doctrines of and are formed from the doctrines of a religious community. One way Griffiths illustrates this dimension is by discussing how the prayer practices of Christians have both shaped and been shaped by doctrines about the Virgin Mary. Spiritual experience can have a significant impact on what a community believes.

The fourth dimension is Religious Doctrines – Catechesis and Evangelism. These two areas of this dimension focus on making members of religious communities. Catechesis is the process of teaching and training with regards to the doctrinal and practical aspects of the religion. This can include elements of creeds, liturgies, religious practices, and more. The ultimate goal of catechesis is the formation of a faithful Christian or adherent to whatever religion is involved.

Evangelism is the process which converts a person to a particular religion. For those who were not raised in a certain spiritual community, this is the process which recruits new members to that community. When evangelism is successful, new members begin the process of catechesis. Doctrine is generally central to both aspects of this dimension.

The final dimension Griffiths discusses is Religious Doctrines and Salvation. While it may look significantly different for various religious communities, almost every community of faith addresses the subject of salvation in some form. This dimension is one that is especially troublesome for pluralism because doctrines – especially those involving salvation – often cannot be abandoned by a religious community which takes its beliefs seriously. Since many religious groups have a specific doctrine of salvation, they cannot ignore that belief and accept the pluralistic view.

While most religions share these five dimensions, Griffiths does go on to address the uniqueness of Christian doctrine. Christianity is unique because, in the words of Griffiths, "a strong and interesting doctrinal claim is being made here, a claim as to the singularly and salvific centrality of a particular historic event." Christianity makes a unique claim which cannot logically co-exist with any other doctrine of salvation. It teaches that salvation is found in the person of Jesus Christ and through his death, burial, and resurrection. This specific of a salvific doctrine is unique to Christianity.

If we are going to have serious dialogue with other religious groups, the unique nature of Christianity must be a part of the discussion. If we ignore the uniqueness of our faith, then our discussions with other religious communities will be hollow and of significantly less value.

Not only do I affirm Griffiths' position, I feel that his position makes the pluralist position logically impossible. Unless one is willing to discount Christianity as a false religion, she cannot be a pluralist and remain consistent. Either Christianity is a false proposition, or pluralism is a false position. One cannot advocate a philosophy that accepts all religions when at least one of those religious communities accepts an exclusive salvific event.

Religious doctrines are indeed unique as outlined by Griffiths in his essay. While many religions will share some similarities which produce common ground for dialogue, we must acknowledge that many religions, especially the Christian faith, include doctrines which nullify the possibility of pluralism and make a claim for exclusivity.

Unfortunately, some who disagree with pluralism will swing to the other extreme and take exclusivity to the point of arrogance and judgmentalism. We must always approach inter-religious dialogue with a sense of humility balanced with a firm belief in our position. This requires us to be diligent students of our beliefs as well as those with whom we disagree. If we want others to honestly listen to our position, we must be willing to accord them the same attitude of openness. We can listen with an open mind without sacrificing our position or affirming their views as ones to which we subscribe.

One last issue Churches of Christ must consider in the pluralism/exclusivism debate is our exclusivity as a religious community. This is not unique to our tribe, but we have been well known in the Christian community for our claims of exclusivity. While we have our unique doctrines that shape our community as Griffiths discussed, we must be careful not to draw firm lines and distinctions where God has not. If we have a healthy attitude that acknowledges traditions as traditions rather than salvific issues, we can respect our heritage while maintaining healthy dialogue with the rest of the Christian community. We must always be willing to examine every aspect of our doctrine and heritage against the Word of God. While God’s nature will never change, our understanding can and will change as our approach to Scripture and the culture we live in continues to change around us.

Reflections on the death of a parent

It was nine years ago today. There are those pivotal moments in your life that you never forget. Weddings. Births. Deaths.

April 16, 1999, was the day of the phone call that would reverberate through the rest of my life. My dad had called earlier in the evening and I could hear it in his voice. Something bad had happened. I returned the call expecting to hear that my aunt who had been sick for some time had passed away.

Instead, I heard the words that I will never forget. "Your mom has gone to be with God."

A host of emotions rushed through me at that moment. Disbelief. Anger. Sadness. I just started saying, "No...no....no."

Instantly my world had been turned upside down. The woman who brought me into the world was gone.

The next couple of hours were filled with crying, packing, and dealing with a feeling of numbness. I didn't want to believe it was true.

Michelle and I were in Arkansas at the time, so we had to arrange plane tickets to fly back to Ohio. It was already after 10:00pm by the time we found out about my mom, but within minutes friends of ours were at our home. One couple even spent the entire night with us and helped us get to the airport.

Then there was the plane flight home the next morning. It was during that time that God began to speak grace and mercy into this moment of grief. There was one passage that I continued to read over and over. Paul's words began to bring a sense of peace.

All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is our merciful Father and the source of all comfort. He comforts us in all our troubles so that we can comfort others. When they are troubled, we will be able to give them the same comfort God has given us. For the more we suffer for Christ, the more God will shower us with his comfort through Christ. Even when we are weighed down with troubles, it is for your comfort and salvation! For when we ourselves are comforted, we will certainly comfort you. Then you can patiently endure the same things we suffer. We are confident that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in the comfort God gives us. (2 Corinthians 1:3-7)

In the days, weeks, and even years following, this verse continued to bring healing to a wound that may heal but will always leave a scar.

I still remember arriving in Ohio and the long drive from the airport to my house. I remember walking in the door and seeing my dad for the first time.

One of the strongest memories of coming home was the walk down to where my mom died. Her fatal car accident occurred less than half a mile from the home where I grew up and my dad still lives. After spending a little time with family, I walked out the door to walk down to the place where my mom took her last breath.

It was a short walk that seemed to last forever. But eventually I arrived at the intersection and knelt down and had a heart-to-heart with God. I asked those questions we all ask in times like this. Why, God? Why my mom? Why now?

It was in the midst of mourning the loss of my mother that our nation suffered a tragedy of its own. On Tuesday, April 20, 1999, the day of my mom's visitation, two teenage boys committed the Columbine massacre. While I was dealing with my own grief, I was reminded that we live in world where death is inevitable and sometimes tragic.

One of the bright lights in the midst of the darkness was realizing what kind of impact my mom had made on those around her. I remember my mom as a fairly reserved person who was usually either at work or at home. But that day I was overwhelmed by the number of people who came and shared how my mom had touched them. It was such an inspiration and I was reminded that you don't have to be loud or the center of attention to make a difference.

Then there was the funeral. Somehow I was able to read the brief poem I had written for my mom in the days between her death and the funeral. As I look back it all seems so clear, but at the same time it was a blur. I remember a quiet moment where I was alone standing over my mom's casket. I recall sitting down next to my cousin - who considered my mom his second mother - and comforting him in his grief.

I realized we all deal with grief in our own unique way. At times I would mourn. At other times I would switch into comforter mode. There were other times I just sat and tried to absorb what was going on around me. Even days after my life was forever changed, I was still looking for a sense of normalcy.

In the days and weeks following my mom's death and funeral, I can't count the number of times I wanted to pick up the phone and call my mom. When I would experience milestones, I would remember my mom was gone.

Several months after I lost my mom, I graduated from Harding. It was on that day, July 31, 1999, that Michelle's mom lost her battle with cancer. Of course, this day resurfaced my pain. Together, Michelle and I once again dealt with the lost of a mom. Within a few months, we had both lost the most important woman in our lives. It was a time that stretched our trust in God and reaffirmed His love for us and our love for each other.

It was less than a year and a half later, Matthew came into the world. Again, we were reminded of the hole in our families. I wished that my mom was there to share in this special moment. As a new life began, I was reminded of a life that ended too soon.

In the years since, I have often had moments where I wanted to talk to my mom. Whether it was seeking advice, wanting to share a special moment, or simply the desire to say hi, there are times when I just wish my mom was still here. But again, I am reminded that we live in a broken world where death is inevitable and no one is immune from pain and suffering.

If there is anything I have learned over the last nine years it is that God can help us work through our pain, but He cannot remove the scars that pain and suffering bring to our lives. I was reminded of that this morning when I attended the funeral of a twenty-four-year-old woman who died during childbirth. As I sat in a church this morning with a community that mourned with a widower, his newborn daughter, and their families, my pain surfaced yet again. But it was in that moment that God's word of comfort was brought to mind by the Holy Spirit.

As I had nine years ago, I opened my Bible to 2 Corinthians 1. It was in those words that God once again reminded me that the will of God is not what happens to me; it's how I react to what happens to me. Sadness is an emotion we all experience at various times in life. We can choose to allow grief to control us or we can allow God to heal us by using us to bring healing to others. When we are willing to allow God to use us to serve others, He can also redeem even the darkest of situations.

shine!
Jason

I'm glad God isn't a CBP agent

This week we are getting ready to make a journey to Canada. I am speaking at a youth rally up at Great Lakes Christian College (which is actually a high school) in Beamsville, Ontario. It should prove to be an interesting weekend.

As we have been preparing, our group has probably killed a few trees with all of the documentation we need to cross the border. Passport. Birth certificate. Photo ID. Parent consent letter. We need all of these forms just to cross an imaginary line from one parcel of land to another.

Every time I travel out of the US, I get a little nervous when it's time to deal with the CBP folks (CBP is another government acronym which stands for Customs and Border Protection.) I always breathe a sigh of relief when I am through that ordeal. Generally it goes smooth, but occasionally you get the extra questions. Then you never know what will happen. Full body search. Open your suitcase. You are at their mercy.

I am so glad that God doesn't work for the CBP. When you cross into His Kingdom there are no forms. He doesn't ask a bunch of questions. While He asks for commitment, He doesn't ask you to jump through a bunch of hoops.

I love the simplicity of the Christian message. Engaging in the Kingdom of God is about joining in God's dream for Creation. God doesn't want to keep you out. He wants to let you in. Everyone is welcome.

The flip side of that is true as well. God doesn't keep anyone in through coercion. God's grace and mercy does not function that way. He always has open arms waiting to welcome you in. And that is something I doubt you will ever see a CBP agent do.

shine!
Jason

Why do we sin?

Why is sin often so enjoyable? I mean, if you think about it, why else would we sin?

Sure, we know it’s wrong. We know that God doesn’t want us to do it. Sometimes, we even know that sin will have negative consequences. Yet, in spite of all that, we sin anyway. What’s up with that?

The longer I live in this world, the more I realize that sin is often the symptom, not the problem. Sin is usually a shortcut to relieve pain, suffering, or emptiness. It is an unhealthy solution to something that is wrong in our lives.

Men engage in sexual sin because in some way they feel inadequate, alone, or helpless. They are simply looking for a place to find value and control over their situation. In the search for a solution, they often find a shortcut that brings temporary relief, but often unseen long-term consequences.

Women engage in gossip because they want everyone to know there is someone worse off than they are. In the search to feel better about themselves, the easiest solution is often to put someone else down.

Neither of these are exclusive to the gender I have ascribed them to, but these are a few common examples. Most of us, at times in our life, look for ways to heal the pain we feel.

God knows that we hurt. And God knows that sin will often bring a short-term solution to the pain. But God also knows that these "quick fixes" often lead to more pain in the long run. It could be days, months, or even years, but sin will usually come back with more pain than what we tried to fix in the first place.

God offers a different solution. Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light." (Matthew 11:28-30) Although it is often not the easy path, it is the one that offers more than a “quick fix” and brings true healing.

shine!
Jason

Faith of a child

Today I had the experience of being humbled by a 7-year-old.

So I am sitting in my house and my wife, Michelle, is checking her email. She tells me about an email she received from a friend explaining that several teenagers in our area were killed in a car accident. As Michelle is reading the email, she reads a part of the email asking us to pray for the families.

I think to myself, OK, I will pray for them.

Suddenly I hear a voice from the other room. My seven-year-old son, Matthew, sometimes the most practical theologian in the house, says from the other room, "Let's pray for them now."

Well, after experiencing a bit of pride and a taste of humility for not suggesting this myself, I ask Matthew if he would like to say the prayer. He agrees and offers a prayer that may not have been as "churchy sounding" as mine, but it was as sincere as any prayer I have heard in a long time.

If only we all could have the faith of a child.

shine!
Jason

Two Separate Domains

After being out of town most of the week with my family, I am back in Michigan. I did have time this week to write another paper for my grad class. This one addresses an article about Stephen Jay Gould about the physical domain and the metaphysical domain. Is it disturbing that this stuff is actually getting to be fun?

----------------------------------------

Gould focuses most of his article around statements and papers presented by Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II. He utilizes these two articles to contrast how the situation with regards to evolution and creation has changed in the last fifty years.

These papal statements are the framework in which Gould reaffirms the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisterial) principle. This principle states that science and religion are two separate fields which do not overlap and have unique magisteriums (domains of teaching authority). Pius argued that since there was evidence for evolution, it can be accepted as long as the divine infusion of the soul is accepted as well. Since evolution falls within the magisterium of science and the soul is in the magisterium of religion, these two apparently do not conflict.

Gould rejoices in the fact that Pope John Paul II supports the advancements in science that reinforce evolution. This goes beyond Pius’ statement which still left evolution as questionable.

Gould describes an important aspect of the NOMA concept when he states, "If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly with the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution."

I do not believe that the NOMA concept is logical or realistic. The more we learn about matter, energy, and the details of the universe, it appears as though there is inevitable overlap. NOMA will grant that there is some "gray area" where the two magisterium meet, but I would argue that there is overlap. Science cannot remain independent of morality and morality cannot exist outside of the realm of science.

If we believe in a Creator God, then we cannot accept the NOMA concept. However, the idea of evolution allows us to disconnect the moral God from the creative God. This unhealthy divorce is damaging to a holistic view of the universe, our world, and our lives.

The NOMA concept appears to be a way for religious people to avoid science and scientists to avoid morality. However, it is crucial that this not happen. When we say that science and religion do not share domains of teaching authority, we are robbing the religious person the opportunity to explore God and faith though scientific study. In addition, the scientist will tend to look at the world with less morality. This entire worldview disagrees with my view that the scientific world and the spiritual world overlap.

Gould’s theory assumes two paradigms of world-views: physical/scientific and metaphysical/religious. This is a faulty foundation because the metaphysical is the overlying structure for both. I believe that Gould revisits the mistake of the Scientific Revolution by attempting to separate the physical realm from the metaphysical. I would argue that the physical world is simply the empirically measurable aspects of the metaphysical realm.

One of the consequences of this separation of the physical from the metaphysical is a separation of morality from science. This can create a host of dilemmas in our modern world. As science explores cloning, stem-cell use, euthanasia, atomic weapons, and other modern scientific discoveries, Gould wants to remove morality from science at a time it is needed most. Not only is this theory faulty on a philosophical level, on a practical level it could have damaging consequences.

So where do we go from here? How can we react to Gould’s theory and provide a more holistic model? We must begin by acknowledging that science and theology overlap, but they each also have their own "space." Science and theology are partners that cannot be separated. For example, religion has contributed to many of the scientific achievements, especially in areas of medicine. Without the metaphysical influence of religion and theology, science may not have been as driven to learn more. Christianity had a significant impact over the last two millenniums to influence scientific thought.

I have already discussed the importance of morality in the realm of science, but what about the influence of science on religion? We must remember that scientific/physical realm is simply the empirical manifestation of the metaphysical realm. It is only part of a bigger picture. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind that the physical realm cannot dominate the metaphysical. As we have learned in recent years with the developments described by those such as Schroeder, the more we learn about the physical world, the more the majesty of the metaphysical world is revealed to us.

One specific area where this is very important for our young people is in the area of evolution. As we wrestle with the origins of life, this balance of the physical and metaphysical is crucial. If science is the measurable part of the metaphysical, this has major implications in the evolution/creation debate. Rather than exclusively arguing the evidence for evolution against the evidence for creation (which is basically operating in Gould’s world-view), we must teach our young people to think critically and evaluate the physical (scientific) and metaphysical (moral) aspects of the origins of life.

David's latest song

The continuing adventures of David Archuleta on American Idol...

 

Vinaigrette

One of my favorite kinds of salad dressing is Vinaigrette. I enjoy the simplicity of olive oil and vinegar. There is something pure about it.

But I also know that if it sits very long the vinegar and oil separate. One settles towards the bottom of the bottle and the other floats to the top. They are two different substances that don't stay together very long if not in motion.

While I like vinaigrette for salad dressing, it can be a challenge in ministering to students when you have a vinaigrette youth group. What do I mean?

There are seasons in the life of a youth group when you have an influx of what some might call "unchurched" students. These are teenagers who have little or no church background. They may have never attended a worship service and are new to the whole "God thing."

Recently, we have experienced this exact situation. I have really enjoyed getting to know some of these students, but it has also been a challenge. It has been a challenge for them, for our existing students, and for some of our adults.

As an aside, I realize some of the people I am talking about might be reading this, so know that I am not trying to talk about you, per se. I am considering the challenges inherent anytime this dynamic occurs.

For the students who are new, there is the challenge of trying to understand this whole Christianity deal. What does it mean? What does it look like? They might ask tough questions like, "What about the teens in this youth group who go to my school, but pretty much act like everyone else?" Or, "Is this God for real?"

Some of them, if we are going to be quite honest, might be coming mostly for the social dynamic, to play some pool, and maybe to check out the members of the opposite sex. But I also believe that all of them - on some level - are looking for acceptance and a place to belong.

This brings us to the students who have been in the youth group. There is this funny thing about a youth group. It tends to be a close group of friends, but it is also a group who has difficulty assimilating new members. This is a phenomenon I have observed at every church I served with. The youth group is a friendly group. It is a loving group. But every group is - to some extent - a closed group.

If you can get in the group and become a part, you will become part of the family. But, if you are shy, different, or otherwise unable to "get in," a youth group can be a place that feels very unaccepting or unloving. Keep in mind that for most students in a youth group, this is not an intentional or malicious attitude. I believe it is part of the experience of adolescence where teenagers are trying to find their identity. In an effort to be a part of a group, students tend to put much more energy into gaining acceptance than offering it.

The last group is often the most perplexing. There always seem to be adults in a church who fear the "community kids." Maybe it's because they don't dress like "church kids." Maybe it's because some of them might smell like cigarette smoke or even alcohol. Maybe it's because they look like those trouble-making teens they have seen on TV or in a movie. Whatever the reason, some adults - again I believe unintentionally and without malice - reject these students based on their appearance. Unfortunately, this can add to the sense of unacceptance that these teens feel because they are "vinegar" trying to mix with "oil."

So what do we do?

I don't think there is an easy answer. But I do believe there are things we can do. While I don't begin to believe this is an exhaustive list, here are some of the actions that I believe will aid in creating a "vinaigrette" youth group. (I will confess here, that I have not been as diligent as I would have liked in instituting some of these.):

First, we must educate and encourage existing students to reach out to those who are new. While it may be easy to talk about it, bringing the theory to life can be a challenge. Students like their youth group and don't usually want things to change. In addition, some of the newer students may be from clans at school that they don't relate well to or even oppose. However, this is a golden opportunity to experience the fact that the Kingdom of God trumps any "kingdom" of this world. Accepting those you don't normally accept - and even your "enemies" - is central to the gospel message of Kingdom living.

In addition - and probably before anything else - we as youth workers must model acceptance for our students. If we want to create a welcoming environment, we must take action ourselves. We should be the first ones to offer an open hand. We should make a concerted effort to talk to newcomers. The students who have been in our ministry for a long time must know they are valued, but they also must see our lives testify to the fact that all are welcome. This may even require us to "encourage" students to make the effort to welcome those who are new.

Another action that I believe is vital is to balance teaching that both stretches the student who has been part of a church their whole life and makes the Word of God accessible to the teenager who may not even know where the book of Matthew is in the Bible. This is no easy task. It requires hard work, prayer, and patience. While not every lesson will reach every level of learner, we must be careful and diligent to communicate on various levels.

One final part of the puzzle that I will mention here is serving. When students on various places in their faith journey serve together, walls come down and bridges are built. I have watched teenagers who had strong dislike for one another serve together on a mission trip and return home as good friends. However, this can be a difficult thing when you have community teenagers who are just checking things out. They are often not ready to commit to serving opportunities. I can say that in situations where new students have engaged in serving, it has helped them connect with some members of the group.

As I said earlier, these are not panaceas that will fix everything, but they are potential parts of a solution to an often challenging situation. Obviously, every church is different, every youth group is different, and every student is different. But as we seek to reach out to students who are hurting, lost, confused, and lonely, we must be willing to shake things up a bit so that "vinegar" and "oil" can come together to create a vinaigrette that brings more flavor to the world of our teens.

shine!
Jason

The Falsification Debate and Religious Language

Here is another of my papers from my Philosophy of Religion class. This one explores the use of religious language and the "falsification debate." It might sound kind of boring, but the longer I am in this class, the more fun this stuff becomes!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In these two articles, the authors reflect on two different aspects of religious language. In the first article, Flew and Mitchell center their discussion on the "falsification debate." The basic argument in this debate is whether or not religious statements must be proved with empirical evidence.

Flew begins his argument with a parable about two explorers who come upon a clearing in the jungle. As the two explorers examine the situation, one uses the empirical evidence to come to a conclusion that there is no gardener. The other explorer, the Believer, continues to believe despite the empirical evidence.

Flew argues that, through a process of qualification, the assertion made by the Believer should be empirically provable. According to Flew, if the visible facts contradict the assertion, then it is no longer an assertion at all. He applies this train of thought to Christianity by asking this question of the believer: “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?” I would argue that question is invalid for the believer, because it assumes that God is the source of evil. Flew’s argument appears to discount God’s love, and thus his existence, because of the presence of evil in the world. I disagree with that premise so the question is irrelevant.

Mitchell challenges Flew by acknowledging the problem of evil, which appears to be one of Flew’s primary empirical proofs against the assertion of the existence of God. From there, Mitchell shares his own parable about "the Stranger." I believe this parable is relevant, but it still seems based on the assumption that God is the source of evil. Mitchell’s parable is a good illustration of how an inadequate theodicy can be troubling.

Mitchell agrees with Flew that theological utterances must be assertions. However, Mitchell goes on to say that these assertions explain the behavior of the partisan (the Believer). He concludes by considering that theological utterances can be treated in at least three different ways: (1) as provisional hypotheses to be discarded if experience tells against them, (2) as significant articles of faith, (3) as vacuous formulae to which experience makes no difference and which make no difference to life. Believers cannot have the first attitude and must exercise caution to avoid falling into the third.

I believe that Flew has some valid arguments with regards to qualification of assertions, but his premise is built on an unhealthy theodicy. It appears that Flew’s argument centers on his belief that God and evil cannot coexist and that the presence of evil in the world is evidence which disqualifies the assertion that God exists. While this is not his only evidence, it appears to be the significant issue for him. As a matter of fact, I believe the falsification principle is central both to Flew’s conversion to Deism and his notable continued disbelief in a God who interacts with mankind. While the evidence led Flew to disavow his atheism and become a deist, I also believe the lack of evidence continues to prevent him from advocating a belief in the God who most Christians profess.

Mitchell, on the other hand, seems to understand the idea of faith, and his options for dealing with theological utterances acknowledge the significance of faith while warning believers about empty words. We as believers must always take caution to assure that our lives reflect our language. Otherwise they become empty words with no real meaning in our lives.

Tillich takes a different approach to religious language. He considers the significance of religious symbols and signs. He begins his article by specifying the difference between symbols and signs. In his article, Tillich focuses on symbols, the more significant of the two, because "although they are not the same as that which they symbolize, participate in its meaning and power."

Symbols open up a level of reality which cannot be achieved otherwise. They allow us to experience what they symbolize in unique ways by opening up our soul. Symbols function ultimately is to allow us to experience something in a deeper way.

Religious symbols allow us to experience the ultimate reality of the Holy in a special way. Tillich discusses the two levels of religious symbols – the transcendent level and the immanent level. In the transcendent level, which goes beyond empirical reality, we begin with God himself. God is not just a symbol, but as an ultimate being and a person; God is more than we can comprehend.

We also consider the attributes of God (he is love, mercy, power, etc.) and the acts of God (he created the world, sent his son, etc.) as elements of the transcendent level. These all utilize religious language about God that find their place outside of time and space.

On the other hand, there are immanent level symbols that function and exist within time and space. The incarnation is the first of these. There are times and situations where God makes his presence known in this world. While we primarily think of Jesus’ incarnation, this can include any situation where the divine physically engages time and space.

The sacramental is another immanent symbol. This includes such symbols such as the Lord’s Supper. A third element includes things such as church buildings, candles, and other symbols which draw us closer to God.

Tillich ends his article by warning the believer to exercise caution. We cannot allow these symbols to become icons. For example, we must always remember the real power of the cross is found in Christ, not the cross we wear around our necks or view on a wall. We must remember that symbols, while participating in the meaning and power of what they symbolize, are not the source of the meaning and power.

College trip update

It's Tuesday morning and I am sitting in a hotel in Edmund, OK. We are in the midst of a tour of Christian colleges. Here is a recap of our trip so far:

Saturday afternoon we headed out from Rochester. We ended up in Chicago and celebrated Easter at Willow Creek's main campus. It was an uplifting and encouraging morning. The lesson was challenging. It was a pretty amazing experience.

Most of Sunday consisted of driving. I found out why they call it The Great Plains. I have never seen so many fields in my life. The best thing is that the speed limit in some places was 75 mph. After about ten hours of traveling, we arrived in York, Nebraska.

I was pleasantly surprised by York College. I had never been there before. I didn't know what to expect from a small Christian college in a small town in the middle of Nebraska. The people were very friendly. The campus was nice. It was a good experience.  I would recommend that you check out York if you are looking at Christian colleges.

Yesterday afternoon we jumped back in the van and headed south. Last night around 9:00pm we arrived in Edmund, OK. The cool thing is that we had homemade pizzas waiting for us. Kurk Ziegler, one of the students from ministry in Amherst, Ohio, is now a senior at Oklahoma Christian and made food for us! It was good to see Kurk. He looks so grown up! Anyway, we hung out with him for a bit and our two teen boys spent the night there.

I am about to shut this down and head over to campus for our Oklahoma Christian experience. Tonight we travel to Harding. We might want to stop and have pontoons installed on the church van before traveling to Searcy. We will get to experience the floods first hand. More to come...

shine!
Jason

When I make a wrong turn

Thank you to everyone who was a part of Illuminate weekend!! I felt like it was a great weekend and so many people were a part of it. To the adults who helped plan and coordinate, thanks! To the teenagers who were a part of worship, Ignite sessions, and the rest of the weekend, thanks! Most of all, thanks be to God who made this a truly great weekend!!

As I reflect back on Illuminate weekend, I am reminded that God continues to be faithful, regardless of what we do or have done. He is always seeking to find us, even when we feel lost.

We have a God who always wants what is best for us, even when we don’t realize it. He wants to protect our hearts, our minds, our bodies, and our soul. He wants us to have life abundant.

Unfortunately, we often get lost along the way. We take wrong turns, we go down dead ends, we take the wrong exit ramp. We find ourselves in places we never thought we would be. But that is often when God does His best work.

The apostle Paul wrote, "So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ can work through me. That’s why I take pleasure in my weaknesses, and in the insults, hardships, persecutions, and troubles that I suffer for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am strong."

I am reminded every day of how true that is in my life. God is much more concerned with finding me than condemning me for how lost I am. God would rather wrap His arms around me than point a finger at me. My God never puts why I am lost above why He wants to find me. That is the God of grace and mercy that I know and love.

shine!
Jason

Illuminate 2008...what a weekend!

Last weekend was our second annual Illuminate conference. This is a conference for teenagers, parents, and youth workers that we host at the Rochester Church. Here is a recap...

Friday during the day was filled with last minute preparations. Take 2 performed at assembly at Rochester College. David Fraze and Salient arrived. The final adjustments were made to the stage. We finished setting up rooms. And a whole lot more I probably wasn't even aware of.

As evening arrived, students and adults started showing up. By 7:00pm, students were entering the auditorium for the evenings activities. After months of preparation, it was time to go!

This year's theme was "LOST." Our focus was on helping those who felt lost find their way out and helping all of us minister to those who feel lost. Throughout the weekend, I was amazed at the people God brought together to carry out what we hoped to accomplish. As usual, God took our few loaves and fish and turned it into a feast!

The lights went down and the kickoff video played. Then Salient led us in some incredible worship and Ambassadors from Ohio Valley University performed a drama to set up the weekend. David Fraze and Take 2 weaved speaking and drama together to bring a powerful message. The evening ended with a great performance by Riley Armstrong.

Saturday was action-packed! In the morning, Chris Lindsey and his praise team led us in worship, David Fraze delivered another powerful lesson, and Ambassadors performed another drama. Following our morning session, adults and teenagers went to Ignite sessions. The teenagers were separated into three groups (teen boys, high school girls, and middle school girls) to address issues for their specific groups. This was a very moving morning where we addressed issues such as pornography, purity, cutting, eating disorders, body image, and more. All three sessions were led by great people. Patrick Mead and Gary Turner talked with the teen boys. Take 2 led a powerful session with the high school girls. Dana Spivy and a number of other young adult women spoke with the middle school girls.

We had a lunch break where students enjoyed a quick bite to eat, visiting college tables, and hanging out in the Underground Cafe. It was a good break before jumping into the afternoon activities.

Saturday afternoon included one more large session and three Ignite sessions. We had a variety of afternoon Ingite sessions for teenagers to select. Patrick Mead led a few sessions about "getting out of the woods." Pat Pugh and Jason Read asked "why do we go there?" Katy Dzwigalski lead a session about alcohol and drug issues. Josh Graves offered two different sessions, one on "finding your voice" with Shaun Hover and another on "finding hope" with Darren Chilton. Ambassadors led an interactive session called "acting out" where students acted out life situations. Sara Barton talked about "listening to the voice of Jesus. I can't being to tell you how good of a job all of these people did!

Dinner break sent everyone around the Rochester area for a bite to eat and a chance to decompress before the evening session.

We came back to the building and kicked off the evening with a short performance by Minor Measure, a band consisting of members from the 180 youth group. Then the colleges came up for drawings. The grand prize winner was a student who won an iPod shuffle. After that, Salient came up on stage and performed an exciting, energy filled concert. (I even got called up on stage to dance. That was interesting!)

After the concert we took a short break and it was time for the final session.

Chris led us in worship and Ambassadors performed another drama. Then David and Take 2 presented a powerful message that called us all to let God find us. It was an incredible evening as a number of students responded for prayers. There were over 20 students who had requests for prayers and encouragement. And there were three students who were baptized at the end of the evening! Two of them were from the 180 youth group!! :-)  (I also found out the next morning that a student who attended Illuminate was baptized Sunday morning at his home church.)

It was an incredible weekend where God was present in a very tangible way. Thank you to the dozens of volunteers who made it happen! Thank you to the hundreds who attended! Thank you above all to the God who never gives up on finding us, no matter how lost we may feel!!!

shine!
Jason

Soul-making Theodicy

Here is another paper from my grad class. This one addresses John Hick's article on his "Soul-making Theodicy."

----------------------------------------------------------

John Hick's theodicy emerges from his inability to realize the compatibility of the concept of God as both limitlessly powerful and limitlessly good and loving and the problem of evil. In his proposal, Hick provides an approach to this apparent conflict by revisiting and revising the Irenaean approach to theodicy.

The Irenaean approach to theodicy looks at the world as a "person-making world" which utilizes an evolutionary approach to the development of human beings. This is contrasted against the more historically popular Augustinian approach which begins with the fall and is known in modern times as "the free will defense."

It appears to me that Hick begins with an evolutionary presupposition when he writes, "For more educated inhabitants of the modern world regard the biblical story of Adam and Eve, and their temptation by the devil, as myth rather than story." He goes on to discuss how most "educated" people today believe that humans have evolved from lower forms of life.

Irenaean theodicy is built upon a two-stage approach to the creation of human beings. First, the "image of God" was a gradual process which brought forth human beings. In contrast to Augustinian theodicy, which supports the fall, Hick’s approach rejects the Creation story we find in Genesis and existence "in the image of God" as potential at the outset, rather than something to be realized progressively over time.

This approach then moves on to the divine "likeness," which is where modern human beings find themselves after experiencing one’s own free responses. Rather than the "paradise lost" we find in the Creation account in Genesis, Hick’s theodicy looks at the ideal state solely as a future and unrealized goal, not as something lost in the Garden.

Hick’s theodicy is extremely evolutionary. One of his arguments hinges on his belief that God could create beings that would, in essence, not sin. Hick states it this way: "It appears to me that a perfectly good being, although formally free to sin, would in fact never do so." One of his examples to support this position is Newton’s first law of motion. While this is an interesting consideration, laws of science do not function in the same manner as behaviors of living creatures. I believe that Hick chose a weak illustration to support an argument that does not make sense.

Hick goes on to argue that his theodicy makes moral goodness even more valuable because it is earned, not given. In other words, Hick argues that since God created imperfect beings who had to attain to a higher good, their morality is more valuable than one that God created in the first place. In one sense, this appears to be aligned with free will. However, the significant difference is that Hick argues that morality was never a part of the original design for man. This understanding of the source of morality disregards the Genesis story and removes much of God’s role in the creation story.

He also writes about the evolutionary idea of "survival of the fittest" and argues that natural evil helps develop our character. Since humans are forced to learn in an environment that includes natural evil, pain and death contribute to the growth of one’s moral nature. According to Hick, this world we live in – with its challenges and dangers – exists to help in the person-making process. Removing this pain and suffering would impair moral growth.

Hick does concede that this person-making process does not end in this world and continues in a future world, but his conclusions differ greatly from mine. He argues for universal salvation and states that, "the completeness of the justification must depend on the completeness, or universality, of the salvation achieved." In other words, according to Hick’s theology, everyone must be saved to complete God’s plan. This is basically an inevitable obligation on the part of a God whom one believes created every human being imperfect. If God made them incomplete creatures and life is the effort to be better, He would have to allow all of them to enter Heaven, regardless of their place on the journey.

I disagree with Hick’s theodicy for a variety of reasons. It contradicts the meta-narrative of God’s people in their struggle to regain what was lost in the fall. In my opinion, it negates – or at best diminishes – the significance of the cross. And it supports the idea that man was not initially created in the image and likeness of God. Rather we are evolving into what God intended us to be.

In his effort to justify his belief that God and evil cannot co-exist, Hick has created a theodicy that appears to be grounded more in humanism than in good theology. While some of his arguments may find a base in humanism, very few appear to take seriously God’s mission in the world to renew creation.

While I fundamentally disagree with many of Hick’s positions and opinions, I do not believe his theodicy is completely irrelevant. While I feel it is misapplied, there is a sense that life is about person-making. As individuals, communities, and the world as a whole wrestle with the implications and impact of sin, God is calling each of us to use life’s experiences as an opportunity to grow in our terms of our "God-likeness." In our individual journeys as well as the meta-narrative of human existence, God is calling us to learn from good times and bad to develop more fully into the people he intended us to be. This is where Hick and Irenaus do offer something of value in our understanding of evil, sin, and how God can coexist with these negative aspects of the world.

David is back!

After a "mess" last week, David Archuleta came back strong this week on American Idol. This kid can sing!

The Free Will Defense

This is a paper for my grad class examining an article about "The Free Will Defense" by Alvin Plantinga.

---------------------------------------------

In his article, Alvin Plantinga sets out to address those who would argue that an omnipotent God and evil cannot coexist. He especially addresses Mackie’s paper, "Evil and Omnipotence." I found the first part of Plantinga’s essay challenging and difficult to follow at times, but he discusses the importance of theodicy showing that an all-loving, all-powerful God is not logically inconsistent with the problem of evil. This becomes the foundation upon which the Free Will Defense is built.

Plantinga begins with the premise that an omnipotent God exists and has a good reason for creating a world in which evils exists. The purpose of the Defense is not to find the reason or purpose of any specific evils, but rather to say what might possibly be God’s reason for allowing evil of any type to exist.

One important belief of the Free Will Defense is that there may be a kind of good that God cannot bring about without permitting evil. In addition, a person must be free to make choices with regards to action. True freedom must give a person the ability to perform an action or refrain from it without direct interference. While one may be able to predict what someone will do, a person must have the power to choose their actions.

Plantinga outlines several other requirements as he defines free will. He states that an action is morally significant if it would be wrong to perform the action but right to refrain from it, or visa versa. In addition, someone would be considered significantly free if he is free with respect to a morally significant action. He also distinguishes between moral evil, evil that results from human activity, and natural evil, all other evils.

These thoughts come together in Plantinga’s initial statement of the Free Will Defense, which states, "A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all." One of the foundational beliefs is that in order for us to be capable of moral good we must have the freedom to choose moral evil. In other words, our goodness is only as meaningful as our opportunity for doing evil.

It is quite possible that God could not have created a universe that contained moral good without moral evil being present. While some would argue that God could have created a world where people only made good choices, this would contradict the idea of free will. In a sense, it would negate the value of moral good by eliminating the option of moral evil.

Others might argue that it is possible to do only what is right, even when presented the option to commit evil. However, God, with His wisdom and power, likely created the best possible world that still provided mankind with the opportunity to choose. So in order to create the best possible world, God created a world where there is the existential possibility for evil to exist.

While God could have created any world, the world God creates must be a world in which he exists. It must also be a world in which moral good exists while people have the opportunity to make choices, whether for good or evil.  God could not have created any world he wanted, but only worlds which contain moral good and moral evil. Otherwise, it would not be a world where true freedom exists.

In conclusion, Plantinga argues that God’s power does not allow him to create a world in which free will exists without moral evil. While God is all-powerful, his power cannot contradict what is logically true, that for moral good to exist, moral evil must be an option. Plantinga briefly addresses natural evil at the close of his essay when he discusses transworld depravity and that everyone suffers from that.

God, in his wisdom, created a world where he, the ultimate source of moral good, can exist with his creation, which has the freedom to choose good or evil. This free will makes it possible for a perfect being to coexist with beings who can decide to do what is right or what is wrong. Our freedom neither negates nor reduces God’s power or goodness. It makes it all the more wonderful.

Illuminate...2 more days!

Well, in a little more than 48 hours, several hundred people will descend on the Rochester Church for Illuminate 2008 - "Lost." We have begun to transform the stage into an island for this weekend. The picture to the right was taken earlier today.

Please be in prayer for David Fraze, Take 2, Salient, Riley Armstrong, Chris Lindsey, Ambassadors, Patrick Mead, Pat Pugh, and everyone else who will be presenting this weekend. I would also ask that you pray for our planning team and our volunteers. Most importantly, pray for the hundreds of people who will be participating in Illuminate this weekend and that God will work mightily among us.

If you want to learn more about Illuminate, please visit www.illuminateconference.org.

shine!
Jason

Will it ever end?

This past weekend, my dad, much of Ohio, and several surrounding states were buried by snow, blown around by winds, and generally miserable due to the weather. The photo above is from Progressive Field (the ballpark formerly known as "The Jake") in Cleveland, Ohio. This serves as another reminder of the winter that seems like it will never end. It makes me wonder what happened to global warming.

On the other hand, our Illuminate conference for teenagers and their parents is only FOUR days away! In the next couple of days I will try to blog a little about what is going on as we prepare for an exciting weekend. Today I sent the programs to the printers and continued to make arrangements for the Gathering times and Ignite sessions.

If you don't know anything about Illuminate, it's not too late to find out. Visit www.illuminateconference.org for details.

shine!
Jason

Interview with a teenager

This past Wednesday many of our teens were able to be a part of a special Connections upstairs with the adults. I had the privilege of interviewing four different students about how they saw God at work in their lives.

I interviewed Kalie about how she saw God at work as she learned she had diabetes. Hearing about her faith and trust in God was encouraging.

I interviewed Steven about how he saw God at work as he served inner-city children in Cincinnati. It was touching to hear how he learned that serving someone else is actually a fun experience.

I interviewed Amber about playing Mary in Imagine Christmas. She shared how playing this role changed her thoughts about one of her favorite characters in the Bible.

I interviewed Cassie about her decision to be baptized at WinterSplash. It was uplifting to hear about how her parents shaped her and how God became real to her the weekend of WinterSplash.

There was a lot of positive feedback from those who were in the audience that night. They were touched by those who heard stories about how God is working in the lives of our teenagers. As much as teenagers get “bad press” nowadays for being disrespectful, lazy, and more, I really enjoyed hearing compliments about some of the students in our ministry. Thanks to those who shared! Your words were a blessing.

shine!
Jason

I'm still alive...I think

This week I had a close encounter of the worst kind. I got to "enjoy" an intestinal virus (not flu, as my wife reminded me) this week. It started on Tuesday night. I had been invited to go with a student to the Pistons game. (I need to write more about this experience soon.) But at the game I started to get sick. I spent most of Tuesday night floating in and out of sleep and much of Wednesday sleeping on the couch, trying to feel better. The rest of the week has consisted of trying to feel better and getting caught up...and getting ready for Illuminate!

Sickness has a way of reminding us that the world does not revolve around us. We can be lying in bed and the world contines on without us. We are important, but not central, to the happenings of the world. I hope I don't need to be reminded again in THAT way for a long time.

shine!
Jason

More than just a test...

Last week I had my mid-term exam for my Graduate School Class. (Students, I don’t tell you this so you can know that I understand your pain when it comes to studying for school. Although, I guess that is a great point.)

Anyway, the class I am taking is Philosophy of Religion. We are considering questions like the existence of God and problem of evil and suffering. It has been an interesting and challenging class.

While I have learned a lot, one of the most important things I have been reminded is that we can use our minds and be a Christian at the same time. So many times I have been told that Christians cannot have faith and be intelligent. I have heard it said that science and religion are not compatible.

One of the things I am learning this semester is that these things are far from the truth. The more we learn about our universe, the more obvious it becomes that there is a beginning that needs a “Beginner.” The more we learn about our bodies, cells, atoms, and other aspects of Creation, the more obvious it becomes that there must be a “Creator.”

People may argue about the specifics of who this “Beginner” and “Creator” are, but my faith, the revealed Word of God, and the complexity and design of nature all speak together loudly that there is a source of the universe; I know Him as God.

shine!
Jason

It's not about me, but I need to be about it

Yesterday was our monthly youth ministers luncheon. John Barton, one of the professors at Rochester College and a great guy, lead a discussion surrounding ministry and what Paul had to say in 1 Corinthians 3. Here is the passage we discussed:

Dear brothers and sisters, when I was with you I couldn’t talk to you as I would to spiritual people. I had to talk as though you belonged to this world or as though you were infants in the Christian life. I had to feed you with milk, not with solid food, because you weren’t ready for anything stronger. And you still aren’t ready, for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world? When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?

After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. The one who plants and the one who waters work together with the same purpose. And both will be rewarded for their own hard work. For we are both God’s workers. And you are God’s field. You are God’s building.

Because of God’s grace to me, I have laid the foundation like an expert builder. Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have—Jesus Christ.

Anyone who builds on that foundation may use a variety of materials—gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay, or straw. But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done. The fire will show if a person’s work has any value. If the work survives, that builder will receive a reward. But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will destroy anyone who destroys this temple. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Stop deceiving yourselves. If you think you are wise by this world’s standards, you need to become a fool to be truly wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say,

   â€œHe traps the wise
      in the snare of their own cleverness.”

And again,

   â€œThe Lord knows the thoughts of the wise;
      he knows they are worthless.”

So don’t boast about following a particular human leader. For everything belongs to you—whether Paul or Apollos or Peter, or the world, or life and death, or the present and the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God. (1 Corinthians 3:1-23, NLT)

For most of people in ministry - if we are honest - this can be a struggle. We enjoy recognition. We want to hear that we are doing a good job. But how do you balance humility and success?

On one level, Paul reminds us that our ministry is not about us. We are not important - in the sense of being central. We are God's servants. Ultimately our ministry is about drawing people to Jesus, not us. Paul wrote, "Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow."

How many times have you heard a minister say "my church" or "my youth group"? I know I have said that before. Those phrases aren't intrinsically bad, but if we don't guard our attitude, phrases like those can twist our view on who should be the focus of our ministry.

On the other hand, God calls us to give our ministry our best. Paul wrote, "But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done." God will consider the quality of our ministry. He does not expect perfection, but He does expect faithfulness.

I have known ministers who have these two things backwards. They want their ministry to be all about them while they put little effort into it. They are self-centered and lazy. And what a terrible witness for the Kingdom.

Most ministers I know are not like that, but it only takes a few to give other ministers a bad reputation. I pray that I would never be guilty of this.

Regardless of what we do - ministry, a profession, a sport, or any other endeavor - God calls us to be selfless and self-conscience at the same time. We must never fall into the trap that this world is about us while at the same time treating everything we do with the understanding that our efforts can bring glory or disgrace to the One we serve.

It's not about me, but whatever I do, I need to be about doing it...and doing it well.

shine!
Jason

David Archuleta

I have never really been a big American Idol fan. In the past I might have watched it occasionally. But this season, one young man draws me back to the show every week. David Archuleta, a 17-year-old, is an absolutely phenomenal singer! Here is what he sang last night. Remember, he is only 17!

Long distance call from Korea

So early this afternoon, I am standing in the office of Patrick Mead, our pulpit minister, when my cell phone begins to ring. I look at my phone and see this really long number that doesn't remotely resemble any phone number in the US. Not sure who it is, I decide to answer. Maybe it's one of those guys from Africa who keeps emailing to help transfer a bunch of money. (Do you get emails from them too?)

Anyway, I pick up the phone and on the other end of the line a voice asks for me. I respond that this is Jason and this voice tells me it's Cary. Now you have to understand, Cary and I are friends from college. Not college as in Harding back in the late 90's. This is a friend from my Case Western Reserve University days (1988-1992).

Cary and I ran together for student government back in the day. Cary was the candidate for Student Body President and I was the candidate for Vice President of Finance. We, together with one other person, ran as a ticket of three. Without boring you with all of the details, we survived several political scandals and emerged victorious, defeating the ticket that everyone thought would win. Later, Cary went on to pledge and join the fraternity I was a part of, Beta Theta Pi. So we have history.

Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you about the phone number. Cary was calling me from South Korea, where he is an executive for an energy company. He was calling me in the middle of the night during his "connect with the States time," which is somewhere between midnight and 4:00am. (Isn't technology cool that a friend from over 16 years ago can call my cell phone from Korea?)

What a great phone conversation we had. We talked about a variety of things, but a significant portion of the call was Cary asking about my faith journey. How did I go from being a non-believing, fraternity guy in the early 1990's to a minister today? It was refreshing to have a chance to tell my story. It reminded me of how far God has brought me.

Sometimes when we are in the middle of living life, we forget where God has brought us to. In the midst of stress, family, work, finances, and so much more, we can miss seeing the big picture. I never want to be caught looking in the rear-view mirror so much that I miss opportunities to grow, learn, and move forward. However, there is value from time to time in taking a breath, pulling out the spiritual "scrapbook," and looking at what God has done.

Cary, thanks for the chance to be reminded of God's faithfulness.

shine!
Jason

Laughing at someone else's pain

Last night I was invited to drop by an all-night birthday gathering of teenage boys. After Matthew's concert (which was great!), I drove over to the young man's house. I felt like I was in a spy movie as I drove into his driveway and sent a text message that I was there. Within seconds, the door opened and I was allowed to enter.

After saying hi to the guy's mom (she was barely awake on the couch), I ventured downstairs to the testosterone zone. Here I joined a group of teenage boys who were playing Looney Tunes Monopoly. Honestly, I didn't know that version existed. I did come to find out that this family has numerous versions of Monopoly. (I assured him that Parker Brothers was thankful.)

I plopped down on the couch as the boys finished their game. I watched as they added up their "laughs" (the name for dollars in this particular version) to determine who was the victor.

After the game was packed up, we plugged in the PS3 to get on the internet. (This was an educational evening for me. In addition to my ignorance about Looney Tunes Monopoly, I didn't realize you could surf the net with a video game system.)

Anyway, we proceeded to venture over to "YouTube" to watch some videos. Suffice it to say that the next hour or so consisted of laughter, tears, and nearly wetting ourselves. We watched a series of videos called "Funny Crash Compilations." I am not sexist one bit, but I think this is foolishness that boys enjoy much more than girls do. It was hundreds of episodes of people tripping, crashing, falling, and a multitude of other injurious situations.

I did feel a tinge of guilt rejoicing over the pains of others, but it was also pretty entertaining.

But what about the times we rejoice over people getting hurt emotionally?

What about the times we feel better about ourselves because we put someone down?

What about the situations where we wish harm to others so we can experience success?

There is something about us human beings that can cause us to find pleasure in someone else's pain. Maybe it's the fact that it's not us. Maybe it makes us feel better about our situation. Maybe it's our sinful nature that allows us to become self-centered and self-seeking.

Regardless of what the cause is, God calls us to explore a different way of living. Instead of laughing at someone's misfortune, God asks us to get down in the mess with them. Rather than rejoice in another's sorrow, God wants us to weep with them.

It is a different way of living. One that the world often looks at strangely. But it's one that often catches the eye of the person who is hurting. While the world often looks on in bewilderment, the downcast and untouchables of society capture a glimpse of the One we live to serve.

shine!
Jason

The Analogical Teleological Argument

Yet another paper I wrote for my grad class. It discusses an article by William Paley entitled The Analogical Teleological Argument. This is another nerdy, read at your own risk article. My thanks once again to Dr. Rubel Shelly for his corrections, suggestions, and challenges that helped shape this paper. I am now "caught up" on posting these things, so hopefully I will have something a little lighter next time. ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------

Paley begins his essay contrasting the difference between discovering a stone and a watch. While a stone has little visible sign of design, a watch, with all of its intricate moving parts, cries out for a creator. The way that all of the parts work together tells us "that there must have existed at some time, and some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer: who comprehended its construction and designed its use."

Paley continues by providing a number of supporting thoughts to defend his argument for design:

• The conclusion is not weakened if we have never seen a watch made.


• If the watch does not always run exactly right, it does not invalidate the conclusion.


• If we do not understand the role of each part, that does not bring uncertainty to our argument.


• One should not argue this was just one of many possible combinations that would have worked.


• We cannot imagine a principle of order apart from the intelligence of the watchmaker.


• It would be surprising to think that the mechanism of the watch was only there to make us think it was designed.


• It would be just as surprising to argue that the watch was simply the result of the laws of metallic nature.


• Being told you know nothing about the matter does not drive us from our conclusion.

After laying out his argument, Paley compares an eye to a telescope. As much as the telescope has an obvious creator, the eye, an even more complicated "device," must have a creator. He also argues that "the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art in the complexity, subtly, and curiosity of the mechanism." The complexity of the eye – and its greater complexity than a telescope – confirms a creator.

Paley concludes his argument by comparing the eye and the watch. He reminds us once again that this is a matter of examining the evidence. I believe that Paley’s argument supports the belief in a creator. The intricate design of so many parts of creation points to an ultimate designer.

It is difficult to comprehend a world as complex as ours evolving into what it is today. Something as simple as a single human organ (e.g., kidney, brain) shows the complexity of our bodies. I am convinced that the more we learn through science and research, the more Paley’s argument is reinforced. As science discovers more and more about the intricate design of the human body and other aspects of creation, the Teleological Argument becomes even stronger evidence for the existence of God. As evidence for this, one need only take account of the recent works of such scientists as Gerald Schroeder and the impact of their science-based arguments on philosophers such as Antony Flew.

The popularity of Paley’s well-known argument declined dramatically in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries because of the work of Charles Darwin. Darwin’s evolutionary model claimed that the (apparent) order in living things has resulted from natural selection rather than divine creation. Today Paley’s argument is finding renewed debate and discussion as the "Intelligent Design" movement and scientists such as Richard Dawkins reconsider Paley’s argument in light of recent scientific discoveries.

While I believe Paley’s argument makes some excellent points, there is at least one area of possible weakness that merits discussion. As a "creation focused" argument, Paley’s argument could be used by a Deist as well as one who believes in the God who continues to work in the world. To be fair, I don’t believe that Paley set out to prove the existence of a God though His ongoing works. Rather, he hoped to consider the evidence from creation and show that this line of thought is a strong argument for the existence of God as a Creator.

The Cosmological Argument

This is another paper I wrote for my current grad class. It discusses an article by Bruce Reichenbach entitled The Cosmological Argument. This is another nerdy, read at your own risk article. My thanks to Dr. Rubel Shelly for his corrections, suggestions, and challenges that helped shape this paper.

-------------------------------------------------

In his essay on the Cosmological Argument, Reichenbach not only presents his points and opinions, he does an excellent job of addressing many of the objections to his position. He begins by reviewing some of the earlier approaches to arguments for the existence of God. In this section of his essay, he discusses the explanation for God. He explores the Principle of Sufficient Reason, according to which "no fact can be real or existing, and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise." While considering this principle, Reichenbach goes even further to detail the nuances of the principle and how it fits the Cosmological Argument. He argues that, "a moderate version of the principle, which holds that what is contingent or what comes into being requires a sufficient reason why it exists or comes into being." This is one of the foundations of the Cosmological argument because everything in the world is contingent and needs a reason to exist.

He also comments on the necessity of scientific and personal explanations. While scientific explanation requires natural features, events, and processes or conditions to occur, personal explanation is explained through the actions of a person. When dealing with the existence of God, Reichenbach argues that both are critical.

Another central question addresses the issue of what needs explanation. The argument for a sustaining cause deals with why the universe exists. In this argument, we would argue that contingent beings, those things which the universe consists of, are dependent on other beings for their existence. The argument for an initiating cause discusses the cause of the coming of the universe. This argument would advance the idea that since the universe exists, it must have a cause. While both arguments have some validity, Reichenbach warns us to be careful in situations where an explanation in terms of God competes with that of science. As science discovers more and more, we must look to science not as our enemy, but as a friend who often fills the gaps in ways that enforce the Cosmological Argument, not weaken it.

Reichenbach goes on to outline a Deductive Cosmological Argument from Contingency. This argument would advance the idea that a contingent being exists and that it has a cause or explanation for existence. Since contingents require another being to cause or explain their existence, a necessary being must be included among the beings which exist. Therefore, a necessary being must exist. This argument hinges on the fact that "contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being." I agree with this statement and its validity. Therefore, I believe this argument is sound.

During his examination of this argument, Reichenbach openly discusses the objections to and possible problems with this method of thinking. The first major objection he tackles is the idea that the universe simply exists. Most of his explanation circles around the writings of Bertrand Russell, who argues that the Universe "just is." However, Reichenbach argues that the source of the universe demands an explanation. While he states that quantum physics raises some questions about indetermination on the subatomic level, Reichenbach would argue that even these subatomic particles require a cause. Contingent beings still need a necessary being.

The second objection he addresses is the idea that explaining the individual parts of the universe is sufficient to disprove the existence of God. Hume even argued that uniting the parts of the universe is an act of the mind and has influence on the nature of things. Reichenbach argues that how the parts are arranged is crucial to the argument because examining the parts may very well give an incomplete picture of the whole. In addition, we must consider why these parts exist and their role in the universe.

The third objection confronted the notion that the conclusion is contradictory. This objection centers on the fact that the cosmological argument presupposes the cogency of the ontological argument. Reichenbach explains that a necessary being is not self-contradictory, and its existence is not intrinsically impossible. He argues that this is not the logically necessary existence that Kant discusses. Rather, necessity in the Cosmological Argument is understood in the sense of a factual necessity. This is a convincing point because without a source or cause, there is nothing.

Reichenbach finishes by defending his thesis that God provides the best explanation. His essential claim is that God is not scientifically explainable and does not depend on anything else for His existence. In addition, God provides the best explanation of our expectations of the universe. Since there must be a cause to the universe and God is the simplest and most reasonable answer, the God of religion must exist and is the cause of all creation.

I appreciated his approach because he was not afraid to tackle objections and other points of view. Reichenbach did not try to cover up these arguments against his opinions. Rather, he addressed them in a variety of ways. He acknowledged those times when others made a valid point. But he also considered the weaknesses of those counterpoints. For example, when dealing with Hume’s quantum physics argument, Reichenbach affirmed the challenges but went on to see the limits of Hume’s point. By considering and talking about the objections and arguments, Reichenbach actually helps strengthen his task to prove God’s existence. The Cosmological Argument accomplishes that goal very well.

Back to my roots

The last week and a half have been a blur! Between preparing for our trip, Illuminate preparations, grad class, snow removal in the middle of the night, and all of the stuff I usually do, my life has been a blizzard of activity. But this past weekend was a chance to refocus on the things that are really important.

I have been distracted recently by all kinds of things that have gotten me off track. But God used this past weekend to steer me back in the right direction.

We took a group of 37 down to Ohio for a weekend at Castaway Bay for a youth trip. It was a great weekend, a good balance of fun and spiritual renewal. We spent time in the water park and time in worship. We played and we prayed. And one of my favorite aspects of the weekend; it was an intergenerational weekend where people of different ages had a chance to grow closer together.

So, let me tell you about a particular highlight of the weekend. After worship on Sunday morning, Cassie, one of our teens, told me she wanted to be baptized. To be honest, there are times I wonder if a teenager is really sure about what they are doing when they make that decision. There was no doubt that Cassie knew what she was doing. You could see it in her face. You could hear it in her voice. She knew it was time to get out of the boat and follow Jesus!

We had originally planned to find somewhere to baptize her in the water park after lunch, so we headed off-site to lunch. Well, in our search for a place to eat, we ended up at Chet & Matt's, a local pizza place. (We were in Sandusky, Ohio, the area where Michelle and I both grew up.)

Next to Chet & Matt's was the Meadowlawn Church of Christ, the church where Michelle grew up and where Michelle and I first attended when we met. There was no one there by this time on Sunday a afternoon, but we decided to make some calls and see if we could get in the church building to do the baptism there.

After a few calls, Vern - one of the members there - was able to come over and open the door. So we all went in and prepared for Cassie's new birth.

OK, so here is the cool part. I know this baptistry well. On May 10, 1996, I was baptized in this same church building and this same baptistry. As I was preparing to baptize Cassie it brought back memories of that day almost twelve years earlier. I remembered the excitement. The joy. The new beginning. I was reminded of the commitment I made to God in this very place where I was standing.

Then I recalled all of the times I had let God down since that day. The rebellion. The sin. The selfishness. There were so many times I had chosen to do what I wanted, not what God called me to do. That day seemed so long ago. That new start seemed like a distant memory in some ways.

But as I walked down into the water, I was reminded of God's grace.

As I saw the excitement on Cassie's face, I was reminded of God's love and mercy.

As I baptized Cassie I was reminded of the blood of Christ that continues to cleanse us.

This week I am renewed. I am renewed by the faith of a young girl who decided that she was ready to get out of the boat and follow Jesus. I am renewed by the fact that God is always there, always faithful, always ready to receive us. He is the Creator who loves His creation. He is the King who cares for His people. He is the Father waiting for the prodigal son to return.

He is the God that I know.

He is the God that I serve.

He is the God that I love.

And it feels so good to know that no matter where I have been, He loves me too.

shine!
Jason

It's just that simple

Yes, it’s just that simple sometimes.

We try to make Christianity so complicated. You have to believe this and that. You have to be against this other thing. If you get all of your beliefs about certain issues right, then you’re faithful.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There are a lot of things about God and following Jesus that require serious conversations. Bible study is a vital part of our faith walk. Christians should never disengage our brains when it comes to our belief. God wants us to think.

But God also wants us to act!

Sometimes the most important thing we can do is act. Act by serving someone else. Act by being less self-centered. Act by seeking out opportunities to give of ourselves.

Jesus Himself said that we should love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. God wants us to use every aspect of our lives to follow Him. Our heart must learn to love God. Our soul must connect with God. Our mind must learn about God. And our strength should be used in the work of the Kingdom.

Following Jesus should never be only something we learn about; it must also be something we put into action. Lay down your life, pick up your cross, and follow Jesus for the adventure of a lifetime.

Yes, it’s just that simple sometimes.

shine!
Jason

Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action

This is a paper I wrote for my current grad class. It discusses an article by Nelson Pike entitled "Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action." It's kind of nerdy so read at your own risk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Much of Pike’s essay centers on the example of Jones mowing his lawn. The primary argument is that, if God is omniscient, humans cannot have voluntary actions. In continuing to revisit this illustration, Pike reinforces the idea that, if God knew in the past what we were going to do, we would not have the choice to decide what we will do. With the example of Jones, Pike argues that, if Jones decided not to mow the lawn, then Jones would cause one of God’s beliefs to be false. In a sense, Pike’s belief is that God’s foreknowledge precludes us from having the choice to change because it makes God a liar.

I disagree with Pike’s assessment, because he appears to consider God a temporal being who cannot work independently of time. When we treat God as a human and give Him human limitations, we will see his power reduced and expectations diminished. Pike argues that, if a human changes her mind and avoids acting in the way “God knows,” then she is going to prove that God is not perfect.

I believe that Pike’s argument fails because he does not take into consideration the belief that that God functions in a way where time does not constrain Him. God’s knowledge 80 years ago about something today does not mean that it was going to happen. I believe that God’s knowledge exists outside of the boundaries of time.

This presupposition is what much of the argument hinges on. If we accept that God’s belief “80 years ago” is a belief constrained by the limitations of time, then it is true that Jones must mow His lawn or make God into a liar. However, if we can acknowledge that God ultimately exists and functions outside the limitations of time, then His beliefs are not from the past or in the future. They are eternal beliefs that reflect how the world is at a given time, not what God knows will happen. This is a very challenging concept to grasp, but I believe that God exists outside of time, but is able to work within time. Much like a two-dimensional world cannot relate to three dimensions, I believe that God is in a dimension beyond our comprehension. This is what makes this dilemma difficult to figure out or understand. However, I do think that God is able to relate to us in our limited comprehension. That is part of the miracle of God; while He is timeless, He finds ways to interact with His creation which is bound by time.

I believe that God is omniscient, but humans still take voluntary actions. Even if God knows tonight what I am doing tomorrow, that does not ascribe Him control over all of my daily decisions. Because God is the “I AM,” He is a being that exists outside of the boundaries of this world. His knowledge of past, present, and future events in our lives does not rob us of voluntary action. As a matter of fact, this type of knowledge allows God to be active in the world providentially.

Going for 19

After an entire season, two teams will meet to determine who is the NFL champion. The New England Patriots are going for a record-breaking, perfect 19-0 season.

As I have listened to "experts" talk about the Super Bowl and New England’s historic feat, so many of them say it won’t be nearly as impressive if they lose the Super Bowl. Many have said that a loss during the regular season would have been less damaging than going undefeated to this point and losing the "big game."

Can you imagine the pressure those players must feel? Sure, in interview after interview they say it's just another game. But let's be honest, these players must feel immense pressure.

Christians often face similar pressure. Often we feel like we need to be perfect and any mistake makes our life seem less valuable, less worthy.

The difference between the New England Patriots and you and me, is that through our imperfections and "losses," God can often do His best work.

Should we strive to follow God? Yes!

Should we seek to avoid sin? Absolutely!

But when we make mistakes and fall short of what God created us to be, remember that through the blood of Jesus we can continue to play on like we never lost a game. It’s the grace of God that gives us the ability to be true champions in the Kingdom of God.

shine!
Jason

Back at it...

OK, so I have really been slacking lately on my blogging. That is for a host of reasons that I don't really need to get into. Suffice it to say I have been in a blogging slump. I guess I just lost my "blogging voice" there for a bit.

Anyway, I want to tell you about something really cool that happened the other night. It was the last Wednesday of the month which means 180 Connections Unplugged for our teens. During 180 CNX Unplugged, we put the chairs in a circle and turn out the lights. We usually start by singing a few songs and some prayer time to get us a little more focused. After we finished singing I read to the students a blog entry from a teenager I know from a previous youth ministry I was a part of. It was an incredible story about how this teenager had taken risks by befriending several homeless people in her town. (I did have permission from the student to read this blog, but I still kept her anonymous.)

Following the story, several teens shared how they had witnessed or even been a part of judging people based on outward appearance. Others talked about opportunities they had used to go against the flow and encourage and befriend "outsiders." It was a good discussion around the candle.

The highlight of the evening for me was the last ten minutes or so. As we wrapped up our conversation, I told the students we would sing "Arms of Love" and that during the song, anyone who needed prayers could walk to the center of the circle and sit. We had almost 50 students there, so the circle was a pretty good size.

As we sang the song, four students came to the center. We have a confidentiality agreement that "Whatever happens in The Hub, stays in The Hub." (The Hub is the room where we have 180 Connections.) Because of the agreement we have, I cannot share the specifics of what we shared. But all four students opened their hearts and shared some personal struggles they are facing. From finances to family, students shared some major concerns.

As they finished sharing, the other 40+ students gathered around them and formed a huddle to pray. We finished with a time of prayer and a lot of hugs, tears, and encouragement.

One of the things teenagers desire today is a safe place to share their dreams, desires, hurts, and pain. A place to let people see who they really are without judgment. The adult world often supplies a world of criticism and condemnation. I am glad to be a part of a church where teens can feel safe to share even the painful parts of their life. It's so cool to watch God at work in the act of redemption through grace, mercy, and love.

shine!
Jason