The Message Is More Powerful Than We Know

I was reading an article posted on beliefnet.com by Richard Hays (an NT scholar who teaches at Duke Divinity School) on biblical teaching on homosexuality. He says the point about it made in Romans 1 is that homosexuality like many other sins, is a symptom, not the core problem. The symptoms (sinful desires) are results of our rejection of God:

"The genius of Paul's analysis lies in his refusal to posit a catalog of sins as the cause of human alienation from God. Instead, he delves to the root: all other depravities follow from the radical rebellion of the creature against the Creator (1:24-31). In order to make his accusation stick, Paul has to claim that these human beings are actually in rebellion against God, not merely ignorant of him. The way in which the argument is framed here is crucial: ignorance is the consequence of humanity's primal rebellion. Because human beings did not acknowledge God, 'they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.' The passage is not merely a polemical denunciation of selected pagan vices; it is a diagnosis of the human condition."

This is a great point, but what struck me even more is something he says earlier in the article:

"The most crucial text for Christian ethic concerning homosexuality remains Romans 1, because this is the only passage in the New Testament that explains the condemnation of homosexual behavior in an explicitly theological context. The substance of Paul's exposition begins with a programmatic declaration in 1:16-17: the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, `The one who is righteous will live by faith.' The gospel is not merely a moral or philosophical teaching that hearers may accept or reject as they choose; it is rather the eschatological instrument which God is working out in the world." (emphasis my own)

This means that when Paul talks about the gospel being the "power of God" in vs. 1:16-17, that power is, well...powerful. Christ's message about the coming (and present) Kingdom of God is active, moving, affecting--as Hebrews 4:12 tells us, "the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

The gospel is having, and will have, its way with us whether we like it or not!

This brings to mind some things C.S. Lewis said in his essay, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" published in God in the Dock:

"What are we to make of Jesus Christ? This is a question which has, in a sense, a frantically comic side. For the real question is not what are we to make of Christ, but what is He to make of us?"

"The things He says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, 'This is the truth about the universe. This is the way you ought to go,' but He says, 'I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.' He says, 'No man can reach absolute reality, except through Me. Try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved.' He says, 'If you are ashamed of Me, if , when you hear this call, you turn the other way, I also will look the other way when I come again as God without disguise. If anything whatever is keeping you from God and from Me, whatever it is, throw it away. If it is your eye, pull it out. If it is your hand, cut it off. If you put yourself first you will be last. Come to Me everyone who is carrying a heavy load, I will set that right. Your sins, all of them, are wiped out. I can do that. I am Rebirth, I am Life. Eat me, drink Me, I am your Food. And finally , do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole universe.' That is the issue."

Aslan (and his message) is on the move, and whether we like it or not, we are the ones being moved upon!

MM

Darwin's Corner

There are two points that need to be made in any discussion about the contrast and/or conflicts between Darwinian theory and Theism.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Alister McGrath points to the arguments of theologians like Benjamin Warfield and even strong proponents of Darwinism like Thomas Huxley to illustrate this point. It is simply not true the Darwinism necessarily leads to atheism.

Arguing against a strict Darwinian view is not an argument made out of emotion, in opposition to the established facts of Science. Darwin’s theory—as an absolute framework for understanding the Universe—is not a “proven” one. Some very reputable scientists today argue there is strong evidence undermining much of Darwin’s theory, the Cambrian Explosion and problems with Darwin’s “tree of life” model are two important examples. It is simply not the case that the ignorant, hillbilly religious folk hold to the archaic view of a Creator God, and the modern well educated people know better because of the obvious facts. There are people of equally high credentials on each side of the argument. Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne are two striking examples. Each one holds some of the highest academic credentials in both Science and Religion, and both are devout believers in God.


Now to my main point. The kind of strict Darwinism that sees all of life as the product of a random, purposeless mixture of chemicals always implodes when it is taken to its logical conclusion. No one—not even Darwin himself—can really believe this all the way. Darwin expressed an inner desire for there to be an Intelligence behind the Universe, and was troubled over the fact that his theory seemed to oppose it. He says in a letter to his friend, W. Graham, in 1881 that he experienced a “horrid doubt” about his inner conviction that the Universe is not the result of chance, because he considers this idea of an Intelligence behind the Universe in his own mind, and he doesn’t think his own mind can be trusted because it is ultimately the same as the mind of a monkey (just more developed) and thus is really no more trustworthy than the mind of a monkey: “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions ins such a mind?”

Philosophically speaking, Darwin painted himself into a corner with this comment. The word “horrid” means to cause horror or dread. If we are only highly developed monkeys, why would the thought that the Universe occurred by chance evoke horror and dread? Why would monkeys—even really intelligent ones—care if there is an Intelligence behind the Universe or not. I’ve always thought monkeys would be rather indifferent to the issue.

So, Darwin’s theory leads him to an existential absurdity. The very fact that he has such a strong desire for there to be an Intelligence responsible for the Universe is evidence that that Intelligence exists; if there were no ultimate Creator/Intelligence responsible for the Universe why would so many people—like Darwin himself—have such a desire for there to be one? As Lewis says, “If the world had no meaning, I would never know it had no meaning.” Darwin thought he had proven there is no difference, except for the degree of development, between man and animals, then confessed to feeling an emotion that it makes no sense for an animal to feel. He is like a man standing on a wooden box explaining his very logical theory about how it is impossible for wooden boxes to exist.

The Materialists/Darwinists propose a purposeless universe and then passionately derive a sense of purpose from studying it. About such people, Lewis also says something to the effect of, “They proclaim a philosophy that denies humanity, yet all the while remain human.”

If all this seems more important to you than Brittany Spears’ struggles with motherhood and the new Play Station 3 coming out next month, then please read the following:

Miracles, by C.S. Lewis
Dawkins' God, by Alister McGrath
The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel

MM