Feeling, Knowing, and Believing

Our world is changing.  At an ever-increasing pace, these changes are impacting family and societal relationships, value of our currency, health care, education, employment, and constitutional rights.  All of these can impact our emotional, rational, and spiritual sense of well-being and our outlook on the future.  On any given day or even hour of the day, if we are asked how we are doing, we might choose a different emoji to describe our feelings.

Complexity of issues, sheer volume of information, and politically biased reporting make it more and more challenging to stay accurately informed.  Rational thinking skills and wise decision-making based on objective reporting of information are becoming more and more critical—and harder to find.  In this article, we consider some challenges we face and some factors to consider in order to navigate them wisely. 

To begin, let’s say that someone asks us a question.  There are several ways we might respond:

(1)   “I feel ….”

(2)   “I think ….”

(3) “I believe ….”

When someone asks us how we are feeling, we typically reply with #1, “I feel….”  Responses #2 and #3 are how we might begin to share our opinion or a faith-based answer, respectively.  Let’s consider Response #1 first.

Emotional Responses
Our “feelings” are an important part of our self-awareness and our physical and emotional health.  Our physical and emotional health require that we maintain a relationship with at least one person; or if necessary, with pet animal.  We are strengthened and encouraged through face-to-face communication with others or through letters, phone calls, and social media.  

Many of us have pressed “smiley face” stickers on our letters to convey a wordless message of encouragement.  Now that we have cell phone apps, we can digitally insert our choice of emojis along with our text messages and e-mails to communicate briefly how we are “feeling” about something in a wordless fashion.

Health professionals routinely ask their patients how they feel before or after a medical procedure.  Recognizing the difficulty that some patients have in expressing how much pain they actually “feel,” medical facilities often post a “pain scale” consisting of cartoon faces ranging from very distraught (“worst pain imaginable”) to a smiling face (“no pain”).  Health care professionals and all of us need to be aware that a person’s “feelings” have roots that go deeper than physical pain and reach into our emotional and spiritual state.

For many of us, it is easier to describe “how we feel” when someone asks us about our physical pain than when they ask “how we feel about our pain.”  How we feel about joint-replacement surgery during recovery is affected by both the severity of our physical pain and by the degree of our concern about whether we will ever recover.  Some people recover very quickly and have a positive outlook all the way through their pain and physical therapy.  Others struggle with both the physical pain and the related fear it causes.  Why is this?  The truth is, how we see our condition at a given time depends on our physical condition (1, “how we feel”) and our frame of mind (2, “how we think about” our situation.  The differences in how different people respond to similar situations also depends on how they “choose to think” about their situation.

Rational, Faith-Grounded Responses
Dr. Caroline Leaf, a communication pathologist and audiologist has conducted research for years in the field of cognitive neuroscience.  She believes that God created our minds in His image and has given us the free will to choose “how we will think” and react to our circumstances.  Therefore, Dr. Leaf has based her research on God’s revelation in Scriptures.  In Romans 12: 2, God commands us to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, and in Deuteronomy 30: 19, God lovingly invites us to choose life in order that you may live….

Dr. Leaf integrates this Scriptural principle with neuroscience in her book entitled Switch on Your Brain (Baker Books, 2013).  She writes,

Free will and choice are real, spiritual, and scientific facts. Your mind (soul) has one foot in the door of the spirit and one foot in the door of the body; you can change your brain with your mind and essentially renew your mind.

The author cites scientific research pointing to a cause-and-effect relationship between “what we believe” (Response #3 above) about God and our capacity to overcome challenges to physical health. 

As we have cited in a March 22, 2020 Oikonomia article, Dr. Leaf describes a University of Miami study of patients being treated for (Human Immunodeficiency Virus).  The researchers concluded that the most significant factor affecting healing in HIV-infected patients “was their choice to believe in a benevolent and loving God.”  These kinds of scientific findings emphasize the important link between “how we think” (2), how we “choose to think,” and “what we believe” (3).  [Note:  We also recognize that in the eternal span of time before each of us came into being as creatures in God’s image, capable of making choices, He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.  In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will…(Ephesians 1: 4-5). The "Doctrine of Election" is a subject for another time, but those who wish to study the subject can begin HERE with a resource by Dr. John MacArthur.]

Although feeling, thinking, and believing are interconnected, “feeling” is heavily based on our physical senses; whereas, “thinking and believing” are heavily based on our rational ability, our faith, and our worldview that forms through our experience and learning.

How would you respond if someone were to ask you, “Do you believe there is a God?”   Which of the following would your choose to begin your response:
(1) “I feel ….”
(2) “I think ….”
(3) “I believe ….”

Clearly, our response to “the God question” cannot be based solely upon “what we feel” or “what we think.”  Unless we claim to be God, we have no capacity to claim whether or not God exists.  However, it appears that more and more people are presuming to take the place of God when they deny the existence of objective truth.  The term objective truth applies to a proposition that is considered true no matter what we believe to be the case.

Worldview by "Cut-and-Paste"
We have amassed great knowledge, yet increasing numbers of people question whether objective truth even exists.  This trend is supported by a recent study.

Based on a survey of 2,000 adult Americans (1,000 by phone; 1,000 online) taken in February, 2021 by George Barna, over half (54%) embrace the postmodern idea that all truth is subjective and there are no moral absolutes.  Barna concludes (emphasis added), “We’re just at a place in our country’s history now where that’s the default view.  Most people would say all truth is subjective and there’s no kind of objective truth based on an external standard.  They would say they’re the standard that determines what truth is.”

Barna’s survey, conducted through the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, offered a series of questions designed to determine the personal worldview of each respondent.  The results, reported in the American Worldview Inventory 2021, are very disturbing, not because of the views expressed but because the views were not based on well informed and coherent thinking.

Based on the respondents’ answers to the questions, only 6% were identified as truly holding to a “biblical worldview.”  Given this low percentage, it is at first puzzling that the biblical worldview was “the most prolific of the seven worldviews tested.”  Another approximately 6% of respondents were scattered among six other worldviews with no more than 2% qualifying to be assigned to any one of the six particular worldviews (see table).   What about the remaining 88% of respondents?

Instead of “developing an internally consistent and philosophically coherent perspective on life,” 88% of Americans are adopting points of view or actions that feel comfortable or seem most convenient” – i.e. using a cut-and-paste approach to making sense of, and responding to life.”   As a result, most Americans who claim adherence to a given belief system are insufficiently developed in both their intellectual understanding and in their behavior and lifestyle to qualify them as being true representatives” of that particular worldview.  For example, 9% of respondents “have a moderately strong set of beliefs and behaviors related to Marxism, Eastern Mysticism, or Nihilism, but “an insufficient breadth of such beliefs and behaviors to qualify as being a true representative of any of those worldviews.”

Feelings Rationally Grounded
Returning to our range of responses, feeling, thinking, and believing, we can explain at least one cause of the troubling trend detected by George Barna’s 2021 worldview inventory; namely, emotion-driven reactions and decisions are replacing those based on careful exercise of critical reasoning.  At the very time when our culture faces both great societal challenges and great tools for addressing these challenges, we seem least prepared to respond emotionally, rationally, and spiritually.

The table below lists seven major societal issues followed by a brief statement we might commonly hear in the media or in conversation.  Notice the prominence of an emotional component in the responses.  However, even though compassion and empathy are important qualities we ought to express toward those who are struggling, these qualities must be guided by rational and moral policies if we are going to solve these problems.

Each of these societal concerns have grown out of a history of what many believe are deviations from God’s commands revealed in the Bible.  The Old Testament, in Exodus 20, reveals how God gave His chosen people, the Israelites, the Ten Commandments, or the ten “Thou shalt not’s.”  God’s purpose was not to “steal their joy” but to give them a moral foundation for a society that would protect them from evil and help them become a “shining city on a hill” for the rest of the world to see and want to copy.   To the extent that Israel followed these commands, they prospered.  But deviations from these spiritual laws gradually caused the Jewish nation to lose their godly distinctions and eventually to be exiled by pagan nations.

Out of His mercy in order to redeem His people Israel, God came in the incarnate form of His Son, Jesus Christ.   Jesus came not to replace the Law but to fulfill the Law through His sinless life, atoning death on the Cross, and resurrection in victory over death that whoever believes in Him as their Savior from sin “should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3: 16).”  Jesus added,

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.  He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil (John 3: 17-19). 

God has already come to us with objective truth claims in the Bible that He is the Creator, His creation reveals His power and nature, and that it is so obvious that we are without excuse if we deny it (Romans 1: 20).  The Apostle Paul elaborates about how the tendency of mankind has been to reject and suppress God’s truth (Romans 1: 18).  Those who reject God’s truth, will fall prey to accepting nonsense and be morally and spiritually corrupted to the core of their lives.  Paul described this awful result in Romans 1: 21-23:

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

The rest of Romans 1 reveals the tragic downward path of those who reject God’s authority and absolute truth.  They are left to live in the darkness of moral relativism in which “truth” is what each individual deems it to be.  Returning to the seven (7) commonly heard statements above we can see how each cultural problem results from a deviation from the moral standards given in Scripture.  Each statement is also rooted in one or more misconceptions expressed by a person who has rejected or is ignorant of God’s moral and ethical principles.  In each of the seven, we briefly point out how the problem can be corrected by addressing the deviation from God’s ideal.  However, in no way do we want to imply that the solutions are simple.

Summary: Feeling, Thinking, Believing
In summary, each of us have physical, emotional, rational, and spiritual dimension to our lives.  All of these are interrelated components of our personality; but by itself, each is limited as a way of knowing and judging truth and reality.  We may answer a question about “how we feel” in words, or by our facial expression, or by pointing to a cartoon face or an emoji.   However, to answer questions related to “how we feel about” or “how we choose to react” to our situation, we must draw more heavily upon our rational and spiritual components.  We must be aware of our worldview and what we are basing our reasoning upon.   Recall Barna’s statistics on poorly grounded worldviews?

Thinking carelessly and communicating with tweets and emojis will not be adequate.  And problems in family, church, community, and government resulting from rejection of God’s revealed wisdom in the Bible will certainly not be solved by atheistic, humanistic approaches.  First Corinthians 2: 14 states, the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The proper function of family, church, school, private corporations, and government depends upon documents such as the U.S. Constitution as well as various bylaws, legal codes, and covenants, all written in words in a rational manner.  Most of these in turn, rest upon the objective revelation of the Bible concerning the nature of man.  Due to our tendency to lust for power, there is a need to avoid the concentration of power and its corrupting influence, and to incorporate ways to hold individuals morally and spiritually accountable. 

God’s Word makes clear that ultimate reality is not this physical, temporary universe which we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell.  We can only discern spiritual reality when we submit to the Word of God and His Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2: 13) to renew our minds (Romans 12: 2) and teach us to discern spiritual truth (John 14: 26).  Then, the Peace of God will replace our anxious feelings, and His love and care will uphold us for the challenges we face.

We hope this article will help you toward better discernment of issues in our world through proper exercise of your capacities for feeling, knowing, and believing.  As always, we welcome your “Comments” using the link below; or, please write privately to silviusj@gmail.com.  You may want to express how you feel, or what you think about this article, and share what you believe and why. 

Does Theology Trump Science in the Pursuit of Truth?

When discussing truth and reality, a question that often arises is, “How do the truth claims of the Bible compare to the claims from philosophy, science, and history?”  Which has the higher authority?

Most Christians believe that God reveals Himself in two major ways-- through the special revelation of Scripture and through the natural revelation of creation.  For instance, some Christian theologians support a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as a major part of biblical evidence for a "Young Earth," estimated in the thousands of years since creation.  Some scientists interpret their geological research on fossils to suggest that these once-living creatures were preserved under relatively rapid catastrophic conditions, not over millions of years.  Thus, scientific interpretation of the natural revelation would seem to corroborate Scripture to support a "Young Earth" position.

Other theologians interpret the Scriptures about creation in a more figurative or allegorical manner.  In their view, the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 refer to long ages of time.  Likewise, some geologists may interpret the fossil-bearing layers of rocks as having been laid down over long periods of time, suggesting an "Old Earth" dated in billions of years.  Evolutionary biologists view the fossil record as traces left behind as life evolved through natural selection acting upon gene mutations.

When there is apparent conflict between special revelation and natural revelation, adherents to the Judeo-Christian faith claim that the authority of special revelation trumps natural revelation.  Meanwhile, many in science claim that the power of human reason through the scientific method can or will reveal the total extent of reality with an superior authority over any revelations from God.  Which side is correct in this age-old confrontation between two views of how humans can know truth and reality?

In a recent article by Jacob Brunton, entitled “Revelation and Responsibility,” appearing on the website For the New Christian Intellectual, the author asserts that both special revelation and natural revelation are equally authoritative because both are God's revelation, equally backed by His authority.  In defense of this claim, Brunton opposes the belief of those who claim  that “all other sources of truth must be submitted to Scripture; that general revelation, at the end of the day, must be submitted to special revelation; that philosophy and science and history must all ultimately “bow the knee” to the Bible.”

Does Jacob Brunton sound heretical?  Maybe so.  But let me invite you to read his article for yourself.  There, Brunton explains that the difference between special revelation and natural revelation is not that one source carries more truth or authority than the other source.  Instead, because the nature of the special and natural revelation of God are different, and both require interpretation, the means of understanding each will be different.  Both inspired Scripture and the created order are authoritative, but the interpretation of Scripture by theologians and the interpretation of the natural world by scientists and philosophers requires reason—and reason enlightened by faith. 

Yes, both theological interpretation of God’s revelation and philosophical-scientific understanding of the natural order are enhanced by the submission of intellectual reasoning to the Spirit of God as teacher and guide (John 16: 13).  From the special revelation, we read in Romans 1: 20-22 that the evidence of God as omniscient Creator can be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… so that they are without excuse…  But, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…  When scientist and philosopher deny God and the authority of His Word, the futility of their thinking blinds their vision of creation, leading to distorted “faiths” such as deep ecology, pantheism, and animism.

But, lest theologians deny that misdirected faith and reason can cause equally grievous distortions of the special revelation of Scripture, let them be reminded of the history of biblical heresies that have caused disruptions of local churches and whole denominations; or, to the development of religious cults.  The biblical revelation is inspired by God and carries authority, but, like the humble, honest, and inspired scientist, so must the theologian be dedicated to the humble, honest, and inspired labor of correct exegesis of Scripture.  Both scientists and theologians are stewards of the manifold grace and revelation of God.  Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the German astronomer who discovered three laws of planetary motion humbly acknowledged to God his stewardship of both God-given faith and reason:

I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands.  See I have now completed the work to which I was called.   In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit.

How do we deal with the apparent contradictions between Scripture and science?  Where apparent contradictions occur, such as with regard to interpreting the age of the Earth, humble inquiry and reverence must guide both theologian and philosopher-scientist toward all of God’s revelation.  It follows that the resolution of apparent contradictions or conflicts between special and natural revelation becomes the intellectual responsibility of both the theologian and the philosopher-scientist.  As Brunton states, “rather than submitting one form of God’s revelation to another, we must instead labor to submit our understanding of each to both.”  For a more detailed study of how “submitting of each to both” can be carried out, I refer you to an article by Leonard Brand (below) which contains a helpful integrative model, and which is included here for your consideration.

How About You?
May I encourage you to read Jacon Brunton’s article, “Revelation and Responsibility.” I welcome your insights using the “Comments” link below. 

Further Reading:
Brand, Leonard.  2004.  A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science.  http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_043-080.pdf

Pearcey, N.R. and C.B. Thaxton.  1994.  The Soul of Science:   Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy.  Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL.

Acknowledgement and Dedication:
I have dedicated this article to my colleague and friend, Dr. Allen Monroe, from whom I have learned much about integration of faith and learning; and, from whom I anticipate learning more if he were to offer his critique of what I have written here.

Advent: Light Still Shines into Darkness

The people who walk in darkness

     Will see a great light;
Those who live in a dark land,
     The light will shine on them. – Isaiah 9:2

This prophetic promise of God that Messiah would be coming as the “light of the world” was revealed through the prophet Isaiah 700 years before the birth of Christ.  Yet God’s promise at the time was only the most recent of many promises of a coming Redeemer dating all the way back to the curse and fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden.  There, God had promised while addressing Satan that the “offspring of the woman” shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (Genesis 3: 15).  Throughout the generations from Adam to the birth of Jesus Christ, the Jews had lived with a sense of anticipated Advent (“coming” or “arrival”) of Messiah, the promised Deliverer, or Savior.

Today, believers in Messiah proclaim that He has come as our Redeemer.  The incarnation, God the Son, Jesus Christ was born, lived a sinless life, and became the atoning sacrifice for our sins through His death and resurrection.  Ours is but to repent of our sin and receive His Gift of salvation (Romans 10: 9-10). 

Today many Christ-followers observe Advent during the four weeks leading up to Christmas Day, celebrating the birth of Christ as well as the “Joy to the World” He will bring in His anticipated return (John 14: 1-3).  In our home, we now observe the period of Advent by taking time regularly to read Christmas-related Scripture and to prepare our hearts for a spirit of anticipation and reverence toward God who kept His promises and sent His Son to rescue us from darkness.

Our celebration of Advent began about 15 years ago when Craig Miller, our senior pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Cedarville, emphasized the observance of Advent.  Given the impact of Advent in our home since then, it was a special blessing to read the December 16 post by Pastor Craig Miller in his blog, The Village Pastor, entitled “The Word Came…to the Sasak.”  I have included the link to this article here because, in it, Pastor Craig provides a powerful example of how God is still keeping His promise that The people who walk in darkness will see a great light.  In this account, the light of God’s truth was brought through translation of the New Testament into the language of 3.5 million Sasak people who live on the Indonesian island of Lombok where 99.99% are Muslim.  Craig and his wife, Kathy, were privileged to be eyewitnesses of the translation ministry effort through their visits to the island of Lombok from 1990 to 2005.

As you read this short but powerful account of how the light of Truth came into darkness, I hope you will be inspired to praise God for the Advent of Christ who has come to us "full of grace and truth" (John 1: 17).  May God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness (2 Corinthians 4: 6)…stir your heart and mine to speak and live in such a way that we… sanctify Christ as Lord in [our] hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks [us] to give an account for the hope that is in [us], yet with gentleness and reverence…(1 Peter 3: 15).  Let’s be ready, and let’s point others to Him!

Grace and Truth through Billy Graham

For I know what I have planned for you,’
  says the Lord. ‘I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you.
  I have plans to give you a future filled with hope. - Jeremiah 29:11  

I have loved you with an everlasting love;
  Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness. – Jeremiah  31: 3

As I grow older, I am becoming more and more aware of some major facts of life—God is our Creator, God is the essence of true love, God gives us meaning and purpose, and finally, I am prone to wander away from God.  It doesn’t make sense, does it?  Yet, long before I realized it, God was at work, scrubbing away at my pride and rebellion.  He worked on me in our home, at church, and at school.   
I have written elsewhere about how God used my father, my mother, and several of my teachers.   Through generous applications of discipline in love, these people and others gradually made me more aware that my own pride was at odds with God’s love and purposes for me.  Although discipline sometimes literally hurt me, I was learning through human authority the truth expressed several millennia ago by wise King Solomon, For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights (Proverbs 3: 12).

During my elementary years, God was also drawing me to Himself through my reading, and even through our black-and-white TV.  I remember being inspired by Billy Graham as I watched him preach to thousands gathered at his crusades.  Billy’s piercing eyes seemed to be looking right though me as he spoke forcefully about the holiness and righteousness of Almighty God.  Yet, I could sense an unusual warmth and compassion as he spoke of how God so loved a fallen world that He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to take away sin, the root cause of human emptiness, loneliness, and fear.  I was very moved when I saw people in tears whose hearts were convicted of their sin by God through Billy Graham’s loving invitation to repent and turn to God.  I was amazed that thousands came forward to “accept Christ as Savior” as the hymn, “Just as I Am” was sung. 

But, I didn’t respond to God there in our living room.  I knew there was something right about Billy Graham’s Gospel message, but it didn’t seem right to me that a God of love would condemn millions, and perhaps billions to eternal hell.  Why wasn’t it possible to enter heaven by just being decent people—people like I was trying to be?  I remember questioning my mother and my Methodist pastor about “salvation by faith, and not by works” (Ephesians 2: 8-9; Titus 3: 5).  Their answers weren’t satisfying, but God continued to soften my prideful heart. 

It wasn’t until graduate school at West Virginia University that God’s Spirit removed the veil that was covering my heart (2 Corinthians 4: 3-6) and blocking the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.  God used two visitors to our home there in Morgantown to convince me from the Scriptures that the Gospel is true—that God loves me, but He is Holy and hates sin because it is counter to His nature and because of what it does to His creation, including humankind—including me!  I realized that when I died and stood in God’s judgment, there was no reason God should allow me into heaven except that I had accepted Christ’s death to atone for my sins and cover me in His righteousness.  I asked God to forgive my pride and rebellion and to make me His child (John 1: 11-13).

Now, years later, as a Christ-follower, I am still His workmanship in progress (Ephesians 2: 10).  I pause today to marvel at the life of Billy Graham; a life that has consistently demonstrated his unique ability to walk daily in God’s holy presence.  All the while, he demonstrated the pure love of God through his warm, gentle, gracious spirit toward all people regardless of religion, ethnic background, wealth, or politics.  Many of us wonder how such a holy man could be so loving and gracious toward sinners.

Billy Graham sought to emulate God—i.e. hate sin, but love the sinner.  When their son, Franklin, and their daughter, Ruth, struggled with their spiritual lives, Billy and his wife Ruth prayed for them and nurtured them back to God.  Likewise, Billy was able to talk humbly, humorously, and yet frankly with personalities in every walk of life.  His used every opportunity to speak of the cross of Christ and the Gospel of salvation, yet did so with the very love and tenderness of God.  This quality of Billy Graham was captured in this 1969 interview with Woody Allen.

"My father was not God, but he showed us what God is like."

At her father’s memorial service last week, Ruth Graham testified of how her father demonstrated the love and mercy of God years ago as he opened his arms to welcome her back home after she had made several bad choices in her life.  Ruth had heard her father preach on the holiness and justice of Almighty God.  She knew that God hated sin because of what it does to mankind—what it had done to her.  That is why she, like the prodigal son, did not take lightly the return to her father’s home.  But when Ruth walked toward her father, Billy Graham’s arms were open wide to receive his dear daughter with all the grace and mercy he knew God had extended to him.  God still waits to extend forgiveness out of His great love and mercy to any repentant sinner who “comes home.”

As the world mourns the death of Billy Graham, many try to comprehend the breadth of the spiritual impact that was made by this humble servant of God.  I believe the words of his daughter, Ruth, summarize best the influence of Rev. Graham on my life: “My father was not God but he showed me what God was like…”   Billy Graham was (and still is) not God, but he showed us what God is like.

For the Law was given through Moses;
grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.  - John 1:17

 

How About You? 
You may have just read my article but it left you, not encouraged, but discouraged.  Like I once was, you may now be more confused than ever about the nature of God and what He expects of you.  God knows just what you are thinking right now.  May I invite you to examine further the claims of the “Good News” or “the Gospel?”  Let me share a short reading that may help you.  It just happens to be from the Billy Graham Association, and presents the “Good News” summarized in an outline called “Steps to Peace with God.” The outline explains God’s love, our predicament (sin and separation from God), what Jesus has done to address our predicament, and what you can do by faith to receive God’s righteousness (right standing with a Holy God).  If you have additional questions or comments, I’d love to hear from you.  Just post a “Comment” below or e-mail me at silviusj@cedarville.edu

Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 1 "Serving with" Our Creator -- Article #3 Knowing His Heart

Our recent Oikonomia entries on “Fundamentals of Conservation” have emphasized that biblical environmental stewardship, or “biblical conservation” is truly “con-service” or serving with creation. But to serve with creation requires a knowledge of and obedience to what matters to God based upon knowledge of His Holy Scriptures.  In our May Oikonomia, we emphasized that those who would practice biblical conservation must share a child’s eagerness to learn about the world and to submit eagerly to God’s plans for creation as revealed in Scripture.  But, how can we develop and apply child-like faith in God’s Truth in a world that seems increasingly antagonistic, particularly toward Judeo-Christian truth claims?   The answer lies in Christ’s instruction to His disciples and to us.

Before His death and resurrection, Christ prayed for His disciples and all of us who would follow Him later:  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.  Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth (John 17: 16-17).  Although we are in the world, we can pursue God’s truth through prayer and meditation in His Word.  Without it, our thinking and our actions toward creation are distorted and limited in ultimate value.   Unfortunately, increasing numbers of people deny that the Bible has anything to say about the origin, purpose, and destiny of creation.  Therefore, it is important that we emphasize in this entry that conservers of creation must ultimately be “obedient conservers of Truth.”

Jesus Christ, the Creator, has already come into His creation full of grace and truth (John 1: 14b) to bring us Eternal Life through faith both here on Earth and in our Life to come on the New Earth.  Therefore, would-be steward conservationists should recognize that every act that is intended to do good toward the Earth should be done with the reality that unless the contributor has individually reconciled with God and accepted His atonement for sin, he or she is on a path to eternal Hell.  Such a path is quite divergent from the path of the Earth which has a much brighter future.  Therefore, it stands to reason that God-pleasing stewards of creation must know something of God’s heart for the creation and be able to express His will in words and in acts of conservation.

Smokey Bear poster (1944):  We are beginning to
recover from this false view of land stewardship.

Today as a case in point, many are wondering about the “State of the Earth” and what actions we should take as stewards to conserve the life support system of Earth.  But the more we study the biosphere the more complex we realize it is.  Conservation efforts once thought to be wise—e.g. saving forests by preventing forest fires, saving wildlife populations by restricting hunting in the absence of natural predators, or saving wildlife populations by importing alien species to control them—all have produced some unintended consequences.   One would think such consequences would be cause for humility in our science.

I am concerned that the increasingly politically driven efforts to thwart the alleged human-caused climate change may end up as yet another set of unintended consequences.  Most scientists would agree that “there is no such thing as ‘settled science’.”  Yet today, in spite of scientific evidence on both sides of the question of human-caused climate change, each side of the argument seeks to silence or ignore the other.  Many scientists find it difficult to resist the strong and tempting offers of large research grants which lead to more publications and professional advancement.  A scriptural approach to this temptation is to insist on open dialog among those whose data contradict, perhaps because they have taken different research or because they use different assumptions in their climate models.  A true scientific understanding of creation requires open, honest dialog, rigorous hypothesis testing, skepticism, peer review, and avoidance of overstating conclusions.  We have called this “good science.”

The scientist Johannes Kepler described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."  It ought to follow that obedient conservers of creation use “good science” as a means to accurately “speak” on behalf of their Creator about His creation.  We might liken this relationship based on truth to a good speechwriter who seeks to capture a sense of the values and passion of the one he or she serves.  For example, Peggy Noonan was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, the “great communicator” in the early 1980’s.  In her 2001 NY Times bestseller, When Character Was King, Noonan attributes Reagan’s commitment to truth and truth-telling as the basis for his effectiveness as the world leader credited with the eventual fall of Soviet communism.   She writes:

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev

Ronald Reagan loved the truth.   We all do or say we do, but for Reagan it was like fresh water, something he needed and wanted.  He loved the truth for a number of reasons, a primary one of which is that he thought it…uniquely constructive.  He thought that by voicing it you were beginning to make things better.  He thought the truth is the only foundation on which can be built something strong and good and lasting—because only truth endures.  Lies die.  – (When Character Was King, p. 200)

Peggy Noonan illustrates how the power of spoken truth through President Reagan brought change to people, governments, and the world.   Unlike many American leaders during the era of Soviet domination of much of Asia and Eastern Europe, Reagan spoke the truth about Soviet totalitarianism without apology.  His message reached the Soviet prisons where Russian dissidents began to hear it whispered by their guards, or through radio broadcasts.  Noonan shares the testimony of one Russian dissident, Anatoly Shchransky:

Sometimes he and other men would empty out the toilets and the sinks and whisper to each other through the pipes.  Sometimes they used code, from cell to cell.  And there were other ways he didn’t want to talk about.  But he wanted me to know that there were times when Ronald Reagan spoke that the gulag would explode with a great racket of taps, knocks and whispers as they heard what he said and passed it on.

Some of Reagan’s words of truth that were whispered and tapped through Soviet prisons were probably ones he spoke to the British Parliament, on June 8 1982:   Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas:  individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.

Eventually, the iron curtain was torn open, the wall came down, and cell doors holding political dissidents swung open to provide freedom from the oppression of Soviet communism because of the words and the actions of Ronald Reagan and others who spoke the truth.  Although today the scourge of totalitarian governments under communism and Islamic extremists threaten and destroy individual freedom and plunge civil societies back into darkness, there still exists within the hearts of many who have not been broken and discouraged the desire to be free and to participate in a society of the self-governed. 

And mankind can no more create and maintain responsible government by the people than he can function effectively in the larger sphere of trying to practice conservation of the planet.  At least, not unless he understands the truth that our rights and privileges come from above, from Almighty God, Who has made us stewards, serving at His behest. 

And how can we serve God, and keep (serve with) creation without walking in close obedience to God through His Word?  Just as a speechwriter must know the mainspring of truth that drives her boss in order to help him communicate his or her convictions, so we must know the heart of God through His Scriptures if we are to do anything worthwhile and lasting toward our neighbor and the Earth.  Out of this intimacy of relationship through the Word of Truth, we can both serve God and serve with creation—and do so with the right motives, passion, and purpose whispered and tapped into our souls by our Heavenly Father.