The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics & Accountability

In September, I received disappointing news concerning Volkswagen, the manufacturer of the first car I ever owned.  The carmaker admitted that nearly one-half million cars in the U.S. from model years 2009 to 2015 were equipped with software that skewed exhaust emissions toward more favorable test results.  Volkswagen later acknowledged that the same software was on 11 million cars worldwide.

I still remember the blessing it was
to have this 1963 VW "beetle."

Since the days when I drove my 1963 VW beetle to work at Belden Brick Company in Sugarcreek, OH; and, to Malone College, in Canton, OH, automobiles have been transformed through advances in science and technology into amazing driving machines.  Advances in fuel efficiency and emissions control are just two examples of the steady improvements in automobiles.   But, while progress of science seems limitless, the Volkswagen incident suggests that “progress” is hampered without good ethics to govern the development and use of technology.

During the past century, science has emerged as the principal determiner of what is true about the natural world, about human life and behavior, and even about what is “real” and what is not.  Phrases like, “according to science” or “according to scientific findings” have been routinely used for decades to introduce authoritative claims of truth about nearly every subject being debated.  But interestingly, this year as allegations were emerging against Volkswagen for unethical use of technology for economic gain, events were occurring that raised doubts about the ethics and integrity of science itself.

Writing in the New York Times in May, Benedict Carey outlined a flurry of retractions of articles from scientific journals, including one by the American Association for the Advancement of Science journal, Science.  After two graduate students “raised questions” about a published Science report on how political canvassing affects public opinion of same-sex marriage, editors pulled the article; but, not before what Carey called “a frenzy of second-guessing, accusations and commentary from all corners of the Internet: “Retraction” as serial drama, rather than footnote.” 

The blog Retraction Watch was first to report that the Science article had been challenged.   Blog editor Dr. Ivan Oransky noted that “new technology and a push for transparency from younger scientists have…[produced]..more tips (questionable articles) than we can handle.” 

In earlier Oikonomia articles ” (see end of this article), we have emphasized what we call “good science.”  By our definition, “good science” does not overstate its conclusions even under pressure from granting sources or groups with a political agenda.  Nor would “good science” condone publication of statistically altered data.  In short, “good science” has a conscience ((Latin, conscientia = “knowledge of right and wrong within oneself”).  “Good science” is conscientious about being objective, cautious, humble, and unbiased in a culture that can easily bring bias and elicit unethical behavior.

Brian Nosek is professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and a founder of the Center for Open Science (COS) which promotes inter-laboratory sharing of data and protocols.  He reports that there is a push toward direct replication of research findings.  Nosek coordinated a volunteer effort by 270 research psychologists to reproduce 100 studies published in 3 leading psychology journals.  Their results, published in Science, revealed that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested, causing many to conclude that the field of research psychology needs a “strong correction.”  Or, we might say, research psychology needs a “reawakening” of conscience.

Looking closer at one of the psychology studies cited above, Nosek et al. flagged the article because authors Vohs and Schooler (2008) overstated the influence of genetic determinism as opposed to free will in the tendency of a person to cheat.  The authors’ conclusion that participant exposure to a deterministic message increased cheating was in turn cited in 241 other articles, suggesting the tremendous scope and rapidity of transmission of either “good” or “bad science.”   Interestingly, a listing of 24 “articles citing this article” accompanying the online link to the Vohs and Schooler article published in Psychological Science gave no indication of the Science article in which Nosek, et al had questioned the finding of Vohs and Schooler.

The questionable credibility of social science studies has led to calls for similar scrutiny in other fields.  Our N.Y. Times columnist, Carey, quotes Stefano Bertuzzi, executive director of the American Society for Cell Biology, as saying,  “the effort was long overdue, given that biology has some of the same publication biases as psychology. ‘I call it cartoon biology, where there’s this pressure to publish cleaner, simpler results that don’t tell the entire story, in all its complexity,’ Dr. Bertuzzi said.”

What message should we get from this depressing litany of reports?  Rather than bemoan the deterioration of scientific enterprise, let’s consider approaches that can encourage “good science” in today’s culture of declining moral standards and lack of integrity.   Here are three considerations that may be useful in restoring and maintaining the integrity of science.

First, I am encouraged that the science community has spotlighted the trend toward publication of results lacking good support and even results based on falsification of data.  As noted above, efforts to limit the publication and spread of such scientific articles are expanding.  For example, Kelly Rae Chi has developed an algorithm to identify papers that have received numerous negative citations.  Such papers could then be red-flagged to discourage their citation and potential “viral spread” of false conclusions into other articles.

Second, and of more fundamental importance is the need to identify the underlying causes and motivations behind the spewing of scientific papers that do not hold up to scrutiny.  Could it be that the increasingly politicized atmosphere around the science laboratory combined with the moral decline in our culture is causing increasing numbers of scientists to cave in to the temptation to cut corners and draw conclusions from scanty data?  Might other scientists succumb to shoddy experimentation in order to increase their publication rate to support tenure or promotion?   

And finally, we must recognize a more subtle temptation— to publish data and conclusions that reflect deeply held philosophical or political biases in controversial areas.  Particular examples include research that relates to the origin of human life, the role of human activities in causing climate change, and the efficacy and potential side-effects of new pharmaceutical drugs.  Controversial topics such as these offer significant threats to the “conscience of science;” and particularly, the ethical consciences of the scientists involved.

Yes, Volkswagen has offered us a new beetle that buzzes with much better technology than the beetles of the past century.  But, science and technology appear to be in great need of a moral and ethical tune-up.  We will discuss factors that contribute toward the decline of “good science” in an upcoming blog article.  Particular emphasis will be upon what many consider as unhealthy political and philosophical influences that threaten the conscience and integrity of science.

Related Articles:
Oikonomia: Halting the Demise of “Liberal” Education
Climate Change Debate Demands “Good Science”
Imagination That Contradicts the Reality of Creation

Will Sharia Law Replace America’s Moral Laxness?

This week, LinkedIn discussion groups under “The Teaching Professor” include one entitled, Class Discussion: Are we on our own path to Sharia Law?   According to the introduction, “Surveys show one in three Americans are worried about Sharia Law coming to the U.S.A.”  One responder, Howard Doughty, criticized the deplorable example America has set for the world through its interference in the Middle East and concluded, “Forget Sharia Law (which is no threat to America) and look in the mirror.”

I disagree with Doughty’s claim that Sharia Law is no threat.  America has prospered because most of her people individually exercise respect for the rule of law out of an ingrained moral conscience.  Therefore, it would be hard to envision how current quality of life would be sustained or improved if moral behavior were instead coerced by the state.  Even the liberal Huffington Post is quoted as saying about Sharia Law, “Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.”

Having emphasized the importance of moral convictions as a basis for obeying laws, I do agree with Howard Doughty that Sharia law is not a “DIRECT threat to America."  Instead, I believe a more direct threat is coming from within America’s (dissolving) borders.  The direct threat is from failure of those in positions of leadership in Washington and on down through our state and local governments, churches, schools, civic organizations, and families to believe and exercise leadership out of a belief in moral absolutes.  How often do you hear a courageous leader stand and speak with a voice of moral clarity?

America’s founders recognized the fallibility of mankind and the existence of God as Creator and Giver of the moral code as summarized in the "Golden Rule" and Ten Commandments.  These moral standards provided the foundation and structure within which western civilization could prosper.  Crucial to this success was the belief that rights are from God Who is worthy of our praise and worship; and, the belief that freedom depends upon individual obligation to love our neighbor.  Americans elected leaders in every sphere of authority from federal government to local communities, and generally, these leaders challenged us with a voice of moral clarity and the character to back up their words based on Judeo-Christian principles.

Dial forward to 2015, and it is clear that Christianity has relinquished its influence through compromise, hypocrisy, and disrespectful words and actions that are not winsome to an increasingly secular culture.  Consequently, many have dismissed the relevance and value of Christianity.  Increasing numbers deny God and the moral absolutes that had distinguished America as "exceptional" and "good."  Instead, America is being led and influenced by moral relativism and liberal progressivism that spews its own inconsistencies and much hypocrisy--pressing for women's rights in America while refusing to condemn Islamic enslavement of women wherever it becomes dominant; pressing for rights of the defenselessness while condoning the abortion and mutilation of babies and sale of body parts; pressing for the rights of minorities while ridiculing members of minorities like Ben Carson who demonstrate that even the poorest can succeed when individual moral responsibility is exercised.  Instead of ridiculing those who succeed as examples of how life could be, liberals cower in fear of losing a voting constituency.  Not to be excused, many conservatives are complicit in this scenario of moral laxness. Although at least some conservatives profess to operate from the moral high ground, yet for fear of being disliked, many lack the moral backbone to be a voice of moral clarity or to stand up for the Constitution.


So, I am not nearly as concerned about Sharia law as I am about the current moral decay in our nation.  Our leaders lack moral resolve and courage, refuse to enforce the laws of the land, and even undermine the respect and authority of our men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to deter crime on our streets.  God help us! 

In agreement with Howard Doughty, we SHOULD look into the mirror, and remember that God is looking at us and our actions as well.  Let us pursue God’s Word and rely on the Holy Spirit’s power to discipline the person we face in the mirror every day (James 1: 23-25).  And, based on our own growing moral character and desire to please God, let us study to identify and elect leaders who will speak and act in ways that uphold the U.S. Constitution.  And let us hold our leaders accountable through regular communication (e-mail, social media) to uphold state and local laws supportive of strong families and supportive of the poor and minorities who seek to improve their lives through honest efforts.  Only in these ways will God honor America and help us preserve individual freedom against threats of coercion from within and from beyond our borders.  If America is in danger of falling under Sharia Law or something more oppressive, it is because we are failing to maintain the moral provisions that have preserved and united our nation through many difficult storms.

Can Big Government Stop “Bullying?”

Today is Spirit Day, sponsored by GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).  We are invited to wear purple to demonstrate that we “stand against bullying and show [our] support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth.”  Okay, but by my definition of “tolerance”  I look at each group and cause to see what they are against.  In this case, they are against much more than bullying.  But let me digress to give some history to explain why I believe we need to do more than wear purple, and why big government isn't the one to stop the bullying.

When I was learning what it is to be a man, my parents and teachers were "there for me" to teach me to "love my neighbor" regardless of his or her behavior or preferences.  Although I did not fully understand the concept of homosexuality, it was not uncommon for m to hear the labels like “homo” and “queer.” (“gay” didn’t enter my hearing until the mid- to late 60’s).   I soon learned that it was wrong to mistreat people who looked and acted differently.  In particular, I learned to accept both racial minorities and religious minorities (Amish) in our neighborhood because my parents and teachers set a good example by their attitudes and behavior, and occasionally applied forceful discipline to us when we needed it.  

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Now we have politicians in Washington like Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown teaching us to define "classes of people" (LGBT..., black, white, rich, poor, etc.) that we aren’t supposed to bully.  While Sen. Brown and other liberal progressives teach us to "divide," they directly or indirectly encourage minority classes of people to stand up and be counted because “their lives matter.”  Meanwhile, progressives undermine the very institutions (family, church, police, military, etc.) that are ordained by God to provide moral clarity, personal integrity, order, and structure for our society and for those who will inherit positions of leadership tomorrow.  

Having contributed to the disruption of the key social institutions noted above, they act as if they have compassion on the increasing numbers of people who are deprived of a mother's love, a father's love, a loving church, or protection by honest law enforcement.   Is it any wonder young people are struggling to know who they are, what purpose there is for living, and how to make correct moral judgments?

M.L. King had it right when he emphasized the importance of the "content of character" over the "color of skin" [or should I say, "color of one’s clothes?"]  Why should we single out groups and factions to "treat equally" when in fact, "all lives matter!"  This truth ought to be obvious for those who simply open their Bible and read God's Loving Word to ALL mankind, a love letter that explains how He predicted, then sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross as a holy and perfect sacrifice for all of our sins (e.g. our hate, jealousy, greed, covetousness, immorality, and idolatry).  Jesus suffered and died so that we might have the power to obey two simple commands from God that He gave to us for our own good; namely, love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and, love your neighbor as yourself. 

I am thankful for Sen. Brown and others who are elected to serve our country.  But, we can't expect organizations like GLAAD or politicians of any stripe to do what only God can do--to change hearts from hate to love. We must submit to God so that He can transform our hearts as we take in His Word with the help of His Holy Spirit.  Then, we will WANT to keep the golden rule-- love God, and love thy neighbor. 

Meanwhile, we need government to do what it can do best:  protect America’s borders from invasion while defining and allowing legitimate immigration; uphold the U.S. Constitution through just laws and effective enforcement of the laws of the land, including laws that protect biblical marriage, families, churches, the marketplace, and effective schools and institutions of higher learning. 

Senator Brown, you and your colleagues have a lot of good work to do.  Check out what God says about the value of diversity in the human population and how we should all treat them as much  more than a constituency.  Then, roll up your sleeves, wear purple if you like, and help our government do what it can do best.  Leave the rest to the other equally important institutions.

Recognizing Loved Ones in Heaven

I decided to let you in on a long letter to my pastor in response to his recent sermon on the resurrection.  I want to be sure he agrees with my application of God’s natural revelation in creation and His special revelation in the Bible.  If not, I hope he will graciously provide correction.

Thank you, Pastor Dan Wingate, for your Oct. 11, 2015 message on “The Resurrection Body” at West Hill Baptist Church.  Like many of your messages, this one stimulated me toward further thought and study of the Scriptures.  I studied 1 Corinthians 15: 35-41 and context to understand more of what the Apostle Paul and the Spirit meant by saying that we will be “sown a natural body…raised a spiritual body.”  In particular, my question was, “Even though we will all be changed (1 Corinthians 15: 51), will we still be individually and personally recognizable in our new spiritual bodies?”

I believe Scripture supports the notion that God uses both the natural revelation in creation and a consistent line of reason from His special revelation to teach that our resurrection bodies will retain qualities that enable recognition of one another in heaven.  Let’s consider what we can learn from the natural revelation first.  

Note how Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15: 39-41, highlights the great diversity in God’s creation, both biologically and astrologically:

"That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.."

All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.  There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

Pastor Dan, you explained this so clearly by the simple “taxonomy” you used for all of us to understand; namely, that there is diversity of “kinds” among plants--flowers (herbs), trees, and shrubs.  Each is distinct from the others.  Likewise, Paul uses plants we call “grain” (e.g. wheat or rye) to point out that a seed that is sown has a different body from the one that will eventually spring up from the ground (v.  37).   Furthermore, the body of the seed that is sown must die in order for the body of the new plant to spring up from the ground (v. 36).  The biological knowledge God has given me brings this latter truth into new light.  The seed literally has to “die to” its original form, “give up” its nature as a seed, and surrender its nutrients and food reserves—all of this for the good of the “new body” that now sprouts up from the soil as it freely uses the seed resources surrendered by the “dying seed.” 

It seems unfortunate to a seed that its role is only realized by its death and surrender to support the needs of the seedling.  However, this relationship does illustrate that each of us as believers find our purpose and joy only to the extent that we deny ourselves in order to take up our cross and follow Jesus (Luke 9: 23).  Of direct pertinence to our eventual physical death, when our life on Earth reaches its end, our bodies will be changed as we are destined for an even more glorious body.

But there is a second attribute of God’s biological creation that lends insight into our resurrection bodies.  Although the body of the seed is distinct from the body of the seedling, it is also true that God has given “to each of the seeds a body of its own (v. 38).”  Therefore, as verses 39-41 elaborate, each “kind” of plant (or animal, planet, and star) is distinct among the great diversity of plants (or animals and celestial bodies).  But in the midst of this great diversity, there is also “continuity.” 

It is true that each “kind” of seed dies and disintegrates when it surrenders its form and resources to support the growth of the seedling.  Yet the seed determines what “kind” of seedling will result (through the DNA contained in the embryo of the seed which grows into the new body of the seedling).  This means, although as you suggested, we can identify each distinct “kind” of seed among a whole variety of seeds in a container—they each have their distinct traits—corn, wheat, oats, etc.  But, it is also true that the body of the seedling that results from each of the different “kinds” of seeds, while a different body from the seed, does express predictable traits that enable us to identify it as having been associated with the “old body” of the seed from which it sprouted. 

I would like to believe that God intends by this “seed-seedling analogy” to teach us that our new resurrection bodies, though different from our earthly bodies because they are “spiritual bodies” will nonetheless have recognizable traits.  Very likely, our appearance along with behavioral (or voice?) traits, will enable us to be recognized for who we are individually.

If my application of the “seed-seedling analogy” above is accurate, then we can say that God’s natural revelation in creation tells us much about the relationship between our earthly bodies and our future spiritual bodies.  However, we must rely on God’s special revelation for additional support for the claim that we will recognize our loved ones and friends, including Bible personalities we’ve never met, when we get to heaven.  There are three kinds of supporting evidence from Scripture:

a.   The disciples recognized Jesus in His resurrection body.  John 21: 1-14 records that “Jesus was manifested (rendered apparent) to the disciples” and that he ate breakfast with them.  Based on this account, we will also be distinctly recognizable in our resurrection bodies because the Scripture says, “Christ [is] the first fruits, after that, those who are Christ's at His coming... (1 Cor. 15: 23).”   It is also recorded that Thomas who doubted that Jesus was alive following His crucifixion also eventually recognized Jesus (John 20: 24-29).  Finally, Luke 24 says about Jesus followers on the road to Emmaus, “their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him (v. 16)… [until] their eyes       were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight (v. 31).

b.   Three of Jesus’ disciples recognized Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration      even though they had never met them, suggesting that there must be other aspects of  our bodies after death that distinguish us as individuals.  See Luke 9: 29-33.

I thank God for my local church.

c.   How are we comforted unless we recognize our loved ones?  In 1 Thessalonians 4: 14-18, Paul comforts his Christian readers with the truth that we will meet our loved ones again.  Much of this comfort is found in the promise that one day, we will recognize our loved ones as distinct persons we once knew and loved.  Thanks be to God, we can have the hope of this great reunion, much more blessed than is possible here on Earth.   Amen. Come, Lord Jesus (Revelation 22: 20).

How about you?  Thank you for reading this article.  Perhaps you disagree, or have additional questions about your future.  Jesus said in John 3: 18, speaking of Himself, 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.  The Bible throughout makes it clear that those who reject God’s Son, Jesus Christ, and His perfect, atoning sacrifice for sin will not inherit spiritual bodies and will not live eternally in the new heaven and new earth.  Romans 3: 23 makes it clear that ALL of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  If you do not have the assurance that your sins have been forgiven, please let me know, or follow up with a trusted Christian friend or pastor (see link below).  The Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Bible from which the above verse was taken is a great place to become acquainted with Jesus and His life-saving message.  For those who have trusted Christ for forgiveness and a victorious walk with God through the armor and power of His Spirit, the following passage is a fitting encouragement:

Beloved, now we are children of God,
and it has not appeared as yet what we will be.
We know that when He appears, we will be like Him,
because we will see Him just as He is.
And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him
purifies himself, just as He is pure.  – 1 John 3: 2-3

To listen to this or other messages of Pastor Dan Wingate, and for other messages and resources from West Hill Baptist Church, Wooster, Ohio, click HERE.

Do You Reckon God Is Real?

Recently, David Gregory, former moderator of the NBC News talk show, Meet the Press, was interviewed On the Record, by Greta Van Susteren.  Much of Greta’s interview focused on Gregory’s new book, How’s Your Faith?  An Unlikely Journey.   In the book, Gregory recounts his  personal journey of faith prompted by what he calls a “spiritual longing that [he] felt a decade ago that realized that the bigger journey…was around some really big questions…Who am I? Who am I trying to become?  What is expected of me?  that can only be answered through a search for God…” Gregory’s journey was launched in greater earnest after President George W. Bush asked him, “How’s your faith?”

David Gregory with Greta Van Susteren, On the Record

Greta’s interview with David Gregory included an insightful question, one that I’ve been considering for a couple of months as reflected in my writing (See “Local Churches and Spiritual Awakening”).  Her question* was this:  “Why do you think that some people have faith and some people don’t?”   Gregory’s answer: “I think it’s ultimately a question of where God is.  People have a hard time understanding that God is close.” 

If he could join in Greta’s interview of David Gregory, A.W. Tozer, now with the Lord, might say in reverent awe, “God is very near.”  In fact, if the interview were to shift so that we could listen to this great pastor, preacher, author, magazine editor, and spiritual mentor, Tozer might share at length about faith in God as he wrote in The Pursuit of God.  As you read carefully and meditatively the following excerpts** from the writing of A.W. Tozer, I hope they will stir you as they have me to realize (real-ize) God’s nearness and His pursuit of us:

“God and the spiritual world are real.  We can reckon upon them with as much assurance as we reckon upon the familiar world around us. Spiritual things are there (or rather we should say, here) inviting our attention and challenging our trust.

A.W. Tozer (1897-1963)

“The sincere plain man knows that the [physical] world is real.  He finds it here when he wakes to consciousness, and he knows that he did not think it into being.  It was here waiting for him when he came, and he knows that when he prepares to leave this earthly scene it will be here still to bid him good-bye as he departs.  By the deep wisdom of life he is wiser than a thousand men who doubt. He stands upon the earth and feels the wind and rain in his face and he knows that they are real.  He sees the sun by day and the stars by night.  He sees the hot lightning play out of the dark thundercloud.  He hears the sounds of nature and the cries of human joy and pain. These he knows are real.  He lies down on the cool earth at night and has no fear that it [will]… fail him while he sleeps.  In the morning the firm ground will be under him, the blue sky above him, and the rocks and trees around him as [they were] when he closed his eyes the night before.  So he lives and rejoices in a world of reality.

“With his five senses he engages this real world.  [In order to live, he] has been equipped [to move about, to reason, and to make decisions for his survival and productivity] by the God Who created him and placed him in such a world as this.  [But what about God and the spiritual world?]

“The Bible assumes as [an obvious] fact that [we] can know God with at least the same degree of [certainty] as [we] can know any other person or thing that comes within the field of [our] experience.  The same terms are used to express the knowledge of God as are used to express knowledge of physical things:

O taste and see that the Lord is good… Psalm 34: 8a

All Thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces.  Psalm 45: 8

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me… John 10: 27

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.  Matthew 5: 8

“These are but four of the countless such passages from the Word of God.  And more important than any proof text is the fact that the whole…of the Scripture [points] toward this belief.

“What can this mean but that we have in our hearts organs by…which we can know God as certainly as we know material things through our familiar five senses?  We [function in] the physical world by exercising the [abilities] given us for that purpose, and we possess spiritual [abilities] by means of which we can know God and the spiritual world [provided] we will obey the Spirit’s urge and begin to use them.

“Our trouble is that we have established bad thought habits.  We habitually think of the visible world as real and doubt the reality of any other.   We do not deny the existence of the spiritual world but we doubt that it is real in the accepted meaning of the word [real.  That is, something that exists, or IS, regardless of whether we or anyone can see it or think it into existence.  In other words, something real “has being in itself.”]

Returning to Greta’s question to David Gregory, about why some people have faith and some do not, Gregory elaborated, “I think there are things that get in the way….”  With this assertion, A.W. Tozer would agree:

“The world of [our five senses] intrudes upon our attention day and night for the whole of our lifetime.  It is clamorous, insistent, and self-demonstrating.  It does not appeal to our faith; it is here, assaulting our five senses, demanding to be accepted as real and final.  But sin has so clouded the lenses of our hearts that we cannot see that other reality, the City of God, shining around us.  The world of sense triumphs.  The visible becomes the enemy of the invisible; the temporal [becomes the enemy] of the eternal.  This is the curse inherited by every member of Adam’s tragic race.

“[What is missing is] the saving work [of God’s grace through Christ which] must first be done in the heart…  The spiritual [abilities] of the unregenerate man lie asleep in his nature, unused and for every purpose dead; that is the stroke which has fallen upon us by sin. They must be [awakened] to active life again by the operation of the Holy Spirit in regeneration; that is one of the immeasurable benefits which come to us through Christ’s atoning work on the cross.

“But [even the] children of God themselves [purchased through faith in the shed blood of Christ]:  Why do they know so little of that habitual conscious communion with God which the Scriptures seem to offer?  The answer is our chronic unbelief.  Faith [erases the clouds from the lenses of our hearts] and allows our spiritual senses to function.  Where faith is defective the result will be inward insensibility and numbness toward spiritual things.  This is the condition of vast numbers of Christians today.

“A spiritual kingdom lies all about us, enclosing us, embracing us, altogether within reach of our inner selves, waiting for us to recognize it.  [We don’t have to imagine it any more than we have to imagine a long-lost person or object; we simply recognize the spiritual kingdom because it is real.]  God Himself is here awaiting our response to His Presence.  This eternal world will come alive to us the moment we begin to reckon upon its reality.

“As we begin to focus upon God, the things of the Spirit will take shape before our inner eyes.  Obedience to the Word of Christ will bring an inward revelation of the Godhead (John 14: 21-23).  It will give acute perception, enabling us to see God even as is promised to the pure in heart (Matthew 5: 8).   A new God consciousness will seize upon us and we shall begin to taste and hear and inwardly feel the God Who is our life and our all. 

“Why do some people come to faith in God while others do not?”  Certainly not because God is far from any… that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being…' (Acts 17: 27-28).

Although I believe God is near to each person, I also realize from experience that the journey to “find Him” is not an easy one.  God desires to have personal relationship with us, but has chosen not to overpower us like automatons.  Instead, God has created us with a free will and also a yearning that can only be satisfied when we establish relationship with Him.  Again, Tozer’s words strike a familiar chord within me, based on my journey of faith:

“Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him…and the secret cause of all desiring as seeking and praying which may follow.  We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit.  No man can come to Me, said our Lord, except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for the act of coming.  The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: Thy right hand upholdeth me (Psalm 63:8b).”

In keeping with a God that pursues us, David Gregory says, “I didn’t really have an experience of God’s presence as a teenager?” then adds, “Without knowing it, there was a certain sense of spiritual longing that was happening for me then that I wasn’t able to access ….”  

We can assume that David Gregory’s pursuit of God continues; as does mine, and I hope yours as well.  We are not left to imagine God, but to reckon and realize (real-ize) God—because He is real.  May we be driven by God’s gift of the hunger to feed upon His Word (Psalm 19: 7-11) as the Bread of Life (John 6: 35).  Bread to nourish us with His wisdom for the daily challenges of this world (e.g. Proverbs 3: 5-6; Isaiah 30: 18-21; Isaiah 40: 28-31); and “living water” (John 4: 10) to quench our spiritual thirst as we rely on His promises of the Eternal Life He offers when by faith we put our trust in Christ (e.g. John 14: 1-6).  How is your faith?

* Actually, I must take issue with the premise of this question.  My longtime friend and colleague, Dr. Allen Monroe was fond of saying, “All men are men of faith.”  In other words, we all exercise faith in certain people and things in order to function—faith in chairs we sit in, the brakes in our cars as we apply them in busy traffic, etc.  The question is not “Are we people of faith?” but rather, “Why do some people come to faith in God while others do not?”

** Excerpts from A.W. Tozer’s The Pursuit of God (Regal, 2013), as modified for brevity and ease of reading.

Acknowledgement:   I thank God for my friend in Christ, Brad Will, who regularly encourages my faith in God, and who is responsible in recent months for leading me to drink from the spiritual well of A.W. Tozer.