Thoughts on the Movie "The Case for Christ"

Kathy and I went to see the movie "The Case for Christ" this afternoon. It was an excellent movie and well acted. I found myself being caught up in the emotion of it all.

In case you don't know, Lee Strobel is a famous Christian apologist who started out as an atheist. He has written many poplar apologetic books. This movie depicts his journey from atheism to faith. As an investigative journalist for The Chicago Tribune, he was a firm believer in following the facts wherever they led. When his wife becomes a Christian, he sets out to prove the resurrection of Jesus never happened by visiting and interviewing experts in many fields of study. Eventually he realizes that the evidence for the resurrection was strong and he could not disprove it, so he converts to Christianity himself.

I have read several of Strobel's books and used to watch a question and answer TV show he hosted. His story is intriguing, as are other stories like his, such as Josh McDowell's. There have been a number of atheists that have come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus after examining the evidence. But on the other hand, there have been a number of Christians that have become unbelievers upon more thoroughly investigating the evidence. I am one of those people as is Dan Barker, who was an evangelical preacher for 19 years before realizing that he really didn't believe what he was preaching.

So, how can that be? How can two people examine the exact same evidence and come to such radically different conclusions? It's a conundrum, but fascinating. Think about a trial where 12 people are listening to the evidence being presented about the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming one way or the other and all 12 vote the same way. However, in other cases, the evidence is not quite so clear. There is some evidence that makes you think the person is guilty, but other evidence that makes you think the person is innocent.

So what makes a person come down on one side or the other? Well, I believe it has to do with how much evidence each individual requires in order to be convinced of something. Some people can be told that friendly space aliens are going to land in Central Park tomorrow to take willing Earthlings to a better planet, and they will be lined up waiting at midnight. Others could actually see aliens land and take people and still not believe it, thinking some sort of delusion had overtaken them.

There's many other factors that can affect someone's decision in the face of conflicting evidence. Past experiences, facial expressions of the witnesses while they were testifying, how often they have been lied to by supposedly trustworthy people, etc. So, getting 12 people to agree on the meaning of the evidence is actually quite a feat.

In my case, I'm hard-nosed. I want to have near ironclad evidence, especially when it concerns supernatural events such as a resurrection. But when I conducted my multi-year investigation of the Bible, I discovered that the evidence for the supernatural events reported in it, especially the resurrection of Jesus, didn't even come close to being ironclad. In fact, the more I studied, the more ironclad it became against the resurrection. But, it never became what I would call conclusive. And that's the problem. I recorded my thoughts concerning my studies in a book entitled, "God Is."

The Bible says that God does not want any to be lost. Yet, it also says that if you don't believe, you WILL be lost. If you had a child that was in danger and you knew exactly what that child needed to be saved from that danger, would you not do exactly what was required of you? So, if God knows what each of us needs to believe and be saved, why does he not provide that for each individual? Why leave some hanging with a lack of evidence? These are the questions I cannot answer, assuming there is really a loving, powerful God in control.

First Contact – Part 9 – Full Gospel Church

Some of you may be asking, “What in the world is a Full Gospel Church?” Well, according to Wikipedia, it is synonymous with the Pentecostal, Charismatic Protestant movement that started in the 19^th century. Basically, I associate Full Gospel with churches that believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, divine healing, speaking in tongues, etc.

As I was growing up, I used to hear my parents talk about the Pentecostal and the Holiness churches around where they grew up in north Alabama. They were the ones being slain in the Spirit and dancing in the aisles. Some may have even handled snakes. It all kind of blends together in my head, but I think you get the general idea of what I am talking about.

While there are several charismatic churches in my area, the two I became the most familiar with over the years were Faith Tabernacle (now called Faith Church) and Christ Chapel. These are both independent non-denominational churches.

Shortly after becoming a Christian in the Church of Christ I started a quest to understand the differing beliefs of the multitude of churches. One of the earliest ones I investigated was Christ Chapel. At that time they were in a small building near downtown. My roommate, David, who had been a student at the local Bible College and was a part time preacher, decided to join me in attendance at the church one Sunday evening. The service was filled with music, prayer, and preaching. Not that radically different from the Church of Christ except for the use of instrumental music (the C of C sings a cappella) and the occasional speaking in tongues (the C of C services were all in English). Near the end of the service everyone was getting happy, standing up, and singing with all their might. We were told to join hands. This made me a bit uncomfortable, but I did it anyway, as did my roommate. Afterwards, David’s comment was, “My, those folks sure are friendly.”

You have to understand that for many in the Church of Christ the use of mechanical instruments of music is a sin. Also, many believe that the gifts of the spirit such as healing, speaking in tongues, and so on were no longer in effect. So, some would think that what David and I did—actually participating in the service where these things were being done—was sinful. But to tell you the truth, I didn’t feel like I needed to shower after the service.

A few years later, Christ Chapel built a new building north of downtown that served as both a church and a school. I can still recall my wife and me going to see Twila Paris, one of my favorite Christian musicians, at this building.

My son, Andrew, was born in 1991. When he was in K-5, he attended Woodmont Christian School, which was part of Woodmont Baptist Church. My wife, Kathy, had quit her job as a teacher when Andrew was born, but was now ready to start teaching again. She was offered a job at WCS the year Andrew was in K-5. Looking to expand the school the next year, they needed a larger facility. After much searching, Woodmont Christian School started discussions with Northwest Christian Academy, which was the school that met at Christ Chapel. This church was planning to build a bigger church building and convert its current building to a school only. After much talking and praying, the two schools decided to merge into Shoals Christian School at the Christ Chapel building. While there were a few doctrinal differences between Woodmont Baptist Church and Christ Chapel, it was decided that none of them was a deal breaker. Thus, a combined school ministry began and continues to this day. Kathy began teaching at SCS the following year, and Andrew became a first grader there. Kathy still works for SCS; Andrew graduated from there in 2009.

Shortly after Kathy started working for WCS, she decided to attend Woodmont Baptist Church. Andrew attended with her. I had deconverted from Christianity before Andrew was born and by this time I was only attending church sporadically. Kathy ultimately decided to join Woodmont. Andrew joined a few years later and was baptized.

Sometime after Andrew became a teenager, he became more interested in the charismatic movement and joined Christ Chapel’s youth group. He was not yet driving, so on Wednesday evenings I would drive him to Christ Chapel (only a few minutes from home) for the youth meetings and then pick him up afterwards. Later still he actually began attending some Sunday services there. Eventually, Andrew began speaking in tongues and had his own prayer language.

Occasionally, I would attend Sunday services with Andrew at Christ Chapel. I discovered that several people I knew from the Church of Christ were now members there. This was quite a radical change, but I guess not as radical as my change was. My observation was that Christ Chapel’s worship was very similar to Woodmont Baptist’s worship. The main difference seemed to be the preacher in the former breaking into the occasional tongue speaking. The people there were always welcoming and friendly.

Let me now switch gears and talk about Faith Tabernacle. The first contact I remember with this church was in the mid 1980s when Don Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association and American Family Radio, came to speak one evening. Wildmon was a very outspoken United Methodist minister that was fighting a battle against the increasing immorality in the movies, on TV, and in music. His battle was known as the Campaign for Decency. Faith Tabernacle had decided to host an event where he could voice his concerns. Interestingly, a Church of Christ preacher was also supporting Wildmon and was at the meeting. In the spirit of cooperation, the music before the program was alternately led by a Faith Tabernacle member, then by the Church of Christ preacher. When the former led, instruments accompanied the singing. When the latter led, the singing was a cappella.

When my son was a teenager, he would occasionally attend a once-a-week fellowship at Faith Tabernacle called Hebrew Café. There young people could listen to music, play games, and have snacks and beverages, all within a safe environment.

While I always found the members of both Faith Tabernacle (Faith Church) and Christ Chapel inviting and friendly, I just couldn’t get into the emotional element that was present at their services. I guess I am just a mental type person that is convinced that our beliefs should be based on reason, not emotion. That is why I was intrigued by the Worldwide Church of God and the Church of Christ. Both took a rational approach to understanding the Bible. I liked that. Of course, I eventually came to realize that the Bible was not the reliable source of information I once thought it was. Necessarily, I had to deconvert. I vow to always follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Speaking of evidence, a few years ago Shoals Christian School was contacted by Josh McDowell’s ministry. They were going to be on tour and needed to fill a speaking gap one day. They were going to be near the area, so wanted to know if SCS wanted to host an event. Of course, they jumped on it. McDowell spoke at the school during the day, and then spoke to the community that evening at Christ Chapel. One of the things that endears me to McDowell is his position on faith, reason, and evidence. As you probably know, Josh McDowell is the author of the world famous books on Christian evidences entitled “More Than a Carpenter” and “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”.

At that meeting, McDowell asked the audience why Christian evidences was so important. He answered his own question with words like these, “Anyone can believe anything by faith. All you have to do is choose to believe it, whether it’s true or not. In order to be sure our faith is in something that is true, we must have evidence of its validity.” I almost stood up and shouted, “Amen, brother!” even though I was no longer a Christian at that point. I totally agreed with him. Only believe in that for which the evidence supports. The problem is that when it comes to something like the Biblical text where we can’t go back in time and actually observe the events reported therein, evidence can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Also, different people require differing levels of evidence to be convinced of something. That is why we sometimes have hung juries. Anyway, Josh McDowell has found the evidence he requires to believe the Bible; I have not.

A short time after McDowell spoke at Christ Chapel I was there for a Sunday morning service. The pastor of the church was preaching about faith. I do not remember his exact words, but basically he told the congregants that he didn’t need any evidence for his faith because he could feel it inside. I guess he didn’t agree with Josh McDowell like I did.

First Contact – Part 6 – Mormons

As I was finishing up college, I had some free time on my hands before starting my new job. I would sit up late each night reading. I read mostly the various photography and astronomy magazines I subscribed to and science fiction novels. However, I would occasionally grow tired of these, so began reading the Old Testament in the Bible. I made it through about 2 Kings before it was time to head to Alabama to start my career.

I soon got busy with other things and quit reading the Bible. However, I would occasionally discuss religion with friends and coworkers. One person suggested I get a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible as he thought it was one of the better translations. I did. Over time I came to realize that several people I knew at work were Mormon. I was familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, knowing about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Joseph Smith and the golden plates, and the church’s family orientation. But I had never actually studied with a Mormon. That changed when a university cooperative student named Sam came to work for me. I found out Sam was also Mormon and began asking some questions about his faith. He soon set up a meeting between me and a couple of missionaries.

I guess I was sort of searching at that point in my life. Even though I had for many years felt like there was a God, but did not believe in any particular God, I felt like there had to be more to religion. After all, there were many people who did believe in a particular God and had a particular faith. Could they all be wrong? I didn’t know for sure. But I was willing to discuss it to find out.

I met once a week with the Mormon missionaries at Sam’s apartment. I found the studies somewhat interesting, but I was a bit dismayed by their approach. Rather than pointing out the evidence for believing the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they rather asked that I pray during the week for God to reveal to me the truthfulness of the these books. I did that, but got no response. I also attended the local Mormon Church a time or two. Then one week the missionaries told me that they thought I needed to set a date to join the church. They believed that if I showed God I was serious, he would honor that date and bring me to belief before it arrived. That did not set well with me. I told them that I didn’t think it was a good idea to basically push God into revealing himself to me on my schedule rather than his. So, I broke off my studies with them. Fortunately, Sam understood and we remained friends. Interestingly, a few years later Sam left the Mormon Church.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I ultimately ended up joining the Church of Christ, only to become an agnostic about seven years later. While I was a member of the church, a couple of Mormon missionaries came to my apartment while door knocking. I let them in. After some introductions, we began discussing the Bible in earnest. It was at that point that I realized how inexperienced some of these missionaries are. I began questioning some of their beliefs in light of what the Bible said. Often they were unaware of the Biblical statements or lacked an understanding of what the verses were saying. Again, it seemed that they believed that our faith should come directly from God via prayer rather than by study and understanding.

After my deconversion, I recall sitting in a booth at our company’s snack bar with a fellow employee that I didn’t know very well. I did, however, know he was Mormon. Our conversation turned to religion and I told him of my current beliefs. At this point in my agnosticism I liked asking religious people whether or not they believed I was going to hell. I let them know that I would not be offended by any answer they might give. After all, I would tell them, they were not going to be my judge, God was. This particular fellow found himself unable to give me an answer no matter how much I urged him to answer and no matter how much assurance I gave him that I would not be upset by any answer he gave. I assumed that if he believed I was alright in God’s eyes, he would tell me so. Thus, his reluctance to answer told me that he did indeed believe I was lost, but just couldn't bring himself to tell me.

The one thing that I find very interesting about people who are confident about their salvation and other people’s lack of it, is that they typically believe that many of those lost people truly believe they are saved when in fact they are not. If that is possible, then is it not possible for those people themselves to be wrong about their own salvation. Think about it. If you are confident you are right with God, you don’t even know to seek something different so that you will truly be right with God.

Several years ago my work took me to the Salt Lake City region of Utah where I was able to visit the Salt Lake Temple. It is something to see. While walking around the courtyard during one visit, a couple of missionaries started a discussion with me. I explained my religious background and told them why I was now agnostic. We had a nice conversation. They even told me about the some of the people memorialized there with statues. That is the last time I remember talking to Mormons about religious matters.

Like so many other religious people, I always found the Mormons to be courteous and nice people. They are strong on family values, which I like. But I personally cannot subscribe to their faith.

First Contact – Part 5 – Faith Healers

As I was growing up, there were a number of faith healers on television. They were always fascinating with their dramatics and head popping. I often wondered why there were so many sick people in the world given the number of people of faith capable of healing. I thought perhaps it had something to do with the lack of faith of the sick people. But upon examining the Bible, I realized that the healings mentioned there had more to do with the faith of the healer than the faith of the healee.

One faith healer in particular I used to watch on TV was Ernest Angley. Although I was always skeptical of the supposed healings that occurred at his hand, I found him to be flamboyant, yet intriguing and entertaining to watch. In October 1978, I heard that Angley was coming to a nearby civic center, and I knew I had to go. The program lasted about four hours and was filled with preaching, music, healing, and money collection. I was hoping to see what I would have considered a true miracle. This would consist of some type of healing that obviously violated the laws of nature such as a missing limb growing back instantly. I was not so fortunate. Most of the healings consisted of relieving nicotine addictions, reinstituting lost senses of smell, and reversing hearing loss. Absolutely nothing occurred during the four hours that came close to convincing me that Angley was God’s man of the hour. Further, when he began blessing boxes of trinkets before his assistants took to the audience to sell them, he lost any semblance of confidence I may have had in him. Still, I thought it would be interesting to talk to a person who was “healed” that day. About a month later I got my wish.

While at a funeral home during a visitation, my father introduced me to a man that he knew from years past and told me that he had been at the Angley service. Further, he had been on the stage and had had his hearing healed. No, he had not been deaf, just a bit hard of hearing. Since the healing, his hearing was much improved. Ever the skeptic, I began talking to him softly, thinking that if his hearing had not been healed he would have difficulty understanding me over the din of voices surrounding us. He heard everything I said. I was impressed, but not convinced. After all, I had never talked to the man before his healing, so there was no way for me to know the extent of his hearing loss. Perhaps he had gotten good at reading lips and knew what I was saying even though he could not hear me well.

In college, my friend Doug and I used to study and hang out together. At some point he got involved in a charismatic movement and converted to it from Catholicism. After college he got a job as an engineer just as I did, but later was led to work as a campus minister. The last time I saw Doug was at my wedding. While catching up on our lives he told me a story that I will never forget. One day at the campus ministry house a man showed up with some missing fingers due to an unfortunate run-in with a lawn mower. Doug and another person laid hands on the man and prayed for him. Then, right before their eyes, the man’s fingers grew back to full length.

I was astonished. What was I to make of this story? Was my good friend lying? Was he deluded? Had he been tricked? Or could it be that the healing actually happened just as he reported? Having not been present at the healing, there was no way for me to know for sure.

So, when it comes to faith healing, I remain a skeptic since I have never actually seen one. But, regardless of my skepticism, there do seem to be some credible stories that indicate healings do take place that cannot be explained naturally. But we must keep in mind that there is much we don’t know about nature, especially as it relates to the human body. Just as lightning at one time was thought to be from a supernatural source but now is known to be natural, perhaps one day those unexplainable healings will be explained.

I discuss this topic in more detail in my book God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God.

Response to Joel Anderson's Critique of My Book, Part 1

My friend, Joel Anderson, has written his first blog post critiquing my book "God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God". For some reason, Google was not allowing me to post a response directly on his blog, so I am posting it here on mine.

Thanks, Joel. You are a man of your word, and I appreciate that.

I just wanted to make a few points of clarification.

Reason and logic are not a panacea. To live our lives 100% by R&L requires us to have all knowledge related to a topic and to be capable of flawless logic. In this temporal life, we rarely have the time to gather all relevant information and examine it thoroughly. We almost always make decisions based on partial knowledge. Faith bridges the gap. So R&L and faith are both needed to function properly in this life. That said, I believe the more we use R&L, the closer to the truth we will come.

When I say that we should examine the Bible through the filter of R&L, what I am saying is that if there are any obvious contradictions or irrationalities, it is not a good idea to just accept them by faith. It is best to say, "Well, the Bible has flaws in it" rather than say "I don't understand these seeming contradictions, but I know the Bible is 100% true, so I believe it anyway."

While some Christians believe the Bible should be accepted by faith alone, others actually believe in some combination of faith and reason. Once a Christian friend said to me, "People need to understand that the Bible should be believed by faith." I said, "If that's true, then why can't a person believe ANY religion by faith?" Knowing he was cornered he responded, "Well, I guess one needs to use faith and reason." I said, "Exactly! The problem is now how much of each?"

Also, notice that I didn't say in my book that only natural explanations should be accepted for reported supernatural events. I said if any natural explanations exist they are to be preferred. I fail to see how this is controversial. Even Christians do this when it comes to current day events. If someone says he killed another person because God commanded him to, even a Christian would not believe it without an abundance of proof. But when the Old Testament reports that God commanded the Israelites to kill people, they accept it without an abundance of proof. That is illogical to me. Be skeptical of both.

Since I have never experienced any supernatural events (something that defies the known laws of physics and nature) in my entire life, it seems reasonable to me that I should be skeptical of supernatural reports from others. After all, when many of these claims are actually investigated, a natural explanation is found. Other times we find that the person was fooled, exaggerating, or lying. But if the gospel stories are indeed true, then I am not nearly as skeptical as the apostles were of Jesus' resurrection. They disbelieved the testimony of their friends even though they had seen Jesus perform many miracles and had themselves performed them. They still had to see physical proof. I ask no more. (See http://www.rcfinch.com/philosophy/TheApostlesAreOurExample.pdf)

Finally, I am a skeptic, but more accurately I call myself a theistic leaning agnostic. That means that I don't know for sure if God exists, but I tend to believe he does. But based on all the evidence I have encountered along my space-time continuum path, I do not believe supernatural events occur. It doesn't mean they don't, it just means that I am very skeptical based on my experiences. The reason I mostly believe in a god (or creator), is that the Universe doesn't seem to be able to explain its own existence. That may change with more research, but currently it seems more knowledge just leads to more questions. What I don't believe is that God is any of the ones portrayed by the religions of the world. I believe the descriptions of the gods in religions are just how the writers of the holy books personally viewed God. A person in any of these religions would be just as skeptical as me about all other religions but their own. I am just skeptical of one more than they are.

If God exists, it appears he has given mankind the gift of reason to keep us from believing the unbelievable. Surely he would not want us to squander this ability.

A Response to a Commentary by Tim Wildmon

Today on "Today's Issues with Tim Wildmon" on American Family Radio, Tim Wildmon was interviewing Sallie Hite McDaniel. During their discussion about McDaniel's new book Jesus is My Thesis, Wildmon asked some interesting questions. Paraphrasing: "Why are some atheists so militant about debunking the beliefs of Christians given that they do not believe in God and the set of morals given by Him? If there are no absolute morals, why would an atheist care what other people believe?" McDaniel's answer was the typical one. Atheists do not want to be burdened with a lifestyle mandated by God. They want to be able to do what pleases them without any restrictions.

I believe it is true that some atheists oppose religion simply because they do not want other people telling them how to live their lives. But for most of them I believe it only becomes a problem when certain behaviors are banned by law. In other words, I believe most atheists don't really have a problem with religious people expressing an opinion about what is moral and what is not as long as it remains an opinion. But if religious people are able to get a certain behavior banned by law where getting caught results in punishment, the atheist would then object. But even atheists would be opposed to such things as murder, rape, theft, etc., and would want them outlawed. What's the difference? Well, these latter activities involve using force against other people, which essentially everyone agrees should be punishable by law. It's those consensual activities such as homosexuality, premarital sex, and so on, that the atheist believes should remain outside the courtroom.

That being said, I realize that there are also some atheists that are trying to bring religion to its knees. They want religion destroyed. But if they truly believe that no set of morals is any better than another, then indeed this doesn't make any sense. How can a person justify trying to destroy other people's beliefs in the name of protecting his own? Even so, it seems that the justification for these atheists' animosity is that they believe religion as a whole is detrimental to society as a whole. And indeed, this is something I have pondered myself. History and my own observations show that many people do many good things in the name of their religion. But it is also true that much evil has been done in the name of religion. So, does the good outweigh the bad? To me, that is not an easy question to answer. In an overarching sense, I tend to believe it balances itself out. Good people will do good with or without religion. Bad people will do bad with or without religion. It is more a mental issue than a religious issue.

I was glad to hear Wildmon say that he could respect an honest agnostic more than a militant atheist. That is because I am personally an honest agnostic. And not just any ole agnostic. I am a theistic leaning agnostic. By that I mean that I more believe there is a God than not. Specifically, it's 75.314159% theist and 24.685841% atheist. ;>) What I do not believe is that God intervenes in our natural world. Why? Because I have not personally experienced him doing so or seen any credible evidence of him doing so. And yes, I understand that just because I haven't seen any evidence doesn't necessarily make me right. Then why do I still lean toward believing in God? Because our Universe does not appear to be eternal, but cannot explain its own existence. The deeper physicists dig into the nature of the cosmos, the more questions there seem to be about its existence. Given our current state of knowledge, it makes more sense to me that a being outside our natural realm is responsible for creating the Universe than the Universe somehow created itself. Science seems to be good at learning how the Universe works, but not so good at learning why the Universe works.

So, if God exists, which one is it? Which religion got it right? I personally don't think any religion got it right. All religions appear to be based on the writings and thoughts of men. And as we all know, men are fallible and oftentimes believe things that simply aren't true. Since I grew up in a society that is mostly Christian, it was only natural that I spent most of my time reading the Bible. Being in agreement with apologists like Josh McDowell, I realized that my beliefs could not be based purely on faith since any religion can be believed by faith alone. Reasoned evidence must accompany my belief. After becoming a Christian in 1980, I began reading the Bible in earnest. After much study, I concluded that the God of the Bible was not real and that Jesus was not divine. The thought that finally allowed me to say without fear that I was no longer a Christian was, "What if God exists and Jesus was just a man, as the evidence indicates? Would God approve of me worshipping a fellow human being as though he were God himself?" To remain honest with myself, I had to de-convert.

So, based on my many years of study and observation, I have concluded, as did Thomas Paine, that God is only knowable by what he created, not by any revelation given to select individuals.

It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, p. 32)

This is a very insightful statement; one that I quote in my most recent book. If you want to learn more about my study of the Bible and the conclusions I drew, please read my book God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God.

Knowing God Through Pain

In Sunday School this morning we were discussing Psalm 102. At one point the teacher asked if anyone would like to share how God had become more real to them due to some painful event in his/her life. Several responded. Their stories were supplemented in a powerful way during our worship service when quite a few congregants participated in Cardboard Testimonies. While the choir sang and the lights were down, people would step onto the stage with a large piece of cardboard in their hands. The spotlight was trained on these people so the signs were easily visible. Written on the cardboard was a message about some tragic event that took place in that person's life. After giving time for everyone to read the message, the cardboard was flipped over to reveal an encouraging message about how, through the help of God, tragedy was converted to healing, or at least the person had been given the wherewithal to endure the problem. It was a powerful and moving event. My wife was in tears and I, not usually very emotional, started to tear up as well. Stories of healing in the face of devastation seem to always bring out raw emotion in me. However, being the skeptic that I am, I always try to retain my rationality throughout.

While I know that most, if not all, of the people on that stage believe that it was God that saw them through the hard times, I am not convinced. I believe that most people have the innate ability to overcome life's problems on their own. It's just that some people doubt that ability and need to have an outside source of comfort to press them forward. As our preacher said this morning, if you are in a boat that you want to hold it in position in the face of a storm, you need an anchor. Keeping the anchor onboard (relying on self) allows the boat (ourselves) to be tossed about by the storm (life's circumstances). However, throwing the anchor overboard so that it is latched onto something external to the boat (God) will help hold it steady. This is a very good analogy, but I don't believe it applies in this circumstance.

I have known a number of people who are not believers that have been able to endure life's difficulties just fine. They had the ability to handle the rough situations in other ways besides turning to God. This suggests to me that we humans have the capacity to overcome our problems inherent in ourselves. However, I understand that it is not easy, and I can understand why people want to throw up their hands and rely on a more powerful source to help them through. In fact, a good unbelieving friend of mine, who has been and still is enduring a troublesome disease and whose wife is a cancer survivor, recently told me that he sometimes wishes that he had faith in a higher being. He thought that such a belief might bring more comfort during the bad times. Yet he, like me, believes that the existence of God is a matter of fact, not faith. In other words, God's existence or non-existence can only be determined through investigation, not by our feelings or emotions.

I am conflicted. It is sometimes difficult to discuss these things with people who sincerely believe that God has moved in a powerful way in their lives. I feel as though I am somehow shooting down that which they find most important in their lives. So, I try to tread lightly. Yet, as I told a believing friend of mine at lunch a few days ago when he mentioned the importance of faith. There is something even more important: TRUTH!

Salvation Unrevealed

In yesterday's post I presented Finch's Salvation Equations. As a reminder, here they are again:

1. Faith + NoWorks <> Salvation
2. NoFaith + Works <> Salvation
3. Faith + Works = Salvation

By way of clarification, I do not intend these to be as set in stone as, say, Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations (which I have on a t-shirt; it says, "And God said: [four vector equations, some involving partial differentiation] and there was light." I love this shirt!) My equations are simply the best solution I have found to the multitude of salvation formulas presented in the New Testament. But I freely admit that I do not know with certainty what the Bible teaches as being required for salvation. Further, I do not believe anyone else does either, and thus do not and cannot know with certainty that they are saved.

Proof That No One Knows With Certainty That They Are Saved:

1. When a saved person is asked, "Are there any people in the world that truly believe they are saved, but are in fact lost?", the answer is "Yes!"
2. Response to the saved person: "Then perhaps you are one of those people."
QED

I am being a bit facetious here, but my point is that most people who know with certainty they are right with God also believe that there are others who know with as much certainty as they, yet are lost. These people negate their own case for certainty with such beliefs.

I grew up as an only child with parents that respected the Bible, but rarely went to church. My mom would have gone more, but did not drive, so was dependent on rides from family and friends. As a young adult, I was quite certain that the Bible was strictly the work of men, not God. Later, I came to believe that the Bible was the word of God and accepted Jesus as my savior. But within two years, I was beginning to doubt. This was a result of studying the Bible more deeply and questioning those things I did not understand or made no sense. Over the following five years, my faith faded away to be replaced by Deism (the belief that there is a Creator God, but he is not necessarily the God presented by any religion, and may in fact be an impersonal God). I now consider myself an agnostic (I freely admit that I just don't know if God exists). There are aspects of the Universe that scream to me "I was created!" Yet, there are other aspects that scream "I am eternal, not created!" Which screams do I listen to? In case you don't know, the correct answer is "BOTH!" Hence, agnosticism.

I will speak more of these screaming voices in future posts.

A Fine Non-Revelatory Day

Do you ever have one of those days where you think deeply about life, yours and others, and wonder what, if any, purpose is behind it all? I do. But today was not one of those days.

In Sunday School this morning we discussed faith vs works as presented in the book of James. Generally Baptists believe that salvation is based on faith plus nothing. This has always been problematic for me since it would seem to me that that would mean that there are faith people who do no works that will be saved. But James says that faith without works is dead. Generally this is explained by saying that a saving faith will lead to works automatically, but it is the faith that's important, not the works. Isn't this just semantics? If the only kind of faith that saves is one that results in works, are not the works just as important in the salvation equation as is faith. To put my interpretation of the Bible into mathematical formulas, I get these:

1. Faith + NoWorks <> Salvation
2. NoFaith + Works <> Salvation
3. Faith + Works = Salvation

Of course many people worry that if 3 is true, then one might become overly concerned that they are not doing enough works to be saved. Understood! But if no works are present, won't they worry that their faith is dead? Won't some workers still fear that their faith is not strong enough? In other words, there's always something to worry about if you want to worry.

The student minister at our church preached today. WOW! He was on fire. He had that right balance of humor and seriousness that most people enjoy in a preacher. And to top it all off, at the end of the service, he asked his girlfriend to marry him. Yeah, right there in front of the entire congregation. That's risky in my book, but fortunately she said "Yes."