Revelation - Armageddon

I Climbed the Hill of Calvary

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:45:46 GMT

One of the great disappointments in Jerusalem for most people is a visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Archaeology, history, science and tradition all point to this site as the authentic location of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. But whatever visual construct a person may have regarding the landscape of "Golgatha," they are usually unprepared for the dark, noisy, crowded cacophony of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, with its multiple owners, constant bickering and lack of any sense of the original setting. On the other hand, the Garden Tomb outside the walls of the Old City looks the part perfectly, but doesn’t really make it on scholarly grounds.

So it may be best to characterize the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as the "left-brained" site of Jesus’ death and resurrection. While it is most likely the accurate site of these events, it is very unsatisfying to people of faith, at least those of a more Bible-based variety. On the other hand, the Garden Tomb is the "right-brained" site of Jesus’ death and resurrection. While there is no solid evidence to consider it the actual place of these events, it provides the feel of those things that faith longs for.

We had the opportunity to visit both sites in the last few days and I found the Church more interesting than in the past, probably because I understand its geography a bit better. When you enter the main door, just to your right is a staircase that leads up to a chamber that is likely right above what’s left of the rock of Calvary. But the rock can only been seen through a few panes of glass and felt through a small hole under an altar. When you descend these stairs you come to a stone slab that is thought to be the place where the body of Jesus was prepared after execution. A few dozen yards away is a large indoor shrine that house what’s left of the cave where Jesus is thought to have been buried. Having all of these indoors in a massive cathedral is a bit off-putting, but I had a better sense than before of the layout and the meaning of the layout.

Today we visited the Garden Tomb and had a short worship service and communion. This was spiritually uplifting. The site is quiet, beautiful and meets the mind’s picture of the events. So I repeated something I had said quite frequently in the past week and a half, "I don’t know for sure exactly where this event occurred, but for our purposes this spot is ‘close enough.’" We have seen so many places where it is certain Jesus passed by, it has helped to make these things more real in our lives. I hope each of you has the opportunity to do something like this sometime.

Dead Sea Scrolling

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:55:20 GMT

Spent the day in the Dead Sea area. Visited the ruins of Herod’s palace on top of the fortress mountain of Masada. Stopped in at the ruins of a synagogue at En Gedi (had hoped to hike up to David’s hideout there– in a wet cave–but the threat of flash floods closed the place). Visited Qumran, the home of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And managed to avoid a swim in the Dead Sea, since a cold rain was falling when we got there! Spose this is a good time to mention it has rained pretty much every day we were here. That is extremely unusual in this Mediterranean (like Southern California) climate. But our misery is their blessing. The Dead Sea surface level has gone from about 1280 feet below sea level to about 1377 in the last twenty years. That is how fast the Dead Sea is disappearing, all because the rapidly growing country of Israel uses more water than it receives from the heavens. So the flow of the Jordan River into the Dead Sea has slowed to a trickle.

We ended the day with a visit to "Abraham" in his tent, about 15 miles east of Jerusalem. He explained to us the importance of hospitality in the ancient world and offered to show a lot more to all our friends in the future– for a fee of course! I’ve noticed that Middle Easterners are real good at selling things, whether it is their own skills or the products of someone else’s labors.

Probably the most memorable part of the day was our visit to Qumran, where we came into closer contact with a community of people, who were there in the time of Jesus, who left us a large collection of scrolls, some of which they wrote and others they may have collected. Some of those scrolls were books and portions of the Hebrew Bible (called Old Testament by many). Others included commentaries and selections from the Hebrew Bible. Still other scrolls were religious classics we already knew about. And still others described the community and its beliefs and practices. My wife was especially excited to see the holes in the cliffs opposite the community that were cave entrances were. One of these alone had contained portions of 530 different scrolls.

The religious community at Qumran had abandoned mainstream life out of a conviction that they were approaching the end of the world and that God was calling them to a life of strict purity and carefulness. Some think that John the Baptist spent part of his youth in this community, which was located not far from where Jesus was baptized. We are grateful that their faith resulted in a gift to us of scrolls that illuminate New Testament times and the Scriptures that the New Testament writers used as the basis of their faith.

Tomorrow we will be back in Jerusalem, visiting the "City of David," the original part of Jerusalem that is 3000 years old. Then we will trace the Via Dolorosa, the traditional path of Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion, from the Pool of Bethesda to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It is a privilege to be here.

One Thing After Another

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:28:16 GMT

Visiting the Bible lands is like drinking from a fire hose. Just one of the sites could be inspiration enough for a year or a lifetime, but especially in Jerusalem it is one inspiring spot after another. In less than 24 hours we experienced the place where Jesus may have been baptized, the place where the Israelites crossed the Jordan, a view of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, the top of the temple mount, the western wall tunnels (which put one in close touch with so many things in ancient Jerusalem), the newly excavated staircase leading up to the temple in Jesus’ day, the Roman shopping street, the place of the last supper, the place where Peter denied his Lord, the street where Jesus and His disciples walked on the way to the Garden of Gethsemane, and Oskar Schindler’s grave. Do I need to go on? It was a lot to process for me and for those here for the first time, their heads were truly swimming.

Probably the most moving moment was in the Church of All Nations by the Garden of Gethsemane. Having just walked down the Mount of Olives, the group was confronted by a large rock in the center of the church that is thought to be the place where Jesus drew away from his disciples and wrestled with God over the fate of the human race. Pastors became moved over the commitment Jesus made to their salvation and one by one they knelt next to the stone, put their hands on it and offered prayers of gratitude and of commitments of their own. It was touching to see their solemnity afterwards as they pondered things bigger than themselves.

At the upper room, we contemplated the significance of the original footwashing and realized it called all of us to sacrificial service for others. To lay aside our pride and make a serious commitment to the betterment of all, whatever it takes.

Can’t wait to share some pictures with you, but I need a connector for my camera that I left at home. Stay tuned!

I Walked Today Where Jesus Walked

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:48:03 GMT

This Sabbath we had a special worship service at the traditional place where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, the Mount of the Beatitudes. There is a shrine on the hillside overlooking the Sea of Galilee, perhaps a mile from the shore and four hundred feet in altitude. People offered testimony of how direct contact with the Bible Lands was transforming their picture of Jesus.

Then we set out on foot to walk all the way down to the shore with the Sea before us and green fields all around us. At the shore we visited the place where Jesus is thought to have provided breakfast on the beach to His disciples and then we ate lunch in ancient Capernaum, the village that Jesus considered home during the major part of his ministry. Capernaum is the location of the house of Peter and the synagogue where Jesus preached and did some of His miracles.

But for me the highlight was probably walking through the fields on the way down to the lake. At one point you could see the four types of soils that Jesus mentions in one of His parables, the parable of the sower. There is a path that is trodden firm and would not allow seeds to penetrate the soil, leaving them vulnerable to hungry birds. There is some stony ground that may allow a seed to sprout but leaves it vulnerable to dryness. There was a patch of weeds, which might allow a see to sprout, but would then choke it out, denying the new plant the sunlight it needs to survive and grow. But finally there was really good soil, that was producing a huge harvest.

It made me wonder, what kind of soil am I? Do I have a learning, teachable spirit? Am I open to the leading of the Holy Spirit or do I like things just the way they are. People are a lot like plants. Unless they grow, they will die. But growth means change and we often hate change. So how open am I to God bringing constructive change into my life? What about you?

The Hidden Years of Nazareth

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:03:33 GMT

Recently visited the site of ancient Nazareth. Most people stop in at the Church of the Annunciation, which is built over the supposed spot where the angel met Mary and announced the coming of the Messiah. There is also a shrine at the spot where Joseph’s house was presumed to be, about a hundred yards away. Then they get on the bus and move on to somewhere else.

I wanted a more authentic experience and arranged for locals to open the gates into the archaeological site under the plaza between the two churches. Here we came face to face with a startling reality. Archaeology has found evidence for at most one dwelling in first century Nazareth, but there is evidence for numerous inhabited caves and we got to see at least two of those, just outside the Church of the Annunciation. While we don’t know for certain which of these caves was the place where Jesus grew up, there is no question that we were on the spot of some of Jesus’ neighbors.

Since all of Nazareth back then spanned at most a couple hundred meters, scholars estimate that Nazareth in the time of Jesus was made up of at most 480 total people. Jesus lived in a small, isolated village so insignificant that it left very little evidence of its existence in any formal constructed sense. Jesus truly "humbled himself" in coming to this earth (Phil 2:6-8).

Recently a "Jesus boat" was found at the bottom of the Sea of Galilee. It was dated to the very time of Christ and showed the kind of boat that typical fishermen used at the time. So we are getting a strong sense of the environment and landscape that Jesus would have experienced long, long ago.

The Land of Armageddon

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:31:53 GMT

I plan to continue with a couple more blogs on leadership in the New Testament, but right now I am leading a tour of the Bible lands and wanted to update you on that.

Yesterday, we visited Caesarea, Mount Carmel the ruins of ancient Megiddo and ancient Nazareth. On Mount Carmel we visited the presumed site of Elijah’s showdown with the prophets of Baal. In a driving rain we looked down on the Valley of Megiddo (Jezreel) and then went into a church to have a reading of 1 Kings 18. I don’t have my camera cord with me, so I won’t be able to post pictures with the blog. After Mount Carmel we drove down to the ruins of ancient Megiddo, also in the rain, which was unfortunate as my pictures are not very good.

In Revelation 16:16 it talks about gathering the kings of the earth to a place that is called in Hebrew "Har-Magedon" (a literal transliteration of the Greek). The Hebrew word "Har" means mountain. And "Magedon" is the Greek word often used to translate the Hebrew name "Megiddo." So the most straightforward translation of Armageddon is "Mountain of Megiddo." But the big problem is that there is no mountain in all the world that is called Megiddo. You have a city of Megiddo and you have a Valley of Megiddo, but neither qualifies as a Mountain of Megiddo. So in a symbolic book like Revelation (see Rev 1:1 in the Greek) you look in another direction to understand John’s purpose.

If you read the article on Armageddon in the Anchor Bible Dictionary you discover that the most likely meaning of Armageddon in Revelation is as a pointer to the Mount Carmel episode in 1 Kings 18. Elijah and the prophets of Baal competed to bring fire down from heaven to earth in order to prove which God was more powerful or more real. Similar themes are found in the book of Revelation (Rev 13:13-14), but there the evidence supports the counterfeit trinity of dragon, beast and false prophet. So the Battle of Armageddon is a spiritual battle over the allegiance of the human race. And to some degree, the small decisions we make every day are part of that battle.

Where the geography of the Bible Lands comes into play here is that Mount Carmel looms over the city of Megiddo, which lies at the edge of a major valley. From the ruins of Tel Megiddo you can see the peak of the Carmel range and the likely spot where Elijah met the prophets of Baal in spiritual battle. That is the point of connection between Megiddo and Mount Carmel. The showdown on Mount Carmel becomes a model in Revelation for the spiritual battle that we face every day at the end of earth’s history. Apocalyptic assures us that the little decisions of every day life are full of apocalyptic meaning.

Find Me on Facebook!

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:13:35 GMT

Just a quick note to let you know that I now have a working Facebook page and have begun posting chapter summaries of the book Ministry of Healing there. You can access this at https://www.facebook.com/jonpaulien.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Models of Christian Leadership

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:32:20 GMT

The other day I was invited to teach a class in New Testament leadership. The material seemed to go over real well with a group of Doctor of Ministry students. So I thought I’d share some excerpts with the online audience here.

One of the biggest challenges in any kind of faith work these days is leadership. Without leadership few good things happen in this world, yet how do you do good leadership? Do you follow the models of western corporations? How about those of democratic governments? Or would you prefer the more autocratic leadership style of a Vladimir Putin or a King Abdullah? Does the New Testament have anything to say about these various styles of leadership? Should followers of Jesus exhibit a leadership style that is different from the models in the popular consciousness?

It goes, perhaps, without saying that the ultimate source of all leadership models is God, the author of creation. Like the manufacturer of an automobile, who provides a manual for that car’s use and care, God is in the best position to understand human beings and how they function as individuals and in groups. But this assertion does little to assist us in the project of understanding leadership principles. No one has ever seen, heard or touched God. So direct knowledge of God, or of the leadership principles He manifests in governing the universe, is not available to us.

In Scripture, however, God has chosen to reveal Himself in human language. The Bible is not a complete revelation of God, but it offers inspired testimonies of how God spoke and acted in specific human situations over many centuries. While God’s self-disclosure is limited by the human context, the Bible offers the clearest revelation of the eternal God available to the human race. This is the place where all Christian leadership models must be tested.

The New Testament portion of the Bible is centered on the life, death, resurrection and heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ. As God in human flesh, He is the clearest revelation of God. He models God’s way of leadership in terms that human beings can understand. As a result, nearly every leadership title in the New Testament is applied to Jesus at one time or another. He is called "servant" (Phil. 2:7), "apostle" (Heb. 3:1), "prophet" (John 4:44; Acts 3:22-23), "overseer" (1 Pet. 2:25), "deacon" (Rom. 15:8), "ruler," (Rev 1:5), "captain" (Heb 12:2), "shepherd" (John 10:1-7; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25), and "lord/master," (Eph. 6:9; Phil. 2:11; Col. 4:1), among others. Any study of Christian leadership principles, therefore, must begin and end with Jesus Christ.

Jesus not only modeled on earth what God is like, He also mentored the apostles in the divine principles of leadership. After His ascension He sent the Holy Spirit to inspire the apostles and the Christian prophets to carry on the work that He had begun on this earth (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:12-13). The apostles then passed on to others what they had received from Jesus (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 1 John 1:1-4). As He Himself told them, "I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you." (John 13:15, NIV, cf. 13:13-17) Those who were closest to the earthly Jesus absorbed His leadership skills directly. Jesus is the clearest revelation of God. His apostles have passed on the clearest revelation of Jesus.

In the New Testament, this role was particularly played by Paul (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). While not one of the twelve disciples, Paul frequently applied the title "apostle" to himself (Rom. 11:13; 1 Cor 9:1-2; 15:9). In Acts 20:17-35 Paul gathered the elders of the church of Ephesus at Miletus to pass on what he had learned from Jesus. As the faithful disciple of Jesus (20:19, 24) he is able to mentor the elders of Ephesus. The heart of Christian leadership is to be like Jesus, doing and teaching what Jesus taught. Following in the leadership path of Jesus includes servanthood (Luke 22:24-27; John 12:26; Acts 20:19), self-sacrifice (Acts 20:19-23), a strong sense of accountability (20:26-28), vigilance in the face of spiritual threats (20:29-32), and service, not for pay, but out of a strong sense of being commissioned by Jesus Himself (20:33-35). This is the starting point for a New Testament view of leadership.

The Implications of the Cross

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:26:28 GMT

This blog stands by itself, but can also be read as the conclusion of the previous three blogs. What was the cross all about in God’s purpose? What difference did it make? I’d like to highlight two things. First, the cross changes the way we look at our personal lives, particularly our mistakes and failures. According to the Bible, human beings are not simply imperfect creatures that need improvement, we are rebels who must lay down our arms. Those who crucified Jesus acted no differently than we would have, given the same circumstances. In other words, the struggle to overcome evil is not, first of all, a social or political task, it is a struggle against the evil within.

This "repentance" is not fun. Acknowledging failure is humiliating and repugnant. But it is the necessary path toward redeeming our lives from the downward spiral of the evil that besets us all. It is the only way to bring our lives into the sunshine of reality. This "repentance" is simply recognizing the truth about ourselves. We will never change until we are willing to be changed, until we recognize that change is needed.

The neat thing about God’s plan is that He understands what this struggle for authenticity is all about. In submitting Himself to the humiliation of the cross, Jesus experienced the kind of surrender we need. In the Garden of Gethsemane He struggled to give Himself up to God’s plan. And the Bible teaches that if we follow Him in His surrender and humiliation, we will also share in His conquest of death and find new life in our present experience (Rom 6:3-6).

Tragedies like September 11 and the Holocaust are more than just the work of a few kooks and fanatics, they are symptoms of deeper issues that plague us all. The struggle to recognize the evil within us all is fundamental to the human condition, whether we acknowledge it or not.

A second difference the cross makes is, at first glance, the very opposite of the first. We all have a fundamental need to value ourselves and to be valued by others. But how can we value ourselves when we recognize that the seeds of evil are within? It seems that the better we know ourselves the more we dislike ourselves and the worse we feel. How can we elevate our sense of self-worth without escaping from the dark realities within? That’s where the cross comes in.

How much is a human being worth? It depends on the context. If they were to melt me down into the chemicals of which my body is made, I understand I would be worth about twelve dollars (make that thirteen, I’ve gained a little weight). But the average American is valued by his or her employer at a much higher level than that, something like $50,000 dollars a year. But suppose you were a great basketball player like Kobe Bryant. Suddenly the value jumps to tens of millions of dollars a year. And if you were the nerdy designer of the software everyone in the world uses, you would be valued at tens of billions of dollars (Bill Gates)!

You see, we are valued in terms of what others see in us. But according to the Bible human value is infinitely higher than the value we assign to each other. According to the Bible, Jesus was worth the whole universe (He made it), yet He knows all about us and loves us as we are. When He died on the cross, He established the value of the human person. When the Creator of the universe and everyone in it (including all the great athletes and movie stars that people often worship) decides to die for you and me, it places an infinite value on our lives. And since the resurrected Jesus will never die again, my value is secure in him as long as I live .

So the cross provides a true and stable sense of value. This is what makes the story of that Friday in Jerusalem so very special. The cross is not just an atrocity. It is about God’s willingness to take on human flesh and reveal Himself where we are. It is about the value that the human race has in the eyes of God. It provides hope for a better world. How?

The best hope for a troubled world is an authentic walk with God that not only takes the "terrorist within" seriously but sees in others the value that God sees in them. If every one of us is flawed yet valuable, all other seekers after God become potential allies in the battle to create a kinder and gentler world. Armed with a clear picture of reality and a sense of our value, we can become change agents in the world. Once we know the right question, it is obvious that "Jesus is the answer."

The Problem of Evil and Its Origin III

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:15:55 GMT

As powerful as God was and is, the options for dealing with the consequences of freedom in the universe were not many. What was God to do? God decided to neither rule the universe by force nor to sanction the evil that infected it (see previous blog). Instead, according to C. S. Lewis, the great British scholar and novelist, He did a number of things to gradually turn the tide away from evil and in favor of love and justice. These are outlined in the Bible. 1) He has provided the conscience, an inner sense of right and wrong that few humans are without. 2) He has provided some, from Abraham to Moses to Paul, with visions and dreams that helped clarify the central issues of good and evil. 3) And He provided the story of a people (Israel, the Jewish nation) and the struggles through which He sought to teach them more clearly about Himself.

Then God did the most amazing thing of all. 4) In Bethlehem, just south of Jerusalem in the Middle East, a baby appeared, whose birth we celebrate every year at Christmas time. As the story goes, he was born in a manger, and visited by both shepherds and wise men. He was then forced to flee with his parents to Egypt because he was a threat to the reigning king (Matt 2:1-25; Luke 2:1-20). The reason the Christmas holiday is the high point of the year in Western countries is the conviction that this man, this single, solitary man, was the most important person who ever lived. His name was Jesus.

When Jesus reached adulthood, he went about doing good (Acts 10:38). He had an amazing ability to heal the sick (Matt 8:1-17; John 4:46-54) and, on occasion, even raise the dead (Luke 7:11-17; John 11:1-44). He brought delight to a wedding couple by turning water into wine (John 2:1-11). He fed thousands with a handful of bread and a few fish (Mark 6:30-44; John 6:1-15).

He also taught some memorable things. There were great one-liners like "Do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matt 7:12), "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other" (Matt 5:39), and "Love one another as I have loved you (John 13:35)." He told unforgettable stories like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), and the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:18-23). He had memorable encounters with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21), a Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42) and a dead man named Lazarus (John 11:1-44).

But none of that is the reason Jesus’ life was the most important in the history of the world. It was the strange habit Jesus had of going around talking as if He were God. Others have healed people, some have even claimed to raise the dead. But Jesus went beyond that, claiming an eternal relationship with God and doing things that only God can do.

Jesus is often referred to as a good man, or even the best man who ever walked the face of the earth. But neither description is accurate. Jesus could not be simply a good man. If a mere man claimed to be God he could not be a good man. To quote Lewis, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."

If Jesus were merely another prophet, a man among many, he would be a fraud for claiming to be God. But if He is what He claimed to be, God Himself taking on human flesh, then the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are the greatest events that ever happened in the course of human history. And they are the key to explaining how a loving God, who is powerful enough to stop it, could allow so much pain and suffering in this world.

The climax of the story took place one Friday in Jerusalem, a sequence of events dramatized in Mel Gibson’s recent movie, The Passion of Christ. As the "God-man" he was designated to experience all the consequences of human evil in His own person (1 Pet 2:21-24). His death on the cross would sum up all the pain, all the suffering, all the regret, and all the rejection that evil has caused the human race. He would suffer loss of meaning, loss of relationship and all the misery of human sickness and death (Isa 53:1-12). His anguish was much more mental and emotional than physical (in contrast to Gibson’s movie).

Arriving at Golgotha, the place of execution, Jesus was nailed to the cross through the wrists and ankles and put on display between two common thieves. Three hours later He was dead, more from emotional and spiritual anguish than from physical causes. Rich friends of Jesus then secured His body and placed it in a cave-tomb nearby, closed off behind a huge rolling-stone door.

The story reaches a climax about 36 hours later, early Sunday morning. Several women decide to visit the tomb and anoint Jesus’ body with spices, to preserve it and show Him honor, even in death. But when they arrive at the tomb the stone has been moved away and the tomb is empty. One or two men are standing nearby in dazzling apparel (one witness calls them angels). The women are told not to seek the living among the dead. Jesus has risen from the dead and will appear to His disciples again.

God’s answer to the problem of evil, therefore, is the answer of love in the most self-sacrificing form of that word. He does not seek to change the world by force, but by the power of a loving character, exhibited in the self-sacrificing actions of Jesus in our behalf. He wants to be acknowledged as God, not for what He has or the power He can wield, but on account of His character, which is evident at the cross. Why is this event so important? Stay tuned.

The Problem of Evil and Its Origin II

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:59:58 GMT

As outlined in the previous blog, God created the world and filled it with loving gifts for the human race. He gave the original humans the gift of His love, but He also gave them the gift of freedom (Gen 1:26-28; 2:9, 16-17). He placed His loving heart in their hands to cherish it or reject it. God opened Himself to pain and suffering in order to experience the genuine love of His creation.

And, according to the Bible, things went terribly wrong. First, in heaven there was a being called Lucifer who became enraptured with his God-given abilities and position and led an insurrection against the government of God (Isa 14:12-14; Ezek 28:13-15). Echoes of that insurrection can be found in Rev 12:7-9, NIV. "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down-- that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

Second, Lucifer/Satan did not give up the conflict when he was cast out of heaven, instead he transferred the insurrection to earth by enlisting the support of the first members of the human race, Adam and Eve. In the primeval garden he succeeded in turning their allegiance away from God and to themselves (Gen 3:1-7). In the process, their loving relationship with God was broken, and pain and suffering were introduced into the world, resulting in decay and death (Gen 3:8-24). To make it even worse, Adam and Eve’s rejection of God left them subject to the domination of Satan, who had enticed them to break with God.

From that point on in the Bible it could be said of every human being, "Every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (Gen 6:5, NIV) The world became a place of greed, exploitation, murder and chaos. From that time on the earthly evidence regarding God’s nature was a mixed bag, tokens of love mixed with portents of suffering and death. And worse yet, the Bible tells us that the world is the chief battleground of a universal civil war, and its citizens are held hostage by rebel forces. Evil does not exist in this world because God is evil, it exists here because the world is enemy-occupied territory.

The question arises at this point. Why didn’t God simply put a stop to evil when it occurred? Why didn’t He stop it in heaven before it ever got to earth? Why not just eliminate evil-doers on the spot and give their squandered freedom to others more worthy?

Imagine a couple of angels in heaven having a whispered conversation just outside the pearly gates. One angel whispers to the other, "You know, I’m not so sure anymore that God is as loving and kind as He makes Himself out to be. You know what I just heard. . . .?" As the other angel leans forward to hear the juicy tidbit a lightning bolt flashes out of the sky and vaporizes the complaining angel.

Stunned, the other angel seeks out an old friend. "You won’t believe what I just saw! Charleburt was just saying some negative stuff about God and got vaporized by lightning, just like that! You know, maybe he was right. Maybe God isn’t so loving and kind as He makes Himself out to be." And at that instant another bolt of lightning flashes out of the sky and vaporizes the second angel.

If this kind of thing were to go on for long, what would all the angels be doing? Looking for lightning bolts, worried that they will be next! It would be the end of love and the beginning of fear in their relationship with God. From that time on they would do the right thing and say the right thing, not out of love for God, but out of fear. So eliminating evil the instant it occurs was not an option for a God of love.

A second option for dealing with rebellion would be to sanction it. God could change His law and character to reflect the new realities in the universe. Everybody would be allowed to do whatever they wanted. But this too would be the end of genuine love. It would result in anarchy, "every man for himself." Evil would become the reigning doctrine in the universe and a destructive chaos would be the result. Injustice would reach even greater proportions than what we now experience, as everyone sought to take what they could from others. Sanctioning rebellion, therefore, was not an option for a God of justice.

As powerful as God was and is, therefore, the options for dealing with the consequences of freedom were not many. What was God to do? The Bible offers the answer, which we will cover in the next blog.

The Problem of Evil and Its Origin

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:51:38 GMT

There is clearly something wrong with this world. Between acts of genocide, suicide bombers, widespread pollution, random street muggings, sexual abuse and smart bombs that stupidly kill children, we can all tell that some sort of pervasive evil has twisted the minds and hearts of human beings. We long to believe that the world and those who live in it are basically good, but the most of the everyday evidence seems to run in the opposite direction. Can God be good and yet allow so much pain and suffering into the world? Is there any reason to hope that something better lies beneath the surface of what we see and experience?

The Bible tells us that things were not always this way. According to the Bible, before there was an Earth, before there even was a universe, there was an Eternal Lover, a Being whose very nature was and is love. "I have loved you with an everlasting love," this Being declares (Jer 31:3). Before there was an earth or any human being, this loving God envisioned what it would be like to have a universe full of creatures that could love and be loved. Like a woman who falls in love with a baby before it is born, God loved the creation before it was created. "God is love" (1 John 4:8).

The Bible goes on to tell us that God prepared the way for the creation by filling it with innumerable tokens of His love. There are the flowers, almost infinite in variety, with hundreds of shades of every imaginable color, with incredible perfumes running from light and delicate to rich and dusky. There are the fruits, grains, nuts and vegetables, with their infinite variety of smells and tastes (Gen 1:11-12; 2:8-9). There are the animals ranging from the awesome and magnificent, like the lion, the tiger and the bull elk, to the unbearably cute, like the koala, the kiwi, the chipmunk and the meerkat (Gen 2:19-20).

The incredible delight one finds in the plants and the animals is not a necessary feature of existence. We could live without a variety of colors and tastes. We could live without animals. But life would not be nearly as enjoyable. We could also live without the songs of birds, but who would want to (excepting perhaps the annoying screech of the sulphur-crested cockatoo)? And that is only the beginning of God’s gifts.

I could speak about mountains and lakes, beautiful sunsets over the ocean, the smell of fresh-cut grass and many other delights. The Bible tells us that these unnecessary but enchanting features of our world are the gifts of an extravagant Lover, who wants to fill the lives of those He loves with exquisite joy (Eccl 3:13; 5:19; Jam 1:17). And in spite of the evil we experience in the world today, these tokens of God’s love are still there to be noticed and enjoyed. But if God’s intentions were so good, why is there so much pain and suffering in the midst of this beauty?

It all goes back to a choice that God made. When it came time to create beings, God had to decide whether these beings would be controlled by Him or whether they would be truly free. One wonders at times whether it would be better if human beings did not have free will. As "robots" we could be programmed to be good and kind and to function in a way that enhances the good of the whole creation. In a world of such beings things would never go wrong.

But there is a problem. Full robotic control leaves no room for love. Imagine your spouse were a robot with a computer for a brain. Imagine you could program him or her to have the perfect body and to respond with loving words and actions in all circumstances. While this may sound like the perfect partner at first blush, the delight in such an arrangement would quickly wear off.

"I love you so much," you say to your favorite robot.

"I love you with all my silicon," the robot responds.

When you realize the response isn’t free, the words rapidly become empty. Genuine love requires free will. Genuine love is only meaningful when it is chosen and given as a gift to the other. Genuine love occurs only when someone is also free not to love, or to love someone else. But when someone else is free to love you they are also free to hurt you and reject you. The possibility of love requires the possibility of evil. Freedom is the greatest of all risks.

The bottom line is that love and freedom go together. In order to have one you have to have the other. So when the God who is love, who is the Eternal Lover, decided to create, He also decided to make Himself vulnerable to the choices of His creatures. He made all things good (Gen 1:31), but he also allowed His creatures the freedom not to love, the freedom to reject Him. Ultimately, evil exists not because God is a tyrant, but because He is committed to openness and freedom. Evil exists in this world not because God is powerless, but because He wanted human beings to be powerful in ways that mirrored His own freedom of action.

Web Site Plans

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:26:17 GMT

It may interest readers of this blog to know that my webmaster, John Miller, and I never met until last week. Technology has reached the place where people around the world can collaborate on projects without ever coming together. John has appreciated my work and reached out to me about five years ago offering to help me develop more of a web presence than I could have accomplished with my technical savvy alone (pretty limited!). He did the design of the site and has set up the daily devotionals, the store, and my ability to blog and connect with all of you. While things have probably not gone viral to the extent that John had hoped, we do have an average of 150 or so solid hits every day from people all around the world.

Well, last week it finally happened. On a short trip to the Midwest, John and I were finally able to connect, along with his delightful son, daughter-in-law and grandchild. We spent several precious hours together and had the opportunity to brainstorm a little for the future. John’s dream is a major presence on Facebook, which is challenging since I have been resistant to that idea from the beginning. Facebook is all about connection with people and I have had way too many connections with people to manage comfortably, well before Facebook ever existed. But we came up with an exciting idea that I think I could manage when the public meetings I am now holding in Calimesa California are finished (that will be in May of 2012). Those meetings are ongoing at a pace of about two per month and each meeting requires about ten hours of preparation. So the completion of those meetings should free up a little time for new ventures.

What got me excited was the idea of a Day to Day Commentary on the Book of Revelation that would be posted on Facebook each day. I have been studying and teaching Revelation for more than thirty years but have never put a verse by verse commentary together. (Those who would like to own such a commentary might be interested in the work of my student, Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, available from Andrews University Press). I would start with verse one and write a paragraph or two each day about that verse until I had covered all the angles I am aware of. Then I would move to verse two and do the same and so on through all 404 verses of the book. At three posts per verse (it could be a lot more for some), it would take more than three years to complete, and I suspect it will take a lot longer than that. But better to be late than to never try. Let me know what you think of this plan.

A related idea that we came up with was extracting the best sentence or summary from each Facebook post and putting it out on Twitter each day for those who like to follow that. I still have no idea how one would do that, but John knows such things and working together it just might work. Are any of you Twitter followers or producers? Would either of these ideas be personally useful to you? It sounds like it could be fun and I might never produce a commentary any other way, so let’s see what happens moving forward!

Link to Al Qaeda, Arab Spring and Armageddon

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:06:31 GMT

Officials of Loma Linda Broadcasting Network have assisted me in finding the TV interview that I mentioned in the previous blog online. Go to http://llbn.tv, which brings you to the home page of LLBN, then click on the link entitled "English Videos" and you will see my interview right on top of the list (until next week at least, when it would be second on the list! Enjoy!

The Arab Spring and Other Thoughts

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 02:05:46 GMT

I have been quiet on this site for a month or so because of some significant opportunities to record for television. Preparation time and actual recording have wiped out discretionary time lately, but the outcomes will be very positive over the long term. Those who have been following the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guides this quarter may be aware of the audio studies I have prepared on Galatians 3 and 4 and which can be accessed at www.pineknoll.org/sabbath-school-lessons. They include nearly six hours of teaching in the context of a highly intelligent class of some 50 people. While they follow the pattern of the above-mentioned Study Guides, they would also be helpful to anyone interested in Galatians 3 and 4. There are other projects as well which I will reveal on this site when they get a little closer to broadcast. But one recent interview is worth immediate mention.

On Tuesday, November 1 I gave a one and a half hour interview on the Christian Connections program of the Loma Linda Broadcasting Network. The interviewer was Ganim Hanna, an Iraqi Christian man who quizzed me about the events taking place in the Middle East over the last year. These events have been nearly a hundred years in the making and some Muslims would argue that they have been nearly 4000 years in the making. I would like to post that broadcast on this site and will work to get permission for that.

One aspect of the interview that might interest readers of this blog is the observation that the Muslim nations of the Middle East have had a triple dynamic going on for the last hundred years or so, in reaction to colonialism. When the European powers took control of the Middle East, the Arab peoples reacted in three main ways. There were those who collaborated with the Western powers, often educated people who could speak English, French or Italian (Libya was ruled by Italy, the French had control in Algeria, Tunisia, Syria and Lebanon, most of the rest were ruled by the British). These elite classes profited from colonialism and were often placed in positions of power. A second dynamic was people who were disenfranchised by colonialism yet were enamored of capitalism and democratic values and wanted to be free to embrace and practice these values for themselves. The third dynamic was an Islamic backlash by people who resented both the intruders and their values and wanted to go back to the day when the Islamic Empire was a major world power and islamic values governed the Middle East, including Sharia (Muslim) law.

When the grip of colonialism was weakened after World War II, the elite classes in most Arab nations managed to wrest control of these countries from the colonial powers. In the process, the democratic and islamic movements continued to be marginalized in these countries. Harsh crackdowns, often tacitly supported by the US, kept these forces in check for several decades. So opposition to the repressive Arab regimes was usually two-fold. It involved democratic groupings who wanted the kind of freedom and democracy typical of the West but not available at home and islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who longed to return to an earlier period of history.

The first major break in this picture occurred in Iran (a non-Arab, but Muslim country at the edge of the Middle East) in 1979. Supported by Western media, the democratic opposition succeeded in overthrowing the Shah and establishing a more democratic government. But a few months later the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile and the revolution turned islamic with tragic consequences for the workers in the American Embassy, who were seen as collaborators with the Shah.

This same pattern seems to be happening in the Arab Spring uprisings. The opposition forces in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen are a mixture of people holding democratic and secular ideals on the one hand and people holding more islamic and traditional dreams on the other. While a revolution is in progress, the western media plays up the democratic side, because most of the people they can talk to (English speakers) support that side. And so Westerners get the impression that it is a democratic revolution primarily. But the Arab-language media paints a different picture based on people who speak only Arabic. And so in Tunisia and Libya revolutions that were seen as very positive in the Western media are now proving to have a strong jihadist element and could easily produce islamist governments that could prove more hostile to Western interests than the regimes they replaced.

Things are fluid right now, but in many ways these events were forecast as desired outcomes of September 11 by Osama bin Laden himself. While he is now dead, events he unleashed still affect the world today.

Teaching Evolution at a Faith-Based Institution

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 04:08:05 GMT

In the three previous blogs I have been talking about science, humility and faith. What does all this have to do with the teaching of evolution at a faith-based university? I recently met a conservative colleague from the Philippines who asked me what was going on at my sister institution. I told her that they were being accused of teaching evolution in science classes. Her immediate, unscripted response was, "Well, I hope so!" (Not what I expected from her.) What did she mean by that? Two things, I think. For starters we need to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. The former is taken for granted in horticulture classes, for example. All plants adapt to their environment or they die out in times of environmental change. You cannot teach horticulture without teaching that form of evolution. But should macroevolution be taught in faith-based universities? I think the best answer to this question is yes and no. Even if a scientist is unconvinced about the evolutionary hypothesis of origins, it is still necessary to teach the theories and the evidence they draw on in class. I think not to do so would be irresponsible.

It seems to me that there are three main options for the faith-based scientist in the classroom. 1) Teach science the way the average believer in the pew (and many church administrators) wants you to teach it, disparaging evolutionary science and scientists, and highlighting only the evidences for creation. 2) Teach science the way you were taught in secular, graduate schools and let the religion teachers worry about the fallout. 3) Teach micro and macroevolution as significant scientific disciplines but also expose your faith and how you have maintained it in the face of what many consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The first option would probably be the simplest way out for scientists in a faith-based institution. But experience has taught scientists of faith that if you do that, most students and their parents will be comfortable, but the same students will lose their faith when they move to graduate school at a secular university or a scientific workplace. Easy and shallow answers can crumble overnight in the face of what seems overwhelming evidence. To not prepare students of faith for graduate school and the workday world they will face later on is simply irresponsible, comfortable though it might be. The second option is also relatively simple, but is also irresponsible in my opinion. If science teaching in a faith-based institution is no different than that taught anywhere else, why should any aspiring scientist choose a faith-based institution for their studies?

So that leaves the third option as the most responsible approach. The problem is this, if you do teach evolutionary science in a responsible way, some students and many parents will be angered. And some students will lose their faith in the process no matter what you do. But if you prepare them well, the majority of students will withstand the scientific challenges of graduate school and the workplace and will be preserved to serve the church with their wisdom and talents. In many ways it is a thankless task, but I honor all scientists of faith who teach according to their consciences, in spite of criticism. Such teaching will be misunderstood, so it requires great courage. But I believe the outcomes of such courageous teaching will be celebrated in eternity.

Should the science professor be satisfied that fifty to seventy per cent of his or her students keep their faith in spite of the challenges of scientific evidence and theories? Of course not. Every student lost to the faith is a tragedy. Scientists of faith must constantly observe and experiment to learn the best ways to introduce troubling material to young and sensitive minds. In the process there will always be tension with those on both extremes whose minds are made up. But it seems to me that the effectiveness of scientific education in a faith-based university should be judged not on what the professor teaches but on the outcomes in the lives of the students and graduates. Students are relatively fragile creatures, easily broken. Scientists of faith who love people will care deeply about the impact of their teaching.

There is a strong tendency in today’s world to push to the extremes. This is very evident in political speech and often also in the theological and scientific realms. Instead of a genuine search for truth, people prefer to cherry-pick the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion. This happens on both sides of the origins debate. A theologian of faith is easily tempted to ignore the problems by focusing in only on evidence that challenges the prevailing theory and disparage all who disagree as perverse. The evolutionary scientist may, consciously or unconsciously, avoid experiments and evidence that don’t fit the prevailing theory, because a God who acts in history is not a working concept for him or her. Scientists of faith, I believe, will know and teach the assumptions on both sides, assumptions that color the evidence and the models one creates to explain the evidence. Scientists of faith will acquaint themselves with alternate interpretations of the data, so they can compare different ways of understanding the evidence. Helping students sort out the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the tension will prepare them to evaluate the arguments they will face in later years.

My youngest daughter is an aspiring scientist. She plans to pursue her dreams in faith-based universities, including my own. I will be monitoring her development with great interest and care. I will be trusting scientists with someone who is infinitely precious to me. In the process I will probably ask many questions. But I will honor and respect the position her teachers are in. Whatever the outcome of the current discussions, I don’t want to make their teaching process and her learning process harder than it already is. I want them to know I will be praying for them as well as for her.

Faith and Science

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:41:23 GMT

For me personally the Bible and philosophical reasoning both point to a Creator. I recognize that people who favor the scientific evidence can read Genesis in ways that differ from the traditional. But the best exegetical work on the Bible points to the idea that the ancients who wrote and read these texts understood them to be pointing to a creator God as the originator of the natural world and that God’s creative activity is fairly rapid and recent. And beyond Genesis, the Bible’s teachings on sin, salvation and resurrection all presuppose a God who actively intervenes in space and time. Philosophically, I also find it easier to believe that the complexity and beauty of the world we know is the product of a loving and intelligent Designer than that it all is the product of random and chance events over long periods of time. But while the preponderance of scientific evidence is not hostile to the possibility of design, it is very hard to square with the biblical idea of a recent creation of life. Believing, short-age creationist scientists tell me that there is currently no creationist model that is scientifically fruitful in its ability to predict observable outcomes the way microevolution does. A possible response to this dilemma: If God is as great as we believe Him to be, He is capable of doing things in a way that science cannot fully observe or understand. In any case, it seems to me that believers who are honest with the evidence must live with a certain tension. And that is what faith is all about.

As the author of Hebrews puts it (Heb 11:1, my translation), faith is an "inner conviction of things we do not see." It is through faith we understand that "the universe was created by the word of God." (Heb 11:3, ESV) Faith is more than just knowledge of facts. It is an inner conviction of things we cannot always prove. If the scientific evidence perfectly confirmed our faith, it would no longer be faith in the full sense that Hebrews describes it. To live in faith is to live with a certain amount of tension. When it comes to matters of faith, we need to take the evidence in both the Bible and science seriously. Because of inspiration, I choose to give the Bible 51% of the weight in my personal faith decisions. But those faith decisions do not rule out a continuing openness to further study in both the Bible and science. Study of the Bible can suggest scientific options that an unbelieving scientist might not think of. Study of science and experience has led the church to read the Bible differently (think Galileo and Acts 15). The best definition of theology I have ever heard is "Faith seeking to understand." Faith is both a standpoint and a process. When it comes to faith, both conviction and continuing process are a given. To repeat, people of faith must learn to live with a certain amount of tension.

Where one ends up in matters of faith seems to have a lot to do with experience. If life has pointed you to the beauty of flowers and bird feathers, mountain peaks and sunsets, if you have sensed the divine presence in small tokens of everyday life, you will likely be open to interpreting the Bible and science from a divine perspective. If life has confronted you with birth defects, disease as a result of genetic accident, cruelty, oppression and injustice, you may be tempted to either hate God or to explain the world in ways that leave God out of the picture. Because experiences of life are so different, I am reluctant to judge those who see the world and God a bit differently than I do. The world as we experience it projects a mixed picture. Faith can afford to be generous with the intellectual struggles of others. Perhaps the following statement is apropos here: "The perception and appreciation of truth. . . . depends less upon the mind than upon the heart." (DA 455)

I think the story of Job is helpful here. Job, his wife and his friends all were ignorant of the larger issues in the universe that resulted in the situation Job found himself in. The conflict between their view of God and the world they experienced created a tension that challenged their faith. Job’s wife saw the tension and gave up her faith in God. Job’s friends maintained their beliefs by denying that there was a tension. Job recognized the tension, struggled with it and still believed. His belief did not lead him to deny the reality of the tension, he believed in full awareness of the tension. And it was Job’s position that was commended by a God who chose not explain the tension in terms the reader already understood (chapters one and two), but left the tension in place (Job 42:7-8, see 38:1 - 41:34).

The Need for Humility

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:45:19 GMT

Both scientists and students of the Bible need to maintain a strong awareness of the limitations of evidence and of human understanding of the evidence. As a biblical scholar who operates from the standpoint of faith I have all the more reason for humility. While I find the Bible an invaluable revelation of the will of God, I am painfully aware of the huge gap between my understanding of the universe and God’s (Isa 55:8-9). Let me share an analogy. Being a scholar is like a farmer digging a post hole at the edge of a field. I know everything there is to know about that contents of that post hole. But the deeper I go into my limited field of knowledge, the more I am aware of how deep the field is and how much I do not know. When all I knew was the surface of the field, I could imagine that I knew a whole lot about the field. But now that I have gone deep in a tiny portion of the field, I realize how deep the entire field goes. So the mark of a true scholar is not how much he or she knows but to know how little one in fact knows. The more a scholar learns, the more aware he or she becomes of how much there is yet to learn. With great knowledge comes great humility. And I believe the reverse is also true. With great humility comes great knowledge. Most of us learn to the degree that we are open to learning.

That brings me to what I call the Ladder of Humility (appreciation to Fritz Guy, who first introduced me to the concept). As a biblical scholar who dabbles in many other issues, I have learned quite a bit in this life. Step one in my ladder of humility is how much I know. But step two is what everyone on earth knows. That is an almost infinite advance on what I know. Go into any university library and you will see that my knowledge is a minuscule fraction of what the human race as a whole knows. But step three is what everyone on earth could know, given an infinite amount of time and opportunity. Another infinite advance. Step four in the ladder of humility is what everyone in the universe knows. If, as most people suspect, there are lots of inhabited planets out there, all possible human knowledge is but a minuscule fraction of what everyone in the universe knows. And of course, step five is what God knows, truly another leap of infinity. Looked at from this perspective, everything I could possibly know about God and His ways are like the musings of a two-year old in comparison with what I don’t know. Even the knowledge of the prophets was limited (1 Cor 13:9, 12). So it behooves everyone interested in the issue of faith and science to demonstrate a strong element of humility in everything that is said and written on the subject.

Are there similar limitations to our knowledge of the physical universe? I have to believe so. There are many areas of science in which knowledge has vastly increased in the last few decades. It is, therefore, reasonably certain scientifically that evolution occurs at the micro level (small changes that we can observe over a human lifetime). This would have been an extremely troubling admission for people of faith a century ago and is still troubling to many today. But microevolution is within the direct purview of scientific method and few people of faith question its existence today. But can we extrapolate from microevolution to large changes taking place over millions of years (macroevolution)? There is significant scientific evidence that points in that direction and one does not have to be a God-hater to see that. For example, the order in the fossil record suggests some kind of evolutionary progression and radiometric dating indicates a considerable amount of time for this progression. I have no compelling scientific data to counter the basic thrust of that evidence. After all, science by nature looks for patterns in repetitive events. A single act of creation in the distant past would inevitably leave some very challenging evidence to the scientist. So in the absence of direct observation and experimentation, can we be absolutely sure of the way things occurred in the distant past? Is it possible that we have yet to discover the flaws in our current analysis? I think humility is an appropriate approach for both science and faith. We must not only bow before the evidence we have but also before the evidence we have not yet been able to examine.

The Evolution/Creation Controversy

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:56:10 GMT

A sister faith-based university not far from where I live is under attack for teaching evolution in biology classes. Since the issue frequently comes up wherever I go, I thought it might be helpful for me to put a few thoughts on the issue into writing. I begin with a caveat. While I work at a faith-based health science university, I am not an expert in the specific, scientific issues related to the origins of life on this planet. Neither do I have inside information as to what exactly is or is not being taught at the sister institution. So I think it would be wise for me to confine myself to some general principles that I find helpful in making sense of the debate over the origins of life, regardless of the particular instance that triggered this blog.

The relationship of faith to the evidence of science is a very important point of discussion. The field of evidence is so vast and the issues so significant to people of faith that it is unwise to ignore the issue. The unfortunate aspect of the current debate is that once an issue like this becomes politicized, the conversation tends to be controlled by extremists on both sides and those who represent the center are often intimidated into silence. So many may think my addressing the issue at all at this time, when every word may be weighed with hostile intent, is rather stupid. But I write anyway in the hope of encouraging honest, respectful discussion in spite of the stakes. It is at times when courage begins to fail that those who "cannot be bought or sold" must be all the more prepared to speak. But in the process we must not confuse rudeness and disparaging speech with integrity. Genuine integrity must be combined with respect for those who may disagree.

Where is the center in this debate? It seems to me that scientists of faith come to this debate from one of three standpoints. At the risk of oversimplification, let me identify those standpoints as follows. 1) There are those who find the evidence for evolution (in the grand, macro sense) and long ages of life on this earth overwhelming. As a result they seek other than traditional ways of reading the Bible with regard to origins. 2) There are those who find traditional ways of reading the Bible perfectly clear and compelling and therefore put all of their energies into finding flaws in the contemporary scientific consensus. 3) I would see the center to be comprised of scientists of faith who have a high and respectful view of both the Bible and the evidence of science. Such scientists recognize that at this moment there is no easy resolution of the differences that exist between the two bodies of evidence, so they bend all their energies to resolve the issues while maintaining a strong awareness of the limitations of evidence and of human understanding of the evidence.

Moving forward, then, it seems to me that we need to avoid two extremes in the debate. One extreme is taking one’s cue from a faith tradition and assuming that every scientist who disagrees with that viewpoint must be perverse. Most scientists I have met are very open to evidence and discovering the flaws in their own thinking. (That was certainly true at the Banff Conference I attended recently.) To proclaim otherwise destroys one’s own credibility in speaking to the debate. The other extreme is to downgrade or mock the validity of Scripture because straightforward readings of Scripture point to a different view of the world than that of traditional science. Scripture has stood the test of time in so many areas and the last word in science is far from being spoken yet.

That leads me to the subject of the next blog, the need for humility.

A Geoscience Tour

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:44:21 GMT

Before I get into my topic, let me apologize for a couple of things. I have been pretty quiet the last couple of months because of significant travel, one part of which I will share about at some length. I have been to Siberia, Brazil, two provinces of Canada, Colorado and Orlando, Florida (the latter was not for play, but for work). I have spoken to groups of pastors, church leaders, hospital administrators and scientists. Any one of these would be interesting but collectively it all flows into a blur!

The other area for apology has to do with the vagaries of the internet. My webmaster, John Miller, is as good as they come, but lately we have had an overwhelming flood of spam attacking the site, particularly the discussion boards. I am sorry for those of you who have gotten a flood of junk (I get it too). We have had more than a hundred junk messages from a dozen or so different (apparent) sources. John is not ignoring the problem and things would have been much worse without his diligence. But that’s the kind of world we live in today. Bear with us.

The trip I’d like to focus on is one of the trips to Canada. I attended a Geoscience Conference on the teaching Science in faith-based institutions. The conference was located at Canmore, Alberta, just outside Banff National Park. About 60 scientists of faith gathered there to explore how to teach science in faith-based universities and secondary schools. They let a couple of religion types along just to humor us, I suppose. I thought the tone of the conference was respectful and honest with regard to the scientific evidence and the standard model used to interpret that evidence. But it also offered some fresh and creative perspectives on the issues. In this blog I will summarize the activities of the conference and in future blogs, I will share some of the thoughts I presented at the conference (I read two papers and listened to perhaps 40 others).

The first day of the conference (July 28) was spent at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta, out in the prairie, away from the Rockies. Located in the middle of nowhere, the museum is one of the world’s best repositories of dinosaurs (most of which were found nearby), with many complete skeletons and even some samples with a bit of flesh and hide in places. It was very cool to be able to tour the museum with a student of biology who had been a docent at the Field Museum in Chicago and therefore knew what he was looking at most of the time.

We spent the weekend in Canmore, trading papers on various issues in science, religion and the intersection of the two. We examined the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific model and learned a lot about a variety of scientific disciplines that most of us, even the scientists, were unfamiliar with (DNA, genetics, paleo-geology, biochemistry, astrophysics, microbiology, the list could go on and on). But a major highlight on July 30 was a half day break to go hiking in small groups with scientists who exchanged expertise on the rocks, plants and landscape we hiked by. I went to Lake Louise and hiked up the mountain on the right side of the lake to visit a couple lakes much higher into the mountains. It was a good warmup for what I would have to do a couple of days later.

When the formal part of the conference ended on Sunday July 31, we hiked up into the Burgess Shale at the top of a mountain in Yoho National Park, British Columbia (Monday, August 1). The total hike was about 14 miles and 3000 feet of altitude (starting at nearly a mile high!). It was a physical challenge for us all, especially for me, being twice the age of some of my hiking companions. The goal at the top was the Burgess Shale, famous for fossils of ocean floor sea creatures easily findable at the top of a mountain a mile and a half above sea level! It was explained to us that the sea floor appears to have been thrust up to that altitude by the collision of two gigantic plates in the earth’s crust (British Columbia seems to have once been a large island that collided into the main plate of North America, the collision pushed up the sea floor to the top of the mountains). The Burgess Shale contains abundant fossil specimens of the famous trilobite, considered in the standard model the earliest fossilized creature.

On the last day of the conference, we played auto tag. The group split up into about a dozen cars, which all followed a prescribed route and made stops designated by GPS to find fossils in road cuts and observe geological features in the mountainous landscape. We traveled through Banff National Park all the way into Jasper National Park, ending the day’s drive at the massive Athabasca Glacier, which pours down out of the largest icefield south of the Arctic Circle. We noticed that the glacier had receded nearly a mile over the last hundred years, giving evidence that the climate of the northern hemisphere, at least, seems to be getting warmer.

Wish you all could have been there. If you have any questions about the conference, put them on the comment board below and I will do my best to answer them. Watch for a series of proposals over the next month on how to teach science responsibly in the context of faith. Feedback welcome.

He’s Greater Than Jonah

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:03:15 GMT

Sorry for the gap in posting. I have been traveling to several places, which makes it harder to post. One of those places was a geology conference in Banff, Alberta. I will be reporting on that shortly. In the meantime. . .

In my book Meet God Again for the First Time I describe how Jesus provides the meaning of Old Testament Israel’s whole life and history. He is the second Adam, the new Moses, and the son of David, among many others. Whenever you read a story or a letter in the New Testament, you want to be constantly aware of references to the characters, stories and experiences of the apostles’ past. This was the way New Testament writers related to the their Bible, what we often call the Old Testament. God meets people where they are. And he embedded His message for us in the language and style of real people in the first century.

So I was not surprised when Timothy Keller (see previous blog), in his description of the Mark’s version of Jesus’ stilling the storm, noticed multiple references to the Jonah story in the Old Testament. What did Jesus have in common with the world’s first recorded submarine ride?

For starters, both Jesus and Jonah were in a boat, both boats were overtaken by a storm and the description of the storm was quite similar in both cases. But the similarities do not end there.

When the storm begins, both Jesus and Jonah are asleep (Jonah 1:5; Mark 4:38). In both stories sailors wake up the sleeping passenger and assert, "We are going to die!" Jonah 1:6; 4:38. And in both cases there is a miraculous divine intervention which stills the storm. But instead of calming the sailors down, the stilling of the storm makes them even more terrified (Jonah 1:15-16; Mark 4:40-41)!

The two stories are almost identical except for one thing. In the Jonah story, he tells the sailors to throw him into the sea and it will become calm (Jonah 1:11-12). That doesn’t happen in the Jesus story. Or does it? People have noticed that there is very little overt "theology" in the Gospel of Mark. Whatever messages one gets from that gospel are embedded in the stories and the way they are ordered and tied together. The same is true of this story. In another place Jesus said, "One greater than Jonah is here" (Matt 12:43). And he explains that just as Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a fish, He would spend a similar amount of time in the tomb (Matt 12:40). He is the new Jonah. And just as Jonah stilled a storm by the sacrifice of himself, so Jesus would still the ultimate storm of sin and death by the sacrifice of Himself on the cross.

When we go through the storms of our lives, it is easy to wonder, as the disciples of Jesus did in Mark 4: 38-41, whether God even cares about what we have to experience. But when you come to know the meaning of the cross, when you come to understand that He threw Himself into the ultimate storm, the one the threatens everything we are (sin and death), it puts our smaller storms into a bit of perspective. If He did not abandon us in the ultimate storm, why would He do so in the relatively minor trials of our lives?

From the cross we get a sense of the kind of God who rules our lives as well as the universe. A God who is caring, gracious and merciful. In His wisdom he does not calm every one of our storms, but as we walk with Him we learn to trust Him even in the midst of the storm. And we learn to trust that one day He will still all storms for eternity. And that is what we call hope.

Power, Foreknowledge and Grace

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 03:39:05 GMT

This morning I was reading in a book sent me for evaluation by a publisher. It was the latest book from the pen of Timothy Keller, entitled King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus (NY: Dutton (Penguin Group), 2011). I was struck by the way the author handled the story of Jesus and the stormy sea in Mark 4: 35-41.

Storms are and were common on the Sea of Galilee. The sea lies about 650 feet below sea level and Mount Hermon rises 9200 feet nearby. When cold air from the mountain clashes with the warm air rising from the Sea, spectacular and unexpected thunderstorms occur. That means that anyone sailing regularly on the Sea of Galilee is an expert at it. So the storm mentioned in the text, and its consequences for the boat, must have been unusually severe, because the disciples of Jesus were overwhelmed enough to wake Jesus up hoping for some help.

According to the story in Mark, Jesus awoke and two amazing things happened. The wind immediately died down and the sea became calm ("a great calm"), smooth as glass. All in an instant. Both events together was amazing, since it usually takes a while for the sea to calm down after a storm abates.

There is a further element to the story. Jesus doesn’t wave a wand or recite an incantation, the way someone does when they are calling on a higher power. Jesus simply says, "Quiet! Be still!" (Two different Greek words to say roughly the same thing). He spoke as one who had authority over such things.

There was a consensus among the ancients that the sea was uncontrollable by anyone other than God or the chief among the gods. It was a symbol of unstoppable destruction. The ocean was so ungovernable that only God could control it. But Jesus was able to effortlessly exercise the kind of power that only God has. He did not just have power that was derived from His connection to someone or something else, He was power. That power resided within Himself. He was Lord of the storm. For us today, that means that no matter what shape the world is in, Jesus can provide all the healing, power and rest that we need.

But there is still more to the story. In the face of the storm, the disciples were afraid. Mark 4:40. But after Jesus calms the storm, the disciples are terrified ("fearing with great fear")! Mark 4:41. They were more terrified in the calm than they were in the storm. Why? Because they came to realize that Jesus is as uncontrollable as a storm. The storm had immense power, they couldn’t control it, it’s no wonder they were afraid. But now they realized that Jesus had even more power than the storm, so He was even more uncontrollable!

Why was this so terrifying? In part, it was the realization that Jesus didn’t have to wait until the boat was almost swamped to intervene. He could have stopped the storm at any time or even completely prevented it if He had wanted to. The natural question in the disciples’ minds was, "Do you really love us? Because if you really loved us, you would have kept this storm from happening." But Jesus doesn’t buy into their line of thinking (and often ours). The implication of His question, "Why are you so afraid?", is that their basic premise was wrong. "You should have known better. I do allow people I love to pass through storms. Why don’t you just trust me?" Mark 4:40.

It reminds me of the Chronicles of Narnia. When one of the children asks if the lion Aslan is safe, the beaver replies, "‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the king." In Mark’s story Jesus is most certainly not safe. He is even more uncontrollable than the stormy sea. But there is a big difference between Jesus and the stormy sea. A storm doesn’t love you. Nor does the sea care one bit. Nature is an unfeeling and unmanageable power that will get you sooner or later, in one way or another. In many ways Jesus seems similar; unmanageable power that leaves a trail of suffering in my life. But the Bible portrays Jesus as more than just powerful. He is also infinitely wise and infinitely loving. His power is without boundary, but so also are His wisdom and love. If the disciples had understood this, they would not have been terrified at Him. They would have realized that He could love someone and still let bad things happen to them, because He knows better than they do. We serve a God who is great enough and wise enough to have reasons we cannot understand. He is beyond my biggest notion of what He is up to. He’s the king.

Why Are God’s Footprints So Faint?

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:52:55 GMT

This blog offers some final reflections on my reading of Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design. For me, the most troubling thing about Hawking’s book is not the science, the science is actually fairly favorable to the cause of intelligent design and creation. What is troubling as I consider the big picture is the relative lack of tangible evidence for the presence and activity of God in the universe as we experience it. If God is real and wants to be known and loved, why is He so silent? Why is He so absent from the gaze of honest, open-minded people like Hawking seems to be. Why is He so unwilling to be experienced and detected by our best efforts? Why doesn’t He just show Himself? Why doesn’t He settle our doubts and lay out the evidence for us? Why did he even play games with Job and tell him everything except the actual reason why Job was suffering?

I received glimpses of an answer reading an essay by Marty Phillips entitled "Glimpses of His Glory: Towards a Working Definition of Faith Development in Context," in the book A Man of Passionate Reflection: A Festschrift Honoring Jerald Whitehouse, edited by Bruce L. Bauer (Berrien Springs, MI: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2011), 281-312. Marty notes in the essay how God has left "footprints" of His presence and glimpses of His character in various forms in every people group. Nevertheless, His self-revelation is limited among non-Judeo/Christian communities. He has left hints of His will and character in such cultures, but they are often "encoded" in obscure forms and rituals rather than taught with clarity.

Why would God do that? Why not simply be clear? The beginnings of an answer lies in a war story that is referenced in passing in Revelation 12:7-10 and other parts of the Bible (Revelation 20, Ephesians 1, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and Genesis 3). In the beginning, before there was a planet we call earth, the entire universe and all who lived in it were in harmony. But one of the highest of God’s creatures, called Lucifer, rebelled against God and accused Him of being arbitrary, dictatorial, unforgiving, and unjust. The whole universe was thrown into disarray because of these charges. God could have responded with indignation and put down the rebellion with force. But the rest of His creatures would from then on have served him out of fear and doubt rather than out of trust and love. So God chose to redeem the situation by opening Himself up to judgment, by giving Lucifer time to expose his true character of self-centeredness, lies, and coercion, and the whole universe time to examine the two options and decide for themselves if the charges against God were true.

To demonstrate the falseness of the charges, God has chosen to win the cosmic conflict from a point of utter weakness. Due to the accusations leveled against Him, He has limited His self-revelation to those who are weak and fragile in the eyes of the world, people like Abraham (Gen 12:10-20; 15:1) and like Paul (2 Cor 12:7-10). Instead of winning the war with power and brilliant persuasion, He woos us with a "still, small voice." He reveals Himself to Abraham, a man with no future (his wife was barren). When Jesus comes to reveal God, He is not born in a palace, but in a donkey’s feedbox. Jesus surrounds Himself, not with the great minds of his day, but with a dim-witted group of fractious fishermen. The greatest intellectual of the early church, Paul, had physical disabilities that enabled him to "delight in weakness, . . . for when I am weak, then I am strong."

This is God’s story. In the end good will triumph over evil, not by force, but by the power of truth delivered in seeming weakness. In other words, God’s presence and His goodness will be best apprehended in the context of human weakness. It is God’s will that people find Him and understand Him without Him exercising the advantages of power, brilliance and wealth. History demonstrates that it must be so. Whenever religion becomes powerful, wealthy and respected, it quickly loses sight of God and begins to act in the ways God is accused of acting: arbitrary, dictatorial, unforgiving, and unjust. Religions quickly confuse their own ethnic, social and religious identity with the sum total of God’s work in the world, and thus make religion the basis for power over others and the accumulation of worldly wealth. God cannot ally Himself with human power, wisdom and wealth, because in the context of this world, they would only distort the truth about His character. God’s form of government is superior, not in its power and glory, but in its character of humility, grace, gentleness and goodness.

So God is not only hidden to science, He is hidden quite often to religion as well. Human pride and self-sufficiency seeks a God that will make us famous, wealthy, powerful and brilliant. But such a God is not like God, he is in the image of the rebel Lucifer. We are most like God when we are content with weakness and obscurity.

In light of the cosmic conflict, we should not be surprised that God is so difficult to detect with the instruments of science. Were He to erase all of our doubts, we would quickly seek to appropriate Him to our own advantage and make Him over into the image of our own distorted characters. It is when we turn our eyes away from the attractions of power, wealth and brilliance that we begin to detect His presence in weakness. It is when our eyes are turned away from ourselves, that we begin to see glimpses of Him everywhere. Science is not inherently opposed to God, it is just a different source of knowledge about the universe, one well designed for its purpose, but not well-designed to detect His "still, small voice."

The Apparent Miracle III

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:04:58 GMT

This blog is the third in a series. To make full sense of it you need to go back and read the two previous blogs first. I am reviewing a chapter of the book The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Although Hawking does not profess to be a believer, toward the end of the book (in a chapter entitled "The Apparent Miracle") he gives the most brilliant defense of the anthropic principle I have ever encountered. The anthropic principle has been used by the intelligent design crowd as evidence that the universe is uniquely fine-tuned for human existence, and therefore designed by a higher power.

In the first of these three blogs I have summarized Hawking’s argument that the earth’s position in the universe is finely-tuned for life as we know it. If the earth orbited more than one sun, if that sun were slightly larger or smaller, if the earth’s orbit were slightly more oval in shape than it is, if the earth were slightly closer or further from the sun, life as we know it could not exist. As impressive as this argument is, the weak anthropic principle is explainable as chance in that there are multiplied billions of stars, many with planets. So the chance that just one of them might be "just right" for life as we know it seems a reasonable proposition.

In the second blog Hawking unpacks the "strong" anthropic principle, which demonstrates the idea that the entire universe is finely-tuned for human habitation. The very laws of nature have to be exactly the way they are (out of an almost infinite variety of possibilities) for even carbon to exist. There is a whole chain of improbable sequence necessary, grounded in laws that could easily have been different, for life to appear in exactly this place at exactly this time. Take almost any law in the universe, modify it even slightly, and the universe would be a very different place. Building on Aristotle and the biblical accounts of creation, Aquinas argued that the order in nature points to the existence of a Designer who created and sustains the universe in exactly the form that we experience it. The much, more recent work of cosmologists provides evidence for design that is far more overwhelming than anything Aquinas could have known.

How is it, then, that Hawking still does not believe? Because, in his words, science now knows what Aquinas didn’t. The earth is not the center of the universe, it holds no privileged place. It is an average planet, toward the edge of an average galaxy. But at the same time the cosmological evidences for design of the whole are far more impressive than anything Aquinas knew. So what is Hawking’s answer to the problem of the strong anthropic principle? Building on the observation that countless galaxies, stars, and planets would eventually result in one just like earth, Hawking concludes that our universe must be one of a countless number and variety of universes, each with different laws and different outcomes. Ours appears finely-tuned simply because it happened to be the way it is. It is the outcome of an almost infinite rolling of the dice. Our observable universe is only one of many, just as our solar system is only one of many. If the present makeup of the universe is the outcome of one chance in 10⁵⁰⁰, then there must be 10⁵⁰⁰ number of universes. To quote Hawking, "In the same way that the environmental coincidences of the solar system were rendered unremarkable by the realization that billions of such systems exist, the fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes." The multiverse concept explains the fine-tuning of natural law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.

The multiverse theory is grounded on a variety of theories of modern cosmology, theories that arose before the strong anthropic principle was discovered, so it is not invented out of whole cloth. But the reality is that we are in no position as human beings to explore these other supposed universes and verify the truth of these things. We cannot apply scientific method to any alternate universe, much less all of them. The multiverse theory is in the end an educated guess, but can never be compelling in the way that observable natural law is.

I find the following quote from the Chief Rabbi of England, Lord Sachs, helpful: "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They are different intellectual enterprises." We don’t have to accept Hawking’s conclusion that we have to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in conflict. Laws of physics do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. According to Oxford mathematician John Lennox, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. The laws of physics explain how a jet engine works, they cannot build one of themselves."

So in the end it comes back to what you will put faith in. If you put your faith in scientific theories that cannot prove or disprove the existence of other universes or even of God Himself, you have chosen your standpoint in the philosophical universe. If, on the other hand, you put your faith in the Bible as evidence of a Designer God, who not only fine-tuned the earth and the universe as we experience it, but was active in human experience, you have taken a different standpoint. If, furthermore, that God has left footprints in your own life and experience that cohere with the evidence of Scripture, you will probably have less faith in a multiverse explanation for life as we know it and more faith that there is a God who not only designed and sustains this universe, but leaves traces of His presence. "Faith. . . is the evidence of things we do not see." (Heb 11:1)

For the non-scientific believer, like me, the anthropic principle is certainly evidence that science not only cannot disprove the existence of God, at times it almost seems to require it. For the scientific believer, I realize things are more complex than I am capable of sharing here, but one can still hold onto faith, knowing that it opens us to evidence that science can neither demonstrate nor disprove. Faith and certainty do not have to be the same thing. When it comes to matters of science and religion, both believers and unbelievers need a good dose of humility.

Whether you believe or not, you can still be interested in the discoveries of science. Either way you can contribute to theories and experimentation. A great scientist, believer or not, is compelled by evidence rather than pre-conceived theories. But where the evidence falls short of proof, faith takes over and provides the meaning that science cannot provide. There I stand. To quote Lennox again: "Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise (sic). For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation."

Thank you, Stephen Hawking, along with your co-writer Leonard Mlodinow. I appreciate your refreshing honesty and subtle humor. I appreciate your willingness to introduce the complexities of quantum mechanics and cosmology in language a non-scientist can understand. And I pray that you will leave yourself open to detect the evidence of God’s footprints in your life.

The Apparent Miracle II

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:41:49 GMT

In the previous blog we talked about the "environmental coincidences" that make life possible on this earth. Isaac Newton attributed those "coincidences" to the work of God and Stephen Hawking suggests that they were an accident of nature. Ours is only one cosmic habitat out of many that exist in the universe and we obviously must exist in a habitat that just happens to support life as we know it.

But Hawking acknowledges that there is a much stronger form of the anthropic principle. It is not only the location of earth in the universe that is "just right" for human existence, but the very laws of nature themselves happen to be "just right" for human existence as well. (I should note that other cosmologists, such as John Barrow and Frank Tipler, define the weak and strong anthropic principles a little differently than Hawking, but I am following Hawking’s approach) In other words, the entire universe has to be just the way it is for life to exist on our planet. In much of what follows, most readers will need a bit of faith that these things are so, since I am over-simplifying some very complex but exciting concepts. But the concepts are based on Hawking’s work and he is as familiar with these concepts as anyone on earth.

In order to produce life as we know it, the forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements, especially carbon, could be produced from more basic elements and remain stable for billions of years. These heavier elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so stars and galaxies had to be there for carbon to form. Stars can only exist if matter is not uniformly spread around the universe, but varies in density. Not only so, the stars that form have to then explode in precisely a manner to disburse the heavier elements throughout space. Then these heavier elements needed to recondense into a new generation of stars surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. Just as certain events on earth had to occur for life to develop, so every link of this universal chain is necessary for our existence. But for this chain to occur, the fundamental laws of nature had to be "just right."

Hawking goes on to affirm that life as we know it would be extremely doubtful in the absence of carbon. Carbon bonds with other elements in a unique way that is essential for life as we know it. For example, carbon dioxide is very useful for life, but its closest chemical relative, silicon dioxide, is quartz, not particularly breathable. Carbon is formed inside stars from the collisions of three helium nuclei and only because of a special characteristic of the laws of nuclear physics. If the laws by which the elements of the universe interact deviated by just a few percent, it would destroy either all the carbon or all the oxygen in every star and thus the possibility of life. In other words, change the natural laws of our universe just a bit and the conditions for our existence disappear. In the words of Fred Hoyle, "I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed (emphasis mine) with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars."

The above has now proven to be a general principle. Take almost any law of the universe, alter it by only a modest amount, and the universe would be very different and likely unsuitable for life. If protons were less than one percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. If the makeup of the quarks in a proton were changed by as little as ten percent, few atomic nuclei would be stable, and stable nuclei are an essential element of life.

For stable, elliptical planetary orbits to exist, the universe has to function in three dimensions. In any but three dimensions the pull of other planets would send a planet off its orbit either into or away from its sun. In more than three dimensions, the sun would either break apart or collapse into a black hole, "either of which would ruin your day." (The book is really hilarious at times) Similar problems would occur in the case of atoms, causing them to self-destruct. To quote Hawking, "The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it."

But there is an "environmental coincidence" even more impressive than this, which leaves Hawking "almost persuaded" to believe in a Designer. It relates to Einstein’s "cosmological constant" of general relativity. Since all matter attracts other matter, Einstein proposed an anti-gravity force to combat the tendency of the universe to collapse onto itself. The cosmological constant describes the strength of that force. Scientists now believe the universe is expanding from an original "Big Bang," so for a time the cosmological constant was discarded. However, it was recently discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which means Einstein’s repulsive force does exist after all. Here’s the point. If the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, the universe would have blown itself apart long before galaxies could form, and life as we know it would be impossible.

This "strong anthropic principle" seems more than coincidental, even to Hawking. It is a "different kind of luck" than the environmental factors of the weak anthropic principle described in the previous blog. It cannot be easily explained and has deep philosophical implications. To use Hawking’s own words, "Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way." To put it another way, the chance that life as we know it would come to exist in the universe by pure chance is about one in 10⁵⁰⁰ For all practical purposes, that is impossible.

Why is it, then, that Hawking still does not believe in a Designer? Why does he still believe that our universe is the product of luck or chance? I will deal with that in the final blog of this series and also share my own reaction.

The Apparent Miracle

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:13:15 GMT

I have recently completed the book The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Hawking is one of the greatest minds of our era (called by one colleague the most revered scientific mind since Einstein). Co-author Mlodinow is not only a physicist, he has been a script-writer for Star Trek: The Next Generation. This author combo means the book is not only brilliant, it is very easy to read and even hilarious at times. Although Hawking does not profess to be a believer, toward the end of the book he gave the most brilliant defense of the anthropic principle I have ever encountered. The anthropic principle describes how the universe is uniquely fine-tuned for human existence, and therefore points to a higher power. In spite of his convincing presentation, Hawking insists that our existence is just lucky and explains how he believes that luck occurred at the end of the chapter. I will share the essence of his design argument and then the means by which he dismisses it and let you be the judge which side of Hawking’s argument is more persuasive.

In a chapter entitled "The Apparent Miracle," Hawking builds on the work of his friend Brandon Carter, a theoretical astrophysicist. Hawking begins with what he calls the "weak anthropic principle." First of all, he notes that any solar system with multiple suns would probably never allow for life. Life requires uniform heating over long periods of time. The kinds of orbits necessary in binary or multiple systems would result in extremes of hot and cold unsuitable to sustain life. The more suns in the system, the more extreme the temperature changes. So our single-sun solar system is a necessary pre-requisite for human life.

Second, planetary orbits can be circular or elliptical (like a squashed circle, or oval). The earth’s orbit is only 2 percent off of a perfect circle, so that deviation has little effect on temperature and even helps to stabilize the orbit. The reason for summer and winter is not the slightly elliptical orbit, but the tilting of the earth on its axis. The planet Mercury, with a 20 percent deviation from circular, on the other hand, is 200 degrees (F) hotter at its closest point to the sun than at its most distant point. If the earth’s orbit were as elliptical as Mercury’s, the oceans would boil away in summer and freeze over in winter. Radically oval orbits are not conducive to life, so it is good that earth’s orbit is nearly circular.

The earth is also just the right distance from a sun the size of ours. A star’s mass determines the amount of energy it gives off. Therefore, if our sun were 20% more massive the earth would be hotter than Venus. If it were 20% less massive, we would be colder than Mars. Likewise, if we were located any other distance from our sun than we now are, similar consequences would occur. The habitable zone around any star would be an orbit that allows liquid water to exist. The habitable zone around our sun is very small and the earth falls right in the middle of it! How "lucky" for us, says Hawking. If the solar system had had more than one sun, or earth’s orbit had been a different shape or we had been located differently, or the sun had been larger or smaller, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Not only that, we are where we are at just the right time, according to Hawking. It would take about ten billion years to naturally generate the kind of carbon distribution we find in the universe, a distribution also necessary for life as we know it. On the other hand, in a few billion years the stars will have used up most of their fuel, and we require a hot star for our survival. So we seem to be here at just the right time as well. Since there are an infinite variety of stars, planets and possible orbits, it is remarkable that our planet is so finely tuned for our existence. Are we lucky to be here or the product of an intentional Designer?

At this point Hawking brings up the great Bible-believing scientist, Isaac Newton. According to Newton, our solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead it was created by God in the first place and carefully sustained by Him until this day. But Hawking notes that Newton made that judgment without all the evidence we have today. Newton’s conclusion was impressive when this was the only solar system we knew about. But now we know that there are multiplied billions of stars orbited by countless planets, so the unique combination of factors that made life on earth possible is far less remarkable, in Hawking’s opinion. Planets of all sorts exist. Some, or at least one, support life. It’s no wonder we might think the Solar System was all there just for us, but with all the options out there, it shouldn’t be surprising that one of them is "just right."

So the weak anthropic principle leaves us with a bit of a stalemate, at least from a purely scientific perspective. But the anthropic principle is way more remarkable than what we have summarized so far. In the next blog we will summarize Hawking’s strong anthropic principle and the mental leap that Hawking has to make in order to avoid a believing conclusion.

The Dark Side of "Witnessing"

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:20:35 GMT

Throughout my life as a believer I have been confronted with the perception that godly followers of Jesus must witness in direct and confrontational ways that disrupt the equilibrium of unbelievers and sometimes wreck havoc in the social environment. There are certainly texts that can be used in isolation to support such an approach (Matt 28:19-20; 1 Pet 3:15). But this perception needs to be balanced with the importance of modeling the grace, gentleness and self-sacrifice of Jesus, as seen in other texts.

My favorite in this regard is Second Timothy 2:24-26: "And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

Paul’s use of the phrase "the Lord’s servant" implies that followers of Jesus will teach others in the way that Jesus did. The words "gently instruct" are based on the Greek word for meekness (Matt 5:5). To quarrel is the opposite of meekness. The basis for a kind, teachable, and meek approach is the recognition that those in the trap of the devil cannot be freed by human coercion or cunning. They can only be freed by the power of God. That power is best brought to bear by gentleness and kindness rather than confrontation.

This text leads me to think it is unfortunate when confrontational styles of mission are held up as models and more passive ones lead to a charge of "syncretism." The appropriate approach is the one that has the best long-term effect on mission. Paul here, contrary to his reputation, seems to side with the "laid-back" approach that shows respect to others, even when one perceives that they may have become captives to the Devil.

A couple of other helpful texts are in First Peter (2:17; 3:15-16, NIV): "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. . . . But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

First Peter 2:17 is a summary of the previous four verses (13-16). Peter here essentially offers the same strategy for mission that Paul does in 1 Thess 4:11-12. He encourages believers to show sensitivity and respect toward the civil authorities and toward those who believe differently, even when the strength of their pagan views provokes them to slander. In principle, Christians are free from the bonds of society, the social order pales in value next to Christ. Yet Christians are to show respect for the sake of the gospel, and to avoid behavior that could be criticized by outsiders. Not only so, Peter wants Christians, as far as possible, to behave in ways that the pagan society would regard as praiseworthy, although their ultimate loyalty is to God. I Peter 3:15-16 repeats many things already said in chapter 2.

When truth is presented in an argumentative manner it loses its attractiveness. The object of truth is to make people more like Jesus, to share such truth in an unChrist-like manner is counter-productive. The key word here is respect. To approach others as if they know nothing of God, as if we are inherently superior to them, is to show disrespect and incline them to reject our message. But an open, respectful, teachable spirit is winsome and can bring people to conviction.

Disrupting Relationships

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:03:31 GMT

It has been said that knowledge is caught rather than taught. That certainly seems to be the case with regard to the gospel. In Paul’s day the church at Thessalonica had a number of members who used their Christian faith as an excuse to "freeload" off of pagan neighbors. This was contrary to Paul=s own practice of working for a living even while preaching the gospel. This apparently made the church the object of disgust and derision in Thessalonica.

Note the words of First Thessalonians 4:11-12 (NIV): "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

The stated principle in this passage is also applicable today. As far as possible, the followers of Jesus are to live their faith in such a way as to gain the respect of outsiders and avoid being disruptive of the social context in which a spiritual community is placed. Paul’s counsel is interesting, he invites believers to exercise "ambition" to live a "quiet life." In the ancient world a quiet life meant avoiding, as far as possible, engagement in politics and popular social affairs. Charles Wanamaker, in his 1990 commentary on the Thessalonians Letters, calls it "maintaining a low profile."

Let me offer a contemporary illustration of how this might work out in the area of Muslim-Christian relations. In a Muslim society good relationships with neighbors are valued at least as much as truth, honesty, and wealth. When Christians ignore family and social responsibilities in order to "witness" for Christ they unwittingly communicate irresponsibility and social disdain in the Muslim environment. Paul would argue here that the first work of the follower of Jesus is to uplift family and community responsibilities. In that context the witness to Jesus has credibility.

When a person is converted to the Adventist faith in the developing world, for example, the tendency is to pull them out of their family and their environment and send them off to school to learn how to be an itinerant pastor. Such an action may make perfect sense in terms of building up the church as an institution. But the consequent impact on family life can do great harm in terms of the credibility of the church in the Muslim community. So Paul’s counsel here makes me wonder whether the unpredictable God of the Bible really prefers the short-term results of such a policy at the expense of long-term hits to the church’s reputation?

Unnecessary Barriers II

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:08:30 GMT

The Bible’s clearest statement of the principle "meet people where they are" is found in First Corinthians 9:19-23. "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." I have written on this passage at some length elsewhere (Present Truth in the Real World (1993), pages 23-27; Everlasting Gospel, Everchanging World (2008), pages 13-18).

This passage contains Paul’s clearest mandate for an outreach that accommodates itself to a variety of cultures and backgrounds. The more the gospel worker enters into the life and culture of the recipients, the greater the success of the outreach. In so doing, Paul is taking risks with his own spiritual experience (1 Cor 9:24-27). He is even willing to risk being misunderstood. The first couple of chapters in Second Corinthians make it clear that Paul’s flexibility in mission led to considerable tension with the church in Corinth. The Corinthians seem to be asking how they can trust someone who is constantly "changing his mind" (2 Cor 1:12-20), whose "yes" is really "no" and vice versa. Presenting the gospel effectively is not without its risks.

A fascinating point comes into play in verse 20. To the Jew Paul "became" (a Greek aorist) like a Jew. But Paul already was a Jew. Yet there was a sense in which his Judaism had been altered by the gospel. Judaism was something he could re-adopt for the sake of the gospel. The use of "became" with the article suggests that Paul was referring to a specific occasion, perhaps that of Timothy’s circumcision or an incident like the one mentioned in Acts 21:23-26.

In verse 22 Paul sums up saying he has become "all things to all," with the final "all" being the sum total of Jews, under the law, apart from law, and weak that he had described in verses 20-22. There is a driving principle in all of Paul’s mission actions: Place no unnecessary barriers in the way of those who need to hear the gospel. It is the obligation of the one presenting the gospel to cross the divide between the presenter and those who need to hear the gospel. It is not the obligation of the hearer to bridge that gap.

For example, "To the weak I became weak." The term weak here is not used in the physical sense, it had to do with people who were over-scrupulous in spiritual matters. Rather than condemning their scruples, Paul abstained from things they thought were wrong even though he did not consider doing them to be wrong. He did not allow his freedom in Christ to get in the way of the "weak" coming to understand the gospel (1 Cor 8:4-13), which is the only way the "weak" could become "strong" anyway.

The passage suggests that we accommodate those who need to hear the gospel even to the point of seeming to become just like them. How to apply that in today’s world requires special insight from the Holy Spirit. I recommend the above-mentioned books to those who may want to go deeper with these ideas (available by CD or download at this site).

May 21

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 27 May 2011 21:32:48 GMT

In thinking about the events of last weekend (Christian radio preacher predicting the rapture and massive earthquakes) I thought I ought to draw attention to chapter two of my book The Deep Things of God, where I lay out basic principles that would have kept anyone from taking those predictions seriously, even though they were thought to be based on the Bible. The way the preacher used the Bible was out of line with the principles the Bible itself exhibits when you study fulfilled prophecy.

The best way to understand unfulfilled biblical prophecies is by studying fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. As you work your way from Genesis to Revelation you discover how God moves from prediction to fulfillment, from prophetic word to fulfilling action. Discovering the ways of God helps one keep an even keel when wild predictions are out there. If you don't have a copy of the above book, you can download or buy that book and many others in the website store.

A careful look at fulfilled prophecy in the Bible yields the following principles of prophetic interpretation:
1) God is consistent.
2) God is not predictable.
3) God is creative.
4) God meets people where they are.
5) God often spiritualizes history.
6) God uses the language of the past to describe the future.
7) Prophecy is best understood as (after) it occurs.

For the full implications of the above for May 21 and any future predictions like it, see the chapter that is posted on the main site: Click Here

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Unnecessary Barriers

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 15 May 2011 00:10:00 GMT

In First Corinthians 7:17-20, Paul makes a statement that has puzzled many through the centuries. "Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. (1 Cor 7:17-20)

The immediate context of this statement is the issue of marriage and divorce (1 Cor 7:10-16), with particular emphasis on mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers. Paul moves, however, from a particular situation to a more general principle when he states that new believers should "remain in the situation" they were in when God called them. The word "call" here is an equivalent of "conversion." Conversion should not trigger the abandonment of every aspect of a person’s former life. So verses 17-24 are a digression from the main point of the chapter. This digression is triggered by the missionary implications of verse 16, where a believing wife who stays with her husband can be the means of his salvation.

Paul’s point seems to be that we are not to put unnecessary barriers in the way of people accepting the gospel. For a follower of Jesus to leave a mixed marriage (assuming there is no abuse or danger to the wife) is to abandon the spouse in a lost condition. On the other hand, remaining in a less than ideal situation could be a means of saving another. So while the context of verses 17-21 is marriage, Paul is stating a much broader principle:"This is the rule I lay down in all the churches" (1 Cor 7:17).

In verse 18 Paul moves from marriage to circumcision to illustrate his general principle, and slavery and freedom further illustrate the principle in verse 21. Circumcision was a big deal in Old Testament times as well as in Paul’s day. It was the decisive marker setting off Jews from Gentiles. Yet Paul makes the radical statement, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing." To the Jew this statement would have seemed absurd for circumcision was one of God’s commandments in the Old Testament. Circumcision becoming nothing could only be true in relation to the gospel. The gospel is so critical that circumcision is not to stand in the way of someone receiving the gospel. Likewise, a man who was circumcised before his conversion is not to efface the mark of his Judaism. The gospel missionary is not to put unnecessary barriers in the way of the gospel.

This principle addresses the kinds of community that might result from the preaching of the gospel. There were at least two distinct branches of the early church, a Palestinian Jewish branch and a Gentile branch. It was more than a matter of taste or culture. To truly be a Jew one had to separate oneself from "unclean" Gentiles. Paul clearly understood the need to work differently in the two environments (Gal 2:7-9). Among the Jews he used Scripture and kept feasts and even temple rituals (Acts 13:16-41; 17:2-4; 18:21; 20:16; 21:20-26). Among the Gentiles he spoke on the basis of general revelation and quoted Greek poets and philosophers (Acts 17:28 [two quotes: from Epimenides, Cretica and Aratus, Phainomena 5]; Acts 26:14 [from Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1624], 1 Cor 15:33 [one quote found in two sources: Euripedes, Aiolos and Menander, Thais], and Titus 1:12 [also two sources: Epimenides, Cretica and Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus]). Compared to the pagan writings Paul quoted from, use of the Qur=an in outreach, for example, does not seem a stretch.

In First Corinthians 7 Paul considers the distinction between Jews and Gentiles to be significant, even among followers of Jesus. While the cross brings the two into a spiritual unity (Eph 2:11-16), they are to remain distinct for the sake of mission. There is no deception involved here, rather the recognition that God was working in two distinct environments. Rather than force an institutional unity, Paul preferred to maintain the distinction as a piece of his missionary strategy (1 Cor 9:19-23). Just as it was necessary to conduct two distinct missions in the first century, it may also be advisable at times for believing Muslims and Jews today to maintain some distance from traditional Christian communities.

Criticizing Other Faiths

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:08:00 GMT

Paul and his companions began their work in Ephesus in the synagogue and later in the lecture hall of Tyrranus (Acts 19:8-10). Through miracles and exorcisms the gospel impacted the Ephesians with great power (Acts 19:11-22). The resulting downturn in sales of religious crafts provoked a riot (19:23-34) against the followers of Jesus.

What I find significant for the above topic is the speech of the city clerk of Ephesus, who quiets the disturbance (Acts 19:35-41). He notes that the Christians "have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess." One might expect that Paul and his companions would have spoken out publically against such idolatry, and to not have done so might have left him open to charges of "syncretism!" Yet Paul seems to have acted with sensitivity to the local culture and sentiments. To put it another way, he chose "his battles wisely."

A popular commentary puts it this way, "The language of Paul and his companions had been chosen with care when they had spoken about the special worship of Ephesus. They had inculcated the great principles that gods made with hands were not gods, and had allowed that statement to do its work (v. 26). Paul put the same restraint on himself at Athens, though he was greatly moved when he saw ‘the city wholly given to idolatry’ (ch. 17:16)." SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, page 383.

There is an increasing tendency in today’s religious world to render harsh judgments against anyone who deviates even slightly from the convictions we have drawn from our study of sacred texts. There is the feeling that if we do not deliver "the whole counsel of God" we will somehow have compromised our mission to convert others. But Paul, perhaps the Bible’s greatest evangelist, was very sensitive to meeting people where they were (1 Cor 9:19-23) and building on the things he had in common with them. Like Jesus (John 16:12), he did not push people beyond what they could handle in the time allotted to him. At times in our zeal to deliver the truth, we make God over into our own image, which chafes at every misunderstanding or misrepresentation of our position. In contrast, God seems well able to tolerate the misguided worship of him by those who do not yet know better.

How Life Happens

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:04:00 GMT

Writing the blog about "What Not to Say" (March 27, 2011) reminded me of a book I read almost thirty years ago, Megatrends, by John Naisbitt. He described the origins of the American intelligence community in World War II. It was decided that the best way to get a sense of what was going on inside Germany during the war was to subscribe to the local newspapers around Germany. Information about the strain that the war was bringing to the German people, industry and economy began to show up in these newspapers, even though details of production and transportation were censored out. American intelligence tracked local stories about factory openings and closings, train arrivals, departures and delays, and names of local soldiers killed in action. Over time, one could add up these local listings and get an idea of the German economy, the effectiveness of allied bombings, the rate of German casualties and whether the German war effort was improving or deteriorating. This method proved so effective, they began to do the same with Japanese newspapers.

This method remains a major source of information about other countries today for the Central Intelligence Agency and other entities, although the internet is rapidly becoming the most important source of secret information. Why did and does the local newspaper method work so well? Because the traditional local newspaper is a closed system. The size of the "news hole," the portion of the paper devoted to news rather than advertising, does not change significantly over time. So articles are rated in terms of interest and importance, the biggest story is at the top of page one and the least-important story is buried somewhere deep inside. In addition, each article is written so that paragraphs flow in descending importance, from the first to the last. So if a hot, front-page story comes in after the "news hole" has been largely set, an editor can either drop the bottom-ranked story, or cut the last paragraph or two out of all the earlier stories, to make room for the breaking news. In a closed system, you cannot add unless you subtract. One way or the other, you are forced to choose.

Similarly, societies are forced to choose what they will pay attention to. They add new preoccupations and forget old ones. Intelligence agencies can see where a society is at without polls by analyzing what social concerns are attracting attention and which are fading. This is different from the internet, which has an almost infinite capacity to provide space for ideas and perspectives, regardless of whether they are worth attention. Societies as a whole can prioritize only so many things at one time.

In this sense societies are like individuals. You and I can only pay attention to so many ideas and concerns at one time. The limited nature of individual time and attention mean we are like a closed system. If new problems and concerns come into your life, some existing ones are given up, no matter how important they may have seemed at one time. If you add new activities to your life, others will be neglected. You can choose which to neglect or life will make the choice for you. That is a reason many people struggle with a devotional life. It keeps getting crowded out of their focus and attention by life. Unless you "front page" your walk with God, it will have difficulty surviving information overload.

When I read Megatrends I was just beginning my PhD program (1981-1987). I realized at the time that I was adding something huge into my life that could crowd out everything else that was important to me, such as family, devotions, exercise, etc. I realized that if I did not make some difficult choices, life would make those choices for me and I would probably be sorry about the outcome. If I didn’t consciously choose to drop some things from my life, I was heading for a major wreck in the things that mattered most. Up until that time there were two areas of my life in which I had exhibited above-average talent; music (playing the organ and singing in choirs) and Bible study/spiritual work. I realized that if I wanted to do something truly special in this world, I could probably not succeed at both. I had to make a choice or live with mediocrity. So I deliberately chose to eliminate musical performance from my life, painful though that was to me at the time and to many of you as you read. To this day, I don’t sit down at the keyboard in my home, even though I was quite skilled at one time, and I don’t join choirs, even for one-shot occasions. It would simply take the place of things that are more important to me now. In 1981 I also made the decision to stop watching sports, which took up a large amount of "fun time." To this day, we don’t have television reception at our house, so watching sports happens today only on special occasions when friends invite me in for the Super Bowl or an Olympic event or two.

If you are visiting this site, I trust you probably think I made the right decision, to focus my life on the one thing I considered most important. And I have no regrets. I made the choice, life didn’t make it for me. I still love music and listen whenever I can, but I don’t let it run my life. I have been far from a perfect husband and father, but I can imagine the wreck my parenting would have become if I had tried to add sports and music to all the travel, study and writing obligations I have today. The "news hole" concept came at just the right time to confirm decisions I had already made and keep me over the long term from losing my focus in life.

What about you? What are the things that matter the most to you? What are you choosing to do? What is life choosing for you? This is the first day of whatever you will become some day.

Who’s in Charge?

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 02:47:00 GMT

A major issue in the Gospel of John is clearly signaled in the closing verses of John 9. In verse 39 Jesus makes it clear that God is in control of events in this world. He has come in order that judgment might take place, "so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind" (39). There is no hint here of any human choice or responsibility. But then Jesus asserts that the Pharisees must take responsibility for their own blindness (41), no one has done it to them. We see in John 9:39-41, therefore, a dynamic tension. God is in control of events, yet human beings are responsible for their own destiny.

The same dynamic tension is found throughout the Gospel. John 12:37-43 seeks to answer the question; Why is it that Jesus did so many miraculous signs and yet many did not believe in Him (37)? Two answers to the question are given. First, it is asserted that many "could not believe" because, to quote Isaiah the prophet, God "has blinded their eyes, and deadened their hearts" (38, 39). The original is explicit, "they were not able to believe" (38) because of God's action. Second, however, even many who believed would not confess their faith "for they loved praise from men more than praise from God" (42, 43). Unbelief has a dual cause; divine action, on the one hand, and human action on the other.

It is clear throughout the Gospel of John that faith is a condition for receiving the gospel. It is an attitude that human beings must adopt for themselves (3:18, 36). They are not allowed any excuse for unbelief (15:22; 12:47), it ultimately results from a lack of will (5:40; 7:17). Ultimately, people do not come to Jesus because in some way they refuse to come. Unbelief signals a moral problem. The reason people don't come to Christ is that they have something to hide (3:19-21; 5:44; 8:37-47).

Sin, you see, leaves you only two choices if you want to live with yourself. First, you can confess your sin to God and whoever else it needs to be confessed to, and be at peace with yourself and the universe. Or, second, you can change your theology to fit the reality of your unredeemed sinfulness. Behind most heresies, therefore, is a moral problem. People's theologies change to fit their lifestyles. This is supported by the findings of psychology. Research indicates that what you believe has relatively little impact on how you live. You will find sexual, physical, alcohol and drug abuse among church members in good and regular standing and in similar proportions to the secular world. But the reverse is different, how you live has a massive impact on what you believe. To engage in known sin will eventually change what you believe, if it is not confessed and forsaken.

But the above truth must not cause us to overlook its opposite reality in the Fourth Gospel. In John 6:36-47 Jesus asserts that no one comes to God unless it was given him or her by God (37). No one comes to God unless they have been drawn by God, or "pulled" (44). But while faith is never possible without God's intervention, even in this passage there is the sense that in the end people are permitted to make their own decision, whether they will allow themselves to be drawn or not (37, 40). "Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to Me" (45).

In the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Fourth Gospel, therefore, John strikes a powerful dynamic between God's "predestination" and human responsibility. No one should ever say that they came to God. No one comes to God unless God chooses to draw them. But who does God draw? "They will all be taught by God" (45, cf. Isa 54:13). The danger in the doctrine of predestination is not in what it affirms, but in what it denies. Predestination affirms rightly that God is the reason anyone comes to faith. None of us would even begin the walk with Christ, unless God had intervened in our lives. But predestination oversteps the bounds of Scripture if it asserts that we have no choice in the matter of whether or not we will be saved.

The Gospel of John repeatedly asserts that human beings have a choice and that they are held responsible for that choice. The ultimate and greatest sin in the Fourth Gospel, therefore, is unbelief (16:9; 9:41). To refuse to believe in the face of such a great salvation, and in the face of all God's "pulling" power is sin of unconscionable proportions. Yet even there, no human being would even become aware of the sin of unbelief unless the Holy Spirit became the agent of conviction (16:9). To boast of spiritual prowess is, therefore, the most feeble of all boasts.

Perhaps this dynamic tension can best be harmonized as follows: When I look at my own past, it is clear that I owe all spiritual progress to the mighty working of God in my life. When I look to the future, it is equally clear that there are choices that I must make.

What Not to Say

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:10:00 GMT

I have noticed recently that religious people tend to criticize you more for what you don’t say than what you actually do say. That’s not totally true. Sometimes they may agree with what you are saying but dispute the fact that you didn’t "say it right." But that’s really another form of the first observation. It isn’t what you say that ticks people off as much as what you leave out. Perhaps, in today’s world, this is related to the fact that the choice of what you don’t say is more and more important. Everyone who speaks wisely is not only choosing what to say but also what not to say. Taken seriously, this is a life-changing principle.

These thoughts were triggered by reading the transcript of a talk that Martin Doblmeier gave at a recent conference. Doblmeier is the filmmaker whose documentaries on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, forgiveness, and the health practices of Seventh-day Adventists have garnered considerable attention in the religious world over the last decade. Doblmeier notes that at one time filmmaking was limited to those who could gain access to the tools of filmmaking; super-expensive cameras and editing equipment. Today the tools needed to make quality films are in the hands of just about everyone.

Films and short videos are now pouring at us in greater and greater quantity and in varying degrees of quality. YouTube recently announced that every minute of every day more than 24 hours of new material are being uploaded onto their site. A day’s worth of video every minute. I calculated that if one did nothing else for four years (no sleeping, no eating, no download time, just watching videos non-stop) one could only view a day’s worth of uploads. So no matter how much time I were to spend on YouTube, a quest to view all available video materials would leave one infinitely short of success though one spent every waking and sleeping hour at it. More and more we are recording every thought, every silly pet trick, every foolish stunt and every presentation at every conference. The main question then becomes; Who is watching and why?

The main implication for people of faith is powerful. In a YouTube world everyone has to make choices regarding what to do with one’s time. Everyone must decide what is wheat and what is chaff. Everyone must choose whether something is worth putting front row and center or not. There are only 24 hours in a day. Priorities have always mattered, but never so much as they matter now. In a world of infinite choice and opportunity, the most important and most priceless commodity is time and attention. Either we choose to spend our time on things that ultimately matter or we will spend it foolishly on an endless array of unfiltered nonsense. This makes me think. How am I using my time? Where am I investing it? Is every email worth answering? Is even blogging a useful endeavor or a distraction from what is truly real?

There is one further implication. With all the mountains of material being created every minute, how will people ever find God in this world? How will most people find time to consider the things that people of faith think are vitally important? Perhaps more important for readers of this blog: How can we present or frame the stories that really matter in a way that ensures they will not be discarded with all the chaff that’s out there? Never were the words of Jesus in Matthew 13:22 (ESV) more true: "As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful."

Small decisions and encounters each day will determine whether or not someone out there gives the gospel a fair hearing in their lives. You and I may be the only story about God some people ever hear. Kind of fills each moment with potential meaning, doesn’t it?

Do You Have to Become a "Christian" to Follow Jesus?

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:18:00 GMT

The early church faced an interesting situation in Acts 15. Leadership was pressured to choose between structural unity and pragmatic diversity. Structural unity could easily have been achieved had the church remained a sect within Judaism. All Gentile converts would have had to become Jews in order to receive Jesus. The end result would have been a unified church that would have had little impact on the massive Gentile world.

There were many in the church who wanted to go in that direction. Representatives of that group went to Antioch and insisted that salvation was dependant on circumcision according to the laws of Moses (Acts 15:1-2). At the Jerusalem Conference, as recorded in Acts 15, Christian Pharisees insisted not only on circumcision but entire adherence to the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). In essence, Gentile Christians were to be treated the same as Jewish proselytes. Peter, Paul and Barnabas argued against this position on the grounds of God’s acceptance of Gentiles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8), the role of grace in salvation (Acts 15:11), and the abundant evidence that God was working miracles in response to the Gentile mission (Acts 15:12).

James, the half-brother of Jesus, added to these arguments the sense that the Gentile mission was a fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 15:13-18). He argued that Amos 9:11-12 predicted a time when a descendant of David would create circumstances in which large numbers of Gentiles would seek the Lord. If that prophecy was being fulfilled in the mission of Paul and Barnabas, then the church should put no unnecessary barriers in the way of Gentiles receiving Jesus: "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19). The strictures of Acts 15:20-21 were designed to make fellowship possible between Jewish and Gentile Christians. So unity in diversity was preserved.

In other words, the fundamental issue addressed at the council described in Acts 15 was less theological than a matter of community identity. Many feel this situation has a parallel in the outpouring of Muslim interest in Jesus today. They feel that the church of our day needs to make accommodations similar to those of Acts 15 in relation to this new work of God.

Perhaps we could apply the situation of Acts 15 to the current situation in the following way. The issue of Acts 15 was: Does a Gentile have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian? The early church leaders answered, "No." In a Seventh-day Adventist context the issue today could be expressed: Does a Muslim have to become a "Christian" in order to become a Seventh-day Adventist? When becoming a "Christian" in the Islamic world includes eating pork, drinking alcohol, dressing immodestly, and having a lax attitude toward obedience, what does becoming a "Christian" have to do with Adventist faith?

Obviously, the word "Christian" can mean different things to different people. To some the word "Christian" means "culturally Western" more than a spiritual concept. To Muslims the word has political connotations more than religious ones. A Christian is one who opposes Muslim faith with smart bombs, Playboy magazines, and economic sanctions. Ideally, the word "Christian" means one who is a genuine follower of Jesus, but how many of these do you know? Even the best of labels can be more confusing than helpful sometimes. An unpredictable God often turns our labels on their heads.

Dealing With Unusual Converts

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:01:00 GMT

In Saul of Tarsus and Cornelius, the church had evangelistic prospects that stretched the limits of the early church’s tolerance. As a member of the very Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus and prosecuted the disciples and as one who had murdered believers, Saul of Tarsus would be a challenging addition to any first-century Christian congregation. As a Roman centurion, like the man who crucified Jesus, and a Gentile, Cornelius’ entry into the church would also involve significant adjustments on the part of the church.

What is interesting about these stories (Acts 9:11; 10:7-8, 24-25) is that both Saul and Cornelius were quite willing in their response to their heavenly visions. This is in contrast with the difficulties God had in convincing both Ananias and Peter to overcome their fears and prejudices. Ananias is quite willing to respond to whatever the Lord might ask him (Acts 9:10) until he learns what the mission is (Acts 9:11-12). Instead of trusting that God knows what he is doing, Ananias argues with God (Acts 9:13-14) on the basis of Saul’s reputation. Only when God gives him a forceful command along with some explanation does he obey (Acts 9:15-16).

In Acts 10:9-20 the Lord had to startle Peter with a shocking vision, while carefully arranging the timing of that vision with the arrival of the envoys from Cornelius and the Spirit’s insistence that Peter go and meet with them. Only then was Peter convinced to comply with the request. Although Peter does not seem to have raised an objection to going with Cornelius’ men (Acts 9:29), he is clearly out of his comfort zone (Acts 10:28) and only went because God had intervened.

In both cases the new believers, Saul and Cornelius, were more willing to connect with the church than the church leaders were to connect with them. The apostles did not expect that God would ask them to relate differently to Gentiles than their Israelite ancestors had done, they needed a special revelation to grasp that (Acts 10:28; 11:1-18), and even then it took time to sink in.

In the Seventh-day Adventist Roadmap for Mission (Available online at http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other-documents/roadmap.html), workers are advised to set a timetable for bringing "special affinity groups" into traditional churches. This is wise counsel in general, but Acts 9 and 10 illustrate how problematic such a plan can prove in some circumstances, particularly on the side of the church. Four direct revelations from the Lord were needed to accomplish that task in Acts. And the two apostles were more reluctant to receive those revelations than were the new believers. Rather than setting timetables to bring murderers and Gentiles into the church, the apostles needed divine intervention to even begin to take up the challenge. So unless the idea of timetables is handled with great wisdom and flexibility today (being sensitive to the Lord’s timing) it could cause us to lag behind the Lord.

Holding Back in Love

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:58:00 GMT

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear." (John 16:12) This startling saying of Jesus makes it clear that while lying is unacceptable, it is not inappropriate to say less than you know in a given situation. Jesus was clearly aware that there were many aspects of his message that his listeners "can’t handle now." When sharing the gospel in a mission situation there needs to be great sensitivity to the standpoint of the listener at a given time. Truths that may be sweet at a later time can provoke unnecessary opposition when given before the listeners are ready. In a hostile environment, particularly, it is wise to begin with things held in common and move to controversial topics only after a heart connection with another has been established.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus knows what is inside others even before they speak (John 2:23-25). But the knowledge of what is inside another is available to us only after careful listening. To put it another way, we must begin outreach to any community with careful exegesis of their customs, beliefs, and practices. It is equally necessary to love the other the way God loves them.

A friend of mine, Jerald Whitehouse, has pointed out that every spiritual person has an argument need and a spiritual need. When we trigger the argument need by raising or responding to controversial issues between us and another, we may each feel good about "defending the faith" but no one will change for the better. When we avoid the argument need and supply something to the other’s spiritual need, a heart connection can develop, opening the way for spiritual growth in both directions. In John 16:12, Jesus recognized that there were truths the disciples were not ready for. He did not take them one step faster than they were ready to go.

There is an interesting tension between John 16:12 and John 15:15, where Jesus tells them that he shared with them everything his Father had told him. In mission there is a tension between openness and authenticity on the one hand, and sensitivity to what the audience can handle on the other. Religious people often feel a strong incentive to give a "straight testimony," telling people in no uncertain terms the truth exactly as they see it. In the process they damage many relationships and little spiritual good is accomplished. The God revealed in Jesus Christ meets people where they are, not where we think they should be.

The Unpredictable God in the First Verse of John

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:40:00 GMT

As we have seen in the two previous blogs, the Old Testament has some amazing stories that show God acting in ways we would not expect. Some might argue that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is fragmentary and distorted by the primitive nature of Israel’s response to God there. But while it is true that the New Testament provides the clearest revelation of God’s character, the clarity of the revelation in Christ only highlights the unpredictability of God as something essential and inherent to his character. John 1:1 is an example of such a text.

It is felt in some circles that the Christian use of Allah as a name for God is a mark of syncretism. And there is a certain appeal and logic to this position or few Christians would hold to it. Guilt by association, right or wrong, is a major way that people negotiate their way through the various spiritual options available to them. Christian apologetic literature, therefore, notes the associations of the term Allah with the paganism and polytheism of pre-Islamic Arabia to draw the conclusion that both Christian and Islamic use of the term is unacceptable. But the unpredictable God of the New Testament seems less concerned with guilt by association than most Christians are. An example of this is found in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (theos)."

By the time the Gospel of John was written, pagan philosophers such as Heraclitus and Plato had long used the Greek term logos (Word) as a name or title for a "second god" who functioned as the creator and sustainer of the world and then as a mediator between the great God (theos) and the created, material world. Philo, a Jewish philosopher in Alexandria and a contemporary of Jesus, applied this Greek term logos to the God of the Old Testament, the One who gave the law on Mount Sinai. For Philo the Word was a "second God," the high priest in the heavenly sanctuary, an intercessor with God, the lawgiver, the mediator of creation, the mediator of revelation, and the sustainer of the universe. Philo also called him God’s firstborn, his eldest son, the image of God, and the second Adam.

There are strong parallels between Philo and Plato, on the one hand, and the New Testament descriptions of Jesus, on the other. When John called Jesus "the Word," readers of the Gospel who had been influenced by Greek philosophy would have recognized the term as expressing everything they knew about Jesus. John, a disciple of Jesus (John 21:24), had no problem using this Greek term in order to communicate important truths about Jesus. John was contextualizing the message and actions of Jesus in terms that made sense in the Greco-Roman environment. John=s reference to logos is explicit and unmistakable. In saying this I do not mean to imply that John was dependant on the Greek concepts for his picture of Jesus. His world is still a Jewish world. But that did not prevent him from using this charged Greek concept (logos) to connect with his non-Jewish readers.

In a more general way the same pattern occurs with the biblical use of the Greek term for God, theos. In the pagan environment the term theos was used to denote a polytheistic totality of gods. Zeus was the father of the gods as well as the human race. One might expect that the God of the New Testament would encourage his people to stay as far away from this term as possible. Nevertheless, New Testament writers used that term for the true God some 1,300 times. The Muslim and Christian use of Allah may have some unfortunate associations in the Arabic language, but Muslims never use it in a polytheistic sense, it is only used with reference to the one true God. Even the English term "God" has plenty of associations with the paganism and polytheism of pre-Christian Europe. The Islamic world is not the only place where the choice of words for "God" is a challenge. Whenever a new language or culture is approached, a decision has to be made regarding what to call "God" in that culture. One has to choose between local words for God with all of their local connotations and bringing in an unfamiliar name for God, which brands genuine Christian faith as foreign or colonial in that culture.

Human language is an imprecise and problematic tool, but it is the tool God has chosen to reveal himself to the human race. The "unpredictable" God seems less concerned with "guilt by association" than many of his followers are.

The Case of Naaman

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 03:36:00 GMT

Sorry for the long silence. I've been in Australia and didn't have the kind of robust internet feed needed to get this blog out. I'm not saying Australia is behind the times (it is not), but the kind of places I was staying were not kind to my internet habits. Anyway, here goes!

In an earlier blog I argued that the God of the Bible is unpredictable, at least from the human perspective. Over and over again, the Bible tells stories in which God acts in ways we would not expect. His ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8-9). The awareness of this biblical theme has enormous implications for the way we do mission and the way we relate to God and to other people who are trying to understand and follow Him.

Another startling story is found in 2 Kings 5. Naaman, military chief of staff to the Syrian king, is afflicted with leprosy. Upon the advice of an Israelite servant girl he goes to Israel to find healing. After washing seven times in the Jordan at the instruction of Elisha, he is healed and returns to the prophet with a strange request for two mule-loads of earth from Elisha=s property. He then declares his intention to worship no other God but Yahweh while asking for an exception. Would it be all right for him to bow down in the temple of Rimmon when he escorts the king of Syria there? “Go in peace,” is Elisha’s surprising reply.

There is a connection between the two mule-loads of earth and ancient religious beliefs. In all of known human history the era of the most radical religious change occurred in the first millennium B.C. During this period people in general moved from a devotion to what we would call heathen religions, where religion was associated with the land and the forces of nature, to the philosophical or world religions we are familiar with today. All the great world religions of today either had their origin between 800-200 B.C. (Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism) or are directly dependant on those that did (Christianity, Islam, Sikhism). These religions have largely displaced the primal religions although the primal religions still have influence below the surface in many parts of the world.

For the primal religions of Naaman’s day, all gods were associated with one land or another. That meant that Naaman could not worship Yahweh, the God of Israel, in Syria unless he brought with him Israelite dirt to spread in his garden. As noted in the SDA Bible Commentary, volume 2, page 878: “Although Naaman had recognized the fact that outside of Israel there was no God, he had not entirely divested himself of the view that the God of Israel was in some special way attached to the land of Israel, and in his own country he wanted to worship that God on Israelite soil.” So when Naaman wanted to worship Yahweh, he would kneel on the Israelite soil. When he entered the temple of Rimmon with the king, he would bow his head but not his heart. Elisha agrees with this arrangement, somewhat to our surprise.

Many godly people love to exalt the Bible as the rule of all faith and practice. We must not come to the Bible in a critical or suspicious spirit. Instead, we must bow before the Word of God and submit ourselves to its teachings. And I agree totally with these sentiments. But truly submitting to Scripture can be a lot more challenging than merely a verbal assent to its superiority. It sometimes means discovering a God we didn’t know about before, or One that we didn’t believe in. Then our level of submission to Scripture is truly exposed.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

The Unpredictable God in the Old Testament

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:11:00 GMT

God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). The specific context of this passage is that God's compassion and His willingness to pardon extends to people we would not expect. The Bible is full of examples where God acted in ways that orthodox believers, including me, would not have expected or allowed. I will share a few brief examples in this blog and then draw a conclusion regarding how we should relate to such a God.

In Genesis 22:2 God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, creating a major test of Abraham’s faithfulness. If I were God, I wouldn’t have done that. After all, according to Jeremiah (32:35), sacrificing one’s son or daughter is taken for granted to be a detestable and sinful act.

If I were God I would have chosen Joseph rather than Judah to father the line of the Messiah. Not only did Judah sleep with his daughter-in-law Tamar, but that action produced a son who would be an ancestor of the Messiah (Gen 38:13-30; cf. Matt 1:3). The messianic line also includes Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho, and Bathsheba, the adulterous wife of Uriah (Matt 1:5-6). God is more tolerant and forgiving than we are, and does not avoid guilt by association.

One of the many challenges of 2 Samuel is the way God related to David’s family. In one text (2 Sam 12:8) it is implied that polygamy was God's will for David. Rebuking David for seducing Bathsheba, God says, “I gave. . . your master's [Saul's] wives into your arms.” We would not expect to hear God asserting that he "gave" David more than one wife. After all, the grand biblical principle is clearly stated in Genesis 2:24. It is two that become one flesh, not three or four. Yet God did not rebuke David or even the patriarchs for their multiple wives, a practice with tragic consequences for family life in both instances. Whatever we make of 2 Sam 12, God proved Himself well able to work with people involved in a marital system contrary to his ideal. It took time for God’s original ideal in marriage to be restored.

Things get really bizarre at times in the prophets of the Old Testament. God told Isaiah to wander the streets of the city naked for three years proclaiming a message of doom for the allies of Judah (Isa 20:2-4). Would we want to work with a mission partner who claimed God had told him to preach naked for three years? This command was not calculated to enhance Isaiah’s reputation (or even God’s reputation) among the people, yet this extreme action served God’s revelatory purpose to get the people's attention. While Isaiah must have been embarrassed by this command, Micah became even more of a laughingstock. He not only walked around naked, he was howling like a jackal and moaning like an owl (Mic 1:8)!

The story of Daniel 2 is widely known and appreciated by believers everywhere, yet its implications for the character of God are often missed. Before God ever approaches the faithful Hebrew Daniel with a vision, he gave one to Nebuchadnezzar the pagan king, the enemy of God and his people. A careful look at the Aramaic of Daniel 2 and 7 makes clear how radical this action was. Most readers of Daniel think Nebuchadnezzar had a “dream” in chapter 2 and Daniel had a “vision” in chapter 7. But the Aramaic of Daniel 2:28 and 7:1 is essentially identical. Both men saw a “dream and visions of (their) head as (they) lay in bed.” Whatever it was that Daniel experienced, Nebuchadnezzar also experienced. In other words, God treated a pagan king, who did not believe in him and warred against his people, as an object of revelation on the same terms as a Hebrew prophet, and the mode of revelation in these two cases was the same. This is hardly the kind of behavior most of us would have expected from God. His ways are not our ways.

These Old Testament references help us to see that while God never contradicts himself, he is never totally predictable either. We can often fit his words and actions into our understanding only with a great deal of discomfort. This has led me to a much more open mind in regard to creative approaches in the area of mission. Just when I think I have God figured out, he does or says something that surprises me. The unpredictable God is likely to be at work in our world in the places where we would least expect it.

According to Isaiah 55:8-9, God reaches out in compassion to those who are "wicked" and "unrighteous." How much more will he be willing to pardon and include those who follow Him with all their hearts, even though their knowledge of Him is limited? We must keep this reality in mind as we seek to avoid the dangers of religious syncretism (intentionally or unintentionally mixing truth with error). While syncretism is a grave danger to mission, its equal and opposite danger is the tendency to bind up outreach work in ways that limit God's freedom of action in the name of doctrinal and lifestyle purity. To use the words of Joshua Massey, "His ways are not our orthodoxy.”

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Can We Trust the Bible?

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 21:33:00 GMT

Can one trust that the Bible is truly the Word of God, given to guide our lives? In a scientific, skeptical, whatever’s right for you kind of world, can we really have confidence in the Scriptures? Can we really believe what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:13? I believe that we can.

I will support that belief with four reasons of the head and then move to some reasons of the heart. First of all, God uses prophecy to demonstrate that the Bible is more than merely the words of human beings, who can only guess regarding the future. Human beings do not know the future. They can predict events with some level of accuracy one, five or ten years in advance, but hundreds and thousands of years? That requires divine knowledge. The Bible contains such knowledge. The accuracy of prophecies like Daniel 2 and Matthew 24 show a God who reveals secrets that human beings cannot know on their own.

In their approach to the Thessalonians; Paul, Silas and Timothy demonstrated how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in relation to the Messiah. Acts 17:2-3 tells us that when Paul arrived in Thessalonica, he reviewed the prophecies regarding the Messiah and then showed how Jesus fit the specifications. I detail Jesus’ remarkable fulfillment of the Old Testament in my book Meet God Again for the First Time. As we discover a God who knows the future, we gain confidence that God can use His Word to read our hearts and guide us in the right path (see John 2:23-25; Heb 4:12-13).

A second reason I have confidence in the Bible is the evidence we have in ancient manuscripts. Most ancient documents are found in, at most, a handful of hand-written documents, often only in translations, or in a fragmentary state. By way of contrast, our New Testament alone is based on around 5800 different Greek manuscripts. While there are some interesting variations in that evidence, more than 99% of the words in the NT text are based on multiple pieces of evidence from different traditions and locations. The original words of the New Testament have not been manipulated or distorted. We can have confidence that the Bible we hold in our hands today is the book God intended us to have.

A third reason I have confidence in the Bible is its account of the resurrection of Jesus. The main reason to doubt the resurrection of Jesus is bias against the possibility of resurrection. Consider the empty tomb. It makes no sense apart from a resurrection. Why was the tomb empty? Why has the body of Jesus never been found? The enemies of Jesus had no motive for removing body of Jesus. And if they had control of the body of Jesus, why didn’t they produce it when the disciples started proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection? The enemies of Christian faith could have destroyed it in a moment, if only they had had the body of Jesus in their possession!

The friends of Jesus had no motive for removing the body of Jesus either. Nor did they have the power to do so. They exhibited a total lack of courage at cross. They were devasted by this unexpected event. What could possibly have changed that perspective only a day later? The disciples didn't believe He would allow himself to die in the first place (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33), and they were very slow to believe resurrection when it actually did occur. Even if they had wanted to steal Jesus’ body, there was a platoon of highly trained Roman soldiers guarding the tomb. So the theory that the disciples stole the body of Jesus makes no sense historically.

Think about it. If the disciples had somehow stolen the body of Jesus, they would have known that they were suffering torture and death for a hoax, a flat-out lie. Maybe one person might be dumb enough to do that, but there were hundreds who claimed to have seen Jesus after his crucifixion (1 Cor 15:6). So purely in terms of the historical evidence, the best explanation for the empty tomb is that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected from the dead. And if the resurrection of Jesus really happened no other miracle in the Bible is impossible or incredible.

A fourth reason I trust the Bible is archaeology. There was a time when we knew little about the ancient world. Wherever the Bible differed from what we thought we knew, many assumed the Bible was in error. But more and more findings are verifying the historicity of the Bible. For example, it was assumed for a time that the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem never existed, it was a made-up story. But now the pool has been found and it was huge! I could mention many more examples, but space does not permit.

But let’s move to reasons of the heart. Ultimately, the Bible is self-authenticating. In other words, as we read the Bible we become increasingly aware of the presence of God in the text. You can’t necessarily put your finger on why or how, but millions of people over nearly two thousand years have testified to this awareness and I have experienced it many times.

You haven’t experienced this? One possible reason is that people often approach the Bible as a book of history or a book whose teachings are disputed. They stand in judgment over the Bible, seeking to determine what about it is true and what is not. Jesus Himself pours cold water over this idea (John 7:17). If the Bible is truly the Word of God, it is not to be handled in a trivial manner. The Spirit of God is bound up in this Word and God will manifest Himself through the Bible if we approach it with an open heart and mind.

One of the hardest things for human beings to learn is a teachable spirit. We love to be right and we bristle when anyone tries to correct us. But the Bible is given for correction and if we approach it in a teachable spirit, it will not only modify the detours in our own thinking, but minister the presence of God into our hearts. You gain confidence in the Scriptures the same way a couple gains confidence in their relationship. You spend time with the Word and the God behind the Word will reach out to you. Over time that presence becomes more and more real to you.

Beyond the presence of God, we discover that the Word of God meets our needs. It is almost as if God’s word can read our minds, discern our needs, and apply the truth of God directly to our hearts (John 2:23-25; Heb 4:12-13). So if you have never developed the kind of confidence in the Bible I am talking about here, I invite you to taste and see for yourself. I believe that if you will open God’s word with an open heart, you will gradually come to experience what so many before you have experienced. God’s Word will become real to you, and in the process God Himself will become real to you.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Does God Answer Only Trivial Prayers?

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:29:00 GMT

Our God is a God of love. He enjoys showering His beloved ones with little gifts. Just to say “I love you.” Perhaps you’ve just lost hope of finding a parking spot in time to meet a critical appointment. You send up a desperate prayer and suddenly a space appears. A worried mother wonders where her boy is and sends up a quick prayer. Just then the phone rings and she discovers all is well. Or you survive a harrowing experience and discover later that several friends felt impressed to pray for you at exactly that time. Millions of believers around the world have experiences just like this every day. God is real and He loves to make His presence known to those who are open to it.

But just now the skeptic in you is saying, Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that God manages the comings and goings in every parking lot around the world just in case one of His followers needs a spot at the last minute? What about all the real heartaches in this world that are met with silence? What about women who are raped and their cries for help go unheeded? What about men who contract terminal cancer in the prime of their life and feel as if their prayers go no higher than the ceiling? What about parents who pray for wayward children and go to their graves without a clear response from God?

These objections have serious weight. Believers often fail to realize how trivial their experience of God’s presence may seem to others who have suffered deeply in this life. Our glib expressions of how God is working in our everyday lives can be like a knife in the heart to someone experiencing the absence of God (something Jesus also experienced when He was on the cross– see Matt 27:46 and parallels). Such was Job’s experience with his friends. It can feel as if God answers only trivial prayers.

The story of Job makes it clear that there is no answer to most of the specific objections raised above, at least in this life. The tragedies in Job’s life were unexplainable in earthly terms. They had to do with complexities in the larger universe that Job never came to understand. Even when God came down in person to talk with Job (Job 38:1 - 41:34), He never mentions the real reason for Job’s suffering, a reason the reader of the story is allowed into (1:6-12; 2:1-7). There is a cosmic conflict in the universe that affects all that we do and all that we experience. God’s actions are sometimes limited by larger considerations in that conflict, things we may never understand until eternity. Perhaps God’s intervention in Job’s situation would have upset the whole space-time continuum of the universe in a way even quantum physicists could not understand. God cannot explain what we cannot understand. What we do understand is that larger divine interventions can change things in a way that causes collateral damage at some unspecified time in the future. The good we hope God will do in the present could cause greater harm in the future.

There is an interesting biblical illustration of this. It is the story of Hezekiah as told in Isaiah 36-39. Hezekiah was one of the most faithful kings in the history of Judah. When the time came for him to die, he pleaded with God (Isa 38:1-3). God granted an extension of fifteen years (38:5) along with a major astronomical token of His presence (38:7-8-- how Hezekiah came to have this experience is not explained). Yet during those extra fifteen years two things happened that undid all the good that Hezekiah had done during his lifetime, the visit of the Babylonian envoys (39:1-8) and the birth of his son, who became the evil king Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1-9). In the context of the cosmic conflict between God and Satan major interventions in people’s lives are very complicated. The ramifications are usually way beyond our understanding.

Having said this, I still want to argue that a believer’s experience in a parking lot is not necessarily imaginary. I cannot explain the timing and the effort involved in God’s actions. But I do believe that God would answer every prayer in a positive manner if pleasing us were the only consideration. If finding someone a parking space or timing a phone call will not upset the space-time continuum of the universe, why wouldn’t a loving God intervene? If a woman makes a full commitment to Jesus just as a rain shower happens to be passing, why wouldn’t God arrange that if the stakes were low enough? I guess what I am saying is that the lower the ultimate stakes, the lower the potential consequences of any particular divine intervention, the more likely that a loving God can use the circumstances of life as a token of his love. We serve a God who delights to please His children whenever so doing would not cause harm to anyone. Having said that, those of us who have experienced this kind of intimacy from God need to be careful when and how we share such experiences with others. Our well-intentioned testimony can do harm even when God’s gift did not. I think we need to be aware how often testimonies cause pain.

What do you think?

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Challenges of a GC Presidency

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:52:04 GMT

I am sharing a few thoughts about the new General Conference President as a person. I have addressed some interesting aspects of his personality and some of the fine personal qualities he brings to the task. Now I want to suggest some tendencies that have caused people concern. I don’t claim divine perspective and all the following needs to be taken with the appropriate grain of salt. But I am well aware even the best of God’s people are flawed and sometimes our strengths can also be turned against us. Those who love this church and care about Ted Wilson will want to help him be the best that he can be. That may at times include of word of counsel or admonition. Please take the following in that spirit. I will not be offering generalizations about the state of the church, but the unique challenges that Ted as a person may face in addressing those larger issues.

Ted Wilson’s first sermon as president did not go as well as he would have liked. He used some technical terms that have multiple meanings and thereby exposed some good people to unnecessary criticism. The tone of the sermon was also alarming to many of the non-SDAs present. In an internet age, bluntness gets attention, but it can also be hurtful to those who were not intended as the target of one’s speech. I understand that when Ted realized that non-SDAs felt excluded by his message he wanted them to understand that he was talking “in-house.” But in an internet age there is no more “in-house.” Everything we say can be analyzed and nuances drawn that may not have been intended. Openness and candor are admirable qualities that need to be balanced with the carefulness in speech that Wilson’s predecessor exhibited so well. Ted is in the middle of a learning curve here.

The nominating process at the General Conference session has been characterized as “ruthless” by some who were there. Changes were made, sometimes without warning of any kind. I’m not sure the process was any different than what has occurred in previous sessions, but the impact of those changes was greater in the context of the current housing crisis. Individuals brought to the General Conference from overseas in the last two or three years (for example), own houses that are seriously “under water” (value much lower than remaining mortgage), which means they cannot sell and go somewhere else. More than one of these were suddenly replaced with devastating consequences. This has left a sense of insecurity on all in a similar situation, even if they retained their positions. The instability of the process will make it harder to attract good people to the GC in the future. Wilson needs to find a way to balance the president’s need to make changes with the pastoral consequences of those changes.

Will Ted Wilson be able to maintain his authenticity, humility, and approachability in the context of the enormous pressures the presidency puts on a person? Previous presidents were often changed by the position, becoming more isolated in the face of the burdens and political pressures that come with the job. More conservative elements in the church have high expectations for Wilson. Will he be able to maintain his role as a consensus builder in the face of those pressures? And will he be able to retain the support of the conservative base if he does seek consensus? The future is open here, but history suggests that GC presidents tend to become isolated from feedback over time. In Wilson’s case, where his greatest strengths are in the areas of listening and flexibility, such isolation would become a matter of major concern. It is very important that he surround himself with strong people who can provide a variety of perspectives on the issues.

The dark side of being a good listener is a tendency to micromanage. You want to be helpful to people who express concerns about things happening at lower levels. You feel somehow responsible, so instead of trusting those under you, you raise questions, seeking to understand and address issues that may not be in the direct purview of the president. While well intended, micromanagement tends to discourage mid-level managers and create an atmosphere of fear and suspicion. It also diverts a chief executive’s time from the big issues. This is a danger Ted will want to avoid.

Finally, bluntness combined with power is intimidating. All the GC presidents I have know have been somewhat intimidating due to a combination of personality and power. This can cause people to be silent when they should be vocal, to go along when they should challenge. Fortunately, Ted welcomes counterpoint and can be confronted with courage combined with gentleness. But if you want to be taken seriously with Ted, he needs to know that you are on the same page with him, that you are as committed to the mission of the church as he is. The more individuals have the courage of their convictions in Ted’s presence, and the more he listens, the more successful he will be as a president. I hope this blog will be taken in that spirit.

The future lies before the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Both the opportunities and the challenges are great. Our new leader needs our support and our counsel (when opportunities arise) as well as our prayers. I hope you will join me in praying for our new leader, who brings many strengths and also some potential weaknesses to the task. I extend that invitation also to those not of the SDA Church, pray that this church will fulfill its unique mission and help hasten the return of Jesus that will bring suffering and oppression to an end. Let’s “hold up Ted Wilson’s hands” to that end.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

A Man of Many Gifts

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 17:34:00 GMT

Ted Wilson brings a number of excellent personal qualities to the office of President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. One of the most important of these is authenticity. While you may not agree with his theological positions, they are not a game with him, he truly believes what he says and he says what he believes. He loves the writings of Ellen G. White and consults them carefully as he makes decisions. Also, in the culture of the General Conference building, it is often expedient on committees to keep silent once the president has spoken and revealed his position. But as a vice-president, Wilson was forthright, even when opposing the position of the president did not seem to be in his best political interests. Openness and candor are critical in the process of determining the best future directions for the church.

I also find Wilson to be approachable and a good listener. Like his father, he has a terrific memory of names and previous encounters with people. At the Loma Linda University board, he was approachable during breaks, often reminding people of times they met in high school or college. He is a good listener and I have seen him bring back things said by others hours or days before in spite of a life of information overload. On more than one visit to the General Conference building since his election, I have encountered him simply “hanging around the halls” chatting with people, something I rarely saw in his predecessors. The presidential office tends to isolate people and Wilson is well-constituted to resist that and get the feedback necessary to be successful.

The quality about Ted Wilson I find most likeable is his humility and simplicity. I understand that when he became president he turned down the designated parking spot that provides convenience and anonymity to the one in the position of power. Instead he continues to park his car in the general lot and work his way into the building the slow way. When he led the SDA church in Russia, he provided car budgets for the local leaders and directed the Americans, including himself, to use public transportation. He continues to live simply and prefers to be called “Ted,” rather than Dr. Wilson, Elder Wilson or Mr. President. In spite of the pressure of the presidency, I understand that he still teaches a Sabbath School class in his local church and is treated like a “normal” person there, rather than a celebrity. I pray that the pressures of the office will not change him in this regard.

Ted Wilson is a conservative in belief and lifestyle. Contrary to some internet opinion, I do not find him mean-spirited or political. He is a “nice” conservative. Language that sounds like a campaign speech and actions that seem political to others are not so intended. As I mentioned above, Ted really believes what he says and he doesn’t say or do things simply for political effect. Nor does he intend to be hurtful toward those who disagree and he does what he can to mend situations, when he becomes aware that hurt has occurred.

Arising out of his strong convictions, Ted Wilson tends to come across as rather blunt. He enters the room with an opinion and a goal, but this is tempered by his listening skills. I have seen him change his mind and adjust his position when data is presented that he wasn’t aware of upon entering the room. So I would characterize him as blunt but flexible. Those who deal with him should not be intimidated by his bluntness, but appeal to his listening skills to communicate other perspectives on an issue. His record with those who know him best is as a consensus builder rather than a divider. Flexibility is critical in a church leader and Wilson has more of that than many people think.

Finally, those who have worked under him consider him a master administrator. Everything he does runs “like a well-oiled machine.” Such efficiency can produce both good and bad outcomes, but it is much to be preferred over against incompetence. Ted is a very competent person, but he is facing challenges that will test his competence and his many fine qualities to the limits. I will address some of those challenges in my next blog.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Ted Wilson, the Person

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:49:00 GMT

Readers not in the Seventh-day Adventist tradition may want to skip this blog and any others like it. The name Ted Wilson may mean little to most people in the world, but it is really big in the Seventh-day Adventist community. Why? He got elected president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists last summer, and that makes him important to the 17,000,000 members and an equal number of children, attendees, and general adherents of the church around the world. Since Adventists around the world are wondering what kind of leader they have, I thought I would set out a few thoughts from personal connection and conversations with others who are even closer to him.

I have known Wilson personally off and on for some 35 years. We started out in church ministry together in New York City in the last half of the 1970s. We were ordained to the gospel ministry together at Camp Berkshire, 90 miles north of the City, in 1978 (his wife was hugely pregnant that day). His father, who became General Conference President that year (serving in the role until 1990), officiated at the service. Since 1981 we have served in different parts of the world most of the time, but have had the opportunity to keep in touch from time to time. While I wouldn’t characterize our relationship as really close, he still uses a name for me that I haven’t used in 25 years (that’s for me to know and you to find out), a reminder that we go way back.

Wilson was born and raised in Egypt, which means he has a great love for the muslim world in general and the Middle East in particular. Although the son of a man who would become General Conference President (sound a little like the Bush family?), he never wore his father’s position on his sleeve, he was always a regular guy. You never got the impression, “Do things my way or I’ll tell Daddy!” He has always tried to earn his own way, and I appreciated that. In addition to his years in Egypt, Wilson has also served for several years each in Ivory Coast and Russia.

On the personal side, Ted Wilson loves to work with his hands, particularly remodeling houses and handyman type of stuff. I really admire that as I am pretty lost when it comes to replacing a ceiling fan or a fried outlet. He kept that up as Vice-President of the General Conference, but now will likely have to give that up for the foreseeable future. Another thing he may have to give up is serious involvement in his local church, Tridelphia SDA near Silver Spring, Maryland. Up until the time of his election as president, he served as head elder of the church (highest local position under the pastor in Adventist churches) and regularly taught an adult Bible class (Sabbath School lesson). So he blends in easily with the “common people” and does not shy away from the tough work of making a local church community successful. And a little secret note, I understand from those close to him that he really loves fires. Expect a bonfire if he ever invites you over on a Saturday night!

For those who care about his election (and that includes a whole lot of my friends and workmates), I plan to share what I know about his special gifts for leadership and also some of the unique challenges he will face as president of the General Conference. While it might be presumptuous of me to call him “close friend” in light of the long absences over the years, I do think I know him well enough to offer a little insight on his character for those who don’t know him personally. These are just one man’s impressions. But I think it is encouraging for Adventists to know that the better most people know Ted Wilson, the better they like him.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Implications of the Stages of Faith for Institutions

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:34:00 GMT

Do religious institutions mirror these stages of faith in their growth and development? The best research suggests so. Religious institutions reflect the spiritual stage that is the common denominator of the total membership. Since the vast majority of adherents to any religion would be in the earlier stages of faith, most religious institutions would be in stages one, two or three. The interesting question is whether any religious institution has ever moved beyond stage three into the higher, more mature stages of faith. Or do religious institutions inevitably get stuck in one of the earlier stages?

What is a religion, or a religious institution? Religious institutions are a human response to the perception of God’s work in the world. The institution is created out of that awareness (stage one?) and is intended to promote the work of God on earth and help people learn and grow in their knowledge and experience of God (stage two?). New religions are God-focused and God-honoring. But over time they become more and more occupied with self-preservation. The natural selfishness of individuals has its counterpart in corporate selfishness. Institutions become less and less about God and more and more about preserving the existence of the institution. This is rarely by anyone’s intention, it seems to be a natural process that happens over time. Although religious leaders can be perverse, it usually seems to happen in spite of the best intentions on the part of leaders (see my blog on unintended consequences, posted on 12/6/2006).

In a real sense the question is whether any religious institution is capable of growing past stage three, the success stage. In the success stage the institution grows in numbers and financially. It expands its operations and becomes an “empire.” The bigger the institution becomes the more it can do for God, so growing and preserving the institution becomes increasingly the focus. But in order to move beyond this corporate focus a religion would have to go through a dark night of the soul, which would likely result in the destruction of the institution, at least in the form that people have grown accustomed to. Has any religious institution ever found life by dying? Has any religious institution ever “taken up the cross” in the full implications of that term (Mark 8:34-38)? I’m not sure any matured religious institution has ever done that (the early church of the New Testament made great strides in the bloom of the initial romance with Jesus, but in the second century that quickly faded).

So as a rule, religious institutions inevitably get stuck in stages two or three. That means that people who experience the dark night of the soul and enter stage four and beyond inevitably feel more and more out of synch with the religion they are part of. If you have experienced this you are not abnormal. This is probably as natural as breathing. People in stages five and six have no real home on this earth, their home is in heaven. They are often a source of perplexity and even amusement among those in the throes of spiritual success. How much more do they perplex whose who have become stuck at stage two or three! These are enamored of their success and their theological correctness and cannot understand the shifting winds of the Spirit who creates unique, unpredictable spiritual partners of God.

So what is a person in stages four to six to do about this? If a religion has truly abandoned God in some perverse way, then they should leave it. But that doesn’t mean that they will feel more at home somewhere else. God-following institutions are still subject to the law of the common denominator. So higher-stage followers of God are not likely to find a religious institution that fully affirms their walk with God. Fortunately, their spiritual nourishment is no longer dependant on the institution, it comes from those rare upper-level mentors and God Himself.

So, how to survive the sense of dislocation that is so common among stage four to six followers of God? The key lies in the mission principle of meeting people where they are. It is the mentoring principle. People are attracted to those who are one stage ahead of them. The high-level mentor can place himself or herself in the place where the individual or audience needing to be mentored needs them to be. Approach a stage two context from stage three. Approach a stage three context from stage four. That is easy for the higher-stage person to do since they have been through all the stages.

This is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is going back to an earlier stage for selfish reasons or to avoid losing control. Hypocrisy is about getting stuck in an earlier stage because the challenge of moving on is too threatening somehow. Mentoring is about going back for the sake of others, not for our own sake. We can be comfortable in our spiritual skin, at home with God in stages four, five or six. But we go back for the sake of mission, for the sake of others. This is the way people at the upper stages can remain useful and engaged with the institutions God has allowed and encouraged to be put into place.

Religious institutions are not bad things, in and of themselves. They started out with the purpose of honoring God and pointing people to His mighty activity in their midst. Institutions provide a great deal of organization and efficiency in the service of that mission. Even when they get stuck, God can still use them to reach individuals with a message that might not otherwise have come to them. But religious institutions are not an end in themselves. They are useful only to the degree that they point outside of themselves, to the great work of God on the earth. Such institutions need higher-level companions of God to keep them on track. They need the prophetic challenge to die to self and point all things toward God. Don’t abandon your community because you no longer seem to fit. This sense of dislocation is likely God’s call to a sacrificial ministry outside of one’s comfort zone (in the upper levels of spiritual relationship with God). You can be true to yourself and still serve an institution that is imperfect.

One final point. My spiritual life has been nurtured in the Seventh-day Adventist tradition. That tradition was grounded in end-time reflection. Part of that end-time thinking is the concept of a “time of trouble” (some prefer the term “tribulation”) through which God’s faithful people must pass in order to attain their spiritual destiny (Rev 7:14). Some have called this view “final generation perfection.” The view is inspired in part by the statement of a beloved mentor, “When the character of Christ is perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own (Second Coming).” (Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 69). Note, however, that White did not say “in His individuals” as if this perfection was a personal thing, she says “in His people,” which sounds like a corporate thing, a community experience.

So while the Adventist view of end-time perfection has failed to attain its goal at the individual level (the very concept of end-time perfection seems to sabotage individual progress toward that goal), perhaps there is a corporate dimension to this expectation. Is it possible that God will so arrange events that His faithful people from every nation, language and religion will find each other in a glorious end-time remnant (Rev 12:17)? That this remnant will collectively pass through a dark night of the soul and be taken to another level? That this level will demonstrate to the universe that sinful, selfish humans in community can connect with God at the most intimate level in spite of the obstacles to such on this earth? That God will be uniquely glorified in His end-time people (1 Thess 2:19-20)? Time will tell.

My dream is to see something never before seen in the spiritual history of this earth. A worldwide community of faith that has collectively passed through the dark night of the soul (the biblical concept of end-time tribulation) and has moved collectively into a sold-out, intimate faithfulness to God’s purpose and God’s mission. May I live to see Him come in the fullest sense of that term.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Some Concluding Implications

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:01:00 GMT

In this series we have been looking at various stages of faith and some of the implications of each stage. Now I’d like to conclude with some reflections on the big picture of these stages and their implications for making our way in a challenging world.

First, I don’t want to leave the impression that people march through the stages with lock-step precision. Things are more complicated than that. It is possible to live in more than one stage at a time. Everyone has a “home” stage at any given time, but we may move back and forth between stages; more like the progress of the stock market than a straight-line journey. The one clear progression is that each stage builds on the ones before it. One cannot leap forward to stage five from stage two, the stages in between are a natural development, like stages in the life of a plant. But it is possible to go back a stage or two, either a natural, unconscious slipping back if a new stage is too challenging, or a deliberate moving back for selfish or altruistic reasons. A certain amount of ambiguity is natural and normal. This underlines the fact the spiritual growth, like plant growth, must be natural, in God’s time, rather than a program forced on someone else or one’s self. Let God grow you at His pace.

Second, every one of these stages is natural, normal, good and appropriate. Later stages are not “better” than earlier stages. Each stage is the best place for a person to be in a natural progression of development. To be in a particular stage is only negative if one is stuck in that stage and becoming mired in the negative elements that can cause concern at each stage. Stage two, for example (the discipleship stage), may sound negative and inferior because of its tendency to rigidity and judgmentalism, but it is actually a beautiful stage of learning and growing and integrating into a spiritual community. It only becomes negative when people lose the courage to keep growing.

Third, it is extremely helpful for leaders and mentors to learn the characteristics of each stage so they can recognize where people they mentor are in this continuum. We are attracted to people who are one stage ahead of us. We are perplexed by people who are two stages ahead of us. And people who get three stages ahead sometimes get killed (Jesus Christ). So effective mentoring occurs when the mentor willing goes back a stage or two in order to meet people where they are (at stages one, two or three). This is not hypocrisy, it is recognizing that people learn best when the information is in a form they are prepared to handle (John 16:12), which is usually at most one stage ahead of where they are at the moment. Moving backwards for the sake of others is an act of grace, not selfishness. It is an act of mission. On the other hand, to move backwards out of fear, selfishness or the need for control can lead to to spiritual stuckness or fossilization, a dangerous position to be in.

As you mature spiritually, the mentors get fewer, at least finding a mentor who can help is harder. But as you mature spiritually, the opportunities to mentor increase. We mentor those who are in earlier stages, we have been there and done that. We learn from those who have explored stages where we have not yet been. Mutual nurture takes place between people at the same stage of spiritual development. Stage six people are mentored by God alone!

Fourth, the Bible addresses all six stages of spiritual development and the dark nights of the soul that often accompany them. That’s one of the reasons parts of the Bible are closed to us. They may speak to stages we have not yet experienced and, therefore, cannot fully understand. But as we grow spiritually, more and more parts of the Bible are opened to our understanding. I suspect that parts, at least, of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7) are written to those at stage six, the stage of unconditional love. How many people do you know who could be slapped in the face and yet feel no stir of resentment inside? How many people do you know who despise or resent absolutely no one in their hearts? How many people find it natural to bless those who curse them? For most of us, the Sermon on the Mount is aspirational but not always experiential. The good news is that the Bible has something for everyone who is on the journey of faith. That’s why no matter how many times we have read the Bible, we still need to read it every day, seeking those insights we may have missed before. As we grow spiritually, the Bible grows with us, so to speak.

This blog is already long enough and I have one more major implication to share. The stages of faith help one understand and cope with institutions of religion. I have met few people (stage six types?) who do not find religious institutions frustrating in one way or another, no matter how helpful they may be. I’ll reflect on that next time.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Interruption! Meet Jon Paulien in Calimesa California

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:05:00 GMT

I interrupt the series of blogs on stages of faith for a quick announcement. I will begin an in-person series on the Book of Revelation at the Calimesa SDA Church on Tuesday night, October 26 at 6:30 PM. The class will meet one or two Tuesdays a month and will cover the entire Book of Revelation. If you live in driving distance of Calimesa, California, this is the program for you! Registration fee is 30 dollars and includes detailed four-color guides to go with each lecture and full access to abundant web materials as well. DVDs of the Hope Channel TV series will also be available on site at special price.

Visit the church's special web site for the series: http://www.calimesasda.com/#/special-events/revelation.

For those who live elsewhere in the USA, DVDs should shortly be available through the Hope Channel offices and advertised on the program. Translations of the programs are already in the planning for the Chinese and Spanish languages. Interest has also been expressed with regard to the German, Serbo-Croatian and Rumanian languages.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien

Stage Six: The Life of Unconditional Love

jpaulien@llu.edu (Jon Paulien) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:57:00 GMT

Those who work their way through the second dark night of the soul reach the sixth stage, the stage where unconditional love becomes the rule of one’s life. Very few live consistently in this stage for long. Stage six people are compassionate toward others, even under extreme hardship. God’s loves flows through them toward others in every direction. Stage six people reach out to those who have hurt them, even people who in earlier stages would have repulsed them, people they used to despise. They have allowed God to change their hearts, to experience His mercy and compassion even toward “enemies.” Many people feel uplifted simply being in their presence. Stage six people have truly learned how to forgive. They see others through the eyes of God. God’s behavior becomes their model (Matt 18:23-35). They treat others as if they were serving God Himself in person (Matt 25:31-46).

Stage six people may not renounce materials things, but they certainly need them less than others do. They are free from the things that bring anxiety to others. If you don’t need material things to be content, you won’t fear losing them, and you won’t fret if you do lose them. They have an inner peace, a contentment that nothing seems able to shake. They have little ambition to be well known, rich, successful, noteworthy, goal-oriented or even spiritual. They don’t lose heart when others criticize them because their inner soul is grounded in the love and approval of God.

Since stage six is the goal of the journey, there are no humans left to mentor people in stage six. Instead, they are mentored directly by God. It also makes no sense to speak of “getting stuck” in stage six. The only issue would be maintaining one’s place there. Like stage five, stage six people may appear to be out of touch with real life, neglecting their own personal needs, wasting their lives doing things that don’t seem productive in worldly terms. Yet they are serene in the knowledge that they are following God’s leading and mentoring. If God approves, it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.

While stage six people are an enormous blessing to the world, they have an extremely hard time fitting in to religious institutions or even normal human society. One would think that unconditional love would cause them to be the most popular people on earth. But the reverse is the case. There is no more destabilizing behavior than unconditional love. Stage six people love everybody, including the people I can’t stand, even my enemies. The one thing I will not allow you to do is to love my enemy. In fact, enemies have been known to reconcile with each other in order to do away with someone who loves everybody. That’s what happened to Jesus. Pilate and Herod reconciled over the trial and condemnation of Jesus. People who love everybody often find themselves isolated from nearly everybody, because they seem to be a threat to a system that favors one person over another, one group over another.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is for stage six people. No one else would even know where to begin with that sermon. Stage six people know what it means to be poor in spirit, meek, hungry and thirsty for righteousness. You can smack a stage six person on the cheek and no rising up of fury responds. They may simply offer you the other cheek. This is not normal human behavior, it is Christ-like, God-like behavior. As I have said, few in this life live consistently at this level. Jesus was talking about stage six when He said, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt 10:39)

We might prefer that the stages of faith ended with stage three, the stage of success in human terms. We would like to believe that the closer we come to God, the more others will recognize that closeness and honor us for it, like they do the prophets of old. But the prophets of old were not honored in their lifetimes because they were so out of step with the accepted religious norm. Only at a distance can we clearly see the work of God in their lives. Their living presence would drive most of us crazy just as it did back in Bible times. The journey of faith does not lead to glory in human terms, but it does lead to glory in the eyes of God and that is what spiritual growth is all about in ultimate terms. It’s all about God, finding him, learning about Him, teaching others about him, learning to listen to Him, seeing the world through His eyes, loving others the way He loves them. It’s all about God.

Coming up. Two last blogs on the implications of the stages of faith.

Copyright 2011 Jon Paulien