How Does Nothing Become Something

The current best-selling atheist writers have something in common. They seem angry or frustrated that Christians DARE PRESUME that mankind is the center of the universe. They retort vigorously how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things, how indifference reigns in the universe, how unimaginable are the distances of space with billions and billions and billions of galaxies.

“My goodness,” the atheists will exclaim, “don’t these dimwits of pompous believers know there is no center within an infinite number of stars? How stupid can they be? We are less than dust of dust of dust in the cosmic unendingness. We are nothing but temporary passengers in time. On the scale of 3000 miles that reaches from California to New York, the total existence of mankind is less than 20 yards. What is the significance of driving from coast-to-coast, and when all that mankind has ever done is back out of the driveway?

“Consider the insignificance of our lives. We do not control where or when we are born. Our existence is on a fragile balance with bacteria and viruses that could wipe us out with the most minor change in the environment. When we die, our atoms will scatter throughout the universe. And someday the universe will continue to expand until everything freezes, or the universe collapse into an apocalyptic conflagration. We are NOTHING. To pretend we are is unqualified arrogance.”

There are two implied features of the above evangelium of the Prophets of Insignificance that are ironical. One is size, and the other is meaning. Let’s briefly consider these.

How big does something have to be to be truly important; or, conversely, how small does something have to be to be truly insignificant? Is an elephant more important (significant) than a fly; they must be because they live longer, have much greater mass, and eat more. An adult must certainly be more significant than a baby.

“No, no, no,” responds the atheist. “You are missing the point. Your arguments are absurd because the examples given are biological units which we can readily perceive. What is being discussed is beyond our imagination … spaces so vast that we have to make up illustrations to get a feel for them … galaxies and black holes so large that our entire solar system could be swallowed thousands of times over. Even our Milky Way could be swallowed up and not particularly be noticed. We are talking BIG.”

Atheists and many scientists are talking as if “Big” has just been discovered! C’mon, guys, you know the history of science better than I do. “Big” has been around for centuries. Ptolemy stated in his Almagest that the size of the earth was a mathematical point in comparison to the distance of the stars. (A mathematical point is a concept and is infinitely small.) Boethius wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy in Book VII, “The whole of this earth's globe, as thou hast learnt from the demonstration of astronomy, compared with the expanse of heaven, is found no bigger than a point; that is to say, if measured by the vastness of heaven's sphere, it is held to occupy absolutely no space at all.” That sure sounds like they understood what big and little were. The concept of infinity was around for centuries before either one of these two men. Surely we are not pretending that our understanding of infinity is better or more expansive than those in centuries before, are we?

Big is a relative term that simply means larger than something else. Without question there was an enormous amount that the scientists in previous centuries were ignorant of. Current atheist writers enjoy pointing out that the theologians of the Middle Ages would be simple ignoramuses today. Let’s be fair. If Galileo were suddenly transported to our current age, he too would be an ignoramus. Newton would be lost (for a bit) with relativity, particles, and black holes.

It seems that when “Big” escapes quantification and becomes a concept, then that is when it is really, really big. Again, the concept of really, really big (infinity) has been around for centuries. Our telescopes and Hubble’s only give us better pictures of big; that’s all. Infinity is no more beyond imagination and wonder than it was in 400 B.C. I too marvel at the pictures of Hubble, but I also marvel at an orchid. There are wonders that I’ve seen in my travels that take my breath away as much as “the Pillars of Creation” (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070218.html).

In conclusion on my first reply to the Prophets of Insignificance is that “Big” does not cause people to be unbelievers. There is nothing inherent in “Big” that causes belief or disbelief in God. Infinity has not been rediscovered. It is as unfathomable now as it was 2,500 years ago.

My second argument begins with a question. If it is true that the universe is as Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” then why do we care (or seem to care) that meaning or good is important?

Why do we try to find out what things mean? Why do we seek to do good? Here is the difficulty. We are products of the universe if there is no God. If the universe has no meaning, purpose, or notion of good or evil … then why do we? The brief interlude that we experience called either the human race or our individual lives are a part-and-parcel of this meaninglessness, purposelessness, and amorality.

This is a colossal problem. If we, as humans, truly have meaning, then the universe has meaning … because we are part of the universe. I’m puzzled why telescopes and microscopes are used, and the conclusion from observation is, “There is no meaning”; yet, we look at each other and conclude, “We need to seek new meaning from science, and we need to do good.”

If, on the other hand, there is no real meaning, purpose, or good, then what we are experiencing is an illusion. There is no more right or wrong for a group of atoms that form a meteor to smash into the group of atoms called Jupiter than it is for the group of atoms called my hands to strangle and “kill” the group of atoms called a baby. There is no “killing” or “death.” There is only a rearrangement of atoms and transference of energy.

I’ve always puzzled why all atheists demand good ethics; yet, why should we care in a meaningless universe. Why should I care if that set of energy called Katrina rearranged billions of atoms in that insignificant piece of cosmic dust entitled New Orleans? Nothing “good” or “bad” happened, for there is, ultimately, not good or evil, only “pitiless indifference.”

One of the main criticisms of the Bible is the “cruelty” of God. But cruelty only exists if good and bad are real; otherwise, it is no more than an inconvenience for one set of atoms compared to another set of atoms. If there is no good or bad in the universe, then all that ever occurs is an action and reaction of matter and energy … nothing else. Why pretend there is more?

Any “meaning” that we ascribe to events is illusion if there is no meaning in the universe, that is, real, true, genuine meaning. If humans experience true meaning, then the conclusion is that meaning exists in the universe, not merely among humans. Christians are constantly criticized for being inconsistent. What is fair for one is fair for all.

So, does meaning exist in the universe? Either it does or it does not. Humans are part of the universe, regardless how small they may be. We believe and act as if there is meaning and good. Either it is illusion, or it is real. Which is it? If the statement by Dawkins is true, then meaning and good are illusions. A mother is no more “good” for raising a child than another parent is “evil” for eating her child. (Aren’t there a lot of animals that eat their young? Are we not a product or result of those animals? What’s the problem if we eat our young? Swift thought it could solve Ireland’s hunger problem. Surely there isn’t a meaningful difference between the group of atoms called humans and the group of animals called non-humans … is there?)

The irony of all this baffles me. The Prophets of Insignificance have made their own arguments insignificant. Atheists will readily admit that the arguments for morality are “problematic.” That is a nice way of saying there is no good argument, no real reason for being good boys and girls. Regardless how these Prophets will give arguments for the good of all, working together, being pragmatic, whatever, they leave out something critical every time.

What they leave out is this: if there is no meaning or purpose or good in the universe, then that includes all of us boys and girls, no exceptions. All that is really happening is a rearrangement of atoms and transference of matter to energy and energy to matter. Ahh, the wonders of the conservation of matter. A person “savagely” murdering a family is no more significant than a black hole swallowing a galaxy. (Actually, the person’s act is insignificant because it is so small. If there is a “bad guy,” it’s that big, Big, BIG black hole.)

My guess is there may be a lot of repulsion for this second argument. There shouldn’t be any. Christians believe in ultimate consequences. There is good and bad. What we do now affects the souls of others. The second argument should have no affect on them. Atheists should not be repulsed either. A person who is indifferent to good and bad is only reflecting the universe of which he is a part. There is no “savagery” anywhere in the universe. There is only action and reaction.

Either there really are meaning and good, or we are deluding ourselves. If the door is cracked open … even an inch … then there is an immaterial reality. Furthermore, if humans are the only ones who have this reality, then how do we avoid the conclusion that humans are the center of the universe … not in space, but in meaning?

Without question atheists have excellent arguments that marshal our skills and abilities to respond, but one of those arguments is not the massive size of the universe. That argument is not the “pitiless indifference” of the universe. Actually, size and indifference can be excellent arguments if the atheists believe in the same consistency that they demand of Christians. The arguments for ethics are not “problematic,” but they are impossible if there is no true meaning. If there is meaning, then there is something that transcends matter and energy. Something does not come out of nothing; that includes meaning and good as well as matter and energy.

Was God a Misogynist?

There is a question that many Christian women have which is seldom asked. The question is this: “Why did God discriminate against women in the law of Moses?” Let’s consider one point in particular, which may be found in Numbers 5:11-31, the Law of Jealousy.

In summary, if a husband had a suspicion that his wife had committed adultery, then he was allowed to take her to the priest. The priest would question her, give her a potion of water mixed with the dirt of the tabernacle area, have her repeat an oath, and have her drink this potion. The oath stated that if she had committed adultery and was now denying it, then she would incur a sickness that would result in her miscarriage of any children from that point.

The point of contention is that no such law was for men. In contrast, men could have multiple wives; there was also a sexual laxity that was accorded to men and not to women. In terms of equity and fairness it seems that the law should allow the same rights and privileges. Why did God allow and codify such a double standard?

There is no explanation in Scripture. Either we have to assume that God is a misogynist (the typical response, particularly from unbelievers), or there is another reason which simply is not given in Scripture. The purpose of this short essay is to explore two of those possible reasons. Without question this is a risky step. The Scriptures state that God has revealed to us what we need to know, and the secret things He has kept to Himself (Deuteronomy 29:29). Needless to say, I am a bit nervous with the idea of imputing to God what His motives are or should be. I do want to emphasize these are possible reasons, and there is no dogmatic attitude on my part concerning these. I trust the reader will grant me leniency in this.

As any parent or child care worker will admit, it is not possible to treat every child exactly the same. Certainly principles and guidelines will be in place for all children, but how all those are enforced and any exceptions allowed will vary per child. There are some children in which firmness must be exercised from the very start; otherwise, he will take over. The expression I remember is “Give him an inch, and he will think he is a ruler.” In contrast there are other children that if you look at them in a cross manner, the child will collapse as if beaten. Also the group dynamics will vary with children. For some groups different rules will work more efficiently. As mentors for children our goal is to help them to reach their potential. As the saying goes, “That means different strokes for different folks.”

Furthermore, there are times in which discipline is public and other times, private. As well as discipline, motivation may work better for some in public and for others in private. It is common that private discipline or private motivation is not known by others; otherwise, it would not be private.

In Numbers 5 the procedure for the woman was a public event. Others could guess rather easily what was going on. Since men did not have to go through this public embarrassment, it is assumed (and reasonably so) that women were being discriminated against. Yet, there is another assumption that is also reasonable. God is disciplining the man privately.

An immediate objection to the last comment could easily be, “But the woman was humiliated simply for a suspicion. Since God would know if a man committed adultery and not simply suspect it, then the husband would not have to face that humiliation. Isn’t that unfair and discriminating? Even if God disciplined the man privately for his adultery, he gets off totally free on any suspicion of adultery.”

I agree with that, which leads me to my second reason. Prior to stating the reason, an observation of mine needs to be stated first. Not only in Scripture but also in practice, women as a class are more serious about their commitment to the Lord then men. It was women who supported Jesus financially. The women who loved Jesus outnumbered the male disciples at the crucifixion. The women were the first ones who went to the tomb and witnessed the resurrected Jesus. The reader may continue with his own illustrations of women in Scripture.

Beyond the Bible, women far outnumber men in the church. Furthermore the single spouse who attends church is probably a woman by a ratio of 9 to 1, if not higher. When volunteers are requested, women are usually the first. Christian mothers are usually the one who prays with the child, reads Bible stories, and displays a godly life for the child.

In addition, my observation of women with more than 40 years of being a practicing Christian is that they have an allegiance, devotion, and commitment to the Lord which excel men’s. Statements from other church leaders have confirmed this observation. The Barna Group provides formal statistical validation. See http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/400-who-is-active-in-group-expressions-of-faith-barna-study-examines-small-groups-sunday-school-and-house-churches for an example.

The question which I wish to suggest an answer to is this, “Why do women seemed to have a more acute spiritual commitment and possible awareness? The suggested answer to this question coincides with the second reason why God is not discriminating against women. Please note that I am not saying God does not discriminate. He is discriminating; however, He is discriminating for women as opposed to against women.

Discrimination has very unpleasant connotations with it so that it is difficult to understand discriminating for someone; yet, we do it and allow it. Let’s assume you have two children, a boy and the girl. The boy is very good in mathematics whereas his sister is a musical prodigy. Will you as a parent make a decision that favors the boy in mathematics and one that favors the girl in music? For instance, will the educational gifts differ for the two? If the school offers a special class that favors the giftedness of either child, will that upset you? If you hired a special tutor or teacher, would you hire a mathematical teacher for the son and a music teacher for the daughter? All of those are acts of discrimination.

To discriminate, at its root, means to distinguish. Obviously we can discriminate based on social prejudice, or we can discriminate on the means and methods that will help others. To discriminate for someone is to distinguish a means or method that will help the other person.

I have suggested that God discriminated for women in Numbers 5 in regard to the Law of Jealousy. How did He do that? First, let’s consider an analogy.

You are the coach of a track team. You will have higher expectations for some of the members rather than other members. These higher expectations are based upon the abilities and giftedness of the members. As a coach you do your best to have all the members do their best. Those who are particularly gifted can be pushed harder. The ones you are pushing have the talent to win scholarships in college. To help them you also give them special exercises to do at home. For example’s sake, let’s assume you have them do fingertip pushups.

When the team gets together for practice you query the special group, asking, “Have you been doing the extra exercises at home?” Of course, everyone says “Yes.” As you watch them in practice, you begin to suspect that one is not telling the truth. As a good coach, your motive has been to help this child excel in the sport; and in the future, you put the child to a test. You do this publicly because you want the other gifted athletes to see this. In our example you have the child do fingertip pushups. If the child has been doing them, then he will have no problem. If he has not been doing them, he could pull or strain a muscle trying to prove he had done what he had said. If the track member messes up, then the other members who have been given the special exercises will probably be motivated to continue them so that they won’t be called out. A member who messed up will probably not do it again.

Let’s apply the analogy to the Law of Jealousy. Women are the special group of athletes, but they are spiritual athletes. They have a natural ability for pleasing God. Because they have this extra ability, which seems to be inborn, then God has a higher standard for them. This standard is not beyond their ability and will bring more honor to them.

The Lord discriminated for women because He knew they had the wherewithal to respond to the higher calling. In stark contrast the Lord did not give this standard to men because He knew they would terribly fail. When strength is the key element, then men, as a class, dominate. When beauty, kindness, gentleness, and a hunger for God are the key elements, then women, as a class, dominate.

Is God a misogynist? No. Does He discriminate? Yes ... but He discriminates for.

The Princess and the Pea

The Princess and the Pea is a delightful fairy tale collected by Hans Christian Andersen. A prince wanted to marry a true princess. When one would claim to be a true princess, she would spend the night in the guest room on top of 20 mattresses and then 20 feather beds. If she woke up and said she had a great night, the prince knew she was false. One morning after a visit, an alleged princess, when asked about her night, moaned and groaned how uncomfortable she was. The bed had a lump in it, and her back was now black-and-blue. Oh, joy, joy, joy, the princess had been found. For a pea had been placed under the 40 mattresses, and only a true princess would notice such discomfort!

Why do I use this fairy tale? The absurdity of little things that are supposed to be “oh-so-important.” Of course, I have something particular in mind. What is it? The manner in which unbelievably inconsequential, unimportant, and totally trivial criticisms are directed toward the Bible as proof that it is not the word of God.

There are skeptics who will go out of their way to attack the Bible, seemingly creating every conceivable problem possible simply to build the case. I’m not impressed when a skeptic moans about the horrible mental night he had with that terrible pea under his mattresses. My thought is always the same, “You’ve got to be kidding, right?”

Let me give an illustration. This is a serious argument against the Bible being the word of God. Ready for this? The details in 1 Kings 7:23 read, literally teach that π is equal to 3.0! This is stated to be a scientific error that proves that the Bible cannot be the word of God. I have read this online and heard it in debates.

Honestly, I cannot conceive of anyone but a novice using this argument. It is such a pea compared to the boulders that could be used. Well, a hammer isn’t needed against this argument. A puff of wind will take care of this.

Ask anyone what the value of π is? If the reply is, “3.14,” say, “Wrong!”

“3.1415?”

“Wrong!”

“3.14159265?”

“Wrong!”

What is the value of π? It can only be known by approximatization. First, the number is infinite and non-repeating. That is, the decimal never comes to a point that it then begins to repeat itself. The number has been calculated by computer to more than one trillion places. Regardless of the number given, it is never correct.

Certainly, from a practical perspective, what are the differences between 3 inches or 3.1 inches or 3.14 or 3.1415 inches? A laser would be needed to detect the difference. For years when calculating circumference as a quick number … guess what I used? That’s right—3! It simply depends on the accuracy needed.

What is ludicrous about this argument is that the person who says the Bible is scientifically wrong is scientifically wrong himself! WHATEVER value is used, it is wrong because it is only approximate. If the ancient writers were able to write decimals (I’ve never checked this out), whatever they would have written could still be criticized.

Any demand that π should be this value and not this one is no more than a practical preference. The π argument against the Bible being the world of God is merely a new version of “The πrincess and the πea.”

Kill the Messenger

Should a Christian be involved in politics, either as an officeholder or a participant in the process? This question has never been a particularly troublesome question for me. Politics is an organized social process in the same manner that business and charitable processes are. I fail to see any more of virtue or vice in serving in politics as opposed to business or charity (including religious work).

There are inherent temptations within any enterprise, but, if we will be honest, there are temptations in anything that we do. I’ve had temptations during prayer time, reading the Bible, and doing Christian works. There is no place that I can go that I can escape from my desires, from the influence of the world, or from the whisperings of Satan. So I fail to see why politics should be any more of an issue than the other two.

The temptations to control and to ignore the law seem to be higher in politics. In the business world the temptation to make a profit and justify behavior that can put other people out of business and out of their livelihood with the excuse of “It’s only business” is very high. In the charitable world pride is lurking behind every compliment. Excuses for ungodly behavior are rife in all three areas.

Let me seemingly switch the topic. Do you recall the military scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004? Iraqi prisoners were subjected to torture, rape, and humiliation. Photos were published worldwide and created a terrible outrage. I remind the reader of this incident because of the decisions that the military made to ensure this would never happen again. Essentially, the solution was to provide more training. Some training is better than no training, but the fundamental and foundational problem here is the lack of common morals. A person can be taught whatever over and over, but none of it will have the same effect as the deeply ingrained belief has, which is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That principle can be taught and demanded, but unless it is believed and internalize then Abu Ghraib will occur again and again. Only the place and the people involved will change. Doesn’t it sound odd that elaborate training needs to be created when a child’s course in Morals 101 will take care of the problem?

The world of politics is not a unique problem. The reason there is so much infighting and hostility is traceable to what happened at Abu Ghraib—the lack of resolve and commitment to ultimate values. Even an unbeliever can do unto others as he would like to be done unto himself. The problem is our inward desires and insatiable lust to fulfill them. The real problem is inside of me, not outside of me. When circumstances change and we begin to have serious temptation problems, all that has probably happened is the means to fulfill our desires without being caught have increased.

A problem in politics as well as in the business world is the compromise that Christians have to face on a daily basis. It seems easier to stay true to the Lord if working at a Christian business or a Christian ministry. Perhaps it can be easier though I am not convinced. I have worked in both arenas and have found difficult problems and intense temptations in both; they were only different. Let’s consider the compromise issue.

The main reason for compromise is stated a number of times in the New Testament. It is worded different way, but “We seek to please men” is the heart of it. Whether we simply want attention, praise, control, money, position, whatever … we believe people can give it to us; and we compromise. Instead of trusting and pleasing the Lord, we trust people and try to please them. Our beliefs change, not necessarily our behavior. That is true compromise, the compromise of beliefs.

In contrast, behavior can seem like compromise, but it really isn’t.

Consider the passage 2 Kings 5, the healing of Naaman’s leprosy by Elisha. Typically when we think of the Old Testament we believe the laws are stricter and more stringently enforced. After Naaman had been healed, he requested to take back home two mule loads of dirt from Israel. The purpose for this was that he only intended to offer sacrifice and worship the God of Israel. The next two verses, vs. 18-19, are exceptionally insightful to the topic of compromise. Naaman tells Elisha that he will be obligated to go into the temple of Rimmon with his king. Furthermore, Naaman makes the comment that he will have to bow down in the temple and then makes the remarkable request, “May the LORD pardon your servant in this thing.”

This request is flabbergasting and totally irreconcilable compared to the typical understanding of compromise. Naaman is requesting forgiveness ahead of time for feigning worship to a false god because of his position. How does Elisha answer this in v. 19? “Go in peace.” ASTOUNDING!

Is this carte blanche approval to fake behavior as we please? No, I don’t believe so; it appears to be circumstantial. We don’t find this command being given to others or similar circumstances in the Bible. Whenever unusual circumstances are illustrated in Scripture and not repeated elsewhere, then the believer must be very careful before extrapolating the circumstance into a pattern of behavior for other believers. What can safely be learned here is that circumstances can occur in which compromise appears to be taking place but is not.

I think the key to application for this incident is finding the principle, not copying the details of behavior. Naaman was highly influential in Syria, a country that was at continual enmity or warfare with Israel. If he had stated his conversion and opposition to the religion of Syria, he would have lost his position, possibly his property and life. By maintaining his silence but keeping his heart pure in worship, then he could influence policy that would bring glory to the Lord. A similar illustration would be a high-ranking official in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan (or any Muslim country) converting to Christianity. If he would speak up, he could lose all he owned and probably his life. The hostility against Christianity is so strong that his witness would end before it begins. By remaining silent, in order to please the Lord and do more, then he could possibly do unbounded good for the Lord, much like the secretive Esther did for the Jews in captivity. If he has to kneel in prayer to Allah and go through all the motions, but worship the Lord while doing so … has he really compromised?

In contrast to that, what if a believer hides his faith in the U.S. Congress or in local political halls? He will not be persecuted for his views; so, why the silence? (He may be criticized, but how often do believers bring that onto themselves because of the way they take their stand and express their beliefs?) How does that honor the Lord?

HOW we present our beliefs around unbelievers (whether politics or business or wherever) is as important as WHAT we present. Why is that? It is easier for the messenger to turn off others from the message than it is for the message to turn people off from the messenger.

If a person is obnoxious and overbearing or generally unpleasant (whether a Christian, a car salesman, a doctor, a neighbor, whatever), we don’t care what he has to say. In contrast, if a person is likeable and pleasant and just a welcoming personality or is sincerely interested in us, he can talk almost total nonsense; but we still listen. We might laugh and ignore it, but we will still listen.

The messenger is so pivotal to the reception of a message. Of course, a person or group of people may be so hostile to a message (such as Muslims are to Christianity), that the messenger is no more than a dead man walking. The same is true for many unbelievers in the political, business, and religious world. Since we live in a country in which messengers are protected by the law, then we share the message and let the unbelievers boohoo, gripe, complain, and criticize as they please. Let’s make sure their criticisms are of the message, but never the messenger.

If we resolve and do our best through the Spirit to be uncompromising messengers (we do not alter our beliefs), then we can go to the mission field or to the political field.

Do I Want Chocolate or Lemon Meringue?

I was asked a question several months ago, "Did Jesus have a choice to
sacrifice himself?" Before a suggested response can be given to that
question, we need to think about the word "choice."

Choice, free will, decision, liberty, freedom, et al. are all relatives that
express essentially the same idea with minor nuances. Though I may use these
words interchangeably within this essay, I have a common definition for all
of the words. Before I mention my definition, I wish to contrast first how
the words are typically used and the connotations with them.

At the lowest level of meaning the words express the idea of choosing
between alternatives. Though I will typically illustrate a choice as being
between two alternatives, I am aware that there may be a number of
alternatives to choose from as well as the possibility that there are groups
of things as well as single things to choose between.

This definition does not go far enough because we can immediately create
situations that conflict with an underlying motif of these words. The motif
I am referring to is coercion or force. For instance, a supervisor might say
to an employee, "It's your choice. Either you work overtime this weekend, or
you can look for another job." Even though alternatives are being offered so
that a choice can be made, neither are choices that the employee wishes to
choose, for the employee wishes neither to work on the weekend or to lose
his job. He is being forced to make a choice.

There would be no conflict if one of the choices was a desired choice.
Suppose the supervisor had said, "Either you take this pay raise, or you are
fired." Assuming that the employee truly wants the pay raise and there are
no negatives to it and he does not wish to lose his job, then there is no
real coercion. A similar situation occurs with me on a somewhat frequent
regularity. Sometimes my wife will ask my preference for the main course of
a meal. She might ask, "Would you like chicken or fish?" Though I will eat
fish, it will be the last of my choices. I never choose fish at a buffet. My
usual response to her is, "Well, do I want chocolate or lemon meringue pie?"
What do I mean by that? I love chocolate and hate lemon meringue. To me
there is not choice except to choose chocolate.

It appears to be a choice because there are two alternatives; however,
desire or preference adds an extra factor, in fact, a rather critical one.
When we reflect on the issue, we realize rather quickly that we will choose
our desire if no influence, pressure, or force is placed upon us. Indeed we
are often puzzled when someone does not choose what we know to be his
desire. I may ask my wife, "Would you like to walk around the house and look
at the flowers?" Asking her that question is equivalent to asking most
people if they would like one million dollars with no catches. If she would
say "No," then I would be surprised and ask why.

Of course when we have to decide between two desires then a type of conflict
arises, but the conflict is not coercion. The conflict is really no more
than deciding which of two desires do I prefer at that moment.

As you think on the arguments of the previous paragraphs, you will see three
patterns: 1) alternatives in which the subject has no desire for either, 2)
alternatives in which the subject has a desire for one of them, and 3)
alternatives in which the subject has a desire for both of them. Only the
first example is an illustration of coercion. Though some sort of conflict
could exist psychologically or emotionally for the second one or third one,
coercion still would not be the issue.

Yet, there is still a problem with choice. It has to do with desire. Let me
ask a simple question, "Do you truly choose your desires?" I am not asking
if you choose according to your desires, but I am asking if you actually
choose your desires.

This is difficult to illustrate with adults, but it is very easy to
illustrate with children. I remember the first time that my son was given
ice cream. He had no idea what it was. His grandmother offered him a bite of
it. After tasting it he wanted more. Do you think that my son actually
thought, "I have decided to like ice cream, and I want more." He did not
decide to like it; he simply did.

As our experiences accumulate we often decide ahead of time if we will like
something based on analogy. For instance, someone might ask us if we would
like to try a taste of alligator. Assuming we are not bothered with the idea
of the meat being an alligator, we might ask, "What does it taste like?" The
person replies, "Pork." If you don't like pork, you will probably decide not
to even try it. How many times have you been challenged with the words "how
do you know if you'll like it or not if you haven't even tried it?"

A phrase I will often use is "We do not choose our desires, but our desires
choose us." Often we may even surprise ourselves about something that we
like and afterwards desire. Although the first time might be considered a
choice, how much of a choice is it when we are simply choosing based on
natural desire? It seems we are flying on autopilot. Think of all the things
that we do every day based on habit or natural desire. Where is choice and
free will? It appears they have dozed off somewhere.

Though we like to believe that our free will is what distinguishes us from
animals, what is the difference between our choices and animals' choices
when both are choosing based on natural desire? The only difference that I
can see is that animals within a species instinctively respond to what they
eat. The natural desires are built in to start with; in contrast to that, we
gradually learn what our desires are. Like an animal, however, once the
desire is in place we respond to it as intuitively as an animal does to its
desires.

Ironically the difficultly that we often incur is that our desires get out
of control. Is there really a need for me to ask why the majority of our
population is overweight? How many times have you scolded yourself for

eating too much, watching too much TV, surfing too much online, or doing too
much of anything? Not only do our desires choose us, but we soon learn that
our desires also control us.

It seems to me that there are only three instances in which we truly exert
free will. The first one has already been illustrated: when we first choose
between two neutral alternatives. Depending on our background we may be
influenced by our previous experiences so that neutral alternatives become
less and less as we grow older. Yet, choosing between two neutral
alternatives does seem to be an exercise of free will.

The second instance has been alluded to: when we choose an inward standard
as opposed to a natural desire. The inward desire might be "the best thing
for me to do." I know that the best thing for me, based on reports and
statistics that I have read, is to keep my body weight within a certain range
based on my height and frame size. So, when my desire is to dip up a second
or third helping of ice cream, I may have an inward conflict with my inward
standard. I know what I want, and I know what is best for me. Unfortunately
I know I have a choice at that time, and it is giving into the desire that
creates guilt.

Certainly the inward standard may have been created by my parents and my
culture. Still we believe that we have the ability to choose to believe
otherwise. Without question the setting aside of long established beliefs
for new ones can be emotionally traumatic; however, we still believe we can
do that if we choose.

Along with the inward standard of "what is best for me," another common
standard is "what is right and wrong." As in the last paragraph this
standard is initially created by our parents and culture. Also we continue
to believe we can change this. Our standard of right and wrong can be
modified. Whatever the inward standard happens to be that we are measuring
our desires against, then that is the moment in which free will can be exercised.

The third instance of our exercising our free will appears to occur when we
consciously and deliberately change our thinking from what it is to what we
think it should be. For instance, I may be very angry with someone. In my
thinking I am tearing that person to shreds. My words and arguments are
overwhelming them, perhaps even humiliating them. I am definitely getting
even. While thinking these things the thoughts also come to my mind, "Love
your neighbor ... do good to those that hate you ... do not let the sun go
down on your wrath."

This is very similar to the last situation except everything is occurring
within our minds. Outwardly others might think we're doing fine. Of course,
our thinking does not have to be limited to anger. It can be any thinking
that is contrary to our inward standard. As a Christian our inward standards
should be based on Christ and the Scriptures.

Though we may find it very hard not to continue in certain thoughts, we,
nevertheless, know that we should not. The problem is not the struggle
anymore than the problem is the struggle between eating more ice cream or
not eating more. The problem is when the struggle stops and the decision is
made to eat more ice cream, or to continue to think bad thoughts about the
other person.

We are well aware that as we continue to violate the inward standard the
harder it is for us to follow it. Once I lie, then it is easier to lie a
second time. Once I stay mad at someone, the easier it is to stay mad for a
longer period of time. Once I indulge in mental lust, then the easier it is
to entertain those thoughts.

Regardless how we say we cannot think otherwise, deep within we do believe
we can think otherwise. Also as Christians we have the promise that the Holy
Spirit will help us in our weakness.

This essay began with a question: "Did Jesus have a choice to sacrifice
himself?" The answer is “yes;” but it is much more than a simple alternative.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was tempted as we are. From this essay a
temptation may be defined as an opportunity to fulfill a desire that is
contrary to an inward standard, particularly if that standard is right and
wrong.

Jesus chose the inward standard every time. If one time he had chosen the
temptation, which might have seemed neutral or pleasing to the eyes, He
would have created a desire that could have controlled Him; and He
definitely would have weakened His ability to follow the inward standard.

Do we have free will? Yes, we do but the real battle is not the physical
alternatives that we face every day. Most of what we do is by habit or
desire. The real battle for free will is in the mind. Do we follow our
desires when they conflict with our inward standard? Do we continue to think
improper thoughts when they conflict with our inward standard? It is there
on the battlefield of the mind that free will truly takes place and can
control our actions.

Do not be misled that free will is choosing a pleasure or between pleasures.
Even bugs do that. The real struggle occurs when you know you should say “no”
... to that 3rd helping ... to those mean thoughts ... to watching another
hour of TV. That's the battle. The battle is not to choose between
chocolate or meringue. The battle is whether to choose either when we know
we shouldn't.

Jesus' desire was to avoid the cross, but He chose the right thing. Aren't
you glad He did! What might happen in our lives and our influence if we do
as He?

Pedal to the Metal and Speed, Speed, Speed (Part 2 of 2)

Part 1 discussed and illustrated the difficulties we can get into when we attempt to interpret man’s rules as if they were God’s rules. Let’s use the simple illustration of speeding (even as little as 5mph over) and Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-2:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Proper authority is from God and should be patterned after His authority: particularly justice, fairness, and equity tempered with mercy. We must not forget that authority is enforcement of commands. Authority is not a person or committee or bureau that is consumed with making suggestions for others. Authority has the right to imposed penalty and punishment.

Prior to the gospel and the later revelations to Peter about freedom in dietary restrictions (Acts 10:9-19), the mere changing of the diet and the principle behind it expanded the gospel itself! Often I hear that Jesus replaced the law with grace. “The only laws that are applicable in the Old Testament are those that are repeated in the New Testament.” That guideline is easy to remember, and that is precisely what makes me suspicious of it.

It is incumbent upon us that we understand the principles of what changed from the Old Testament to Paul’s near disregard of Old Testament laws in the New Testament. The dietary laws are an excellent example to show this.

Leviticus 11 (Deuteronomy 14 to a lesser degree) is the primary chapter. Leviticus 11 has 47 verses. Depending on the Bible version, “unclean” is used 32 times and “abomination,” 8 times. As I proposed in Part 1, “unclean” was a health issue. Centuries later we have learned about trinchinosis, which is particularly carried by swine and wild game. Proper cooking is essential in killing this harmful parasite. This parasite can cause problems from muscle soreness to death. Even today there is no cure, but there is treatment for the symptoms.

In the ancient world education was informal, sporadic, and mixed with folklore and insight. Medicine and treatment was worse. If a disease was incurred, endurance was the ultimate fix in most cases. The dietary laws protected the Jews from disease. In fact, the phrase “unclean to you” [my emphasis] is used 12 times in Leviticus 11. God was not sitting in heaven outraged because His people ate pork chops. Given the circumstances required for proper cooking (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis#Food_preparation), it was far easier, safer, and pedagogically sound to simply tell his people not to eat pork than it was to give Moses a divine cookbook.

When the Lord revealed to Peter the vision of eating unclean animals (which opened the eating of these animals as well as spreading the gospel to “unclean” people), the Lord also revealed there was nothing inherently sinful about eating pork. Dietary laws are relative. In contrast, sins against God are always wrong.

Absolutely no effort is needed to define and categorize outward behavior as sinful. It is easy to see someone eat a pork chop. It is easy to measure someone driving over the speed limit. In your own memory and imagination let the images flow of all the outward behavior that have been decried as “sinful.” I can remember when playing cards and listening to Elvis Presley was sinful.

Rule after rule after rule can be devised, under the guise of authority which has the right to enforce them, that will make life miserable and create endless debates and footnotes to what is “right and wrong.”

As my Greek teacher told me years ago, “That’s bologna no matter how you slice it.”

The gospel removed the law, but not all law. The heart of the law which is still sin before God was kept: murder, stealing, bearing false witness, etc. The arbitrary laws were removed. There are laws that change with the times, the culture, the circumstances. Those were removed precisely because they are arbitrary and not absolute!

In college I remember a young man who wanted to please God in all that he did; yet, he was constantly fretting as if he had overlooked something in pleasing God. He attended to his behavior as if it were a black sweater that could have not the least speck of dust or lint upon it. Frankly, he was so busy inspecting his sweater that he missed life around him.

If you choose to look at the Lord as a judge, then you do need to attend to your sweater. If the Lord is your Father, then you are free to learn, play, explore, and socialize as long as you do not harm others. (The world is correct when it says “you may do as you please as long as you don’t harm others.” The key difference between that view and Christianity is that we do everything, even eating or drinking, in order to bring glory to God.)

There is no willy-nilly here for my being allowed to do as I please. Even though I may not be sinning against God, I may be offending the standards of others. Why do I care about that? So I can witness to them. If we offend others, we weaken our witness to them.

I do not intend to resist the ordinances of man. Is this because I’m concerned about sinning before God? Do I need to fret that I have nailed Jesus to the cross because I went over the speed limit by 5mph? Is my life driven by such arbitrary and endless commands? No, I conform to them for the same reason that Paul conformed in 1 Corinthians 9 … so he could win others.

Let us never forget why we are left on earth. It is to bear witness. When we consider the purpose of the church, we typically list four or five goals: worship, fellowship, evangelize, teach, encourage. Look at that list carefully. Only one item in that list will not be in heaven. Which is it? Evangelize! Everything else we will do in heaven, but we won’t evangelize. That ends when we die.

Everything we do or conform ourselves to should be for the purpose that the Lord has called all Christians to … bear witness for Him by our lives and words. When we set our behavior on the purpose of helping others to love Jesus more, that is much, much different than checking for lint on our sweaters.

If you wish to push the pedal to the metal and speed, speed, speed, then you will most likely receive a ticket and pay a fine. Hopefully, you will not cause a wreck and hurt someone. I’d rather simply obey and not have either. If someone asks me, “Do you speed,” then I can answer, “No.” If I am asked why, then I have a chance to witness, “I do not speed because I wish to bring glory to the Lord and help others.”

The Lord has given us freedom from the trammels of the law. Let’s use that freedom to bring glory to Him.