Obedience

The word "obedience" is fraught with potential peril, that's for sure. What I have interpreted that statement as meaning is this: God reveals himself more and more to those who earnestly seek him. The merely curious get but a small taste and little more. Seeking God implies being obedient not only to the will of God -- difficult to discern -- but also to aligning one's life to him through sincere practice of things like prayer, kindness, gentleness, etc.

The common analogy is that of a sports coach and child. On any school team, there are children who are only curious about a given sport, and pay only scant attention to the coach. They run some of the drills, but only half-heartedly. They hear the words the coach is saying, but do not really take them to heart. But then there are some children who earnestly wish to do well at the sport, and they listen very carefully to what the coach is saying. They strive very hard to put into practice the things the coach is teaching. They trust that the coach knows what he's talking about, and knows that only through steadfast practice will the things being taught become second-hand reflexes rather than awkward attempts at the grace of the sport.

This presupposes that the coach is to be trusted. And of course there are probably many children who never realized their full potential because the coach they had did not know how to extract the full potential. But in the case of the Christian faith, the coach is Christ himself. And if I can't trust Christ, then I need to go back to the fundamentals and explore my ideas about Jesus.

Look ... I know the challenges of really believing this stuff is difficult. There are many days I look at this and find it all just a bunch of hooey. But then I focus in on it and some of the clarity comes through the mist. Some might call that brainwashing ... I don't agree with that assessment, but I know that I probably can't persuade someone out of that viewpoint. Unless I behave in a way that is truly different ... strikingly different ... where the outside observer sees the way I conduct myself and the way I treat others and asks themselves, "What is it about him?" And then, given the chance to answer, the answer is "Jesus Christ."

* * *
As for the "what came first" question ... I see your point. If the universe truly was created ex nihilo, then it necessarily begs the question whether God himself was created ex nihilo as well. And if one throws down the trump card of "No, God is eternal," then the counter argument is, "Well, then why can't the universe also be eternal?" Reply: "Just because."

You're missing the essential point of my argument: I'm saying it ... therefore it must be true! :-)

I'm just kidding, of course.

Honestly, I see your point.

It occurs to me that perhaps there's another level of misunderstanding that takes place when people consider the "Intelligent Design" thesis, and it is this: there is a difference between the initial creation of reality, and the development of our present reality. The ex nihilo argument is addressing the former -- the "where did the universe come from?" question. But once created, where did life come from, and is it likely it developed as we see it today out of purely random forces?

The initial creation of the universe debate necessarily requires (to my eye) that something be eternal. If indeed "in the beginning" there was truly nothing, then nothing there would still be. We face two coices: God is eternal, or the universe itself is eternal.

Note: Why not both eternal? Logically that's possible. But from a theological point of view that begs the question whether God has sovereignty over something he did not create. That's a discussion for another time, over a game of chess down at the pub.

It's the second issue -- the development of our present reality -- where the ID debate really is, I think. (Particularly if you read some of the stuff coming out of www.discovery.org -- the scientific proponents of the ID debate.) Their argument is not so much the initial creation through divine means, but rather the mechanics of developments over time since that point. So we see discussions on the uniqueness of the positioning of our planet within the universe, the "irreducible complexity" discussions, and the philosophical debates over where something like our self-awareness came from if indeed we are the product of pure chance.

I'm not smart enough to follow all the points or effectively argue them. Honestly, I'm not. I think the arguments are interesting, and I'm happy to see the debate. But as we've discussed many times, even these discussions will not logically lead one to conclude "... therefore, Jesus Christ." The Christian faith is not based entirely on scientific evidence. But nor is it devoid of any rational supporting evidence.

* * *
The act of joining the church involved going to a half-day class where they reviewed the criteria for joining the church (faith in Jesus Christ) and the government of the Presbyterian Church (a form of representative democracy). There will be a ceremony next Sunday where we're welcomed into the church family.

Being a member of a church is not, of course, a strict requirement of the faith. But there is a notion in my mind that if I wish to be serious about this faith, and my commitment to the "body of Christ" (the church ... lower-case "c" meaning the corporate collection of believers) then I need to make a gesture of commitment. It's a personal thing.