ShelfLife

One quote from Chapter 14 really stuck with me:

Unless you are willing to experience the loss of options and the individual limitation that comes from being in committed relationships, you will remain out of touch with your own nature and the nature of things.

The reason this quote really struck me is because it sounds so strikingly un-American.  We American’s love our choices because to us, choice = freedom.  Any talk of limiting our choices or accepting fewer options and we American’s start to get a little uncomfortable.  But to enter this “dance of God” as Keller calls it, one must limit their options, which on the surface, sounds very constraining.  Choosing to love God and love others changes what it means to “look out for #1”.

Unfortunately, my own personal experience corroborates that what Keller is saying is true.  As paradoxical as it sounds, the more I focus on me, the less satisfied I am with life.  My selfishness might help me “gain the world”, but in the process I “lose myself” (see Luke 9:25).  Selfishness never pays the dividends it promises.

What I also find interesting, is how similar Keller’s quote is to a quote from a book I recently read called The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Lessby Barry Schwartz, a professor at Swarthmore College.  Here is one comment this social scientist made:

But if unrestricted freedom can impede the individual’s pursuit of what he or she values most, then it may be that some restrictions make everyone better off.  And if “constraint” sometimes affords a kind of liberation while “freedom” affords a kind of enslavement, then people would be wise to seek out some measure of appropriate constraint.

The life we were created for is not found in doing whatever we want, whenever we want, with whoever we want.  True freedom is not found in unrestrained options and never denying ourselves anything we desire.  As people created by a triune God, the life we were created for is found by entering this “dance of God” and focusing on Him (which will always lead us to serving others).  A real freedom will be experienced when we accept limitations, deny ourselves, and think about others.  If we attempt to save our life (i.e. make it all about us), we lose it and if we lose our life (being God and others focused), we save it (see Luke 9:24).

I certainly hope you enjoyed this book as much as I did.  Please check in soon for some information concerning what is next.

This week’s entry is from David Peters:

Keller makes his case for “The Reality of The Resurrection” in Chapter 13 of The Reason for God. I think he has some good points in the chapter but, on the whole, I found it largely lacking. He doesn’t make any logical argument that cannot also be applied to many of the world’s other religions. It is disappointing since, as he writes, “The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”

The tone of the chapter was set poorly for me in the beginning when Keller wrote: “The resurrection also puts a burden of proof on nonbelievers.” (What? You are arguing the affirmative, Keller!) He continues: ”It is not enough to simply believe Jesus did not rise from the dead. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church.”

I don’t understand this reasoning at all. There are over 4,000 faiths in our world. Most of them claim to be the one true belief system and exclusive of all other belief systems.  If I follow Keller’s logic then I, as a Christian, should come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of each of these.  And if I don’t feel that burden, then why should it be imposed on non-Christians? Keller never answers this question and continues building the rest of the chapter on what I believe to be a shaky foundation.

To be fair, Keller had his work cut out for him. When I was asked to write about another chapter, I picked this one because I wanted to read ”proof” of the resurrection and write about it. However, I am a skeptic by nature. I wish I could read what Keller wrote and say “You know, his logic is flawless and the case is airtight.” But I can’t.

I guess that is why it is called faith; why Jesus calls on me to believe. I can’t help but wonder if I just opened my eyes to a self-evident truth, then would I really love God?

The resurrection is real to me because I have a deep longing for a savior. I know that I cannot perform, that I am a sinner. Jesus came to Earth and lifted the veil shrouding God. He also broke the mold of karma, or deed-based, religions. Keller didn’t prove this. But I “trust” it.

On the good days.

To whom is the story of the Cross more relevant: believer or non-believer?

One of my struggles with “Christian living” has been viewing the story of the Cross as simply a ticket into a future event: heaven.  It has been kind of like the last concert I attended.  I had heard the story that my favorite band was coming to town, investigated the story, believed the story was true and used my hard earned money to purchase a ticket.  After I purchased the ticket, it didn’t really have much value to me until the day of the concert.  Yeah, every once in a while I would look at the ticket on my bulletin board and be reminded of this future event and have a little bit of excitement, but the ticket certainly didn’t have a dramatic change on the pattern of my life.

What struck me most about Keller’s message in chapter twelve was the Cross’ ability to influence the pattern of our life.  Having been in the church for 13+ years, I knew Christians were to be “different” and to not live like the “world”, but for some reason I never remember hearing that the basis for why we do this is the pattern of the Cross.

Those who are shaped by the great reversal of the Cross no longer need self-justification through money, status, career, or pride of race and class.  So the Cross creates a counterculture in which sex, money, and power cease to control us and are used in life-giving and community-building rather than destructive ways. – Pg 197

Sitting here right now, I think the story of the Cross is equally relevant to both the believer and the non-believer.  Yes, there is as benefit of the Cross that will be fully realized in the future, but that does not mean it should not be central to the life of a believer in the “here and now”.  I need the story of the Cross today just as much as my co-worker who does not know Jesus as his savior.  I believe the church will have the greatest impact in furthering the Kingdom of God by living the pattern of the Cross as opposed to only preaching the story of the Cross.

The blog post this week is from Suzanne Sanderson:

I had a conversation this week with a friend and we were discussing all the things that happen to us when we get tired.  Typically… we get emotional, we get irrational, we get irritable, we become more self focused and more often than not, unproductive.  As I read through Chapter 11 discussing the difference between religion and the gospel, it hit me… Christ died that I may have “rest”!

Keller discusses the differences between living for a set of rules and living in the freedom of grace.  When we lived to follow a set of rules we end up frustrated and tired.  We realize that we really can’t ever do enough.  We are driven by performance always finding out that someone is better.  In running after the perfect performance of the rules we must be self dependent, fighting pride.  Or on the flip side we find that we never measure up and shame and guilt come rushing in to be our companions.  God NEVER intended our lives to be this way.

He was clear in His Word that Christ came that we might have life and have it abundantly.  That truth has come to set us free, that we are saved by grace alone.  We can’t earn it, change it, influence it… it just is.  Grace allows us to live with confidence and dignity.  It always drives us to humility realizing the cost to God and His Son and the amazing gift to us.  It shows us what our worth is and while we don’t deserve it, it comes with great riches.  It allows us to rest, to be filled up with what He created us for… HIS LOVE.  And it is unfailing, never changing and pretty mind blowing.

I think a lot of people struggle because grace just doesn’t make sense.  We want to be held accountable, be able to work for it, to not be in debt, especially to the God of the Universe.  But then the tired routine sets in, we can’t ever do enough.  So we find ourselves emotional, irrational, irritable, self focused, and unable to really live the life He intended for us.  He wants us to come to Him, to take His yoke upon us, to experience the peace and joy of trusting Him.  His plan is perfect, it is what we were created for.

When we really take the time to get to KNOW God, we are then drawn to BELIEVE Him.  Not just believe in Him, but actually believe what He says, about who He is and who we are.  Then we fall in LOVE with Him.  Then and only then are we motivated to serve Him and love others.  It takes time and space…  time with Him and time in His word.  And it means making space for Him, allowing Him to be the priority and allowing Him to change us.

Religion is exhausting!  Grace is God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense!  And those riches are unmatched by anything that we can make, produce, earn or work for.  So this week, give God time and space, allow your heart to be fed on the truth of His grace and rest, be free, and experience life abundantly!

What I appreciated most about this chapter was the way the way Keller universalized sin, without making everyone sound like they are offensively evil.  If I look back over my personal history in sharing the message of salvation with other people, I’ve struggled with a way to present the problem of sin that doesn’t come across as so offensive, that the other person believes I am basically calling them a not too distant relative of Hitler.  I think my problem is that I’ve been operating with a behavior oriented definition of sin rather than a heart oriented definition.  I’ve made the secondary the primary.  A heart that makes anything besides God ultimate will eventually lead to behavior that can be viewed as bad.

Unfortunately I have seen this problem play out in my own life in more ways than I’d care to admit.  In my mid-twenties I decided to leave my job as a CPA (which I eventually came back to) and pursue full-time ministry.  My first full-time ministry job was teaching at a small Bible study for single adults just outside of Atlanta.  Looking back on that season of my life, I am amazed at how quickly “teaching well” became an ultimate thing in my life. 

When my teaching fell flat or I didn’t receive praise from others, I was devastated.  It would impact my mood for days.  I felt worthless.  It never forgave me.  When my teaching went well and I did receive praise, it was empty and stressful.  Would I be able to perform again?  Were they just being nice?  Do people really like me?  It never satisfied me.

I could go on and on and share more stories of how I have done the same thing with friendships in high school, a girlfriend in college, my career as a CPA, my physical image, etc.  There are always things I’m tempted to make ultimate and in every case, I’m never satisfied when I achieve them and I am never forgiven when I fail them.

Praise be to God that in Jesus Christ we have the one “ultimate” that when obtained is deeply satisfying and when failed graciously forgives.  What a privilege to be ambassadors of this ultimate God who satisfies and forgives and who chooses to change the world not by starting with behavior change, but rather by rightly ordering our hearts.

A quick digression to start off – I believe one of the smartest things Keller did before starting this second section of the book was to make the distinction between “clues of God” and “proofs for God” as well as acknowledge the fact that any of the “clues” are “rationally avoidable at some point”.  To me, that intellectual honesty takes away a competitive pressure that I believe is sometimes present with discussing these topics.  I’m not sure why, but Alvin Plantinga’s quote from chapter eight is rather refreshing: “there are no proofs of God that will convince all rational persons.”

Back on topic – chapter 9:  I liked Keller’s “radical thesis” that every person’s innate sense of right and wrong (i.e. morals) indicate that they know there is a God, but they are repressing what they know.  If there is no God, then morality is not necessarily based on right and wrong, but rather on a person’s preferences.  And taken one step further, without God, then this whole thing we call “life” is also meaningless.

Right now, I work with a guy who appears to be repressing that he knows God exists and it is humbling to watch him try and explain the purpose and meaning of work, leadership, progress and “doing the right thing” without acknowledging Him.  Due to his position in the Company my co-worker often has the opportunity to get on a soapbox and pontificate about these topics and you can see the look in his eyes as he grasps for a reason why the work we do is important, why leading people well is important, why progress for our firm is important and why always doing the right thing is important.  It’s seems at times like he is trying to talk himself into buying what he’s selling.  Without the anchor of God, his reasons seem to be free floating and pointless and I think he knows it.

This chapter, like the others, has strengthened my own faith and has better equipped me to engage with folks like my co-worker.  I think the “Sez Who?” question is a great way to engage with others and quickly get to the core of what they believe about life.  The “good news” of Christ’s message has so many relevant applications, one of which is people don’t have to wander through life pointless.

The blog entry this week is from Isaac Mann:

____________________________________________________________

In chapter eight Keller explains a number of “Clues” pointing to the existence of God. I find these ideas fascinating, and I often wonder who the first person was to think of these. Some of them are obvious; nature is all around me and seems to work… hmm…  

God apparently thinks they’re obvious too. Psalm 14:1 says, “the fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”  

Some of these clues are down right confusing though. One that the book doesn’t mention is called the ontological argument. It’s so complicated, in fact, that it’s been around for about a thousand years and philosophers are still debating it.  

For me one of the most interesting ideas in this chapter is that the Big Bang Theory is helpful for our particular view. I grew up in a pretty conservative Christian family, and I always had the impression that the Big Bang Theory was bad for a Christian view of the universe. It seemed to explain the universe without reference to God. It wasn’t until recently that I was watching a documentary on the Big Bang Theory, and I realized that it could actually be a clue for God’s existence.  

Apparently, many scientists used to think that the universe had no beginning. It just existed forever. Some people believed this because to think about a beginning for everything you have to admit that there’s something outside of nature… something “super” natural. Others probably just avoided the question since science (by definition) can’t explain what was before there was.  

Eventually scientists started to realize the universe is constantly expanding. If it’s expanding that means that it used to be smaller, much smaller. In fact, there must have been a time when it was infinitesimally tiny. What was there before that? Science can’t say. If you’re a scientist who likes that science has all the answers, that answer should terrify you. It begs the question “Why is there something instead of nothing?”  

So, it turns out the Big Bang Theory is a clue for the existence of God. Who’d a thought? That doesn’t mean I’m gonna completely buy into it. It is only a theory after all. But it is nice when man’s attempts to understand the universe accidentally lead to God clues.  

I guess we can’t prove that God does exist just like atheists can’t prove that he doesn’t. But we can make it pretty hard to act like atheism is the intellectual choice. You’ve got to try pretty hard to “reason” your way to denying that there’s a God.  

1. Does it bother you that we can’t prove the existence of God? Why or why not? 

2. What might be some reasons that God hasn’t given us real proof?  

3. We can’t get all the way to the Christian God from these clues. What do they show us about God? 

4. Have you ever used one of these clues in a discussion? How did it go?

Hope everyone is enjoying the book.  Just wanted to let you know that we will not have a blog entry on the “intermission”.  We will start this Wednesday (2/24) with an entry on chapter8.

The blog entry this week is from Jackie Tarnow:

When I have had conversations with certain friends who do not believe that they can trust the historical depiction of Jesus, usually I learn that they have never read the Bible and very rarely have actually spent time researching any evidence for which they base their conclusions. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but most of the people I have encountered usually just take bits and pieces of what they have heard in the media or in college classes and base their assumptions on the inaccuracy of the biblical Jesus without really taking much time to explore the facts.

In chapter seven of Tim Keller’s “The Reason For God,” entitled You Can’t Take the Bible Literally, one of the issues that he addresses is the historical accuracy of the Bible. He provides three reasons that people can trust the Bible historically, which are as follows: 1) The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends; 2) The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends; and 3) The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend.

In the beginning of this chapter, Keller discusses how Ann Rice, the well-known author of vampire stories, “returned to Christianity after doing extensive research about the historical Jesus, by reading the work of Jesus scholars at the most respected academic institutions.” She realized that there was little actual data to support the scholars’ conclusions of a non-divine Jesus – they simply did not make their case. On the other hand, Keller just begins to scratch the surface with respect to the evidence that exists demonstrating that the biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are historically accurate.

I know facts alone do not cause a person to believe the Gospel. Only God can open someone’s eyes and make them alive to spiritual truths, but it’s encouraging to me to know that there is evidence to support the historical accuracy of the bible if someone takes the time to research the facts. As Lee Strobel quoted from Dr. Craig Bloomberg in “A Case For Christ”, “But I’ll tell you this, there are plenty of stories of scholars in the New Testament field who have not been Christians, yet through their study of these very issues have come to faith in Christ. And there have been countless more scholars, already believers, whose faith has been made stronger, more solid, more grounded, because of the evidence….”

The blog entry for Chapter 6 is brought to us by David Peters:

______________________________________________________________________

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. –Albert Einstein 

Chapter 6 of Mr. Keller’s The Reason for God is entitled “Science Has Disproved Christianity”. It is a short chapter in which Keller takes on the role of apologist for Christianity. Keller devotes much of the chapter to evolution. Since there is probably not a bigger topic in the current science vs. religion debate than evolution I will mainly talk about it.

In my opinion, those arguing for the side of religion have often made fools of themselves by seeking to throw out all aspects of the theory of evolution. For instance, to me, it is patently obvious that natural selection is a fact. The best way to see it is in rapidly reproducing organisms, say bacteria. Our hospitals are unfortunately a living testament to natural selection.  MRSA is the perfect example of how traits in a population will react to nature. Those bacteria that are susceptible to antibiotics tend to die; those that aren’t tend to live. So, due to the mechanism of natural selection, we now have a lot of nasty bugs in our hospitals that are causing many problems.

Evolution fails when used as an “All-encompassing Theory”. Keller writes, “When evolution is turned into an All-encompassing Theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in the arena of science, but of philosophy.” Sounds like a religion to me. Quick, someone tell Richard Dawkins.

I wish Keller had addressed what I believe is the ultimate failing of science: that it is human. Since science is the accumulation of the human knowledge of nature, it is therefore finite and wrong. That is why I love the quote by Einstein that preludes this entry. The great scientist, who used his talent to uncover the secrets of how God made the world, confesses how little he knows. It is arrogant to believe that we have it all figured out. Einstein wasn’t that arrogant. But, it seems, Richard Dawkins is.

I think we sometimes forget that while science attempts to describe nature, it isn’t nature. Think about it. Every generation always thinks they have nature figured out. With the false precision of mathematics and advanced scientific instruments it is easy to think we understand everything. But the universe used to end at the edge of our flat Earth.  Now, they say that not only is the universe infinite in size, it is expanding at the speed of light. Wow. And the smallest particle used to be the atom. Atom means “something that cannot be divided further”. It is an unfortunate name because the subatomic particles keep getting smaller and smaller!

All we have to do is look at the history of science and see how limited and false some of the theories were. Why do we think that our current science is immune to those limitations and falsehoods? Cognitive bias? Yes. Human arrogance? Yes.

I, for one, am happy that human knowledge, science, doesn’t stand still. What if medicine were still dominated by the theory of  humorism? Leaches, anyone? Gross!

And sometimes, I think scientists just miss the point. Isn’t the beauty of DNA, not the double helix structure for which it is famous, but that it allows me to see bits of my wife’s face when I look at our daughter?