Author: Nick Peters

I’m reading a book now by Armand Maurer called “about Beauty’ concerning Thomas Aquinas on beauty. He makes the statement that a dancer is beautiful when they are sleep, but beauty is not just being and it is when a dancer is dancing that they are the most beautiful of all. Beauty consists in acting according to form.

As I pondered this later, I thought of the saying of Irenaeus that John Eldridge quotes often. The glory of God is a man fully alive.

What is beautiful in a man is when he is being a man and doing that which a man is supposed to do. I believe this is one reason we exult in our masculinity. (Or rather, we’re supposed to.) We believe we are being that which we are supposed to be. God created us as men (I speak to the males of course) and he is exalted when we are truly men.

Could this be why we love action movies also? When we see the man beating up the bad guys, it makes us think that he is being a man and we glory in that. Every man wants to be that hero. Rest assured, no man, despite his physical stature, would say that he wants to be a wimp.

In the same way, this is why we find women attractive. A woman is attractive simply as a woman, but when she lives as a woman doing things as a woman, then she is even more attractive. If she acts indecent though in a sexual way that does not appeal, as much as we might admire her sex, we don’t really find her attractive. She is ceasing to act as a woman.

I also ponder that this is what makes sexual intercourse so fascinating on one level. The man is doing that which only he can do. The woman is doing that which only she can do. In the act, it is impossible to change roles. The man must be the man and the woman must be the woman. That is just the way God made us.

This is also why we men like to excel. We want to be the best at what we are. We don’t want to see a man living more than we are. We long to catch up to him. Watch men get together sometime and tell stories. No matter what, each man thinks that he has to top the other man.

Man is not to be a static creature. He is meant to be active. He is not a passive being. He is an acting being. The glory of God is a man fully alive for in that, the man is taking the role God gave him and is showing the glory of God. He is properly taking care of the lady in his life, the world around him, and living the nature that God gave him.

Glory to God.

 Due to the curse of Daylight Savings Time tonight, I am doing the blog early.

One criticism raised along the lines of the laws of nature and miracles is that the ancients were gullible. They’d readily believe all of these miracle stories. If they were told that Jesus walked on water, why, they’d believe it. Since this was the case, it’s not a shock that Christianity was readily believed.

It’s hard to imagine how people think such things.

For one thing, the Christian faith was not readily believed. Even in the gospels you see this happening. When the empty tomb is discovered, people are not running off shouting “He’s alive! He’s alive!” In Mark at the Transfiguration, the disciples do not know what is meant by the Son of Man rising from the dead. (I mention Mark since it is often considered the earliest. I’m not saying I hold to that, but this is just going with popular opinion on the gospels.)

In Matthew, we read that Jesus was there about to give the Great Commission, but some doubted. In Luke, Jesus has to eat before them so they will know that he is not just a ghost. In John, Thomas isn’t even convinced by the record of his fellow apostles. He has to see and touch for himself.

In Acts, the Bereans are held in high esteem because they tested all things to see if they were true. This was the advice Paul gave to the Thessalonian church in 1 Thessalonians. Glenn Miller of the Christian-thinktank even points out that in Luke’s writing of the visit of Paul to the Lycean’s, he is actually having some fun at how they were too quick to believe something false.

Let’s consider this though. Why did the Christian message not get ready welcome in the Roman Empire since surely God revealing himself and giving salvation would want to be believed by all.

Simple reason. The Romans didn’t believe it. Why? They knew what the Greeks knew at Mars Hill. Dead people stay dead.

What about the Matthew 27 incident with the graves being opened and some of the dead coming out. Why didn’t any witnesses outside of Jerusalem record this?

Simple reason again. They knew dead people stay dead and would not have considered that a serious event.

There is one idea that never seems to cross the mind of the modern man when saying the ancients were gullible.

Maybe, just maybe, these miracles actually happened?

If they did, then we cannot say the disciples and early Christians were gullible. Instead, they were quite rational in believing what they had good reason to believe. If anything, it is the modern man who is gullible in that he is willing to believe any theory just so long as it is not a miracle. If a man will not believe the truth, he will believe anything else.

Were the ancients gullible? No. The jury is still out on the moderns.

You could be an observer of the Mosaic Law without believing in Moses and the parting of the Red Sea. You could observe the five pillars of Islam without a belief in miracles. (In fact, it’s denied in the Qu’ran that Muhammad even did miracles.) You could follow the noble path of Buddhism and have no miracles. You could reach the Nirvana of Hinduism and not have any miracles.

You cannot be a Christian without miracles. They’re at the heart of the Christian faith. You have the Son of God acting in the world in the first place by taking on a human nature in addition to his divine nature. Then, you have his life to be a life where he displayed his power and identity through miracles. Finally, the cornerstone of Christianity is the grand miracle of the resurrection.

This, at the heart, is one of the reasons the New Testament is not readily accepted like other ancient writings. It is full of miracles! If you are to be a Christian, then you must believe that God revealed himself in his Son and raised his Son from the dead. If there are no miracles, there is no Christianity.

Thus, a believer of Christianity should be able to defend miracles. There is one argument against miracles that is probably the most common one, but when it is examined, it is also the most foolish one. This is the argument that the people in the ancient world did not understand natural law and thus believed in miracles.

Now we can be clear on one thing. It is quite certain the ancients did not understand the molecular make-up of water. They did not understand that this is hydrogen and oxygen coming together and forming a substance called water. They did not understand that we can move through water because the molecues are not tightly packed together.

Let us be clear that while they did not have the extent of knowledge that we have today, they did have this much knowledge. They knew that if a man jumped onto water, he would not stand on it. Instead, he would go under the water. (They obviously had to have some understanding since they built excellent boats in that time period.)

Thus, when the disciples see Jesus walking on the water, they know that it is something miraculous going on. We know this because Peter asked if he could do so also. If Peter had believed that this was something perfectly natural, we can be sure that he would have leaped out of the boat immediately. (In fact, had he believed it was natural, why have a boat anyway?)

Yet in the writings of those opposed to the faith, this is the kind of statement I see. I constantly hear that we know about laws of nature and they didn’t. Yet even writing out the explanation seems a bit ridiculous for as soon as one starts writing out how they knew it was an anomaly, one feels required to say “Of course. Wouldn’t anyone know that?”

Of course, this doesn’t prove the miracles happened. That’s not my goal here. My goal is simply to get rid of one of the most bizarre objections I heard. If someone wants to say they were later additions to the text, then that is one thing. If, however, one wishes to say that the ancients did not know about natural law, then that is making the ancients the most unbelievable of fools.

The ancient world had tombs. Why? Because they knew that when people died, they weren’t coming back. The ancient world also had a Joseph who planned to divorce his bride-to-be in secret because she was pregnant. Why? Because Joseph was not ignorant of what it took to make a baby and he knew that he hadn’t done that.

In fact, there was only one way to recognize that something was a miracle and that was to have some idea of a natural working order. Miracles were noted because there was something that seemed to work contrary to that natural working order. Of course, this doesn’t prove that miracles happened, but again, that is not the goal.

If this objection is brought up, it is a fair question to ask the critic exactly when these discoveries were made. Oh? What scientist discovered that dead people stay dead? When was this verified? What scientist discovered what it takes to make a baby? When was this verified?

I have yet to see a real answer to those questions. I doubt you will either.

When we speak about the omniscience of God, I think we miss a lot. I know my Open Theist friends won’t agree with this post. That’s quite alright. They know I don’t agree with them either. My belief is that God possesses all knowledge for all time. He has no potential to gain knowledge. I also say that God is outside of space and time yet fills them both fully. He is everywhere in space and at each moment in time.

What difference do those make?

For the Christian, this can be an encouragement and a joy. It means that you were always on the mind of God. God does not switch from idea to idea as we do. God is thinking about all people at all times in all places. He is aware of all true statements in all times and all places.

So, when have you been on the mind of God? Answer: Always. There never was a time when you were not. God did not have to wait for you to come into being to know who you are. The Bible shows in many places that he knows us before we are born and our lives are watched over by his sovereign hand.

This means that whatever you are going through, God already knows about it and is already there. Whatever crisis you are dealing with, he saw it before you did and has already dealt with it. It might not be dealt with the way you like, but it is dealt with and if you are a follower of Christ, it will work to your good in the end. That doesn’t necessarily mean in this lifetime though.

It also means that he is always there. By being omnipresent, God does not have to move from one person to another. God is everywhere and is not divided in his essence. Wherever you may go, as an example, the laws of logic will apply. Wherever you go, God will be there.

It also means you are just as much the object of his attention as everyone else is. You can be sure when you pray, that the omniscient and omnipresent God is listening to you. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you get what you pray for, but it does mean that what you say is not falling on deaf ears.

Biblical doctrine matters and it matters on a number of levels. We need to argue for it from the texts and sound reasoning first. Then, we need to properly articulate it. However, we need to apply it last. Too often, it seems we take the beautiful doctrines of the Christian faith and never get to application. On the other hand, we take some passages of Scripture and only apply them and never get at the beautiful doctrines behind them.

A good and sound theology requires both. It requires orthodoxy in one’s thought and orthopraxy in one’s lifestyle.

In 1 John 4:18, we are told that perfect love casts out all fear. This is one of those nice verses we like to read for the joy it brings us. We like to remember when we are afraid that if perfect love comes, then all fear will be gone. Unfortunately, if we view it on a sentimental level, I think we miss the wonder of this verse.

There was a time when I was studying Greek. Unfortunately, my computer program doesn’t work like it should any more and so I can’t get back into it, but I did enjoy it. At one point, I set out to translate 1 John which is what I was told was a good book for a beginner in Greek to start on.

So I started going through the book and then I got to this verse. What I saw in this verse was absolutely astounding. I cannot tell you how joyful I was at it. It was so exciting to me that while I had signed off for the evening, I got back on my computer and spoke to another friend for 45 minutes about it.

The key word in this is casts. Now in the Greek the nominative is the subject of the sentence. The accusative is what directly receives the action. Love is the nominative in this case and fear is the accusative. What is really being done by love though directly to fear? It’s not what we think!

My understanding of this passage had always been that this was a more passive thing. Consider the way it is when you light a candle and go into a dark room. The darkness must flee before the light. That was the way I saw things. As you experience the love of God, that love causes the fear to flee.

I was wrong.

The word is ballo. I would safely guess that’s where we get our word ball from. What do you do with a ball usually? You throw it. That’s exactly what is going on here. Someone I talked to about it described it as love is being like a barroom bouncer throwing out the unwanted guest.

Love is incredibly active in this and it helps us to realize that. God is not taking fear passively. He is waging war on it. We should be ready to do the same. My favorite description I’ve seen of fear is still found in the Harry Potter novels and if we grasp it, I think we can realize much on it.

Rawlings depicts a world where there are creatures called Boggarts. You don’t see a Boggart’s shape really. Instead, you see that it takes on the form of whatever terrifies the person who is viewing it. There is no rationality in the belief necessarily. (Think of Hermoine who gets bested by one by thinking it’s her professor saying she failed all her classes.)

The fear has no definite shape though. It is not a substance really in itself. It exists only as a parasite. There was also a great way of defeating a Boggart. One simply had to think of it in a ridiculous light, point a wand, say “ridiculous!” and the Boggart would take on the ridiculous form. The way to defeat it was to laugh at it.

The love of God is a love in truth.  It is not a friend to fear as fear is never an affirmation of the truth. It might have a grain of truth in it, but it is not the truth. Consider a fear of flying for instance many may have. (I used to have it as well.) One can say it is true that planes can crash, but by and large, very few of them do. It is that grain that is twisted.

What can we conclude though? Take fear as an opponent to be defeated and remember your God is not passive at all in dealing with it.

There’s something that really strikes me about 1 John when I read it. I would like you all to take time to consider what is happening in it. This is the same John who was called a son of thunder. Why? Because of his quick temper. Look at what happens when the Samaritans reject Christ in Luke 9. John and James are right there. “Lord! Do you want us to call fire down from Heaven like Elijah did on them?”

I’ll grant that part of me can understand that. However, note the attitude. First off, do you want us to call it down. (“Step back Lord. We’ll handle this one! BURN BABY BURN!) Secondly, these guys had never called down fire from Heaven. It’s like they were wanting the divine power to do so.

Of course, Christ rebuked them there, but that shows you the character we are dealing with. However, I keep that in mind as I approach 1 John.  I look throughout this book and this is the man who would seem to not hurt a fly. He keeps referring to little children and how we are to walk in love and we must love our neighbor and walk as Jesus did.

Something happened. What made the Son of Thunder the apostle of love?

I can think of only one explanation.

God came near.

Consider how it starts at the first chapter.

“That which was from the beginning.”

No doubt, this is talking about God, but John is saying this about the Son. (There’s the deity of Christ right there my JW friends.) John is talking about the eternal reality that is God in the person of the Son.

“What we have heard”

If we consider it as a historical look, my mind goes to Sinai and the voice of God thundering from the mountain and how the Israelites did not want to go near. They even told Moses to go and speak on our behalf for if God speaks to us we will die. (Makes you wonder about those today who make it commonplace.)

“What we have seen with our eyes.”

And now, things are getting closer. We have the manifestation of God. We could consider a passage like Isaiah 6 as an example.

“What we have looked at.”

And John 1:14. The Word has become flesh. That which was from the beginning is now flesh. He now dwells among us. (Or rather, dwelt)

“And touched with our hands.”

Can it get any closer? They walked in and out with the Lord for three years and saw his life. What is my answer then to the question of what changed them?

Christ came to them.

When God draws near, people change. Those who are accepting become more like him. Those that are not, fall away and harden themselves. No one is the same after an encounter with God though.

And for those of us who claim the name “Christian”, we need to watch ourselves. If we are claiming to have made Christ our Lord and Savior and received the Holy Spirit, then we should be sons of love indeed as John would say. As long as we are not, do we give the world any reason to think that God came near?

Yesterday, we heard a sermon on prayer. I really like the speaker who spoke, but I thought we got hit way too hard. I agree that we should pray and we ought to pray, but there were several shoulds and I’m of the opinion that we got knocked down several times and there was never grace to pick us up again.

I’ll go on and confess that prayer is one of those things that I have a hard time with. I can imagine easily that I’m not alone. For those of us here in America, it seems we get up, go to work, come home, and at the end of the day we’re just too exhausted. Running the rat race keeps us perpetually busy.

This leads us to a misconception I think though. Time. It seems that we think the time spent in prayer is equal to the quality of the prayer. Yet when I look at the Lord’s prayer, it is a very short prayer. Many of the Psalms are quite short. You can say them easily and memorize them easily.

If we think we need to spend an hour in prayer for instance, I think we’re burdening ourselves. If you can do that, great. I’m not condemning that. I’m just saying prayer doesn’t become more holy because you do it for X number of minutes. If that was the case, then we should never stop.

Also, we can’t compare it with other activities. If the value we give to something was determined by the time we give it, then it would seem that sleep and work are the most valuable things to us, yet to many of us, those are not the most valuable things. Those are things we do so we can do other things. (While we can pray on our jobs, most of us can’t pray while we’re asleep I’m wagering.)

Instead, I think of how we are to pray without ceasing many our minds should be directed towards God. We should always have a submission in our attitude towards Christ and seeking to be more like him and looking at the world and trying to find the way to bring about the glory of God. We are to pray his kingdom come. Are we doing something to advance that kingdom?

I’m also going to say this to the men. This is our hurdle. I think generally speaking, we men are more action oriented and we don’t consider prayer an action. We consider it like peace talks. Men. We don’t usually like peace talks either. We’d prefer to go out there and bash some skulls in instead.

We need to learn that prayer is action. It’s asking the aid of the most awesome being of all. This is something that irks me. When people say praying for someone is the least they can do, I always wonder about that. You’re asking the Lord of Heaven and Earth to intervene and that’s the least you can do?

So as for me, my prayer life isn’t the best. I’ll confess that. It’s hard to make time. I think we need to encourage prayer, but we need to do so remembering who we are. We are sinners who are telling other sinners where we found bread, and most of us could use a lot of bread.

Socrates: Greetings kind sir! What are you doing?

Atheist: I’m studying DNA.

Socrates: You are studying letters? How interesting.

Atheist: No. It stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It’s what contains the genetic make-up of every living substance.

Socrates: What fascinating things you have discovered!

Atheist: And what about you? You’re dressed up like you’re some Greek dude.

Socrates: Well I would hope so considering I am.

Atheist: I’ve been to Greece. They no longer dress like that.

Socrates: They did in my day.

Atheist: Your day? Who are you?

Socrates: Why, I’m Socrates.

Atheist: Right. And I’m George Washington.

Socrates: Pleased to meet you George.

Atheist: That’s not my name.

Socrates: You said it was.

Atheist: I was joking.

Socrates: You joke about your name? I consider names serious? Didn’t you ever read the Cratylus?

Atheist: Never mind. I don’t believe in dead people coming back to life. We gave up on such fairy tales a long time ago.

Socrates: Fairy tales?

Atheist: You know, myths about things that can’t happen.

Socrates: Ah. So the dead coming back to life can’t happen.

Atheist: Nope.

Socrates: And you know this how?

Atheist: We’ve never seen it happen.

Socrates: I see. And that means it can’t.

Atheist: Not with all events, but these are laws of nature.

Socrates: Laws of nature?

Atheist: Yes. Dead people stay dead. We know that.

Socrates: Kind sir. So did we. We practiced burial. I even told my friends what to do for me when I died.

Atheist: Right. The Phaedo. Uh huh.

Socrates: Good. You know my story.

Atheist: I do. But what’s your point?

Socrates: It’s just the dead staying dead is hardly news.

Atheist: But there are some people who believe that the dead don’t stay dead.

Socrates: Ah. Interesting.

Atheist: They’re called Christians mostly. They believe their leader died and came back.

Socrates: Fascinating.

Atheist: Which we know violates natural law.

Socrates: But didn’t they know that back then?

Atheist: Most likely. They just base things on faith.

Socrates: And what do you mean by faith?

Atheist: I think for the Greeks, the word was pistis. It means believing in something without evidence.

Socrates: My friend, you are speaking my language, but you are not speaking my definition.

Atheist: Then what does it mean?

Socrates: It means trust in what has been shown to be reliable.

Atheist: Oh.

Socrates: So that brings us back to why you don’t agree with these Christians.

Atheist: Because I don’t believe in miracles.

Socrates: Why not?

Atheist: There’s no one to perform them.

Socrates: What about the gods?

Atheist: You mean God.

Socrates: Did the rest of them die and only Zeus remain?

Atheist: Wow. You play your acting part well. No one treats Zeus seriously. The Christians treat their God seriously. He’s called YHWH and he’s the only God they say there is. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.

Socrates: What an interesting idea.

Atheist: But they have no evidence that he exists.

Socrates: Interesting

Atheist: And I don’t believe things without evidence.

Socrates: Then may I ask you a question?

Atheist: Surely.

Socrates: You require evidence for all your beliefs?

Atheist: Of course.

Socrates: So you want to test everything and hold to what is true?

Atheist: Figures you’re a Christian really?

Socrates: Excuse me?

Atheist: Christians tell that to me all the time. It’s in the Bible.

Socrates: The Bible?

Atheist: Their holy book.

Socrates: It may be in that, but my friend, it is just good advice.

Atheist: Get to your point.

Socrates: Okay, you said you should believe only what you have evidence for.

Atheist: Yes

Socrates: And you say Christians have no evidence for their God.

Atheist: Yes

Socrates: I assume you have evidence he doesn’t exist.

Atheist: Well, he’s never shown himself to me.

Socrates: And that means he doesn’t exist?

Atheist: Not necessarily.

Socrates: Then might you not be like some philosophers who just believe that he winds up the clock and lets it go?

Atheist: No. I believe natural law covers it all.

Socrates: But does that rule out God?

Atheist: Not entirely. Some theists apparently believe in evolution.

Socrates: What’s evolution?

Atheist: It’s this belief that all life comes from simple life.

Socrates: That’s hardly news. Aristotle knew that life is in sperm.

Atheist: Not just that. It’s taking those single cells and saying that life was originally just that and eventually improved until it became what we see today.

Socrates: Fascinating theory! I assume it’s well-established?

Atheist: It is, unless you’re religious?

Socrates: A lot of religious people don’t believe it?

Atheist: No. They think it’s opposed to their holy book.

Socrates: Is that the only reason?

Atheist: No. They try to bring up scientific arguments.

Socrates: Like what?

Atheist: That it’s too hard to happen by chance.

Socrates: Chance?

Atheist: No outside interference from God.

Socrates: Ah. So these laws of nature alone did this?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: Then if it is so obvious, it must be a simple thing. You’re playing with the building block as you said it was now. Right?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: Do all scientists do that?

Atheist: No. Several do though. We study it in a library and try to re-create the first appearance of life?

Socrates: Re-create it?

Atheist: Yeah. Make life in a laboratory.

Socrates: You incredible people! Have you done so?

Atheist: Not yet.

Socrates: Your minds have yet to make life?

Atheist: No.

Socrates: But chance can.

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: Without a mind?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: But minds can’t so far.

Atheist: Not yet.

Socrates: Sounds odd for your position.

Atheist: But Socrates, we see this happening all the time?

Socrates: Life from non-life?

Atheist: Not that. Change from within species.

Socrates: Meaning?

Atheist: We can breed dogs and get better dogs. We can have bugs become immune to chemicals used to kill them. Animals simply change over time.

Socrates: But it seems the dogs stay dogs and the bugs bugs.

Atheist: Yes. But these beneficial changes eventually produce new creatures entirely.

Socrates: So these changed animals stay this way?

Atheist: Actually, no. They usually revert back within a few generations.

Socrates: Interesting. But somehow, this means that new lifeforms emerge?

Atheist: Eventually?

Socrates: Has it been observed?

Atheist: No. Not yet.

Socrates: I see. Let’s move on then.

Atheist: Okay.

Socrates: Why is it so hard to make this lifeform in the first place?

Atheist: Information.

Socrates: Okay. I’ll repeat. Why is it so hard to make this lifeform in the first place?

Atheist: No no. I mean DNA contains information.

Socrates: It does?

Atheist: Yes. One cell contains thousands of pages of information.

Socrates: Incredible! The great mind behind such a feat!

Atheist: There is no great mind behind it.

Socrates: Why not?

Atheist: Natural Law is all we need.

Socrates: I see. Why not admit God?

Atheist: That will kill science.

Socrates: How come?

Atheist: You can say God did anything.

Socrates: But what if he did do something?

Atheist: It can’t be known through science.

Socrates: What do you mean?

Atheist: I mean that science can’t prove God exists.

Socrates: But it can prove he doesn’t?

Atheist: Well, it eliminates the need for him.

Socrates: But it seems you are arguing in a circle. God is a good explanation you have ruled out which leaves you with only natural law.

Atheist: I believe in science. God kills science.

Socrates: My friend, I had many Greeks who sought natural explanations for things who believed in the gods.

Atheist: But that means anything can happen at any time.

Socrates: Perchance it can, but does that mean it will?

Atheist: Why not?

Socrates: Because I would think that such a world would be chaos.

Atheist: Your point?

Socrates: I don’t see chaos here.

Atheist: So God doesn’t exist.

Socrates: Or he just does these miracles infrequently.

Atheist: Science has disproven miracles?

Socrates: It has? When was this?

Atheist: Well, not one specific time.

Socrates: And which part of science?

Atheist: Well, not one specific part.

Socrates: Interesting. Just science in general?

Atheist: Yes.

Socrates: How?

Athiest: We know men don’t walk on water, virgins don’t give birth, and dead people don’t come back to life.

Socrates: So did we.

Atheist: But you didn’t have our modern knowledge.

Socrates: No. We didn’t. That doesn’t mean we were idiots with what we had though.

Atheist: I just say it happened naturally.

Socrates: How do you know?

Atheist: We are here now.

Socrates: My friend, that is self-evident.

Atheist: And we are here without God.

Socrates: We are?

Atheist: He doesn’t exist. That’s why it happened this way.

Socrates: My friend. I am at a loss for words.

Atheist: How come?

Socrates: It seems you have given no clear sign that God does not exist or that these natural laws are all that are at work in the universe.

Atheist: Well, we can’t prove that.

Socrates: You only seem to have assumptions.

Atheist: Do you have evidence otherwise?

Socrates: No. But I don’t claim to know. I claim to not know. I am agnostic on the claim. You are the one making an assertion.

Atheist: I need to do my studies.

Socrates: Very well, but it seems my friend that you have a lot of faith. Until we meet again.

I was thinking about this some last night and some today. Tonight, I’m just going to write my thoughts out loud as I continue. Maybe someone will say something to improve them in some way. I think such musing is good for helping me clear out my own thoughts and if some of you are interested in the way I think, it invites you into the process.

I thought of this with working in the library with being told not to change the books but move the books. Now to change the books would be a change in substance. To change their location though would be a change in accident. The books could be changed in any way that is called an accident and still be books. It is their being that must be the same. For instance, if you burnt the books, they would no longer be books. They would be ash.

I thought about myself then. Is there anything essential to me? I could have called this “Who am I?”, but I wanted to make sure we could all relate. You can ask this of yourself. Is there anything that is absolutely essential to you? This gets into also what is essential to being a human.

Is it my DNA? Well, maybe not. I could have 47 chromosomes and still be a human being. My DNA could be any number of combinations and I’d still be human. Also, what happens when I die? Do I cease to be? If there is a change in my DNA, do I really change in my being?

Now I like to consider myself someone intelligent but in my case, is it essential to me? If I was to get hit on the head and lose my intellectual capabilities, would I cease to be me? Now I wouldn’t perform the way I did before, but that is function. I am pondering would I still be me? I think I would be. There would be a direct link between this person and that person.

Is it my imaginative side? Well, I doubt that as well. If I lost all interest in my imagination, I would still be me. Again, this is simply function. If I were to cease to be a Smallville fan, I would be me. If I gave up my games, I’d still be me. If I gave up apologetics, I’d still be me.

In fact, is it my Christianity? I actually don’t think so. I think there is a direct link between the old creation and the new creation. It is not that God destroys us and remakes us. It is that he takes us and transforms that which is not of him into that which is of him but it is the same patient on the table the whole time.

There is only one thing I can think of and that is the image of God. I do not think I would be me for instance if I was a woman instead of a man. I see that as an aspect of the image though. If I was totally incapable of rationality, I would not be me. If I did not reflect the nature of God at all, I would not be me.

I also think there is an idea of me. God knew me for all eternity before I actually came into existence. He also knows what he is shaping me into and what I am to be. In essence, if God is not, there is no objectivity to my existence. One reason my person is the same is because it exists in the mind of God. Without that, it would simply be matter with no person behind it.

At least, that’s where I stand now. Does it need refining some? Yep. However, I think there is something here and I plan to keep working on it.

In Matthew 11:17, Jesus speaks of the people of his day and says “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; We sang a dirge and you did not mourn.” If any call to be made to the people of our day, it would be “We sounded the alarm, and you did not rise up.” We are doing nothing in a crisis.

I was shopping at a mall today and stopped to get some lunch and sit down with my book. Sometime while I’m there, an alarm starts playing and lights start flashing. For awhile, I could not even understand the automated message that was playing, but eventually I made it out to say something like “An emergency has happened in the building. Evacuate immediately. Do not use the elevators.”

Here’s what was readily noticeable though. No one moved.

It’s got to that point where we don’t respond to such alarms. Where I live, I hear sirens going by regularly. Sadly, I hardly stop and say a prayer even though I’ve called the siren the anthem of where I live. We used to think car alarms would be a great idea, but nowadays, they are an annoyance. If someone was stealing a car, you’d never really notice it. The alarms are just ignored.

I did look around some and watch the security at the mall today when this happened. This is a natural tendency of mine that I want to know what’s going on and see if there’s anything I could do. As one in ministry also, I realize that my skills could be needed if someone needs someone like that. Then, there’s also my adventurous side that wants to be in the thick of things.

But while this was going on, I thought it was a picture of our times. Only one person stopped to asked me what was going on, and I had no clue. Everyone else was going about their lives. They were still entering various stores and still shopping. It was as if the alarm meant nothing.

Friends. We are living in a time of crisis with spiritual alarm. Unfortunately, we are not responding. It is always “someone else’s business” or “something we can’t handle.” It makes me think of the line though in Esther, “Who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?”

Let’s look at some things that are going on.

God is continuously being removed from the public square.

Naturalists are seeking to take over the realm of science.

Philosophers (And I say this as one) have many of their number trying to break away objective morality.

School shootings are on the rise.

Postmodernism is making us doubt the existence of truth itself.

Homosexuality is seen as normal and homosexual marriage is readily accepted by several.

Thousands of babies are murdered every day in abortion clinics.

Divorce is ending most marriages that start.

Several children are born out of wedlock today not knowing who Daddy is.

Sex is no longer sacred but just something that you do.

Theology in the church is getting more and more liberal denying essential doctrines.

Islam is rapidly being accepted in America.

Friends. This is crisis time. We have too many people ignorant of everything, and this applies to Christians. Christians are sadly some of the most ignorant. There are many atheists I think that know the bible better than Christians. Why else are so many Christians so surprised and don’t know how to answer the conquest of Canaan?

Are we responding though? We need to instead of just going about our lives. We should always be aware that we are in a war and always be ready to do our part. We might have to take up our spiritual arms at any time.

Let’s be sure we do. I know I want to be a soldier who pleases my commanding officer. Don’t you?