The Lowly Shepherds

Each day at breakfast my family and I read through an advent devotional, and yesterday, we read Luke's story of the shepherds encountering Jesus from Luke 2:8-20:

⁸ And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. ⁹ And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. ¹⁰ And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. ¹¹ For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. ¹² And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” ¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
¹⁴ “Glory to God in the highest,
    and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
¹⁵ When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” ¹⁶ And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. ¹⁷ And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. ¹⁸ And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. ¹⁹ But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. ²⁰ And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

Have you ever seen a nativity play? Have you or your kids ever been in one? Which role did you or they want to play? Well, the girls, I am sure, wanted Mary, and the boys, wanted Joseph. But, if you couldn't get Joseph, as a boy, the wise men were usually the next best thing. And, then, if you were really unlucky, you had to be a shepherd, which probably meant kneeling in a bathrobe on and a hand towel tied over your head. The shepherds often times get relegated to the lowest part of the pecking order of the nativity scenes and plays we see/perform. In fact, I have often wondered why Luke, the doctor, would choose the write about the shepherds. It seemed to me that surely Luke would have chosen to write about the wise men, the intellectuals like him. Why the lowly shepherds? I think we often think that the shepherds were just lucky, unimportant guests at the party. Well, those kinds of thoughts are a mistake that God and Luke do not make.

Have you every wondered what Joseph and Mary thought when the shepherds showed up? They knew what the angel had told them about Jesus, but they had to wonder, "What brought you here? How did you know?" The shepherds just showed up at the gate to the stable. And, they could have asked the same question of the wise men, who were the "academics" in their time. Now, we know the wise men probably did not arrive at the same time as the shepherds. It was perhaps years later. But, let's imagine the nativity scenes, as we often see them in plays or we put on our mantles, are correct and they all made it there at once, and Joseph or Mary asks, "How did you know?" Perhaps the wise men would have had a proud response and said that they had been directed by a very careful reading of ancient prophecy and vigilant watching the stars, as only an academic could have done. Then, they might have turned to the shepherds and said, perhaps looking down their noses a bit, "And, how did you know about this?" And, I image that a cheeky shepherd might have answered, "Yeah, we may not be too bright and able to read prophecy or watch the stars, but we had an angel appear to us; then an army of angels singing to us, and we saw the glory of the LORD surrounding us. You saw a star. God sent us a special host of heavenly messengers."

This is one of the great paradoxes of Christmas: the most marginalized of those in the nativity had the most spectacular display of divine power. And, as most of you probably know, shepherds were the lowest of the low in the society of that time. They could not even testify in court because it was believed de jure that they could never be trusted. Yet, the glorious birth announcement comes to shepherds who had done nothing to qualify for it, and they probably knew that they could do nothing to qualify, as they were the lowest of society. Do you see what this means? God shows us His grace even in the announcement. The Savior doesn't despise the shepherds, which means He doesn't despise the likes of me or you. He was born even for the likes of us.

But, let's think a little more about this story. Now, if you were a shepherd and you had seen a host of angels announcing the birth the Savior who is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, where would you think you would find that baby? You would probably think, like the wise men, that He must be royally-born and that He'd be in a palace. The wise men knew the star announced the birth of someone really important--a king--and they went looking in the place important people go first: the palace. But, what do the angels say to the shepherds? "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."

Have you ever thought about how that is a really weird sign? If the one born is the Savior and Messiah/Christ, how is Him being born in a manger--in the food trough of animals--a sign? Well, consider this: If you were a shepherd--the lowliest of society--and the angel told you He was in the palace, would you have gone to see Him? I doubt it, because you'd know a shepherd would never be let into the palace! That Savior would be off limits to anyone but the highest ranking people in the world. They would have said, "He's not for the likes of us." But, He was placed in a food trough, and that was a sign for the shepherds and us that the Savior has come for the least in the world. There is no one so far gone or so low that they could say, "I know He could save others, but He can't save me." He is so gentle, meek, and lowly that there is no obstacle in Him to prevent anyone from having access to Him as their Savior. He is the God of gods, the Messiah, the heir to King David's eternal throne--i.e. qualified to save the greatest--and He was born and laid in a manger--i.e. qualified to save the lowliest. Everyone from the shepherds to the wise men can go to Him because He is God born in a stable. The only obstacle is our sinful rebellion. The obstacle is found in us, not in Him.

Let's consider one more part of this story. There is something else odd in the birth announcement, in v. 11. Does that phrase "unto you is born" seem a little odd? Wouldn't you expect it to say, "unto Mary" or "unto Joseph"? The shepherds probably were good Jews and knew the Messiah was coming, but there is all the difference in the world between knowing that is true and believing that is for you. That little phrase was another way the angels showed them that the Savior can be theirs. He was born for them. He was born unto us, and even the way His birth was announced tells us that.

The glory, meaning, or "magic" of Christmas is not in the presents or good will that travels around this time of year, though those things in themselves can be great. The glory is, paradoxically, that Jesus--the second Person of the Trinity--humbled Himself to the level of a servant, was announced to lowly shepherds, and drew the shepherds to Himself, so that we could know we can come too and tell others that He is a Savior qualified to save the greatest to the lowliest.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 6)

Over the past several blog posts, I have been in a series on thinking about science biblical and consistently as a Christian. The previous post summarized the first four posts, so you can head back there fore that summary. It also began us on the journey of moving forward, using the biblical view of science that we talked about from Scripture to learn how to live in a world like ours, which puts a great deal of weight on science. To use the analogy that I have been using in this series, we started to put "walls" and a "roof" on the "foundation" and "framework" of the intellectual houses we are building, and we are going to continue to do that in this post. 

At the end of the last post, we talked about mutual correction: the idea that proper interpretations of scientific data can help correct misinterpretations of Scripture and proper interpretations of Scripture can help correct misinterpretations of scientific data. And, I left that post with a question I was asked by a student, which is quite relevant: "How can I know where I should stand firm with my theology no matter what a scientist says and how can I know where I can perhaps let their theories alter my interpretation of Scripture?" That is a good place to pick back up the topic of moving forward to learn how to live in our day and age with this biblical view of science. 

So, how can we know where to stand firm with theology and where we can perhaps let a scientific theory affect our interpretation of Scripture? Well, we will get into this in more detail below when I will give what I think is a helpful method for handling apparent conflicts between science and Scripture, but there are few things that can be said here that should help with this question: 

1. First, you and I should never make that determination alone. Scripture is one of God's great gifts to the Church as a whole and we interpret it as a community. So, seek help from others by talking to a pastor, campus minister, Christian friends, reading books, etc. Do not try to make the determination by yourself. Sometimes you might end up disagreeing with some of the people with whom you discuss the issue, but the mere fact that you do it together will help keep you from gross error and keep you humble. 
2. Second, the creedal statements of Christianity are non-negotiable. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon put parameters around the Christian faith. They leave a lot of room when it comes to many, many doctrines, but they define Christianity in its outermost limits. If we stray beyond the theology of those creeds, then we have strayed beyond Christianity. Any statement of a scientist that attempts to overthrow a statement of those creeds--like God being the maker of heaven and earth, from the Apostles Creed--is just wrong. Stand firm on them. (By the way, this does not mean we do not need to know how to defend these creedal statements to non-believers, for we should be able to give the reason for the hope they give Christians, but it does mean we cannot budge on them. If we do, we do not have Christianity anymore and therefore there is nothing to defend.)
3. Take into account the great confessions of Church history. These things are not infallible like the Bible itself, but they are great statements of theology that have stood the test of time. They have not been around as long as the creeds, but they still have a lot to teach us and we should not just haphazardly dismiss them. For example, I, as a PCA teaching elder, am bound by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. I can differ from them slightly, which I do in a few places, but even there I do not do that alone. My presbytery, which is the other teaching elders in my local geographic area, corrects me if I go too far in my differences from the confessions. In the next post, I will give some resources I recommend, and in it I will put links to the historic Reformed confessions that are still quite helpful here.
4. Finally, Do not jump to any conclusions one way or another right way, but pray a lot, study a lot, and talk a lot to other Christians.

Now, in what I have said here and in the previous post, let us not forget the mutual correction of science and Scripture. Scripture properly interpreted can also correct scientific theories where they misinterpret nature. Scripture does not give a lot of detail about most of the areas that scientists study, but where it does give details, they are details that are from God, have His authority, and provide interpretive parameters or corrections for scientific theories. One example of this might be scientific theories that attempt to claim that humans and animals have really no substantial difference other than cognitive abilities. Some scientists attempt to claim that animals are just as valuable as humans because the only difference between us is how smart we are. That, of course, comes from their interpretation of the evidence based on the assumption that naturalism and evolution are indisputable facts, which they are not. The Bible can help correct this error by pointing out that humans are made in God's image, while animals are not. God may have used a lot of the same building blocks to make humans as He did to make animals, but that does not mean He did not endow humans with a natural value and dignity that far surpasses animals. Furthermore, God gave dominion over animals to humans, thus further defining human value far above animal value. Now, that does not mean we can just abuse animals, but it does mean that animal life is not even close to being as equally valuable as human life.

Understanding how scientific data can help us correct a misinterpretation of Scripture and Scripture can help us correct misinterpretations of scientific data (mutual correction) is one way that we start putting "walls" and a "roof" on our intellectual and spiritual houses. The last thing we need to discuss is how to handle apparent conflicts when they arise because they will arise, and we need to know how to deal with them wisely. This will also help us put "walls" and a "roof" on our house. 

So, how do we handle them? Well, let me say upfront that there is probably more than one "right" way to handle these things. What I am about to give you is a method I have found helpful and others have found helpful too. It is not foolproof, for nothing is, but I think it can help you make your "houses" livable enough to help you live confidently and comfortably as a Christian in our day and age.

1. Remember what the biblical view of nature and Scripture is: Remember, as we learned in the previous posts, God is the author of both books, as we talked about yesterday, so this conflict that arises is only apparent; it is not real. Now, sometimes it may take a lot of work to figure out which book is being interpreted incorrectly and how to think about them properly, but while we work on that, we can rest in this truth. And, rest keeps us from anxiety, which helps us think more clearly about the issue. Christians have nothing to fear from scientific research because the scientist is researching God's domain--God's book. I meet many Christians who are afraid of science, but it is a tool God has given us to discover truth from His universe, so we have nothing to fear from it. 
2. Remember the world in which we live, and do not be surprised: As we discussed in part four, we should expect there to be cases where a scientific theory appears to conflict with our interpretations of Scripture. Many scientists are interpreting the data from the worldview of naturalism, which does conflict with Scripture's theistic worldview, and, as we have talked about a lot, we are simply fallible beings, so we make mistakes. Because of those things, we know apparent conflicts will arise. A biblical view of science tells us to expect this, so do not be shocked when they come. Shock only increases our anxiety of these issues, which, again, clouds our ability to think through them, but if we can look at it and say, "Huh, that's odd, but it doesn't really surprise me that they might think that," then we will remain calm enough to think through the issue biblically and rationally.
3. Remember not to jump to any conclusions too quickly: A biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that either our interpretation of Scripture or the scientist's interpretation of nature is incorrect or both, and we need to be humble enough to jump to any conclusions before we have thought it through. 
4. Check the source and wait: Things that come up in popular media via news, blogs, books, etc. all have a source behind them that points to the scientific research, and very often claims in the popular media are either reported incorrectly, too early, or are overturned by further scientific research. For example, here as some things to think about:
1. When you read something in the news, did it come from a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or The Astrophysical Journal or did it come from something someone present at a conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches often share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portrayed as scientific fact by the media when even the researchers would not say that. Whenever I presented a paper at a conference, I cringed when I saw journalists sitting on the front row because I new generally that they would not understand what is going on or report it as fact when it was not. Now, luckily for me, my research was not really important enough for them to report, but it does happen often. Check to see if the source is a journal or something less reliable like a conference. 
2. If you have the ability, check out the source yourself. Even if it comes from a journal article, I have seen several occasions where the author was not saying anything close to what the news article claimed. If you do not have access to the journal through a university or a friend, then see if you can find someone who does. There are great ministries on that can help you think through these things here. One I really like is called Reasons to Believe. Email and ask them. They may have a resource that can help you or they may plan to comment on it. I would not mind helping you either, though I would be a distant second to the brilliant men and women at RTB, but feel free to ask me. 
3. And, remember to wait. Stuff in the best journals is still debatable, and further research may change the claim. For example, does anyone remember the fossil Ida that was introduced back in 2009? It was claimed to be a "missing link" that would totally change the way scientists view human evolution and would solidify the theory of evolution. It was introduced with a huge media circus and got so much hype that even Google dedicated a logo to it. Well, after several months, other papers started coming out questioning how helpful the fossil really was, and eventually the scientists who introduced it had to admit that their claims were far overblown. Just waiting would have shown many stressed-out Christians that this "discovery" does not really change anything at all and does not solidify anything with Darwinian evolution. 
4. So, check the source and wait. And, waiting can be done very easily with Google's handy "Google alerts" tool. If you are concerned about an apparent conflict, create a Google alert that will send the most recent information your way without you having to go looking for it, and then see what comes up. 
5. Attempt to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: Again, a biblical view of science reminds us that science is a tool that produces data and then that data is interpreted within a worldview. The data itself will not conflict with Scripture if it is properly extracted and recorded, but the interpretation might easily conflict because it might come from a scientists whose worldview is naturalism. But, if we can separate the data from the interpretation, then we can take a clear look at it and see how it fits within Scripture. Sometimes a biblical interpretation will look almost identical to the original; other times there will be significant differences. Now, this may take a lot of time and discussion with colleagues, friends, or consulting books or ministries that help Christians with apologetics, but if we really believe God wrote the books of nature and Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation within a biblical worldview. If you want an example of this, check out my posts on Adam and Eve here, here (this one especially illustrates this point), here, and here.
6. Remember to consider your interpretation of Scripture as well: In these apparent conflicts our goal is not to prove ourselves right (at least it should not be). Our goal should be to discover God's truth in order to bring Him glory. While we have considered so far how to think about the scientific side of the apparent controversy, we cannot skip over the possibility that the error may be on the theological side. We need to examine our exegesis of the Scripture passages that address the issue, we need to consult others like a pastor or campus minister, we need to do some reading on the subject, and we need to be as certain as we can be that the error is not in our interpretation of Scripture. And, like with the scientific research, sometimes this takes time. Sometimes we have to consider a number of different views before we can try to determine which seems the most faithful to God's revelation in Scripture and in nature. But, if we are resting in a biblical view of science and Scripture, we can take the time without becoming anxious because know there is a resolution, even if we cannot find it right away. 
7. Strive to be humble: Honestly, this is contradiction in terms because one cannot "strive" to be humble, but what I mean is that in this whole process, we must remember that we are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore we need to be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent conflicts with others.
8. Do not go it alone: I have already said this several times, but this is not something we need to be trying to do alone. We need the wisdom of the Christian community. We need friends, family, campus ministers, pastors, etc. to help us think through these things. Some of the people we consult might not be helpful in the pursuit of truth but some probably will be, and even if we end up not agreeing with them, their viewpoint will help us refine our own. 
9. Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded, Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment--a second or two--he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult. We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world, for His glory and our good. 
10. Remember that God is still God and Jesus is still coming back: Sometimes you will not be able to figure it out, even after having studied the scientific data and Scripture. Sometimes you will not be able to figure out which interpretation is in error. Even the best scholars and academics have to say, "I don't know" sometimes. Hopefully these times will be rare, but they will probably happen every now and then. In those times, a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that just because we cannot figure it out does not mean there is no solution, and we need to be humble enough to admit that. The issue might be a paradox, but a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that it is not a contradiction, so we can rest in that truth. Do you know the difference between a paradox and a contradiction?
1. A paradox is something that seems contradictory but actually is not. The reason it seems contradictory is because we cannot find the solution, but we know there is one. Every theology and scientific model has its share of paradoxes. For example, in theology, Scripture upholds the sovereignty of God over everything, including man's salvation, and Scripture also upholds human responsibility for their actions. Are those contradictory? No, because God teaches them both and cannot contradict Himself. There is a solution to how those two work together, but God has chosen not to share it with us. When Paul considers this paradox, he does not even try to pose a resolution but simply says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (cf. Ro. 9), and if it was too much for Paul writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is too much for you and I. Another example from the sciences would be wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. This is the evidence from nature, that a subatomic particle exhibits both particle and wave properties. How can something be a point in space and also a wave at the same time? No one really knows, but we do know that it happens. It is a paradox because there is a solution, we do not have it yet.
2. A contradiction means there is no possible solution. It is like saying 1+1=2 and 1+1=5. There is no way to reconcile those statements, so they are contradictory.
3. A biblical view of science and Scripture tells us that God is the author of both books, so there is no contradiction, but sometimes paradoxes will arise because either God has chosen not to give us all the information we need to solve the problem or we just have not figured it out yet. We live in a fallen world full of sinful people who do not know everything and make mistakes, so sometimes the solution is beyond you and me, and that is okay because God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake.

Alright, that is my general "method" for handling apparent conflicts between what scientists say and what we read in Scripture. Hopefully you will find it helpful enough to help you put "walls" and a "roof" on your intellectual and spiritual "house." This also brings my discussion of a biblical view of science to a close. Certainly there is more that can be written on this topic, but I hope and pray this will give you a solid start as you consider the tool of science. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have or check out my "science" tag for stuff I have written on various subjects. 

In the next post, I will list out a number of resources that you might find helpful for various sub-topics of science and Christianity. It will not be an exhaustive list by any means, but it will give you enough material to keep you reading for a while. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 3)

In the past couple of posts I have been attempting to give Christians a framework for living as believers in a world that puts a great deal of weight on science, and what I have been trying to do is to help my Christian readers learn to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. I am using the analogy of building a house--I want to help you build an intellectual and spiritual house in which you can "live" as a Christian in our world. In the first two posts, we have started to do that by talking about God's revelation of Himself and His truth:

1. In the first post of this series, I defended the idea that all truth is God's truth, and in some fashion all truths point us to God, which is the concrete for our foundation in the metaphorical houses we are building. 
2. In the second post of this series, we looked at the Belgic Confession and saw that God reveals His truth and we discover it through the two "books" of nature and Scripture. From that I argued that God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else.

At the end of the last post, however, I posed an objection that I think will likely come to mind when this foundation is laid: "Okay, you're saying there's no contradiction between the two, but I see contradictions in a number of areas." If you are thinking that, that is a good observation that points us in direction of the next biblical truth at which we will start to look today: human fallibility. (By fallibility, I just mean that humans are prone to make mistake because we are not perfect.) The first two posts were about God's revelation, and in this post and the next we will look at the topic of human fallibility and how understanding that helps us to think biblically about science and consistently as Christians. (And, hopefully if you are familiar with Internet memes, you get the relevance of the Picard picture.) By the way, this will also help us understand the nature of the apparent conflicts that we seem to see between "science and Christianity."

First, we need to talk about tools for understanding God's revelation in the books of nature and Scripture. When it comes to understanding the books of nature and Scripture, there are tools or processes that we use to discover the truth in them. In many cases, the actual teaching of Scripture--what God is actually revealing through it--does not just jump off the pages for us to receive as truth, and in most cases, the actual truth about our physical reality--what God is actually revealing through it--does not just jump up out of nature to us to receive as truth. In both cases, study must be done to get at the truth God is revealing through each of these books. And, we use tools in this study:

• For Scripture, the main tools are exegesis and interpretation. Exegesis is the study of a text to bring out its meaning--what God is actually teaching us through it. This is what we all do on some level when we read Scripture. Sometimes it might be as simple as reading the context of a verse or passage and then asking the question of what a particular statement means in the overall context of a story or teaching of Scripture. Sometimes it might be a rigorous, detailed study of a just a sentence or two by looking at the original languages, consulting commentaries, etc. Either way, when we attempt to get at the truth of the actual teaching of Scripture, we are using the tool of exegesis to give us the data. But, our study does not stop there. Then, once we think we understand the teaching of a passage, we have to interpret that bit of data for our lives based on the passage as well as how it fits with the rest of Scripture, and when we do that, we form theologies of Scripture. Through that process we attempt to find the truth God is actually teaching in the Bible. 
• For nature, the main tools are science and interpretation. Science can be defined simply as the systematic study of the natural universe in which we live through observation and experimentation. Again, we all do this at some times in our lives. Even my two-year-old son does this almost naturally. He learns about cause and effect, gravity, the states of objects, hot and cold, and many other things by trying it out. He takes a toy, stands it up, and then pushes it over, and from that he learns to intuit cause and effect and even a little bit about gravity. But, his research does not stop there. He then takes the toy somewhere else and repeats the experiment. And, what does he find? The same thing happens in a different place! Amazing! Even a two-year-old does low-level science. And, of course, science can take the form of formal, rigorous observation and experimentation in a lab, on a dig, or with a telescope. But, again, our study does not stop there. Our use of the tool of science gives us data, and then we have to interpret that data for our lives based on the laws of physics, our presupposed beliefs (which we will talk about in a later post), and other scientific theories, and when we do that, we form other theories or scientific models for understanding the universe. Through that process we attempt to find the truth God is actually teaching us in nature. 

When thinking about discovering truth in this way, we can see that the process in both cases is pretty much the same: we collect data (through exegesis or science) and we interpret data. And, the end of each is an attempt to understand truth.

Now, in talking about those tools we start to get a bit of the next biblical truth that builds on the foundation we laid in the first two posts. The study of nature and the study of Scripture are processes done by humans to get at the truth. Science and exegesis are the tools of that process, which give us data that we interpret. So, from this we must remember that properly speaking, science and Scripture, science and faith, science and religion, or however we entitle the alleged conflict, those things do not actually interact, per se, people do. The science of nature and the exegesis of Scripture no more interact than a hammer and a circular saw do. They are tools, and tools do not interact or conflict. But, people interact all the time. People who use these tools can run into conflict. And, with that, we begin to move in the direction of understanding the apparent conflicts we hear about between "science and Christianity."

Alright, so we said in the previous post that God's revelation through the books of nature and Scripture will never conflict, and today we have add to that by saying that the science and exegesis are tools we use for interpretation of these books to form theories or theologies, so these tools do not really interact; people do. So, knowing that, what do you think would be the nature of the apparent conflicts that we hear about between science and Scripture? The problem is not God's revelation in either book; they are both infallible (see the previous post). The problem is not the tools, for they are essentially neutral. The problem is the people. We are fallible people using tools to study and interpret God's infallible revelation. In fact, we could update our chart from the previous post a little more here:

	Special Revelation	General Revelation
Infallible:	God’s Word in Scripture	God’s Word in nature
Fallible:	Exegesis -> Interpretation -> Theology	Science -> Interpretation -> Theory

God's revelation exists in the top row. But, we humans live in the bottom row. Remembering this helps us to think biblically about science and Scripture. Scientific theories are not infallible like God's revelation in nature is. And, theological systems are not infallible like God's revelation in Scripture is.

Really what we are talking about here is the effects of the fall on our study of both nature and Scripture. Before the fall, man was sinless; so when Adam and Eve made an observation and interpretation of nature, it was one unsullied by sin that conformed to the truth of reality--the way things actually are. When Adam and Eve considered and interpreted something God said to them (i.e. His Word for them), it was untarnished by sin and conformed to His actual teaching. But, now that we are sinful men and women trying our best to study both Scripture and nature, our minds, hearts, and even our actions are tainted by sin. Sin makes us fallible in many ways. So, when we come across apparent conflicts, there are really three options for where the problem/mistake lies:

1. Sometimes we make mistakes in our exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. We as Christians must be humble enough to admit this because it is simply a fact of life. There would not be debates over the length of days in Ge. 1, between Reformed and Arminians, about the end times, or about many other theological subjects if we were not sinful, fallible humans. 
2. Sometimes we make mistakes in our scientific research and interpretation of nature. We as Christians need to understand this and remember this when a scientific theory appears to conflict with the Bible. The men and women who propose those theories are fallible, sinful humans as well.
3. Sometimes (maybe even often) we make mistakes in our study of both books. Sometimes we have interpreted our Scriptures incorrectly and we have interpreted the data from science incorrectly, and therefore a conflict may arise from that. (In fact, I would argue that this is probably the case more often than not.)

Now, at this point, we need to caution ourselves and be humble enough to remember that just because an apparent conflict arises does not mean we should automatically jump to the conclusion that the scientist is the one in error. We also do not automatically jump to the conclusion that our theology is in error. We can see sad examples of both knee-jerk reactions in Christian history, and maybe a couple historical examples of this would be helpful here. Here are two opposite examples:

Take the example from Christian history of the geocentric model of our solar system--i.e. the earth being the center of our solar system--vs the heliocentric model of our solar system--i.e. the sun being the center of the solar system. For hundreds of years both Christians and non-Christian scientists believed that the earth was the center of our solar system. Ever since Ptolemy of the second century AD, it was held as incontrovertible by all "thinking" people that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun moved around it. This view was held by scientists because of simple observations of the world around us (think about it, even today we still use phrases like "the sun moving across the sky"). It was also held by Christians because it was thought to be the plain implication of Scriptures that talk about the sun's movement, like Jos. 10 where it specifically says, "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped." Then, Copernicus came along in the sixteenth century and published his heliocentric model. Now, at the time, his model was not generally accepted by either scientists or Christians. And, the two great reformers--Luther and Calvin--had some strong words for Copernicus. Luther wrote in his Table Talk booklet in 1539:

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].

Calvin was less direct towards Copernicus, but he did make an indirect statement that was strong in a sermon on 1 Co. where he warns against those who say "that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves." And, he calls them "stark raving mad" and demon possessed.

I do not know of anyone today who still tries to claim that the earth is the center of the solar system, but Luther and Calvin were convinced that the their interpretation of Jos. 10:12 and other Scriptures was infallible and therefore Copernicus was obviously wrong. Now, I am not saying they should have immediately overturned 1500 years of interpretation, for even the scientists of their day did not agree with Copernicus, yet this example does show they jumped to a conclusion too quickly. Brilliant men like Luther and Calvin immediately jumped to the conclusion that the scientist was wrong, not being humble enough at this point even to consider the other possibility. We need not to make the same mistake. Over time both scientists and Christians realized that Copernicus was right for the most part. But, it took a while. Even with Galileo, the controversy did not end. It really did not end in the sciences until Newton--about 200 years after Copernicus.

An alternate example might be Steady-State cosmology. In the early twentieth century because of conclusions from general relativity, cosmologists knew that the universe could not be static, so they postulated that the universe had no beginning but that matter was being continuously created as the universe expanded. As silly as that sounds to us today, this theory was very popular until the 1960's when observations of the universe showed it was simply untenable. In the early twentieth century, this theory gave atheist scientists intellectual reason to reject God's creation of the universe in any fashion because their model said the universe had no beginning (so it needed no Beginner), so we can understand why they latched onto it. Yet, a quick survey of Christian journals in the 1930's and 40's will find dozens of papers arguing that Christians must accept Steady-State cosmology and treat Ge. 1 like an allegory, which is just a story or poem that has no historical basis but is written simply to teach a moral truth. Well, with the rise of Big Bang cosmology, scientists had to admit they were wrong about Steady-State cosmology and that the universe did have a beginning (which was a hard thing for an atheist to admit), and suddenly all those Christians who said we had to agree with Steady-State cosmology had egg on their faces. Here, we have an opposite example: Christians who assumed theologians had to be wrong, and they regretted it.

The effects of the fall are a biblical reality that should remind Christians not to jump to any knee-jerk reaction about the latest scientific theories that appear to conflict with common interpretations of Scripture. We will talk more about how to handle them later, but for now, we need to remember that both theologians and scientists are fallible, and this gives us another key component to our biblical view of science and our metaphorical houses: When apparent conflicts arise, it is not because science and the Bible are in conflict but because we human beings are either interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly. This is the framework for our house that we are building. Sometimes what seems like a conflict with Scripture from the sciences is actually a truth from God's revelation in nature that helps us refine our interpretation of God's revelation in Scripture, as the example of Luther and Calvin shows us. Sometimes what seems like a conflict with Scripture from the sciences is actually just a popular theory that may be corrected later with better observations of nature. Sometimes it might be a combination of both.

Now, when I say science and Scripture do not conflict, people do; and when I say apparent contradictions are a result of fallible humans interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly, I am telling you the nature of the apparent conflicts. But, what gives rise to these conflicts? From where do they come? That is the source of the clashes, and it is a clash of worldviews. But, this post is long enough, so we will pick that up next week in part four.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Lowly Shepherds

This is a little late being posted because I wrote it back on Dec. 19, 2014 and sent it out to my congregation as a devotional before the sermon I preached on Dec. 21, 2014. But, better late than never, and while it has a kind of Christmas theme to it, I think the content will still be applicable no matter what time of year it is. My congregation's advent reading for Sunday Dec. 21, 2014 was from Luke 2, which is related tangentially to the sermon topic (the sermon will be posted in a couple of days), so I figured a devotional from that text would be fitting and (hopefully) helpful. The devotional focuses particularly on the classic Christmas story of the shepherds--Luke 2:8-20:

⁸ And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. ⁹ And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. ¹⁰ And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. ¹¹ For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. ¹² And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” ¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
¹⁴ “Glory to God in the highest,
    and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
¹⁵ When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” ¹⁶ And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. ¹⁷ And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. ¹⁸ And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. ¹⁹ But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. ²⁰ And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

Have you ever seen a nativity play? Have you or your kids ever been in one? Which role did you or they want to play? Well, the girls, I am sure, wanted Mary, and the boys, wanted Joseph. But, if you couldn't get Joseph, as a boy, the wise men were usually the next best thing. And then, if you were really unlucky, you had to be a shepherd, which probably meant kneeling with a bathrobe on and a hand towel tied over your head. The shepherds often times get relegated to the lowest part of the pecking order of the nativity scenes and plays we see/perform. In fact, I have often wondered why Luke, the doctor, would choose the write about the shepherds. It seemed to me that surely Luke would have chosen to write about the wise men, the intellectuals like him. Why the lowly shepherds? I think we often think that the shepherds were just lucky, unimportant guests at the party. Well, those kinds of thoughts are a mistake that God and Luke do not make.

Have you every wondered what Joseph and Mary thought when the shepherds showed up? They knew what the angel had told them about Jesus, but they had to wonder, "What brought you here? How did you know?" The shepherds just showed up at the gate to the stable. And, they could have asked the same question of the wise men, who were the "academics" in their time. Now, we know the wise men probably did not arrive at the same time as the shepherds. It was perhaps years later. But, let's imagine the nativity scenes, as we often see them in plays or we put on our mantles, are correct and they all made it there at once. Perhaps the wise men had a proud response to how they knew and said that they had been directed by a very careful reading of ancient prophecy and vigilant watching the stars, as only an academic could have done. Then, they might have turned to the shepherds and said, perhaps looking down their noses a bit, "And, how did you know about this?" And, I image that a cheeky shepherd might have answered, "Yeah, we may not be too bright and able to read prophecy or watch the stars, but we had an angel appear to us; then an army of angels singing to us, and we saw the glory of the LORD surrounding us. You saw a star. God sent us a special host of heavenly messengers."

This is one of the great paradoxes of Christmas: the most marginalized of those in the nativity had the most spectacular display of divine power. And, as most of you probably know, shepherds were the lowest of the low in this society. They could not even testify in court because it was believed de jure that they could never be trusted. Yet, the glorious birth announcement comes to shepherds who had done nothing to qualify for it, and they probably knew that they could do nothing to qualify, as they were the lowest of society. God shows us His grace even in the announcement. The Savior doesn't despise the shepherds, which means He doesn't despise the likes of me or you. He was born even for the likes of us.

But, let's think a little more about this story. Now, if you were a shepherd and you had seen a host of angels announcing the birth the Savior who is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, where would you think you would find that baby? You would probably think, like the wise men, that he must be royally-born and that He'd be in a palace. The wise men knew the star announced the birth of someone really important--a king--and they went looking in the place important people go first: the palace. But, what do the angels say to the shepherds? "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."

Have you ever thought about how that is a really weird sign? If the one born is the Savior and Messiah/Christ, how is Him being born in a manger--in the food trough of animals--a sign? Well, consider this. If you were a shepherd--the lowliest of society--and the angel told you He was in the palace, would you have gone to see Him? I doubt it, because you'd know a shepherd would never be let into the palace! That Savior would be off limits to anyone but the highest ranking people in the world. They would have said, "He's not for the likes of us." But, He was placed in a food trough, and that was a sign for the shepherds and us that the Savior has come for the least in the world. There is no one so far gone or so low that they could say, "I know He could save others, but He can't save me." He is so gentle, meek, and lowly that there is no obstacle in Him to prevent anyone from having Him as their Savior. He is the God of gods, the Messiah, the heir to King David's eternal throne--i.e. qualified to save the greatest--and He was born and laid in a manger--i.e. qualified to save the lowliest. The only obstacle is our sinful rebellion. The obstacle is found in us, not in Him.

Let's consider one more part of this story. There is something else odd in the birth announcement, in v. 11. Does that phrase "unto you is born" seem a little odd? Wouldn't you expect it to say, "unto Mary" or "unto Joseph"? The shepherds probably were good Jews and knew the Messiah was coming, but there is all the difference in the world between knowing that is true and believing that is for you. That little phrase was another way the angels showed them that the Savior can be theirs. He was born for them. He was born unto us, and even the birth announcement tells us that.

The glory, meaning, or "magic" of Christmas is not in the presents or good will that travels around this time of year, though those things in themselves can be great. The glory is, paradoxically, that Jesus humbled Himself to the level of a servant, was announced to lowly shepherds, and drew the shepherds to Himself so that we could know we could come too and tell others that He is a Savior qualified to save the greatest to the lowliest.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Gospel According to Joseph: The Gospel and Perspective

As we continue our way through the story of Joseph, Jacob, and Judah, Joseph shows us what it means to have a God-centered perspective and how that carries us through both affliction and prosperity in Ge. 41. As we saw in the previous devotion, Joseph shows remarkable humility in this passage, and that's because he finds his core identity in who he is in relationship with God. Well, the sermon that goes along with this passage explains that perspective further, and it also talks about God's work in this world and our true hope in this life, all of which gives us a perspective that will carry us through both affliction and prosperity, just as it did for Joseph. You can listen to the sermon here or read the transcript here.

Now, as we have also talked about in the other posts in this series, in each sermon, I try to highlight a question that we can ask of any Old Testament text to help us to see how Jesus may be on that page of Scripture. This week's sermon did not add a new question, but it does show another way that we can use the question we learned in last week's sermon: How does this passage reflect upon or prepare us for the person or work of Christ—i.e. who He is to us (His person) and what He does for us (His work)? So, check out the sermon if you want to learn more.

I pray that this sermon will show you Jesus clearly and Him only and that it will be a blessing to your soul.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Gospel According to Joseph: Humility

As we continue through the story of Joseph, Jacob, and Judah, there are so many great aspects of this story that we won't be able to cover from the pulpit. The passage at which we will be looking this week, Ge. 41, is one of the high points of this whole narrative. In it we see the climax of God's providential work in and through Joseph, and in it we also get a great look at Joseph's character.

Remember, one of the things we noted in the very beginning of this series is that we can often see the gospel in the development of characters in OT stories, i.e. gospel-change working in their lives. In the previous chapters of this narrative, we have seen Joseph become a man who endures and serves God faithfully wherever God has put him. However, in Ge. 41 we get the clearest picture of Joseph's developing character so far, and one of the things that stands out is the humility that God has developed in Joseph.

Humility is a tricky virtue to nail down. It's the one fruit of the Spirit that when we look at it or gaze upon it in ourselves, it immediately becomes something else. That's because true, gospel-driven, Christ-centered humility isn't what we might normally think of as "humble." I think we often think that the opposite of pride is self-abasing, but that's not true humility. True humility isn't talking or thinking about how bad we are and constantly bemoaning our flaws or sin in our own minds or before others. Constantly thinking about or pointing out how lowly we are is just another way of putting ourselves at the center when it is Christ that should be at the center. Furthermore, when do debase ourselves in our minds or before others, what creeps into minds after that is how great it is that we're so humble, and we become proud of being humble! Listen to what Jonathan Edwards has to say about this aspect of humility:

If on the proposal of the question [Are you humble?], you answer, "No, it seems to me, none are so bad as I." Don't let the matter pass off so; but examine again, whether or no you don't think yourself better than others on this very account, because you imagine you think so meanly of yourself. Haven't you a high opinion of this humility? And if you answer again, "No; I have not a high opinion of my humility; it seems to me I am as proud as the devil"; yet examine again, whether self-conceit don't rise up under this cover; whether on this very account, that you think yourself as proud as the devil, you don't think yourself to be very humble.

C. S. Lewis called this cycle of fighting self-admiration and then admiring yourself for defeating your self-admiration "like fighting the hydra... There seems to be no end to it. Depth under depths of self-love and self-admiration."

That's because humility is the one fruit of the Spirit that flourishes when our thoughts and our gaze are on Christ and others and not at ourselves at all! Humility isn't thinking less of ourselves, it's thinking about ourselves less. It is "blessed self-forgetfulness," as Tim Keller calls it. Lewis has a great statement about this in Mere Christianity:

Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call 'humble' nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a bit envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all. [Emphasis added]

And, in Ge. 41, we see this kind of humility in Joseph when he stands before Pharaoh. In that moment, he has the chance to put himself in the spotlight. He has the chance to show Pharaoh how useful he could be to him or how he's been treated so unjustly, but he doesn't take it. In fact, it is remarkable how Joseph points the spotlight away from himself towards God. He doesn't give any hint of trying to impress Pharaoh with his abilities, self-abasement, or anything else. He simply serves God faithfully and let's God handle the rest. Before Pharaoh, Joseph isn't thinking about himself at all. He's self-forgetful, and that's because he finds his true, core identity in his relationship with God and nowhere else. And, that will be one of the things we talk about this Sunday from Ge. 41: true identity in Christ.

In the mean time, when you read through Ge. 41, make note of Joseph's humility and how it is in his self-forgetfulness, not self-abasing.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Science vs. Religion: Thoughts on Handling Apparent Conflicts

"While many Christians and non-Christians see the two [love of science and a desire to serve God] as in perpetual conflict, I find they integrate well. They operate by the same principles and are committed to discovering foundational truths. My passion... is helping Christians see how powerful a tool science is to declare God's glory and helping scientists understand how the established scientific discoveries demonstrate the legitimacy and rationality of the Christian faith." ~ Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink, UCLA Assistant Researcher and RTB Scholar

When people find out that my educational background is in physics and that I just graduated from seminary, I am often asked about the alleged conflict between science and religion/faith. When the questions come from a fellow Christian, they generally ask how I can merge the two without giving up my commitment to the inspiration, authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture (all things to which I am completely committed). This is a very important question and usually I find it comes from people hungry to hear something besides "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" or "religion simply causes fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." I enjoy being asked the question because it gives me a chance to try to help others realize there is no inherent conflict between science and the Christian faith, and that the alleged conflict is simply played up by many of the so-called "new atheists" and media hype.

What is a Christian to do when they come across "scientific fact" that seems to conflict with Scripture? Below are several things that I keep in mind when I see headlines or read the latest "new atheist" rant. Not all these things will be possible all the time, but they are things to look for and keep in mind that will help us sort these issues out (this is by no means an exhaustive list and I or others may modify or add to it later):

• Remember the world in which we live... and do not be surprised: I sometimes find myself astonished that someone would treat me with contempt or patronize me like a child when they find out I am a Christian and a scientist, and then, when I come to my senses, I remember that I should expect nothing less. This is exactly what Jesus told us to expect. Christians are a people whose highest allegiance is God Himself and His written Word is the highest authority in our lives. We, however, live in a world whose highest allegiance is any number of idols, particularly human reason. These ultimate allegiances are going to come into contact and, as the man used to sing, "something's gotta give." But, neither side is willing to give up their allegiance. The world looks to reason as the only self-authenticating authority and will not tolerate Christians who look to the Bible as the only self-authenticating authority (of course, Christianity does not deny the value of reason but places it in its rightful place: under God). So, do not be surprised when the alleged conflict is amplified or someone claims your belief is "unwarranted." This is part of the world in which we live.
• Check the source and wait: Sometimes discoveries made by scientists are either reported by the media too early (and incorrectly) or later debunked by further testing and experimentation. In the first case, take note of what you are reading in media articles and from where the information came. Did it come from a published, peer-reviewed article or from a presentation at a scientific conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portray as scientific fact when even the researchers would not say that. If you have the knowledge and ability to check the claims, do it. If not, wait and see if further information on the subject comes up after the research has made it through the peer-review system (make use of Google Alerts). If the media story does come from a reputable journal, try to check the reporting and claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, as a distant second, I offer my assistance (at times I talk about scientific discoveries from a biblical perspective, some examples are here, here, here, here, and here). When all else fails, wait and follow the story (again, make use of Google Alerts)  Sometimes mistakes can happen, like the recent neutrino debacle (read the before and after) or claims can be over blown, like the Ida circus stunt. When so many people are trying to make a name for themselves, this is the nature of the beast and eventually bogus claims are exposed. 
• Try to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: This can be a huge help when trying to deal with scientific claims that apparently contradict Scripture. There is a difference between scientific data and interpretation of that data. The data is the raw information brought to light by a study or a discovery and that data has to be interpreted with a model or paradigm to figure out what it means and where it fits. Everyone interprets data within a model or paradigm (whether we know it or not) based on our beliefs and worldview. A scientific model refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of data) that accounts for observations and inferences as well as origin and history. It is a paradigm that attempts to offer reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena. Particle physics has the Standard Model, for example. There are other models, like naturalistic evolution. Data taken in by various fields of science is generally interpreted within the accepted model. What you are likely reading in a media article (even a journal article) is not the data itself (for that would not sell advertising) but an interpretation of that data. Christians need to separate the data from its interpretation and interpret it within a biblical model. If we really believe God created the universe and wrote Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation. Sometimes the interpretations will be almost identical; other times there will be significant differences. For example, see my articles on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Now, again, this can be a very difficult thing to do for someone who does not have access to journal articles (to get the data) or the necessary training to understand and interpret the data. As mentioned above, try to check the claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, again I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, again as a distant second, I offer my assistance.
• Remember that everyone is biased... everyone: If there is one good thing that postmodernism has done for society, it is to shown that everyone is biased and no one has the ability to lay aside completely their personal presuppositions. We interpret every piece of data not only in a model (see above) but according to our own presuppositions. As stated above, one of the common modern presuppositions is that human reason is a self-authenticating authority. Another might be that evolution is a scientific fact. We need to look for the hidden presuppositions in bold statements and ask how they might be affecting a person's interpretation of the data. We should not berate others because they have biases (for we all have them), but we should try to help them see how their biases are affecting their interpretation and how other interpretations from other presuppositions are equally valid.
• Remember that God is the God of general and special revelation: Article 2 of the Belgic Confession states: "We know Him [God] by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: His eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself known to us more openly by His holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for His glory and for the salvation of His own." What the authors of this great confession were pointing out is that God is the God of all truth, whether it comes from nature or Scripture. This means that science and Scripture will perfectly harmonize when we are interpreting both correctly. The apparent contradictions crop up when we or others are misinterpreting one or both "books." All apparent contradictions are just that, apparent, and not real. Sometimes it takes a lot of hard work and time to figure out where we or someone else has gone wrong in interpretation, but we must never forget that any contradictions are a manifestation of human fallibility, not inherent to God's Word or world. 
• Be humble: Remember, you and I are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent contradictions with others.
• Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment, few seconds, he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult (if they were not, there would not be all the controversies we find ourselves in today). We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, the facts from presuppositional errors; and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world. 
• Remember that God is still God, even if you cannot figure it out: Friends, let us be honest, we are not going to figure everything out. Even the best scholars sometimes have to say, "I don't know." We must remember that even if something seems contradictory and after all our research we still cannot figure it out, God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

The Hydra of Humility

"During my afternoon 'meditations,'—which I at least attempt quite regularly now—I have found out ludicrous and terrible things about my own character. Sitting by, watching the rising thoughts to break their necks as they pop up, one learns to know the sort of thoughts that do come.
"And, will you believe it, one out of every three is the thought of self-admiration: when everything else fails, having had its neck broken, up comes the thought 'what an admirable fellow I am to have broken their necks!”' I catch myself posturing before the mirror, so to speak, all day long. I pretend I am carefully thinking out what to say to the next pupil (for his good, of course) and then suddenly realize I am really thinking how frightfully clever I'm going to be and how he will admire me...
"And then when you force yourself to stop it, you admire yourself for doing that. It is like fighting the hydra... There seems to be no end to it. Depth under depths of self-love and self-admiration." ~ C. S. Lewis in a letter to his friend Arthur

True humility has always been a struggle of mine. When I say "true humility" I do not mean the attitude where one is always telling everyone how lowly they are. I mean the kind of humility that Tim Keller calls "blessed self-forgetfulness" which is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less. This subject and quote has been on my mind a lot lately because I just recently I preached a sermon on it at my church, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church. If you are interested in hearing more thoughts on it you can listen to the sermon here (or if you like you can read my transcript here) but if not, I hope the Lewis quote is enough to get you thinking about true humility on your own.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Humility

"Humility senses that humility is a gift beyond our reach. If humility is the product of reaching, then we will instinctively feel proud about our successful reach. Humility is the gift that receives all things as gift. It is the fruit not of our achievement but of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22). It is the fruit of the gospel—knowing and feeling that we are desperate sinners and that Christ is a great and undeserved Savior.

Humility is the one grace in all our graces that, if we gaze on it, becomes something else. It flourishes when the gaze is elsewhere—on the greatness of the grace of God in Christ" ~ John Piper, Lewis and Edwards on the Layers of Self-Admiration

I have written on humility before, but I really wanted to share this quote. Piper hits on a key point when it comes to humility: once gazed upon it immediately becomes something else. When we think about our humility we cannot help but be proud of the fact that we are humble, thus damaging the humility. Tim Keller calls true humility "blessed self-forgetfulness" because it is only when our focus is lifted from ourselves to something else (to Christ, as Piper points out) that true humility can be developed. C. S. Lewis affirms this in Mere Christianity: "Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call 'humble' nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a bit envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Servants

"Foot washing was surprising for a real King but for His servants it is appropriate." ~ Steve Brown

I do not have a lot to say about this one because it is pretty self-explanatory. I just wanted to throw it out there because I really like it.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Blessed Self-Forgetfulness

"Humility is not thinking less of ourselves, it is thinking of ourselves less." ~ C. S. Lewis

This is a truth that I think is missed so often by almost everyone (though that is a grouse generalization, I know). I think we often think that the opposite of pride is self-abasing. This is not humility. Thinking about how lowly we are is just another way of putting ourselves at the center when it is God that should be at the center.

Paul gives us the key to humility I Corinthians 4:3-4 "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself... It is the Lord who judges me." Paul's identity is not tied to human thought, not even his own. His identity is tied to God's judgment. If you are a Christian then God has judged you perfect because of the righteousness of Christ. So we need to stop judging ourselves completely, for good or for bad. We need to think of ourselves less. This is "blessed self-forgetfulness," as Tim Keller puts it.

By His Grace,
Taylor