One test of truth is whether it is logical. Complying with the laws of logic is a valid criteria in evaluating the truth of any claim. Another philosopher wrote, “Faith may go beyond reason, but never against it”. Christianity holds up to logic real well. The interesting thing about Christianity is that the longer one studies the truths of the Christian faith, the more logical they become. And the more integrated life gets. The Christian worldview just makes sense the longer one interprets life through that grid.

Of course, atheism and it’s scientific cohort Darwinism, claim logic to their worldviews. But as we’ll see, these have fatal errors. The Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato, without the aid of the Hebrew Scriptures, reasoned that there must be a God, or at least a First Mover. They deduced with great foresight the existence of subatomic particles and that evolution cannot be true as to the origin of life, topics of our modern world. (Sometimes the wisdom of the ancients dwarf our minds of today). Real truth has to be logical and fit with larger pillars of thought that are anchored in reality. The following are some little known laws of reality that support the Christian worldview.

The Law of Blood and Righteousness. Everybody is concerned about righteousness, who is more righteous at any given moment. In every conflict, everybody claims the moral high ground. Why does that even enter the picture if life is mere biology and actions? Even a bitter person in a road rage incident, whose reaction is not warranted by the situation, is looking to make a claim of righteousness and give legal sanction to his vengeance: “Hey you cut me off. You were wrong first”. Where does the legal notion come from? Who is right and wrong in any given affair is always on everybody’s mind. Even from the advent of television, shows have captured this law of righteousness. From Westerns to Perry Mason, Mannix, Kojak, The Streets of San Francisco, Law and Order, L.A. Law. Everybody is concerned about guilt, sin transgression, righteousness and justice. Who is more right is on our minds and hearts everyday. Where does this come from?

It comes from God and the moral paradigm of His world into which we were placed. Everybody needs to fortify themselves with right thoughts, even artificially, to augment the natural guilt we carry around on a subconscious level in violating a divine standard. Otherwise we couldn’t survive. Guilt is a killer and is manifested in a thousand different neuroses. The problem is, most people concern themselves with horizontal righteousness on a people level to feel better about themselves, though it does little long term good.

How do we explain moral law if man is just a material overgrown blob of biology descended from some prebiotic soup? In a culture dominated by science that only believes what it can see materially in a test tube or a microscope, we question things like authority or morality. I mean, we can’t hold a clump of morality in our hand! So we question it. But it’s real. The law of sin and guilt testify to what Scripture said all along, the most accurate assessment of these realities. What a confused culture. It questions intangibles like authority and yet vindicates it with the establishment of law and order.

Anger is a response to transgression. The Law of Blood says punishment and death is required for transgression. That’s why we have fantasies of revenge when somebody sins against us. Though materialists deny the ideas and the existence of sin, they’re being contradictory when doing so. Go punch an atheist in the face and see what his reactions are. Everybody has a sense of justice. Where did it come from? Governments exist to keep order at it’s fundamental level. It’s not just a study of sociology or anthropology. It’s an endemic need of creation.

All cultures, even ancient primitive people groups, require blood for transgression. Righteousness and justice are part of who God is, and as image bearers, who we are. Righteousness, guilt, transgression are all concepts tightly held in the heart of man. The concept of justice is a reoccuring theme among the prophets of the Old Testament. And Scripture best captures the most accurate way of handling the anger of transgression. Not just those done to us, but our transgressions to others as well. The concept is called atonement for sin, and the means a “scapegoat”. This is described deep in the Old Testament in Leviticus 16:10.

We all have scapegoats to deal with the anger of transgression. Some go home after a tough day at work to kick the dog. Others vent the anger of transgression, aggressively or passive aggressively, on a spouse. Where does that come from? Where does the sense of transgression and retribution come from if there is no objective standard of justice and righteousness built in? To pursue justice and deny God is a philosophical contradiction. As one man said, “The skeptic presumes to judge God by a standard that does not exist apart from God.”

All people groups deal with the guilt of transgression and scapegoats in some way or another- the Maya and Aztecs with human sacrifice, Hitler with the Jews, Pol Pot in Vietnam, Stalin and his Gulags. These are aberrant ways of trying to handle the guilt of transgression in a cursed world without the thorough objectivity of Scripture. But they testify to the law of blood Scripture talks about from the beginning. God in His Word delivers the most temperate, thorough and balanced way of dealing with sin with the atonement and sacrifice of God’s son.

In the Old Testament, atonement was symbolized through the shedding of the blood of animals. In the New Testament, God’s son took the hit of sin for all time in his personal sacrifice. The Law of Blood, Guilt and Righteousness is a reality whether we choose the biblical prescription or not. It is most beautifully and fairly dealt with in the Christian worldview of Christ on the cross. Any other way of transferring the anger and guilt of our sin than onto Christ’s one time sacrifice will lead to a dangerous extreme. So how is Christianity irrelevant when it describes a law of reality we deal with everyday?

The Law of Design. All of reality reflects design. Even Plato reasoned that things or “forms” in the tangible world are types of some prototype from the immaterial world. Everything we observe has a designer: a car, a plane, a sidewalk, a picture. That’s also true for the natural world. To see the logic of design, lets contrast it with the bankruptcy of the only other option: chance. Atheistic scientists hold that the natural world was formed by random chance. They say chance is ‘the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings’. The problem is that chance is not a determining power. Chance is simply a descriptive term from statistics regarding probabilities; it has no causal powers of it’s own.

The Darwin Delusion

If things are random, why do they subsequently have a tendency towards order, and categories and take on the law of design? If all original matter was random, how does everything then stay in locked grooves? And where did natural law come from to keep things in locked grooves? As one biochemist states: “if biochemical systems are the product of evolution, then the same biochemical designs should not recur throughout nature.” But they do. And they do continually. We see no evidence of macro-evolutionary activity, beings morphing from one major category (such as phyla) to another. The classic atheistic response is to introduce the time factor: “given enough time, things can randomly evolve”. But again time and chance in themselves don’t address the causal power issue. Time doesn’t explain the origin of the fixed laws of science that keep beings within their boundaries. In an age that demands almost video like evidence before it believes anything, Darwinism is more speculative theory than empirical evidence. Darwinism is not only theory in explaining the origins of life, it is a poor theory. Even Darwin himself went on record as saying that if he had knowledge of what we know today, he would never have propounded his theory onto the world.

Biologists can’t even agree on a fundamental definition of life, much less empirically observe how it started. Is it organic or inorganic? A law of biology says that life cannot proceed from non-life. Yet all living beings are composed of inorganic molecules; so what is the mystery that makes them “alive“? Life itself doesn’t contain the answers to the mysteries of it’s own meaning. Philosopher Paul Helm said, “The exact sense in which objects are distinct from God and yet upheld by him is difficult to get clear. It should be stressed that this upholding, being metaphysical or ontological in character, is physically undetectable.”

The more logical answer is that everything takes on the law of design, including the natural world. Everything in our paradigm has a cause, including the raw materials in nature and creation. This is why the Greeks reasoned a First Mover.

Ultimately, Darwinism is an attempt to avoid moral accountability to a Creator. And since man was created with an innate ability to think with order, the world needs a substitute system on which to hang it’s thoughts. There appears to be some initial logic to Darwinism, but not when probed. Think: if things are getting better and better, and species are continually getting upgrades, why is there death? Why even have the concept? Furthermore, Darwinists always use pragmatism or the utilitarian argument to explain why certain animals have certain functions. But pragmatism is a de facto explanation in hindsight. What is the forward looking dynamic within a system that knew it needed certain apparatuses ahead of time? In other words, every system of a living being needs to be in working order to survive. From a utilitarian perspective, what’s the use of half an eye on it’s way to working through up to the whole thing? It wouldn’t survive. It has to be completely developed to function, or not at all.

Some scientists say that the experimentation (driven by chance) that is needed to create new species (or genus, families or phylum), comes from mutations. But science has well established that mutations weaken the genetic structure of beings, which eventually die off. Mutations may produce on a horizontral level, but don’t strengthen nor morph into upgraded creatures.

The Everyday Mystery of DNA

The classic observational difficulty for Darwinists to explain is the DNA code in the living cell. DNA is needed to create new cells, yet new cells seem to be created with the DNA. The problem is this creates a classic chicken or the egg scenario, and can only be solved if DNA is the product of design. The way DNA works is that it’s a message bearing medium, an information coding system. That is, it carries a message that tells a cell what kinds of proteins to make and when to make them. If DNA carries a message, then the message cannot be the product of the chemicals that make up the DNA; it would not be a message at all. In other words, the message cannot be an outgrowth of the medium- just as the words on this page doesn’t arise from the ink and paper. As Lewis writes, “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to two other words”. Why is it called DNA and not DAN or AND?

Motor Planet Madness

The “poster child” for intelligent design is the flagellum motor. Life at it’s most fundamental level mirrors what man has created. The motor was invented a little over 100 years ago and our mechanized world operates by the exact systems and components of the motor. The format of the motor is constructed according to how materials work under the present laws of the universe. Yet a few years ago molecular biologists discovered that what drives the cell to locomotion in the smallest and most complicated core unit of life is the flagellum motor. They have been in existence long before what man designed in the last hundred years! Yet when man invented the motor, he didn’t even have the natural blueprint that underwrites nature. The invention of the mechanical one preceded the discovery of the natural one, with great consistency of design. Coincidence? No way. The law of design is the only explanation. Just as the mechanical motor has a designer, so also the natural one. Or in Plato’s terms, the “forms” that we see come from an immaterial prototype.

Just like our motors, these biomachines in cells are composed of a bushing, propeller, drive shaft, rotor, stator and universal joint! And get this. They are far more advanced in construction and operation than our man made equivalents! “The one to one relationship between the parts of the man-made machine and the molecular components is startling,” says one biochemist. The cell’s machinery is vastly superior to anything that man can achieve, operating at nearly 100 percent efficiency, as opposed to 65% for an electric motor. Is this really the product of blind and undirected chemical processes? No. It’s more logical to admit the reality that all structures, whether man made or natural, take on the law of design.

If We’re From Chimps, Then We’re Chumps

Some reply, “what about Chimpanzees? We share a 93% (some studies say 96%) similarity in DNA with chimps; doesn’t that prove common ancestry?” That could just as well be an argument for common design. When materials work within our paradigm, designers tend to use them again. We see this in engineering in such things as buildings, bridges, automobiles, aircraft etc.

When Darwinists use this argument, what you don’t hear is that the “y” chromosomes in chimps share only about 60% similarity as “y” chromosomes in humans. Plus they have to get around what is known as “Haldane’e dilemma”, the founder of which was not necessarily sympathetic to the intelligent design movement. Even using long evolutionary time tables for speciation, Haldane’s dilemma states that it takes a staggering number of mutations in a relatively small number of generations for evolution to work. For the sake of argument, assuming man and apes had a common ancestor, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only 300,000 generations. This is an average of 1.33 mutations locked into the genome every generation! This is absurd and something we have never observed in the fossil record or in species today.

Furthermore,  the 4-7% dissimilarity of chimps and humans is huge, making us completely different, not only in terms of species but also class- a boundary that will never be crossed. It tennis, for example, a struck ball may be 99% out and sharing a high degree of similarity with the part of the court that is out of bounds. But that small 1% on the line makes all the difference. In other words, 1% in is 100% in and changes everything. The 4-7% difference in DNA between chimps and man makes all the difference. It may as well be said that the two creatures are 100% different! As Chesterton wrote, “to say something is like something else is just as much a statement of difference as similarity. To say ‘this dog is like that cat’ is to also to say that the dog is not a cat.”

If an atheistic scientist thinks it is possible to create new species with other “hominids”, why doesn’t he be the first to volunteer in the mutation experiment and mate with a chimp? Not only is there a spiritual boundary in terms of disgust, but it’s also physically impossible. Even some of the two most similar species on earth, the Indian and African elephant, don’t naturally mate in nature. After years of trying, they finally got two to mate in captivity. But the offspring died in spite of their best efforts to artificially intervene! All of reality takes on the law of design, “each after it’s own kind” as Genesis says. This is vindicated by the logic of scientific discovery, common sense and creation itself.

If not Creationism, then what’s the alternative? Nothingness as Paine wrote seems to be more characterized by the hollow substitute of random chance. If atheism is true, why is there something rather than nothing? Life itself does not contain the answers to it’s own meaning. As one Christian thinker said, “frankly what keeps me in the faith after all these years is simply a lack of other options.”

The Law of Reaping and Sowing. We hear all the time to work harder, stay later at the office, drive the ox train harder, and burn the midnight oil to get ahead. And though our culture easily gets things out of balance, there is some truth to working hard. But Scripture, not just the world, emphasizes hard work for the purposes of future benefit as well. And it is sourced in God, who may well have founded the idea. It’s called the law of reaping and sowing. “What a man sows, that he will also reap.”  (Galatians 6:7).

This is a law of reality that applies to anybody, whether Christian or not. The Bible is a realistic book, not just a religious text, and says work is a reality. Those who do the work get the reward. The early bird gets the worm, whether overtly Christian or not. God blesses courage in action. We are known and judged by our deeds, whether evil or good. It’s not necessarily those who sing praise songs to God that are rewarded; it’s those who actually trust and obey. I’ve seen Christians committed to prayer but not do the hard work of getting out résumés. The job goes to the other guy who did the work. Prayer may be work. But as C.S. Lewis rightly observed, “work is prayer”. Work is another form of getting something done in a cursed world. It’s not working for your salvation. But Christians work out their salvation in the myriad of areas and difficulties in life.

Work is a dynamic that governs our paradigm that has been a godly concept from the beginning. Skeptics can marginalize Christianity as irrelevant all they want, but check the record. It’s there, work is a godly concept sourced in God from the beginning that the world revolves around, not the other way around. The question is, was work a dynamic that existed before the Scriptures were written, and the writers of the ancient text just observing this law of reality and putting it under a Biblical umbrella? Or did God institute work from the beginning and the writers of Scripture, thoughtful and keenly aware of their surroundings, encapsulate the wisdom of the ages in it’s most concentrated form? God defines reality, and work exists because of Him.

The Law of Stature. This law is closely related to the Law of Reaping and Sowing, in which we saw that Scripture, and not the world, has a corner on the truth. The Law of Stature is slightly different and says that suffering precedes stature in anything. Those who pay the bigger price, tend to get the greater glory. The student who studies for two weeks for the final usually does better that the one who studies the night before. The athlete who wakes up every morning at 5 am to train will likely be more celebrated than 90% who don’t. It’s not always a direct linear cause and effect in every situation; but it is a general tendancy. God is a God of reality, not mere profession. This is a law that is seen all throughout Scripture. It’s not just that David called on the name of the Lord when he defeated Goliath-but he was well practiced and he went out in courage – belief backed by action.

The law of Stature is not at odds with Christ’s life and work. He suffered and paid a major price, according to this law, to reconcile our bad relationship with God and to join us with him in kingdom living. And now He is raised up at the right hand of the Father. This is the ultimate example of suffering preceding stature, which stemmed from God to begin with.

In the 1976 Olympics, Japanese gymnast Shun Fujimoto broke his knee in the team competition. The loss was devastating not only for the team’s hopes at a medal, but personally for Fujimoto. He worked hard for years for this one moment, and gone. Everyone knew he would withdraw. But to the delight of the crowd, he entered the rings competition the following day. As he began his routine, his progression was seamless and his program was excellent. But the critical dismount lay ahead. As he flew through the air, the silence of the arena was deafening. And Fujimoto never wavered. He stuck the landing with tremendous impact on his knee, staying upright and firm as the crowd erupted with thundering applause. Afterward, he was candid: “The pain shot through me like a knife. It brought tears to my eyes. But now I have a gold medal and the pain is gone.” This is the law of stature in action. That’s true of Christ as he sits at the right hand of the father. And it will be true for Christians who endure. The pain will be gone to cherish the reward of heaven for a life well lived.

This law of reality was in Scripture all along and is vindicated through smaller examples that we see everyday, such as in sports or personal triumphs. God defines reality and it’s the world that hijacks these ideas, not visa versa. Isaiah 45:19 says, “I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right”.

The Law of Specificity. There is a law of reality that says specifics are crucial and essential to skillful living. Taking a certain medication at certain times is the only way to be healed from an illness.  The exact login information is required to access accounts on websites. There is one correct combination to unlock the padlock. One works because others do not. The complexities of the cell are so precise or we wouldn’t be here without their functions, sizes and placements. Nucleotides, peptides, polypeptides, DNA, RNA, and tertiary structures, are all highly specific according to the exact blueprint in the DNA. Good intentions are nice but don‘t get the job done. Precision is necessary.

Specifics are crucial for eternal life as well. Scripture is not at odds with specificity, but complies with this law. Christ says, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6), and any other way to heaven is not. There many be many ways to Christ, but there is only one way to God. People say all roads in life lead to the same place. Really? Have a friend and yourself leave from Atlanta on two different roads and see where you end up.

The Law of Singularity. Related to the Law of Specificity is the Law of Singularity which says that singularity dominates in any given domain. Relativism and pluralism say there says there is no superiority, just differences. But there is only one number one ranked tennis player in the world at any given time. A spark plug tends to fire only one way in a car. A man essentially and completely dies once. One philosophy of government dominates at any given time. Singularity is everywhere. Chesterton wrote, “There is one angle by which a man stands, many by which he falls.” Even Jesus observed this phenomenon when he referred to the heart of a man. Essentially, a man can’t have two competing affections in the heart at the same time. “No one can serve two masters; either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24).

The law of singularity is backed by the law of non-contradiction in philosophy which states that if something is true, then it’s opposite cannot be. If the resurrection is historical, then other religions show do not show the way to eternal life. One is distinct and stands above the rest in terms of love, truth and historical credibility. The law of singularity is all pervading and biblically based.

This may sound arrogant to an outsider, but the law of singularity is seen in every area of life. We may balk at it, but we all subordinate to a superior somewhere. Why shouldn’t singularity apply to religion as well? All religions may contain some elements of truth, but essentially they all can’t be right. The qualitative truths and proofs of Christianity dwarf all other religions. They are not just different flavors of ice cream.

The Law of Initiative. There are several cliché’s that try to capture this law. “Fortune favors the bold“ is one. Or, “It’s better to act than react”. Anybody who has played basketball knows that the guard dribbling the ball up the court has an advantage over the defender covering him. Why? Because the guard knows where he wants to go. It’s tough to anticipate and keep reacting to all the possible movements of the initiator. Defenders and counter-punchers can be very skilled, but over time the initiators have the advantage. That’s why Pete Sampras had the better record against Andre Agassi. He initiated with the serve and brought the big guns out over and again.

Counselors say to patients who are stuck and don’t know what to do, “do something, anything, even a small step. Then the path will clear up and things are realized.” When a college student doesn’t know what to write a paper on, just starting the writing process will cause things to unfold and take shape. Sometimes you have to step into the sea before it will part. It’s a lot easier to turn a moving car than a parked one. Like a crystal stream versus a stagnant pond, bodies of water are healthier to drink from when they’re moving. Employers look for people who are enthusiastic, self starters, take initiative and have passion. These all stem from the observation that “energy is divine”.

The law of movement characterizes God. The resounding theme throughout Scripture is that God is the initiator. He is the pursuer of man. Many think they seek after God or have “found God”, but really God was seeking and pursuing them, the Hound of heaven. With salvation God is the pursuer and initiator, this theme in all 66 books of the Bible. The law of initiative is extremely biblical and defines reality as God made it from the beginning.

The Law of Optimism. Doctors have said for years that the healthiest people are the most optimistic. This is true whether they are overtly Christian or not. Of course, many optimistic people would not declare the Most High as Lord. But when optimistic, they are borrowing from a power in heaven, even if for success only in this life. Some call it the power of positive thinking.

God is the eternal optimist. Unfamiliar with the Scriptures, many pundits accuse it by saying that the God of the Old Testament is angry, negative or judgmental. Nothing could be further from the truth. With such scandalous sin taking place for centuries, God kept the nation of Israel on a very long leash. He is slow to anger, and grace kept Him in restraint.

Even when He pronounced judgment, which is not at odds with grace, God would always deliver a promise of hope, restoration, and a glorious future. After centuries of warnings and words to the wise, God said judgment was imminent in Jeremiah’s day in 605 BC (a mere 20 years later the nation was razed by the Babylonians). But trouble is never the end of the story for believers. In Jeremiah 29:1, God tells the people, “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. They are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. In those days when you pray, I will listen”. For the believer, things always get better in the end. If it’s not better, it’s not the end.

Optimism is along the lines of living by faith, even when circumstances are not favorable yet. Optimism sees clear skies when it is still stormy. Phony optimism denies all negativity which is not what were talking about here. True optimism sees all of reality, but sees the positive as weightier and transcendent. If God weren’t a God of grace we would all have been out of here a long time ago. God sees what we could be, not what we are. Optimistic people are the easiest and most delightful people to be around because this characterizes God himself. This is why God is so attractive to those who know Him.

The Law of Service. The world vindicates this law everyday and doesn’t even know it‘s source. Isaiah observed in 750 BC the following words that marry the concepts of humility and supremacy: “For this the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy says, ‘I dwell on a high and holy place, and also with the contrite and lowly of spirit, in order to revive the spirit of the lowly” (IS 57:15).

With God low is high. He defines higher reality even if it doesn’t always sound profound. Godliness, according to the Old Testament, is caring for orphans and widows. The world revolves around this principle and doesn’t even know it. Highly educated people solve basic matters of ethics and problems. Professors work on hunger problems for the malnourished. Lawyers work to stave off corruption on Wall Street. Engineers design complicated medical equipment for the helpless in society. Doctors do research to cure common diseases. Think tanks are tapped to solve economic and security issues. The highest of intellectual pursuits serve the most basic needs of average people.

Scripture has said all along the high serve the low, which is what Christ did. This has been Scriptural and a law of reality from the beginning. Some say that the Bible just observed this law of reality a long time ago and included it. But it’s also possible that this law of reality proceeds from the character of God and shapes our paradigm.

Conclusion

These realities were in Scripture all along and affirm the divine design, not separate from Scripture. The world operates according to these laws because that’s how God made it. Biblical authors didn’t just observe them. “All truth is God’s truth” even if the world does not acknowledge the God of Scripture as the source. It’s amazing how life fits together and becomes more integrated from a biblical worldview. Life becomes more logical, not less, the longer one is a believer and views life through that grid.

Thomas Paine missed it about the “nothing” argument of theology. Most of the things we have done and the words we hear have passed into nothing. The futility of all other pursuits gives great credence for Christianity. Only biblical truth is what lasts. Paine is long gone but biblical truth preceded him and has remained. It is logical and defines the laws of real reality, things we knew to be true all along but didn’t know were in Scripture. “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

Copyright 2012 by Scott Chandler. All Rights Reserved.

Fair enough. How do we know the accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, Moses and the Red Sea, David killing Goliath, Elijah calling down fire on the prophets of Baal, Jesus resurrection and many others really happened?

Before we deal with the logic and other evidences debunking the myth claim, we must mention the Bible itself deals head on with the issue in II Peter 1:16: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” The verse is written with a sober authority that to puts the burden of proof on the skeptic to disprove it. How can Peter say we are not following cleverly devised tales?

“Tales” here as Peter uses the term means “cunningly devised fables”. The backdrop is the pagan mystery religions and the mythology of Greece and Rome. The wider audience which Peter addressed were Gentiles and were familiar with these “tales”. Many saw through the phony mystery religions and were fatigued by their empty sensationalism. This is one evidence why Christianity was different and took root so quickly. People were hungry for something true and reliable.

When people accuse the Bible as myth, they mean myth or legend in the fiction sense. But myth can mean someone has taken on legandary status because of original acts of heroism. When we say  “Michael Jordan is a legend in the game of basketball”, we mean he is of mythical proportions in light of the great things he did. His reputation was based on actual history. So legend can be based on reality. Does that mean only some people today do some great things but nobody in antiquity ever did? And if they did some great things, how would we know if they weren’t recorded through the historical method? The Bible does just that as an accurate work of history, not just a “religious” manual.

Peter addressed those who were skeptical about the greatness of Christ in the 1st century, which resulted in very early testimony about the reliability of Scripture. And Peter had a credible advantage. He was an “eyewitness of His majesty” and could easily recount with persuasion event after event in refuting the myth issue. What Peter did from memory and experience, we do by study. A healthy faith is not necessarily without doubts. As one man quipped, “scholars aren’t necessarily smarter than the average layman- they just have a higher capacity for doubt and are in constant need of answers.”

Some will ask, “how reliable is eyewitness testimony? I mean, there’s nothing more subjective and biased than a human being!” I‘m not so sure. First, eyewitness testimony was the best known forensic science of the day. And it is still a prime form of evidence in prosecuting criminals, even better than circumstantial evidence. The truth always seems to come out, even in cover-ups among friends. People do lie, but if you talk to enough people about an event, you’ll get a pretty good picture of what happened. One expert said, “in a court of law, a reliable eyewitness that a suspect was absent from a crime scene overrules any circumstantial evidence”.

Second, people often bring up the credibility of the eyewitness because of a lack education or low social status, as though a drop out of society was more prone to lying. But education is no guarantee of integrity. Eyewitness testimony has nothing to do with intelligence. It’s simply an account of what somebody saw. In fact, the less intelligent, the less likely a sophisticated story is. We know the disciples were simple, unsophisticated and loyal citizens without cunning, selfish ambition to overthrow Rome.

In eyewitness testimony, you simply want to know what somebody saw. If your daughter was abducted from a store in the mall, and three people saw it, you couldn’t care a less what their IQ was- you just want to know what they saw. In the same way, the gospels are the accounts of the eyewitness to the events of Christ life, death and resurrection. The whole thrust of the Easter narrative in the New Testament, according to scholar N.T. Wright, ”is about evidence, about eyewtinesses being called, about something that actually happened for which eyewitnesses could and would vouch…the authors would hardly call for an experience which continued unabated.”

Understanding What The Bible Is Helps Alleviate the Myth Charge 

It would help to address the myth question if we simply understood what the Bible is. The Bible is an accurate history book, not just a religious text. Many who assault it don’t know it. The Bible is actually a collection of books written over 1,500 years by over 40 authors who were from all walks of life, most of whom didn’t know each other. It was truly a demographic affair, the accountability of variety. There is an amazing harmony of concepts in Scripture. The Bible was written by men of the highest integrity who kept their fingers on the pulse of the world events around them. In some respects, the Bible compiles the best wisdom of the ages as received in the human tradition. Lewis Sperry Chafer said, “the Bible is not such a book man would write if he could nor could write if he would.”

The Scripture has a variety of literature for every personality type and mood, containing poetry, narrative, history, law, parable, allegory, biography, diary, and apocalyptic. There is at one and the same time varied accountability and consistent testimony. Contrast that with Mohammed who after spending 15 years in a cave and encountering what are known as “the jins” (demons) in Arabic folklore, comes out and announces that he has now the final authority of God. No accountability or varied testimony; just one man who retools the exsiting Scriptures to his own liking, and spreads his new and simplified religion by coercion and bloodshed.

The Bible is read by more people and published in more languages than any other book. This doesn’t “prove” it’s the word of God, but this does show it’s unique. No other book knows anything approaching its constant circulation. As one expert said, “The Bible, compared with any other ancient writings has more manuscript evidence than any 10 pieces of ancient literature combined.”

Time Gap and The Telephone Question

A natural doubt is the time gap question. “Since the events in the Bible happened 2,000 years ago and more, how do we know that that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted over time? It’s like the telephone theory- you tell one friend a story and 20 friends later it bears little resemblance to the original”. This is fairly easy to answer. First, ethnologists and anthropologists who study the traditions of ancient cultures tell of the amazing consistency they have maintained over many centuries. Oral tradition for many tribes of the American Indian, for example, was passed down with great precision for generations. They were rigid peoples with unwritten customs that kept them from thinking too far outside the box. Some tribal languages had as many as twenty words to describe wind, rain, snow etc. When retelling the story, the Indian had to not only use any word for snow, but the correct word. The same for the Polynesian natives and others cultures around the world. If this is true for pagan cultures, it was even more so for the strict, stubborn Hebrew mind. Both the Old and New Testaments were borne out of Judaism.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Put The Skeptics to Death

The birth of higher criticism in the 1800’s resulted in the Bible getting pummeled as to it’s authenticity. By the mid 1900‘s, liberal scholars were doubting everything from Moses to Christ. But as things go, in 1947, a Bedouin shepherd boy named Mohammed (of all things), was looking for lost sheep in the hill country southeast of the Dead Sea as the story goes. He managed to throw a rock into a cave on the upper side of a cliff and heard the smashing of pottery, a sound that has reverberated through the corridors of history. In short, he found the greatest archaeological discovery of the 20^th century and maybe of all time. The Dead Sea scrolls are great because they contain copies, in part or in whole, of every book of the Old Testament except Esther. The O.T. up till that time was based on the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were a band of Jews who lived on the Sea of Tiberius (Galilee) from about 500 to 900 AD who kept meticulous copies of the Hebrew Bible.

Research on the scrolls confers that the Bible we used for centuries is amazingly accurate. For example, The Great Isaiah Scroll boasts a 99% accuracy with our Masoretic copy of today. Chapter 53 has 166 words, and there is only 1 word that is in question as a variant between the two. And the difference is not even substantive, something like “color” vs. “colour” or “honor” vs. “honour”. The scrolls effectively move back the date our Hebrew Bible by 1200 years to about the 2^nd century BC. The DSS all but remove the assault of time in itself as an agent of corruption in the myth issue. By the way, skeptics who know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous will say “there are errors in the Bible, you can’t get around that fact.” True there are errors in Scripture, but many are scribal errors regarding words as described above, which affect no major doctrines.

Time and the telephone theory evaporate when one understands the rigidity of the Jewish mind. The Masoretes counted everything after a scribe completed a copy of a manuscript. Most everything that was countable was counted: the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in a book, the middle letter of the Pentateuch was highlighted, the ink was to be black not green, no word or letter was to be written from memory. The attention to detail secured the precision of the text so much that they actually preferred newer copies to older ones. And most importantly there was a social motivation. Copyists who made a mistake could be shamed or ex-communicated from the community. Accuracy was a must for the copyists of the Old Testament. Princeton scholar Robert Dick Wilson said, “that the Hebrew text was transmitted by copyists through so many centuries is a phenomena unequaled in the history of literature”. Time in itself is not necessarily a determining factor in accurately preserving the ancient Scriptures.

That’s the Old Testament. But what about the New Testament? With such fantastic claims of a resurrection, time and corruption are just as crucial of an issue. Most documents from ancient history- original or copies, have not survived to the present day. What has actually survived had to have a high degree of importance, activity, motivation and in some cases luck. It was very difficult to record, much less preserve, anything from antiquity. In the case of the New Testament, it was not luck. The odds that parchments, papyrus and oral tradition from many sources all having a high degree of consistency are very small if something didn’t happen to trigger them.

There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the Greek New Testament in existence today. No other documents in ancient history approach the numbers of the New Testament. Something happened to spur this. The New Testament was written between 40-95 AD and the earliest manuscript is the Rylands Papyrus, or (P52), which is a fragment of John 18. From evidence, the text is dated to within 25-30 years from the original copy with no discrepancy. Other major codices are the Chester Beatty papyrus from about 200 AD, containing major portions of the New Testement. And the Codex Siniaticus with all of the N.T. and half of the O.T. covers a gap of time of 260 years from the originals to the copies.

“So what”? you might say. “That still sounds like plenty of opportunity for corruption”. To get an idea of how short a time this is for ancient documents, the 2^nd best attested document of ancient history is Homer’s Iliad written about 850 B.C. There are 643 mss, and the earliest copy that has survived is from 400 BC, a gap of 500 years. The documents haven’t received near the amount of attacks as the N.T., though there is much more uncertainty about Homer than Christ.

“Histories” is a book written by Tacitus, a Roman historian in the first century. There are 4 and ½ copies that have survived, and these date 1,000 years after the originals! Even Shakespeare is more corrupt and uncertain than the N.T. and that’s only 600 years old. The point is, the basic assertions and existence of these secular people are widely accepted. Yet per occurrence, the N.T. has 3,800% greater quantity of documentary evidence!

In summarizing the wealth of evidence, Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the British Museum, said that “in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the N.T….And the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has been removed”. Scholar and theologian Gleason Archer affirmed this: “the N.T. is unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of it’s text as actually transmitted”.

The time assault from skeptics is a bit hypocritical. For a culture who needs almost video like evidence before it believes anything, people readily accept the theory of evolution as to our origins- even though the time gap was exponentially greater than from our lives to the days of the Bible. How do you know chemical evolution is the best explanation for our origins? Were you there? Was anybody there to write down eyewitness testimony? That’s a lot harder to believe than credible eyewitness and textual evidence passed along to us in the historical documents of Scripture. Written history by humans is the most direct way to understand the past. The time assault for Scripture as myth has pretty much been eliminated.

The Basics of History

We’ve addressed whether the Bible could be corrupted with legendary material by time alone. But what about all of history? The process of trying to understand what happened in history is the historical method, originally set down by Aristotle and used to this day. He wrote, “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not abrogated by the critic to himself. Therefore, one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions of known factual inaccuracies”. In other words, though we want to be discerning, it’s arrogant for us to doubt an event just because we don’t like the assertion-if there are no other credible contradictions. Why? Because we weren’t there. It’s like our philosophy of jurisprudence, “a man is innocent until proven guilty”.

That’s how we build contours of history, by trusting the historical method. In the case of Christ, we have amazing consistency of testimony by people who witnessed his life. He’s not “disqualified by contradictions” to use Aristotle’s words, by sources other than the Bible. These outside sources, not necessarily amendable to the Christian cause, were forced to cough up statements about Christ here and there. Let’s look at some of these.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish and Roman historian from the 1^st century AD. In his Antiquities of the Jews, he writes: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it can be lawful to call him a man…He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle man among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day…and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day”. Some scholars dispute the authenticity of this because it is so accurate.

Tacitus was a Roman senator, historian and governor of Asia at the turn of the 1^st century. He alluded to the death of Christ, as well as Christians in Rome when he said, “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Tiberius…”.

Suetonius, was a Roman historian in 120 AD. He referred to Christ when he wrote, “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome”.

Pliny the Younger, Governor of Asia Minor in 112 AD, lawyer, author, was an important external witness. He tried to get Christians to “curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do,” he wrote. He also reports that “They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively to a hymn to Christ as to a god”. If Christ wasn’t real, these three men wouldn’t have said anything, because they weren’t sympathetic to the movement.

Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus’ death. Tiberius is mentioned by only ten sources within 150 years after his death. Contrast that with the fact that Jesus is mentioned by fourty-two sources within the same time period, and nine of them were secular!

The assault of Christ not being a real person, or some composite figure of history died out about 100 years ago. As one theologian said, “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.” The gospels are so accurate, that to read them, it’s as if one were encountering the Christ alive. The problems of time and distance is eliminated by scholarly advancement. That is why Christianity is a historical religion, not just an ideological religion like others. Christ is where history and theology intersect. World renowned scholar F.F. Bruce said, “The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar.”

The Assertions of History and the Historical Method

We can run ourselves ragged over what to believe from history. But it’s not always necessary. Nobody doubts Pharaoh Neco lost the battle at Carcemesh to the Babylonians in 605 B.C. Nobody doubts Alexander the Great defeated Darius the Persian. Nobody doubts Constantine founded Constantinople after many military victories. Nobody doubts Napoleon fought at the Battle of Waterloo. Nobody doubts Santa Anna lost to General Sam Houston at the Battle of San Jacinto. Why? Because we have no reason to doubt these. And we trust the documents that have been passed down. At some point we have to trust the historical method. Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of Scripture and nobody doubts them! If we don’t believe in the authenticity of the Scriptures, we should doubt everything we know about the past. We have no reason to doubt a St. Ignatious, who gave one of the earliest external testimonies to Christ at the end of the 1^st century: “He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate, not merely in appearance…He really died and was buried and rose from the dead.” We have to give him the benefit of the doubt because that’s the assertion of history.

With testimony, logic, and the historical method, the life of Christ is even more substantiated. If we apply to the Bible the credence we would to other literary documents, Scripture is a slam dunk. Conversely, if you discount Scripture, then all of ancient history is a sham. Professor and philosopher John Warwick Montgomery was right: “to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to let all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no other documents of the ancient periods are as well attested… as the New Testament.”

The Concept of Death

The concept of death as explained in Scripture is one the greatest arguments for Christianity, affirming a reality we all know. The Bible has the best balance on the concept of death, affirming it is an enemy yet not shying away from it in denial. The Scripture speaks with more sober reality about life, death, and the afterlife than any other writings, ancient of modern. As a result, Christians are experts in death more than any other category of people. If dying to self is a daily reality, the big one isn’t so scarry. Similarly, the existence of evil and a curse placed on the earth is the best explanation as to why we have problems. (It’s where the concept of cursing comes from, a curse). We may have economic problems, political struggles, inflation, international tensions, but these are all tangential to the real problem: the depravity of man and a curse placed on the earth. Man has some good, as an image bearer of God, but he is also depraved with something deeply wrong with him. Depravity is the best explanation as to why man suffers, has relationship problems, commits murder, adultery, steals, lies, or slanders, more than any psychology textbook. And it was in Scripture all along. 

Resurrection is the Cornerstone of Christianity

Though Christ did many miracles, the impetus that launched Christianity was the tangible resurrection of Christ. The historicity of the resurrection retards the myth charge. Henry Morris, PhD, writes “the fact of the resurrection is one of the most certain facts in all history”. Jesus rose from the dead; he wasn’t revived or the body stolen. He died. And arose. There are four lines of proof for this. First, the Romans were experts at killing and death- they wouldn’t have missed one with a rather high profile case such as Christ. Second, Jesus did not ressucitate. The body was not stolen, because people didn’t mess around with dead people or tombs, for spiritual reasons and civil reasons. Severe punishment was dealt by Rome to those who did. Plus, there were 4 squads of loyal soldiers guarding the tomb. A stolen body was the only way the Jews could foresee a continued problem of Christ, and they prevented that.

Third, there is no evidence for people paying homage to shrine of Jesus, which would be expected for the most documented death in the ancient world. Fourth, Christianity never began as a philosophy or ethic, but it was an event based on eyewitness testimony. Rome and Israel both spent enormous resources trying to kill Christians. The easiest way to stop the movement would have been to produce the body. As one professor said, “A scientist can doubt the resurrection but not deny it, because to do so means he can prove it didn’t occur”. Wilbur Smith reminds us, “no founder of any world religion known to men ever dared to say he would rise again from the dead.”

We know Christ was real, definitely no composite figure of history. According to Otto Betz, “no serious scholar has ventured the non-historicity of Jesus.” If Christ didn’t die at the time he did, in the way he did, then when did he die? Under what circumstances? It’s like O.J. Simpson in reverse; if O.J. didn’t kill his wife, then who did? Why aren’t they out tyring to find the killer? Because everybody knows he did. Well, if Christ didn’t die then, how and when did he die?

The Supreme Pragmatic Effects of Christianity

The existence of the church, Western thought, progress, architecture, literary classics, science, democratic governments, charities, ministries, ethics, and social virtues were all set into motion because of the historicity of the resurrection. Writes Bernard Ramm, “From the Apostolic Fathers dating from AD 95 to the modern times is one great literary river inspired by the Bible. Statistically speaking the gospels are the greatest literature ever written”. The core of progress in the world today is Western thought, and the core of Western thought is Christianity with the emphasis that matter isn‘t evil.  How can one be a thinking person and not see this pattern? The pragmatic differences of the evidence argues against the Bible as myth. According to another scholar, “as we look across the centuries, we see how His words have been passed into law, passed into doctrines, have passed into proverbs, and have never passed away. What human teacher ever dared to claim eternity for his words?” 

The Trowel of the Archaeologist Vindicates Scripture 

Another line of argument to deal with the myth issue comes from archaeology. Archaeology is a hard science, subject to evidence, as opposed to a soft science like sociology or psychology. Archaeology is “the systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of the remaining material evidence”. “Material” is important because Judaism and Christianity are historical religions, as opposed to the ideological ones. Actual events took place that spawned movements and the writings of Scripture. The trowel has been a friend of the apologist, defending the legitimacy of Scripture against the charge of myth. These are just a few of the hundreds of examples.

At Kitef Hinnom in 1979 were found two silver amulets with small scrolls packed tightly inside containing Numbers 6:24-26. They are the earliest known artifacts that document passages from the Hebrew Bible, dating to the 7^th century BC.

For decades, liberal scholars assaulted the text because there had never been found an external artifact affirming King David, fueling the notions that the story of David and Goliath was a myth. That changed in 1993-94 with the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele dated to the 9the century BC, on which was written “the House of David”.

Going back earlier, Scripture says that Moses was educated and wrote the Pentateuch, but written language wasn’t supposed to have been developed that early. The Khirbet Qieyafa Inscription, dated to the 11^th century, pushes writing back and greatly helps Moses as a possibility.

Shifting to the New Testament, there was no record of the Pool of Bethesda except in John 5:2. For years scholars argued this as a proof that John’s gospel was written by someone later than John. That changed when it was discovered in Jerusalem.

Other than Scripture, it was strange that Pontius Pilate didn’t have much reference in the annals of Roman history as a Governor of a Province. Excepts for a few minor artifacts, many doubted his existence at all until 1961 when a team of Italian archaeologists unearthed a stone in Caesarea with his name inscribed on it.

Luke received criticism because he used words and places in the book of Acts unknown to archaeologists. For example, his use of the term “politarch” was found nowhere else in Greek literature. But his accuracy was vindicated when more than 17 inscriptions were found in Thessalonica with the term on them. Luke has been vindicated as a first rate historian with the kind of attention to detail you would expect from a physician.

Each discovery in itself may not prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it substantiates the credibility of the text. If the Bible has been verified on many names and places by archaeology in things that are incidental, why can’t it be trusted on the major issues of spirituality that it is trying to relay? Archaeology proves the Bible in no myth.

Dr. Nelson Glueck, outstanding Jewish archaeologist of the 20^thcentury, said, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”

Using Half truths To Sell a Lie

One of the questions in the myth issue that skeptics ask is, “of course there is harmony between archaeology and Scripture. Any story teller would use details of the time period to add authenticity to the myth. Many authors research a setting before writing a novel about an area”. It’s amazing how the assaults come from the uninitiated. The details in the Gospels are too rich to be fabricated, there being too many details to get snagged if not true. Per detail, the Gospels are amazingly consistent. C.S. Lewis, Professor of Medieval English at both Cambridge and Oxford, was an expert on mythic material, and makes a legendary point on this:

“as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. …there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with his finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art”.

With so much information out there, we have to trust somebody like Lewis who has done his research in this discipline and approached the issue of the Bible as myth from this angle.

Take the trial and death of Jesus. Many who get roped into the account were outsiders to begin with. They were verifiably incidental players in the drama. The events transcend collusion because of the conflicting constituencies involved. There were too many people with different backgrounds to collude in fabricating Jesus trial and death. Somebody would have been investigated and found a liar before it ever got recorded and passed down into history. Caiaphas the high priest or even Pilate would have stopped rumors of a resurrection if it didn’t happen. If there were any attempts at myths, it was on the other side, to cover up the resurrection. The gospels were accounts that had occurred with many details strung together, like a court reporter transcribing a homicide case form many witnesses.

Even here critics raise objections that early Christians who believed this stuff were nut cases, off their rockers. Actually, most of the early followers were skeptical, practical, common sense folk with no agenda towards selfish ambition. They weren’t cultists who were easily swayed by flowery legend or unrealistic talk of another world. The empty religions had fatigued them into a skepticism towards anything hokey. They were pragmatic hard working realists who were only interested in what worked.

As for the resurrection, there were many witnesses (I Corinthians 15). If there were lies beginning to circulate about what really happened with Christ, they would have immediately been squelched by the scores of people who actually saw Him. It’s like somebody trying to write a spurious biography about the life of Ronald Reagan and re-fabricate his words, deeds, and policies. There are too many people alive today who worked with him and knew what actually happened. The lies wouldn’t be solidified into mainstream history. F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor at the University of Manchester, said, “It’s not as easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of his disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened…The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies of the facts.”

Furthermore, resurrection was undocumented in recorded history. What group of uneducated people could make this up and get it to stick? Until Christ, belief in the afterlife was nebulous, ethereal and esoteric. It didn’t incorporate a “life after life after death” in physical bodily form. Pagan cultured did believe in life after death, but everybody knew once you died, you died- that was it. No coming back here. Resurrection adds reality and legitimacy to Christianity that no other world religion offers.

The Mutations Evidence 

Then there is the mutations argument. That is, how do we explain almost overnight the morphing of the Sabbath going from a Saturday in Judaism to Sunday in Christianity? The Jews never surrendered their traditions so quickly. We know Christianity was birthed out of Judaism, and the disciples were Jewish. History shows a sudden contrast from Judaic to Christian principles. The Jews were so stubbornly traditional in their beliefs that they wouldn’t allow a corruption of rabbinic teachings unless something legitimate happened. 

                                                                  Conclusion

After I presented these arguments to the dear lady who promted this paper, she was convinced. With logic, archaeological, and external historical evidence, it’s safe to say the Bible is not myth in the fiction sense. Though each line of evidence doesn’t stand on all fours, when taken together they make for a good case that the Bible is not a myth. It doesn’t mean someone wants to accept Christ. That is always be a heart issue with moral ramifications. But there are sound arguments that eliminate the intellectual  excuses people hide behind to avoid accountability to God.

Copyright by Scott Chandler. All Rights Reserved.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were a timely find, discovered in 1947 ironically by a Bedouin shepherd named Mohammed southeast of the Dead Sea. At that time, the criticism of the Bible as to it’s accuracy had hit a crescendo, with many assaulting the text as myth or accusing it of so many errors as to be unreliable. “After all“, they said, “the text we have now is probably nothing close to what the original authors penned. With so much time that has gone by from the originals to our copies, it was probably corrupted with embellishments, scribal errors and omissions.”

Since the scrolls date to about 150 B.C, they pre-date our Hebrew Old Testament by about 1,250 years, effectively silencing the critics. They restored the confidence of the accuracy of Scripture as God’s word. Until the DSS, the Leningrad codex was our oldest complete Hebrew text of the Old Testament, written about 1000 A.D. The scrolls confer that the text of our known Bible used for centuries is accurate. One contributing feature that preserved the accuracy of the Old Testaments over the centuries was the Jewish mindset; there were social and spiritual consequences if a scribe didn’ttranslate a text correctly, a strong motivation for accuracy. Isaiah is an exquisite example, with a 99% accuracy ratio from the Great Isaiah scroll found at Qumran to our Masoretic or Old Testament of today. Where there is a difference, often the scroll is the better reading! Some still complain that there still errors in the scrolls-but they are nothing of substance, just a similar appearing letter here and there, akin to “colour” vs. “color” or “honor” vs. “honour.” As one scholar says, “orthography is not considered an error.”

 Whether they were accurate in their interpretation of current events or not, one thing is clear: The Essenes were trying to think biblically and filter current events through a biblical grid of thought. They tried to assimilate as best they could cultural assaults through a grid of Scripture. What’s interesting is that though they had a reputation for being strict disciplinarians, they weren’t strict literalists withthe texts of Scripture. They felt free to paraphrase and retell biblical stories of Scripture withnew ideas and interpretations with an emphasis on application. This is seen in how they creatively manufactured their own texts, many of them elaborating on O.T. books as in the Pesharim or commentaries on Habakkuk or Hosea, as well as in The Rule of The Community and The Genesis Apocryphon. It’s also interesting in some of the characters of Scripture they choose to elaborate on are what we might call “B” level actors in less emphasized stories, such as the priest of Amram, and Melchizedek.

They saw a clear conflict of values, both within their own nation towards other sects of Judaism, and from without in what they termed the “Kittim” or Romans. Their separation into the desert is similar to cult like spin off groups such as the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas or the Freeman of Montana. But unlike the Freeman, they weren’t aggressive politically. In passive aggressive fashion they channeled their grievances into internal strictness and writing. They had a dualistic worldview of absolutes: right and wrong, good and evil, and a clash of political entities of God’s kingdom and the world’s. These are visible withcontrasting terms like “The Wicked Priest” and “Man of the Lie” with the “Man of Righteousness” (1QpHab 5:8-12). In the Rule of the Community, they write:

“He created human kind to rule over the world, appointing for them two spirits in which to walk until the time ordained for His salvation. These are the spirits of truth andfalsehood” (3:17-21).

A firm Judeo Christian idea that is preserved up to the present day that the Essenes held to the idea of a future judgment by God. One could say they were dispensational, with God having future apocalyptic plans (11Q Melch), even using the term “each age” (1QS 8:16). The Damascus Document begins with the concept:

“So listen, all you who recognize righteousness, and consider the deeds of God; for He has a suit against every mortal and He executes judgment upon all who despise Him”                                                                                         (CD 1:1-2)

With such a commitment to the Scriptures, and their discernment in the culture war of values, they were incredibly accurate in their predictions of these complicated forces coming to a head in their near future. They couldn’t predict exactly when but they weren’t off by much when things exploded in 68 A.D. Their intense commitment to the Old Testament gave them a discernment in the culture war that allowed them to prepare for and predict with some measure of accuracy the end of Judaism as they knew it.

Any sense of spiritual warfare they held to was manifested in the physical realm, with good and evil meted out in the tangibly. The Essenes were typically Jewish in their theology, pragmatic in their effects of religion saying in effect, “what difference does it make if you don‘t live what you believe”?

Spiritual purity, in typical Jewish fashion of works, was symbolized by those at Qumran in the physical cleansing of water, the deepest things they could do to reach the soul. As for outward manifestations, goodness was not just a heart issue but behavioral with a biblical mindset of benevolence to the poor (B 19:9-11). Though Christian ideas of purity and depravity are more developed in the New Testament they believed in a tangible Messiah from hte Old Testament just like Christians. Other similarities to Christianity are that they believed in a Holy Spirit and they could worship freely wherever they wanted.

A principle comes to mind from studying the Essenes: each era believes there are others in their culture that have deviated from the divine standard, in what we would consider destructive liberal tendencies. The Essenes were in full persuasion that it was the compromisers in society that would bring about the judgment of God. What’s interesting is, within their culure war against the permissiveness of the times, what the Essenes didn’t struggle with.

First, the Essenes didn’t struggle with our modern assaults such as the basic existence of a God, or whether He should have a central role in political language or governmental affairs. The ancients, God fearing or pagan, didn’t believe in the separation of the spiritual realm from public policy. The separation of beliefs from how it was worked out in society was impossible. Second, they didn’t struggle with the idea of Creationism as a social construct as we do today with atheistic evolution. They held to a spiritual and created origin of the earth and life. And third, they didn’t struggle with the definition of gay marriage and what constitutes a nuclear family. They held to the created order and traditional roles in society. They believed in many of the right things socially and spiritually and they still had major problems that extinguished the nation when Titus marched his troops into Jerusalem in 70 AD. Perhaps we’re past the point of averting God’s judgment if we think that we can simply correct liberal deviations in society and be O.K. What’s needed is a major heart surgery.  If ancient Israel didn’t question even these basic social mores and still couldn’t avoid judgment, where are we in the continuum of judgment in struggling with lower level problems?

It’s hard to fault the Essenes; they did the best they could with the revelation they had and we might have reacted the same way with the problems of the day. They thought they could single handedly bridge the gap between God and their nation with devotion and thereby avert His judgment. We know one thing: if the Essenes didn’t take seriously the perilous liberal assaults as well as the Scriptures, we wouldn’t have perhaps the greatest archaeological discovery of all time. Good does come from persecution. Truly the DSS were “words that changed the world” and testify to the veracity of the Judeo Christian value system’s influence on the world.

Copyright by Scott Chandler. All Rights Reserved.

Old earth believers have come to their positions on the age of the universe because they  add a “67th” book of the Bible, or the book of nature, as equally authoritative. Nature and therfore ”scicence” is not only without error or contradiction, but also equally authori-tative as special revelation. They cite the Belgic confession from the Reformation for support, part of which says “the 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…” They also appeal to Romans chapter 1where Paul says His “divine nature has been clearly seen through what has been made.” Oec (old earth creationists) and yec (young earth creationists) will be the abbreviations used for each view.

The Complications

Young earthers reply that though creation helps us “ponder” God, this knowledge is not specific for salvation and therefore not as weighty. The cultural emphasis of science as “king” is what has complicated matters, trying to fit the Bible into “science”. Though both camps appeal to the church history as the official position of the church, Yec’s, feel they have more evidence that the church fathers in general held to a plain reading of Genesis and a young earth position.

Right or wrong, each camp has labels associated with them. Desiring to give Christianity more credibility at the discussion table, Oec’s are seen to be more in line with science. Yec’s have the image of being more in line with a common sense interpretation of Scripture. And yet these stigmas that have also complicated the issue. Oec’s are viewed by many as compromisers with the Word, appeasing to the world and the paradigms of science. This “softer” stance on the literal interpretation of Genesis has caused many atheists to reject Christianity altogether. Yec’s have the image of being soft on scientific intellectualism because of their radically conflicting logic of Scripture and science as we know it. The truth is somewhere in the middle: Yec’s use plenty of science in support of Scripture and Oec’s take a serious stance on Scripture. Let’s see how these different interpretations of Scripture and emphasis on science play out in the hotbed issue of Noah’s flood.

The Flood: How the Different Interpretations are Worked Out Through the Text

One area where this clash between science and hermeneutics is seen is in the extent of Noah’s flood. Both sides believe in the flood. But was it global, covering the whole earth or local covering only Mesopotamia? A natural reading of Genesis 7:19-21 seems to indicate that it was global: “And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth , so that all the high heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind.” It appears that all life on land everywhere was destroyed because of the emphasis on the Hebrew word “kol” meaning “all” or “every”.

Oec’s counter by saying that when Scripture uses terms like “all” or “world”, they’re not always in the universal sense. When a famine hit Egypt in Joseph’s day, the text says it was over “the face of the earth” (Gen.41:56). We don’t take earth in the global sense because the American Indians didn’t come to buy grain from Joseph. In I Kings 10:24, when “the whole world sought audience with Solomon,” Patagonian natives from South America didn’t send delegates to Jerusalem. The authors of the Bible wrote within the context of the then-known world. They say the globalization of our world today affects our interpretation of the text.

Yec’s reply that this makes a mockery of Scripture. When the Bible says God created the whole world, did He mean He was only the Creator of the Middle East? Plus, it’s not just the use of the word “all” that matters; it’s the repetition of it. In Hebrew, repetition is a way of emphasizing the literalness of whatever is in it‘s context. The text is also reinforced by other universal terms like “everywhere”.

Oec’s say that the Hebrew word “covered” in verse 19 could also mean the mountains were “falled upon” by rain, not necessarily that the mountains were covered with water. Yec’s would say that this is an unwarranted expansion of the semantic field. In all of the Pentateuch, the word unanimously means “covered” so why is it different here?

A seminal argument for the extent of the flood is the amount of creation that was destroyed. Genesis 7:22 says that everything on land and “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, died”. Does that really mean animals on all continents were killed? Oec’s present that the fall of man only affected animals associated with man , the “nephesh” or “soulish” creatures. If only animals that had contact with man were the tainted ones, then there was no need for a global flood, but only on the Mesopotamian plain where people lived. In this view, to stay true with the laws of physics, death occurred in animals around the world before the fall of man. They point out that people disobeyed God’s command to multiply and fill the earth and engaged in cluster living, an ancient version of the projects in inner city living so only a local flood was needed.

Yec’s call this a limited curse which leads into other interpretive issues about Scripture such as the doctrine of sin, the extent of the fall of man, and the completeness of Christ’s atonement. Did death exist before man was created or was it a consequence of the fall? How fallen is man? Does he have total depravity? Does the curse affect the smallest of atomic particles, or only certain domains in contact with man? One’s interpretation on this passage as influenced by science can surface one’s theology in other areas.

　Interpretation Differences of the Flood as Worked Out Through Science

Another interpretive feature is the where the floodwaters came from, the “fountains of the deep and the floodwaters of the sky” (Gen 7:11). Oec’s say these are simply aquifers and rain, which is a natural reading of the text. Though Mesopotamia is dry, if we’re going to invoke a miracle from God, it’s here. “God could have caused a local rainfall and flooding”, they say. Furthermore, for a flood to be global, the earth would need 4.5 times the amount of water it now has to cover Mt. Everest. The tectonic activity, with volcanoes and earthquakes involved in creating so much water according to the yec model, seems more science fiction. The mountains would have to have been eroded quickly during the rain and then risen up violently after the water receded in a few months time, which seems unlikely. All such plate tectonic activity would have destroyed the ark. Oec’s say that such gases and dust from volcanoes would impair photosynthetic activity necessary for agriculture after landed. Also, the text says it was wind, not the removal of tectonic activity, that caused waters’ retreat. Neither Genesis or geophysics offers a hint of such drastic activity.

Yec’s would reply that the topography we see today did not exist before Noah. The flood is tied to catastrophic plate tectonics and a super-continent called Pangea, which few uniformitarian (long age) geologists would disagree with. Also, the Baumgardner model shows that cold rock on the crust sinking into hot rock in the mantle would cause “runaway subduction.” This would create huge mountains at the plate boundaries and vaporize incredible amounts of water from a linear geyser in the mid ocean rises, all in a few months time. Also, the new ocean floor, being less dense, would rise by as much as 6,000 feet, raising sea level enough to cover then known structures. Under the current uniformitarian model, Yec’s say that the colliding Indian and Eurasian plates that created the great Himalayas only move 2.54 cm a year! Even with so much time, such little explosive power doesn’t produce the violent upheaval needed for those mountains as we see them today.

A study of sedimentation also leads to different interpretations of the flood. Yec’s say the layer cake features of the Grand Canyon and Green River formations indicate very little time between layers. This combined with the vastness of the formations, indicate a system wide catastrophic flood, not a uniformitarian shallow sea over millions of years. The thick rock layers with poly-strates (trees) horizontal in the beds can only be explained by rapid deposition. Oec’s counter by saying they don’t disagree with catastrophic events in the past, but there were many of them, not one big one.

Significant interpretation differences exist on the amount of animals taken on the ark. Oec’s say the concept of soulish animals, as deduced from the Hebrew text, reduces the amount needed on the ark, so the amount of species on taken on the ark wouldn’t need to be in the millions. Even oec’s grant global flood proponents “pairs” from the taxonomic category of “family”, which also reduces the need on the ark from “millions“ of species to thousands, the animals descended from these still wouldn’t have enough time to “speciate” into the millions we see today according to their time frame of a thousand years or so. Plus, speciation really doesn’t occur today, but extinction does! If anything, the new “species” we see today are more along the lines of “breeds“. With all of the species created over long periods of time before man came, it makes more sense to interpret God’s 7^th day of “rest” as one of continuation up until the present, instead of ending like the other 6 days of creation did. God is involved somehow, but not “creating” in the biblical sense. Furthermore, how could 8 people really take care of, feed, clean the likes of such quantities of animals for over a year? The flood had to be limited and local.

Global flood proponents reply that “millions or billions” of species before Noah and even Adam operates from a uniformitarian assumption. Massive speciation for millions of years before the flood rides the line of gradualism and evolutionary thought that dominates atheistic science today. The natural reading of the text is that God spoke the creatures listed into existence and it happened instantly. Furthermore, since the flood, God has not been resting in the manner Oec’s claim. They claim this opens the door to deism where God is removed and letting the natural laws he set into motion continually maintain creation after the flood. God’s 7th day was a normal one like the others, but that ended also and he is back to work.  Therefore, “family”, and ”genus” on down to “species” continued after the flood as science has recorded. The interpretation difference of the 7^th day is significant as it intersects the biology of speciation.

In addition, speciation still occurs, say yec’s, because we see sorting and loss of existing genetic information in species today, which even biologists say fits the definition of “speciation.” Yec’s also say that 8,000 pairs of animals on the ark is feasible if the biblical term “kind” is related to our “family”, which from there it’s possible to create “species”. The biblical term “kind” is not the problem. The complications stem, say yec’s, from the inconsistencies in the man made classifications of “family”, “genus” and “species”. Studies have shown that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are members of the same “kind.” As biologists will say, the taxonomic category of “phyla” is the universal biological boundary of genetic mutation, not down the line of family, order, genus or species.

As for the amount of animals on the ark, yec’s point to studies that have shown that an ark 450 feet long would be more than enough space for this number of animals.

Each side has it‘s gotcha questions for the other. Yec’s ask “if the flood was local, why not just run to nearby dry ground for safety? Why take 100 years to build an ark?” “Also, the Mesopotamian bowl, in which a local flood was supposedly contained, is open ended to the south. What would have prevented the water from escaping? What held it in?” Oec’s ask, “how could an olive tree grown up so fast for the dove to retrieve? How could Noah have produced such profitable agriculture needed after the flood if everything was destroyed?” There are many more issues related to the different views such as biodeposit masses and residual ringing of tectonic activity beyond the scope of this paper.

It’s not just the weight one places on science that influences one’s view of the flood. It’s also one’s interpretation of science. And that interpretation is tied to one’s interpretation of Scripture. Each side says the evidence and hermeneutics of Scripture fits their view. The caveat is that one’s view of science can shape one’s interpretation of Scripture. And one’s view of the flood can shape his or her theology in other areas, such as depravity.

Philosophically, I’m not sure about the equal weight of dual revelation theology because the argument has only arisen in proportion to our culture’s emphasis on science and material naturalism. The Indians had nature as the only testimony for centuries and it really didn’t help their cause spiritually. The issue comes down to authority. It’s not that general revelation is not authoritative. It’s not as authoritative. General revelation is true; just not true enough. God is not relegated to vindicating His deepest mysteries through man’s interpretaion of science. Though nature is a witness, throughout church history, naturalism was not required for salvation.

The testimony of nature may be a first step in the salvation of all men, but it is not specific enough. One has to look elsewhere for disclosure of his love and grace. If there is anything progressive, it’s not in evolution. It’s revelation. As one commentator says, “natural revelation is sufficient to make man responsible, but it is not sufficient to accomplish his salvation. Therefore, in a qualatative sense, are not equal in authority.

Salvation, not science, is the main need of the human soul which Scripture is clear about. Special revelation is of such weight in terms of life issues that science today wouldn’t exist without it. Interestingly, the modern scientific method was birthed from the hermeneutics and rules of interpreting Scripture. And special revelation is often ahead of general revelation/science in terms of discovery anyway, the paradigms of which often change.

Furthermore, equally weighted dual revelation seems to go against the law of oneness we see in all of reality. There is only one way to heaven (Christ). There is only one #1 ranked tennis player at a time. A spark plug essentially works one way to fire an engine (though there are many brands). A man dies once. Singularity is everywhere.

According to the assertion that nature is equal in authority to Scripture, then those who are proficient in the realms of the natural world, such as world renown scientists, should be just as redeemed as mature evangelicals who take seriously Sola Scripture. Is salvation a different but just as weighty truth as looking at a tree? Greatness in general revelation doesn’t produce greatness in the kingdom. If this were so, Stephen Hawking should be one of the most brilliant advocates and theologians for Christ; but he isn’t. This is especially true when he said recently, “the scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.”

We glorify and a top rated scientist who gives a quote about God, or we say “what a witness it would be if Dr.______________ came to Christ.” But it’s not necessary. Paul found out the hard way, “men of reputation contributed nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). Sometimes a vague idolatrous fantasy within our area of interest guides our spiritual lives more than we realize.

The truth is, a little old lady who couldn’t work her way out of a wet paper bag on a theology exam, much less a science test, knows more deeply the mysteries of the Creator when she sees through the eyes of the heart and has walked with God through a thousand perilous moments, than an astronomer who has peered to the outer reaches of the universe We’re glorifying the wrong people. Even if they do come to Christ, in a sense they go all the way back down and take their place in line until maturity is demonstrated. God defines reality. It’s not natural man who tries to take the kingdom of heaven by storm and build technological towers of Babel who understands the mysteries of God. Isaiah wrote, “For thus says the high and exalted One, who lives forever, whose name is holy, ‘I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit‘”…(Is. 57:15).

Scripture has the answers science is ultimately looking for, so they can’t be equal. As someone said, “creation doesn’t contain the ultimate answers to it’s own mysteries; they have to be anterior”. DRT blends into the idea that nature is coexistent with God, and the laws of nature now run the universe. How does natural law, which at best channels random chance, coexist with chance? If natural law is coexistent with the evolution of life, it cannot exist independently of it.

There is only so much that empirical observation can reveal about the spiritual realm. Our “knowledge may be greater than all previous generations combined” as one astronomer said, but it’s still knowledge on a horizontal level. As Tozer wrote, “the spiritual realm is of such a fine grade and a high frequency so as to be scarcely detectable with human apparatus”. Empirical knowledge doesn’t expand our thoughts into a true knowledge of God and the ways of kingdom living. Astronomy, with the help of mathematics, may come close in knocking on the door of other dimensions of time and space as we can imagine them. But calculating the rate of expansion of the universe with space-energy density, no matter how difficult and intellectual, is still empirical and discernable by unredeemed man. What’s needed to discern that ways of God beyond the cosmos is spiritual intelligence, an altogether different type of gift from God.

In holding to special revelation, Christians shouldn’t be ignorant about the theories around them; they need to engage the culture and have an intelligent answer. But how much weight science should have in interpreting Scripture may be an irresistible temptation, with natural man’s tendency towards distraction and idolatry entering the picture. Doing science, as fascinating as it is, can be idol and a form of worshipping the creation and rather than the Creator (Rom.1:25). Jesus said a “desire for other things chokes out the Word” (Matt. 13:22). This is not to say matter is evil, but Jesus also said that idols from the material world are the greatest competitor with Him for worship in the human heart: “you cannot love two masters; you will either hate the one or love the other, or will love the one and hate the other” (Matt.6:24). Science has done wonders in medical and lifestyle advancements that we have benefited from. But the heart is easily distracted, and man is constantly swayed to rely more on his own intellect than on God. The intellectuals throughout the N.T. are often seen having the greatest struggles in keeping the main things the main things. The pursuit of truth in science can lead to a hunger for greater revelation; but Scripture has the ultimate answers to the mysteries of science.

Doing science is a form of work that gives man something to do, no less than tilling a garden. But has God really left it to science to fill in the gaps of Scripture with dogmatic certainty? Science is fluid. The laws of physics are known, but the interpretation of how these are manifested change. These can complicate the authority and interpretation of Scripture and the “simple life of faith” (II Cor. 11:3). There is no power in the law to save, whether it’s the law of physics or the law of God. Salvation of a soul is a special act of providence along the lines of God’s creative power, not simply His maintaining power.  Scripture must be held as supreme over the revelation of nature, even if science appears to conflict with the text.

Eugene Merrill concluded, “in the final analysis, text must trump scientific hypothesis, no matter how rational and persuasive the latter seems to be. The implications of a flawed cosmology and chronology are far too devastating to biblical historicity and ultimately to the Gospel itself to be lightly embraced because of the teaching of one man (or many).”

Copyright by Scott Chandler. All Rights Reserved.

Faith in the Scriptural sense is an acknowledgement and acceptance of spiritual realities in light of evidence. Faith is not blind. Scripture encourages deep inquiry into the spiritual facts. This is the difference between Christianity and any other world religion, it’s based on historical and verifiable fact of God intersecting time and place. The Greek word for “belief” means “persuaded to the point of being convinced.” Biblical faith goes further than intellectual assent. It is trust, not just acknowledgment.

To be sure, there is an element of uncertainty. That’s why it’s still called faith. But it’s an incompleteness in the sense of things not being fully manifested yet. As God has proven to have done some things already, He will finish what he’s promised. Just because they haven’t happened yet, doesn’t mean they won’t.

To not have faith when presented with the evidence is to persist in doubt unreasonably. What kind of evidence are we talking about? The evidence of sin and chaos, the evidence of the gospel story ringing true in the heart, the evidence of the historical resurrection, the evidence of eyewitness testimony ( which was the best science of the day), the evidence of the historical method applied to Scripture, the archaeological evidence of biblical names and places, the evidence of logic, the evidence of order and complexity in creation.

The modern material atheist is quick to refute, “that’s pure conjectural fantasy and myth. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer. Faith is no replacement for the hard facts of science; it’s for the weak of mind.” Really? Since when was faith and science at odds? All great discoveries began with a belief, a vision that something could be possible before it was a reality. Going to the moon began with a belief that it could be possible. The cure for polio began with a vision. God as the creator is the ultimate visionary and believer as all creation is sourced in Him. As Hebrews says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).

Some may say the evidence of God is circumstantial. But even then circumstantial evidence is a viable form of evidence and admissible in a court of law. It has been enough to put away many criminals over the years. In light of such evidence, to not have belief in the realities of Christ is to risk mental illness.

To cement the concept of biblical faith, let’s use the following analogy. Say you’re standing outside of a house. And you have a nagging doubt there is somebody also outside of the house, but always on the exact opposite side and you can’t see him. You decide to sprint one way and try to surprise him but miss him. You run the other way but see nothing. You can do this all day and never see him. There maybe somebody there, who just happens to be keeping perfect distance with us every time we run. Doubts can plague us until we demand a video camera or a helicopter to see all points. But in light of the evidence, it’s reasonable to conclude there is nobody on the other side of the house. At some point, faith settles the mind and heart.

It’s like that with God. You don’t have to see something with your own eyes to know He’s true. This is biblical faith, the evidence makes logical sense that He is there. I wasn’t there when Lincoln was shot but I believe it happened. I don’t have video evidence of Napoleon’s exploits, but I have no reason to doubt them. The historical evidence just rings true in the heart.

If He is, then is some respects He has to be different than us. And if He is different, then the mysterious gap can only be bridged by faith. Faith is the medium for sight and certainty. We step, He affirms. We don’t need to see God in a test tube or microscope to know He’s real. And we don’t have to wait until science verifies God, for in that case we won’t get any credit for it. He loves faith. He loves for us to believe before He is fully manifested. These are the ones He can trust with the riches of His inheritance. They will be accredited to them as righteousness. Jesus shrewdly pointed out that some hearts are so hardened and wicked that they won’t believe even with an actual resurrection before their eyes. He said, “if they don’t believe Moses and the Prophets”, then they won’t believe even if someone rises from the dead.”

Who was Royce Gracie? How would he fare? The world would soon learn as this David “tapped out” all kinds of Goliaths over the next three years with his sinewy style of fighting. Today mixed martial arts is the fastest growing sport worldwide. “Tap out” is a term of surrender where a fighter slaps the mat several times in submission and defeat to his opponent. The term is seen on T-shirts and bumper stickers across the nation, sported often by those who don’t have a clue about martial arts but want to get a little power.

Nobody can be a Royce Gracie in everything. We all have to tap out and submit to something. We have to stop at lights, let in people in traffic (often unwillingly), get in line at the grocery store. Our rebellious nature is constantly abraded by authority and order somewhere, and though painful, the humility is good for us. The questions are, “are you tapping out to God, are you doing it willingly, or are you rebellious to Him”? Scripture says that “every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord”. Submitting to Christ is inevitable and eventual for everybody. The issue is when will you tap out to God? If you do it in this life, you will get credit for it and it’s “accounted to you as righteousness”. If you wait until after you die, you will tap out grudgingly, with gnashing of teeth in eternal defiance and misery.

All rage, bitterness, and rebellion is sourced in resisting the realities declared into existence by the mouth of God, the Word of God. The Old Testament phrase, “thus declared the Lord” or “the mouth of the Lord has spoken it” is so powerful that whatever is in the context is declared into existence and is as good as done. Isaiah says, for example, in verse 20 of chapter 1, “‘… if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.’ Truly, the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Consider it done. There is no way around it or prevent it from happening. The overture from Handel’s Messiah ”The Glory of the Lord” beautifully captures the emphasis of God’s judgment in the chorus ”and the mouth of the Lord has spoken it”.

No matter how humble he packages Himself, by definition God’s holy nature is abrasive to human depravity. Our sin nature is aberrant, twisted, marred and bent towards empty darkness. Even naturalism and scientific materialism may not lead to a submission to God necessarily. Nature is not supreme and living by what comes natural doesn’t equate to life in Christ. Human nature has to be confronted with a Holy God. We have to cross the tracks as an act of the will and tap out to God. It’s not an outward thing. It’s a heart thing. It’s not just ritual or behavior modification, it’s a complete exchange of the affections of the soul. Some of the most benevolent people in the world on a horizontal level can give to charity, be diplomatic in social graces, and still shake an inward fist at God all the way to the grave.

Self righteousness is the religion of pagan man. One doesn’t have to be religious to be self righteous. Prison is full of self righteous people, holding to their sinful attempts to take matters into their own hands all the way to the electric chair. The ability to submit would have changed their destinies. Even Royce Gracie eventually submitted to someone greater. In 2006, he tried a comeback and in a sad affair got tapped out easily by UFC legend Matt Hughes.  The self righteous, whether religious or not, simply prefer themselves as their own sacrifice to atone for the guilt of sin. And sometimes it’s a bloody affair.

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who killed 168 people in 1995, refused to tap out and admit his sinful way of resolving a personal problem. In fact, he insisted that on his grave be inscribed a few lines from a poem by 19^thcentury humanist William Earnest Henley called “Invictus.” Here’s what came natural to McVeigh and reflects our times:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

As no man is self existent, I don’t think McVeigh is the master of his own fate. And no man chooses the consequences for sin either. Defiance gets exactly what it wants: hell. The problem is hell is worse than bargained for. To this day McVeigh may be cursing, weeping, and gnashing his teeth at his tortured existence. But he’s also forcefully submitting. For the dead, their state is final. For the living, there is still a chance and a choice to avoid that end.

Unfortunately difficult circumstances will not cause some people to tap out their sin nature to the King. They will never fall to their knees and rethink their premise for life, but desire to continue in what is natural. Chaos seems to strengthen their self righteousness, preferring disintegration darkness all the way into hell.

Nature is not supreme, especially the sin nature. Don’t let it reign or it will deceive you. The sin nature always gets it backwards, it resists what is right and submits to what is wrong. Though painful on the ego, to admit failure and tap out to God is the least humiliating entity to submit to. He attends to the terms of our surrender in the most respectful of ways where other masters wouldn’t. Won’t you humbly accept the righteousness of Christ on your behalf and tap out daily to the Creator? It’s the only way to be protected from judgment and abide the day of His coming.

In my travels in a small town recently, these were the three choices I was presented with that morning. I was looking for a place to run and right next to a doughnut shop was an abandoned high school with a dirt track around an old football field with rusted goal posts. Perfect I thought. The discipline I exuded in bypassing the doughnut shop and choosing to run was unusual that day.

As I was trying to figure out how to get past the locked gate and cyclone fence I saw a gate that was opened, bidding for my attention. It was a gate to a cemetery. The choice was a strange one. The gate that was opened represented death and depression. The gate that was closed seemed to represent life and health, and that’s where I wanted to go. Desensitized to spiritual realities as of late, I felt a tug in my heart to go in the cemetery, look around and risk my agenda being amended by God for a ’healthier’ choice. I hadn’t been to a cemetery in years, and my mind flashed back to my college days when my fraternity brother and I would walk a nearby cemetery and read the grave stones. It was a sublime experience and surprisingly interesting.

Psychologists say the last place a healthy person can imagine himself is six feet under the ground. Death is such an anomaly to human beings, the most complicated and valued physical entity on earth. Even the most treasured of things, million dollar paintings, large estates, expensive artifacts, are nothing without a human being to enjoy them. Yet when the spirit leaves, what’s left of the body is placed in the ground to deteriorate and become part of the dirt. Forgotten, lifeless, worthless. So we avoid cemeteries. We pretend we don’t see them when we drive by them. They momentarily ruin what is otherwise a busy and productive day. We shake off the impulse of horror that comes over us which is the destiny of every man and women. Sometimes we allow our minds to wonder how we will handle our deaths when the moment comes, or even if we’ll have time to handle it. But we quickly pick up the cell phone to see if someone has texted us, forget about it, and whisper to ourselves, “oh that’s somewhere long down the road.”

We avoid graveyards because the other side is so unknown. Bildad pointed out that death is the “king of terrors” (Job 18:14).  Hebrews reveals that Satan keeps people in bondage with the ”fear of death” all their lives (Hebrews 2:14-15). Yet death is the one area Christianity specializes in. This is because the Creator has the only code to solve this glitch. When Warren Buffet opens his mouth about finances, people listen. When Pete Sampras talks about tennis, players pay attention. And when you have a savior who has overcome death, his words tend to be authoritative. Scripture speaks with more sober authority about the topic of death; no other world religion even comes close. Ironically death is one of the greatest testimonies to the veracity of Christian truth, as Scripture gives the only adequate explanation as to the reality of death.

Psychologists have theorized that many pathologies and mental illnesses stem from the realities and fear of death. The fear of abandonment is ultimately a fear of death and a separation from life. Depression has many causes, but ultimately stems from reasoning about the futilities of a cursed world and existential despair, that life doesn’t contain the answers to it’s own meaning. The depressed aren’t weak; sometimes they’re too smart for this world. Suicide is said by some to be an attempt to escape the fear of death by leaning into it and getting it over with. Often suicide is the final end of a life of self indulgence, a disregard for the Christian truth of putting to death the flesh in a thousand other ways.

As I walked through that cemetery and read the grave markers, I wondered about who some of those people were. Many probably thought they were the cat’s meow in their day. Others may have lived with a sobriety about this life and lived for the next world. Certainly there were many who thought they would live to a ripe old age but death caught them by surprise as evidenced by the short dates.  I came to a couple of conclusions reflecting in that cemetery that day.

One is that the ground is level at the foot of the cross of Christ. What does that mean? No man’s sin is worse than another’s. The cross wipe’s out partialities and mentalities built up on pride and puts everyone on equal footing. It brings people back to who they are, where nobody is superior and everyone is lost, scared, vulnarable and weak. This is one reason the world opposes the cross so much, dismisses it, doesn’t desire to understand it. The cross disrupts systems and notions built up on human power, prestige, and pride. 

The other is that cemeteries are also level ground (even if the terrain is hilly). Nobody escapes death. Doesn’t matter if you were a millionaire or a martyr, a pro athlete or an artisan, a rock star or a recluse, if Christ doesn’t return first everybody buys the farm. And interestingly, you can be buried next to someone you might have looked down on in life or a family member you held a grudge with. Not only is this futile, but undealt with sin only serves to worsen the eternal state of the person after death.

                                        A Legacy Is Not A Mausoleum

Pride is cut off at the knees in the cemetery. Big grave stones, markers or tombs do nothing for the deceased. In fact, a fancy memorial may be just one last attempt to squeeze the last drops of pride from a life of self importance. It seems some big memorials are more for the lusts of the living than for the memory of the dead. And the fanciest mausoleum I saw that day was beginning to deteriorate just like all the others. To be sure, there is a place for busts, bronzes and sculptures to memorialize great lives of self sacrifice and trigger conversation and memories of valor and inspiration. But the heritage of the godly is spiritual and best passed along in the heart. Christ had no grave marker. Legacies are left in hearts, not in holes in the ground. As the Apostle Paul clarified for the Corinthian church, “You are …written in our hearts, known and read by all men…not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts” (II Corinthians 3:2,3).

Though one step removed from the shock value of a cemetery, reading obituaries can give also insight as to what people lived for. Here is a typical obituary of a Florida retiree written by a family member who may have hoped any of these strivings would leave some residual eternal significance: “Richard F., 73, died Oct. 20, 2001, at his residence. He was born March 30, 1928, in Evanston Ill. He was involved in insurance sales for many years before he retired. He served on the Venice City Council. He was a member of Moose Lodge, Friendly Sons and Daughters and was president of Waterford and Capri Isles Homeowners Association. Survivors include…” Who was Richard really? Did anybody really know him? What are the real sentiments in the hearts of his children and grandchildren about Richard? These answers are known only to God and his family. Richard may have served with honor in these accomplishments but if his intention was to serve self and not Christ, his life was a waste.

It’s not just doing things right. It’s doing the right thing. Obituaries of human accomplishment are so common because so many live for just this world. A wordly obituary that reads like a resume doesn’t necessarily get a job serving the King throughout eternity. In the words of an old poem, “this life will soon be passed. Only what’s done for Christ will last.”

                                 Believer’s Should Be Experts in Death

The fear of death should be minimal for a Christian. Why? Because the New Testament says we already died. There’s one death experience we’ve gone through right there when we came to Christ. We died to the world’s value systems. But death doesn’t stop there. As horrifying as death is, Paul says we die many times to match our experiences with our eternal position. It doesn’t mean we commit suicide, but we die to our fleshly lusts. In other words, believers should be experts in death as a lifestyle. We have mini death experiences, many purging from worldly desires so that when the big one comes we’re ready for it. We’ve been trained by death because we’re suspicious about the deceptions of our flesh. If we’re in the habit of putting to death the ego, lusts and self exaltation, we’re none the less for it. All of this can happen from the perspective of the cemetery. But remember, this is not the message from a world that has lost its way. Temptations are strong to go the way of the world that constantly promotes the resurrection of the self. The world is lost and always deceives its own.

Francis Schaeffer wrote, “We are surrounded by a world that says no to nothing…then suddenly [we're] told that in the Christian life there is to be this strong negative aspect of saying no to things and no to self, must seem hard. And if it doesn not seem hard to us, we are not really letting it speak to us…So I must ask very gently: How much thought does the necessity of death by choice provoke, how much conversation”?

The perspective of the cemetery should provoke a lot of conversation, if not with others then at least in our own minds. It is a “fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living Lord” writes the author of Hebrews and only trusters in Christ can truly face death correctly. Much of the fear of death is not just the process of letting go the spirit, but what comes after. It is facing the God of judgment. “For we must all appear for the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds done in the body…either good or bad” (II Cor. 5:10). Behind the fear of death is the account we will have to give for the life he gave us and why so many of the worlds values and goods were woven so tightly around our hearts. Don’t rationalize away this whole paradigm of sin, death, and judgment as a product of some man made religion. Sin, death and judgment are seen in all aspects of nature and those spiritual laws of reality are true.

The Christian life is one of purging, moderation and delay of gratification. It’s primarily boot camp with the awards ceremony later, not the other way around. So many mental illnesses would be cleared up if we could just shift our thinking about this purpose of life. Since we can’t save our lives anyway and stop the deterioration, life is best meant to be one of service, giving, sacrifice, and suffering for Christ. Life is not meant to be consumed on oneself, demanding our rights, being a narcissist, and accumulating acclaim as a glorified pack-rat. We’re much more durable and enduring than we think and life is not about who gets the most toys at the end wins. We’ll never cease to exist no matter how difficult things get so we might as well suffer a little now.

“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down but not destroyed” (II Corinthians 4: 8-9). To say this is our “best life now” as one T.V. preacher puts it could imply we’re sending on nothing up ahead. Suffering is inevitable- one can either suffer the purging fire now or later. Those whose philosophy it is to indulge the senses with pleasure, avoid pain, and promote self will pay later. Those who trust Christ and in some way are honestly dealing with issues that come between themselves and their Creator, are producing “an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (II Corinthians 4:17).

An occasional gander into a graveyard can shift our perspective about the brevity of life. Then we can agree with Moses who prayed to the Lord, “teach me to number my days so that I may have a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). Let’s not wait until our own deaths before we finally understand the eternal realities that Scripture talked about all along. We can learn from others by going to a cemetery, reading the inscriptions and reflecting on what they lived for. We can’t avoid death so let’s not pretend cemeteries don’t exist. They’re not as macabre as we think. And they may just shock us out of a life of futility and selfish living. The sooner we face the prospects of our own mortality and live with the right foundation, the less we’ll fear our own death and the more confidence we’ll have in our eternal stature with Christ. Die to your self now, with all of it’s logical fears, self interests, and deep indulgences, and trust the One who overcame death so that you can too.

“The liberal view that war is unnecessary is fantasaical. It is based on the faulty assumption from evolution that discounts the depth of evil that resides in the heart of man. The Christian explanation of a curse placed on the earth and the depravity of man better fits reality as to why we have problems.”

“The political equivalent of naturalism and evolution is ‘progressive’ which believes that everything is getting better and if it feels good do it.”

“If we’re just overgrown blobs of biology from an ancient cosmic accident in some prebiotic soup, then there is no soul, no spirit, no immaterial side of man, no moral law, no code of ethics, no trust, no integrity. Life is a hopeless free for all leading men to take their own revenge, despots to rule for their lusts, murder, divorce, and immorality to reign without consequence.  Nazi Germany tried this at it failed based on the tenet’s of evolution. The resulting consequences and chaos testify that moral law does exist despite our attempts to redefine it. For these reasons, naturalism and evolution leading to sensuality go against the purpose of civil law and the order of government.”

                                 Christianity and Progress

It was Christianity, which western culture is assaulting, that launched the age of science. The brilliance of St. Thomas Aquinas brought out Scripture’s emphasis that matter is not evil and unleashed the floodgates of discovery from the Platonic dualism that dominated the middle ages. And the world has never been the same. The core of progress in the world today is western thought, and the core of western thought is Christianity. Only cultures shaped by the Judeo Christian value system lead to environments of freedom and possibility thinking.

For several centuries, science and theology were complimentary disciplines, discovery affirming the mysteries of a Creator, not competing with it. They were just two different ways in trying to understand truth, one through revelation and the other through empiricism. Somewhere in that process, modern man became arrogant with what little knowledge he has and relied on himself more than God. Today scientists are almost contradictions in terms, because when discovery leads to absolute truths and not endless relativism, they deny the absolutes. For example, Sir Karl Popper wrote that “in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.” That’s because you’re looking for truth in one dimension. Even atheist Bertrand Russell talked about the unreliability of modern empiricism: “science is always tentative…and its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a legitimate and final demonstration.” With such a tenuous foundation in modern science, we will see how lives, politics, and cultures built upon evolution are unstable.

In spite of himself, Russell is right. Ultimate truth is anterior to man, contrary to the liberal philosophy that perception is reality or that reality is only a product of the mind. The purely scientific approach to truth is too narrow a quest for understanding that forfeits the logic of other disciplines, including theology. Physical and technical explanations are only one way of describing a phenomenon, and often an incomplete way. Science may be able to answer “how”, but it doesn’t answer “why.” Theology and logic are not incompatible. God is very logical, revelation another way of knowing something that is ahead of science. If God does exist, we are incapable of accurately studying Him apart from Him revealing Himself to us. There are assumptions in science, such as evolution, that will be disproven in the following decades and vindicating what Scripture has been saying. Revelation is not at odds with science, just ahead of it, as has been proven many times in history. The average scientist might be wise to explore other ways of knowing things such as revelation before it’s too late for his own existence. Christianity is the most pragmatic of the world’s religions, the most logical and the most historical. Christ is where history and theology intersect.

Man may know more than he has in the history of the world, but he knows just a fraction of all there is to know. To rely only on that small body of knowledge is unwise. Physicist Stephen Hawking made a startling statement that reflects the arrogance and ignorance of the modern era: “the scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.” Ghost hunting programs and UFO documentaries testify to other dimensions of time and space we know little about and beg for an accounting from the modern logician. If would be interesting to place an atheist like Richard Dawkins in a haunted insane asylum for a night to see a brick hurled through the air, hear creepy voices, be pushed or slapped, view a full bodied apparition, catch a glimpse of a dark shadow as has been documented in these programs, and see his reaction. The spiritual realm is of such a fine grade and high frequency that it is scarcely detectable with human apparatus. If the spiritual realm exists, the question is where is found the most accurate and concentrated assessment of that realm? Nothing is these ghost hunting programs contradicts what Scripture says about the presence of evil or the nature of demons. (And by the way, these “ghost” encounters are never positive experiences).

After the industrial revolution, technology produced a prosperity and an arrogance to spiritual things, even questioning God’s existence, fueled by the liberal philosophers of Germany in the 19th and 20 centuries. These liberal thinkers made humanism and naturalism supreme. There was no need for God or moral law because nature encompass all of reality. Naturalism in science bled over into a deadly materialism in all aspects of culture, from narcissism and consumerism to poor public policy based on an atheistic view of the world. A culture that believes life is only here and has no transcendent meaning will eventually implode and consume itself, consumerism gone to seed.

What have humanism and naturalism really done for us? Economic, political, marital, financial problems are rife today. Man still hasn’t solved the basic problem of his mortality. Life is still a blip on the screen of eternity. Even if life was somehow lengthened indefinitely, who would want to live in an evil world forever where depravity is so prevalent?

The natural world is fascinating, worthy of study, and holding answers to many mysteries. But nature is not king, not holding the answers to it’s own meaning. Nature doesn’ have the capacity to correctly interpret it’s existence. And since when does an athiest scientist have a corner on research integrity? In fact, without a moral code, he may be likely to skew or misinterpret the data. If an evolutionist doesn’t believe in the immaterial side of man, why have integrity? If reality is only in the mind as Kant said, how can we trust our observations or any thought for that matter? Modern scientific theory is a contradiction. As Feynmann said, “science is uncertain.” They believe their own thoughts but don’t believe them!

God fearing men have been at the forefront of discovery precisely because of intellectual integrity, whether technological, political, military, literary, philosophical, social, or civil. As no man is self existent or self determining, a scientist is only as good as what he ascends to. Data, though appearing purely objective, are still subject to interpretation. There is no such thing is a purely pragmatic unbiased researcher. One either has a heart for truth or not, and data can be skewed in interpretative language to fit the researcher’s bias. Evolutionary explanations in all kinds of discoveries are riddled with this slant.

Evolutionary scientists are quick to emphasize that the Bible is a myth in spite of the fact that the resurrection of Christ is one the most relaible facts of history or that Scripture enjoys more attestation than any other ancient writings. Since when was faith and science at odds? All great discoveries began with a belief and a vision that something could be possible before it was a reality. Going to the moon began with a belief that it could be possible. The cure for polio began with a vision. God is the ultimate visionary as all belief is sourced in Him. Faith is not at odds with science, it’s just ahead of it. It is very feasible to have certainty based on subtlety. Possibility thinking always spurs innovation into areas where skeptics said it couldn’t be done. There are many discoveries have vindicated what Scripture has said all along.

People say “God is too simple of an explanation, a crutch for those who don’t want to think.” But science is simple. The most complicated theories have basic assumptions at their cores. And when scrutinized, issues of integrity have been raised in interpretation methods. Anybody can complicate something. There is no genius in that. Anybody can appear intellectual by hiding behind technical jargon. An example of this are recent protein samples taken from dinosaur bones that are said to have correlations to chicken proteins, thus the dinosaur -bird link. A closer look at the gathering methods revealed the unethical practice of using only those mass samples of protein that appeared similar to the chickens, ignoring the majority that weren’t, and skewing the interpretation.

                                      The Fallacies of Evolution

The basic tenets of evolution were developed over 100 years ago, largely a result of the moral confusion set about by the liberal philosophers of Germany. Yet an enormous amount of discovery since then has contradicted these tenets making macro-evolution a philosophical impossibility. Though absolutes aren’t part of the evolutionist’s nomenclature, against common sense they hold absolutely to its basic foundations. Why haven’t the basic tenet’s of evolution been rescinded? For example, evolutionary biology has an incestuous relationship with geology as the geologic time table and is based on evolution. One of the laws of geology is “the present is the key to the past” meaning the slow processes we see happening today also happened over millions of years. Change is slow and life is an endless squirrel cage that just keeps going around and around. 

The problem is that this law of uniformitarianism was formulated over 150 years ago and the discipline of geology is roughly 200 years old, hardly enough time to observe mass changes and catastrophic events. Furthermore the fossil record is loaded with catastrophic events that contradict uniformtarianism. The assumption behind the staggering ages in the geologic time table is that given enough time there will be change. That’s the only way evolution has a chance- just give species inordinate amounts for time for change and pushing the clock back. We’re told we don’t see macro-evolution today simply because we “haven’t given it enough time.” But what an untenable and unprovable premise. That is the verification of science? Psychologists say that time in itself doesn’t guarantee change even with people who have the conscious capacity for it, to say nothing about simpler life forms of amoebas, paramecium, amphibians, reptiles etc.

There are other reasons evolution is a poor theory.

1.) The condition of man. Evolution highlights man as the epitome of evolvement, which fuels humanism that man is the standard by which all things are measured. Yet Scripture says every human being is painfully depraved, even those who have had the healthiest of childhoods. There is something in the heart of man that loves darkness, creates confusion, and craves evil. The biblical assessment better fits reality as to why we have problems in the world today. Essentially, all problems in the world today whether economic, political, financial, relational, occupational are spiritual in nature. Man has a natural bent towards evil. This flies in the face of modern psychology’s “goodness of man” theory that doesn’t deal with sin.

2.) If things are evolving into better and higher life forms, and things are getting better and better, then why death? Why even have the concept? Where does it come from? Again the biblical explanation that creation was originally good but has been twisted with a curse better fits the reality as to why we have problems.

3.) What is the dynamic in evolution that is continually able to over come the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that things left to their own devices go from a state of order to disorder. A bicycle left in the rain will rust. What is the power in evolutionary chance that is able to over come that and create established templates in highly sophisticated organisms? Equal organisms cannot beget greater beings. Primitive doesn’t have the ability to randomly unfold the sophisticated. Where’s the vision, the template ahead of time?

4.) Evolution cannot adequately explain the miracle of conception, of eggs and sperm, comprised of proteins and cells, that come together as something microscopic to grow into sophisticated creatures. As one philosopher rightly observed, “male and female, their inclination to each other and the use of their several organs-do not these things prove an artificer? …If not, let them explain to us what the power is that brings about each of these things, and how it is possible that chance should produce things so wonderful and so skillfully designed.”

5.) Archaeologists around the world are in agreement that about 5,000 years ago there exploded around the world very sophisticated and advanced civilizations. There are no traces of development, no transitions into higher life forms, no experimental tools, just boom there they are with instant intelligence. Kind of like the anthropologists version of the Cambrian explosion of the fossil record. No missing links or transitional life forms.

                                Arrogance of the Contemporary

There is an arrogance of contemporariness today that says the latest generation must be the best and most advanced. It’s an arrogant by product of evolution and liberal disrespect for anything old- whether with the elderly and euthanasia, or in books and ancient writings. But in spite of this, there is a trend to formalism, sentimentalism and a reclaiming of the wisdom of the ages. There is a sweeping interest in the lifestyles of ancient and foreign cultures on the Discovery channel, History channel, and the Travel channel, primarily because the deterioration of family values in the western world. As the emphasis on materialism generates more technology and prosperity, it is leaving isolation and independence in its wake, creating a vacuum of fascination for people in simpler times. For example, the stone age was a time when the tasks were simple and clear cut, where men had to be men and used all of their physical and mental prowess for the hunt to supply food for the family. There was no gender blending between the sexes, the people were resourceful to survive and the harsh elements forced a unity and security with others. As achievement only has meaning in the context of relationship, the clan gave identity to accomplishment. Whether it was sharing in the exploits of the hunt or war, the clan is an idea that is lost by a technologically advanced world.

In the wake of empitness created by atheistic evolution, there is a trend toward uncovering the wisdom of the ages in old writings, especially the Scriptures. In studying ancient writings or even those of several hundred years ago, there is evidence that the average of mind of today is weaker than that of yesteryear, due primarily to the quality of things being read. People may say they read all the time. But books don’t guarantee mind renewal because not all books are created equal. Mysteries and romance novels are not real reading. They’re written within the narrow paradigm of modern times. C.S. Lewis advocated reading an old book for every new one, because old books tend to correct the errors of the modern era.

Technology in itself doesn’t necessarily expand thought and may actually weaken the mind, contributing to the arrogance of contemporariness. There have been no great advances in philosophy in the last 100 years and pragmatism may be the only philosophy that America has expounded to the world. Yet with the moral bankruptcy taking place, the breakup of the home and family, this is a philosophy of life that isn’t working. Pragmatism without the checks of values and ethics is destructive. A reading program beginning with Scripture expands the mind into other dimensions. Where truth is not taught, there is no real thought. And truth eventually works.

6.) Evolution doesn’t explain the presence of moral law, which like physical law, has consequences when broken. Just because moral law is unseen doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This is where material evolutionists get hung up, the spiritual/physical interface. As when one breaks the law of gravity and falls hard to the earth, when moral laws are broken people hit hard. I’ve never seen a clump of gravity in a test tube but I ‘ve seen it’s effects. Likewise, a moral, though unseen is not some stodgy, religious, Victorian era concept we have to redefine or rethink as liberals believe. A moral is simply a law of reality that facilitates smooth relationships in a society that has guided the human tradition. It’s common sense and the solutions are obvious. People do well when they stay within certain boundaries, but suffer when they don’t. There is no need to creatively ride the line, look for loopholes and see what we can get away with in terms of liberal social experiments. Families are disrupted when immorality or infidelity occurs. The guilt is not easily shaken for woman who get an abortions. Children suffer when gay marriage is made the norm. People get fired when they steal from an employer. We proceed in a confused manner by believing the cultural lies about evolution and the non-existence of moral law, yet get stung when the consequences prove to be real. 

                                          Evolution and Social Chaos

It’s this sixth reason that evolution is so deadly in a culture. Evolutionary thought that dominates a nation produces a chronic, low grade dysthymia and hopelessness that life has any meaning beyond this cursed world. If we’re just overgrown blobs of biology from a cosmic accident that took place in some prebiotic soup, then man has no immaterial side, no spirit, no soul, is not transcendent. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then life is meaningless, we don’t matter really. (Even though secular psychologists tell us man is built for transcendence and significance- how’s that for a contradiction? The term “psychology” comes from the Greek word meaning the “study of the soul”).

If there is only material existence, then life is about being a narcissist and getting all the pleasure possible without regard for honor, respect, decency, morals, integrity, and trust which give meaning to relationships. If life is only here and now, then people believe that there is no such thing as a moral, and will steal, kill, or take revenge at their own impulse. Evolution is a contradiction to civil law and the order of government.Mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer gave a compelling interview in prison and was asked why he killed all those boys. He took a moment to think and his answer points to the system wide prevalence of evolution: “I reasoned that if evolution is true and there is no God to be accountable to, what’s the point in modifying my behavior?” He wasn’t stupid, he just believed what pervaded the culture. Good law breeds healthy culture, poor policy destroys. Evolution as the only theory taught in schools breeds hopelessness and violence in a society and may be contributing to the rash of school violence among young people. If we insist on taking prayer out of schools, God off of coins, and the 10 Commandments out of public places, then what else should we expect?

It’s this sixth fatal flaw that bleeds over into politics and corrupts a society with poor public policy. In many respects, evolution caused World War II and caused the death of millions of people. Adolph Hitler took one of the tenets of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and applied them to people. He reasoned that if the animals that remain are the superior ones who killed competitors, then maybe there is a master race of people also. He somehow he rationalize it must be the Caucasian, Aryan race that was strongest and any other was inferior and should be killed. There is even propaganda footage of Nazi scientists taking measurements of cranial features of young people who might be fit for the army. Hitler may not have believed evolution deep down but since it was cultural, he used it to advance his political agenda and lust for power. All it did was lead to disaster for himself and millions of others. Evolution perpetuates the lie of racism and partiality.

In fact, WWII created a vacuum for another type of atheistic materialism to advance called Communism. Russia took over many eastern European countries that kept millions of people locked into a hopeless lifestyle for five more decades. In many respects, evolution creates a culture of death. With Communism and Nazi Germany, the 20th century can be characterized as the tragic by-product of evolutionary thought in politics. Germany is an irony because it was the seat of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century! But Satan has his counterfeits and inspired the liberal philosophers who created doubts as to the veracity of Scripture, theology, and moral law. The people believed them at great cost. If atheists claim there are dangers of the alignment of church and state, the dangers are greater with atheism and state.

                                Progressive: The Political Equivalent of Evolution

The political equivalent of evolution is the term “progressive” where liberals think life is constantly improving, getting better and if it feels good it must be right. It’s closely related to the arrogance of contemporariness that says we’re the best generation that ever lived and we must be doing something right, so lets keep going forward, whatever forward means. Progressive, liberal, evolutionist, free thinker, and naturalist are closely related terms that discount the importance of the spiritual realm, ethics, morals, right and wrong. Even Emerson, who was considered something of a liberal in the 1800′s, believed in the spiritual realm and wrote, “law is the last issue of spirit.”

Evolutionary thought permeates political philosophy. A liberal tactic is to front load the charge of being unintellectual onto one who doesn’t believe in evolution. In politics those who believe in absolutes are usually conservatives, whose philosophy of government is anchored in the wisdom of the ages. Actor Matt Damon tried this on Sarah Palin in 2008: “There’s a good chance that if McCain gets elected, he may not survive his 1st term, which means Sarah Palin could be president. A self proclaimed hockey mom for president? I really need to know if she thinks the dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I really do if she’s going to have the nuclear codes.” A pretty slick charge tying creationism with committing intellectual suicide, and evolution being the real “science.” With the fallacies of evolution, who is committing intellectual suicide? If natural man is in spiritual rebellion to the ways of God, how can the intellect be unaffected? (See other post refuting the charge of Christians committing intellectual suicide).

Jane Goodall, celebrated primatologist who studied chimpanzees in Africa, took a stab at explaining our world through her study of chimps. She said her research “taught me that our aggressive tendencies have probably been inherited from an ancient primate some six million years ago.” Let me comment first that people call this science. This is one of the most unverifiable statements I have ever heard. “Probably inherited from an ancient primate some six millionyears ago”? With imprecise language such as “probably” and a random figure of “six million years ago”, Goodall is more speculative than accurate. Yet it’s the precision argument that compels people to reject Creationism, the contradiction best highlighted in President Obama’s statement: “I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.” Where is the ‘experimental scrutiny’ in Goodall’s conclusion that is often found in evolutionary theory? Scientists may be good at gathering data, but other disciplines are often better at interpreting it.

Goodall continues, “But we’ve also inherited love, compassion, and altruism- and we find these qualities in chimpanzees as well. So if we believe in a common ancestor, both of these types of these characteristics- the dark side of our nature and the noble side- we’ve probably brought them with us throughout our long evolutionary history.” “We’ve probably brought them with us throughout our long evolutionary history”? Again that is science? If a theory has to agree fully with the experiment as true scientists say, then how is this statement verifiable? I thought scientists won’t believe anything until it’s an established fact?

And look at the assumption- “if we believe in a common ancestor.” Why is this idea of ‘common descent’ hijacked by evolutionists? Why can’t these traits be instilled from a common Creator? The similar building blocks we see in different species, whether material in terms of proteins or immaterial like compassion, more easily point to a common Creator. And the dark traits in human nature are better explained by sin and evil. Evolutionists object that “this is unverifiable as well. You can’t study God in a test tube.” God may not be more verifiable in terms of a test tube, but he is more verifiable in terms of logic, which is a valid discipline. Circumstantial evidence for God, which is all around us in the irreducible complexity of creation, is often enough to settle cases in criminal law. If God is on the docket, His case should be a slam dunk.

Ms. Goodall then deduces her worldview of war and international politics from an evolutionary interpretations of chimps by saying: “Some people say, therefore, that violence and war are inevitable. I say rubbish.” (Reader’s Digest, September 2010, p 128-135). God Bless Ms. Goodall for her lifelong interest in chimps. But the liberal view that war is fantasy and based on a wrong assumption from evolution. “One human family” as the bumper sticker goes. A utopia in a soft peace loving world is unrealistic because it sidesteps the concept of evil and the sin nature that resides deep in the heart of man. Nobody likes war. But those with a Judeo-Christian worldview understand that evil waged in the cosmic realm by Satan, will occasionally be manifested in physical war on earth and people are caught in the crossfire (see post Satan: The Apex Predator on Earth). Even atheistic evolutionists have to admit evil exists. And if evil exists, so does good. Good is only captured in God. There is no such thing as a static moral nothingness.

Eternal diligence is price for freedom, and it’s peace through strength. Ironically, it was this soft, unrealistic view of the world that felled the Roman empire. With what Rome had going for it, it could have gone for another thousand years. But moral indulgence caused complacency.The complacency lead to social chaos. Not believing in the laws of the soul, the culture became rife with immorality and it crept into the military. The army for centuries was the pride of the empire. Nobody could touch it and was greatly feared. But increasingly, it was set on a shelf, left to glory in past battles won, and they didn’t believe in political evil anymore. And in the 4th century, the unthinkable happened- the barbarians, the Scythians to the north from Britain, a people they could routinely defeat, ran right through the capital and sacked Rome. This is similar to what is happening today. Dove based liberal organizations, though well intentioned, are naive as to how layered and deep evil is in human nature and that peace is only maintained through the constant preparation for war. The first signs of the barbaric lusting conquering the sophisticated occured on 9/11. This worldview from history is what organizations like Code Pink don’t understand.

                                         Evolution Contradicts Moral Law

See the connection between atheism, the lack of belief in moral law and chaos? A military is always sensitive to changes in the culture. In Rome homosexuality flourished, eventually weakening the empire. As one famous author observed, Rome didn’t fall from without, but from within. The barbaric assault without may have been the final straw on the camel’s back, but they sabotaged themselves with crippling immorality. Need a hard copy example? When Marcus Aurelius died, he regrettably left the throne to his son Commodus, whose exhibited signs of megalomania and neurological problems because of his sexual depravity. Commodus brought with him to the throne a seraglio of 300 boys in a continual cycle of moral degeneracy. His softness of mind never understood the need for war and he abandoned the military campaign with the barbarians to the north, a primitive people who eventually sacked the capital. His despair surfaced in spasmodic expressions of intimidation and violence on his own people and he left the empire in shambles. His shortsightedness is considered a major step downward in Rome’s collapse.

Liberal licentiousness started during the time of the Vietnam War. Until then, the U.S. military was looked upon with pristine respect. But the sexual revolution of the 1960′s was a time of confusion, a war being created in the hearts of young people from violating moral law. As guilt seeks release and expression because of the war of soul, the Vietnam War was a scapegoat that symbolized the inner war. Needing a peaceful environment to recover, for young people Vietnam represented more turbulence. The military was blamed and our servicemen who should have been heroes were despised! There may have been poor policy choices in administering the war, but the problem really wasn’t Vietnam. Just like in Rome, Vietnam was the first birth-pang of those involved in moral decadence turning on themselves and sabotaging their own, little understanding the connection between the spiritual and physical realms. Naturalists don’t think deeply enough into other disciplines to understand this. If we can rationalize there is no such thing as moral law from a position of evolution, we think we can live by any impulse without consequence.

The law in this case is found in I Peter chapter 1: “abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.” According to this, immorality causes a war in the soul. A dark, lonely and profound emptiness occurs in a soul that commits immorality. Guilt can be rationalized away but the effects will be felt on some level- irritability, depression, anger, anxiety, passive aggressive tendencies and a variety of other pathologies. The chaos happens in hearts, a happens in homes. And what happens in enough homes, happens in nations.

The consequences of guilt and regret in violating moral law that began in the 1960′s are cause and effect. The disintegration of the family, the rise in feminism, commitment phobia and the increase of singleness, confusion and gender blending, divorce, legalization of abortion, the rise in mental illness, and increased isolation. All of these are rooted in this time period and are weakening this nation. How can one be a free thinker and fail to see this connection? Essentially all of our problems are spiritual in nature, and no Presidential administration can deal effectively with the economy or international tensions without a worldview that links the moral and physical realms. One man said, “integrity doesn’t make a leader but leadership is indispensable without it.”

If Hollywood prevails in it’s view of morality and family values in terms of public policy, this country is in trouble. Today our Roman army equivalent is ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. If this policy is repealed it will have devastating effects on the military in terms of morale. There’s that immaterial term again, closely related to moral, which a materialistic, evolutionist doesn’t believe in. But morale is crucial for a healthy military as any common sense officer will tell you. The military is not for fraternizing and if homosexual behavior increases, one of the first effects will be that the armed forces won’t attract our best men.

Chuck Colson has called gay marriage the “Armageddon in the culture war.” Progressives believe one can redefine and tweak moral law that has governed the human tradition without consequence, just as we push the boundaries of technology for example. The liberal mind, fortified by evolution, don’t believe in boundaries which have been known to be healthy. If we’re just overgrown blobs of biology withno souls that are affected deeply by immorality, then why not gay marriage? Gay marriage is another liberal notion stemming from unbelief in the spiritual side of man. Progressives along with”free thinkers” say these are social experiments that need to be tried. I think I get the “free” part, but I’m not sure of the “thinking” part. These social experiments have been done before with less than stellar results. We’ve already highlighted Rome. But Dutch and Scandinavian countries have already legalized gay marriage and some studies are showing that the children of these families are prone to depression, show a hopelessness in relationship, aren’t procreating and aren’t innovative in the workplace. One cannot violate moral law without consequence.

The theory of evolution and progressivism carries over into the legal realm and interprets the Constitution as an “evolving” document. This novel idea is an assault on the absolutes derived from the timeless truths of Scripture and they believe the document needs to be changed to reflect the times, not anchor the times. It conforms to us, we don’t conform to it. Man is the paragon of life, there is nothing bigger we subordinate to. So we change the code to fit us, because in America if it’s in the majority it must be right! If liberal assaults can be codified into law, then guilt is assuaged that one is doing no wrong. This is the case of gay marriage in California where a cavalier judge, against the will of the people, has attempted to overturn Proposition 8.  Guided by the sensuality that characterizes our subculture, liberal activist judges are legislating from the bench, with no regard for the bedrock of truth in the Constitution, moral law, or accountability of the branches of government. This judicial tyranny characterized the fall many a civilization including ancient Israel.

We have demonstrated why evolution is so harmful personally, politically, socially, legally. It lends itself to a hopeless existentialism and despair that life has no real purpose, or origin, no destiny. Therefore, just live by what comes natural. Yet nature is not supreme. Where is the standard that judges nature? Nature doesn’t have the innate ability to interpret meaning or assign right and wrong. Suicidal thoughts may be natural for some, but that never prospered anyone, especially for those who believe life is only here and now. Cancer is natural, but nobody wants that for a lifestyle. Feces are natural yet we don’t eat these as a staple diet. We dont’ indulge in the arsenic in apple seeds even though these are natural. Mold is natural but is not good to breathe. No nature is not supreme. It is good, but skewed. Something anterior to nature created and superintends it.

Contrary to the endless cycles of life in evolution and it’s corollary in progressivism, the Scriptural worldview is different. The Bible says things are not progressing despite the illusion of progress. Though he has lengthened life a little bit, man hasn’t solved the basic problems of sin, death, mortality. The ancient Greeks had a word that the New Testament picks up on called “teleos”, which means things are progressing to a definitive end. We get the word “telescope” from it that zeroes in on something. Just as a man dies and his life comes to an end, so the world will as well. It’s the absolute of one point, the law of singularity. Man has been decreasing and deteriorating and will continue to do so until the Creator comes to cleanse the earth and install his reign of righteousness. Even the fossil record shows many catastrophic events such as a great flood that cleansed the earth in times past and contradicts squarely the law of uniformitarianism.

One man writes, “The dream of the optimist for a world becoming increasingly better scientifically, intellectually, morally, and religiously does not fit the pattern of God’s prophetic Word.” We may have even witnessed mini-judgments in the forms of disasters. We know God took homosexuality seriously because he destroyed two municipalities because of it (Sodom and Gomorrah). 

Progressive liberalism is not a new phenomenon. Civilizations have been battling liberal deviations for thousands of years. It happened in Rome, from which we model some forms of our government. The departure from the universal truths of the Greek philosophers because of liberal thinkers felled the Roman empire into moral indulgence and social chaos.Moral relativism always has at it’s core the rationalization of sexual sin. Immorality is the substitute, the idol, the alternative for real purpose in life. The weakness towards pleasure is a short term sedative to deaden the pain of empy lives, with complicated, intellectual, and scientific arguments as cover sheets.

Progressivism is a well intended human attempt at optimism to override the horrors deep inside all of us. But it’s a false optimism. Constitutions that are shaped by the Judeo Christian value system are the fairest the world has ever known. It creates the right balance of law in the essentials and freedom in the non essentials. Political leaders shaped by Scripture gain discernment and common sense in dealing with whatever cultural issues are pending for the day. Good values have to be fought for in schools, government, textbooks, universities, and law if America wants to continue to be the greatest bastion of freedom the world has ever known. Truth is not just for believers. By definition, godly men have to be in leadership for there to be success. Liberals may come down on the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. But it’s clear, there is no separation of Scripture and state. The greatness of this country is no accident. There is a clear cause and effect between our stature and the intentions of the founding fathers who put biblical truth into public policy. Unexamined randomness didn’t create this great nation, and misguided liberal experiments will not maintain it.

Essentially both worldviews of evolution or creation cannot be right. Each leads to a different destination. The 20th century has demonstrated the tragedies of evolutionary thought in politics. But evolution, with all of it’s inconsistencies, is not really about science at all. It’s a worldview of rebellion for those who don’t want God or his ways. Evolution contains pegs of though by which intelligensia can hide the true motives of the heart. It’s a cover sheet of scientific ramblings for those who want to maintain power and control in the system, to get paychecks and receive accolades on some new aspect to the theory. Yet intellectual integrity would seriously question the tenet’s of evolution. No matter the evidence one way or the other, belief in evolution or creation is really a heart issue not a science issue. The heart will gravitate to what it wants, whether good or evil. As Jesus said about some people with regard to evidence, “they won’t be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Copyright 2010 by Scott Chandler. All rights reserved.

Though God does not give a formula for success, David reveals his secret in fighting the battles of life in Psalm 27: 3,5: “Though war rise up against me…In the secret place of His tent He will hide me.”

In David’s time, ego, machismo and raw selfish ambition dominated the political landscape. And little has changed in our day against the backdrop of evil and great struggle. The Christian life is an advancing life into uncharted waters, if not against cultural assaults then certainly against the strongholds in our own minds. There is no middle ground; we’re either going forward or backward.

This sounds good, God as the secret place. But how do the dynamics of the secret place work in real life? I used to think, with all the resources of Christ at my disposal, that I could just plow through any lair of wickedness and it would tap out. Just go in raw and exposed and fight any battle, anywhere. Ego preceded thought, hormones ahead of common sense. But a strange thing happened over and again. I would get defeated. I was the one tapping out. I was raw and undeveloped. My heart wasn’t strong enough and there were cracks in the armor of my mind. Evil was grittier than I anticipated with layers, strategies and defense mechanisms I knew little about. The curse is so complex that it affects the smallest of entities. Darkness seemed relentless and almost robotic, never letting up and motivated by revenge. Plowing right in without much understanding or time with the Lord was a prescription for getting shot out of the sky. There was nothing heroic about fighting with a blank heart or having zeal without knowledge.

Like David dismissing the conventional armor for his own preferred method of sling and stone, I didn’t fight well according to how the world does battle. Others were often too strong for me, naturally bigger, had more stature; I couldn’t penetrate the tough hide of bureaucracy, cliques, or red tape. I did everything the world said to do, read all the right books, networked with all the right people, wore the power tie, firm handshake and looked people right in the eye. But it never worked for me; I never got the job. Whether fighting for my sanity, using my spiritual gift in ministry, or doing battle on the ball court, I had to launch into life from the safe place of acceptance.

Over time I learned from David that one penetrates darkness from a position of the safe place. Not just fight from a reckless desire to conquer someone. David revealed in Psalm 16:11, “In Thy right hand there are pleasures forever more.” The secret place of fellowship with the Creator sounded too simple at first. I had a lot of weaknesses and had frequented places where I wasn’t esteemed; I never knew my heart was valuable or that I needed to protect it’s desires. But I found the pleasures of God’s presence worked wonders in healing, sealing the cracks that were missed in childhood, surpassing even the healthiest of my parent’s intentions. I spent time in His tent reprogramming from the cavities I had grooved in doing life wrong, uncrossing tangled wires of lies I had believed, redeeming painful memories with the light of His presence and walking through them again with the hand of the Lord. I found with the Lord’s strength after admitting weakness I would be in the 90 percentile of almost everything I did.

In short I had to spend enough time in His presence to hear good things being said about me from the glorious relationship of the Trinity. Only then had I the good deposit, something to protect, and a mission to carry out. I had to know I was secured in love and acceptance, and that my greatest weapon was a heart fully alive. Otherwise the enemy would find the chinks in the armor of my identity and esteem and exploit them, usually in the form of sabotaging thoughts.

The world tells us to “never say die, never give up.” But that’s only half true. ( There’s barely enough truth in the world to survive on. We need more concentrated forms). The trick is knowing what to surrender to and what not to. We all have to surrender to something, not matter how robotic and mechanical we are. Twila Paris was on to the idea of the safe place in her song “Warrior Is A Child”:

Lately I’ve been winning battles left and right
But even winners can get wounded in the fight
People say that I’m amazing
Strong beyond my years
But they don’t see inside of me
I’m hiding all the tears

They don’t know that I go running home when I fall down
They don’t know who picks me up when no one is around
I drop my sword and cry for just a while
‘Cause deep inside this armor
The warrior is a child

Unafraid because His armor is the best
But even soldiers need a quiet place to rest
People say that I’m amazing
Never face retreat
But they don’t see the enemies
That lay me at His feet

We all need the safe place, memories of love and acceptance that act as wellsprings to get through the tough stuff. Tiger Woods said one time as he reflected on his mental toughness in the face of intense competition: “Sure my parents pushed me to achieve, but I was always accepted. I knew no matter how I performed I was always coming home to love.” (Of course he took pleasures to unhealthy extremes of sensuality and paid a price for it.) But what a great place from which to launch out into a savage world. The safe place is knowing rich relationship under-girds our exploits in menacing circumstances. It’s much easier to achieve out of an abundance of significance than for it. The pressure and anxiety is too great otherwise.

The love David had for the Lord allowed him to launch into life from the safe place. The time they spent together was a continual catharsis from the sludge that built up in a heart well used. That’s the only reason he could say in Psalm 27 “Though a host encamp against me, My heart will not fear.” For David, the deepest aspects of his soul and existence were secured and sealed from any danger. And it was not circumstantial based. He could be in a beehive of hostile influences and feel secure because the greatest power was for him and accepted him. This mentality allowed him to maneuver without fear and increased his chances of success in battle all the more. In short, he was free to perform.

This is a treatise for recovery, for down time, the time out, being benched in the game of life. Renewing the heart has a significant role in the life of the Christian especially after being shellacked by the world. Admitting weakness to the One who can help is not weak, but extremely biblical. There is nothing glorious about weakness per se, it’s what it can lead to. We need time to learn how to wield the sword of the spirit correctly without cutting the wrong people. We don’t have to engage in the counterfeit arenas of combat for our own pride. We need time to heal so we can live to fight another day. And we’ll know when it’s right to engage again. When we sense our unique contribution and presence in our spheres of influence, it’s usually from the safe place.

David’s soft heart left a long shadow of humility as king Asa, who reigned within a few decades, faced a million man march with an army from Ethiopia. With the enemy approaching and knocking on the doors of Judah, circumstances left him no choice but to trust God. His honesty was a great statement of reality: “Lord there is no one besides thee to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; so help is O Lord our God, for we trust in Thee, and in Thy name have come up against this multitude.” Then look at what he says, “O Lord, thou art God; let not man prevail against Thee” (II Chronicles 14: 9-11).

I call this my 911 verse. At the time Asa’s heart and life were so closely aligned to the Lord that he felt the assault to his kingdom was an assault on the Lord himself. And the next verse says “The Lord routed the Ethiopians before Asa.” The power of God is best manifested in situations that require courage. David and Asa both fought from their secret weapon- the safe place with the Lord that was cultivated in the down time of the ordinary and routine. Make God your refuge while you can because when disaster strikes there may not be time to draw upon the strength credits stored up for a rainy day. Solomon put it this way, “he who is slack in the day of distress, his strength is limited” (Proverbs 24:10).

Let me leave three suggestions that will give traction to the safe place in your heart:

1.) Write in a journal your deepest and most tender thoughts to God. At first they may drip with bitterness or anger, but let there be some trail of evidence of the real you. Over time you’ll sense the sinful aspects so intricately tangled in the emotions will be jettisoned to God and won’t be the deepest part of you. Even if you’re nursing a grudge, that most tender and sacred part of your identity that seems too precious to let go of, will be replaced by the freedom in Christ.

2.) Take prayer walks and tell God incrementally the issues of the day. I recommend “lonely places” lest anybody hear you and think you fit for the asylum. This is not only great spiritual fitness, but the physical is thrown no extra charge.

3.) Learn to discern what battles to fight. Generally speaking impulses of the flesh are meaningless battles. Living to fight another day is good counsel. But apportioning our strength for the correct battles is a product of the safe place. We don’t have to respond to every sleight, incidence of road rage, or personality conflict with customer service representatives. When we operate from the safe place, even though drenched with weakness, we are strong.

Zechariah reveals God’s offer to get us centered again: “Come to the place of safety, all you prisoners, for there is yet hope! I promise right now, I will repay you two mercies for each of your woes!” (Zechariah 9:12).

Copyright 2010 by Scott Chandler. All rights reserved.