NoiseTrade Widget

Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit Part 2: A Biblical Response

In Part 1, I mentioned discussing the evolution/intelligent design (ID) debate in the “Christian realm.” In doing so, I first offer this disclaimer: I am not arguing for the inclusion of Creationism (YE, Gap Theory, Theistic Evolution, or any such form) in schools. I want to be clear on that up front and will explain why I am not adding to that worn-out debate. However, it is important for us to approach any major issue, whether secular or spiritual, with a biblically informed outlook. The treatment of these scientists speaks to a larger theme pervading our culture. It is not only an abandonment of science and open debate, but a display of the intolerance of our culture at large towards anything or anyone that remotely resembles biblical Christianity. Despite the mantra of “tolerance” and “peaceful coexistence” heralded by advocates of post-modernist thought, the exclusion of ID in academia and debate shows the culture’s deep-seated hatred of any Creator “with whom we have to do.” (Heb. 4:13)

A common objection given by opponents of ID in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is that ID boils down to “Creationism” and, thus, does not belong in science. ID advocates are portrayed, with overt contempt by their evolutionist colleagues, as Bible-thumping simpletons who do not understand science. Dr. Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion and evangelistic atheist) and Dr. Eugenie Scott (president of the NCSE) use the terms “Creationism” (for ID) and “Creationist” (for anyone espousing ID) as pejoratives—exalting themselves as enlightened and learned while dismissing ID advocates as caught in some kind of ancient, dark mysticism that lacks any semblance of scientific thought or reason. Their arrogance and contempt are wrong for many reasons. The most obvious reason, as brought up in the film, pertains to the faulty logic that leads the establishment to call ID advocates Creationists; namely, ID does not mean Creationism. The researchers and professors who have alluded to or advocated ID as an explanation for life and the universe clearly state that they are not Creationists nor do they necessarily believe in the Creation account given in the book of Genesis. The existing universe and its many parts as the result of intelligent design remains the only assertion made by the expelled scientists—none of them promote or claim Creationism in their research. Understanding that ID does not equate to Creationism is extremely important, just as important as understanding that evolution is, foundationally, a worldview. Because ID is not linked with the Genesis account, it can be considered as science and taught as an explanation for the universe and life just as much as evolution. Why? Evolution approaches the observable data in the physical universe under the assumption that it is the result of chance through time (i.e. void of design); ID approaches the observable data in the physical universe under the assumption that it is the result of some sort of design. Both make assumptions about the existence (or lack thereof) of design or a designer, divine or no. Furthermore, if we leave the assumptions at that level (not interjecting specifics about the design or designer or moral judgments) then both view points can be explored and analyzed through scientific debate. In this way, ID and evolution can both be taught in school, college, and university courses. Note that I am not pushing for the inclusion of Creationism in schools; I want to be clear that I do not think Creationism should be taught in schools. “Wait a minute!” you might object, “I thought you were talking about this from the standpoint of a Christian. How could you advocate eliminating Creationism from school curriculum?!” For two reasons. First, it is not the government’s or any other institution’s responsibility to teach our children biblical truths. Government is a God-ordained institution given, chiefly, for the restraint of evil in the world (not that all governments do so, but Romans 13 is clear on this matter). No where in Scripture do we find human government charged with training our children in biblical truth and righteousness. The training of our children in biblical truth and realities is, primarily, the responsibility of parents (Deut. 4:9-10, 11:19; Proverbs; Eph. 6:4) aided by the local church (Titus 2:1f). Second, I don’t trust a school to properly teach biblical Creationism—public, private, Christian, or otherwise. Schools have a hard enough time properly teaching math, science, social studies, and language arts (public schools in particular), subjects that do not necessarily carry great weight on a child’s understanding of eternal realities. Why, then, would I entrust to a teacher, whose worldview I do not know and may not agree with, the responsibility of instructing my child in matters (i.e. Creation) that affect their understanding of God, the world, and eternity? My responsibility as a parent is to raise my child in the knowledge of the truth as revealed in the Scriptures, which includes a proper understanding of the Creation account and the Creator, so as to form in them a biblical worldview. Subsequently, when they study math or science or human history at school, their worldview will point them back to the God who sovereignly designed, created, and upholds the entire universe to display His glory.

All of that to say, I don’t advocate Creationism in the classroom. However, the opponents of ID are wrong when they exclude ID from scientific debate because they assume ID is equivalent to Creationism. This logic is presumptuous, faulty, and wrong; ID proponents make no more or different assumptions about origins than do evolutionists. The assumptions made by both camps, however, are opposite in nature and conclusion.

How, then, can we approach the issue of evolution and it’s barring of ID from scientific debate in light of biblical truth? I offer these four statements:

1. There is nothing new under the sun. As discussed in Part 1, evolution at its core is a worldview. It makes sweeping assumptions about the existence of a god, the origin of life (and, implicitly, the universe as a whole), the nature of good and evil, personal responsibility, death, etc. Where do these assumptions stem from? Why would Darwin or any other person paint such a bleak and merciless picture of the universe and life? The answer, I believe, is very apparent—we are all sinners, opposed to and hostile towards God. Evolution and its core assumptions demonstrate a new form of an old human practice, namely, idolatry. No, evolutionists do not worship any deities, per se, or practice religious rites, but in espousing evolution they attempt to dethrone God and exchange the Glorious One for something lesser, something created. The Apostle Paul clearly articulates the nature of human idolatry in Romans 1:18-25:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did no honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For, they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, amen.” (Emphasis added)

At the heart of evolution is hatred of God. God to whom we must all answer; God who is holy and just, the righteous judge of our hearts; God who hates sin and punishes the unrepentant; God who sovereignly pursues His glory in all that He does; God who is worthy to be feared and worshipped. Since the Fall, man has attempted to supplant God with gods of his own making. Evolution’s replacement for God is man himself—touted as the pinnacle of evolutionary history, capable of reason, logic, and intellect. In evolution, we have to look no further than ourselves to define purpose, right and wrong, or good and evil; we become the masters of life and the universe. Ultimately, evolution is a cleverly devised scheme constructed to absolve man from accountability to God by removing God altogether. Idolatry may take on new and varied forms, but it remains the same. “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccl. 1:9)

2. Evolution and biblical truth are completely incompatible. This may seem obvious, but I find that far more professing Christians believe in some form of evolution than the bible warrants. How much of evolution does the bible allow believers to agree with? None. No place in the Scriptures allows for the compatibility of evolutionary theory and the Genesis account. Because of its core assumptions, evolution is contrary to all that the Bible teaches. Some Christians, however, adopt parts of evolutionary theory and try to weld them to the Genesis account. Over the last century, multiple half-breed theories have been contrived and adopted by Christians: Gap Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Progressive Creationism, and Theistic Evolution. The rise of these half-breed theories, I believe, is the result of two driving forces in our culture. First, liberal theology attacked and dismissed the inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Scriptures, leading to widespread doubt in the validity of literally interpreting the Genesis account. Abandoning the authority of the Scriptures left many Christians open to the second driving force: cultural pressure. As the culture adopted evolutionary theory as the explanation for life, it adamantly pursued new proselytes from all forms of thought, including Christianity. Not wanting to totally abandon Christianity but desperately wanting to fit into mainstream culture, Christians contrived half-breed theories on the origins of life. Unfortunately, a “half truth” is no truth at all. Paul warned Timothy about the coming time when men would “not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their desires and will turn their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (II Tim. 4:3-4) These half-breed theories (predominately theistic evolution) embraced by many Christians today and even taught in Christian schools mock the omnipotent Creator. If you hold such a view, I plead with you: abandon it and return to the biblical texts. Do not try to alter the truth to better fit into or to “better reach” the culture; to alter the truth is to abandon truth. Rather, exult in the God who created all things by the word of His power—He spoke and it became! Approach and read the Genesis account for what it is and says: “there was morning and evening, the first day.” Do not be duped into embracing culturally acceptable ideas that stand in opposition to Scripture. Hold fast to sound doctrine and boldly champion the truth.

3. Increasing acceptance of evolution and stifling of other viewpoints carries significant moral implications. I have often argued with evolution-believing classmates that we (Western culture as a whole) do not really believe in evolution. They look at me, puzzled, and respond that they at least believe in it… “What do you mean, ‘We don’t really believe in evolution?’ ” they ask. I explain that our culture gives multiple indicators that we have not wholly adopted evolution as truth: assisted living homes, nursing homes, special education programs, hospitals (and their multiple levels of care for a variety of disease, dysfunction, and disabilities), the Americans with Disabilities Act, animal rights organizations, the Endangered Species Act… These are a few of the indicators that our culture, for now, does not wholly believe in evolution. All of these indicators point to some core belief in right in wrong: it’s wrong to abandon and not care for aging parents; it’s right to take care of the ill and handicapped; etc. I thank God that these indicators of moral obligation and right/wrong remain present in our culture. Understand, however, that morality and absolute right and wrong are under attack in our culture; realize that evolution sits at the heart of the foray. How so? Evolution removes God from the picture; without God there is no right and wrong, sin and righteousness, or accountability for actions towards others. Evolution presupposes that life moves along blind of what we have created as morality or right and wrong. What can adapt can survive; what doesn’t adapt will be removed without bias. Darwin himself said that evolution boils the world down to “blind, pitiless indifference,” void of things like good and evil, right and wrong. I do not believe that our culture has wholly bought into evolution nor carried it to its inevitable conclusion of “blind, pitiless indifference” to life, specifically human life. However, our culture is moving in that direction, I believe. In what ways?

First, our culture has adopted the post-modern philosophy that claims we can never know absolute truth and therefore cannot make absolute claims on morality or right and wrong. Evolution and the gradual acceptance of its implications sit, I believe, at the root of this post-modern thought. I take it as no surprise that the culture has moved this way—sinful man always runs from God and His standards. But I am fearful for the church and professing believers who have taken to post-modernism; God’s Word is clear on issues of morality, right and wrong, and good and evil. Do not be fooled: God is righteous and will not tolerate anything less than His absolute standard of righteousness. Praise God that He has supplied righteousness for sinful man in the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! To get back on point, the more we (culture or Christians) accept evolution, the more willing we become to reject morality. Two examples come to mind that clearly demonstrate society’s (and in some cases, professing Christians’) acceptance of evolution and the subsequent rejection of right and wrong. Both deal with life: is it the sacred gift of God or is it subject to the “blind, pitiless indifference” of evolutionary progress. Abortion and euthanasia continue to be “hot topics” in social and political debate. I cite them now for debate, but to show that evolution sits at their core. Death rules in evolution: it always has been, it is, and always will be. Life only continues as genetic material passes to the next generation before death. In abortion, man intervenes to control the passing on of genes until a mother is “ready” to do so. In euthanasia, we dispose of those who already have or are no longer capable of passing on genes, speeding the euthanized to their inevitable evolutionary end. In both cases, we view ourselves as merely intervening to control and help the flow of evolution. We make ourselves the final authority on life and who receives it. This line of thought is perilous and has led to great evils in the world. “Expelled” more fully explores the frightening results of adopting and taking evolutionary thought to its fullest extent. I hope and pray that our society never chooses that road.

4. Jesus Christ does not fit into evolutionary theory. Death rules in evolutionary thought. Death has been and will remain a driving factor for life and the universe as time moves along. Death is the unchangeable reality for all of life. But we know that death has been overcome, conquered, and will one day be no more. In the resurrection of Jesus Christ we have the assurance and proof that death does not rule nor will it remain forever. In this way, evolution must be rejected by those who name Christ as Savior because His resurrection can not mesh with evolutionary theory. Consider the following Scriptures:

“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive… But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable and this mortal will have put on the immortal, then will come about the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting?’ For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. 15:20-22, 54-57)

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.’ And He who sits on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ And He said, ‘Write, for these words are faithful and true.’ Then He said to me, "It is done…’ ” (Rev. 21:1-6a)

I encourage you to also read John 20 and Romans 5. Scripture teaches that death is the result of sin, not something that has always been. Death entered the world as a consequence of Adam’s sin; as descendants of Adam, all mankind shares in his sin, imputed to us, and its consequences. Ultimately, the consequence moves beyond physical death into eternal death in separation for a holy, just, and righteous God. In Christ, amends are made for our sin. His perfect life and substitutionary death propitiate sinful man before God: the standard we could never attain is attained for us in Christ’s life; the just punishment we deserved was assuaged at the cross. To show that sin had been dealt with once for all and His righteous standard had been met, God reversed the consequence of sin and raised Christ from the dead. Forgiveness, imputed righteousness, resurrection, and eternal life are freely offered to all who place their faith in Christ for salvation. Because Jesus Christ has overcome death and promises to do away with death, He does not fit into evolutionary theory. In evolution, death reigns; in reality, Christ reigns over all things, including death.

I have carried on for too long. The title of this series is a Latin phrase meaning “out of nothing, comes nothing.” The principle held in those words powerfully affects the evolution/ID issue. “Nothing” simply can not generate “something.” Something or someone eternal (always was, is, and will be) must exist independent of “nothing” for anything to come into being. I believe that the more we discover in science the more design we will see that points to the self-existent God, who has creatio ex nihilo—created out of nothing.

Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit Part 1: A Plea for Science

The Return

Alright, let’s just get through this initial heckling and apologizing phase. I know that it’s been about a year and a half since my last “real” post. I know that all two of you (if that many) have been severely disappointed with my inability to deliver on posts. What’s my excuse? Well… I don’t have anything spectacular, like being in a coma or going to the moon or even having my Dell erupt into flames. No, I cite only two common and less-excusable-than-I-would-like reasons for the long lapse in posts: I’ve been busy and I’ve been lazy. It’s been a crazy year and a half. Soon after my Caleb King post—which, I was wrong; Knowshon Moreno was Georgia’s next great tail/running back… but I expect that Mr. King will see the playing field this season—I proposed to my girl friend and, so, the wedding plans began. We were married (finally!) last November. On top of being involved in wedding plans all last year, school and work both kept me busy. Forestry school is sort of like a vacuum that sucks you in and dictates a lot of your time (classes, assignments, papers, projects, field trips, summer camp). That also carried into last summer with my job as a research tech for the school; I was on the road all week and working 10 hour days in the hot, sultry climate of the U.S. south. Needless to say, I didn’t feel like blogging at the end of my day. After the wedding, things didn’t slow down; I began my final semester of college in January. The last five months have been a whirlwind of adjusting to married life (not all that hard, but I’m throwing it out there anyway), classes, Senior Project, and job hunting. But as of this past weekend, all of these matters have subsided (again, adjusting is easy!). I’ll be a graduate of the University of Georgia in 36 hours and will begin a full-time job in the next few weeks. So, as life has calmed down and I sit in the “dungeon” and break wood samples for my student job, I’ve chosen to pick up blogging again. Better late than never, I suppose. Those are my excuses and my story, such as they are; take them, leave them, whatever you want.

The Issue

I have spent the better part of life in school—six years in elementary school, three (awful) years in middle school, four years in high school, and four years between two universities. Seventeen of my twenty-two years of life have been spent in academia. Now, a good bit could be said about the status of education in our country—the seeming failure of the public school system (I’m a public school kid and I think I’ve done fine, but who knows!), the infiltration and effect of post-modern philosophy on curriculum (not particularly comforting when you think of kids who may design airplanes one day hearing that there are no right answers in their algebra class …), the abandonment of discipline in the ill-conceived attempt to “build self-esteem,” the rampant spread of “soft science…” All of these are issues and need to be addressed. However, I want to rehash an old debate. Old in one sense, but unique in its current form.

I recently saw the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” with my wife and a group of friends. The movie, narrated by the illustrious Ben Stein, is an expose/mock-umentary on the established scientific community’s black-balling of individuals who support, study, entertain, or even hint at intelligent design (ID) as an explanation for life. The movie opens with several case studies of professors or research scientists at major universities being fired or denied tenure for espousing or eluding to ID as a scientifically supported explanation of life. Their plight did not occur as the result of any misconduct or faulty methodology, but simply because they challenged the established view of Darwinian evolution. In keeping with the scientific method, they scrutinized a held view (evolution) and provided evidence for a different one (ID). All science must be able to stand up to legitimate scrutiny if it is to be accepted as fact. The movie’s main point is that the establishment—academia, the media, watchdog organizations (i.e. the National Center for Science Education), and politicians—is making every possible attempt to silence critics of evolution and squash any person or idea that remotely resembles ID, or what they presumptuously label as Creationism. The conclusion the movie reaches is that this treatment of highly intelligent, educated, and rational scientists is not only unjust, but flies in the face of all that science is supposed to uphold and represent. I highly recommend the movie to any viewer, whether you believe in ID, Creationism, Darwinian evolution, or some hodge-podge of the three. If nothing else, I hope that it will raise serious questions in your mind as to why the scientific community vehemently opposes anything in contradiction to evolution to the point of ruining a person’s career.

Now, my goal in bringing all of this to the table is not necessarily to have a Creation vs. Evolution debate, though I do want to address the issue of evolution in the Christian realm. However, I first want to discuss the issue of scientific ostracism from the stand point of someone who values sound science and scientific thought. To do this, we must discuss several principals that dictate how to approach this debate.

1. Darwinian evolution is ultimately a worldview or philosophical belief, not science. Historically, proponents tout evolution as the pinnacle of scientific thought. For millennia, mankind attempted to explain life, the world, and the universe through the lens of religion or superstition; Darwin’s theory provided the first explanation of life—void of religion or superstition—using reason, observation, and deduction. Science, right? Not exactly. Darwinian evolution and its implications are built on the assumption that life can self-generate and exist without design or creation. Darwin himself admits that evolution is a way to explain life without the need for a Creator or Intelligent Designer ("The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" or "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic"; these quotes demonstrate Darwin's preconceived notion of life before he observed data). Not that his observations led him to that conclusion, but he approached his observations with that initial predisposition or bias. Darwin believed that the world could be explained without the necessity of a god and so interpreted the facts with that assumption. Unfortunately, for proponents of Darwinian evolution this conceptual nuance undermines the validity of Darwin’s theory as pure science and moves it into the realm of philosophical belief. In today’s terminology, evolution at its foundation is a worldview—a lens through which one interprets the world or a construct of beliefs by which one evaluates reality—similar to belief in a religious system.

For example: I can look at a complex organism like a tree, a longleaf pine to be specific, or I can consider the complexity of the individual cells and cell types that compose that tree, or I can view the system in which that tree functions for the success of the entire system and explain the observable and quantifiable facts that cause all of these things to work together. I can then interpret the multiple levels of complexity and intricacy as a result of evolution. I could also observe, quantify, and analyze all of the same facts, not changing their nature, the physical evidence, or physical causes, and interpret them as a result of design. Have the observations changed? Has the data changed? Has the analysis and explanation of the cellular, organism, or system level functions changed? No—only the difference in worldview has changed, therefore changing my interpretation.

I do not want to belabor the point, but it must be realized that evolution at its core is not science, but a way to interpret science.

2. Neither evolution nor intelligent design provide explanations for the origins of life and the universe based on observed data. This point is relatively straight forward. Ask an individual from either camp “how it all began” and you will receive an answer. Ask them to prove it and neither camp can. Both evolution and ID proponents accept their answer to the question of origins based on beliefs dictated by their worldview. As complex or as simple an answer either camp gives, neither can replicate or prove their conjecture using the scientific method. It must be understood that science is limited by what can be physically observed and explained; where no observations have been taken and no data has been analyzed, assumptions (often based on beliefs) dictate conclusions.

3. Science must be discussed in a forum of multiple and differing explanations to the same question. Here is the real heart of the issue brought up in Stein’s movie. Science thrives on diversity of thought and inquiry. Questions drive scientific thought and discovery—a question is posed, hypotheses are formed and tested, analysis and results are discussed, and conclusions are finally drawn. Hypotheses come from many different angles and are tested in a plethora of ways to ensure that the question is thoroughly explored. Results are discussed based on prior knowledge of the subject, conventional thought, and the intuitive nature of the question. This stage involves the close scrutiny of methodologies, logic, and the interpretation of data. If problems exist in a conjecture or argument, they will be laid bare in the scrutiny of results and conclusions. All of that to say, if only one explanation is offered (or allowed) for the question, profitable debate is severely diminished if not impossible. If multiple sides to the same question exist, true science allows scrutiny and debate to occur between both sides; when one side is silenced or banished, science is abandoned. I realize this is a simplification for an issue as complex as the evolution/ID debate, but the centrality and necessity of scientific discussion from multiple angles applies to inquiries of both low and high complexity.

4. Ostracism and exclusion of view points in scientific debate results in the abandonment of science and reason. History provides several examples of “the establishment” condemning scientific thought that contradicted commonly held views. When Galileo originally published his findings on the motion of the planets and nature of the Solar System, he met a firestorm of harsh criticism. Eventually, the Catholic Church and papal governments (the establishment of his day) forced him to recant his findings and espouse the popular (and wrong) view held by the establishment. Galileo’s scientifically based findings were denounced as heresy and debate was denied; science and reason were abandoned. Perhaps evolution advocates will appreciate the example of the Scopes trial, which occurred in Tennessee during the 1920’s. A law prohibiting the teaching of anything that questioned the literal six-day creation of the world and life by God as taught in the Genesis account was put to the test when a school teacher was accused of teaching evolution to his students. When the law was upheld and Mr. Scopes found guilty, scientific inquiry was again abandoned as the result of the establishment’s unwillingness to engage in open debate. The exact same problem is occurring presently as proponents of ID are silenced because they have dared to question the established view. As in the past (and I have only presented two anecdotes; many more exist) science and reason have been abandoned.

In light of these four principals, I find it appalling that people who claim to champion scientific thought have so quickly and with such vitriol silenced those who conduct sound science. I believe that, ultimately, the opposition that ID has met in academia stems from fear—the same fear that denounced Galileo’s findings and convicted John Scopes—fear that questions answered by ID will show flaws and weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Not that ID definitively answers the question of origins any more than does evolution; remember that both are ultimately rooted in a worldview that interprets scientific results. ID provides a plausible explanation for the world around us and, in keeping with sound scientific thought and discussion, should be considered in the debate of origins. What do we have to lose in including ID in debate? If evolution is so soundly proven and obviously the driving force for the complexity and diversity observed in biology and other scientific fields, then allowing ID in the discussion will not do any damage. But to continue to ostracize and expel proponents of ID from the debate is a complete abandonment of science and reason. At the movie’s end Mr. Stein implores his audience and, implicitly the critics of ID, to “tear down this wall!”—the wall that denies ID a place at the table of scientific debate. Science will profit and persevere only when we allow all views to be present at the table of debate.

Caleb King--Georgia's Next Tail Back

Just watch... Not much else can be said.


Mr. King's next hit list includes:

Oklahoma State, South Carolina, Western Carolina, Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, Troy, Auburn, Kentucky, and Georgia Tech.

Beaver Fever!

This is the 50 pound beaver that my former roommate and I trapped a few weeks ago.

Divided Government—Triune Sovereign

Well, they did it. It happened almost two months ago, but it certainly isn’t old news. The Democrats took both the House of Representatives and the Senate—the end of the world has arrived. Any good Christian realizes this; Democrats are evil and Republicans are good. The American voters sent our country down the toilet. Placing Hillary Clinton in the White House two years down the road stands as the final nail in the coffin. Way to go, America.
Sarcasm aside (I should hope you picked up on it; I was laying it on pretty thick), the 2006 Mid-Term Elections should make us pause. No, I do not believe that America is going down the toilet (any more so than before) or that Democrats are evil and that Republicans are necessarily good. I will be honest—I voted Republican. Why? By and large, I am vehemently opposed to Democratic policy. I tend to agree much more consistently with Republican policy. But that’s beside the point. The “Media’s” hay-day with the ousting of Republican Congress-people (PC) rests atop a great deal of disillusionment and despair among conservatives and far too many Christians, I believe. In light of the election results, I would call all believers (Republican or Democrat) to step back and take a Biblical view of human government.
Through the book of Daniel, the Holy Spirit provides a sobering view of human government—God’s view. The central theme carried throughout Daniel is God’s sovereign pursuit of His supremacy. That is, God is about God; His interaction with mankind serves to display His glory and supremacy to the end that man would recognize and worship Him as “the Most High God.” (Daniel 3:26, 4:2f, 4:334f, 5:2,18) Further, God orchestrates all things (history, the actions of men, suffering, blessings, etc.) to fulfill this end. Hence, he sovereignly pursues His supremacy. All this to say, Daniel deals specifically with God’s sovereignty over human institutions (i.e. governments) in His pursuit of showing Himself to be the Most High God. Consider this passage written be Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon:

"But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ' What have You done?' At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride."

In this passage, Nebuchadnezzar sheds a bit of light on an important truth that we need to embrace. Amidst the 24/7 barrage of over-politicized news and politically motivated entertainment out society is steeped in, believers must never lose sight of the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, including our rulers. God alone is the “Most High” (a title connoting His final authority) and “King of heaven.” As such, all earthly authorities fall under His rule (as Nebuchadnezzar was shown) and exist only as He wills them to (“He does according to His will… among the inhabitants of the earth”).
The apostle Paul, writing to a people well acquainted with politics and government, elaborates on God’s sovereignty over human government and the believer’s response to it. He writes in Romans 13:

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

Affirming God’s establishment of human authority, Paul implores Christians to “be in subjection to the governing authorities” for to resist them is to oppose “the ordinance of God.” Whether we agree with those in office, voted for them, or are indifferent, God put them there—they are an extension of His authority and we are to obey and honor them as such. Does that mean that believers do not vote or lobby or oppose unbiblical legislation or take part in the political process? Absolutely not! We do all of these, realizing that, ultimately, God establishes those who rule and removes them from power according to His will and for His glory.
Far too often, I find myself cringing at the thought of another Democrat in the White House and what that might mean for the nation. But I must realize (as those who dislike President Bush) that God sovereignly places leaders in their respective positions for an appointed time to accomplish His purposes. The ends never seem clear to us, but God’s will cannot be thwarted; those in office are established by Him and are to be fear, honored, and obeyed as His servants (Rom. 13:7).
All that said, I want to end with a few practical ways in which I would encourage believers to act upon the reality of God’s sovereignty over human government.

1. Above all, pray for our leaders. Regardless of our love or disdain for an official, Christians, I believe, are obligated to pray for their wisdom, decisions, and leadership (I Pet. 2:13-19). Prayer both recognizes God as the Most High and seeks for His designs to be accomplished through rulers. Daniel and Esther remain powerful examples of how believers should pray for God-exalting outcomes in politics.
2. Show yourself as an example of godliness through being a good citizen. This is the main thrust of Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-19. Christ-centered, God-exalting lives have a profound impact on every facet of life including legislation and politics.
3. Take part in the political process. As your government so allows, be diligent to participate in the selection of government officials. Vote, campaign, run for office. Certainly, we must not put our hopes in human government as a savior—our only Savior is the Lord Jesus Christ. But we can direct legislation and policy towards a God-honoring end by bringing a biblical worldview to the polls.

The Meerkat...

I promise, I will get a real post up soon. Cut me some slack--it's finals time. To tide you over, I hope you will find this video of my roommates somewhat entertaining. Never lose a bet when the stakes are public humiliation.

Roommates really are great.