Reasons

Good morning all! I just wanted to stop by and share something that I have been looking at for a few weeks now. As most of you know, I have been intrigued with apologetics for some time. There is just something so interesting to me about being able to answer questions that arise that questions the validity of a Creator with sound scientific answers. I am in the belief that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart and all of our mind. I believe when God said that within His Creation He reveals Himself to us, meant that we are intended to seek Him out in it. It makes sense to me that wherever God says He will reveal Himself to us, we should go and find Him there. If there is a God (which there is), then why would people often think that it would be wrong to seek out evidence that supports a living God within the creation that he created - using a scientific method. I don't believe God would be offended, He has no reason to worry. If God exists (which He does) there will be no evidence in Creation that anyone will be able to find that proves otherwise! God is not worried about us disproving His existence so why should we? I think that is very evident in the amount of scientists that end up coming to Christ because of the abundance of scientific evidence that points towards a Creator, not an accident or chance happening.

I find it hilarious that people try to explain away God through recent scientific discoveries such as the big bang theory. Or that this world could not have possibly been created in six days. If God exists (which He does) i'm sure He could have created this universe in six days if He wanted to. On the other hand, time didn't exist before God created it. So why couldn't we suppose that when God said six days, he was in fact saying six days as relevant to himself, not to us. He explains later in the Bible that a minute to Him is like a million years to us. if we add that up as if it were a literal statement (which i don't believe it was) we find that the world was created in (if my math is correct, which it probably isn't) 8 billion-640 million-years. According to sciences current dating methods this seems a lot closer to matching up with that than 6 days. Anyways, I don't believe this is something that God really intends for us to know, otherwise He would have spelled it out to us. We will never have the answer to this question, but we do not have to be defensive if/when scientists say they have proof that the universe is billions of years old. Time is not relative to God, it's only relative to us because we live in a creation that was created to exist under an umbrella of time.

If we look at what the big bang theory proved, we find that the evidence points more towards a Creator than an accident. Before the theory, scientists thought space was infinite, it always existed (thus disproving that there was once a beginning and thus an end). After the big bang theory and other evidence of an expanding universe we now have to conclude that the universe as we know it had a beginning, and because it is expanding at the rate that it is - it will inevitably have an end. So the question arises, who or what began the universe? Our Faith provides a theory beyond what science currently does, which stops at the atom that inevitably exploded into the big bang. Where did this atomic particle come from? No one knows (except God of course) Our Faith explains that there was a creator behind that atom. When you think of a massive explosion the fist thing that comes to mind is light. The 3rd verse in Genesis 1 claims that God said "let there be light" as the first statement when describing the creation of our world. Why do people think that it is not possible that God could be justified by using a scientific method. Many scientists say " Well since there is a big bang, that disproves God, because we can look back in time within the the light of a star and we do not see Gods physical hands creating anything", blah blah blah. Or scientists explain away miracles that God performed in the Old Testament as natural chance occurrences. I say this very boldly - If we believe that the God of the universe could speak it into existence, then why could we not believe that He could use his creation to perform a miracle in a naturalist way? If the sea parted just in time for Mosses to lead his people safely across while moments later the army after him was swept away with incoming water - is there a reason why God couldn't have created an earthquake hundreds of miles away that caused a tsunami at that precise moment in time for Moses to free his people. Is God really not good enough to use his creation (in a naturalistic way) to glorify himself? Why do people try to explain away God through naturalistic occurrences as if God who created the universe couldn't possibly have control over it. These arguments do not phase the kingdom of Christ and therefore shouldn't phase us. I can't think of a single scientific FACT that disproves or challenges the existence of God. On that note, I can't think of a single scientific FACT that doesn't reveal at it's core, an Intelligent Designer.

Anyways, believe me or not - I didn't intend to write a long e-mail, especially since I am confident that everyone I am sending this to already knows this information for themselves. I just wanted to stop by and pray that you all have a fruitful day and that God will use everyone of you for His Glory this week! I will be praying for everyone of you. In the meantime, check out this really cool website. It could potentially answer some questions you may have concerning the validity of the Bible and/or God. If anything this site is an interesting read, that you could learn from and maybe use the knowledge as an evangelistic tool.

http://www.reasons.org/

God Bless,

David Roediger

Get that Hippie Jesus away from me!

Lets face it, I am not known for being a passive person. I've gone through parts of my life as a Christian trying to be this affectionate cuddly person, which was my thought of how Christians should be. I've come to the realization (not recently) that I am not cuddly, and I am not very affectionate. I am brash, I have a history of saying things before I think, and as much as I have always wanted to be the person that people came to with their problems - seeking a friend, I have just not been that good at it. My aggressiveness has gotten me in trouble a handful of times in churches as well, I always have this pessimist mindset that is always questioning the things I hear, read, and see, and I am not slow to stand up to people that I disagree with. Not all of this is good, it's just how I am.

Given my natural (some would argue the natural part) tendencies, I have been frustrated for a while on one particular issue. A lot of people seem to have this picture of what Jesus was like, and thus they try to model their Christian lives to reflect that. My issue is that they view Jesus as this Richard Simmons, peace pipe smoking, touchy feely God that would rather dodge controversial situations with epic blocks of wisdom influenced prophesy, than to stand soundly with boldness. There has been a rise in Churches around the world that have fallen into a status quo where they no longer teach the Bible as it is, but Preach to people based on what they want to hear - not what they need to hear. A good example of this is the prosperity doctrine. Pastors around the world have become so concerned with keeping peoples butts in the seats that they have began to portray Jesus as this neutered and limp wristed popular sky fairy of pop culture that would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell! Jesus was caring and nurturing, but many have avoided teaching of His boldness. He was truly a controversial figure. He would not have been crucified if he was a peace loving, pipe smoker. He was crucified by the people who hated Him, and these people where not the non-religious, they where the people he loved dearest. The Jews.

I guess the meaning status quo is different from person to person, I consider it to be a lack of emphasis on "doing", which has been emphasized in the de-masculinization of Christ. it is the theology that teaches us to stay away from developing relationships with sinners, it's the emphasis of the cuddly Jesus. Now, there is importance and a place for the feminine side of God, but it seems as if many churches have they're scales tipped to this one side. They sing worship songs that are more touchy feely than onward Christian solders. They're needs to be a balance, one that equally portrays the love of God and the bold masculine side of God.

To be fair, People usually come in two groups. The contemplative and the doers. The contemplative usually seclude themselves, sing there songs and focus on prayer and learning. The Doers come from the mindset of "there's work to be done, people to be healed, fed, and saved! Just like most things the pendulum, swung too far the other way can be destructive. The people who do nothing, but use their heart and head don't' get anything done, but they seem to have this higher sense of understanding of God. The ones who focus on their hands and feet often times wear themselves out and forget to go to Jesus for a refill of the bucket so to speak, thus missing out in a close relationship with God, but man do they get stuff done for the kingdom of God! We need to focus our pendulum in the center, and slow the swing that often times affect our churches adversely. There are a lot of people who are better at doing than contemplating and vise versa, but many churches will teach the gospel over and over, they will even sometimes get deep into systematic theology, but they don't enforce the "doing" aspect of our Faith. These churches sit and contemplate. They focus to much on their heart and head, not their hands an feet. It is important to know the word of God and have a relationship with Him, but it's also equally important for pastors to give their congregation a lead boot in their tails and get their butts out of the pews so that they can put their Faith into practice. This is why I love speakers like Steve Holsinger, Aaron Gray, and Mark Driscoll.

After taking time and studying how Jesus was, I have become less apologetic of who I am. Jesus was not passive nor was He a girly man. I, of course need to focus more on the caring side of Jesus, but I no longer and ashamed of my sometimes aggressive and bold personality.

Jesus stood for the principle of take the Church out to the world. Not "lets bring the world into the Church". He casted out demons, raided a market held up in a temple, stood up to the Jews and challenged their beliefs, Held a cross on His shoulders and carried it up a large hill, then withstood the pain of crucifixion for you and I. He came to earth as a man and boy was he ever - a man. There is an issue here though. Just as there was a girly Jesus movement, there is a current movement that is swinging the pendulum in the very opposite direction. These groups are tired of their girly Jesus like I am, but they are over intensifying the masculine Jesus. We need to remember, God is both feminine and masculine. We need to embrace the full image of God and not just the image that makes us feel most comfortable. I will try to be more like Christ in the sense that I need to learn how to be more caring and and slower to react to situations before meditating on them, but I am no longer apologetic for being a man. I will no longer let the view of some churches de-masculanize me to be a sissy, conflict and work dodging wuss. I am a man in Christ and I believe I am to stand with boldness for the Kingdom of God.

David Roediger

Another View

Lately I have begun studying lectures of Apologetics online. While I sat in my office today getting some of my "busy work" accomplished, I listened to my newest lesson as something interesting that just seemed to click. You know, that tada moment when you just seem to get it! What the professor was talking about was rather simple, but it is something I (most of us actually) are guilty of. We as Christians have a critical heart, and miss some of the intrinsic value that a "non-believer's" artistic or philosophical works have. Yes, I just insinuated that there are works that have intrinsic and positive spiritual value that were never intended for the glory of God. Now before you jump on me let to explain. We should be critical of what non believers of Christ are creating, teaching, and changing in our world. I DO believe that everything we do should be for the glory of God, but is it possible for non-believers to also show the glory of Christ in their works, even if their works were never intended to be for God's glory? Many Christians are groomed to stand against works that have been created for anything other than the glory of God. We are taught - again- to do everything for the glory of God (as we should). We also have a tendency to instantly condemn the works or actions of others who are doing the opposite.

In the 1500's John Calvin; who was a French Roman Catholic and an innovator of intellectual religious studies through his many editions of "Institutes Of The Christian Religion". Was passionately committed to education, and during his times in Geneva he started a school system where he authored the rules for the teachers himself. One of these rules were (which I found fascinating) "The teachers were to have their students read the Greek and Roman pagan writers". He told the teachers to not criticize these writers, but to help their students see what they can learn from them, even though they weren't Believers. Calvin had also mentioned that it is blasphemy against the holy Spirit to deny pagan writers such as Plato, for they had many helpful things to say which can teach us as Believers.

When I heard this I instantly perked up. I have been alluding to this for as long as I have been a believer and have been shot down for it a number of times. I always thought that you could find good in the art and philosophy of non-believers that would ultimately benefit our understanding of the world. Thus, helping us to become more effective in speaking to others about Jesus Christ. If we do this, theoretically we should have a thorough understanding of the worldview of our future Brothers and Sisters, and therefore be more successful at efficiently assisting in a change their paradigm. For the last 5 months I have found myself drudging through the same road as many other Christians. Slowly cutting myself off to the art and philosophy of the "outside world" and focusing on just Christian art and Christian Philosophy. My reason was so that I could become more knowledgeable in my Faith. Guess what, it has worked! On the other hand, tuning out what non-believers are teaching and creating - which ultimately influences our world - is evangelical suicide. We need to understand what is going on in the world around us. What are the teachers teaching our kids, what is passing for "music" and "art" these days, why is the Government taking God out of our schools? We need to do more than "know" what is going on in the world around us. We need to try and understand it from the eyes of the non- believer.

I believe that what I stated above is true for us a Christians to be more effective in winning people to Christ. On the other hand, John Calvin gave me a different perspective through the lesson of this Apologetics lecture. Calvin passionately believed in the common Grace of God. That God is gracious to the whole human race. Not just to Christians. Just as He sends the sun and rain to shine or pour on the just and unjust - believer and non believer - , so does he give His gifts to all people. Whether it's gifts of the seasons, food, talent, or as Paul says in Acts chapter 14 "the gift of joy they experience in their hearts everyday of their lives". In chapter 8 of Proverbs it is said that God's wisdom speaks to the WHOLE human race, and by Him, His wisdom says that all nobles rule on earth and make rules that are just. If you look at governments around the world you will find that the majority of laws are just. Of course not all rules are just, nor are governments without flaws, but the majority of laws are intended to be just and good. These are not only places where Christians have impacted society, but everywhere, because of the common Grace of God who speaks wisdom in ALL humans. Believers or not.

I have only just begun to take the first few steps on climbing this mountainous giant, but one thing is for sure; this one lesson has not only reinforced my original way of thought, but it has also given me new insight on how to look at the ways of this world. We as Christians need to look at every philosophy, work of art, etc. with open eyes and ears. God has taken great care with everything he has made. Us! This holds true with non-believers as well as believers. We are to first search to see if we can see God (even if it's really small) in whatever we hear, see, or read, before we take the time to criticize. After all, it would make sense that if God is real (which He is), then we should be able to see the finger print of the Creator in everything he has created. Even the worst of people and their literature, music, paintings, sculptures, will often times possess a reflection of the Creator. I am in no way saying that as Christians we should succumb ourselves to artistic and philosophical filth, or that God accepts and encourages it. But rather that because God has had His hand in creating all of us, it would only make sense that we as "the created" would reflect some of the Grace of the Creator (a fingerprint)- even if we didn't intend to. If you take the time to look for God even in the worst of situations you will often times find a small reflection of him. We can't help it, we were created this way!

We need to learn that when we debate an issue with a non-believer, that we are slow to criticize. Try to learn from all that you read and all that you hear. Try to recognize that when we look at any aspect of human culture we need to be affirmative and say where first, does this reflect the fingerprint of God? Where do we see things here that can teach us as Believers, instead of having a knee jerk negative reaction? If this is how we view our world and the culture in it, I believe we will begin to receive wisdom from God in places we would least likely expect (such as pagan philosophers). This can only make us more knowledgeable and compassionate for the people we minister to, and does not require that we sacrifice our Christian beliefs.

Happy soul winning,

David Roediger