Living with roommates can be challenging.

Over time I’ve learned that it’s a good idea to wait at least a few minutes after one of my roommates (or guests) has … “done their duty” in the washroom. After they have “made a deposit” so to speak. Or “dropped the kids off at the pool,” to use one of my friends’ artful euphemisms. Our washroom lacks a working fan, and so that exasperates the problem, since it sometimes takes awhile for the lingering odors to dissipate.

Of course, that can be rather inconvenient when I have to “go.” So thinking myself to be quite clever, I bought a cheap air freshener and put it in the washroom.

Was the problem solved with the aroma of wildflowers? Hardly. Now after someone has done a “number 2″ in the washroom, there is no longer a poop smell to deal with … there is the smell of poop mixed with flowers. Poopy flowers. Which in a way is actually worse than poop alone.

This illustrates the way that sin corrupts what’s good. Adding good works to our sins doesn’t cover the sins. The sweet aroma of our good deeds is tainted by the stench of our sins. What we need is the removal of the foul odor, which is something our good deeds can never do. For that, we need God’s help, because He can do what is impossible for us.

Tonight I was reading Watchman Nee’s book The Normal Christian Life which is essentially a commentary on Romans. As Nee described how our sins (plural; ie, things we have done wrong) are dealt with by the Blood of Jesus, and our sin (singular; as in our nature as a sinner) is dealt with by the Cross of Jesus, I for some reason thought of a joke told by Demetri Martin.

It’s probably better if you listen to him tell the swimming joke here (about 30 seconds) but if you can’t or would rather not load a YouTube clip, here’s the gist of it:

Swimming is a confusing sport. Cuz sometimes you’re doing it for fun … and other times, you’re doing it to NOT DIE.

You can usually tell by the outfit:
Pants? Uh oh!
Swimming trunks? Okay!

Grace and works is kinda like that. A person doing works to try to be saved (a futile endeavor) may be doing the exact same actions as someone who does works out of gratitude (response to grace). But the person who realizes they are saved by grace is not doing things to AVOID DEATH, they realize that they have already avoided death.

And like the swimming analogy, you can tell which is which by a person’s outfit … ie, by what attitude they are doing things, how they approach their tasks, what goal they have in mind, and why they are doing them in the first place. A grace-filled person has “put on the new self” as their clothing. (Ephesians 4:24)

I guess the answer to the question “If we are saved by grace, not by works, why bother working anymore?” is that working is only a chore when it’s an obligation. Serving out of gratitude, through the empowering of the Holy Spirit, is an entirely different thing than desperately paddling away trying to save yourself. That doesn’t mean that serving in the church is always less stressful or frustrating or costly than serving outside (I know that all too well!) but it does help explain the difference. And it makes all the difference in the world!

Our duckling grows up into a duck in an arid climate, seldom feeling the cool, wet caress of raindrops. In those rare rainy moments, he steals brief glimpses, takes a small foretaste, of something more. Yet he is content in his environment, never having known anything else.

One day, a fierce wind begins to blow. Try as he might to weather the storm, he decides to venture out of his comfortable surroundings in search of shelter. He walks (for he has never had a need or occasion to fly before) as the wind continues to intensify, filling the air with sand and debris. Steadfastly, he pushes ahead, sometimes allowing himself to be blown forward by the wind, other times pressing headstrong against it. He walks, and walks, perhaps for hours, perhaps for days, it’s difficult to have any sense of time or direction.

Then, suddenly, the wind dies down, and as his eyes begin to clear he can scarcely believe what he sees.

Water. A billion, trillion times more than he has even seen before.

He has been led to the ocean.

He stands, then sits, then stands once again, staring at the magnificent scene in front of him. At length, be approaches timidly, dipping at first a single webbed toe, then a foot. Although scared by this new experience, this foreign environment, nonetheless he intuitively knows that he is on the threshold of greatness.

Still, he hesitates. It’s unfamiliar, untested, even scary.

Yet, he takes a step of faith and jumps into the water … and for the first time, swims.

It’s unlike anything he has experienced before, but at once he knows. This is what he is meant for. Not just his perception of the world has changed; he has changed. It’s not that he is abandoning everything about his life on land, but now that he has experienced the fullness of this new environment, he can never go back to the way things were before … he is home.

Photo credit: spyros_tav

The experience of encountering and walking with the living God is not like putting a feather in your cap; it’s more like putting on glasses and really being able to see for the first time. It is the fulfillment of cravings of which we are only given a foretaste in the natural world.

C. S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” This, I think, captures part of the transformative power when a person realizes that they have finally been freed to become the person they were always meant to be.

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Jesus

Is it possible that God has been at work in your life all along? Maybe it’s time to explore your world beyond your current boundaries in search of the ocean, and ask the question: What does your soul crave?

(Starred links lead to the source of the info, from the LDS website when possible)

Christian: Do Mormons believe the Bible?

Mormon: Yes, it is one of the four scriptures of the LDS Church, along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. As it says in our Articles of Faith #8: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly“

Christian: I have a question about that, but first, which translation of the Bible does the LDS church currently use?

Mormon: We use the Authorized King James Version (KJV).

Christian: You also mentioned the Book of Mormon. That was translated by Joseph Smith Jr, is that correct?

Mormon: Yes, the prophet Joseph Smith Jr translated the Book of Mormon. He “translated them by the gift and power of God”* from the “reformed Egyptian” language into English.

Christian: My understanding is that Joseph Smith Jr was the first president of the LDS church, and each president who has followed him is also a prophet?

Mormon: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been led by a prophet of God. These prophets also serve as Presidents of the Church.*

Christian: Are presidents of the church also translators, like Joseph Smith was?

Mormon: Yes, all of the presidents which followed our founder are likewise seers, revelators, translators, and prophets.*

Christian: So here’s the conundrum. The LDS church states that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is translated correctly.” This implies that some parts of the officially sanctioned Bible are not God’s word because it is translated incorrectly. (There would be no need for this caveat if it were not so.) If each president of the church has the capacity as a prophet and a translator, why have none of them (since Jospeh Smith Jr’s unfinished attempts included in the Pearl of Great Price) over the last 180 years, produced a fully accurate translation of the Bible, since in their capacity as a translator it would be entirely possible to do so? It seems that it’s not considered important to have a fully accurate translation, and therefore the LDS church gives lip-service to believing the Bible but seems quite unconcerned with its true teaching.

I just started reading through John Bunyan’s classic The Pilgrim’s Progress (I read part of it for one of my classes, but have never read through it in its entirety) so there may be most posts of this nature in the coming days/weeks.

Skeptic: There is no right interpretation. In fact there have been lots of interpretations over the many years since the Bible was written. Who are you to say you know what the Bible means? We can’t know what it really means.

Christian: So let me see if I understand you correctly. You’re saying that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that there is no salvation without Him.

Skeptic: What? No, that’s exactly what I’m not saying! I’m saying you can’t conclude that, there are many valid interpretations of the texts.

Christian: So you’re saying that there is only one correct interpretation and we should try to find it.

Skeptic: No, no, why are you twisting what I’m saying? You know I’m not saying that.

Christian: Are you saying I am interpreting your words incorrectly?

Skeptic: Yes, you are!

Christian: So, it seems to me that a person could be interpreted wrongly. If that’s the case, then some interpretations about what the biblical authors wrote could similarly be wrong, couldn’t they?

There are no doubt passages of the Bible that are difficult to understand. Perhaps, for some, we will never be sure of the correct interpretation. But most are not so difficult, and even some of the difficult ones are only so because we choose to make them so. As with most things in life, the interpretation with the best reasons to back it up “wins”; we make educated inferences to the best explanation. There ARE correct interpretations of the texts. That doesn’t mean I claim to be 100% right about all of mine, but since I believe there are right answers, and I care about finding them, I will be willing to change my mind if I am convinced otherwise.

A distinguished lady was walking down the road when she spied a decrepit looking house ahead. Having plenty of experience with restoring dilapidated dwellings, she knocked on the front door. At length, and with the chain still clinging tighty, the door opened a crack. A young man squinted his eyes and peered out suspiciously from inside. “What do you want?” he coughed.

“Good evening sir,” began the lady. “I was passing by your house, and, seeing that it is in a state of disrepair, thought that I might offer my services to renovate it.”

The man unhooked the chain, and swung the door open. “I am quite insulted by your accusation!” he said, crossing his arms. “My house may not be perfect, but I assure you that it is in excellent condition!”

“I meant no offense,” assured the lady. “But I beg to differ. You see, I have plenty of experience in this area, and can readily identify foundational problems.”

Nonplussed, the man turned slightly, uncrossed his arms, and gestured inside his home. “I’ve lived here for my entire life,” he said, “and the walls seem to be holding up just fine. I’ve never had any trouble.”

The lady nodded understandingly. “That may be, but what you can’t see can still kill you. As an outsider, I can identify certain surface and structural problems that you may not have noticed yourself. Why don’t you let me make some suggestions? My services are free after all so you have nothing to lose.”

“Would you also perform all of the repairs for free?”

“No,” the lady said with a hint of remorse. “I’m afraid I don’t have the resources to perform the necessary repairs.”

“Well then, our conversation is futile, because even if my house were in need of grandiose repairs as you claim, I certainly don’t have the skills to fix it myself, and I could not pay to have someone else to do it.”

The lady’s face brightened as she began to point towards the man’s backyard. “What if I were to tell you that the resources to repair your house are already within your grasp?” she asked.

Mildly intrigued, the man asked “What do you mean?”

Encouraged, the lady continued. “Right now, the means to repair your house are already within your grasp. I happen to know that, right now, there is treasure buried in your backyard. All you have to do is dig it up, and it will pay to repair your entire home.”

“Ridiculous!” the man scoffed. “If such a thing were true, it would already be abundantly clear to me. I wouldn’t need some stranger to come and tell me.”

“If what I say is true, there would be little to lose by checking. With me as your guide, it would take hardly any time at all. In fact, I would even dig it up for you and present it to you.”

The man laughed. “I wouldn’t bother wasting any time at all on such an idea, mine or yours. Where would this supposed treasure even come from anyways?”

The lady sighed. “I could explain it, and would be quite willing to do so, but would any explanation make your current situation any less dire? If a person is dying, what they need is the cure, not a complex scientific explanation of the chemical reactions by which the cure works. Similarly, if your house is falling down, what you need is the solution. Could you honestly say that if I explained it to you that you would then be willing to dig up the treasure with me to repair your house?”

Quickly becoming exasperated, the man protested “But I still don’t believe there’s anything wrong with my house!”

Remaining calm, the lady paused for a moment, seemingly collecting her thoughts. “Sir,” she began, “A mouse who has spent his entire life in the city would of course be incredulous were a meadow described to him, but his confined worldview would be the problem, not the postulation of the meadow. I can’t force you to accept my help. All I can ask is that you keep what I’ve said in mind, just in case your seemingly well-built house comes crashing down upon you, perhaps collapsing when you least expect it.”

The man opened his mouth to speak, but reconsidered and quickly shut the door, leaving the lady standing on the porch outside.

He locked the door. Slid the chain into place.

Rattled the door knob a couple of times. Just to make sure.

Turning away from the door, his eyes began to dance from place to place around his home. Although he was loath to admit it, he could see the cracks in the walls. Hear the creaking foundations. And feel an ever-present -intangible and shadowy, yes, but nevertheless real- creeping sense of foreboding. In truth, he had always suspected that his house may be built upon a faulty foundation. But surely that couldn’t be. After all, all his friends’ homes were built the same way. And they couldn’t all be wrong.

Could they?

He momentarily thought to call the lady back, but instead sternly resolved to put the matter out of his mind and continue on with his life as he always had.

Meanwhile, the lady had already began to walk on, but not before affixing a card to the man’s door, urging him to call her, anytime, should he reconsider.

Filled with deep concern and sorrow, she walked on, glancing back over her shoulder at the decrepit house.

She hoped he would choose to call before it was too late.

Does Richard Dawkins exist? – A parable

Of course, the author is not really denying Dawkins exists. But that’s the whole point: Hyper-skepticism is often wielded by its proponents “only against things they dislike, whilst taking others for granted” (Anderson’s wording). As I said in my “Can you Prove…” post: “This is a somewhat frivolous example. But it demonstrates that everyone believes things we can’t prove with 100% certainty and that we are quite right to do so.”

(Thanks to Thinking Christian for the link.)

Further reading:

• Following the Evidence – Grek Koukl’s article on the nature of evidence.
• The Evidence for Jesus – Can anything be proved 100%? Even if not, we should accept what is reasonably demonstrated by the evidence available.

Lisa: If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around, does it make a sound?
Bart: Absolutely! [makes sound of a tree falling]
Lisa: But Bart, how can sound exist if there’s no one there to hear it.
Bart: Wooooooo… (thanks SNPP)

(The picture to the right is of Bart ‘solving’ another popular koan, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”)

Now, with all due respect to Lisa, I think the “tree falling” koan is rationally solvable. The answer is yes, there is sound … but there is no perception of the sound. The sound itself (a “series of pressure waves”) is the result of the tree falling; our perception of it is when it enters our ear and we interpret it by the process of hearing. Could there be sound in our ear without the sound waves? No, because THAT is the ‘sound’. Here’s an example: If someone slaps me, and I feel pain, the pain itself is not the slap, the pain is only the perception of the slap. The slap would still exist even if I didn’t feel the pain, for example, if I were on pain-inhibiting medication.

Furthermore, the idea that a someone must be present at an event when it occurs for it to truly have happened is ridiculous. We know trees do not (under normal circumstances) fall silently to the ground when they fall; therefore if we find evidence that the tree has fallen, we can conclude that it made a sound. Direct observation is not the only way that we can reasonably know that something is true. For example, we know historical truth by examining the historical evidence. We cannot directly observe, say, Abraham Lincoln being shot, or Columbus “discovering” North America, or even Jesus rising from the dead, but we can still be reasonably certain these historical events occurred by studying the available evidence.

The professor stood at the front of the packed auditorium on the first day of class. Reaching into his pocket, he pulled out and held up an ordinary piece of chalk. “If any of you believe in God,” he said, “stand up!” In the last 10 years, no one had ever stood to meet the professor’s challenge, even though there were many God-believers in the audience in each of those 10 years. They feared the professor’s intimidating reputation and classroom presence. But on this day, a young man stood up. The professor and the nearly 300 students in the room turned and stared in disbelief. The student calmly walked to the front of the classroom and stood beside the teacher.

Clearly angered, but able to keep himself under control, the professor spoke softly but resolutely. “You are a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that he is God, and yet he can’t do it.” The professor held out the chalk and dropped it. The chalk spun in the air as it fell. It hit the ground, rolled a few feet, and stopped when it bumped into the young student’s shoe.

Saying nothing, the student picked up the chalk, studied it for a moment, and then turned to the rapt audience. “Excuse me miss,” he said, turning his gaze towards a young girl in the front row, “could you come up to the front for a moment please?” Clearly embarrassed, but intrigued nonetheless, the girl got up and joined the young man at the front of the room. Really starting to lose his patience, the professor exclaimed angrily, “What’s going on here!?”

“This will just take a moment, sir.” came the reply from the young man. To the young girl, he said “Please hold out this chalk and drop it.” Shrugging her shoulders, the young girl accepted the chalk from the young man’s hand, held it out in front of her, right in front of the young man, and dropped it. Again it fell to the floor, just as it did before. “What,” said the professor, “are you trying to prove here?”

“We’ve just demonstrated,” replied the young man. “that by your logic, I have just proven that I don’t exist. I had the ability to catch the chalk and prevent it from hitting the floor. But I chose not to. Your logic is faulty because it assumes that what God can do, He will do. Your demonstration proves only that God is not an impersonal force, and that God is also not some sort of subservient deity that serves our every whim. If God is a personal entity, He could choose to intervene or not, as His own will dictated.”

Knowing he’d been beaten at his own game, the professor asked the student to “stop wasting the class’s time” and told them to go back to their seats. Not wanting to point out that it was the professor that brought up the subject in the first place, the young man and young lady sat back down. The professor’s lecture was somewhat more tentative than usual that day.

I’m not trying to use this story to prove that God exists; it is only meant as a refutation of a supposed argument against God’s existence. The moral of the story? If God is a personal entity, although He could do anything (by that I mean anything that is not logically contradictory or against His nature), there is not necessarily anything in our world that He must do. God is not some sort of cosmic puppet; He is the omnipotent creator of the universe. The ultimate decision is our own: we all must choose either to follow or to flee God. Which do you choose today?

Related reading:

• God? Why bother? – The Skeptical Christian examines why you should care if God exists or not
• 20 Arguments for God’s Existence – Philosopher Peter Kreeft lists 20 reasons to believe God exists
• Jesus: Fact or Fiction? – Well? Jesus is one or the other. Which is He?

There are a few fundamental problems with this parable. First, belief in religious pluralism means that all faiths in the world are wrong, not right … except for religious pluralism, of course. Follow me here: It’s logically possible that all faiths are false, but not possible that all are true. Atheists claim that there is no God; religions claim there is. Either there is an elephant, or there isn’t! Muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet and all other religions are wrong. Buddhists are also exclusivist. Buddhist teaching excludes Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and all other “exclusive” religious faiths. So the idea of religious pluralism is just as “exclusive” as any other faith: It excludes everyone who’s not a pluralist.

Second, the parable fails because it tells us they are looking at an elephant. We know it’s not a tree or a fan or a rope. All four are wrong. It’s an elephant. The parable assumes we are all blind and have no way of knowing what is really there. Moreover, it assumes that our inquery will be limited and superficial, when in fact it can be broad and indepth.

The emphasis on “seeing” here is appropriate. The blind can approach the elephant and touch it; but only the seeing man can know the elephant as it really is. It’s appropriate that Jesus healed the blind to restore their sight: The first thing they saw would have been Jesus Himself looking back at them. As the famous hymn goes: “I once was lost but now am found; Was blind but now I see.”