Edgeland

A Not So Secret Life

One of my favorite television shows is the Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers on PBS. The episodes are short and very well done, told with humor and in a fashion that strips away the stereotypical white lab coat to show the human beneath. Each installment features a scientist or engineer who does something interesting in their off time. The talents range from blowing the shofar at the synagogue to professional wrestling. The program balances the scientific endeavors with a sometimes surprising avocation.

The first one I saw captured my attention for two reasons. The video thumbnail (the still image you see before you click on the play icon) showed a smiling, young woman standing between two symbols: a diagram of an atom and cross. This promised to be good. And it was.

Katherine Hayhoe is a climate scientist and a pastor's wife. She is bright, cheerful, and knowledgeable. It was good to see someone not ashamed of their faith or of their science. Over the years of my ministry and writing, I've encountered a great many people like Hayhoe. For some reason, the Western world is adopting the unfair and inaccurate belief that faith equals ignorance. There's another side to that coin. Some believers have adopted the idea that "scientist" and "atheist" are interchangeable.

They're not.

The community of faith is a composite drawn from all walks of life. In my pulpit days, I would stand to deliver my sermon and look over a sea of faces. Some I knew had the barest of education; others had graduate degrees in everything from education, to medicine, to engineering.

I suppose it is human nature to define ourselves by what we do. After nearly a decade of writing full-time I tend to identify myself as, well, a writer, a novelist, a nonfiction writer, but that's just what I do, it is not who I am.

It was also good to be reminded that there are Christains out there being the salt of the earth and appling who they are to what they do.

This is life in Edgeland.

 

Watch Katharine Hayhoe: Climate Scientist on PBS. See more from Secret Life of Scientists.

Under Construction

Welcome to the test site of Edgeland. We're still pulling things together and hope to have new material posted soon.

I Don't Think We're in Kansas Anymore...

Just to keep the record straight, Dorthy Gale (Judy Garland) in The Wizard of Oz actually said, "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Those words have been the go-to phrase to describe an unexpected change in life or business. 

While driving to church last weekend a tune from a distant memory began to play in my head. I'm not sure what triggered it, but it got me thinking about how technology has changed the world.

There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow was written by Richard and Robert Sherman and was featured in the Carousel of Progress at Disneyland in Anaheim, California. As a child the Carousel of Progress (YouTube video) was one of my favorite exhibits. It reflected Disney's ever present optimism about the future. It showed how technology had and would continue to change life. "There's a great big beautiful tomorrow/Shining at the end of everyday" encapsulated the hope of bright future made possible by technology. That was back in the 1960s.

We are living in an age that not even Disney could imagine. Two videos show us how far we've come.

 

The numbers in this video are amazing.

 

 Technology has changed the way we do church. Churches have websites, blog sites; sites where audio and video of previous services can be viewed. Pastors are now more likely to make contact with parishioners via text or e-mail. Technology has allowed entire people groups to skip into the future. Several groups in outlying areas of the world live in huts, have no running water, but can call anyone in the world on their cell phones. I was at a Bible study recently where the teacher asked us to open our Bibles and turn to a particular passage. I opened my worn NASB then notice several people reach for their cell phones, and activate their Bible programs. When I speak, it is not unusual to see people taking notes on a Blackberry or iPhone. Things have changed, and most of it has been for the good.

Technology is a powerful force for good. It has aided in missions work, communication, evangelism, discipleship, and every area of Christian life. Of course, like all things, technology can be used negatively. The same Internet that brought the above videos to my attention also allows for pornography, communication between terrorists, and unwanted e-mail. Still, those things do not make technology bad. How we use technology is what matters.

The 21st century church will and should continue to use technology, but as it does, it must also remember that nothing will replace one-to-one communication. We are still in the people business.

 Alton Gansky

Is That So?

Is that So?

Perhaps it is because I grew up in the 60s and 70s that I have a persistent inclination to doubt. When someone makes a matter-of-fact statement, I want to know where he got the fact on the matter. Such reluctance to believe every statement that comes my way has saved me a lot of time and money. For example, when a telemarketer calls and says, “I know that you will want to take advantage of this opportunity,” I ask, “Is that so? You know that do you?” I then suggest that they don’t know me as well as their telemarketing script says they do.

That same is-that-so nerve was tickled by a pair of essays in The Wall Street Journal. The publication commissioned Karen Armstrong, author of theology books and one time nun, and Richard Dawkins, popular atheist and drum major for the new atheist movement, to write about “Man vs. God.”

The two, although closely related in views about evolution and how it has shown God to be unneeded, don’t agree. This is not unusual. Atheist often disagree with each other. (As a former atheist, I enjoyed nothing more than being disagreeable.) Some time back, Scientific American paired two atheists in a discussion of religious tolerance.

In the WSJ essay, Karen Armstrong argues that we need God in order for us to understand the wonder of our existence. The god she refers to is the “the God beyond God,” the great something other beyond human comprehension. She begins her essay with, “Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived.”

Is that so?

She goes on to say, “…so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful.” Is that so? She is right in saying the fossil record shows death and pain. That has not changed. And I agree the problem of pain is a prickly issue to deal with, but it does not constitute a dismissal of God.

She also states, “No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.” Is that so? The other night I led a Bible study at a friend’s home. About 15 of us gathered in the living room. They were all successful, intelligent people who have been followers of Christ for many years. Some held advanced degrees that ranged from math to music. I studied them and couldn’t find any sign of a faith shaken to the core. Similar unsubstantiated claims are often made by those who till at the windmills of faith.

Armstrong told her readers that, “Darwin showed that there could be no proof for God’s existence.” Is that so? Darwin did that, did he? This strikes me has wishful thinking.

Dawkins, an intelligent and well-spoken proponent of disbelief, makes his share of facts-by-fiat statement. “Evolution is the universe’s greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated.”

Is that so? I’m surprised how often evolution is portrayed as intelligent. In Dawkins’ world, evolution is a process that can create intelligence without itself being sentient. “Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences.” Is that so? Can nonintelligence produce an intelligence powerful enough comprehend such a process?

Dawkins conclusion is blunt: “Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, this pink slip.”

Is that so?

As I read Dawkins comment I was reminded of Rod Serlings’ The Obsolete Man that aired in the The Twilight Zone series in 1961. In a totalitarian state Rodney Wordsworth (Burgess Meredith) is declared “obsolete” by The Chancellor (Fritz Weaver) because Wordsworth is nothing but a librarian. He is sentenced to a death of his choosing. As Wordsworth comforts himself by reading from the Psalms, The Chancellor—trapped in the apartment set to explode in moments—dissolves in to tears. Wordsworth frees the man who declared him obsolete. In the end, The Chancellor is himself declared obsolete.

The point? Declaring God obsolete does not make it so. God is anything but redundant and facts-by-fiat will not make him so. Railing against God is not new. It’s history stretches back through millennia. Like Rodney Wordsworth, God is not as obsolete as some think.

AG

Why I’m a Skeptic--Sorta

The following was adapted from my book, UNCOVERING GOD'S MYSTERIOUS WAYS, (Broadman Holman, 2002)

“To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35)

“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

I grew up in a very trusting world and was by nature unquestioning of others…until I reached my teen years. Then it seemed no one trusted anyone. Over the years of my life I have learned to have confidence in many things, I’ve also learned that there is as much falsehood in the world as there is truth; as much evil as good; as much deception as honesty.

That knowledge has not come easily. Some of the lessons came by painful processes, others through observation, and some by grace. Now, that I am past my 50^th birthday, I believe I’ve reached a biblical, godly balance between belief and doubt.

I have come to believe that all the Bible teaches is true. This is not blind faith. Faith is a reasoned, chosen response based on what known evidence. The Bible has proved itself correct in everything I’ve examined. This conclusion is borne out daily. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that every word in the Bible is there for a reason.

I’ve also learned that the greatest meaning is in the smallest details. While our duties in this world push us to “get the big picture” and then move on, I’ve learned there is depth in the details.

I watch very little news that comes across commercial television. My patience with sound bites has run out. Too often, the commercials run longer than the news reports. A quick glossing of facts is frustrating. The same can be said of Bible study. A quick glance at a passage may be interesting, but it is seldom enlightening.

God is in the details. Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

He was referring to the small marks on Hebrew letters. Those tiny marks made a difference. The tiny things in the Bible are the big things in life. This much I come to believe without reservation. Still, I’m a skeptic, and I think you should be one too.

The older I’ve become, the more skeptical I’ve grown. I no longer believe that when a telemarketer calls my home at 8:00 in the evening, he really has my best interest at heart. I don’t believe everything said by a preacher on television simply because he is introduced by the title Reverend or Doctor. I don’t believe everything I read in the papers, and even less of what I see on television.

I’m a skeptic and I take a measure of pride in it.

 

The meaning of skeptic

A definition is in order. The word skeptic has fallen on hard times and it is used by those who would be better described by other words. The American Heritage Dictionary describes skepticism as, “A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind.” I define the term a little differently. I believe biblical skepticism is harvesting the jewels of truth from the cut glass of opinion. That is hard work, but it is worth the effort.

Perhaps it is important to explain what I don’t mean. There are those who believe the United States did not land men on the moon. They preach the whole thing is a conspiracy. Others believe the world is flat and even have their own organization: The Flat Earth Society. That is not what I mean by skepticism. I have something more reasonable in mind.

Skepticism—biblical skepticism—appears many times in the Bible. The bold and colorful John the Baptist was a skeptic. His skepticism was recorded for us by Matthew, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” (Matthew 3:7-9)

Yup, John the Baptist was a skeptic and he was in good company. Jesus said something similar: “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.” (Matthew 12:34)

In New Testament times there was a group known as the Bereans. They knew the joy of positive skepticism. Acts 17:10-12 tells us of their character. “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.”

Once again, the Apostle Paul had been run out of town, this time from a city called Thessalonica. They entered the town of Berea, which was forty-five miles or so from Thessalonica. There they began their work again, but this time they were welcomed. Instead of enemies, they found a group of Jews who received them gladly and examined the Scriptures to see if Paul was on the level. In short, they were skeptics—the best kinds of skeptics.

There goal was not to prove others wrong. They simply wanted to discover what was right and true. Consequently, they learned more, discovered more, and were forever changed in the process.

 

Skepticism and God’s mysterious ways

There will always be questions. If we have no questions, then we’re not looking hard enough. Some matters will remain unsolved until we have the opportunity to ask the Lord for ourselves. That should not disturb us—indeed; it should motivate us to look harder.

In graduate school, I had a teacher describe theology as the greatest scientific pursuit. Scientific? That puzzled me until I understood what he meant. He was telling all us fresh faced students that Bible study is a reason pursuit, and that it required thought and effort and work—and that it was worth every drop of sweat.

 

The overall goal

No matter how intriguing a passage, no matter how thrilling the pursuit of knowledge, it is all meaningless unless it leads us to the face of God. Talk of angels and demons, mysteries and conundrums are enlightening, but knowing God is eternity-changing.

So here’s my challenge to you: Examine the Bible openly, without gullibility but also without cynicism. See if these things are true. Search, investigate, ask questions. Pray. Pray again.

There’s a cliché that is making the rounds these days, “Don’t sweat the small stuff. Everything is small stuff.” I want to give the opposite advice. When it comes to Scripture, do sweat the small stuff. That’s where the spiritual rewards are. Don’t sacrifice the larger picture for a single dab of paint, but don’t overlook the painter’s technique and practiced brush strokes.

Our God is a mysterious God and He truly works in mysterious ways, and He has enabled us to search out those unexpected activities.

They are there for anyone to read, to examine, to study, to enjoy.

AG

Rational Faith

The following article is a placeholder. Edgeland Magazine is still under construction.

I have been a long time reader of Scientific American magazine. I began perusing its pages back in high school and have stayed with it through the decades. Some time back, Michael Shermer became a contributing editor and columnist for the magazine. For those not familiar with Dr. Shermer, he is the founder and editor of Skeptic Magazine. As you might guess, he's not particularly chummy with Christian thought and ideals. Every month, I open my issue of Scientific American and begin working my way through its glossy pages knowing that I will soon come across another column by Shermer. When I do, I take a deep breath and steal myself for another verbal slapping.

Scientific American also has an e-newsletter and my copy arrived in my in box today. I immediately keyed on an article titled, "Rational Atheism." I clicked the link and low and behold there is Shermer's name in the byline.

I sighed.

I read.

The article made me extremely uncomfortable—because I agreed with it. Me and Shermer in agreement! I felt glad to be sitting down.

Shermer's article is an open letter to Messrs. Dawkins (The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006), Dennett (Breaking the Spell, Viking, 2006), Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation, Knopf, 2006) and Hitchens (God is Not Great, Hachette Book Group, 2007). Perhaps you've heard of these books. They are the lead spears in the attack on faith. Each has been on the New York Times Bestseller list. Atheism is the new trend.

Shermer is in agreement with those who see religion in general and Christianity specifically is a danger to rational society. Yet, his article calls for a more reasoned approach. He makes five statements to his fellow unbelievers in an effort to raise the bar of debate and interaction. I found it ironic. Not ironic for those on the atheist’s side of the fence, but for those on the believer’s side.

As I read his advice to his brethren, I kept thinking, "The community of faith needs this." Hence the screeching of my mental tires. Let's look at his contentions.

"Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He adds, "Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe." There is wisdom in that statement. Christians should not define themselves by what they don't believe, but by what they do.

"Positive assertions are necessary." Shermer argues, from a Darwin quote, that it is better to just put the truth out there and let people do with it what they will.

"Rational is as rational does." He explains, "It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind." On many fronts, the rational Christian voice has been replaced with attack-dog apologetics, ridicule, and misrepresentation. To paraphrase Shermer (who is paraphrasing Forrest Gump), Faith is as Faith does.

"The golden rule is symmetrical." Christians cannot expect to be treated with respect while withholding respect for those who disagree with them. I have spent many years in the faith and have yet to see anyone ridiculed into the Kingdom of God.

"Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Shermer believes the freedom to think is a higher moral principle than science and religion. The theologian in me trips over the statement but I think I know what he means. "Freedom," he notes, "to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe." Of course, he is right.

Atheism is not new. Plurality of religion is not new. King David spoke of those who say "...there is no God." (Psalm 14:1) There were atheist then, there are atheist now, and there will be more in the future. Why do we act like this is a sudden and unexpected assault?

I commend Dr. Shermer for attempting to raise the level of "discussion" and taking a stand before his fellow scientists and atheists. Perhaps, without knowing it, he is advocating an approach taught in the Bible. Consider these verses:

1 Peter 3:15-17

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. NIV

Colossians 4:5-6

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. NIV

2 Timothy 2:24-26

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. NIV

It might surprise many, but there is such a thing as Rational Christianity. In fact, I would argue that God touches the mind before he touches the heart.

In my novel, Crime Scene Jerusalem, a “Christ-character” states, “Facts are objective. A belief without objectivity lacks a brain; a belief without subjectivity lacks a heart. Together, they give birth to faith.”

As I mentioned before, Shermer and I are seldom on the same page in matters of faith, but in this case, I appreciate his approach and his goal. Of course, his next article may cause me to bite through my lip…

AG