Crash the Future

This is a change of pace, but I can't resist...

I was hanging out with my daughter a few days ago working on some of her school work. She's been learning about animals and their habitats, among other things. So, we're reading about animals and what they eat when off the top of my head I think of a corny joke.

I look at Charlotte and ask her, with a straight face, "What's a duck's favorite snack?"
"What?" she asks curiously.
"Quackers." And she roles her eyes BIG time, turning back to her book...
"Well, what's a bear's favorite snack?" I continue.
"What?" she asks again.
"Berries!" I reply with a grin as she groans disgustedly and majorly rolls her eyes.

(Can a five year old really already think her dad is that corny and that much of a dork?! I digress...)

So, with a smirk on her face she looks back at me and asks, "Yeah, well what's a cat's favorite snack?"
Now it's my turn. "What?" I ask.
Full of dry sarcasm, she responds, "Mice," as she turns back to the book on animal habitat to keep reading, and I start rolling with laughter. At that point she finally gave me a grin and we kept on with her school work.

Yep... it's true, I officially have the world's coolest five year-old for a daughter (even though she thinks her dad is a corny dork).

We live in a microwave world, where once it was a crockpot community. It used to be that people desired more objective information with which they could make an informed assessment of an issue. Now we are pleased with soundbites and chafe at the thought of having to wade through information not presented in a catchy, simplistic, and sensational fashion. Unfortunately people on both sides of the cultural and spiritual wars going on in our country suffer from this culture of Attention Deficit Disorder.

I was thinking about this today and tonight for two reasons.

1) My recent interaction with the media has driven home the understanding that our society wants juicy gossip passed off as serious news, not serious news that isn't sensational. I mean, really, on both sides this drives me nuts. It's hard to listen to anyone with an agenda, who can't even give a nod to the other side because it is unacceptable to admit the guy in black might not be quite as darkly shaded as we'd like, and maybe our own white outfit needs a little bleach. (Maybe the reason this drives me so crazy is because I can easily slip into this trap myself if I'm not really careful) In terms of politics, this usually comes out with people on the left and the right smearing one another without acknowledging that there are any redeeming qualities or aspects there.

For instance, why is it threatening for some people to acknowledge that it is stinkin' awesome that this is an amazing time in American history? We will have, for the first time ever, either a black president or a woman VP! That is stinkin' awesome that our society has come to the point where that is not just a theoretical possibility, but is a practical reality! I don't care what your politics are, I hope we can at least agree on that. Now that's not to say that the various candidates don't vary greatly in their stances on issues. And that's not to say that I don't care who wins. I have strong feelings on that. But I can at least give a nod to both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin for the fact that they arrived in the position they did, against all odds, at this moment in history. Now if only we could get talk show hosts to stop painting the opposition in broad brush strokes and actually deal fairly and accurately with all involved. (Ever notice that each side paints the other in the worst possible light while glossing over their own candidates' faults and painting with extreme delicacy?)

2) I was reminded of some ongoing discussions I've had with different people over the last year or two. Discussions about the existence of a Universal Moral Standard, age of the earth, intelligent design, "charismatic" spiritual gifts... the list goes on. All too often in these discussions the labels start flying and the conversation ends up generating a whole lot more heat than light, very few people change their minds, and everyone goes away feeling burned. That's rather unfortunate. Again, I think that a part of the reason is that we enjoy ridiculing the opposition, and we don't ever stop to think, "You know... he might have a point there... I need to look into that."

My point is simply this... Our society wants sensation, not substance. We quickly jump to label slinging and paint others who don't agree into a box. Sadly, I can slip into this mode if I'm not careful. But... if I really am to be about the ministry of reconciliation, as Paul says, I should be doing all that I can to understand those to whom I am sent as an ambassador. I need to keep a godly, biblical perspective, but I also need to stay away from those generalizations and labels. It's much harder to fairly represent those with whom I disagree. If I acknowledge redeeming qualities in my opponent I can't just write him off without really wrestling with the substance of his argument. I actually have to work hard and dig into the context of his position and see if those negative excerpts are really what he intended to communicate. I actually have to engage my mind and work to understand instead of just coasting along screaming, "That's right!" when somebody slams the opposition. Maybe that's why Paul calls us to the service of reconciliation, not to be spectators and cheerleaders.

Occassionally in my church I have the priveledge of helping people find a place to serve that is just right for their abilities, experiences, and interests. It’s a fun thing that I get to do. It’s interesting, though, because it causes me to confront the question, “Why should I get involved?” (In case you were unsure, yes, I hear variations of this question.) Well, as a result, I’ve been asking myself the same question, and I repeatedy come back to three simple truths.

Jesus served others and said that those who wish to follow Him would do the same. In fact, He pointed out that if we wish to submit to His teaching and leadership, we should not expect to be greater than He is. (John 13) As a result, if He demonstrated the humility of service, we should do the same. It’s just a part of learning to be like Jesus.

Discipleship (following Jesus) is a personal journey, but it is not an individual journey. The vast majority of times it says, “you,” in the New Testament it is a plural “you.” While the Bible speaks to us personally, it was written to the church as a whole. God intends for us to spiritually grow in the context of community. You can’t practice service as Jesus intended if you serve only yourself.

The church is an organism, not an organization. Church is not a building. Contrary to social convention, we cannot “go to church.” Every picture of “church” in Scripture is of a living organism, it is neither an organization nor a structure. One of the most common metaphors for church is the body. (1Corinthians 12) If you are a follower of Christ, you are a part of that body. If you fail to serve in the way you were designed to serve, it impacts the rest of the body, meanwhile, you begin to suffer from spiritual atrophy. If you completely stopped using one of your arms, your whole body would have more difficulty with basic tasks, and the muscles of your arm would weaken. When you don’t serve in the way God has gifted you, you don’t develop as you should, and the body as a whole suffers.

While it is nice to have more people to assist with the ministries of our body of believers, that is not why I am excited for the journey upon which people embark in service. You see, more important than the continuation of the ministries of our particular church is a person’s progression along the path of becoming a follower of Jesus. Service is a vital part of each person’s spiritual development, and our church’s ministry team is simply one avenue for that development. I readily encourage anyone who wishes to follow Christ to get involved in an area of service in his local church. It’s just something disciples do.

Ok… so, let me address the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option.

There is a growing population of modern scientists who believe the universe was designed by some form of intelligence. Although some of them happen to be Christian, the group is not. They make no claims about God, and many of them would be classified as agnostic. However, the scientists of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement are making some serious scientific cases for the likelihood that the material world was designed by an intelligence outside the confines of the material universe. The fact that scientists who hold a scientific naturalist worldview are feeling pressure to respond to these arguments in serious scientific journals is a good indication that the ID arguments are sound. (Contrast this to religious claims or specific creation theories which are typically ridiculed and treated with overall contempt, not refuted in serious scientific journals.) The ID movement is seen as a viable, scientific threat to the scientific naturalist worldview… one that must be answered seriously and competently. Why is ID such a threat?

According to statistics recognized by both sides there is a practically impossible chance that this universe would be as stable as it is, much less support life. When a variety of factors are taken into consideration it is something like a 1 in 10 ^1240 (10 to the 1240th power... 10 followed by 1240 zeros... I can't superscript on this blog) chance that this universe would have all the different required forces exactly as they must be to continue existence and support life. To give you an idea of how minute a chance that is; the number of estimated atoms in the entire universe is only 10 ^80 (10 to the 80th power) ; the number of seconds in 127 billion years is only 10 ^18 (10 to the 18th power). So let’s pretend the universe is 127 billion years old (most modern astronomers place it at 15 billion years, but for the sake of the illustration...) and every single second a whole new set of atoms blinks in and out of existence. Now let’s pretend we could paint one of those atoms black. The chance that you would randomly pick out the single black atom in the whole universe in the single second it exists during 127 billion years 13 times in a row is roughly equal to the chance that our universe would be as stable as it is and support life, given the laws of physics. So… which seems more likely, picking those 13 atoms back-to-back on my first 13 tries… or the existence of a non-material intelligence that made sure the universe was properly designed to succeed? I’ll go with Door #2.

So because the chances are basically impossible that we are here by chance, some scientific naturalists have made some completely unscientific claims. For instance, Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins explain the impossibility by basically saying, “Well, we’re here, so obviously we happened to beat the odds.” (I hope I don’t need to point out that this answer is no more logical than saying, “God made me.” “Well, how do you know?” “I’m here, aren’t I?!” to prove the existence of God.) Realizing that this argument doesn’t hold much weight, men like Dawkins, Gould, and Hawkings have come up with two other theories that are vying for prominence against the ID option.

One of their options is that there may be an infinite number of universes currently in existence. These universes are completely separate and self-sustaining. As a result, we cannot scientifically test or prove their existence, even though they may be there. So if there are an infinite number of universes, one of them is bound to end up being stable. We just happen to be in that one. (Of course, this option conveniently can’t be scientifically proven and therefore contradicts their own objections to the existence of non-material intelligence, ie. God.)

The second option proposed is that there has been an infinite series of “oscillating” or “pulsating” universes. (There is a Big Bang, the universe expands, slows down, collapses on itself – the Big Crunch, and explodes again.) If this is the case, then at least one of the cycles should beat the odds we’ve mentioned. We just happen to live in a cycle that worked. The problem is that again this theory is not scientifically testable. In order to make it possibly work scientists have to throw out all the laws of physics and science, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically says that there will be increasing loss of usable energy in a closed system. Organized energy gradually converts into an unusable, disorganized state. An example of this law in effect is a rubber ball. Throw it on the sidewalk and it will bounce high, but unless you grab it and throw it again (adding more energy from outside the ball) it will continue to lose energy and bounce less each time. According to the laws of physics the universe cannot have an infinite number of oscillations unless we admit that there is a force outside the material universe that continues to put new energy into it. (There are a variety of responses and implications involved in this whole theory that I don’t have the space to address here.) Once again scientific naturalists are forced to throw out the laws of science in order to hang on to their worldview. So is scientific naturalism really a totally “scientific” position?

Scientific naturalists are determined not to admit the possibility of a being that transcends the material, physical realm. They insist that God is a ridiculous delusion because He would lie outside the realm of science, and nothing lies outside the realm of science. And in order to make it “reasonable” to cut an “unscientific” God out of the equation they are willing to propose infinite universes outside the realm of science or to theorize processes completely contradictory to the laws of science. An intellectually honest scientific naturalist would admit that his position is, at its foundation, based on faith not science. He is determined to not admit the possibility of God and therefore, he will continue to hold to a theory that goes against scientific law rather than admit there just might be a transcendent being such as God.

I’ll admit that I can’t “prove” the existence of God, but I sure can make a strong case for the reasonableness of belief in God and the likelihood of His existence. I haven’t yet encountered the scientific naturalist who is willing to admit that he cannot prove the absence of God and that his own position involves unscientific faith. Hopefully, some day I’ll be able to have a conversation with a scientific naturalist who is at least willing to admit this. That would be a fun conversation, and I look forward to that day.

This will be the last post I do in answer to some of the common reasons for “Why I am not a Christian…” So, following up on part 4, there are a couple of items that I’d like to mention regarding scientific naturalism. One is practical and the other is regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option.

First, the practical… let’s think about justice and our justice system. I’ll approach this from a slightly different angle, so bear with me. At what point does a car cease to be the car it has always been? How many parts can you replace and still consider it to be the same car? I mean, ok, you replace the tires and the brakes. You may get a new paint job, but when does it actually become a different car than the one you bought. I mean, if you hang on to a car long enough you do body work, engine work, etc. and there comes a point where you do not actually even have a majority of original parts, much less all of them. At this point, can we actually say that we have the same car that we started out with, unless we assign some non-material essence to the car? In actuality, there comes a point where we have a different car that just happens to have some of the original parts. Now let’s apply this to people…

If matter is all there is, then there is no such thing as a mind or soul. There is a brain. There is a body. But what makes me an individual, who I am, is tied up in the cells of my body: nothing more and nothing less. If that is the case, then at what point to I cease to be the individual I once was. After all, the cells and atoms of our bodies are consistently deteriorating and being replaced by new ones. Even our brains are not, in some manner, the same ones that we had in times past; they have changed and developed through chemical processes and growth to be different than they once were. If this is the case, can we rightly punish one conglomeration of matter (body) for the actions of a previous, different conglomeration (body)? If I commit a crime, and I have no non-material essence to me as a person, then how can my future body be justifiably punished for what my current body does? After all, a massive number of cells in my current body will no longer be in existence in that future body, and there will be a massive number of new cells that took no part in the crime. Is it right to punish all equally? (Think about the implications of this in cases like Nazis who escaped prosecution for 30-40 years. How much of their “war-crime” cells still remain? Why can we hold those new cells responsible for something they had no part in?)

Even our sense of justice requires that there is some non-material essence existing within each person and which continues to exist for the duration of that person’s life. That non-material essence does not fit within a scientific naturalist worldview because it is non-physical. But this non-material essence (soul/mind) is required for justice to truly exist. It is this non-material essence which justice holds accountable for past actions, regardless of whether or not the “criminal” cells remain. Practically speaking, the scientific naturalist stands on very shaky ground in areas of justice. In fact, it seems illogical in a scientific naturalist worldview to believe in justice… legal systems, maybe, but true justice… no. I wonder how many scientific naturalists are able to consistently live with that?

Well, at this point I realize that this blog post will be way too long if I go into the next topic I mentioned at the beginning, regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option. So instead, what I’ll do is post that on one final blog posting. This has ended up going a little longer than I originally planned. Hope that’s ok.

This is the next to last part of my response to common answers people give to “Why I am not a Christian…” In particular this blog will address the view that belief in God is unreasonable.

Because we are finite beings, we will never fully understand and comprehend all of reality. To do so would be to know everything as is actually is… to possess all possible knowledge… to be God. So there will be limits to the Truth that we can know on our own. However, we can test enough elements of a worldview to determine whether or not it is a True worldview… whether or not it corresponds with reality. We can test Truth claims with logic to determine whether or not they are coherent with what we know of Truth and whether or not they correspond to reality. Christianity is one worldview among many. It is also a very cohesive worldview that corresponds with reality. No other worldview is as cohesive nor does any other worldview correspond as neatly with reality. As a result, it is a highly reasonable worldview. Many people object to it, however, and consider the biblical worldview to be “unreasonable”. In my personal experience the people who make this claim often subscribe to a scientific naturalist or materialist worldview. (I am using these two terms in the philosophical sense, meaning that a person believes the natural or material world is the sum total of existence. Nothing exists on a different plane or manner of existence outside the physical realm of elements, atoms, particles, etc.) This is actually an arguably self-defeating worldview based on circular reasoning. Let me briefly explain.

The materialist says there is nothing outside of natural physical phenomenon. How does he know this? Because science (which is a method of observing the physical, material realm) has not found anything outside the physical realm. And how does he know that science can prove the existence of every existing phenomenon? Because science tests the physical realm, and nothing exists outside of natural physical phenomenon. This circular argument is the basic, boiled down position of the scientific naturalist in its simplest form.

The thing is this circular reasoning also has a drastic side-effect for logic, reason, and choices. See, if there is nothing outside matter, then actual thoughts, ideas, values, etc do not exist. If everything that exists is made of matter, then all my thoughts, emotions, values, beliefs, etc are simply a result of a chemical reaction in my physical brain. They do not have a separate existence. The thoughts I have are only a result of atoms banging around in my head and of the conditioned responses of my past. Logic and reason are no longer valid, after all, who says we don’t think logic makes sense simply because the chemicals and atoms cause us to think it does. We can’t even trust our own evaluation, knowledge, and thought processes in a scientific naturalist worldview. So, if a scientific naturalist follows his logic to its consistent and inevitable end, he can’t even trust that he really knows that he is right and nothing else exists outside of the material realm. Scientific naturalism is a self-defeating position to hold.

Next time I’ll briefly look at one or two other practical implications of scientific naturalism.

In my previous blog I mentioned that I suspect the universal Truth people often wish to deny is a moral one. This blog is intended as a brief response to that denial.

The vast majority of arguments I have encountered against a Universal Moral Standard (UMS) are actually illogical and based on how a person feels. Let me explain.

The basic arguments people often present boil down to this:
A. Situation X is personally easy for me to determine what is morally right.
B. Situation Y is personally very difficult for me to determine what is morally right.
C. Therefore, there is no absolute morality.

This is actually just a series of logical non-sequitors. They might as well say something like:
A. It’s easy for me to climb a hill.
B. It’s very difficult for me to climb a mountain like Denali.
C. Therefore, Mt. Everest doesn’t exist.

Rephrased in that situation, most people would see the faulty nature of the argument, but they are not likely willing to acknowledge the unsound nature of the argument in relation to morality. Still yet, their argument is not actually based on logic, even though they would like to believe it is. However, all they have logically done is demonstrated that some situations are difficult, because of emotion, for them to personally determine what the morally correct decision or action is. They have not logically presented a case against the existence of a UMS.

On the other hand, consider this:
A. If there is no UMS (Universal – applying equally from person to person, Moral – entailing right and wrong, Standard – a rule to be followed or broken), then
B. One person’s morality does not apply to another person (because it is not universal)
C. Therefore, one person does not have the ability or right to make a moral judgment about the actions of another person (because their morality does not apply to that other person).
D. Furthermore, no person needs to apologize for anything, and no apology should be expected (because one person cannot make a moral judgment about any action taken by another person)

The thing is that every person has an ingrained knowledge that the UMS really does exist, even though we don’t want to admit it. That’s why we get offended and demand apologies from one another. We appeal to some overarching rule, to which we are all subject, that the offending party broke. And they owe us an apology for that transgression. If someone wishes to deny the existence of a Universal Moral Standard, they cannot do so logically unless they are willing to live their life without ever again taking offense at the actions of others or expecting apologies from them. You cannot: 1) deny the reality of a UMS; 2) get offended, make moral judgments, or expect apologies; and 3) truly remain logical.

At this point, it should suffice to say that the only truly logical and reasonable people are those who acknowledge the existence of a Universal Moral Standard and are willing to admit they fall short of it at times, or those who deny the UMS but consistently live without ever taking offense or passing moral judgment, even on someone like Hitler.

PS – Notice that there is no mention of Scripture or of Christianity in this argument in favor of a Universal Moral Standard. It is simply an argument based on common knowledge, experience, and logic. Most people probably don’t want to acknowledge its existence, however, because they would then also have to acknowledge that they have violated it, and that’s the beginning of the gospel… sin. So instead they deny a Universal Moral Standard, continue to take offense at perceived moral injustice, and live under the delusion that they are “logical” and “reasonable” people.

One of the most common responses to, “Why I’m not a Christian…” is the lack of belief in a knowable, universal Truth. This is a faulty position that is actually rather prevalent in our society today. And it does no good, in our discussions with people who don’t believe in knowable, universal Truth to tell them that it exists, “because the Bible says…” Before someone can accept that the Bible is God’s record of Truth, they must first recognize that Truth exists and can be known. Now, I can’t give a full argument here for the existence and know-ability of Truth, but based on things I have learned from others I can at least provide a basic outline from which to start us thinking.

Let’s define Truth (with a capital “T”) as an accurate expression, statement, or perception that corresponds to reality, the way things really are.

So, the first question about Truth is whether or not anything even actually exists. Is there even a reality? The only other option is that everything is an illusion… nothing actually exists. However, this would be nonsensical because I could not be writing these words if nothing actually exists. Philosophically speaking, I could potentially be a figment of someone’s imagination, but then that would require a reality in which I was being imagined. The simple fact that there is any level of thought or perception in our lives indicates that some form of reality actually exists somewhere. Reality, in some form, must exist. It exists outside of me, and I am, in some way a part of that reality. So the next question about Truth would be, “Is it universal?”

Truth must be universal, and here is why… because reality exists. Reality is simply what is. It does not change from person to person. Perceptions change from person to person, but not the reality that has been perceived. Truth is simply the accurate expression or representation of reality. The simple fact that reality exists means that things are one way and not the other. When we speak about the way things are, we are either right or wrong. Our statements either match the reality that exists or they do not. There may be differing amounts of Truth in my beliefs or perceptions about reality, but there are not different Truths. By this I mean that different statements may be more or less in line with Truth, but there are not different realities by which to judge the Truth of those statements. So Truth is universal, even if our statements, beliefs, and perceptions are not always perfectly in line with it. So can Truth be known?

In short, yes, at least in part. We have already basically shown that at least some aspects of Truth are knowable in just a few short paragraphs. For starters we know that reality does exist, so Truth must likewise exist, after all it is simply the accurate expression of reality. We know that Truth is noncontradictory – two opposing claims cannot both be true… only one can accurately correspond to the way things actually are. We know that Truth is absolute or universal – it applies to all reality, regardless of person, place, or time. We know that Truth is discovered – it exists outside of us, in relation to reality, not just within our own minds, created by us (those would be perceptions). We know that Truth is descriptive – it accurately describes the reality that exists. We know that Truth is inescapable – someone cannot claim Truth does not exist without making a statement about the way reality truly is, thereby claiming Truth. That’s a short list of things that we can know about Truth, simply in a short amount of time. Given more time and effort, there are plenty more things about Truth that we can discover. So, suffice it to say at this point that Truth is knowable, even if it is not exhaustively knowable by us finite beings.

At this point we’ve briefly answered to the common objection to Christianity given above. Truth is knowable, and universal. We should expect that people can know and seek Truth. Not only that, but it is reasonable to conclude that people can find Truth. I suspect, however, that the real universal Truth people wish to deny in objecting to Christianity is moral truth. The answer to this objection is a simple one that I’ll address next.

I was just reading in Second Corinthians 11 and something struck me about it… mind you, this is not the central point of this brief passage… Paul is getting very sarcastic with the Corinthians and is having to point out what they would consider to be qualifications because they have not been using critical thinking. The basic situation is simple. People have been questioning Paul’s authority as an apostle, unthinkingly accepting the attacks against him. Paul goes ahead and answers those attacks on the same foolish grounds which people use to attack him. As he answers, the sheer weight of his argument comes cascading forth in an overwhelming summary, and Paul demonstrates quite clearly that the Corinthians have been guilty of not using critical thinking in their assessment of attacks on Paul.

Just this afternoon I read through some of the responses on the Summit Church’s website answering the question they posed, “Why I’m not a Christian…” It seemed as though there were three most common responses: 1) the hypocrisy of Christians, 2) the lack of belief in a knowable, universal Truth, and 3) the idea that belief in God is unreasonable. The first of these I fully recognize as a heart-breaking, yet often valid assessment of American Christianity as a whole. The next two, however, both demonstrate a severe lack of critical thinking, both on the part of the person attacking Christianity and on the part of Christians as a whole. The simple fact that people can make this claim in our culture and make it largely unchallenged with critical thought is a sad statement on our condition as the American Church.

All too often we in the church nowadays respond with no better answer than, “Well, the Bible says…” That answer is not sufficient if the person to whom we are speaking does not even recognize the authority of Scripture. Let me be clear, I’m not denigrating the authority of Scripture in the slightest. I am only saying that we cannot base our arguments on Scripture when someone else is arguing from a non-scriptural perspective. We need to be able to explain the reasonable nature of our beliefs.

Part of the problem is that we often have subconsciously bought into the lie that faith is “blind” or that it is, “believing in something you can’t know”. That isn’t faith at all. Biblical faith is believing in something that is unseen, but that is reasonable. “Blind faith” is just plain stupidity. Blind faith is when we have no reason to think that something may be true, but we believe it anyway. For example… blind faith is me walking into a dark room I don’t know and deciding to sit down, assuming that a chair will be there to hold me up. I have no reason to believe it, and I might be right, but there’s a decent chance I’ll be hitting the floor. Biblical faith on the other hand is walking into the room, flipping a light on, seeing a chair in which I’ve never sat, and deciding to sit down. I can’t “prove” (prior to sitting in it) that the chair will hold me up. However, I can have reasonable faith that it will, given my subconscious visual assessment of its soundness and my previous experience with chairs. This is biblical faith.

There are plenty of reasons to believe in the gospel and the truth of Scripture. It is an incredibly cohesive and cogent worldview. It is a shame if we are not doing the hard task of thinking through why we believe what we do and how we can reasonably explain that faith to someone who doesn’t recognize the authority of Scripture.

In upcoming blogs I’ll give a brief summary of some ways that Christians much wiser than I have responded to the second and third reasons listed above for not being a Christian.

PS – I’ve been noticing that this lack of critical thought is sadly lacking in our assessment of the media and the analysis of our presidential candidates. I hope that whenever we read something or hear something in the media we examine it critically, whether it’s a media source that drives us nuts, our favorite talk radio host, or anything in between.

A few days ago Larry had an interview with CNN. His interview came at the end of a very long day and took a good two hours of Larry’s time. (The interview itself lasted about an hour.) Out of all that interview material very little made it to the air last night. In fact, the only glimpse given into Larry and Wasilla Bible Church came at the end of a much longer aired segment arguably intended to paint Sarah Palin as a fringe religious fanatic.

In the course of this interview, Larry was asked about David Brickner’s (from Jews for Jesus) sermon on August 17th. Larry explained more of the context and the intent of the controversial excerpt from the sermon, giving more clarity to what was actually communicated in it's context. Larry provided plenty of brief sound bites that answered to what Brickner actually said and meant. And then, following this explanation, the correspondent asked whether Larry would consider having David Brickner as a speaker again. Larry looked her in the eye and simply responded, “Yes… Yes, I would.” Here’s the thing that CNN conveniently left out... context. They apparently didn't want Larry's explanation of that context.

The thing that the camera doesn’t catch is the lesson in integrity that I was a witness to. Larry knew full well that he was about to answer a question that could be spun to fit the pleasure of the media, but he didn’t back down. He could have thrown David Brickner under the bus, but he didn’t. Larry knows the truth of what David said, the context, the tone, and the intent, and he didn’t turn his back on a man simply because it would save himself or our church heat in the media. Larry didn’t shy away from the truth. He answered with truth and integrity, despite the potential personal cost. (If you see this segment with Larry, note that he doesn’t respond light-heartedly. Rather he responds thoughtfully, knowing the weight of what is about to occur.) That was a powerful thing for me to witness. I pray that I will remember it throughout my life and ministry. That sort of self-sacrificial, uncompromising integrity is what I, and every other Christian, am called to live out.

Over the course of this past week, I’ve had a very in-depth, first-hand look at the press. It seems as though every other call to the church this week was related to someone trying to get information or wanting to express some form of opinion about Sarah Palin. The press has had, for better or worse, a large hand in that.

On the one hand, there have been a variety of writers and reporters who have reported wrong information about Larry and the church. This often happens simply because they have not taken the step of giving us a call or spending 5-10 minutes on our website to confirm the information they are preparing to report. (As an example, I think of one short article written this morning by a reporter from Reuters that had 3-4 easily corrected misstatements in as many paragraphs.) Many of these mistakes have been a result of confusion between us and another church in Wasilla. Some of the mistakes, however, have been the result of the writer having a definite agenda.

On the other hand, there have been some really neat people with whom we have interacted. They truly have been professionals interested in communicating the truth as accurately and objectively as possible. The two gentlemen from the New York Times were an example of this sort. They genuinely spent the time and effort to understand what was going on in our church, and they were careful to delineate the rumor mill from fact. That was nice.

The thing that has stuck out most to me about this process, though, is the idea of the message and the manner in which we proclaim it. You see there have been varieties of misinformation publicly presented in addition to the accurate reports. We can’t really affect the spin or lack thereof which a reporter or journalist will place on a story. All we can really control is whether or not we proclaim the truth, and the manner in which we proclaim it.

Over the last few years in seminary I had several godly men, including my father, explain the burden of the manner and the message to me. It’s a simple thing, really. There are going to be people who hate, slander, and malign us as Christians. That’s a simple fact of being a follower of Christ. After all, as Christ points out, He received this and worse, why should we expect any different if we follow Him? Our responsibility in this is simple. It’s ok if people hate us because of the message of Truth which we bear. It’s NOT ok if they hate us because we bear that Truth in an ungracious manner.

Over this past week I have been able to see my Senior Pastor, Larry, repeatedly respond in the most gracious manner possible to all types of people from around the US and the globe. And in many of those instances he was even able to be pastoral with them, listening as they shared their life stories. And he would lovingly respond with the gospel in real and personal ways. Larry challenges our church often to "extend God’s grace one conversation at a time," and that’s what he did. It was inspiring to see Larry talk with a reporter or journalist in a grace extending manner, with humility and a genuine love for that person, regardless of their personal slant. Not all of those people chose to write accurate pieces, but they went away having heard the gospel spoken in love. That is a beautiful thing. And it has provided me with a fresh and vivid example of this principle of the manner and the message.

So the question I want to keep asking myself is simple… if I face opposition and animosity, is it because of the message I bear or because of the manner in which I bear it? Lord willing it will never be because of the latter.