A Biblical View of Government

It's been a while since I've blogged.  Quick shout out to my cousin Jimmy for encouraging me to get back at it.  Thanks Jimmy!

It's 2016.  Election year.  Looks like it's going to be Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.  I am not going to get into this particular election, but every so often - and now is one of those times - I get thinking about what the Bible has to say about government.  As a Christian, the Bible is supposed to inform my view of...everything, really.  There are issues it speaks to directly, and on issues it doesn't directly address, it usually offers principles that can be applied.  In the case of government, no the Bible doesn't tell us what the minimum wage should be (or if there should even be one), or whether we should have peace agreements with certain countries, or what our trade policies should be.  But it does give us a foundational understanding of what the purpose of government is.  As a Christian, it's imperative that I look to Scripture for perspective.

It's important to note that even though the form of government today is different than it was in Israel or Rome back when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the purpose of government remains.

We need to start in Romans chapter 12, verses 9-21.  We read:

"9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.  13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Paul here is talking about what should characterize a Christian.  As we get to the end of the chapter, he's talking about the notion of how we should respond to people who mistreat us.  What should we do when people do harm to us?  A typical response is to get them back for what they've done, but Paul has a completely different perspective.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil.  And later on, he says that we should overcome evil with good.

Ok, so that's the charge to the individual Christian.  When we've been wronged, we need to not seek revenge, but instead do good.  But there's the question of what should happen to the person who wronged us?  Should they get away with it?  No, says Paul.  It is God's job to avenge.  Ok, fair enough.  But how is that vengeance to happen?

To answer that, continue the train of thought to chapter 13, verses 1-7:

"1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

This may seem like a new thought, and here's where the chapter breaks are unhelpful.  This is actually a continuation of the previous discussion.  Remember, God says He will avenge us when we've done wrong, and now Paul explains what that looks like.

First, he says we need to be subject to governing authorities.  It doesn't say be subject to them only if we agree with them, or only if they come in a form we like.  And the reason why, is because governing authorities are established by God.  Now this is important, because the obvious next question is:  Even Hitler?

Yes.  Even Hitler.  That may sound controversial and bring up all kinds of other questions, and no, I don't know the answer to those questions.  But just remember that Paul was no stranger to evil despots.  Paul wrote this to Christians in Rome around 64-65 AD.  At that time, they were going through horrible persecution under the evil Roman emperor Nero.  Nero was one of the most wicked men to ever rule over a nation.  If he had the technological means that Hitler had, he certainly would have committed atrocities on the same scale.  He had Christians killed for sport in the arena, for crying out loud.  So Paul wrote this during the terrible, horrible, nightmarish reign of Nero.  With Nero in mind, Paul said that God establishes governing authorities.  Therefore, to disregard them is to disregard God.

Here's the thing:  human government is designed to be an agent of God to administer justice in the world.  If we do right, we have nothing to fear from government - at least from government that is doing its job properly, acting as righteous agents of God's justice.  But if we do wrong, we should fear, because, as Paul says, government is God's agent of wrath on the wrongdoer.  

So to take it from the beginning, when we are wronged, we are not to seek personal revenge, but rather keep loving people.  And we are to let God get vengeance and administer justice, but the way He does it is through human government, the agency He establishes to honor good and punish evil.  So government is designed to promote righteousness and justice, and to punish evil and injustice.  

It is interesting to look even further back in Scripture to see the origin of government.  In the creation story, God always interacts directly with man, until after the flood of Noah.  In Genesis 9:6, God is explaining that man will need to govern himself, and He says in 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God has God made man."

Notice that the prime directive of human government is to protect innocent human life.  Not guilty human life, however.  This passage serves as the ground for both the pro-life position on abortion, and the death penalty for capital criminals as well.  For anyone who suggests that those positions are contradictory, I would suggest that quite clearly they are not.  There always has been a distinction between taking an innocent life, and death being a just penalty for murderers.

As the Bible describes it, human government has the role of serving as God's instrument of justice, with the prime directive being the protection of innocent human life.  

When I think about how government should be structured, I first think about the purpose for which government exists, at least from a Christian perspective.  And then I look at where the candidates stand with respect to this purpose.  Which candidate, first and foremost, is a strong pro-life candidate?  Which one seeks to protect innocent human life?  And then, which one seeks to honor and lift up what is good and right and just?  And which one discourages what is bad and wrong and unjust?  

Sometimes it's not so clear.  Other times, it's pretty plain to see.  But those principles serve as the foundation for my understanding of what government is supposed to be about.  How that is done, and the format it takes, the Bible doesn't really say, and it's there that we leave it up to things like our founding documents like the Constitution.  

This year, when I'm faced with a choice, this is the first thought that will come to mind before casting my vote.

Helping The Next Generation Become Biblical

Working with students on a large secular campus, I often get into discussions about the Bible - what is it, and why it matters to us. What's interesting is that depending on what generation you come from may seriously impact what you think the Bible is.

The Barna Group is well-known for its research into areas related to Christianity, and not long ago they published their findings on the issue of generational views about the Bible. For their research purposes, here is how they label the generations:

• Mosaics: current 18-25 year olds
• Busters: current 26-44 year olds
• Boomers: current 45-63 year olds
• Elders: current 64+ year olds

Here are some interesting points the research shows:

• While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

• Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

• Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

• Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

• While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off – the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

David Kinnaman, who directed the analysis of the research, explained that the “central theme of young people’s approach to the Bible is skepticism. They question the Bible’s history as well as its relevance to their lives, leading many young people to reject the Bible as containing everything one needs to live a meaningful life." 

So young adults view the Bible with skepticism, ranging on everything from its origins to its veracity to its applicability.

However, there is a bright side.  One finding of the Barna Group was this:  "Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders. "

Now, how does that last piece square with the fact that young adults do not read the Bible nearly as much as other generations?  How can they read it less but express the most interest in gaining greater Bible knowledge?  I don't really know for sure, but one thing I think it tells me is that they are willing to learn (eager, even), but don't find the value in doing a lot of personal Bible reading and study.

This means that our opportunity as teachers is greater than it has been in a long time.  We have an open window to play a significant role in their lives as guides and coaches to help them discover the amazing truths found in Scripture.  

Here's what the Barna Group said in conclusion:  "The president of the Barna Group pointed out that since many young people want to learn about the Bible it should be an opportunity for Christian leaders.  Perhaps young people want to participate more in the process of learning, not simply attend Bible lectures or be trained in classrooms. Mosaics and Busters have come to expect experiences that appear unscripted and interactive, that allow them to be open and honest with their questions, that are technologically stimulating, that are done alongside peers and within trusted relationships, and that give them the chance to be creative and visual. Their expectations may or may not be entirely healthy, but without considering these issues, the Bible will continue to lose hold on the next generation."

Personally, I find this to be exciting.  I have experienced a greater openness to the Bible from students over the last few years.  I think it's an opportunity for churches to engage young people in creative ways.  Clearly there is a need to address important issues regarding the origin and trustworthiness and applicability of the Bible.  I think that the Church needs to do a better job helping young people walk through these issues and not simply present a collection of pat answers that represent all the things that are driving young people away from the Church in the first place.

What is Faith? - Reasons to Believe

"Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice. Science for its part will test relentlessly every assumption about the human condition." - E.O. Wilson

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." - Richard Dawkins

"Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that." - Terry Eagleton



Faith is a word that used to carry a great deal of significance and honor. To have faith was to have trust in something or someone, and it was a noble quality to have. In many circles today, however, faith is a pejorative term. Faith is seen as a weakness, something that exists only because of ignorance. If we lack knowledge, faith is what makes up for that lack of knowledge.

Imagine a spectrum, with knowledge and faith on opposite ends. The more knowledge we have, the less faith we need. Conversely, the more we lack knowledge, the more faith we need to have.

This is the contemporary picture of faith - as our knowledge gaps fill in, faith recedes. So powerful is this image that many Christians have bought into it as well. This is tragic, as it completely goes against the Biblical idea of faith.

Consider the case of Thomas - dubbed mockingly as "Doubting Thomas". Here is the story, taken from John 20:24-29:

John 20:24-29 - "Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas was one of the twelve disciples, and he walked with Jesus for three and a half years. He experienced Jesus' miracles. He saw Him heal the lame, give sight to the blind, cast out demons, saw Jesus calm the storm and feed the 5,000. He heard Jesus teach about the kingdom of God and declare that if Jesus was killed, that He would rise again in in three days. He was there for all of that.

And then came the arrest and trial of Jesus, followed by the horrible crucifixion. For any follower of Jesus at that time, it had to be just awful, horrific. They all had to be seriously questioning whether Jesus really was who they thought He was. After all, what kind of Messiah gets captured and crucified?

But then came the reports. First from the women. Jesus had risen from the dead! And those reports were followed by the testimony of Peter and some others. The tomb really was empty, they said.

But in the midst of all this, what does Thomas say?

Thomas says something here that I think many of us have said at one time or another. Picture this scenario. You get a phone call from a friend who tells you that they had the most amazing thing just happen to them. And as they tell the story, it gets more and more fantastic. Maybe they've met a celebrity or won a new car as a prize or whatever. But as the story goes on, it begins to sound like just an incredible thing. And when they're done, you're thinking to yourself, sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I'll believe it when I see it. It's a phrase we use all the time, and it's not new. Thomas said the same thing when he was told about Jesus rising from the dead. He said, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Unless I can see the marks of his death - the holes in his hands and side, and I'm able to actually touch Jesus, then I will never believe this crazy story you guys are telling me.

At this point, we need to ask a question: Did Thomas lack faith? I think the easy answer is, yes, he did. He did not believe (Jesus said, "do not disbelieve"), and he said he wouldn't believe unless he had credible evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

But let's see what faith really is though.

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Let's look at some of these words to unpack this a little bit.

The word "faith" is the Greek word pistis. It is used proper some 227 times in the New Testament. It means, "a conviction of the truth of something; belief with the predominant idea of trust." So pistis is a trust in the truth of the thing in which one has faith.

The word "assurance" is the Greek word hupostasis, and it means, "a foundational quality; a firm and resolute confidence."

The word "conviction" is the Greek word elegchos, and it means, "proved; that by which a thing is proved or tested."

Now here the thing in which we have this resolute confidence is something we cannot see. Faith is the resolute confidence in something that cannot be observed directly, but which nonetheless believable because it has been tested and found to be worthy of our trust.

In the New Testament, there are many stories of people coming up to Jesus and He lauds them for their faith. Why? They maybe have not seen Jesus do any miracles themselves, but they have heard many stories from their friends, and they come to the point where they trust in who Jesus is and what He is capable of. So Jesus says, "Your faith has made you well."

As Christians, we understand faith this way. We cannot observe God directly, but we see the effects of His work in the world and in our lives. And so we trust in Him, we have faith that He is real and that He desires for us to know Him.

Many in the world today see faith as something to ridicule, that faith means believing in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Biblical understanding of faith is just the opposite - it is trusting, having confidence, in that for which we have good reason to believe.

For Thomas, his faith was dependent on perhaps a little more evidence than it was for Peter. Peter seemed ready to believe much more quickly than Thomas did. It wasn't just that Thomas didn't have faith. Remember, faith is confidence in that for which we have good reason to believe. But what a "good reason" is for one person might not be "good reason" for another person.

We look at the stars and the vastness of space and the grandeur and immensity of it all, and maybe for you and me that is enough of a good reason for us to believe that God is real. But for someone else, the vastness of space and the grandeur and the immensity of it all simply tells them that we are small and insignificant specks in the universe, and for them, the required amount of evidence for them to believe is greater than it might be for you and me. Before we speak too critically of such people that need more evidence, let's look at how Jesus responded to Thomas.

Jesus said to him, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

So yes, Thomas didn't believe. But it wasn't that Thomas lacked the capacity to have faith; nor did he lack the willingness to believe. He just didn't have a good enough reason to believe.

Now was Jesus critical of Thomas here? No. If Jesus wanted to criticize Thomas for his unbelief, he might have phrased it very differently. He wasn't afraid to say to His disciples, "Get behind me Satan!" or "Oh you of little faith!" He doesn't say any of that here. He shows Thomas His hands and side, and invites Thomas to touch them. In other words, He gives Thomas exactly what Thomas needs to believe. And Thomas responds with, "My Lord and my God!"

God loves us, and He wants us to have faith in Him. He realizes that what each of us needs is different from person to person. And He is willing to give us each what we need to believe. And then at THAT point it becomes a question of whether or not we're going to believe. It becomes a matter of willingness and desire.

Now, the end of this scene is interesting. Jesus then says to the disciples, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

So this is not a negative statement about Thomas. If He was down on Thomas, again, He would have said something critical, and He might not have given Thomas what he needed. So he affirmed Thomas' need for more evidence by actually showing him more evidence. But here He goes beyond that. It's one thing, Thomas, that you believe because you've seen Me. It's one thing that you need that much evidence, but the reality is that most people will not get the chance to see My hands and My side, and those people who believe without that degree of evidence will be blessed for their faith.

You and I will not see or touch Jesus' wounds. We cannot believe on the basis of that kind of physical evidence. We have to believe apart from that kind of evidence.

So what are some reasons why we might believe in Jesus? I'll offer three.

First, we believe due to the general trustworthiness and reliability of the Bible. Here is a little article on that subject: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html.

Second, we believe due to our own personal experiences. Maybe you've seen answers to specific prayers. Maybe you've seen God provide for you in miraculous ways. Maybe you've seen God heal you from a physical or emotional ailment.

Third, we believe due to the testimony of others. When people we know well and trust tell us stories of God's faithfulness and protection and provision and answered prayer, we have good reason to believe them. Those stories encourage us in our faith.

Here's the long story short: faith is not believing because we have no reason. Faith is believing precisely because we have good reason. And everyone, every day, exercises faith. Getting on an airplane, sitting in a chair, driving in a car - we do all these things because we think we have good reason for doing so. Trusting in Jesus is a faith that is well-grounded in history; we have good reasons for it. Faith in Him is good and honorable and right.

The Problem With Bible References

I had a very interesting discussion this past week with some of my students when we were driving home from our mission trip to Atlanta.  We were listening to a pastor deliver a message and he referred to a few Bible passages using chapter and verse ("Please note what the Bible says in Ephesians 3:15...")  As I listened, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share some thoughts, which I am now happy to put in written form.

Bible references - the chapter and verse numbers - are both good and bad.  They are good because they serve the purpose of making references easy.  If I'm quoting from Isaiah, and I don't have a chapter and verse to point people to, it makes such referencing very unwieldy.  Without references, it's almost impossible to find a particular sentence in a book as large as Isaiah.  So from that standpoint, chapters and verses are very helpful in so many ways.

But there are significant problems with the references.  First, they are not divinely inspired.  They are late additions to our texts.  As such, they often fall in strange places.  A good little article on this can be found here:  http://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html

This blog (http://dedicatedlion.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-divided-bible-into-chapters.html) offers these insights:

"New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson advised, “The first step in interpretation is to ignore the modern chapters and verses” (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 101; cited in Daniel Fuller, The Unity of the Bible, p. 102). Some of the chapter breaks are in fact very poorly placed. Take, for example, the very first one in the Bible, where Genesis begins its second chapter. Genesis 2:1 is continuing the story of Genesis 1, summarizing it by saying “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them,” and telling what God did on the seventh day. It would be nice to have day 7 in the same chapter with days 1-6, especially since it only takes three more verses to round off the sequence of thought. Furthermore, Genesis 1 consistently calls the creator Elohim, and this name (the ordinary Hebrew word for god, just as deus is the Latin word, gott is the German, and dios is the Spanish) continues to be used for three more verses. Where should the chapter break be? The second chapter of Genesis should start at 2:4, where the formula “these are the generations” (an important structural marker through the remainder of the book) occurs, where the 7-day sequence is done with, where the narrator flashes back to the creation of humanity, and where the word Elohim is set aside and God begins to be referred to as the LORD God. Notice that criticizing the chapter break is not criticizing the word of God; it is pointing out a lapse in judgment on the part of Stephen Langton (who established the first chapter-verse system in the 13th century), whose work was very recent– not even a thousand years ago!– compared to the antiquity of Genesis."

The problem is that these chapter breaks can seriously influence our reading of Scripture.  They can lead us to believe that new thoughts are being offered, when in reality they are simply continuations of previous thoughts.  Or vice-versa.  As Robertson said above, ignore them when doing serious study.

Second, and more problematic, the chapter and verse numbers give us freedom to pull verses out in isolation.  I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard people say, "Here's a great scripture...." and then give a single verse.  Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but a singular sentence pulled out of its context is not a "scripture".  It is a sentence in the midst of a larger context that exists in a particular book in a canon of scripture, to be more precise.  This passage isolation can be very dangerous to our understanding of the text.  Let me use a simple example.

The most well-known verse in the Bible is John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."  Now, that verse, taken in isolation, appears to be saying something particular about the nature of God's love.  We read that and we think that the "so" is quantitative.  Jesus here seems to be saying that God loves the world so much that He gave His Son for us.  And, while that seems to be consistent with the thrust of Scripture (His love is indeed vast!), that is NOT what is being said here.  

If you look at the context, you'll see that Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee.  Jesus is teaching him what it means to be born again, and He references a story in the Old Testament (of course, they wouldn't have called it that back then), from Numbers 21 (see? a reference can be helpful!).  It is the story of Israel's rebellion (they complained against God), God's judgment (poisonous snakes came and bit them), their repentance (they acknowledged their sin and asked Moses to intercede for them), and God's gracious provision for their salvation (Moses made a bronze serpent, attached it to a pole, and if anyone looked upon it in faith, they were saved).  

After referencing that story, Jesus then said, "For God so loved the world...."  The "so" here is not "so much"; rather, it is "in the same manner".  The "so" is a comparative statement, not a quantitative one.  

When we read Bible verses in isolation, we usually miss the point.  We usually misread the text.  When Paul wrote Romans, he wrote a long letter to the church in Rome.  He did not write a series of individual verses.  The letter flows together as a cohesive case, and pulling individual verses out in isolation from the rest of the passage is just asking for interpretive trouble.  

It is difficult to read the Scriptures apart from chapters and verses.  We are so used to them, and they are so helpful to point us to specific places in the Bible.  But they carry with them significant dangers.  It is important that we are aware of these dangers as we seek to understand what the authors are trying to communicate.

Knowing God Subjectively

I know my little blog doesn't exactly get national readership, but usually more than two people read what I post.  And for the purpose of the topic I'm about to address, that's sufficient.

Consider two readers - Bob and Jane - as they read and understand this post.  What is it that they are reading?  They are reading words that I have written.  That may sound absurdly and pointlessly true, but think about the implications of that for a moment.  I - not Bob or Jane - have written these words.  That is an objectively true statement.  Bob or Jane or Nobel Prize-winning scientist David Wineland could examine this and, with the right amount of knowledge, determine its truth.

In other words, there is objective reality that exists - in this case, the words stored on a computer somewhere and observed on a computer screen - to which Bob and Jane, my faithful readers, are witnesses.  Objective reality....well, it is real.  There are things that are true, and remain true, whether we observe them or not, or believe in them or not.

I discovered a neat little proof for this here (http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html), and after giving the author (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) proper credit, I will now post his argument:


This proof is about giving a definite answer to the following question Q:

Q: Is there such a thing as objective reality?

Objective realists would say that the answer A to question Q is:

A1: Yes.

while the cultural relativists would say that the answer is:

A2: No.

So let us ask the meta-question Q':

Q': Is there an answer to question Q?

To which both objective realists and cultural relativists would agree that the answer A' is definitely:

A': Yes.

All parties must be united in accepting that this answer is objectively true, not a matter of someone's individual or cultural belief, for if they did not, then there would be no basis for their dispute. Therefore answer A' is itself an example of objective reality—something that remains true whether anybody believes in it or not. Therefore the answer to question Q is A1 (yes)—there is such a thing as objective reality.
That, in a nutshell, is the basis of the proof of objective reality. But some may argue that the above conclusion is too pat. What if there isn’t a definite answer to meta-question Q'? So now we have a dispute over the answer to meta-meta-question Q'':

Q'': Is there an answer to question Q'?

to which the objective realists say the answer is “yes”, while the meta-cultural-relativists say the answer is “no”. However, all have to be in agreement that the answer to meta-meta-meta-question Q''':

Q''': Is there an answer to question Q''?

is

A''': Yes.

which itself becomes an example of something objectively true, from which the answer to the original question Q is again A1 (yes).

It is clear that the above sequence can be extended ad infinitum: the objective realists always answer “yes” to every question, while the metaⁿ-cultural relativists (n = 0, 1, 2 ...) answer “no” to the first 2n+1 questions, and agree with the objective realists thereafter.

Now, we know there has to be objective reality that exists, but the question becomes, How do each of us interact with that objective reality?  And the answer is:  subjectively.  In other words, while objective reality exists, each of us interacts with that objective reality differently, and each of us experiences that objective reality differently.  So we have a subjective experience of objective reality.

Let us go back to my faithful readers, Bob and Jane.  Each of them reads these words in this post and both see the same exact text put down in the same exact order and fashion.  But each of them experiences them differently.  Let's say Bob is a philosophical thinker who has been wrestling with various philosophical issues recently.  He might read what is here and the words hit him in a particular way.  Immediately, his brain goes into critical thinking mode, and he seeks ways to counter what I've written.  And if he disagrees strongly, his emotional response might be one of anger, feeling like I've led my other faithful readers astray.

But Jane is coming into this from a very different place.  She's never thought about these things before, but does have an intuitive sense that what I'm arguing is true.  Maybe she feels like she can relate to my words and as she reads, she's nodding, thinking, yes, that makes sense.  And she begins to see how her experience of the world changes, depending on what she herself brings into that experience.

So Bob and Jane, reading the same objectively real text, experience it very differently.  They each have subjective experiences of an objective reality.

What does all this have to do with God?  Well, God, if He exists at all, exists in an objectively true fashion.  Maybe some might dispute that, on the basis of the fact that we can't (at least in our finite, mortal minds) fully comprehend God, so we all have slightly different views on what God is like.  Consider, for example, a piece of art that is meant to be interpreted differently by each observer.  God might be like that.  But then if that's how God is, that's how God is!  It would be objectively true that God's nature is such that He is to be understood and experienced differently by different people.

So if God exists at all, God exists in an objectively true fashion.  But we all experience Him differently.  Moses' experience of God might have been very different from St. Francis of Assisi's.  Yours might be very different from mine.

Now, a logical question to ask at this point is this:  if we all experience God subjectively, does that mean that all our subjective experiences of God are true and trustworthy?  The answer to that is no.  Two of us could see an accident in a busy intersection, and file a report for the police.  Something objectively true happened in that intersection, and we both experience it differently.  But (a) our different experiences do not mean that there is no objective reality, and (b) it's entirely possible that one of us is actually wrong about our experience.  If I explain that the blue car, driven by the man with the long hair, ran the red light and smashed into the red car, it's possible that that's exactly what happened, but it's also possible that I got it wrong.  Maybe it wasn't a man with long hair; maybe it was a woman.  Maybe the blue car didn't run a red light; I just thought it did.  In other words, the fact that we subjectively experience objective reality does not mean that every subjective claim of that objective reality is true or accurate.

So don't think that what I'm arguing is that any religious claim or spiritual experience is just as good as another.  That's not the case at all.  If I have a particular spiritual experience and walk away believing that God is XYZ, it could be the case that all I'm really experiencing is a bad burrito.

Why am I bringing all this up?  For my Christian friends, I would use this time as a caution against a sense that God can be experienced only a certain way.  Christians have different experiences of God - some experience Him in nature, others in the solitude of Scriptural study, others in difficult and painful times, others in more emotional settings.  There is no one way that we experience God, and we would be wise to open ourselves up a little more to different ways God can speak to us and work in our lives.

To my non-Christian friends, I would use this as a caution against a religious free-for-all, because, as I said a moment ago, the fact that subjective experience of objective reality exists does not mean that all subjective experiences reflect the truth.  Just because someone finds a spiritual experience in a rainbow doesn't mean that the rainbow is God.  Our task is to seek to discover the objectively real God, understanding that when we find Him, we will experience Him differently.

Fortunately, God Himself has given us insight as to how we can discover Him.  Jesus said in John 17:3, "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."  Eternal life is defined as a relationship with God.  Knowing God is different than knowing about God.  We know God through Jesus Christ, but our experience of God can change from day to day, from person to person.

I would encourage each of us to seek the objectively real God and enjoy the unique ways each of us can experience Him!

The Core Problems We Face

Our country is in trouble.  Though we have made many significant advances, such as in the areas of racial and gender equality, not to mention technology,  I would suggest that the following represent critical reasons for why the United States of America has a worrisome future.

(1) Moral decay. 50 years ago, the top problems in schools were: talking to friends during class, passing notes, chewing gum, cutting in line, running in the halls, being late for class, littering and dress code violations. Today, the top problems in schools are: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, theft, assault, verbal and physical abuse toward educators, rape and murder. 50 years ago it was scandalous for Elvis to wiggle his hips on television. Today, there are tons of *commercials* that would have been considered pornographic or extremely violent - not fit for the public airwaves - had they been even considered back then.

(2) A sense of entitlement. We used to be a nation of people that took their freedom seriously and went on the government dole only as a last resort. Today, if people aren't getting their contraceptives covered by their insurance, or by government, people practically revolt in the street. What used to be a temporary safety net is now seen by many as an unalienable right. More people do not pay any taxes, but receive from the government, than pay into the system. We have become a nation of receivers, not of contributors. This sense of entitlement extends to the notion that anyone who has more than us is "greedy" and that we "deserve" some more of what they have (why, exactly, we deserve it is a mystery). So politicians play to this sense of envy and entitlement, and whenever someone points out that the system is unsustainable, they cry "they're trying to take away your... (medicare, social security, welfare, unemployment check....insert entitlement X here)!!!"

(3) Utter, catastrophic, fiscal irresponsibility. It is absolutely stunning how politicians don't think twice about spending billions (and trillions) of dollars without any regard for how we are going to pay for it. Either we just borrow more or print more money, but either way we go deeper and deeper into debt. To satisfy the electorate (which, based on point (2) above, feels *entitled* to that money, and heck, most people now don't pay into the system so it's not an added burden on them), politicians satisfy short-term desires at the expense of long-term wisdom. At this rate we *WILL* crash. It is inescapable. There is no free lunch, yet politicians treat our money as if there is. And when people suggest cutting the budget they are called "draconian" - a classic scare tactic.

(4) Desiring security over freedom. We used to be a nation of freedom, which meant that you are free to make good - or bad - choices. You lived with the consequences of your choices. Today, people don't want freedom if it comes with risk. It is absolutely better for people if they could take every dime that is taken from them and put into FICA and they invest it themselves. Even a basic, completely guaranteed, government bond would give them a better result than Social Security. But people don't want that freedom because it *might* come with risk. When they take out a bad loan and foreclose, they expect the government to bail them out. When they take out humongous student loans to go into fields that really don't pay, and they wonder how they are going to pay those loans back, they want the government to forgive the rest of the loan (hence the cheering when Obama proposed this recently). We prefer to have an incredibly invasive TSA agent probe down our pants because we want to be super safe when we fly. I understand why we want security. But freedom does come with risks. You're a kid and you want to learn how to ride your bike. Well, riding the bike brings about the potential to fall and scrape your knee. But people want to be able to ride their bike without fearing the fall.

(5) Groupism instead of nationalism. We are a nation of groups now, not a unified nation. Everyone has their own ethnic qualifier. We are no longer a melting pot. When my grandfather came here from Italy, he chose to not speak Italian in his house (which is a bummer for me since it meant that I never learned Italian in the home, but oh well). Why? Because he said, this is America, and here they speak English. If I'm going to be an American, I'm going to become part of this culture. Now, people have as their primary identity their cultural heritage, not the nation we live in. Instead of, I'm an AMERICAN, it's, I'm an X-American. There is no unity, only a collection of disparate groups. It's hard to build a nation when the people don't primarily identify with that nation.

(6) The breakdown of the family. The family is the most important building block of any society, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the family goes to pot, the nation will soon follow. I could sit here all day and cite statistics and studies but the bottom line is that most marriages fail, a HUGE number of kids (especially in minority groups) are born out of wedlock, and tons of kids grow up without knowing at least one of their parents. We are redefining marriage, we are watching celebrities glorify having kids out of wedlock, we are promoting a "new normal" as if it is a good thing.  The nuclear family is vital to a flourishing society and we seem hell-bent on destroying it.

We have other issues besides these, of course.  But I see them as the six biggest societal problems we face today.  The solutions are there, but they are unpopular.  As a result, they will probably never happen.  But we cannot get our nation squared away if we are not willing to face the problems.

I would invite feedback as to what other major problems you think we have as a nation.

Christians and Chick-fil-A

The recent firestorm surrounding Chick-fil-A and owner Dan Cathay has got me (and a lot of other people) thinking. Primarily, I'm wondering about the role of Christianity in a non-Christian, secular, or multicultural and multi-religious, society. And what is the role of Christians themselves in such a society?

There are a couple of points that need to be made off the top. First, Christians are called to be Christians, fully. Not "Sunday-Christmas-Easter" Christians. Not "when it's convenient for me" Christians. Fully Christian. This means loving the Lord and taking seriously what He says in His Word (see my post about being a Bible-believing Christian....there can be no other kind), and seeking to live out a life of following Christ. And that needs to happen even when God instructs us to do things that run counter to the culture.

But second, the society we live in is not a Christian society. There may have been some Christian roots to our nation and our founding fathers, but let's be real: they weren't all true believers. But regardless, today, in 2012, this is most definitely not a Christian civilization.

So how are Christians to live in a non-Christian, secular society? How are we to live out our faith in a society that increasingly disdains Christianity?

You know, we're not the only Christians to face such a situation. The earliest believers living throughout the Roman Empire faced something similar. They lived in a very diverse, pagan world. Though there was an Emperor, they still had elected representatives (the vestiges of the Republic remained). There was one overarching civil government throughout the empire, though the empire was divided up into provinces (think: large states). This one governmental system and set of Roman values pervaded the entire empire, and elements of Roman civilization were evident everywhere, and yet the empire itself was very diverse and multicultural. Within the empire you had people from Britain, Gaul, Germania, Turkey, Israel, and even Africa.

If you look at how Christians lived in such a society, it could be summed up in a few phrases. First, they were faithful to the Lord. Even non-Christians in that time noticed that. Here's a quote from Pliny, a Roman historian, regarding the early Christians:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

And Lucian of Samosata (a Greek satirist) commented, "The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

Notice that?  The Christians met together, worshipped God, and committed themselves to live out the calling to which they had been called.  Other people noticed their faithfulness to God and His teachings.  Oh that Christians today would be so faithful!!

Second, they were eager to spread the Word of God.  Tacitus wrote of Christians, "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."

You see?  The gospel spread at the hands of believers.  Of course Tacitus, who wasn't exactly a fan of Christianity or Christians, called it a "superstition", but he did point out that it grew throughout the empire.  In a pagan, unbelieving world, Christians are to spread the Word.

Third, Christians stood firm on their faith, even in the face of intense persecution.  History records massive persecutions under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Decius, Valerian, and others.  I have actually been inside some of the catacombs under Rome, and there were some 500,000 Christians buried there, many of whom were put to death for their faith in Christ.  It was an amazing experience, for sure, and it brought home just how committed these people were.  Despite all kinds of pressure from the government and from their society, Christians held firmly to what they believed, being willing to risk it all for the sake of Christ.

Now, despite the similarities, there was (at least) one major difference.  In Rome, Christianity was on the ascendency, rising up from its beginnings and gaining a foothold (and eventually, legal dominance) in the empire.  In the United States, Christianity is on the decline, going from a place of prominence to a place of increasing marginalization.  To Christians in Rome, it was "normal" for the pagan viewpoint to rule the day.  To Christians in the United States, it USED TO BE "normal" for Christian values to rule the day, and any move away from that certainly feels like we as a society are departing from Christianity.  And that makes a big difference.

But still, what if Christians simply lived out the values the Roman believers did?  What if we were simply faithful to Christ, eager to spread the Word, and firm in the face of trials and persecution?  What would that look like?

I think those are the questions we should be asking ourselves in 21st century America.