The question that will not go away; 'Why?'

I opened my Bible at the first page today and read from Genesis 1:1-8 in the NKJV…

and I thought… I wonder if this is the right paragraph heading? It reads; 'The History of Creation'.

The translators, or perhaps rather the editors of this particular version of the NKJV, have begun their translation with a presumption. They have inserted their own paragraph heading and they have presumed that Genesis 1 is answering the question 'How did it all happen?' Those who contend for a young earth would be convinced that this was the right question and that what follows is properly described as 'The History of Creation', but suppose Moses had a different question in mind.

I say Moses because traditionally we hold that Moses was the human author of Genesis-Deuteronomy. Why did he write Genesis? Well the Old Testament provides the source documents for what we might call the Old Covenant and Moses is beginning a long introduction to the inauguration of the Sinai/Mosaic Covenant. I am not disputing his historical accuracy I am asking 'why did he write this?' My NKJV editors believe he was answering the question 'How did these things happen'?

What if he was asking the question 'Why did these things happen?'

If we take a look at the few verses printed above we will notice that the noun 'God' is used in every verse. That gives us a clue as to the real thrust of Genesis 1; it is all about God. I think the question in Moses mind is not so much 'How?' as 'Why?'

Let me tell you how I got into this line of thinking. I have been dipping into various debates between atheistic scientists and Christian scientists. These are men and women of considerable reputation and mental powers and yet they come up with such different answers. If we try to be generous to all concerned and ask why they come to such different conclusions the answer is much simpler than you might have thought. It is simply that they are asking different questions. The atheistic scientists are asking the question 'How?' whereas the Christian scientists are also interested in the question 'How?' but their first question is 'Why?' Why is there anything at all? Why was there a big bang, if indeed there was? Their's is a search for meaning as well as for an explanation of the mechanics. The atheistic scientist studiously avoids the question 'Why?' He cannot provide empirical evidence. To even ask the question is 'non-sense'. But the question just will not go away and Genesis 1 is part of the answer; God planned it and created it with mankind in mind.

Some years ago Sara Groves wrote a song about a dysfunctional teenager who spends lonely hours lying on her back looking skywards; Maybe there's a loving God. There are some penetrating questions she is turning over in her mind…

I'm trying to work things out • I'm trying to comprehend • Am I the chance result • Of some great accident • I hear a rhythm call me • The echo of a grand design • I spend each night in the backyard • Staring up at the stars in the sky • •



I have another meeting today • With my new counsellor • My mom will cry and say • I don't know what to do with her • She's so unresponsive • I just cannot break through • She spends all night in the backyard • Staring up at the stars and the moon • •


They have a chart and a graph • Of my despondency • They want to chart a path • For self-recovery • And want to know what I'm thinking • What motivates my mood • To spend all night in the backyard • Staring up at the stars and the moon • •


Maybe this was made for me • For lying on my back in the middle of a field • Maybe that's a selfish thought • Or maybe there's a loving God • •


Maybe I was made this way • To think and to reason and to question and to pray • And I have never prayed a lot • But maybe there's a loving God • •


Maybe this was made for me • For lying on my back in the middle of a field • Maybe that's a selfish thought • Or maybe there's a loving God • •


Maybe I was made this way • To think and to reason and to question and to pray • And I have never prayed a lot • But maybe there's a loving God • •


And that may be a foolish thought • Or maybe there is a God • And I have never prayed a lot • But maybe there's a loving God • •

Through all her pain I think she is asking the right questions.

Maybe I was made this way • To think and to reason and to question and to pray • And I have never prayed a lot • But maybe there's a loving God.

We were made to 'think and to reason and to question and to pray'. But instead of getting bogged down in the interminable questions of 'How?' give yourself a break and start with the question 'Why?'

The Wife of Jesus?

Some folk will see the title and think 'haven't we been here before?' For some it may be new and troubling. It is really a very old story but the news-hounds who live on sensationalism have dragged it up to the top of the pile again. It has appeared in several newspapers and here on the BBC's website.

When the whole Dan Brown frenzy broke out I did an evening's teaching entitled 'from Judas to Da Vinci' which you can watch here on the Biblebase Vimeo pages.

If you want the shorter version. These documents which pop up from time to time are part of a movement known as 'Gnosticism'. (sometimes they are just modern fakes) This was a movement which tried to infiltrate and to subvert Christianity. Its first documented traces stem from the times of Irenaeus who was writing more than a hundred years after the New Testament. The Gnostics actually created their own gospels, e.g. the Gospel of Judas as a method of spreading their ideas. These ideas were never part of authentic Christianity. They do not come from the roots of the Christian message but are more like a grotesque parasitic attachment. Those who are always on the hunt for ways to discredit Christianity seize on these occasional discoveries and raise Dan Brown's cry that 'Christianity is a lie'.

Don't be disturbed. These weird lies tried to hi-jack authentic Christianity more than 1500 years ago. They failed… as will their modern imitators.

If you want more details do watch the video.

Nullius in verba (Take nobody's word for it)

The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, known as the Royal Society, is a learned society for science, and is possibly the oldest such society in existence. Founded in November 1660, it was granted a Royal Charter by King Charles II as the "Royal Society of London". (wikipedia) Its motto and modus operandi is 'take nobody's word for it'.

I have just watched a BBC programme in which Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (JS) talked to three atheistic scientists including the man he describes as 'the world's most famous atheist' Richard Dawkins (RD). In these kind of encounters Rabbi Sachs usually gives a good account of himself but I was disappointed with his latest outing. RD returned to his theme that 'one cannot disprove the existence of fairies and the existence of God is the same kind of category'. They chatted for a little while as RD insisted that belief must be based on 'evidence' and 'not tradition, religion or revelation.' He pressed JS as to whether or not he believed that God had actually had a conversation with Abraham. JS was strangely reticent to give a straightforward answer to this question but emphasised Judaism's insistence on questioning. The first duty of a Jewish father, claims JS, is to get his child to ask questions. The first duty!?! Well it depends on the question.

JS almost certainly has in mind the Passover instructions which state And it shall be, when your children say to you, “What do you mean by this service?’ Ex 12:26 NKJV. But that question is to instruct the child as to the meaning of a revelation, not a scientific experiment. We are to engage our minds in the things that God has revealed; And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. Mark 12:30 NKJV.

True science and true faith are not enemies. They have their different areas of authority. As JS puts it 'science takes things to pieces and asks "how do they work"' 'religion brings things together and asks "what does it mean"". It is in that realm of 'what does it mean?' that revelation has the last word. It is perhaps significant that the question asked on the day of Pentecost was not 'what is happening' but rather 'what does it mean?' Acts 2:12. The answer to that question demands 'revelation' which RD will not accept and which JS seems to have little to say about too.

If the Royal Institute is willing to change its motto to 'take no man's word for it' it will get my hearty 'amen' but if it says I man himself is the final arbiter of truth it usurps God's prerogatives. Faith does not come by reason but by hearing… the word of God. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:30–32 NKJV.

Multi-tasking: virtue or vice?

I watched an hour long documentary last night entitled 'Digital Nation'. It was originally created back in February of 2010. If you would like to watch the same you can find it here, Digital Nation It begins by observing some tests conducted at MIT and Stanford so it isn't written by Luddites! The tests showed that among those who prided themselves most on their multi-tasking internet lives were not multi-tasking nearly as well as they thought and that such multi-tasking evidenced significantly slower rates of function, memory disorganisation and were worse at analytical reasoning. This may all have deep significance socially but I am more interested in its possible effects on our devotional lives.

Perhaps it is significant that one of the Biblical opposites for 'evil' is 'single'. "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Luke 11:34 KJV." and the Psalmist makes his own intention very plain; "Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. Psa 119:34 KJV"

There are times then when our Salami-slicing abilities really work against the concentration that God is desiring. God can never be satisfied with the kind of Christianity which regards the spiritual life as an interesting add-on to all the other things we are doing. There are times when everything else has to stop and we give ourselves to God alone. "Be still, and know that I am God: Psa 46:10 KJV"

The internet and modern technology are great tools for acquiring data, even Biblical data, but there is more to relationship than data. I discovered many years ago that what I learn quickly I tend to forget quickly but the disposition which marinates in the word and presence of God will add flavours to the character that will never be available to those who are 'hooked on tronics' and its instant solutions.

Poetic Imagination v Revelation?

I received a very special and unexpected Christmas present, a copy of "the History of the World in a 100 Objects". It is the text that has accompanied a BBC series in which 100 items from the British Museum have been selected to tell the story of human history. It is beautifully produced with great art plates of some amazing artefacts. I am one of those odd people who read the Prefaces and Introductions to books and this book has both; they explain the philosophy behind the book in some detail.

Some years ago I while working in the City of London I attended a lunch-time lecture at the British Museum on the Philosophy of History. There is an old adage that there is 'no such thing as uninterpreted history'. That means that all history is edited and interpreted, almost always by the victors who put their own spin on events. This lecture declared that we can pass no judgments of any kind on history without reinterpreting it and advocated a kind of history without conscience in which we pass no moral comment but simple 'give the facts'. It is impossible of course for any human being to be really objective in 'giving the facts'. Only the man or woman who knows they are subjective and takes that into account has any chance of 'giving the facts'. Those who have dabbled in the mystery may recognise the 'post modern' approach of my lunch time lecturer.

The preface and introduction of my Christmas present give a different slant. They declare, particularly with pre-text artefacts, that it is essential to use 'poetic imagination' in the interpreting of history. I read of a man chipping away at a flint hand axe whose mental processes of flint-knapping stimulated those parts of the brain that would create language. It created, I read, the kind of language which had the vocabulary of a seven year old child. (notice, not a 6 or 8 year old child) It then takes this 'fact' into the next chapter and uses it as the foundation for the next layer in human evolution in which carved animals and human figures show the evolution of religion. For 'poetic imagination' read 'sheer speculation'.

Are we then at the mercy of the imagination of our poets for our understanding of the world in which we live or is there an alternative? Short of the discovery of time travel the only alternatives can be imagination or revelation. There are aspects of life of which we can discover absolutely nothing by our own investigations, but we need not be ignorant of all these. God has given us, not a poetic speculation, but a unique and reliable revelation in the Scriptures. We know where 'religion' came from; it came because men had rejected 'revelation'.

although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Rom 1:21–25 NKJV

Idolatry then, whether in physical images or in contemporary philosophies, is always the consequence of turning our back on revelation.

more likely than not

I was listening to a very subdued scientist on the radio today. He was declaring that scientists can never say anything is absolutely true. Science he said is constantly challenging itself and is 'self-correcting'. His topic was the hooha that has continued since the emails for the University of East Anglia were made public.

Now I am not a spokesman for either the pro-global warming or the anti-global warming camps. There is a delightful American phrase which I intend to use more and more... "I don't believe I have a dog in that fight". However this sudden rush of humility sits very strangely when we compare it to some of the assertions of Dr Richard Dawkins. He asserts that evolution is proven and that there is no doubt. We now understand the universe, he declares. Perhaps we can hope that the new mood of science spokespersons is contagious, but I won't hold my breath.

This afternoon's radio science spokesperson concluded that the most that science could really say was 'more likely than not'. How many degrees short of certainty this is were not explained. If Dr Dawkins adopts this stance we shall begin to hear that Neo Darwinian Evolution 'cannot be said to be absolutely true' but is 'more likely than not'. I won't be holding my breath to hear Dr Dawkins say that either.

human but not a person?

A recent news Times article reported that "abortion is the killing of a human being but this is less important than a woman's right to control her own life". Abortion is killing but women’s rights rule.

Over three millennia ago God enshrined universal law in a series of instructions given to the people we call Israel. The principles of the law were universal but the Exodus 20 application of it was unique to a group of people who entered into a solemn and binding covenant to keep it. We call it the Ten Commandments, although the full law contained hundreds. The Ten Commandments all deal with a very modern topic 'respect'. The first few commandments are a commentary on the fact the God has rights and that they must be respected. The remainder are based on the principle that human beings have rights and they must also be respected. (Noticeable by their omission are any commandments that deal with 'my rights to my rights'.) These simple commandments instruct me as to how I must respect God's rights and how I must respect the rights of other human beings.

There is an underlying revelation truth which is as the base of all the commandments directed at respecting the rights of others. It is staggering in its simplicity and in its implications. [color=0033FF] “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. Gen 9:6 NKJV[/color] Human rights are derived from a very simple truth; human beings are in the image of God and that sets them apart from every other life form.

There are many noble souls who have died for the rights of other people but the only sure foundation of a right attitude to others is the truth that human beings are in the image of God. That means old human beings who no longer have an economic function. It means tiny human beings whose lives hangs by a thread. It means tiny human beings whose presence is an inconvenience to other human beings. It means damaged human beings whose bodies or brains do not function 'normally'.

As mere creatures at the top of some evolutionary pyramid human beings have no more rights than a wood louse. Their only right is their might; their traditional ability to impose their will on other life forms. But if mankind, and even the tiniest scrap of it, is truly in the 'image of God' it must transform forever my attitude to their 'rights'. For those rights are not created by arbitrary judgements of other human beings but are a God given heritage and a God given trust.