The contemplation of Christ

Most people are familiar with the famous statement, Cogito, ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am”, made by René Descartes. A short, but profound statement. For even when we are doubting everything, we are still thinking. Therefore the surest thing we can know is the existence of the thinking subject. And since thought is a spiritual activity, he had proved the existence of the human spirit. It was from this postulate that Descartes, a devout Catholic, set about arguing for the existence of God. Can there be anything more worthwhile than such contemplation? It seems, that there is not. Man can master the natural sciences, the arts and other disciplines. We go away after a period of study with a sense of self content, often thinking, “Behold, I am wise”. Not so with the contemplation of Christ. No subject of contemplation can so humble the human mind, than thoughts of Christ. Yet, even though it humbles the mind, it also expands it. As Charles Spurgeon said, “He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe.” One who thinks they are educated, cultured and sophisticated, yet has never given so much as a passing thought to Christ, and Him crucified; is a fool. They could say of themselves, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” It is most profitable for the human mind to often contemplate on the one who said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” It was Augustine who said, “The greatest happiness is for the mind to attain God.” The Philosopher, namely Aristotle, also agrees with this idea in the final book of the Ethics, where he says, that man’s ultimate happiness is speculative, that is, speculation bearing on the most noble of knowable objects, namely God. Most importantly, it is confirmed in Scripture. For it is written in John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Think on these things.

Bono book excerpt: Grace over karma

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Protecting yourself online

As more economies continue to be driven by information, success will not be defined by who has the highest net worth. Rather, success will largely depend on how well individuals and companies use, manage and protect their information, both offline and online. Consumers should be aware of the dangers present in the online world: viruses, privacy threats, hackers and so on. There are tools, in addition to antivirus software, that users should install to minimize potential online threats and the information trail that often accompanies online transactions. You can visit the Home PC Firewall Guide at, http://www.firewallguide.com, for a list of software in categories such as anti-spyware, anti-phishing and personal firewalls. You should have a tool or combination of tools, which you regularly update, that protects you from various threats.

When consumers provide information to an organization they expect that the information collected will be used solely for the purpose of providing the service requested. Unfortunately, current practices, in both the offline and online world, has long shattered this expectation of privacy. Information generated during transactions are often used without the consumer’s knowledge or consent for a variety of other purposes. Some companies even go as far as to insist that the information consumers provide them with is now “company property”. There are several examples where companies use and disclose personal information for purposes well beyond what the individual intended. If we do not take active measures to protect our personal information, we could have just as well left a bag of cash on the ground. That is how information should be thought of in the 21st century, as currency.

The Internet presents this generation with unique opportunities as well as challenges. As the Director of Information at Coca Cola said, “We have got to get people to recognize, from an awareness perspective, what the dangers of the online world are.” If people fail to recognize these dangers, they will never become responsible users of information with any degree of competence. That in itself would be devastating to any economy where information is increasingly becoming one of the greatest assets. Second only to its people of course.

Jesus is the only way

A writer recently commented, “You cannot be 100% right about what you believe, because you are not God, you are not divine. You are simply a fallible human…”. Now assuming the writer believes their own statement, that statement itself, made by a fallible human, might not be 100% right. So, why should anyone believe it? Whilst it is true that, to err is human, it does not logically follow that humans always err. Humans can be 100% right about faith related matters. Faith is not the complete absence of reason. So, is “religious tolerance” (whatever that means) a noble virtue? In John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He used the word ‘the’, definite article. He did not say, “one of the truths” or “one of the ways”. If religious pluralism were true, for Jesus to make such a claim, He would have to be either a liar or a narrow-minded Jew. But this is certainly not the case, is it? Christianity, not to be confused with Christianity-and-water (watered down Gospel), makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is the only way. Some may find it strange, or offensive, the claim that there is only one correct religious worldview. This is because of the conventional view that religious relativism is correct and is the way all educated, tolerant and cultured people think. Unfortunately, the conventional view often serves to protect people from the painful job of thinking. People are relativists in one way by being absolutist and dogmatic in another – generally towards things they dislike. People need to be loved more than they need to be tolerated. If you love someone, you tell them the truth. The truth is in Acts 4:12, where it says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” What’s that name? Jesus, of course. Saved from what? Well, that is another story.

The empty self and loss of thinking

What psychologists call ‘the empty self’ continues to emerge in epidemic proportions in western societies. The empty self is constituted by a set of values and behavioural patterns that eliminates the life of the mind and makes maturation almost impossible. I think most people would agree that adolescent personality traits are staying with people longer today than in earlier generations. In some cases, well into the thirties and forties. The empty self is controlled by infantile cravings and constantly seeks to be filled up and made whole by food, entertainment and consumer goods. Such a person is often materialistic, preoccupied with sex, physical appearance and body image. Hard work, delayed gratification, endurance and sacrifice are all enemies. For the empty self, pleasure is all that matters and it had better be available at the press of a button! Television has a lot to do with this (and I do not think this is one of those cases where someone mindlessly uses the media or the American government as a scapegoat). Studies indicate that widespread television viewing induces mental passivity, retards motivation, negatively affects reading skills, weakens the ability to stay focused and encourages an overall passive withdrawal from life. This has lead to a loss of thinking in the wider society. People do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct words. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion and substance to slogan. Now granted, we don’t all have to read to the point of Paul of whom it was said, “As he continued to make his defense, Festus shouted, “You’re out of your mind, Paul! Too much education is driving you crazy!” (Acts 26:24). But remember this, you will be the same person you are five years from now, save two things – the books you read and the people you meet. Let’s grab a book more often instead of that remote…shall we?

Jesus’ teaching and Islam

In his essay Jesus in Islam, Principal of the Muslim College in London, Zaki Badwi begins, “Muslims do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God.” He goes on, “The Qur’an argues, however, that having no father is not proof of divinity – in the case of Jesus – any more than having no parents at all is evidence of Adam’s divinity. The rigorous monotheism enshrined within Islam has no place whatever for any Trinitarian doctrine.” But listen to Jesus teaching Nicodemus in (John 3:16-18), “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” It says, “only begotten Son” for a very important reason. When you beget, you make something of the same kind as yourself. Humans beget humans. Birds beget birds. What God begets is God. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. God created Adam, so of course Adam has no divine nature. Jesus was not created but begotten of God and therefore is divine in nature. Muslims say they regard Jesus as ‘a great teacher and one of the prophets’. But Jesus taught, “You must be born again”. How can you regard someone as a great teacher and not accept the most important thing in their teaching? Just a question.

After the recent bombings in London, most people will understandably have questions about Islam on their minds. The best thing I can do is to point interested persons to the online Christian/Muslim dialogue, Answering Islam. This article is particularly interesting. Persons can decide for themselves.

Same-sex marriage and liberalism

Western states seem to be under assault from the supporters of same-sex “marriage”. This assault though has to do with much more than “a piece of paper”. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, “They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else.” Same-sex “marriage” is a radical attempt to bully Western states into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature and socially destructive.

Ironically, many Western liberal states now seem to be pinned in by their own logic. The champions of “tolerance” and “human rights”, are not so sure about this issue. Edward Skidelsky in the January 2002 issue of the British left-liberal magazine Prospect, painted a pretty grim picture concerning modern liberalism. He wrote, “Classical liberalism, as exemplified by Tocqueville, Mill and Isaiah Berlin, was discursive and philosophical. It tried to engage its opponents, to appeal to their reason and humanity. It could afford the luxury of argument, because it rested securely on an idea of human nature as benevolent and reasonable. Modern liberalism does not rest on any such conception. What is left is a set of legal claims, advanced in peremptory fashion, with no appeal to common reason. In the absence of any positive ideal to support it, the liberal proclamation of individual freedom looks increasingly like a mere license to selfishness.”

Modern liberalism, having severed itself from its Christian roots, is now up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. With non-Christian minorities living within their borders, Western states will now find it increasingly difficult to return to the Christian confession. At least without remaining true to their “liberal” and “tolerant” doctrine. Skidelsky follows this logic, “It [liberalism] must sever itself from its historic roots in Christianity, yet in doing so it severs itself from the source of its own life. Liberalism must follow a course that leads directly to its own atrophy. It must extirpate itself.”

Upon reflection, the same-sex “marriage” debate might actually be a blessing in disguise. It was said once that you should never argue with a fool, for they will first drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Let the liberal “marriage radicals” follow their logic to its bitter end. If we ask, “What will they think of next?” The answer is probably, “If it is ok to marry individuals of the same sex, why not animals…who is to say sex and maybe even a union between the species is wrong?”. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. With the underlying naturalistic assumption being, we Homo Sapiens are just animals; people are already arguing for the acceptance of sex between species. If you disagree with them, you are accused of speciesism; which they consider to be in the same category as racism and sexism. Maybe only when we reach that stage, will we at last realize that the teaching of Genesis about humanity is as realistic and sensible as it always has been. Only time will tell I suppose.

The inherent flaw in dualism

Dualism is a belief in two supreme gods or powers, both existing independently and ad infinitum, which are in opposition to each other. Depending on the specific dualistic philosophy these two powers are called different things, for example, “Anabolic/Catabolic”, as one writer put it. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis when he said, “Next to Christianity, Dualism is probably the most sensible and manliest creed on the market”. Christianity goes closer to Dualism than most people think. The New Testament often talks about a dark power in the universe who is behind death, disease and sin. The difference is, that Christianity thinks this dark power was created by God. It was originally created good, but rebelled and turned evil. Christianity agrees with Dualism that the universe is at war. But we do not think it is a war between two independent powers. It is more of a civil war, a rebellion. Dualism is sensible to a point, but there is a catch. To be effective, this dark power or force, must still have attributes which are good. Therefore, the question arises, “From whence did this dark power get these good attributes?” The powers which enable evil to carry on, are powers borrowed or stolen from his opponent. This is why Christians believe the devil is a fallen angel. This is not merely a childish fable. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. Everything which enables a bad man to be really good at being bad, are in themselves good things – intelligence, free will, good looks, charm and so on. Therefore, this dark power could not have existed ad infinitum independent of God. That is why no dualistic philosophy makes sense. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties and leads us to a knowledge of God; confirming our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful. While pleasing men’s fancies, it hinders their faith. The Lord reminds you, we are all “sheep” in a sense. The wise ones, choose the care of the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

The Problem Of Pain

Any attempt to justify pain will invariably evoke a bitter response towards the writer. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear from the outset. I am not arguing that human pain and suffering are not painful. I am however arguing, that those hurts are both necessary and inevitable in this fallen world. No matter which system of thought you believe, it must answer this question, “How do you explain the source of evil and suffering in the world?” If you believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God, the question becomes even more troubling, “How do you reconcile this pain and suffering in the world with this concept of God?”

The problem of reconciling an all-loving, all-powerful God with human pain is insoluble, if we do not accept the truth about the fall of man. Not only are we imperfect creatures because of the fall, we are inherently rebellious towards God. The rebellious human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender itself, provided all is well. Both error and sin have this characteristic. The deeper they are, the less their victim suspects their existence. Pain however, is unmasked and everyone knows that something is wrong when they are being hurt (unless they are a sadist). As C.S. Lewis put it, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world”. Most people know how hard it can be to turn their thoughts toward God when all is well. Why ask for your daily bread, when you own the bakery, right? To say we “have all we want” is a terrible statement when that “all” does not include God.

The problem becomes even more insoluble, if we do not understand fully what it means to have free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without outside coercion or pressure. When God created human beings He gave them free will. This of course means that we can choose either good or evil. There is no such thing as creating a free creature that has no possibility of choosing evil. You may attribute miracles to Him, not nonsense. If a thing is free to be good, it also has to be free to be evil. Someone will probably ask, “Well was it better to create or not to create given this possibility of evil? Why create in the first place if He knew people like, say, Hitler would exist?” I do not know what the best theologians or philosophers would say to that, but this is what I think. We are here, so obviously He thought it was worth the risk. Free will, even though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes life worth living. Try to exclude the possibility of evil (which the existence of free wills involve), and you very quickly find that you have excluded life itself. When children do bad, are their parents responsible? Parents are not morally responsible because human beings are free moral agents not robots. If we do not haul parents before the law courts to answer the charge of “bringing someone into the world who chose to break the law”; then we should not point an accusing finger at God because He created people who chose to do evil.

Another important point to understand about free will is that a thing can be in accordance with your will one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a parent to tell their child, “I’m not going to make you do your homework, you have to do it on your own”. Then they realize that the child is not doing the homework. This is against the will of the parent. They would prefer if the child did its homework. But on the other hand, it is their will which has left the child free to be delinquent. It is the same in the universe. God has not willed evil, but His will (that we have free will), has made evil possible. It is men, not God, who are responsible for slavery, genocide and every unspeakable evil that one can imagine. The gift of free will then is like a two-edged sword. Not by nature of the giver, but by the nature of the recipient.

The problem remains insoluble so long as we define “love” from a purely human standpoint. We attach an extremely trivial meaning to the word “love”, compared to Divine love, which is how God loves. As Traherene in Centuries of Meditation put it, “Love can forbear, and Love can forgive…but Love can never be reconciled to an unlovely object…He can never therefore be reconciled to your sin, because sin itself is incapable of being altered; but He may be reconciled to your person, because that may be restored.” The restoration process, albeit painful, is for our own good and ultimately His glory.

In this fallen world that is still under the dominion of sin, everyone will be rejected and hurt in some way. The beauty about God’s goodness is that, even when we are wounded He can still use it for our good and the advancement of His redemptive purposes. So that we can all say to those who choose to serve like Judas, rather than John, what Joseph told his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good…” (Genesis 50:20).

Consequences Of Darwinian Morality

It seems that Darwinian fundamentalism is on the verge of spilling over from biology into almost every sphere of life. If your are into politics there is “Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom”. Is economics your thing? Then you might want to consult, “Economics as an Evolutionary Science”. Lawyers, you are also covered with titles such as, “Evolutionary Jurisprudence” or “Law, Biology and Culture: The Evolution of Law”. Today, Darwin’s disciples are touting evolution as all-encompassing. Culture can no longer be separated from biology they tell us, for culture itself is merely the product of evolutionary forces. If that is true of culture, it is also true of morality. If any society embraces this all-encompassing evolutionary system of thought, the results will be devastating. Especially in the area of morality. Hear what some of the most “learned” Darwinists think about certain moral issues.

First up is Steven Pinker of MIT, considered by many to be one of the leading thinkers in the field of cognitive science. He wrote an article in the New York Times applying his brand of evolutionary psychology to the issue of infanticide. This was around the time the story broke in New York about a teenage girl, who delivered her baby at a school dance and then dumped it in the trash. He began talking about how, “we must understand teenagers who kill their newborns”, because infanticide “has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history”. His reasoning was that since it was so ubiquitous, it must have been preserved by natural selection, which therefore means it must have an adaptive function. He went on, “if a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favour the healthiest in the litter or try again later on”. Lest the reader be misled, Mr. Pinker is still speaking about human babies, not cats. Because of natural selection he goes on, “a capacity for neonanticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions”. These remarks should not come as a total surprise though. At a symposium studying infanticide among animals, many of the participants agreed that “infanticide can no longer be called ‘abnormal’. Instead it is as ‘normal’ as parenting instincts, sex-drives and self-defense,” and may even be a beneficial evolutionary adaptation.

On the matter of rape, it gets even worse. In a book titled, “The Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion”, the authors (two university professors), made the claim that rape is not a pathology, biologically speaking. Instead they “reassured” us it is an evolutionary adaptation for maximizing reproductive success. The book even goes so far as to call rape, “a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage”. At this point, the dangers of higher “education” become glaringly obvious. It is quite possible to be highly educated, but yet still be a fool. One of the biggest problems in the world today is that the educated fools are so sure of themselves whilst the wiser people are so full of doubt (but that is another story).

A local writer commenting on the issue of homosexuality asked what would be next. Would people be soon arguing to remove the taboo on sex with animals? Well, if Princeton University professor Peter Singer gets his way, the answer to that question is yes. In his article titled “Heavy Petting”, he makes it clear from the get go that he is attacking biblical morality (at least give him points for barking up the right tree). He writes, “in the West, we have a Judeo-Christian tradition” which teaches “humans alone are made in the image of God”. “In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals”. He however maintains that, “we are animals” therefore “sex across the species ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings”. This sick mentality is not restricted to academia. In 2002 a play opened on Broadway called “The Goat, or, Who Is Sylvia?”. It featured a successful architect who confesses with his wife that he has fallen in love with someone else. The someone else is, you guessed it, a goat named Sylvia. With a culture already desensitized to adultery, the playwrights apparently decided to probe the waters of beastiality.

Picture for a moment a culture driven by this kind of Darwinian logic. Even though this way of thinking is fatuous, it is still very popular, why? Because it promises some kind of morality based on science instead of religion. The logical flaw in such a system of morality however, is that it cuts its own throat, philosophically speaking. Philosophically speaking, it is a self-defeatist or self-referentially absurd (or quite simply, it is dumb). For if all of our ideas are products of evolution, then so is the idea of evolution itself. At the pinnacle of this fatuity, is the presumption that only other people’s views have evolved, and are not objectively true or right, whilst the evolutionary view, somehow magically immune from this same process, alone remains true and objective. God help us all, if Darwinian fundamentalism spills over from the biology lab into other areas of public life.

Keeping Religion In Her Place

Since most secularists are too “intelligent” to directly attack religion, they put it in the values realm. Case in point. A recent writer started began by stating, “Mathematics and certain sciences can provide definite answers. Politics, religion and everything under the heading of “ideas” are ephemeral and there is no end to arguments on topics which are simply ‘opinion’.” Many of the problems in western society is the direct result of such thinking. Thinking that is locked in the past of the Enlightenment period. As a result religion is trapped in the private values realm, where relativism reigns supreme. This is where people say, “What might be true for you, is not true for me. That’s just your opinion.” Secularists tout their ideas as rational and unbiased whilst implying that religious views are subjective “ideas”. Quite apart from anything else, this is a lie. We all come to the table with prior experiences, personal beliefs and other interests. A popular slogan in the philosophy of science is, “All facts are theory-laden”. Secular humanism, materialism, modernism and post-modernism now masquerade in the public square under the guise of “facts”. It is impossible to think, period, without some prior philosophical commitment. Our minds are influenced by the spiritual stance we take, whether it be for God or against Him. We are inherently religious beings, created to be in a relationship with God. If we reject Him we do not stop being religious, we simply find some other ultimate principles upon which to base our lives – Science/Reason for some, boys’ philosophies for others. The question is not which view is religious and which is purely rational. The real question is, which view is true and which is false? It is when we honestly answer this question, we will realize what Francis Schaffer said is so true, “Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T”. Truth about total reality, not just about religious things.” Once these false ideas are rooted out, people will be able to run the country better.

Old Testament Miracle A Historical Fact

There is a writer who of late seems to take great pride in mocking the account given in the book of Jonah (1:17). Unbelievers, and false teachers in the church have for years rejected this miracle, calling it fiction. However, Jesus Himself regarded it as a historical fact. He used the incident of Jonah and the great fish (a whale according to our Lord), to illustrate His own death, burial and resurrection (Matthew 12:39-41). Skeptics who deny this miracle should keep in mind that they have to reckon with the very words of Jesus. Perhaps though, these most learned skeptics are wiser than Jesus. The same writer also hinted sometime earlier that the Bible was written during the time when men thought the earth was flat. Most people would have probably read that the men of the Middle Ages thought that the earth was flat and the stars near. Actually, this is a lie. Ptolemy had told them that the earth was a mathematical point without size in relation to the distance of the fixed stars. A distance which one ancient text estimates at 117 million miles. As to how what Ptolemy said then became, “the earth was flat”, I do not know. Those who read their “little” Bibles do not leave their brains at the door and come in and praise the Lord, as some would like to mislead. Chesterton indeed got it right when he said, “The Christian faith has not been tried and found wanting. It has rather been found difficult and left untried”. Maybe Christendom is better off that way.

When Government Help Hurts

SOCIAL COUNCIL SOON was the headline of The Barbados Advocate on Saturday June 11, 2005. Later in the article it stated, “…that governments must begin to see their social protection policies and programmes as developmental, rather than concentrated in the welfarism aspect of the programmes”. This is good news. In the early 1990s, America had a radical shift in their approach to welfare. A shift we should take note of. Although welfare had done some good, it had also created a permanent underclass – the chronically poor. With this permanent underclass also came related social pathologies such as alcohol addiction, drug abuse and crime. America’s welfare system was in dire need of reform. Marvin Olasky discovered the answer. He discovered it by analyzing the traditional Christian approach to charity. In researching the numerous Christian charities in the nineteenth-century, often dubbed the Benevolent Empire, he found that churches specialized in personal assistance that literally fulfilled the meaning of compassion – “suffering with” others. These charities didn’t just hand out money, they helped people to change their lives, focusing on job training and education. They required that those receiving aid do useful work. This gave them a chance to rebuild their human dignity whilst simultaneously making a worthwhile contribution to society. They built social networks, reconnecting the needy with family and the church for continuous support and accountability. Most importantly, they addressed the moral and spiritual needs that lie at the root of all dysfunctional behaviour. If there is one area where government help can hurt, it is in the area of welfare. The American government realized that by handing out welfare cheques to all who qualify, without addressing the underlying behavioural problems, they were in essence “rewarding” antisocial and dysfunctional behavioural patterns. And we all know, that any behaviour the government rewards will tend to increase. The churches’ successful approach was outlined in Olasky’s book, The Tragedy of American Compassion. This book impacted former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich so much, he distributed it to all incoming freshmen in Congress. Olasky then became an advisor to President Bush, who promised to create a special office to support faith-based initiatives. A lesson we would do well to take note of.

Genetic Determinism and Free Will

In a book titled Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, the authors attacked the biblical teaching of “original sin”. They insist that the September 11 attacks had nothing to do with moral “evil”. They maintain that a predisposition to violence “is written in the molecular chemistry of DNA”. The genes made them do it. This raises the obvious question, are we solely the by-product of our genes? To my mind, genetic determinism makes no sense in humans. Even if a genetic link is established, it can only mean we have a tendency to act in a certain way. There are too many factors, both biological and social, between a gene and a type of behaviour to justify any claim that one completely determines the other. The discovery of genes for physical traits, tends to reinforce the idea that we are merely by-products of our genes. In reality, it is not that simple. Genes act within a particular context and depend largely on what else is going on. Molecular biologists – who study the chemical activities of genes – quickly point out that it is not the genes alone. Genetic determinism cannot eliminate human freedom. A proper grasp of what we are and how we function is foundational to any well-ordered society. Human beings are the unity of two distinct realities – body and soul. “Scientific” talk (which is really naturalistic philosophy masquerading as true science) about genetic determinism can be misleading. Unless the limitations of genetic research are made clear, we will set a dangerous precedent in the long run. If we believe the gene myth that, “it is all in the genes”, we could as well absolve ourselves of all moral and social responsibility. The more we accept responsibility for who we are – body and soul with the freedom of choice – the more honest we become. To attribute everything to genetics only diminishes what it means to be human. It diminishes what it means to be created in the “likeness” and “image” of God (Genesis 1:27).

Reflections on Life

The two greatest certainties are death and the second coming of Christ. This ancient tale makes the point about death. A slave travels with his master to Baghdad. Early one morning, while milling through the market place, the slave sees Death in human form. Death gives him a threatening look. The slave recoils in terror, convinced that Death intends to take him that day. The slave runs to his master and says, “Help me. I have seen Death, and his threatening look tells me he intends to take my life this very day. I must escape him. Please, master, let me leave now and flee on camel so that by tonight I can reach Samara, where Death cannot find me.” His master agrees, and the terrified servant rides like the wind for the fifteen-hour journey to Samara. A few hours later, the master sees Death among the throngs in Baghdad. He boldly approaches Death and asks him, “Why did you give my servant a threatening look?” “That was not a threatening look,” Death replies. “That was a look of surprise. You see, I was amazed to see your servant today in Baghdad, for I have an appointment with him tonight in Samara.”

As for the second coming? Jesus, speaking to his disciples, makes the point. (John 14:3) “And if I am going away to prepare a place for you, I will come again and will welcome you into my presence, so that you may be where I am.” Whether we are rich or poor, believer or unbeliever, high or low in status, the fact remains: we all die and Jesus will return. Why do we sometimes live then as though we are invincible and we hold our future in our hands? Perhaps, men are fools. But certainly not as foolish as that?

None Are Perfect

No one is perfect. God has so ordained it, that we bear one another’s faults and burdens. For there is no one without fault or burden. Therefore, until God ordains otherwise, we should bear patiently the faults of others, whatever they may be, because we also have many faults; with which others must endure. Do not be self-sufficient but place your trust in God who helps the humble and humbles the proud. No one is perfect.

To Err is Human

Most of us have heard this before – to err is human. This quote also brings to mind a common attack on the Bible. It goes something like this – Man wrote the Bible. Man is imperfect. Therefore, the Bible is imperfect. So why should we believe the Bible? This argument is not a valid one. The issue really is whether man is responsible for the Bible or whether God worked through men and inspired the Bible. It does not follow that if man is capable of error, then he always commits errors. If that was true for the Bible then it is also the case that your argument, offered by you, a man. And if your point of view is flawed, then why should anyone believe it?

Everyone Did As He Saw Fit

What could modern day Barbados possible have in common with ancient Israel? The commonality is found in Judges 21:25, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’ The lawless attitude prevalent in Micah’s day also exists today in our country. With little respect for God, fellow citizen or even self; this should come as no surprise. People want to do their own thing; and they resent being told what they can or cannot do. Human opinions have usurped the law of the land, as well as God’s Word, as a guide for our lives.

We should be careful though. As Proverbs points out, human thoughts and opinions are a poor judgement of what is right. Human history is replete with examples of this lesson – people who do what is right in their own eyes, inevitably do what is evil in God’s eyes. Two kinds of people exist. Those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done.’ Then there are those who say to Him, ‘No, my will be done’. To which he says something to the effect of ‘Alright then, have it your way.’

Disregarding God’s absolute standard, in favour of humanistic wisdom (an oxymoron if ever there was one), results in chaos. It results in chaos spiritually, morally and socially. We could learn a lot from Israel’s mistakes as recorded in the book of Judges. Somehow though, it seems that the only lesson we learn from human history, is that we are doomed to repeat it. No wonder it is written, ‘For just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be when the Son of Man comes.’ People will be doing what is right in their own eyes. That's how it will be when the Son of Man comes.

Building a 'NISE' Society

The National Initiative for Service Excellence is a very noble idea. We can train people and expose them to the best motivational speakers on the planet. We can repeat a million and one customer-centric slogans, until we turn blue in the face. They will not be carried out though, until we learn to love our neighbour as ourselves. We cannot learn to love our neighbours, until we learn to love God. And, it is only in loving God that we will obey Him. The quest to build a ‘NISE’ society, begins with the relationship between man and God. We can spend tons of money on training and campaigns and still be subjected to poor service, simply because at the end of the day…we do not love our neighbours as ourselves. If we did, we would treat them accordingly. Think about this: If someone does not care one iota about obeying their Creator, who gives them life, what makes you think they will treat you any better? It is common sense really: No genuine respect for God, no genuine respect for fellow man.

The Greatest Sin

With all of the furore over issues of sexual morality, one would think this area is the one with the worst vices. However, most Christian teachers would tell you that the utmost evil, is Pride. Other vices comes from the devil working on us through our animal nature. But Pride does not come from our animal nature, it is purely spiritual and consequently far more subtle and deadly.

Pride is the chief cause of misery since the world began. It always means enmity: not only between man and man, but enmity to God. With God, you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. As long as your are proud you cannot know God. The proud are always looking down on things and people. As long as you are looking down, you cannot see that which is above you.

The Bible has much to say about pride, none of it good. For example take Proverbs 16:5, “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.” Luckily, we have a test where Pride is concerned. You can have no greater confirmation of Pride, that to think that you are humble enough. Be careful, lest this spiritual cancer find its way into your heart.

Out of Context

Anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. We see this practice in debates and discussions all the time. Someone lifts a verse out of its context and makes it seem as though the Bible and God are anything but good and Holy. Whenever someone quotes you a Bible verse that seems contrary to the goodness of God or seems to contradict another part of the Bible, read the paragraph in its entirety, never read just the verse. Read what comes before the verse and what comes after it. The numbers in front of verses are some what illusory. They might lead you to think that the verses stand alone in their meaning. The numbers were added hundreds of years later and are not in the original manuscripts. So ignore the numbers, in order to get the big picture. This works because of one of the basic rules of communication. Meaning always flows from the top down, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any Bible quotation comes from the paragraph, not just the individual words. You also have to consider: Who was speaking? Who was being addressed? What was the cultural and historical context within which the verse was given? What idea is being developed?

A Bible verse lifted from the Scriptures which does not convey the message of the text lacks Biblical authority even when the quote comes right out of the Bible. Only when you are properly informed by God's Word, in its context, can you be transformed by it.

On philosophy, reason and faith

Consider Tertullian’s rhetorical question, ‘What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?’. In other words, what does faith (Jerusalem of Jesus) has to do with reason (the Athens of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle). In contemporary western thought, belief in God is considered irrational and infantile, primarily for two reasons: lack of evidence and evidence contrary to God’s nature (usually stated as ‘What sort of God would allow...’). The roots of this objection can be traced to the Enlightenment period. During the Enlightenment, all beliefs were demanded to be subjected to the searching of criticism and reason. If a belief could not survive the scrutiny of reason, it was dismissed as irrational. As Kant put it, “Dare to use your reason.” This objection is not offered as a disproof of the existence of God, indeed one cannot disprove God, for God is Truth. It however argues that, even if God were to exist, it would not be reasonable to believe in God. According to such objections the rational belief in God hinges on the success of theistic arguments. This view is held by the majority of modern western thinkers. So you may ask: Why does this view require the support of evidence or argument?

This is because the evidentialist objection is rooted in a theory of knowledge known as Classical Foundationalism. Classical Foundationalists take a pyramid, or a house, as metaphors for their conception of knowledge or rationality. A secure house or pyramid must have secure foundations sufficient to carry the weight of the subsequent floors properly attached to that foundation. They argue that a belief in God is neither self-evident or evident to the senses. Therefore, such a belief is irrational. Very few philosophical positions, and this is a major understatement, enjoy the kind of evidential support that Classical Foundationalism demands of belief in God, yet most of these demands are treated as rational. This raises another question: Why is belief in God held to a higher evidential standard than other philosophical beliefs?

In a view called reformed epistemology, some modern thinkers have argued that belief in God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. If we were required to prove everything there would be an infinite regress of provings. Belief in God is more like the belief in a person than the belief in a scientific hypothesis. If belief in God is more like belief in other persons than belief in atoms, then the trust that is appropriate to persons will be appropriate to God. Beliefs are therefore innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent, as the classical foundationalists believe. This is an example of the Augustinian view of faith and reason: fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding.

The one place where term philosophy appears in the New Testament (Colossians 2:8), the best advice is given for all humanity, at all times: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men’s fancies, hinders their faith. Unfortunately, western civilization is dominated by, and paying dearly for the domination of, the vain and deceitful kind.

Social Morality

There has been a lot of talk about morality recently. In the various discussions however, certain people only want to look at the part of morality dealing with relations between man and man. I’m sure we have all quoted, ‘Do unto others…’, at one time or the other. The other two parts of morality are often swept under the carpet and if they are introduced, the jeers begin. The other two parts of morality are the relations between the things inside each man and the relations between man and the power that made him. When issues involving the relations between man and the power that made him surface, the disagreements become more serious. Some people even make very silly statements implying that one should not drag religion into such discussions. The very attempt if you think about it, is absurd (but I do concede that such statements have great rhetorical force). The philosopher of science Michael Polanyi has shown that no truth is arrived at without the scientist assuming (or having faith) in a particular worldview. Knowledge about anything (including morality), is always held by someone as a commitment. So the faith component whether revealed implicitly or explicitly, is always present. There is no getting away from it. There is no such thing as discussing moral issues without ‘dragging religion into it’. Moral knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, it is held by people with commitments to one worldview or another. Those who preach separation of Church and State are indulging in fantasy. Be kind to these people and pray for them, but whatever you do, don’t take them seriously.

Faith and Medicine

I would like to share some of the thoughts coming out of a brief essay by Dale Matthews titled, Is Religion Good for Your Health? Mr. Matthews is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine (we will therefore assume he knows what he is talking about).

Mr. Matthews writes, ‘The medical benefits of faith are a matter not just of faith but also of science. More than three hundred scientific studies demonstrate the medical value of religious commitment (including worship attendance, prayer, Scripture study, and active participation in a spiritual community). These benefits include enhanced prevention and treatment of mental disorders (e.g. heart disease, cancer, sexually transmitted diseases), and addictions; reduced pain and disability; and prolonged survival. In addition, spiritual treatment (e.g. prayer, religiously based psychotherapy) enhances recovery.

He goes on to say that patients are demanding more from medical professionals. ‘They want more compassion and less dispassion, more listening and less lecturing; they seek healers of the mind and spirit, not just mechanics of the body. According to recent scientific studies and polls, two out of three individuals would like to address spiritual issues with their doctors, and half would even like their doctors to pray with them.’ He later adds, ‘while come clinicians may develop particular expertise in handling spiritual problems, physicians will not replace clergy; each role is unique, and both are needed in the care of the sick.’ As he puts it, ‘we need prayer and Prozac, clergy and clinicians, faith and medicine’.

I conclude on this note. The physical body is important, yes. But we have very few atoms in our bodies that were there five years ago. We are more than a collection of molecules. We also have a soul. Do not neglect it. Find a good Bible believing, Bible teaching Church and get some good ‘soul food’. As Jesus said, ‘…or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?’ You tell me.

Confusion about Moral Law

In reading Mr. Philip Stahl’s article on morality, it is clear where his confusion about the Moral Law arises. If you have not read the article, let me summarize briefly. The general train of thought was: It is possible to be a ‘decent human being’ without believing in God or his Moral Law. An illustration of saving a child from a burning house was then used to show that one can do good ‘without invoking god or religion’. The writer seems though to be confusing ‘decent behaviour’ with the Moral Law itself.

Assuming we choose to rescue the child from the fire we will probably have felt two desires. One a desire to give help (due to our animal instinct) and two a desire to keep away from the danger of a burning house (due to the instinct of self-preservation). But, you will find third thing, pressing in on you. This third thing tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help the child and suppress the impulse to run away. The Moral Law, often tells us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe from the fire but the Moral Law tells you, no you should help the child, and suppress self-preservation. As C. S. Lewis put it, ‘you might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not the other, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.’ The belief that the conscience of man is a product of evolution, and is quite apart from anything else, is utter nonsense. Moral judgements can only be valid if they are the offshoot of some absolute moral wisdom, which exists ‘in its own right’ and is not a by-product of Nature.

It is also unwise to be satisfied with what the writer calls ‘the sane, human and decent thing to do’. If we look no further than our ‘human decency’, we are still rebels. A thoroughly bad man thinks he is alright. It is the man who realizes there is evil and sin left in him, sincerely repents, and looks to that which is stronger (Christ Jesus), who is getting better. We cannot impress God with ‘decent behaviour’ anymore than water can get wet.

In dealing with issues of morality, we are all guided by our philosophical presuppositions and to a larger extent our world view. ‘The theory of evolution’ has become fact, simply because its modern proponents have dropped the words, ‘the theory of’. That would mean then that my ‘theory of Orange Unicorns on Mars’ is now fact as long as I phrase it ‘Orange Unicorns on Mars’. Atheism and the theory of evolution, amount to perhaps the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen. Writers who continue to maintain this anti-God state of mind need to stop fumbling about in the dark and come home to their heavenly Father.

Evolution or Creation?

“Well, hearing a creationist define evolution is a little bit like having Madalyn Murray O’Hare define Christianity. You’re not really going to get the straight story there” - Eugenie Scott (director, National Center for Science Education)

Taking Ms. Scott’s comment into account, I guess you had better take what I am about to say with a grain of salt. I have no scientific background, but I do have some common sense (or at least, I like to think so). Besides, ‘The tendency of modern science is to reduce proof to absurdity by continually reducing absurdity to proof.’ But, it is the glory of science to progress, so I willingly turn to other ground. Or more so, to my point, which is this: evolution as an explanation of our origins is ludicrous.

Firstly, there is a total lack of undisputed examples, fossilized or living, of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link but many. We should be surrounded by these “missing links” that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. Yet, we do not see this. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

Secondly, evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation – a concept ridiculed by biology. Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life – this is the law of biogenesis. Evolution will tell us that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we are not told). Evolutionist admit that the chances of evolution progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the impossible became possible. Any reasonable person would admit that greater periods of time make the possible likely. It will not however, make the impossible possible. No matter how long it is given, non-life will not become life.

Third and final point. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance – they had to be designed and created. In a recent interview Bill Gates was asked when he felt that computers would become as intelligent as humans. You would hardly think that computers can exhibit any ‘intelligence’ without having a source of higher intelligence. They will exhibit ‘intelligence’ because a more intelligent source (humans), program it into them. Information Science teaches us that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. DNA, for example, is by far the most compact information storage and retrieval system known to man. Any complex system cannot be random – they have to be designed and created. Only a twit would think that DNA came about ‘by a long series of chances’.

When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith. Either faith in God, modern science or whatever. The Bible’s teaching on creation is correct and the evidence around us supports that belief. Nothing on the market beats, “In the beginning God created…” But some of us prefer wishful thinking (evolution) to the Truth (Word of God). We are indeed a reasoning rather than reasonable species.

Come, Let Us Pray

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a quote is worth a thousand paragraphs. To that end I would like to share some quotations on the subject of prayer. Of course the scoffers and doubters might come jeering; but should we expect anything else? For it has been well said that almost the only scoffers at prayer are those who never tried it enough. On that note, here are the quotations. ‘God shapes the world by prayer. Prayers are deathless. They outlive the lives of those who uttered them’. ‘Seven days without prayer makes one weak’. ‘Prayer is not eloquence, but earnestness; nor the definition of helplessness, but the feeling of it; not figures of speech, but earnestness of soul’. ‘God prefers bad verses recited with a pure heart to the finest verses chanted by the wicked’. ‘Man is the only creature which rises by bowing, for he finds elevation in his subjection to his Maker’. ‘There are four ways God answers prayer: No, not yet; No, I love you to much; Yes, I thought you’d never ask; Yes, and here’s more’.

Under no circumstances should one look for empirical proof that prayer works. The impossibility of empirical proof is a spiritual necessity. Anyone knowing that an event had been caused by their prayer would feel like a magician. Their head would turn and their heart would be corrupted. You would only, I think, be deceiving yourself by trying to find special evidence for prayer working in some cases more than others. If it seems to be working, keep doing it. If it does not, keep doing it. I leave you with the words of Charles H. Spurgeon, ‘We cannot all argue, but we can all pray; we cannot all be leaders, but we can all be pleaders; we cannot all be mighty in rhetoric, but we can all be prevalent in prayer.’ Our nation sorely needs it and we can achieve nothing meaningful without it. We need it like the Spurs need Duncan, like BET needs banning from all civilized societies, you know…real bad.

We Think, But not Enough

“The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own” – Edmund Burke

There seems to be a great many people who seem to be more and more worried that the Christian doctrine is true. And rightly so. The closer a man is to Christ in his heart, the more strongly he will object to Christianity. One interesting thing is that in none of the submissions is any alternative offered. You will hear the same old boring arguments about religion brainwashing, no evidence, same empty rhetoric. Charles H. Spurgeon once said, ‘Avoid foolish questions’. And avoid foolish debates I would add.

To appease the scoffers, let us say, ‘religion is nonsense’. This Young Fool has some questions he would like answered. I await, not holding breath. From whence did we get the ability to think? Thinking is a miracle, by the way. How is it possible for life to come from non-life? We came from nothing? That would mean your thinking, came from nothing and will in the end, pretty much will amount to nothing. So why should any right-thinking Bajan listen to you? Please help this Young Fool.

Would any scoffer bet their soul on their arguments? I doubt. Very often, ‘men will fight for their verbal creed but refuse flatly to allow themselves to get into a predicament where their future must depend upon that creed being true. They always provides themselves with secondary ways of escape so they will have a way out if the roof caves in.’ At the end of the day, God is a feel not a think. Is it not quite amusing that those who talk so much about God are those who insist there is no God. Now there is something to think about. Someone is running scared, and it is not the Christians. We must be patient though, because for some the longest way ‘round is the shortest way home.

The Seven Series – The “I am” statements

INTRODUCTION

This Gospel presents carefully selected evidence that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and God’s incarnate Son. The supporting evidence includes (1) seven signs and seven discourses by which Jesus clearly disclosed his true identity; (2) seven “I am” statements (6:35; 8:12; 10:9; 10:11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1) by which Jesus revealed figuratively what he is redemptively for the human race; and (3) the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the ultimate sign and climactic proof that he is “the Christ, the Son of God” (20:31).

The number seven is prominent: seven signs, seven discourses and seven “I am” statements which testify as to who Jesus is. Even though not related we should also note the prominence of the number “seven” in John’s book of Revelation. Of other note in this Gospel are key words and concepts associated with John’s writings: “light”, “word”, “flesh”, “love”, “witness”, “know”, “darkness” and “world”.

This study seeks to shed some light on the significance of the seven “I am” statements spoken by the Lord Jesus. We will see that beneath these seven simple, yet powerful, claims the Lord Jesus reveals to us more of his mind and divine character. On that note, let us begin.

#1 à I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE

(John 6:35) “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Here Jesus shows that he is the true bread; he references this concept multiple times: John 6:33, John 6:35 and John 6:48-51. Jesus is to the soul what bread is to the body. Jesus, as the Bread of life nourishes and supports spiritual life, in the same way bread nourishes the bodily life. Our bodies could better live without food than our souls without Christ. If we eat of this living bread we will have eternal life.

He is living bread (John 6:51). Bread in and of itself is a dead thing. It nourishes but only aided by a living body. Christ is himself a living bread, nourishing by his own power. Christ can nourish on his own power because he is ever living, everlasting bread. He needs nothing to sustain him for in him is life itself. He is the source of all life.

(John 6:58) “This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” Manna was given to Israel. There was manna enough for them all. So also in Christ is a fullness of grace for all believers. Israel lived upon manna until they came to Canaan. Our manna is the living Bread of Christ.

This “I am” statement pertaining to the Bread of life, illustrates the importance of our feeding upon Christ. He also makes this point further on in (John 6:53) “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Two points stand out in this passage. One, it is absolutely certain that you have no spiritual life in you if you have no desire towards Christ, nor delight in Him If the soul does not hunger and thirst, we can almost be certain that it does not live. Two, you can have no spiritual life, unless you derive it from Christ by faith. Apart from Him you can do nothing (John 15:5). This also ties in with one of the other “I am” statements (John 15:1).

Faith in Christ is the primum vivens – the first living principle of grace; without it we have not the truth of spiritual life. This also relates to another of the Lords’ “I am” statements – Jesus the Way to the Father (John 14:6). Jesus is life, there is no meaningful existence apart from Him. Life needs nothing to sustain it, we need life to sustain our existence. Jesus Christ is that life, that Bread of Life.

#2 à I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

(John 8:12) “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

Christ is the light of the world. We read in the Old Testament (Daniel 2:22) “He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.” He knows what is in the darkness, and what is done in the darkness and darkness itself cannot hide from him. Light dwells with him and he dwells in the light.

God is light, and Christ is the image of the invisible God. Christ was expected to be a light to enlighten the Gentiles (Luke 2:32). He is a light to the entire world; not only the Gentiles (Jewish church). The visible light of our world is the sun, Christ is the Sun of righteousness. One sun enlightens the whole world, so does one Christ, He will suffice. Christ in calling himself the light expresses (1) what he is in himself – excellent, perfect and glorious and (2) what he is to the world – the true light, who can enlighten everyone. The world would be dark without the sun in the physical. In the spiritual realm, it would be even darker without Christ by whom light came into the world.

The first part of this “I am” statement deals with who Christ is as “light”. The second part makes the inference that those who follow him, as a traveller following light in a dark night, shall not walk in darkness. Yes, he is light but only if we follow the light can we have the light of life, not walking in darkness. If Christ is the light of the world then it is our duty to follow Him in everything. We should take our direction from the light of the world, lest we stumble in the darkness. Earlier in John we read (John 1:9) “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” He is the true light, implying that there are false lights – ignes fatui, which lead men to destruction.

It is therefore not enough just to acknowledge or look at this light, but to follow it, believe in it and walk in it. By walking in the light of Christ we are guaranteed a rich spiritual life in this world and everlasting life in the next, where there will be no death or darkness. If we follow Christ we shall undoubtedly be happy in both worlds. Follow Christ, and we shall follow him into heaven. Only the true light, can know the way to the Father. Let us therefore walk in the true light manifested in Christ Jesus.

#3 à I AM THE DOOR (OF THE SHEEP)

(John 10:9) “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.”

Those who enter through Jesus will be saved and have abundant eternal life. For in verse 10 He continues, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

Jesus is the only gate for salvation; none other exists. (Acts 4:12) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Here, Jesus emphatically makes the point that He is the only door. This might sound narrow minded in this age of pluralism but the Lord is more interested in truth than popular opinion.

Christ is the door of the sheep. If any man enter into the sheepfold, as one of the flock, he shall be saved. We can note two things here. One, it is a clear direction on how to come into the fold. We must come in via Jesus Christ. In Genesis God drove Adam out. The perfect relationship with God had been lost (Genesis 3:24). However God so loved the world that he determined to reconcile himself at the cost of His Son’s life (Gen 3:15). In Genesis 3:15 God implicitly promises to redeem the world. It predicts the ultimate victory for humankind and God over Satan. It prophesies about the spiritual conflict between the offspring of the woman (Jesus Christ) and the offspring of the serpent (Satan and his followers). Here, God promises that Christ would be born of a woman (Isaiah 7:14) and would be “struck” through his crucifixion. Yet, he would rise from the dead to completely destroy (crush) Satan, sin and death, for the salvation of the human race.

Those who observe this direction of Christ will be saved. True believers are at home in Christ; if they go out, they are not shut out as strangers, but have liberty to come in again; when they come in, they are not shut in as trespassers, but have liberty to go out. God does not (not cannot) touch our free will. We may go in and come out as we choose, but He will never turn us away.

One of the themes which seems to run throughout these “I am” statements is that apart from Christ there is no hope for salvation. We must draw nearer to God only through Christ Jesus, relying on his sacrificial death to cover our sins and praying in faith for strength and mercy to help us with all our needs. We must not allow any other created being take Christ’s place.

#4 à I AM THE GOOD SHEPHERD

(John 10:11) “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”

Jesus declares himself to be the promised good shepherd. Frequently in the Old Testament God uses a metaphor comparing himself to a shepherd to illustrate his great love for his people: Psalm 79:13, Psalm 80:1, Psalm 95:7. In (John10:11) the Lord Jesus also uses the same metaphor in order to express his relationship to his people. It is as if he is saying “I am toward all who believe in me, as a good shepherd is toward his sheep – caring, watchful and loving.” The distinguishing mark of Christ as the good shepherd is his willingness to die for his sheep. This emphasizes the uniqueness of Christ the shepherd: his death on the cross saves his sheep (Mark 10:45) “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

In (Hebrews 13:20) he is the “great shepherd”. In (1Peter 5:4) he is referred to as the “Chief Shepherd”. The title of “Chief Shepherd” implies that there are other shepherds who also have the responsibility of caring for his flock. These would be pastors and other Church leaders. True pastors will care for their sheep just as the Chief Shepherd cares for the entire flock. It is interesting if we cross reference this concept further down in John when Jesus reinstates Peter. Jesus said to him, “feed my lambs” (John 21:15) and again “feed my sheep” (John 21:16). Jesus’ description of believers as lambs and sheep implies three things. (1) We need pastoral care. (2) We need to feed constantly on the Word (which is God, who is the Bread of life) and (3) Since sheep are prone to wander into danger we need repeated guidance, protection and correction.

Christ is the shepherd. He was prophesied of under the Old Testament as a shepherd, (Isaiah 40:11), (Ezekiel 34:23) and again in Ezekiel (37:24). In the New Testament he is spoken of as the great Shepherd, the chief Shepherd, the Shepherd and bishop of our souls, (1Peter 2:25) “For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”

#5 à I AM THE RESURRECTION

(John 11:25) “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (John 11:26) “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

For the person who believes in Jesus, physical death is not a tragic end. It is instead the gateway to abundant eternal life and fellowship with God. The “…will live” of verse 25 refers to the resurrection; the “will never die” of verse 26 means that the resurrected believers will never die. They will have new bodies, immortal and incorruptible (1Corinthians 15:42).

The phrase “I am” is very significant. Martha had stated the resurrection rather as a doctrine, a current tenet: Jesus states it as a fact, identified with His own person. He does not say, “I raise the dead” or “I perform the resurrection”, but rather, I am the resurrection, In His own person, representing humanity, He exhibits man as immortal, but immortal only through union with Him.

Man consists of body and soul, and provision is made for the happiness of both. For the body; here is the promise of a glorious resurrection. Though the body be dead because of sin it shall live again. The body shall be raised a glorious body. He promises immortality. He that liveth and believeth, uniting to Christ by faith, lives spiritually by virtue of that union. They shall never die. That spiritual life shall never be extinguished, but perfected in eternal life. As for the soul, it is immortal by its very nature. It shall never die, there will be no intermission or interruption of its life, as there is of the life of the body. The mortality of the body shall at length be swallowed up of life; but the life of the soul, the believing soul, shall be immediately at death swallowed up of immortality. The body shall not be for ever dead in the grave; it dies but for a time. And when time shall be no more, and all the divisions of it shall be numbered and finished. A spirit of life from God shall enter into it.

Christ goes on to ask Martha, “Believest thou this? Can you take my word for it He seems to be saying. When we have read or heard the word of Christ, concerning the great things of the other world, we should seriously put it to ourselves, “Do I believe this?” “Does my belief of this Word give my soul an assurance?” So that we can not only say this I believe, but this is why I believe. Martha was doting upon her brother's being raised in this world; before Christ gave her hopes of this, he directed her thoughts to another life, another world: the resurrection. The crosses and comforts of this present time would not have such an impact on us as they do if we would only believe the things of eternity as we ought to.

It should be of comfort to all good Christians that Christ is the resurrection and the life. The resurrection is a return to life. Christ is the author of that return. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, and Christ is both. He is the author and principle of both, and the ground of our hope of both.

#6 à I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE

(John 14:6) “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Leading up to this “I am” statement, Jesus was promising to return (John 14:3). Thomas enquired concerning the way (John 14:5). Christ was going to the invisible world, the world of spirits, to which spiritual things only have a reference.

The Lord’s response to this question reveals some powerful truths about Him. The is the way, the truth, and the life. He did not say one of the ways or one of the truths. He does not mince his words, He said: the way, the truth, they life. He is Truth, therefore everything He says then must be true. The Truth cannot lie. We can run from, distort, bend or reject the truth. In the end however the Truth still stands. The truth, just is.

Christ is the way; the highway we read about in (Isaiah 35:8). Christ was his own way, for by his own blood he entered into the holy place (Hebrews 9:12). He is our way, for we enter (the holy place) by Him. By his doctrine and example he teaches us our duty, by his merit and intercession he procures our happiness, and so he is the way. In him God and man meet, and are brought together. We could not get to the tree of life in the way of innocence (Genesis 3:24), but Christ is another way to it. By Christ as the way, an intercourse is settled and kept up between heaven and earth; the angels of God ascend and descend; our prayers go to God, and his blessings come to us by him.

He is the truth. Christ is the true manna (John 6:32) and the true tabernacle (Hebrews 8:2). The doctrine of Christ is true doctrine. Everyone seeking the truth, need not look further than Jesus Christ, who is full of grace and truth. He is true to all that trust in him. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the true way to life, the only true way; other ways may seem right, but the end of them is the way of death.

Fallen man must come to God as a Judge. The only way to God as a Father is through Christ as Mediator. We cannot come to God without the Spirit and grace of Christ. So Jesus further qualified this “I am” statement by adding “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

#7 à I AM THE TRUE VINE

(John 15:1) “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.”

This “I am” statement also serves as the beginning of the parable/allegory/discourse of the vine and the branches. Jesus describes himself as the true vine, which would make one think there are false vines out there that only serve to keep one in bondage. The disciples are described as “the branches”. By remaining attached to him as the Source of life, they produce fruit. God is the gardener (husbandman) who takes care of the branches in order that they make bear fruit. God expects us all to bear fruit.

There are four words to which this parable/allegory/discourse may be reduced: 1. Fruit (John 15:1-8), 2. Love (John 15:9-17). 3. Hatred (John 15:18-25). 4. The Comforter (John 15:26, John 15:27). For the purpose of this study we are interested in Fruit.

Jesus speaks of two categories of branches: fruitless and fruitful. The branches that cease to bear fruit are those who no longer had the life in them that comes from enduring faith in and love for Christ. These “branches” the Father cuts off, that is, he separates them from vital union with Christ (Matthew 3:10).

The branches that bear fruit are those who have life in them because of their enduring faith in and love for Christ. These “branches” the Father prunes so that they will become more fruitful. The Father, will remove from their life anything that hinders or diverts the vital life-flow of Christ into them. Bearing fruit is the quality of Christian character that brings glory to God through life and witness (Matthew 3:8).

Jesus makes it abundantly clear that our job is to bear fruit. If we remain in Him, we will bear much fruit. Just as the branch has life only as long as the life of the vine flows into it, so believers have Christ’s life only as long as Christ’s life flows into them. The conditions by which we remain in Christ, maintaining that vital life-flow of life are: (1) keeping God’s Word continually in our hearts and minds and making it the guide for our actions, (2) maintaining the habit of constant intimate communion with Christ in order to draw strength from him, (3) obeying his commands, remaining in his love and loving each other and (4) keeping our lives clean through the Word resisting all sin and yielding to the Spirit’s direction.

CONCLUSION

There is something in a name. In (Exodus 3:14), the Lord gave himself the personal name “I AM” (from this is derived the Hebrew Yahweh, which indicates action). God was here in effect saying to Moses, “I wish to be known as the God who is present and active.” Inherent in the name Yahweh is the promise of the living presence of God himself day by day with his people. It expresses his faithful love and care and his desire to redeem his people and live in fellowship with them. It is also of significance that Jesus Christ called himself by the name “I am” (John 8:58).

Christ establishes himself as the creator with this simple, yet powerful phrase “I am”. This title denotes a self-existence. Christ did not say “I was”, but “I am”, meaning that He is the first and the last, immutably the same (Revelation 1:8). This reveals his divine nature; that he is the same in himself from eternity (Hebrews 13:8) “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”

Morality and the Intolerance of Tolerance

“Tolerate persons in all circumstances, by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly.” Gregory Koukl

Liberal Tolerance is one of the primary challenges to the Christian worldview. Its proponents will argue that it is intolerant, narrow-minded and inconsistent with the principles of a free and open society for Christians (and other faiths) to claim that their moral and religious perspective is somewhat superior and should be embraced by society.

Liberal tolerance it not what it is cracked up to be. It is a partisan philosophical perspective with its own set of dogmas. It assumes, whether its proponents realize it or not, a relativistic view of morals. This false assumption has shaped the way many people think about critical moral issues such as homosexuality and abortion. It has resulted in a situation where a liberally tolerant position concerning such issues is seen as correct and should therefore reflected in wider society. But with this dogmatic position: their ‘tolerance’ has become intolerant. It asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues (that of liberal tolerance), and if one does not comply with it, one will face public ridicule. Unfortunately, most of what passes for tolerance today is really intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind ‘tolerance’ are often afraid of intelligent engagement. It is much easier to hurl an insult, than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it.

Moral rules are directions from God for operating the human machine. They are Christ’s signature on His greatest masterpiece: written upon all of our the hearts. We are rebels who need to lay down our arms. This rebellion will not last forever, mind you. If we build on the right foundation, Jesus Christ the Creator, we could turn our nation around. Any other foundation leaves us with our feet firmly planted in mid-air.