In every relationship we must be attentive to two concerns. We must be concerned with what is to be taught or learned, and, more importantly, we must be concerned with how to go about doing this in a manner that builds up the relationship. We have no choice but to consider what is required in a relationship, but it is ultimately our joy and the fulfillment of our lives to live the gospel in each and every experience we have in the contact with those near to us.

Read More

“And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

If God desired to unite all things in himself, that is all things, then what do we think of the powers of evil? Only a few verses before (in Colossians 1) it is written that all things were made through Jesus and for him. We are talking about everything that has been created. This includes Satan. What is meant by “all things?”

Read More

Morality must be defined as those actions which sustain and improve life. In an atheistic framework this can be the only definition for society. For outside of the survival of the species there is no standard for actions.

For the one who believes in God, morality is that which sustains life. But there is a different definition of life. Life is defined as a communion with the presence of God. For all things come from him and, in him, hold together. Therefore if actions are to be ordered for the good of all things, they must be ordered in a manner that reflects God’s presence.

The only way one can make a dichotomy between deontological ethics (ethics based solely on what God says) and teleological ethics (ethics which are purely practical and look to the outcome of one’s actions) is if one has not a working definition of ethics or of God.

All things come from God. In and of themselves they are nothing but empty shells, for they were meant to be filled with God

The debate of religious plurality usually takes place between the Exclusivists, who believe there is only one way to God, and the Pluralists, who believe there are many paths to God.

I agree with the fundamental observation of the Pluralists: all religions are an expression of the same spirituality. But I believe this spirituality is bankrupt of eternal life, thus the unending “search” for salvation.

The language that the Exclusivists use has a problem. They argue that there is only one religion by which one can get to God. I disagree. I understand religion as the practical application of one’s spirituality. To say that a religion is the way to get to God, i.e. be spiritually connected with the Creator of the universe, is to put the cart before the donkey. Rather, the exclusivist should show how there is only one solution to a universal spiritual problem (that people are seperated from any spirituality that can give eternal life) and thereby expound on the religious ramifications.

Since God is perfect and infinite, then all human efforts to get to him, physically and spiritually, are in vain. Only if God himself transcends the practice of religion, fulfills its requirements (essentially, takes that issue off the table) and gives his spiritual life to us, is there any hope, then, of eternal life or salvation.

If the issue were how to get to God, then the debate could continue infinitely. But that is not the issue; the issue is: “Has God come to humans in any way?” If he has, then clearly it is only through the way in which he has chosen to do so that salvation can be found, and religious activity can take on an optimistic character based not on trying to reach God, but on the fact that he has reached humanity.

Evolution is proposed as the governing dynamic of the universe. It is supposed to explain both the micro- and macrocosmic origin and development of life. Even if this is not said to be a religion or faith, it is a world view and cultural perspective. We should approach it as such.

Whether the beliefs of animists are religious or cultural matters little when comparing them to Christianity; so also with evolution. If we are considering only the philosophy of religion in general, and comparing different philosophies of various religions, then evolutionists have already excluded themselves from the discussion: they contend that their teachings are not religious. They have disqualified themselves from making any statement concerning the truth of any religion; it is outside their realm of study.

If, however, we are examining all belief and teaching in light of our own religious perspective, then we should treat the theory of evolution as we do the teachings of Islam, Buddism, animism or any other worldview. We examine the basis for the belief, examine the observable facts, and come to a conclusion consistent with our spiritual interpretive framework.

We must define the parameters of discussion. If evolution is not a religion, then let the theory of evolution be proved or disproved by what is observed to be occurring today. If it is a faith, then let the fruit of that faith be compared to the fruit of the love of the body of Christ, founded in the literal interpretation of scripture as the interpretive framework for all of reality.

If one justifies religious belief primarily by reason, then reason is his foundation for that belief. Reason is a product of the human mind. So if one founds his religious belief on reason, then his religion is primarily human and not of God

As mortals we fear death. Death is the end of what we define as life, the end of the known, and therefore terrifying. We try to reconcile ourselves to the idea that we all must die, but we rarely ever come to a sense of peace about it until, perhaps, our last moments.

Next to death, we fear suffering. All that we pursue in life

All humans are subjective beings. There does not exist within the scope of human experience anything purely objective, for all creation is fundamentally relational, and all humans are personally and emotionally relational.

Reason is not objective. It is the part of a person which can operate almost entirely apart from emotion, but it is not purely objective. Its nature is however a constant among mentally healthy humans and is, therefore, universal

A lead actor in the film “Second Hand Lions” states in a portion of his “What Every Boy Needs to Know About Being A Man” speech: Sometimes the things which may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that everyone is basically good, that good always wins over evil, and that love, true love, never dies.

Religion is the set of guidelines for the practical application of one’s spirituality, or faith. Faith is what ascribes meaning to knowledge. Therefore religion is that act of knowing, understanding it within a context of the meaning of the existence of all things, and acting upon it. If these actions are profitable for the advancement of civilization and the evolution of our species, some might argue that it is good to hold to religious belief regardless of our ability to prove its objective truth.

It is true that to believe in such things causes people to be better citizens. But it is also true that the Apostle Paul states that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then we [Christians] are to be pitied above all else. Doesn’t belief assume that the one who believes it is convinced that it is absolutely true? Even those who state that you cannot ever know if there is a God, believe that this statement is true.

Humans are not objective; they are helplessly subjective beings, so to some extent it can be stated that faith is self-actualizing; that to believe something causes it to be true in the life of a believer pragmatically speaking. And here is the crux: If one is to justify belief pragmatically, then one is condemned to a pragmatic religion.

However, personal, subjective inquiry into the nature of God and the purpose of humanity demands to know who we are, not just how we interact. Isn’t there something terribly wrong with holding to a belief only because it causes you to be a better person? Doesn’t our quest for purpose and meaning in life depend on our identity? If this is the case, wouldn’t the idea that we are deceiving ourselves for the sake of a better life fly in the face of what we are seeking to do: validate ourselves?

The truth is that who we are is a fallen, sinful, human race. This accounts for our desire to be better, to act better, to be fulfilled, because obviously we are hugely lacking if we have all these desires! But in Christ, we are what he is. We can recognize our guilt, our failures, our relational problems, our dysfunctional families, our frustrations, anger, sadness, and grief.

All those things are realities, and the truth which transcends it all is no less real: we are the body of Christ. The point of this statement is not so much to make us better people, but to make us a people to begin with! We were not a people, community, or good, we only were trying to pretend and make ourselves feel like we had some meaning on our own. But Jesus, the real Jesus who lived on this earth and really died and really rose again made us a people for him. He has washed us with his own goodness, perfection. He gives it to us, and that is our true identity. That is the only thing worth believing, because it is true; all else is despair.