Reform & Revive

For my term paper in RELG 362: Religion and Its Critics, I (as mentioned in an earlier post) am writing about the controversy over Iowa State University’s decision to deny tenure to Assistant Professor of Astronomy, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, who supports Intelligent Design. The paper will not (at least at the moment) come down on a particular side, but instead will discuss the relationship between intelligent design supporters, namely the Discovery Institute, and “modern” naturalistic science within academia.

Intelligent Design theory suggests that the biological aspects of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, but must have been produced by an unidentified (supernatural) intelligence. Contemporary Intelligent Design is an extension of the teleological argument for the existence of God, asserted by William Paley’ in his “watchmaker analogy” found in Natural Theology (1802).

The controversy–this potential “intellectual mccarthyism” (this is not my “official” stance on the situation, but an interesting statement that I have read recently)–does not merely stem from Dr. Gonzalez pro-ID stance, but also his expertise in his field of study, Astronomy. This would not be such an issue if Dr. Gonzalez was not so learned in the discipline. Dr. Gonzalez has the highest ranking among the entire I.S.U. faculty, according to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), which calculates the scientific impact of scientists in astronomy. The ranking system is devised on how much a scientist impacts other colleagues’ research. The more times a person’s papers are cited in other scientific articles or research, the more weight that person receives. The citation index is normalized so there is a greater weight placed on papers that have a single author as opposed to several. Based on 2001-2007 publications, Dr. Gonzalez received a 143 on the normalized index. The next closest I.S.U. professor staff has a score of 103, and the next best tenured astronomer scored 68.

The Discovery Institutes website quotes Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) saying, “In other words, Iowa State denied tenure to a scientist whose impact on his field during the past six years outstripped all of the university’s existing tenured astronomers according to a prestigious Smithsonian/NASA database.”

Gonzalez, who has written 68 peer-reviewed journals (53 more than the 15 required by his department to meet its standard of excellence in research) does not teach ID in class, however, and that it is purely outside research.

Well, I previously mentioned that I would not come down on a particular side, but it seems that I have–with substantial empirical evidence of his contribution to astronomy.

On June 1, 2007, Gregory Geoffroy, President of Iowa State University, rejected Gonzalez’s appeal and upheld the denial of tenure. In making this decision, Geoffroy states that he “specifically considered refereed publications, [Gonzalez’s] level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised, and most importantly, the overall evidence of future career promise in the field of astronomy” and that Gonzalez “simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy — one of our strongest academic programs.” Geoffroy noted, “Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure.”Gonzalez appealed to the Iowa Board of Regents and the board affirmed the decision on February 7, 2008.

This should be an interesting situation to research…maybe I’ll post my final paper (due this Friday!!!).

Am I seriously charging this topic like some stupid ram who must slam its head into another? Apparently, yes. And this, obviously, is going to take to life probably several posts over the next few weeks (probably months). I am just about to finish up the third and final book in Brian Mclaren’s A New Kind of Christian Trilogy: The Last Word and the Word After That in which he deconstructs the church’s teaching on the Doctrine of Hell for only the past 2,000 or so years. In essence, and this is probably slighting the book too much - but I’ll take that liberty for now, the church’s tradtional position on Hell is that it is a hole in a sinking ship and that much of what Jesus taught about Hell was not that it was a literal destiny for the un-repentant; rather, it was a rhetorical device using the common understanding of the contemporary Greek/Roman culture’s view of the evil-dead (which was built upon Mesopotamian and Egypitian views) to try to spur the Pharisees onto repentance of a different kind: social justice. Now, let me be clear here, the Bible is replete with statements about justice in the here and now, and, in fact, I am quite blown away by how quickly we gloss over such commands, ignoring something God and the inspired writers considered so vital, but that is not the point of Jesus’ teachings on Hell. Rather, it seems that Jesus is using culturally understood metaphors to describe a real place that he wants no one to go to; doesn’t the Bible somewhere say that God wants all to come to repentance? Thought so.

Why is this such a big deal? I don’t want to and won’t be one of those Christians who is obsessed with the Doctrine of Hell yet at the same time I believe it is a vital Doctrine, one that must be examined (and even questioned), but not deviated from the reality of. What bothers me (here bothers is synonymous with “makes furious”) is that we, now, have many of our own (or so-called own) throwing out the doctrine because they claim that just as no human father would inflict such unbearable punishment on his child, neither would God. The problems with that analogy are many, but the most glaring is that when your theology moves in such a way that it is overtly and uncompromisingly anthro-centric there is little concern left for the justice that God himself deserves. In saying that it’s not loving or just for God to deem the unrepentant to eternal torment (as Revelation and other Scriptures describe) the focus has been placed on mankind and what should be done to them rather than the importance that God in his holiness deserves justice more than any of his disobedient-peon-creatures. Also (and I am going on the offensive against the Emergent-types), there is this mega-theme that runs throughout the Bible called wrath of God, which by sheer tonnage of verses (over 600) far outnumbers those which speak of God’s love, grace and mercy combined (I just stole the last sentence from Mark Driscoll and now that I’ve cited him, it’s no longer stealing). This is not something that can simply be maneuvered around to make us all feel warm and fuzzy in our state of blatant disobedience. To ignore this is to ignore what God wants us to know about himself and sadly, that includes a real Hell and a real eternity.

Jesus spoke about Hell more than anyone in the Bible (eleven times, if I count correctly) and it wasn’t simply a rhetorical tool - it was a severe and loving warning: Don’t go there.

(All this and we’ve not even talked about a verse — so much more to come).

It’s funny, not ha-ha funny, but ironic funny that the very thing I’d meant to address last night was not really the thing that I ended up addressing. Somehow, I ended up walking down that “god-shaped-hole” argument (which I won’t deny as valid, but that most certainly was not the direction I intended to head). I suppose when making the argument that materialism promises functional saviors you end up toeing that line.

Bygones.

‘ “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything.’

- I Cor. 6.12, ESV

Despite the fact that Paul here is addressing sexual immorality, the lesson he is teaching can be provided and applied for a larger context. Nothing material (or even immaterial in this world) will enslave us if we are to lose ourselves for Christ and the Gospel. In the freedom of the Gospel, we are given responsibility to use and enjoy the blessings of God while at the same time not allowing ourselves to become slaves to them. This sounds right and good, and it is, but as with all-things-sanctifying, application becomes the difficult part.

Previously, I talked about the fictional-messiahs that we create to be our fictional-saviors from our fictional-hell (oh, there’s a fun topic — soon to be addressed, by the way). Fictional-messiahs present themselves in all forms and in the end, they are nothing more than idols that enslave us. They enslave us because they promise salvation from whatever fictional-hell we’ve deemed ourselves needing salvation from.

What is it that you cannot, will not, and must not live without?

You’ve just named your fictional-messiah.

Let’s be honest. Well, how about I’ll be honest? I’ll be twenty-eight in just under two months and for as long as I can remember there’s nothing I’ve wanted more than to find a girl, get married and settle down (and as I inch towards thirty, it seems as though the pressure to find those things is ever-increasing). I’m looking for salvation in a relationship and a career. Not only will those two things not save me, they make terrible gods (messiahs). One will fail me, sin against me, hurt me, etc and etc (and vice versa); the other will ultimately end when my physical or mental capabilities are no longer what they once were. Not only will both leave me utterly frustrated and disappointed at times; they will also at some future point cease to exist. Where is my salvation then? What will I cling to when the spouse dies or when the career ends or when the house or apartment is too much for me to keep up with? Who will save me then? Who will save me when my messiah has failed me? (Do I/we not see the foolishness in this?).

Everything was designed for my losing.

I love cigarettes, coffee and chocolate. On many days I am enslaved by the latter two, and on others by the former-first. Last night, I was thoroughly restless and in that state between semi-consciousness and deep sleep, I had this terrifying dream that I was diagnosed with lung-cancer despite the fact that I almost never smoke anymore. That put to rest my desire to smoke from this point forward, but on that day when I am bored, and nicotine kisses my toes, will I abuse my freedom (and more-likely my health) or will I realize that they are just one more thing that are designed for my losing? (Much of the same can be said for coffee and chocolate abusing my health and my wallet and this begs the question: Am I a good steward; a faithful servant, or have I enslaved myself to something else, something other than the Authentic Messiah who offers life (and salvation) to the full).

Everything was designed for my losing. Will I lose it?

Ask yourself the same.

Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

- Matthew 10.39, ESV

Just under a month ago I was driving to a photoshoot in Pittsburgh; near where the Blue and Green Belts meet just north of the Allegheny River and just west of my old neighborhood, Lawrenceville, when one of those subtly-almost-profound moments (almost) happened. The shoot was in Oakmont, the tiny suburb that hosted last year’s U.S. Open where twenty-seven-year-old Pittsburgh-Mayor Luke Ravenstahl made semi-national news by sneaking into the country club wearing an un-authorized American Express Polo-shirt to get Tiger Woods’ autograph. It was a typical almost-spring-day in Western Pennsylvania: cold, foggy, overcast and rainy and as I made my way along Allegheny River Boulevard while these lyrics (”everything was designed for my losing, i am the loser, i am a loser…”) nestled out of my crackly speakers (or head-unit) the above Scripture began to make a little sense.

In our sin-saturated physical (and temporary) domain the material presents itself as our daily and functional savior. Every new savior we acquire leaves us hanging and as the excitement of the new wears off the need for a new salvation appears in the next material object that we’ve deemed will save us; a functional and fictional messiah. Jesus in his claim of authentic-Messiahship tells us that we must lose everything and be willing to lose everything, for his sake and the Gospel (Mark 8.35). Everything was designed for my (and your) losing. Our Creator, in His sovereignty, has placed before us the material world and in that we can choose to be rescued by a material-messiah or an authentic one.

Everything was designed for my losing.

The things we encounter on a daily basis seem like such a huge deal. Do you ever notice how the smallest things make the youngest children cry for seemingly no good reason? Much can be made from this illustration as we too, even as adults make much of nothing. And as C.S. Lewis famously said “We are far too easily pleased”.

This reality was made even a little more clear for me in the past few weeks. Desires I so longingly want to see fulfilled felt compromised a few days before my doctor’s visit last week. Maybe this was designed for my losing, but was I willing to lose it? And in the potential possibility of losing it, the bigger question emerges - “Will I remain faithful” or will I “Curse God (and die)” as Job’s wife so lovingly encouraged him to do.

Daily, the physical realm preaches to us that it can offer us salvation. Time and time again salvation comes and goes and the next iPod (No matter how much those Apple freaks love Steve Jobs, he, by no means, is any messiah) or the next relationship or the next job will really save us. Functional (fictional) Messiahs are all around, but will we come to the realization that everything really is designed for our losing? Jesus told us this must be so - when will we take him at his word?

Only then can we sing with joy “i am the loser, i am a loser” (oh, the irony).

First, let me say that the posts made here recently have been amazing. I’m excited to be a part of this and it’s been pretty cool to be in the company of some awesome people who have had some life and heart changing encounters with the living God that words can barely suffice to explain.

Additionally, one thing I have noticed thus far seems to be a certain aversion to the whole concept of “Knowledge” regarding God. It would appear that some of us, including myself, are at times turned off by this idea as it pertains to the great I AM. I should say that there is definitely one sense in which I find this distaste to be justified. No doubt, many of us are familiar with how “Knowledge” of God has been abused and manipulated and often led to the development of cold, dead religion as opposed to the joy and delight that is found in authentic Christianity. Certainly we must seek the latter, reminding ourselves of the caution issued to us by Dr. Wayne Grudem when he said, “The study of theology is not merely an intellectual or mental exercise. It is a study of the living God and of the wonders of all His works in creation and redemption. We cannot study this subject as if our hearts and lives are not involved!”

However, I think we should also be careful not to err too much on the opposite side here, and thus spurn the concept of “Knowledge”, especially when God’s Word itself exhorts us to seek it. Proverbs 9:10 tells us that “Knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Without a right conception of who God is and what God is like, we will inevitably have a flawed perspective on ultimate reality. Moreover, our worship of God will be based on incorrect premises and possibly even lead us into idolatry. This led A.W. Tozer to conclude that, “What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”

To be sure, God does not want us to simply analyze Him like we would with DNA. But I think this verse and others serve as a clear call from God to seek to know who He is in all of His divine attributes, to test the limits of our capacity to know and understand Him, and when we ultimately fail, to erupt in worship, adoration, awe, and wonder.

Listen to these words from the Apostle Paul, written after great revelations of knowledge of the Living God: “O the depths of the riches and wisdom and Knowledge of God!” Furthermore, consider this quote from Jonathan Edwards: “The more you have of a rational knowledge of divine things, the more opportunity there will be when the Spirit shall be breathed into your heart, to see the excellency of these things, and to taste the sweetness of them.”

This belief by Edwards and other convictions have for over two decades now motivated John Piper in his crusade to unite the two seemingly opposed wings of Christendom, one divorcing delight from understanding and the other divorcing understanding from delight. I hope that we will seek to accomplish the same here at Reform and Revive. Thus, let us allow each other freedom to write in such a way that expresses love for God from all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength, even if it does not necessarily translate into “sweeping prose, poetry and musings” in every post. Nonetheless, let us also unite under Paul’s call to let our souls and hearts be stirred as often as God allows us that grace.

Sola Gratia (”By Grace Alone”),

- Whit