What Is "Spirit?"

Only God can transform us. To be transformed by God we must enter and live in his presence. But what is it in us that gets transformed? The biblical answer is: “spirit.” Here I will present an understanding of “spirit” by using what I refer to as biblical metaphors of spiritual transformation.

David cried out to God, "What is man that you are mindful of him?"[1] While the emphasis in this verse is on God's loving care for persons, David wonders, anthropologically, about the meaning of persons: "What is man?" To ask the question of our self-identity is to be in a bathysphere floating towards the ocean’s floor. Simply put, it’s a profoundly deep question. Many claim that gaining a biblical answer to this question takes us a long way towards spiritual and emotional stability.[2]

Christian theists believe that, as persons, we are qualitatively different from the rest of God's creation.[3] Scholars have written volumes attempting to identify the exact nature of this qualitative distinction. We will say that persons are spiritual creations. "Spirit" is that which separates persons from plants and animals.[4]

This question of our spiritual nature is not merely academic. When we pray we may find the question rising in our hearts, "God, who am I?" For this reason Thomas Merton felt that developing a theological anthropology was important for a life of prayer.[5]

If persons are essentially spiritual creations, what is "spirit"? The Bible provides us with many "metaphors of spirit." These metaphors do not give definitions or point-for-point descriptions of "spirit," but rather gesture towards the nature of persons as spiritual creations. A "metaphor" is the use of a word, phrase, image, or object to create a framework through which we express or view some aspect of reality or experience.[6] Metaphorical description is necessary because most, if not all, of our common experience cannot be captured in the steel nets of literal language.[7]

To refer to spiritual experience we must often speak metaphorically. Consider, as an example, this metaphorical description of the spiritual life from Thomas Merton: “I consider that the spiritual life is the life of man's real self, the life of that interior self whose flame is so often allowed to be smothered under the ashes of anxiety and futile concern.”[8]

Here Merton uses three biblical metaphors:
1) The spiritual life is that which is most real about persons.
2) The spiritual life is something interior ("below the surface"; "deep inside").
3) Spirit is "energy," "fire." Thus it can be "smothered" or "quenched."

This brief metaphorical description of the spiritual life issues an invitation to consider viewing one's life through its lens.

The biblical metaphors of spirit, while not providing exact definitions, gesture towards the life of the spirit and invite us to participate in this life. They are all grounded in a common understanding of spirituality, which is: To be "spiritual" is to be in God's presence; to be "unspiritual" is to be apart from God.[9]

We can further categorize the biblical metaphors of spirit into types. Our first example is a type of volitional metaphor and is found in Psalm 46:10: "Be still, and know that I am God." To "be still" means, literally, to "cease struggling." This means that if we are to be transformed we must surrender to God. Therefore, spirit is something that can either surrender to God or resist God.

Our second metaphor of the spiritual life is a type of activity metaphor: "Rest in the Lord, O my soul." As Hebrews 6:19 says, "We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure." To be in God's presence means to cease from certain activities so our spirit, like a ship, might be anchored to God who is the dock. To be spiritual is to live securely anchored to God's Holy Spirit. Conversely, our spirit is lost when it becomes a "restless, drifting, wandering soul." This is spiritual insecurity. Therefore, spirit is something that can be either securely anchored or drift.

Our third metaphorical description is a type of part/whole metaphor, and speaks of having an "undivided heart" or a "whole heart" (Psalm 86:11). The implication is that we cannot both be in God's presence and simulataneously attend to someone or something else. I believe this concerns who or what we love. As Henri Nouwen has said, the basic question of the spiritual life is: Who do we belong to? To live out of God's presence is to be, as James 1:8 says, dipsuchos. It is to have "two psyches," or be "two-hearted." In such a condition the spirit is divided regarding its allegiance, and is said to be "fragmented." In a state of spiritual dipsuchos the human spirit has two lovers. I have found it often happens that when we go alone to a quiet place to pray we are shown how divided our spirits are. Therefore, spirit is something that can be either whole or divided into parts.

Our fourth metaphor of spirit is the central biblical one of energy. "Spirit" is fire. When in God's presence there may come "tongues of flame." We can be "on fire" towards God. Nouwen often speaks of our need, therefore, to "tend the fire within." Conversely, spirit can be "quenched," or it can "burn out."[10] A colleague in ministry, speaking of his need for spiritual renewal, once said to me, "What I feel I now need in my life is a burning bush." Spirit burns, therefore we must tend it to keep it from burning out and guard it so it will not be quenched.

Our fifth example is a type of cathartic metaphor: "Create in me a clean heart, O God." "Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow."[11] The implication is that we truly dwell in God's presence only with pure hearts. To have a pure heart, as Kierkegaard wrote, is "to will one thing." Conversely, our hearts can be "stained," "blemished, " and covered with "blots," thus "impure."

The central biblical image of sin is "stain." Many agree that the first step to spiritual renewal always involves confession, repentance, and receiving forgiveness. Clean hands and pure hearts are necessary preconditions for loving God. Therefore, spirit is something that can be spotless or stained, clean or unclean, acceptable or unacceptable to God.

Our sixth and seventh examples are both types of dwelling metaphors. The first speaks of "remaining in" or "abiding in" Jesus: "Remain in me, and I will remain in you."[12] We can be said to dwell with Jesus if we are branches, connected to the True Vine. To be out of Jesus' influence is to become "disconnected" from the vine, possibly to attach oneself to other sources for sustenance. Therefore, spirit can attach itself to God or be detached from God.
Another dwelling metaphor speaks of God as "our fortress and strength." When we live within the walls of God's protective fortress, "what shall we fear?" Thus Nouwen asks the question, "Do you live in the house of God or the house of fear?"[13] It is in God's house that our spirits find comfort, encouragement, and strength for the journey. But when we dwell outside these protective walls and life's attacks come, fear and anxiety predominate. It is in this light that Nouwen offers his "proof" that prayer works. We know that prayer works because when we do not pray our lives are more filled with fears and anxieties.[14] Therefore, spirit has a home, and is endangered when it makes its home anything but God.

Our last three metaphors of spiritual transformation are spatial, and indicate the "location" of spirit. The first concerns "creating a space in your heart" for God. Jesus said, "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen" (Matt. 6:6). This "upper room" or "secret place" is a heart where Jesus is allowed to live. Our heart is allowed to be Christ's home. As an old hymn asks, "Have You Any Room for Jesus?" But our "rooms" can be "cluttered," with no space for God. Therefore, spirit is a roomy space that can be cluttered with so many distractions that God has no opportunity to enter in.

A second spatial metaphor is found in the Quaker expression "to center down." In both the Old and New Testaments the heart is the "center" or "seat" of all that is unique to persons, to include the will, the passions, thought, and the religious center to which God turns.[15] We are to "love the Lord with all our heart." God, Who seeks out all things, "knows our hearts."[16] The movement of our spiritual life should be "centrifugal," proceeding from the center of our being, rather than a "centripetal" movement that begins with the surface things of life and attempts to move through them to the heart of life. Because we so easily stray from center it is no wonder we often find little meaning in our activity. Therefore, spirit concerns the central reality of persons, and determines all activity and desire. It is the source of being which, in the spiritual life, precedes doing.

Our final metaphor of the spiritual life is also spatial, and speaks of there being "a temple within." Paul tells the Corinthians that, individually and corporately, they are temples of God's Holy Spirit.[17] Paul Tournier refers to this inner temple as "the holy sepulchre within." Tournier refers to this by asking, "What is there then within this sepulchre where all the repressed rubbish of all humanity as well as our own is rotting?"[18] Jesus said we can "whitewash" this sanctuary. To do this would be to live a life of facade, pretense, what Merton called the "false self." Therefore, spirit is a holy place where God's Spirit dwells. To be "spiritual" is to allow God to reign in one's spirit, which is God's rightful dwelling place. To be "unspiritual" is to occupy that dwelling place with our own ego as king, while painting the outside so as to appear to be spiritual.

There are many metaphors of spiritual transformation.[19] Those we have looked at tell us that spiritual transformation comes as we:
- Surrender to God.
- Anchor ourself to God.
- Be whole-hearted towards God.
- Tend the fire within.
- Remain clean before God.
- Attach ourself to God.
- Dwell in God's fortress.
- Make room in our heart for God.
- Center our life on God.
- Walk in holiness.[20]

[1] Psalm 8:4a
[2] See Christ-Centered Therapy, by Neil Anderson,
[3] This is important to state since contemporary atheists such as Richard Dawkins deny that there is any qualitative distinction between human beings and animals.
[4] Other candidates for the uniqueness of persons include: "reason"; "speech"; "self-consciousness"/"self-reflexivity"; rationality + freedom + immortality (the early church Fathers); a "destiny into which man was created to grow into" (Irenaeus; memory + intellect + will (Augustine, using the 3-fold structure of the Trinity); and rational understanding + moral obedience + religious communion. See also William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). The understanding of "the image of God" in Genesis is more functional than conceptual. As a result of being created in God's image we are to do certain things: e.g., subdue, explore, rule the creation in God's name, etc.
[5] See Higgins, John J., Thomas Merton on Prayer.
[6] See Piippo, John Paul, Metaphor and Theology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1986. Here the nature of metaphor and its use in expressing and describing religious aspects of experience and reality is more fully explained.
[7] Much of our language is metaphorical in origin. For example, when we speak of the "leg" of the table we have forgotten that at some point somebody used the human "figure" to speak of the table's leg. Paul Ricoeur has shown in The Rule of Metaphor that "figurative language" is language which uses the human "figure" to speak of experience.
[8] Merton,
[9] See especially Gordon Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians. Fee says that Paul’s basic question for the Corinthian church is, “What does it mean to be “spiritual” or pneumatikos.”
[10] On spiritual "burnout" and ways to rekindle the flame, see Louis Savary and Patricia Berne, Prayerways.
[11] Psalm 51:7, 10.

[12]
[13] See Nouwen, Lifesigns; A Cry for Mercy. No one is better in articulating the emotion and spirit of fear than Henri Nouwen.
[14] See Nouwen, Gracias! A Latin American Journal, p. 44.
[15] See Geoffrey W. Bromily, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 416.
[16] Luke 16:15.
[17]
[18] Tournier, Paul,
[19] Another metaphor is: To be in God's presence one must have a "quiet heart." To be out of God's presence is to "have ears, but not really hear." When the human heart is filled with many voices and noises it is difficult to hear the single voice of God. Heart-stillness is the condition where only God's voice is attended to. "Spirit," therefore, is something that can be either quieted or chaotic.
[20] When we reverse the positive biblical metaphors of the spiritual life we see those spiritual conditions which will render prayer-as-relationship-with-God less effective. Relationship with God is blocked when our spirits are...
...noisy
...restless
...fragmented/divided
...focused on life's peripheral issues
...cluttered
...white-washed
...stained (by sin)
...disconnected from the Vine
...dwelling out God's fortress.
...and so on...

Biological Dreams of Darwinian Paradigm Shift

This week Linda and I are in Green Lake Wisconsin where she and I are on the worship team for our annual HSRM conference, and I am speaking and teaching.

It's the first time all week that I've fired up my laptop, and just read this interesting essay in nytimes.com on scientists who are envisioning a paradigm shift in Darwinian theory. It's interesting. And, more to come, since scientific theories like Darwinism are in flux.

The Atheist's Bible is Published

The Atheist's Bible, edited by Joan Konner (ed-Dean of Columbia University's Journalism Department), has been published and is reviewed in the Philadelphia Enquirer here. From the review: "The Atheist's Bible organizes hundreds of aphorisms and excerpts to sway an uncertain mind - that is, a mind uncertain about both God's existence and whether it wants to spend valuable summer time plowing through Dennett, Dawkins or Hitchens. So consider The Atheist's Bible your atheism beach book, your big-A graphic novel, your Atheism for Dummies, a slim book that permits you to feel like a high-achieving apostate every 20 seconds while you build up strength for serious blasphemy when cooler weather returns."

Amazon.com gives us some juicy sample quotes, with my rejoinders in parentheses:

"All thinking men are atheists," Ernest Hemingway famously wrote. [Which means Kant, Descartes, Alvin Plantinga, Francis Collins, Barack Obama, Marilyn McCord Adams, William Lane Craig, Peter Kreeft, Alasdair McIntyre, Flannery O.Connor, John Updike, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, William P. Alston, Miroslav Volf, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Kierkegaard, Alfred North Whitehead, John Polkinghorne, Robert Coles, Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, Craig Keener, N.T. Wright, ... etc. etc. ad nauseum... were not "thinking men?" And, Hemingway was?]

"When I think of all the harm [the bible] has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it." Oscar Wilde [Wilde himself "lived a life of deceit to his wife, family and friends." So how did his a-religion help him from not harming others? And, for me personally, the Bible has done much good.]

"SAINT, n. A dead sinner revised and edited." Ambrose Bierce [Funny. But adds nothing of substance.]

"There ain't no answer. There ain't going to be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer." Gertrude Stein [Funny. But self-contradictory.]

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are skeptical." Friedrich Nietzsche [If true, so what? There are great intellects who are skeptical of atheism.]

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." Susan Ertz [And atheists have no real purpose, no telos, in life. Their Sunday afternoons are spent in absurdities according to Sartrean existentialist atheism. "Existentialism describes a being who means nothing and is utterly alone in the world, save his other empty compatriots." Ever read Nausea, or "The Wall?" Antoine Roquentin would surely struggle to find something meaningful to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon.]

"God is love, but get it in writing." Gypsy Rose Lee [On Christian theism, we do have it in writing. See N.T. Wright's The Last Word.]

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind." Ralph Waldo Emerson [False. On atheism nothing is sacred, period.]

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." George Bernard Shaw [But of course. C.S. Lewis made this point. Lewis said he did not come to Christianity because it made him happier, but because he thought it was the truth. Lewis said if he wanted to be "happy" he would have picked up a bottle of wine.]

Jurgen Habermas and the Necessity of Christianity

When I was studying philosophy at Northwestern University the department had some incredible scholars. I took a doctoral seminar on Aristotle's metaphysics, taught by arguably the then-world's greatest Plato scholar, Reginald Allen. There were about 6 of us in his seminar. Allen was so brilliant that occasionally another professor would come and sit in on his lectures. For example, one day Edwin Curley came and listened. Listen to this. Allen would arrive in class, usually just a bit late. Often, as I remember, he would not even bring the text of Aristotle's metaphysics with him. It seems that he knew the entire text by heart, in the Greek language. That, to me, was very cool. And, intimidating. But Allen was a good guy, and had grace (as I experienced him) towards us.

Now I feel jealous when I see who's teaching in NU's philosophy department. None other than Jurgen Habermas. Incredible! You either drop your jaw at the thought of being taught by Habermas in the flesh, or you don't know who he is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy rightly says that "Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world."

So tonight I'm reading an essay by Philip Jenkins on the myth of the death of Christianity in Europe, and he quotes Habermas. Jenkins writes: "Jürgen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”"

I think I'm going to memorize that statement, ingest it for a while.

Jenkins uses it to illustrate his scholarly opinion that Christianity is not laying down and dying in the face of "Islamification." As Jenkins writes, "Europe may be confronting the dilemmas of a truly multifaith society, but with Christianity poised for a comeback, it is hardly on the verge of becoming an Islamic colony."

Jerry Coyne "Reasons" About Spiritual Truth

University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne concludes there are no such things as “spiritual truths” because, he seems to say, such truths are wholly subjective and relative. But Coyne uses some very poor reasoning to argue this.

Coyne asks: “But what is "spiritual truth"? It is simply what someone believes to be true, without any need for evidence. One man's spiritual truth is another man's spiritual lie. Jesus may be the son of God to Christians, but not to Muslims. The Inuit creation story begins with a pair of giants who chopped off their daughter's fingers, which became seals, whales, walrus, and salmon. There have been thousands of religions, and thousands of religious "spiritual truths," but many of them conflict with each other, and some of them conflict with science.”

[Surely this is fallacious reasoning. Look at this:

1 - Belief A is true.

2 - But some other person believes Belief A is a lie.

3 - Therefore, Belief A is a lie.

Or:

1. Religious Belief A is true.

2. There are thousands of Religious beliefs in conflict with Belief A.

3. Therefore Belief A is false.

Now try this:

1. Coyne's beliefs about science are true.

2. There is another scientist who believes Coyne's beliefs are not true.

3. Therefore Coyne's beliefs are not true.

On this kind of reasoning, one man’s view of “science” is another man’s “lie” as well. Not every scientist believes as Jerry Coyne does. Richard Dawkins did not agree with Stephen Jay Gould in all things evolutionary. Surely Coyne believes his view of “science” is “true.” Scientists who do not agree with Coyne would then be “wrong.” My point is: to say that “one man’s spiritual truth is another man’s lie” is, I am sure, correct. But so what? The same can be said for Coyne vs. __________. This point is a mere sociological datum. Beyond that it is a leap of logic to conclude something like: there is no spiritual truth, at least using Coyne's kind of "logic." If that were so, one could just as well conclude that there is no such thing as "scientific truth." Coyne has not demonstrated his point.]

Coyne, criticizing Senator Sam Brownback, asks: “Who is "we", and where did "our" conviction and certainty come from? Would Brownback believe these "spiritual truths" if he hadn't been taught them as a child, or brought up in the United States instead of China?”

[But this is the good old genetic fallacy. Such reasoning is logically fallacious. For example, Coyne would never have learned his particular version of biology had he not been raised in an environment that taught it. So? The issue is not how did a belief get taught to you, the question is is that belief true or false? And the truth or falsity of a belief, at least in logic, has nothing to do with the origin and transmission of such belief. It simply isn't true that the origins of an idea have any inherent bearing on its validity. Or: Difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message.]

Coyne writes: “Science simply doesn't deal with hypotheses about a guiding intelligence, or supernatural phenomena like miracles, because science is the search for rational explanations of natural phenomena. We don't reject the supernatural merely because we have an overweening philosophical commitment to materialism; we reject it because entertaining the supernatural has never helped us understand the natural world. Alchemy, faith healing, astrology, creationism—none of these perspectives has advanced our understanding of nature by one iota.”

[The first sentence in this statement is a classic example of methodological naturalism and, as such, reflects a metaphysical point of view.

Secondly, a common position among scientists who are theists has always been this: the supernatural hypothesis may or may not tell us about the natural world, but the natural world tells us about God. Such is, e.g., the point of biologist Francis Collins’s The Language of God (DNA = “the fingerprint of God”). And this, for some such as Collins, “gives evidence” for the existence of God.]

Discovering the Real Jesus in Monroe

I met this last Thursday with Dan Shaw, who is the Managing Editor of the Monroe Evening News. Dan is forming a blogging community on the paper's website. He invited me to blog representing an evangelical Christian perspective.

I'm calling my blog Discovering the Real Jesus in Monroe. I intend to write about the Real Jesus and the Kingdom of God.

Some of the Monroe News blogs had as many as ten thousand hits last month. I'm hoping, over time, to get a lot of hits, get into some discussions, and introduce people to the Real Jesus.

You can see the whole list of blogs here. Or you can go directly to my blog here.

The God Delusion #26: W. L. Craig Responds

William Lane Craig has a good response to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. I think it's worth posting Craig's response in its entirety, with a few parenthetical comments by me.

Craig is asked, "What do you think of Richard Dawkins' argument for atheism in The God Delusion?"

Dr. Craig responds:

On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.

Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.
A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified.

What does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation. Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. (NOTE: Even if it is true that we should not infer that God exists on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe, it does not logically follow that God does not exist.)

So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps.

But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. Take just step (3), for example. Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: who designed the designer?

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. (Note: See what Craig is doing here. A common atheist come-back to cosmological arguments for God's existence is: "But if God is the cause of the unbiverse, we have created yet another question; viz., who or what caused God? This will lead us to an infinite regress of explanations, which is absurd.)

First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer. (See also Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. In that argument God is understood as a being that did not begin to exist. Only that which begins to exist can be said to have a cause. If God did not begin to exist then the question of what caused God is fundamentally misguided.)

Secondly, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth. But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

Other steps in Dawkins' argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.

The Real Jesus's Full Humanity

In my Ph.D program at Northwestern University I had to do what all Ph.D students do; namely, pass what are called “comprehensive exams.” If a student passes these exams they become a “Ph.D candidate.” This allows them to begin working on their doctoral dissertation. One of my exams was in the area called “Christology,” which means “the doctrine or study of Christ.” This particular exam focused on what the early church (1st – 4th century) had to say about Christ. This period of church history dealt with the question “Who is Christ, and what is Christ’s true nature?” Out of these questions came the great church creeds, like the Nicene Creed.

A more modern version of these creeds is the Westminster Confession. Here’s what the WC has to say about the nature of Christ:

-"The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; …So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man."

The orthodox, evangelical understanding of the Scriptures is that, when it comes to the nature of the Jesus of the Gospels, He is “fully God and “fully man.” To emphasize one of these natures over the other is to head down the road to biblical heresy.

When, in Matthew 14 and Mark 6, Jesus walks on the water, we get a revelation of the full divinity and the full humanity of the Real Jesus. In Matthew 14 the 12 disciples are beginning to understand that Jesus is God when they say, after the water-walking episode, “Truly this is the Son of God.” But in Mark 6 the disciples were confused because they did “not understand about the bread.” What does that mean?

When Jesus fed the 5,000, we read that He took bread, broke it, gave thanks, and gave it to His disciples to pass out to the people. In Mark 14 the same words are used at the Last Supper: Jesus takes, breaks, gives thanks, and gives to his disciples. But there He adds, when breaking the bread, the words “This is my body.” The “bread” is really about Himself as the Messiah who has come and whose physical body will be broken, and by whose physical “stripes” we will be healed. This is about the “bread,” the humanity of Jesus. That’s the thing the disciples did not understand, but which is now essential for us to understand when it comes to knowing the Real Jesus.

When it comes to you and me, it’s obvious we are not God. But are we “human?” I believe the biblical answer is “not completely.” Jesus was “fully human,” we are not. Adam, in the pre-Fall Garden, was more human than we are. He had not yet sinned. Adam’s humanity included ruling over all the creation. Further, in heaven, in eternity, “we will be like Christ.” 1 Corinthians 15:49 says, "just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." In heaven nature won't us problems like such as wind-storms on the sea. We won’t need flood insurance when we are fully redeemed.

As Jesus strides across the Sea of Galilee about to pass by the oar-straining disciples, we have a picture of the rightful, exiled King returning not only in full God-ness but also full humanity, the elements of nature subdued. When Peter gets out of the boat and water-walks he is experiencing not only the power of God but getting a glimpse of true humanity, of what we were created to be and are destined to be.

If you want more explanation, please get a tape of my May 27, 2007 sermon. See also N. T. Wright's comments re. such things in his Mark for Everyone.

God Shows Up at Palmer Theological Seminary Graduation

Last Saturday I was in Philadelphia to be a part of Palmer Theological Seminary's graduation ceremony. It was my great privilege to "hood" the doctoral students whom I have been working with as Palmer's doctoral Project Director.

The speaker was Dr. Robin Smith. Robin has a Ph.D in psychology from Temple University. She's the "Dr. Robin" who regularly appears on "Oprah."

She began her message by telling all that God had given her a message for the day, and that it was not a typical graduation challenge. God told Robin to confront us all with our idolatry that would put anything ahead of God, to include a graduation "festival" like the one we were at. God doesn't care about our graduation robes and the amount of doctoral bars on our sleeves.

I think she preached for at least 45 minutes, maybe longer. I lost track of time, because, for me, when God shows up, it's an event-oriented thing rather than a time-oritented thing.

Robin asked for people to give their lives over to Jesus. She said, "Even if you are graduating today from seminary, if you have not given your life fully over to Jesus today is your day."

I estimate that 200 people came forward (out of, say, 1500 that were there). Many were touched. I and other had tears in our eyes. The pastor of Edon Tabernacle Church prayed "God, thank You for revealing our hypocrisy to us today."

I loved what God was doing in that place! After the "ceremony" one faculty member told me, "I thought it went on a little too long." I didn't say anything, but inwardly I was thinking "You have got to be kidding me! God was making a statement!"

I believe God was communicating something to Palmer Seminary, about what the whole "seminary" thing is supposed to be in the first place. Indeed, God was speaking to all American theological seminaries through Palmer that they must set aside any idolatry and return to God, who is a jealous God.

Nussbaum on India and the Threat to Democracy

Eight years ago I went to India to teach and speak for 10 days. I flew to Mumbai, then to Hyderabad, where I was picked up by my host Pastor Israel Supogu. From Hyderabad we rode in a car 5 hours south through central India to the city of Kurnool. Using Kurnool as a home base, I spoke there and also traveled by all-terrain vehicle to various villages on the Deccan Plateau. All in all it was an eye-opening trip for me. I saw real Hinduism first hand. And I gained a heart for India.

In today's Chronicles of Higher Education the brilliant University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum has an excellent article on what's now happening in India. It's entitled "Fears for Democracy in India."

Nussbaum writes: "What has been happening in India is a serious threat to the future of democracy in the world. The fact that it has yet to make it onto the radar screen of most Americans is evidence of the way in which terrorism and the war on Iraq have distracted us from events and issues of fundamental significance. If we really want to understand the impact of religious nationalism on democratic values, India currently provides a deeply troubling example, and one without which any understanding of the more general phenomenon is dangerously incomplete. It also provides an example of how democracy can survive the assault of religious extremism."

Especially interesting is Nussbaum's idea that Samuel Huntington's famous "clash of civilizations" thesis does not apply to violence in the Indian state of Gujarat.

Nussbaum: "It is comforting for Americans to talk about a clash of civilizations. That thesis tells us that evil is outside, distant, other, and that we are perfectly all right as we are. All we need do is to remain ourselves and fight the good fight. But the case of Gujarat shows us that the world is very different. The forces that assail democracy are internal to many, if not most, democratic nations, and they are not foreign: They are our own ideas and voices, meaning the voices of aggressive European nationalism, refracted back against the original aggressor with the extra bile of resentment born of a long experience of domination and humiliation.
The implication is that all nations, Western and non-Western, need to examine themselves with the most fearless exercise of critical capacities, looking for the roots of domination within and devising effective institutional and educational countermeasures. At a deeper level, the case of Gujarat shows us what Gandhi and Tagore, in their different ways, knew: that the real root of domination lies deep in the human personality. It would be so convenient if Americans were pure and free from flaw, but that fantasy is yet another form that the resourceful narcissism of the human personality takes on the way to bad behavior."

Look at that point: "The real root of domination lies deep in the human personality." Thus "sin" and "evil" are human, not cultural, properties. Put in a Christian sense, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

It's a long, scholarly-analytical essay. But one more Nussbaum quote: "Today's young people in India... tend to think of religion, and the creation of symbolic culture in general, as forces that are in their very nature fascist and reactionary because that is what they have seen in their experience."