Star Size Comparison HD (What is mankind, that God is mindful of us?)

I really like this clip.

"When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?"
- Psalm 8:3-4


See here for some commentary by astronomer Hugh Ross.

N.T. Wright's Portrait of Jesus in Jesus and the Victory of God

Hummingbird, at our back deck feeder

Maryanne Meye Thompson has a nice summary of N.T. Wright's synoptic Christology, as he presents it in Jesus and the Victory of God. I'm still slow-reading through JVG, so Meye's summary nicely focuses things. Here are "the main contours of [Wright's] portrait of Jesus in JVC.

• Jesus is a prophet who not only announced but enacted the kingdom of God, by which is meant the return of YHWH to Zion
• This is the real end of Israel's exile
• It is the forgiveness of Israel's sin
• We have the reconstitution of Israel around Jesus who, together with his movement, constituted a new or alternative temple
• In Jesus we have a concomitant call to faith centered on him and not in Torah and temple
• And, this is the fulfillment of God's promise to the Gentiles.

Thompson says: "The end of exile and the "rebuilding" of the temple indicate the Messiah has come at last and that the new age, Israel's redemption, the resurrection from the dead, is coming into being. In order to accomplish his ends, Jesus gave himself to death on the cross, and allowed evil to do its worst, and so to be the means by which God would finally deal with evil. Most pithily summarized, "Jesus believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be.""

(Thompson, in Nicholas Perrin;Richard B. Hays. Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright (p. 28). Kindle Edition.)

Thompson claims Wright's portrait of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels goes well with Jesus as we meet him in the Gospel of John. This is important, as Wright himself alludes, since New Testament scholars following in the footsteps of Reimarus conclude that John's Gospel is "nonhistorical."

Thompson notes that Wright, in his John for Everyone, presents John's Gospel as simultaneously "very near" to the historical source and "the outcome of profound theological reflection."

Redeemer Ministry School 2011-2012 (Come Study With Me for 9 Months)

We're receiving applications for our 2011-2012 Redeemer Ministry School year. Here's some information.

RMS begins Sunday, September 11, in our morning worship service. We'll have a picnic that evening at my home.

Monday, Sept. 12 - Thursday, Sept. 15 - Student Orientation week. This will include community building, let by Jim and Denise Hunter.

RMS's Fall Trimester begins Tuesday, Sept. 20. Our Fall Classes are:

• Spiritual Formation - John Piippo. Description: In order to be used by God as an agent of renewal and transformation one must themselves be in a continual place of personal renewal and transformation. This course will combine times of personal prayer, spiritual journaling, and teaching from biblical and historical resources on what it means to dwell in the presence of God and be renewed and transformed. Meets: Tuesdays, 9:30am – 1:00pm
• Worship I: Intimacy & Worship - Holly Benner. Description: True worship and adoration comes from intimacy with God. It is founded on the understanding of God's great love for you. Intimacy and Worship will focus on building and furthering that love relationship with Him while defining what a lifestyle of worship looks like. This class will include an in-depth look at Song of Solomon and Old & New Testament character studies. Meets: Wednesday/Thursday, 9:30am – 11:00am.
• Kingdom of God I - Jim Collins. Description: The main teaching of Jesus was about the “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of heaven.” This course will present the major interpretations of the meaning of the kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed. Students will learn to understand the real Jesus from the perspective of God’s kingdom message. Meets: Thursday; 5pm - 8pm.
• Bible Study Methods - Josh Bentley. Description: This course will provide students with systematic methods of studying scripture. Through those methods students will also learn how to practically apply their understanding as they study different books of the Bible. Meets: Friday, 9:30 am - 1 pm.

Thanksgiving week will be off - no classes.

On class days we worship in the sanctuary from 9 - 9:30 AM. Anyone is invited to come. RMS students are expected to attend.

AND, RMS students will be part of the following special events at Redeemer:

• Philip Mantofa, Sept. 26 - 27 - 28
• Chris Overstreet, Oct. 21-23
• Angela Greenig, Nov. 10-12

Last day of Fall Trimester - Friday, Dec. 9.

Students who are living in the RMS Community House may move in on Labor Day Weekend or after.

I am already excited about students who will be in RMS this fall!

For registration information go to: redeemerministryschool.com.

50 Renowned Academics (Atheists) Speaking About God - A Review

There’s a video showing brief clips from scholarly atheists and agnostics called “50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God.”

I watched, and took some notes. The notes on each speaker are below. We are to remember, of course, that these very brief clips are not to be treated as sustained arguments against God’s existence. So we can’t be too critical of what these atheists say.

Here’s a summary of what I see as the salient and interesting points.

· Mostly, these brief clips are confessionals. They are brief “testimonies,” some amounting to no more than someone saying “I am an atheist.” If such things preach at all, they will preach only to the choir. Few actual arguments against God’s existence are provided. This is a barrage of proclamations.

· In general, where there is some reasoning, the scientists reason more poorly about God than do the philosophers. I think this is to be expected. Simply because one is a great scientist does not mean they are able to enter into philosophy of religion discussions for or against God’s existence. Indeed, some of them state their great lack of interest in such discussions.

· Overall, the main problems with God’s existence are about:

o A commitment to “science” as the way to arrive at knowledge. One wants to dialogue a lot more, of course, about the definition of “science,” and the nature of its limits. We must remember that “science” is not itself theistic or atheistic, but scientists are.

o Some of the clips confess philosophical naturalism. This is easily confessed but not so easily understood or defended. See., e.g., U of Texas philosopher Robert Koons’s volume of collected essays The Waning of Materialism. 

o There’s a lot of “evidentialist” philosophy throughout the video. The need for a certain kind of “evidence” for God’s existence, to be arrived at “scientifically.” The discussion of evidentialism takes us into deep philosophical waters. Things are not so simple as “What you see is what you get.”

o A fair amount of reference is made to the philosophical problem of evil – especially to what has been called “natural” evil. This is an important issue that has rightly captured the attention of all philosophers of religion, whether atheistic or theistic.

o The Euthypho Dilemma is referenced only once. Yet it is an important issue to be considered in the God-discussion.

o Complaints against “God of the gap” reasoning lie in the background of some of the comments, thought the term is not explicitly used. For example, a few express how very comfortable they are with “the unknown” and thereby do not have the need to “explain everything.”

o While some complain of the “irrationality” of belief in God, we would do well to pursue a shared understanding of “rationality.” This will not be easy, and many would at this point reject “scientism.”

o Some bring in cultural and anthropological explanations of religious belief. But these are, logically, irrelevant to the God-discussion.

• Reference is also, once, made to the Christain idea of hell as not being in the character of an all-loving God. This is also a legitimate and important issue to address.

I think the clip is interesting and, from my philosophy of religion viewpoint, helpful.

The film begins with this quote:

“The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god.”

1. Lawrence Krauss (physics)

a. “Most scientists don’t think enough about God to know whether they believe in him or not… They don’t think about it enough to even know if they are atheists.” I think that statement is false. At least it is questionable. What we need are statistics here. Francis Collins’ statistics suggest 50% of scientists think about and believe in God. I feel certain there are scientists who don’t think about theism or atheism. Just as theism is “irrelevant” to them, so is “atheism” and the discussion re. atheism.

b. “There’s no evidence that we need anything but the laws of physics and the other laws of science to explain everything we see. There’s no evidence that we need any supernatural hand of God.” I think it’s false that “science” explains “everything,” esp. if this is reduced to “everything we see.” There are many things we don’t see, and which we infer, some on the basis of “science.” There’s a debate as to whether “inference to the best explanation” even qualifies as “science.”

2. Robert Coleman Richardson (physics)

a. “I do not believe in an anthropomorphic “God,” somebody that’s a “man” and somehow or other made things.” Well I don’t believe in an “anthropomorphic God” either. All Coleman gives us is a personal credo which even theists can affirm. So this little confessional adds no weight to the discussion.

3. Richard Feynman (physics)

a. “I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up… because they seem to be be too simple, too local, too provincial.” I think this is a good objection, one to be taken seriously. I don’t, of course, think it is adequate to claim that the Jesus story has been “made up.” We need to bring in historical studies here. The Jesus-claim is that it is a story rooted in historical events. Historiographical research contains its own unique set of problems, especially as regards the matter of “evidence.”

4. Simon Blackburn (philosophy – Cambridge)

a. “I think it’s part of the human comedy.” Blackburn brings in Hume’s objections. This little clip is only confessional, functioning at most as a “testimony.” So it adds nothing to the discussion. It does, however, preach to and move the atheistic choir. And of course we know Blackburn can say much more than this on the subject. The tiny little clip does not help us.

5. Colin Blakemore (neuroscience – Oxford)

a. “I believe that I am the sum total of all the causal influences on me at the moment, and that is not trivial…” Persons are made up of the stuff of the universe. Blakemore talks of explaining our sense of a “self” and that we have “choices” [free will] purely scientifically (i.e., materially). I assume he’s saying this to show that we don’t need “God” as a causal explanation at all. A good point, and much discussion is needed here. It’s part of my current interest. See, e.g., J.P. Moreland’s The Argument from Consciousness for the Existence of God.

6. Stephen Pinker (psychology)

a. We need to take a purely naturalistic approach that reasons: the “mind” is a product ogf the brain; the brain is a product of evolution. “There is no need to invoke an immaterial soul” to explain such things.” Here again we have the idea that “science” can, in principle, explain such things. I confess to having problems with Pinker when he begins to try to explain “free will.”

7. Alan Guth (physics)

a. “I’m not sure I really know what the word ‘God’ means.” Guth says he does allow a big place for the “unknown.” “At this point we have no idea where the laws of physics came from.” He hopes that we will one day understand where the laws of physics came from and thus understand how the universe came into existence. OK. But there’s nothing here that’s anti-God. Guth sees no need for God as an explanation for the universe’s coming into being. I think the fine-tuning argument for God remains persuasive here, as a response to Guth. Guth thinks, re. design arguments for God, that the “Designer” is always more complicated than that which was “designed.” So the “Designer” will need an explanation, and so on in an infinite regress. I do not think this is a valid objection. See Craig, e.g.

8. Noam Chomsky (linguistics)

a. “I try not to have faith. I believe in a principle enunciated rather well by Bertrand Russell, which is”: you should not have irrational beliefs but believe in things only upon having evidence. But this is “evidentialism,” which I think has been refuted by Plantinga et. al. and simply untrue and in its own way irrational.

9. Nicholas Bloembergen (physics)

a. “I am not religious… I was brought up with some religious background, but I have abandoned it.” This is a mere confessional.

10. Peter Atkins (chemistry)

a. “A lot of theology is grappling with phantoms.” Theologians have invented “God” who has “no contact with physical reality.” “Theologians invent questions which they then taunt humanity with. One of them is ‘There must be a purpose that science cannot explain.’” Well surely Atkins is wrong here. The idea of the reality of “God” was not invented by theologians. “Theologians don’t respect the power of the human intellect.” Another blatant falsehood, displaying an ignorance of the actual discussion.

11. Oliver Sacks (neurologist)

a. “I am a quiet, old, Jewish atheist. I’m not a militant atheist.” Singer gives no reason for his atheism, and admits he is not argumentative by nature. This is another confessional.

12. Martin Rees (astronomer)

a. Rees says even the simplest things are very hard to understand. So he cannot accept anyone who gives simple answers, which he thinks resorting to religious dogmas does. This is more of a confessional.

13. John Gurdon (biology)

a. He says he is actually an agnostic re. religious views. “I don’t know. There’s no scientific proof re. one thing or another.”

14. Bertrand Russell (philosophy)

a. “I see no evidence for any of the Christian dogmas.” “None of the arguments for the existence of God seem to be logically valid.” Russell, in this brief clip, of course does not take on the arguments. But if his book Why I am Not a Christian is representative, then his rebuttals are not persuasive.

15. Steven Hawking (physics)

a. “M-theory does not disprove the existence of God.” But Hawking has changed his mind about this – see his new The Grand Design.

16. Ricardo Giacconi (physics)

a. Giacconi says that any kind of irrational thinking is very dangerous. He doesn’t mention God in this clip. Presumably, he thinks God-belief is irrational. I think we need to ask a more basic question, in Alistair MacIntyre fashion – whose rationality are we talking about?

17. Ned Block (philosophy)

a. “I hold open the door”… to something supernatural. “We have no reason to believe it now.” We can explain everything that appears to be supernatural in natural terms.”

18. Gerard ‘t Hooft (physics)

a. He’s asked if he believes in an afterlife. “I don’t think notions like the ‘afterlife’ have any scientific basis.”

19. Marcus du Sautoy (mathematics)

a. When young he used to sing in a church choir. By age 13 he realized that all talk of ‘souls’ and ‘spirits’ “was pretty illogical.” This is just a brief testimonial; a confessional.

20. James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA)

a. “Atheists get a bum rap. We’re just heartless and we don’t care for people.” Christian ideas sound good, and some of them are good. They make for a “good funeral.” No value added here to the discussion.

21. Colin McGinn (philosophy)

a. McGinn brings up Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma. A good point, of course. And one that can be responded to.

22. Patrick Bateson (ethology – Cambridge)

a. “I think I am an atheist, when all is said and done.” This is a very brief confessional.

23. David Attenborough (broadcaster and naturalist)

a. Attenborough brings up the problem of evil such as, e.g., a “little boy sitting on the banks of a river in Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball.” “I find it baffling to credit a merciful God with that.” The problem of evil – a worthy subject in the discussion of God.

24. Martinus Veltman (physics)

a. Science protects us from the irrationalities of religion. “I’m just talking about things I can observe and things I can predict, and the rest you can have it.”

25. Pascal Boyer (anthropology)

a. “I was brought up in a culture where no one is religious.” So Boyer is a-religious, and the European culture around him is a-religious. OK. This is simply confessional. To argue beyond it for God’s non-existence is to commit the genetic fallacy.

26. Partha Dasgupta (economics – Cambridge)

a. He is not hostile to religion. He does not believe in a deity. This is simply confessional.

27. A.C. Grayling (philosophy)

a. Belief in God or gods seems to be the “intellectual equivalent of believing there are fairies in your garden.” “For me it’s a question of the irrationality of belief.” Agnostics who think there is at least a possibility of supernatural beings are also on the wrong track.

28. Ivar Giaever (physics)

a. “I’m not religious. I don’t like religion. I think religion is to blame for a lot of the ills in this world.” The Dawkins/Harris “religion is the cause of evil” position, which I think is historically inadequate.

29. John Searle (philosophy – Berkeley)

a. We would like to believe in religious things like an afterlife, for there to be justice in the end, and so on. “The problem is that we would like to believe these things, but we really have no evidence to suppose that they are true… Methodologically, we should be suspicious of believing something that we very much want to believe.” “The arguments for God’s existence are uniformly bad.” I think Searle is correct about being cautious of believing things we very much want to believe. But this, in itself, is not any refutation of God’s existence. It would disqualify a number of things, even the atheist who very much wants there to be no God. On the arguments for God’s existence, we need Searle’s reasoning that they are “uniformly bad.” He says so. I don’t think so.

30. Brian Cox (physicist)

a. Cox here offers nothing to the discussion, except to say that he’s very comfortable, as a scientist, with the “unknown.” Perhaps he’s raising a “God of the gaps” criticism?

31. Herbert Kroemer (physics)

a. He doesn’t see the evidence of a designer. “I think that is wishful thinking.” Kroemer says some do see evidence of design. He does not. “I have no desire to push this viewpoint on others.”

32. Rebecca Goldstein (philosophy)

a. “Not only do I think that the arguments for God’s existence don’t work, more importantly to me, I think this world does not look to me, empirically, like it was created by a good and caring and powerful God. To me, there’s just too much empirical evidence against it.” Probably – the argument from evil. And the assumption of what a world created by such a God would look like. Christian theism affirms a eorld that is a “fallen creation.”

33. Michael Tooley (philosophy)

a. Someone in India would not have a vision of the Virgin Mary. A person’s culture, and the family in which he was raised, has an impact on the content of one’s experience.” OK. But this is a sociological fact, and no one should deny it. What, exactly, does this have to do with the existence of God? It seems like, logically, ad hominem circumstantial reasoning should one want to conclude, from it, that therefore, God does not exist.

34. Harold Kroto (chemistry)

a. “I think most science is atheistic. Less than 10% of scientists believe in God.” We must believe things on the basis of scientific evidence. Sotires that are thousands of years old provide no such evidence. I wonder about Kroto’s statistics. I think they are inaccurate. Perhaps here he has believed something on insufficient or not evidence at all?

35. Leonard Susskind (physics – Stanford)

a. Certainly the universe appears to be designed. Before Darwin, it seemed reasonable to posit a Designer. But now we know that random mutation has “designed” things like humans. So we can’t use a “design argument” for God any more. But this does not address the anthropic teleological argument.

36. Quentin Skinner (history – Cambridge)

a. The religious impulse is very deep and very important. On Hume, God-belief is false. “I am that kind of atheist.” See: see Hume, and his influence on the religious discussion.

37. Theodore Hansch (physics)

a. Hansch sees no evidence for life after death. “All the things around us look like they have been designed.” But this is just “how nature works.” So: contra the design argument as unnecessary.

38. Mark Balaguer (philosophy)

a. “Is there a Person who created the world? That’s a perfectly clear question with a right answer.” To answer it we must “look for evidence.” Balaguer says “If there is evidence, then believe in God.” But no reasons are given in this short clip. Surely Galaguer, as a philosopher, is able to say much more on this.

39. Richard Ernst (chemistry)

a. Very brief. A confessional of atheism.

40. Alan MacFarlane (anthropology)

a. As a child he began to question whether God would cast three-quarters of humanity into utter darkness. A good, important issue; viz., that of hell.

41. Neil deGrasse Tyson

a. The forces of nature are not “just right” for life. Just look at “the volume of the universe where you can’t live.” And then look at earth. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, diseases, mass extinctions, “90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct,” etc. etc. “None of this is a sign that there is a “benevolent anything” out there.” So: two issues: 1) the universe is not really “life-permitting” since it is not vastly and phenomenally uninhabitable; and 2) the problem of evil. Re. 1, I don’t think this is the point of those who argue that the universe is life-permitting. We exist. Therefore, our universe allows for this. Of course the problem of natural evil must be discussed.

42. Douglas Osheroff (physics)

a. He doesn’t know what God might be. “I doubt that such a God intervenes in my own life.” So: lack of experience of God, or lack of evidence of experience that one might attribute to a God.

43. Hubert Dreyfus (philosophy)

a. We don’t need to bring in God to talk about religious experience, from a phenomenological perspective. Dreyfus merely states here how the phenomenological method could be a help to explain the religious impulse and the need for religion without needing to posit the theistic God.

44. Colin Renfrew (archaeology – Cambridge)

a. Renfrew is a skeptic. “I’ve never found it possible to be a profound believer in the Trinity or the Christian concept of God.” This is a mere confessional.

45. Carl Sagan (astronomer)

a. “’Faith’ is the belief in the absence of evidence.” “For me, belieiving when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake.” So – an evidentialist position. Which is, I feel certain, unacceptable.

46. Peter Singer (bioethicist – Princeton)

a. It is “monstrous” to believe that “God would create a world where, let’s say, a two-year-old child would die a slow and lingering death from hunger and thirst…” because of Adam and Eve’s sin committed thousands of years before. Even if one thinks that baby’s suffering is “deserved,” “what about the suffering on non-human animals?” See here Murphy’s Nature Red in Tooth and Claw as a response to Singer. See also Dembki’s response here. Singer raises an important issue.

47. Rudolph Marcus (chemistry)

a. “Some people feel they need to understand everything. I don’t feel that way. Eventually a lot more will be understood.” Nothing is said about God here. I presume Marcus is referring to a “God of the gaps” kind of reasoning.

48. Robert Foley (prof. of human evolution – Cambridge)

a. “For all practical purposes I am a very materialistic atheist. What you see is what you get.” OK – all sorts of philosophical problems arise here, to include problems of perception.

49. Daniel Dennett (philosophy)

a. God cannot be scientifically verified. The God of theism is “protected from disproof” because it is defined as “beyond science.” This is an interesting point, and one that can be responded to. See, e.g., Plantinga, who takes the discussion into the arena of “properly basic beliefs.”

50. Steven Weinberg (physics)

a. Only science gives us evidence. “Science is corrosive of religious belief.” Well, I certainly do not think so, as many scientists also would not think so.

Langham Partnership - John Stott Memorial Video

Declaration vs. Persuasion

Near the end of Scot McKnight's presentation at the 2010 Q Conference he states: "50% of my college students are not Christians. I have learned from my teaching that the story of Jesus is a compelling story, and I have seen hundreds of my students become Christians beczuse I tell them the story of Jesus. I don't tell them "the plan of salvation," but the plan of salvation unfolds from the story of Jesus."

McKnight says he was sitting in his office not long ago when a "weight of glory" fell on him as he saw something in the New Testament he'd never really seen before. Each gospel writer (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) speak of the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Not four gospels, but one gospel, told by each writer. The gospel, for each of them, was good news. What was good news? The story of Jesus, as the climax to the history of Israel.

The story, in itself, is the gospel. And it is intrinsically compelling and persuasive. Persuasive techniques are not therefore needed. Declaration is.

Did Jesus Preach the Gospel?

Downtown Monroe

There's a mini-review and preview at christianitytoday.com of NT scholar Scot McKnight's forthcoming The King Jesus Gospel: The  Original Good News Revisited. The review links us to an excellent 18-minute presentation by McKnight at the 2010 Q Gathering. Please watch it here.  

McKnight suggests that "the [biblical] text has been buried or has disappeared under the interpretation. The question is: 'Did Jesus preach the gospel?'"

For many evangelical Jesus-followers the "gospel" has become identitifed with "salvation" or "the Romans Road." While McKnight affirms that there is a "Romans Road," his objection is that the Gospel has, in the minds of many, been reduced to this. Twentieth-century "gospel tracts" have reduced the Gospel to sound bytes and have framed the way many view the gospel.

The CT article says: "Equating the plan of salvation with gospel means Jesus could not have preached the Good News. Only the Apostles, like Paul, who preached after Jesus' death and resurrection could possibly present this message. McKnight believes this is an error rooted in a false understanding of what the Gospel is." As McKnight says in the video, "Poor Jesus - he was born on the wrong side of the cross."

We've lost contact with the meaning of the "gospel." Words matter. McKnight says - "When all words in the Bible mean 'personal salvation,' no words mean anything."

McKnight shares four expressions that we use and we must keep separate if we are to develop a "gospel culture."

1. The biblical narrative. McKnight's 6 points here have similarities to N.T. Wright's understanding of Scripture presenting a Grand Narrative, as a "5-act play," in which we live. McKnight says "many people call this the 'gospel.' It's not."
2. The gospel. "The word 'gospel' belongs to the narrative, and it makes sense only within the narrative." McKnight says: "The 'gospel' is the announcement, the heralding, the declaration that Jesus is Messiah and that he is the point and goal and telos of the narrative. He is the Redeemer, the Messiah, and the Lord. He lived, he died, and he was buried, and he rose again, and he is coming again. As the raised and ascended One, he is Lord of Jews and Gentiles, and that is the gospel according to the New Testament."
3. The plan of salvation. "It's not quite the gospel." Yet evangelical Christians feast on this. "No one in the NT calls [the plan of salvation] the "gospel."" Surely, indubitably, McKnight is correct on this. Those who disagree have buried the text under an interpretation of the text.
4. The method of persuasion. Regarding 19th- and 20th-century "hellfire and damnation" methods as ways of getting one's attention, "no one who preched the gospel in the NT did this."

McKnight issues this challenge: go back to the New Testament, go back to the four gospels, and ask what this word 'gospel' meant within the text.

McKnight takes us to 1 Corinthians 15, and the verses I am preaching on this coming Sunday morning at Redeemer. Paul seems to have "lost his Calvinistic nerve for a moment" when he says it is possible to "have believed in vain." (1 Cor. 15:2) We see from vv. 1-4 that, for Paul, the "gospel" is to declare and tell the story of Jesus as the climax of scriptures of Israel's story. There is a story that comes to a climax in Jesus.... Paul here does not mention "justification," he does not mention "double imputation." Yes, this is a "saving story." But the saving story, "the plan of salvation," is not identical to the gospel, which is the climax to Israel's story."

Recover the Lost Art of Prayer, Meditation, Contemplation

Today I will take time to pray, meditate, and contemplate.

• "Prayer" = talking with God about what he and I are doing together
• "Meditate" = to chew on the thoughts of God (from Scripture, from revelation)
• "Contemplate" = to behold God; to see God; to dwell on the being of God

While Jesus, on earth, had a big-time actual prayer life, most Jesus-followers, in my opinion, do not. Most hardly pray. "They have no time" to pray. Their prayerless lives are the result of: poor choices that involve them in meaningless activity (e.g., tweeting and texting), and systemic evil that works against the contemplative, meditative life.

The as-usual-prescient Thomas Merton wrote, in Contemplation In a World of Action, "Let us start with one admitted fact: if prayer, meditation, and contemplation were once taken for granted as central realities in human life everywhere, they are no longer. They are regarded, even by believers, as somehow marginal and secondary. What counts is getting things done." (Published posthumously in 1971; Merton died in 1968 in Bangkok, Thailand)

Prayer, meditation, and contemplation (PMC) are the antitdotes to boredom. "Boredom" is not having nothing to do; it is finding no meaning in what you are doing. You could do a gazillion things and be totally bored. PMC draws you out of the meaningless world of "getting things done" into the meaning-filled life of Christ who, of course, has things for you to do, but slow-cooks meaning and purpose into your soul. One's doing comes from one's being.

Archaeopteryx Knocked Off Its Perch

You can now tear all these drawings
out of your textbooks.

Archaeopteryx was not a dinosaur-like bird, but only a birdlike dinosaur. See John Noble Wilford's "Birdlike Dinosaur Fossil May Shake Up the Avian Family Tree."

Wilford writes: "Archaeopteryx presumably was not an ancestral bird. The recent discovery of a tenth Archaeopteryx specimen “greatly improved our knowledge” of its similarities to the dinosaur group and its differences from birds, the paleontologists said."

Ohio University paleontologist Lawrence Witmer says "there has been growing unease about the avian status of Archaeopteryx as, one by one, its ‘avian’ attributes (feathers, wishbone, three-fingered hand) started showing up in non-avian dinosaurs."... Since “virtually all our notions about early avian evolution have previously been viewed through the lens of Archaeopteryx,” Dr. Witmer said, “the impact of losing Archaeopteryx from the avian clan is likely to rock the paleontological community for years to come.”"

See also Scientific American - ""First Bird" Fossil, Archaeopteryx, More Closely Related to Dinosaurs."

This Week at Redeemer

Especially for my Redeemer family:

This Sunday I will be preaching from 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Why not read it and ponder it as you prepare for this Sunday's worship service?


If you eat at Buffalo Wild Wings this Sunday after church 20% of your tab will go to support the ministry of Jim Beach, our Monroe High School Young Life leader.

Our Annual Softball Game is Sun., Aug. 14, 4 PM. Everyone is invited to play!

The Biblical Greek Seminar with Paul Albrecht is Aug. 16-17-18, 6:30-9 PM. If you plan on attending: 1) please send me an e-mail, sign up in the lobby, or call the church office; 2) attendees can pick up your Greek alphabet flash cards in the church lobby. Every attendee will receive a workbook.

I'm celebrating with Linda today, as this is her birthday.

I thank God for all of you and keep you in my prayers.

Blessings,

PJ