The Parable of the Talents haunts me.
In Matthew 25:14-30 describes a man who goes on a journey who leaves vast resources to his three slaves. To one he gives five talents, another two , and the third one. A talent was a sum of money worth about 6000 days' wages. A tremendous amount in that day. Not too shabby in our day, I might add! Jesus surely meant to imply that the man was giving his slaves everything that they would need during his absence.
The first two slaves take their talents and immediately set about investing it, and upon the slave owner's return, they had both doubled what had been given to them. Both of these slaves are praised, and they receive more responsibility as a result.
The third slave promptly buries his resources for fear of losing them. When the slave owner returns, this slave is cursed and thrown out for being lazy and a good-for-nothing.
Of course, Jesus means for us to understand that he is the slave owner in the parable. What is this journey that he goes on? Well, consider the context. This parable falls in Matthew 25, coming right after chapter 24 where Jesus discusses the signs of his return. Immediately after this chapter 25 begins with the Parable of the 10 Virgins where Jesus warns his disciples to be ready always for his return. Next is our Parable of the Talents.
So, the journey is the time between Jesus' ascension and his return.The time in which we find ourselves today. And God's power has given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3). We are those slaves that have been given so much. How much? Go read right now Ephesians 1: 15-23. Seriously - go read it. I have time.
Ok, welcome back. Here's why this parable haunts me: we have been given responsibility to invest the resources (talents and spiritual gifts) that the Lord has given us, and he will hold us accountable upon his return for what we did with those resources.
I have been thinking about this parable a lot lately. How should we respond to it? Well, what did the two good slaves do? We are told that the first slave "went at once and put his money to work" and earned five more talents. The second slave does the same thing.
This is clearly what Jesus means for us to do - put our talents and spiritual gifts to work. Jesus means for us to be active, not to sit around waiting, waiting, waiting, like the good-for-nothing slave.
We need to be strategic about using our gifts and talents. We need to first identify what our gifts and talents are, and second, we need to develop them. Finally, we need to think long and hard about how to use them in service to God's Kingdom. We cannot be passive about this process. The third slave was condemned for this.
One final thought. In modern Christian circles it is not uncommon to hear someone claim that they are "waiting on the Spirit" before they do anything. This sometimes will go on for a looooong time. Years, even. My sense is that sometimes what sounds spiritual is a mask for fear and passivity. Sometimes what we really need is to just do something. Strategize, make a plan, and then execute. Go out into the world and use your talents for God's Kingdom. That is the message of the Parable of the Talents.
And, oh by way, you do not need God's permission to obey the Great Commission. It is already a command to us. Ours is to obey. Go out of your house and do it. Make a disciple. Teach him (or her) to obey everything Jesus said.
And it haunts me because I realize how little I have done in my 37 years for his Kingdom. From this point forward I want to be more thoughtful and purposeful about using my gifts to serve the King in his power.
These blessed words do not come free: "Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!"
What do you think? Does this parable haunt you as well?
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
An Evolutionary Argument for Traditional Marriage
Let’s assume the truth of Darwinian evolution for the sake
of argument:
According to Darwinian theory, we are the products of a long, gradual process. This process included genetic variation acted upon by natural selection. Species that are the most fit will on average produce more offspring, and so will tend to spread throughout a population. At any given time a species will generally be populated by the most fit individuals, although a population is always changing.
That Darwinian process has produced males and females for each
species that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is the process selected by nature for getting these species' genes into the next generation. These requirements for producing children have been dictated by nature.
Many species that reproduce sexually will mate but then only one of the parents will remain behind to raise the offspring. Additionally, some species will mate, the mother will lay her eggs, and then the progeny are on their own to face a harsh predatory world. More rarely, mom and pop will mate and then both will stick around to handle the parenting duties.
Human beings have historically shown themselves to be in this third category. Cultural studies ranging over the world and throughout history have demonstrated that men and women make long-term pairing
to raise their children. Human children are notorious for taking so danged long to develop. The complexity of the human species with physical, emotional, and cognitive needs probably tended to require more than just what a mother or father could alone provide. Also the length of time required for human maturation would have tended to encourage both mating partners to contribute to the raising of their children.
That this is the case is easily explained by evolution. Nature must have selected for this long-term-pairing trait. By definition the dominant trait in a species is the most beneficial for survival. Therefore we should follow what is best for our survival and maintain our traditional marriage model. Anything else will just weaken our survivability on average.
What do you think? Given Darwinian evolution, does this argument work?
What do you think? Given Darwinian evolution, does this argument work?
Monday, May 13, 2013
Everything Physical is Physics...
...but not everything is physical.
This is becoming my standard answer to my students when they ask, "What is physics?" You see, in the high school in which I teach, every student must take physics (thanks to this policy, I have a job!). So I initially get a lot of questions about what it is that they will be learning. My answer tries to point out to them that everything in the physical universe must obey the laws of physics, which we will be studying. We live in an orderly universe governed by law. This insight is astonishing in its own right: why is the universe orderly? This can lead to some very interesting conversations about design.
My point is a little different, however, when I respond, "Everything physical is physics, but not everything is physical." We live in a materialistic culture in which we are told in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that we are nothing but our bodies. Our minds are reduced to our brains. Our feelings to chemical reactions. Our morality to evolutionary bric-a-brac.
So by saying that not everything is physical, I hope to put a stone in their shoe that there is more to this world than just physical stuff. For example:
Just one more small way to push back the tide...
This is becoming my standard answer to my students when they ask, "What is physics?" You see, in the high school in which I teach, every student must take physics (thanks to this policy, I have a job!). So I initially get a lot of questions about what it is that they will be learning. My answer tries to point out to them that everything in the physical universe must obey the laws of physics, which we will be studying. We live in an orderly universe governed by law. This insight is astonishing in its own right: why is the universe orderly? This can lead to some very interesting conversations about design.
My point is a little different, however, when I respond, "Everything physical is physics, but not everything is physical." We live in a materialistic culture in which we are told in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that we are nothing but our bodies. Our minds are reduced to our brains. Our feelings to chemical reactions. Our morality to evolutionary bric-a-brac.
So by saying that not everything is physical, I hope to put a stone in their shoe that there is more to this world than just physical stuff. For example:
- Souls
- Mental states
- God
- Information
Just one more small way to push back the tide...
Friday, April 12, 2013
Sauce for the Goose
"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea."
This statement was made by William Provine, professor at Cornell University, in a debate with Phillip Johnson at Stanford University in 1994.
If Dr. Provine thinks it is appropriate to draw a metaphysical conclusion ("there are no gods") from a scientific theory ("modern evolutionary biology"), then surely he won't mind if others draw their own metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence.
Those of us who hold to Intelligent Design (ID) get accused of using science to support our belief in God. Well, ok, it's a little more complicated than that, but if William Provine can draw a negative conclusion ("There is no god") from empirical data, then surely we can form a positive conclusion ("an intelligent designer does exist") from empirical data.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This statement was made by William Provine, professor at Cornell University, in a debate with Phillip Johnson at Stanford University in 1994.
If Dr. Provine thinks it is appropriate to draw a metaphysical conclusion ("there are no gods") from a scientific theory ("modern evolutionary biology"), then surely he won't mind if others draw their own metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence.
Those of us who hold to Intelligent Design (ID) get accused of using science to support our belief in God. Well, ok, it's a little more complicated than that, but if William Provine can draw a negative conclusion ("There is no god") from empirical data, then surely we can form a positive conclusion ("an intelligent designer does exist") from empirical data.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The Empty Tomb only Brought Confusion
Here are the 5 Minimal Facts of Jesus' resurrection.* This means the vast majority of scholars in this field agree to these, whether they are conservative or liberal scholars.
1) Jesus died on a Roman cross.
2) Jesus' disciples had experiences that they interpreted as his resurrection.
3) The enemy of the church, Paul, converted to becoming a follower of Jesus.
4) James, Jesus' brother, went from being a skeptic to a faithful leader in the church.
5) The tomb was empty on Easter morning.
One thing about the empty tomb to realize is that it was not the empty tomb that convinced Jesus' followers that he had risen. The first reaction to seeing the empty tomb on Sunday morning was confusion. In Luke 24, some women go to the tomb to put spices on Jesus' body. When they get there, they find the tomb empty. Verse 4 says, "While they were wondering about this," the angels show up to tell them about the resurrection. Why were they standing there wondering about the empty tomb? Because they did not expect it!
Mark 16:3 adds the detail that the women were discussing the problem of who was going to move the stone for them so they could anoint the body. They did not expect the tomb to be empty.
In John 20 Mary Magdalene is crying because she is upset that she says someone has taken the body, and Mary doesn't know where the body was taken. Mary did not expect the empty tomb.
It was not the empty tomb that convince the early followers of Jesus of the resurrection. On the contrary, it was when they met Jesus that they were convinced. It was Minimal Fact #2 that caused the disciples to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, not Minimal Fact #5.
The Apostle Paul, for instance, may not have even seen the empty tomb at all. The tomb being empty did not convince him. It was the resurrection appearance of Jesus to him that changed him.
*Adapted from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas & Licona.
1) Jesus died on a Roman cross.
2) Jesus' disciples had experiences that they interpreted as his resurrection.
3) The enemy of the church, Paul, converted to becoming a follower of Jesus.
4) James, Jesus' brother, went from being a skeptic to a faithful leader in the church.
5) The tomb was empty on Easter morning.
One thing about the empty tomb to realize is that it was not the empty tomb that convinced Jesus' followers that he had risen. The first reaction to seeing the empty tomb on Sunday morning was confusion. In Luke 24, some women go to the tomb to put spices on Jesus' body. When they get there, they find the tomb empty. Verse 4 says, "While they were wondering about this," the angels show up to tell them about the resurrection. Why were they standing there wondering about the empty tomb? Because they did not expect it!
Mark 16:3 adds the detail that the women were discussing the problem of who was going to move the stone for them so they could anoint the body. They did not expect the tomb to be empty.
In John 20 Mary Magdalene is crying because she is upset that she says someone has taken the body, and Mary doesn't know where the body was taken. Mary did not expect the empty tomb.
It was not the empty tomb that convince the early followers of Jesus of the resurrection. On the contrary, it was when they met Jesus that they were convinced. It was Minimal Fact #2 that caused the disciples to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, not Minimal Fact #5.
The Apostle Paul, for instance, may not have even seen the empty tomb at all. The tomb being empty did not convince him. It was the resurrection appearance of Jesus to him that changed him.
*Adapted from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas & Licona.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Minimal Fact #5 of Jesus' Resurrection:*
The tomb was empty.
There are slightly fewer scholars that accept this "minimal fact." Whereas the first 4 are agreed upon by well over 90% of conservative and liberal Bible scholars, only about 75% of scholars agree to the fact of the empty tomb according to Dr. Gary Habermas, the Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Dept. of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University.
Here's the basic evidence that the tomb was empty on Easter morning:
1) Jerusalem. The crucifixion and death of Jesus happened in Jerusalem. Later, his disciples proclaimed Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem. That means that if his enemies wanted to put a stop to this, they could have just hiked over to the tomb, gotten his body, and put an end to this new "way." The tomb was empty or Jesus' enemies surely would have squashed this early and often. It is significant that Christianity first sprang up in the very city where the events took place, NOT in some far away city where the empty tomb could not be falsified.
2) Enemy support. This means that there is evidence in Scripture that Jesus' enemies indirectly confirmed that the tomb was empty. Read this from Matthew 28:12-13, "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’" Instead of leading the way to the tomb to point out a dead body, the priests told the soldiers that they were to say the body was stolen. There would be absolutely no need to make this story up if the body were in the tomb.
3) Women. The first witnesses to the empty tomb recorded in Scripture were women. In the first century AD in Palestine, the status of women was not what it is today. Here's a quotation from Josephus (Antiquities 4.8.15) that gives you a sense of the culture of the time: "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex...since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment." The testimony of women was not valued. So, if you were going to make up a story about a guy coming back to life, you wouldn't make women the first witnesses to that miracle in that culture. The Gospels probably record women as the first witnesses because...they really were the first witnesses and the authors are just being truthful. The role of women here is a little embarrassing in that culture, so why report it if it isn't true?
So most scholars agree that the tomb was empty. Most scholars also agree that:
1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
2) The disciples really believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
3) The skeptic, Paul, converted and became an apostle.
4) James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, converted and became an apostle.
These are the 5 minimal facts of that the vast majority of conservative and liberal scholars who work in this field agree to.
Next time I'll discuss how the best explanation for these data.
*Adapted from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas & Licona.
The tomb was empty.
There are slightly fewer scholars that accept this "minimal fact." Whereas the first 4 are agreed upon by well over 90% of conservative and liberal Bible scholars, only about 75% of scholars agree to the fact of the empty tomb according to Dr. Gary Habermas, the Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Dept. of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University.
Here's the basic evidence that the tomb was empty on Easter morning:
1) Jerusalem. The crucifixion and death of Jesus happened in Jerusalem. Later, his disciples proclaimed Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem. That means that if his enemies wanted to put a stop to this, they could have just hiked over to the tomb, gotten his body, and put an end to this new "way." The tomb was empty or Jesus' enemies surely would have squashed this early and often. It is significant that Christianity first sprang up in the very city where the events took place, NOT in some far away city where the empty tomb could not be falsified.
2) Enemy support. This means that there is evidence in Scripture that Jesus' enemies indirectly confirmed that the tomb was empty. Read this from Matthew 28:12-13, "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’" Instead of leading the way to the tomb to point out a dead body, the priests told the soldiers that they were to say the body was stolen. There would be absolutely no need to make this story up if the body were in the tomb.
3) Women. The first witnesses to the empty tomb recorded in Scripture were women. In the first century AD in Palestine, the status of women was not what it is today. Here's a quotation from Josephus (Antiquities 4.8.15) that gives you a sense of the culture of the time: "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex...since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment." The testimony of women was not valued. So, if you were going to make up a story about a guy coming back to life, you wouldn't make women the first witnesses to that miracle in that culture. The Gospels probably record women as the first witnesses because...they really were the first witnesses and the authors are just being truthful. The role of women here is a little embarrassing in that culture, so why report it if it isn't true?
So most scholars agree that the tomb was empty. Most scholars also agree that:
1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
2) The disciples really believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
3) The skeptic, Paul, converted and became an apostle.
4) James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, converted and became an apostle.
These are the 5 minimal facts of that the vast majority of conservative and liberal scholars who work in this field agree to.
Next time I'll discuss how the best explanation for these data.
*Adapted from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas & Licona.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Minimal Fact #4
Minimal Fact #4:*
James, the skeptic and brother of Jesus, converted to become a follower of Jesus.
Most scholars accept this fact because it is documented by several early sources. First, scholars agree that James was originally a skeptic. As the brother of Jesus (Mark 3:21,31;6:3-4; John 7:5), James did not origninally believe in his own brother as the Messiah. But something happened that changed him from skeptic to becoming not only a follower of Jesus, but a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:12-21; Gal 1:19). What would it take for you to believe that your very own brother was the long-awaited Messiah?
There are no sources that say exactly what it was that convinced James, but Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:7 that Jesus appeared to James after being raised. Likely it was this post-resurrection appearance that would have contributed to James' conversion. Paul also mentions clearly in Galatians 1:19 that Paul met James in Jerusalem, and that James was both the Lord's brother and an apostle. Luke writes in Acts 15 that James played a leading role in the Jerusalem council that is mentioned there. This means that within just a couple of years after the resurrection, James went from being a skeptic to becoming a believer, an apostle and leader in the church.
Several ancient sources also record James' suffering and martyrdom. Scholars generally accept these sources, which include Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hegesippus. What would it take for a confirmed skeptic like James to go from being an enemy of the church to becoming a leader in the church who was then killed for his convictions? Once again, people die all the time for mistaken beliefs. But nobody dies for what they know to be false. Nobody.
So we know at least that James believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. But he was there. James was Jesus' brother. That's powerful evidence.
Minimal Facts:
1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
2) Jesus' followers believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
3) The skeptic Paul converted to becoming an apostle.
4) James, the brother of Jesus, went from being a skeptic to being an apostle and leader of the church.
Next up: The fifth and final Minimal Fact.
*Adapted from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas & Licona.
James, the skeptic and brother of Jesus, converted to become a follower of Jesus.
Most scholars accept this fact because it is documented by several early sources. First, scholars agree that James was originally a skeptic. As the brother of Jesus (Mark 3:21,31;6:3-4; John 7:5), James did not origninally believe in his own brother as the Messiah. But something happened that changed him from skeptic to becoming not only a follower of Jesus, but a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:12-21; Gal 1:19). What would it take for you to believe that your very own brother was the long-awaited Messiah?
There are no sources that say exactly what it was that convinced James, but Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:7 that Jesus appeared to James after being raised. Likely it was this post-resurrection appearance that would have contributed to James' conversion. Paul also mentions clearly in Galatians 1:19 that Paul met James in Jerusalem, and that James was both the Lord's brother and an apostle. Luke writes in Acts 15 that James played a leading role in the Jerusalem council that is mentioned there. This means that within just a couple of years after the resurrection, James went from being a skeptic to becoming a believer, an apostle and leader in the church.
Several ancient sources also record James' suffering and martyrdom. Scholars generally accept these sources, which include Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, and Hegesippus. What would it take for a confirmed skeptic like James to go from being an enemy of the church to becoming a leader in the church who was then killed for his convictions? Once again, people die all the time for mistaken beliefs. But nobody dies for what they know to be false. Nobody.
So we know at least that James believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. But he was there. James was Jesus' brother. That's powerful evidence.
Minimal Facts:
1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
2) Jesus' followers believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
3) The skeptic Paul converted to becoming an apostle.
4) James, the brother of Jesus, went from being a skeptic to being an apostle and leader of the church.
Next up: The fifth and final Minimal Fact.
*Adapted from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Habermas & Licona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)