Are there Biblical Money Principles?

From Larry Burkett to Dave Ramsey, Christian financial experts have gained quite a following. A while ago I got ahold of a copy of one of Dave Ramsey’s books just to see for myself why he is so popular. While some of his ideas are very good, I found myself disagreeing with significant parts of his advice. One of the primary problems is that he has a single plan for all people in all varieties of situations, while in reality, every financial plan must be unique. Since this is a blog about Christianity and not personal finance, I don’t intend to discuss the details or merits of his or anyone else’s particular financial advice. However, reading his book illustrated the importance, for those who follow Dave Ramsey or any other Christian financial expert, to think critically about their advice and not assume it always is applicable to our particular situation. My fear is we may conclude automatically that any advice “based on biblical money principles” is trustworthy, that is it sufficient on its own to prepare us for making financial decisions, or perhaps even that it will guarantee God’s blessing on our finances.

The first question we must consider is whether there are, in fact, biblical money principles. The answer depends on what we mean by “money principles.” If we mean that the Bible provides general wisdom that can be applied to personal financial management, particularly regarding avoidance of imprudent types or amounts of debt, wise stewardship, generosity, and refraining from valuing money too much, then principles such as these certainly can be found in the Bible.

However, if we mean anything beyond this, such as that the Bible contains investment advice, likely we are reading something into the Bible that never was intended. We need to be cautious about how we read and understand the Bible. We certainly shouldn’t minimize or reduce what it says, but at the same time, we should avoid trying to make it say more than it does. Unfortunately, this may happen frequently when it comes to money management.

The idea that the Bible contains investment advice or similar information may sound odd to some. However, I have heard multiple Christian authors and speakers make this claim. Some have proclaimed that following these principles guarantee wealth, an idea that, hopefully, raises a red flag to all of us. Others have avoided making this claim but still argue that there are principles found in the Bible that, if followed, are guaranteed will improve our financial situations and be more pleasing to God than the “worldly” way of managing money.

I’ve heard that there are 2,500 Bible verses that talk about money. If we read some of these verses, we’ll find that they do provide good general wisdom. However, the problem is that we may come to believe that the Bible is entirely sufficient for developing financial competence, and furthermore, we may become afraid of trusting any source of financial advice unless it claims to derive its principles from the Bible.

            But does such a distinction even exist between “secular” and “Godly” money management principles? The Bible contains general admonitions to use our money wisely as well as ethically, but much of money management has to do with neutral facts and concepts that have nothing to do with wisdom or morality, such as math and knowledge of various financial products. Therefore, relying entirely on the Bible would exclude many important concepts from our financial knowledge. For example, there is nothing in the Bible that can help us decide how best to allocate the investments in our 401(k).

This may seem obvious. But some Christian money experts, aware of this fact, include general concepts in their advice while claiming to derive them directly from the Bible, when in fact they did not. At one time I heard someone on a Christian radio station who was answering money questions from callers. He suggested that a caller should diversify his/her investments, because it says in Ecclesiastes 11:2 that we should “Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight; you do not know what disaster may come upon the land.” The implication was that he read the verse in Ecclesiastes and from it determined that it’s wise to diversify our investments. But this simply is not the case. Anyone with even minimal financial knowledge knows that diversification is imperative for achieving an optimal balance between risk and return, so this is not a special biblical revelation that is absent from “secular” money management. Rather, this advisor already had the principle in mind, then searched the Bible for a verse that could be interpreted to corroborate what he knew already to be true. This is reading into the BIble, and is dangerous as a general method because of the risk of interpreting the Bible to say precisely what we want it to say.

My main concern is that the presentation of general principles as if they are special divine revelation may establish a distrust in any source that is not based on the Bible, which, as I stated earlier, may result in a deficiency in our financial literacy. Further, some people, believing the ideas of a particular money expert were derived from the Bible, may be afraid to question or not follow that advice. But since all specific financial advice ultimately comes human minds, there is always a chance that it is not good advice.

Therefore, we should not avoid financial advice from outside the Bible, and we should not blindly accept advice simply because it comes from a Christian and claims to be derived from the Bible. It is important to educate ourselves from multiple sources and use our own judgement when making financial decisions. There is no problem with incorporating what the Bible says regarding money as long as we supplement it with current and more detailed information on all subjects that help us manage our money well.

And, of course, we need to avoid having the impression that there are any biblical principles that, if followed, will guarantee any level of financial success. If we are careful to understand the Bible, we will realize that achieving wealth, or even mere material comfort, is beside the point entirely. It would be contradictory (among other things) to believe that the Bible contains principles to guarantee such a thing. Whether we have wealth is based on how wise we are with our money, and some external factors outside of our control. Certainly we should be responsible and good stewards of our money, and take proper care of our families and others under our care. But our focus should not be on having wealth as an end in itself, but as a means to ends that are aligned with God’s will for our lives. We can (and should) make ourselves available to God and bring glory to Him no matter what level of wealth we have.

Prayer: How Does It Really Work?

James 5:16 promises that “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” There are numerous other verses that declare the effectiveness of prayer. But if you have put any thought into prayer, likely you’ve wondered, as I have, how it actually works. You may even have wondered whether it works at all.

There are some indirect ways in which we could say truthfully that prayer is effective. For example, it draws us closer to God and helps us to align our will with His. However, while true, this is not generally what we mean when we wonder whether prayer is effective. Usually we are wondering whether our requests will be granted.

But the idea of God answering our prayers raises some puzzling questions. If God knows everything, then He already is aware of whatever He plans to do in the future. If prayer is a request that God perform a particular action, if the prayer works, wouldn’t it entail influencing what God will choose to do? If so, wouldn’t this mean that God would choose a different action from what He intended originally? In that case, it would be impossible for God to know His own future actions. Either His foreknowledge was correct, in which case He could not alter His intent in response to prayer, or else He didn’t know the future (because the future turned out to be different from what He “knew”).

While these may seem to be strong challenges, they are illusory, not actual, problems. Close inspection reveals an erroneous assumption. Though it’s difficult to comprehend, God does not experience time in the same way we do.

The difficulty only arises if at one moment, God is planning a particular action, but then at the next moment He decides to do something different. However, it is only within the universe that the passage of time is experienced. Without getting into too much detail, according to physics, time began at the origin of the universe in the same way that matter did. As a result, it is only within the universe that the passage of time is experienced. Further, the concept of time cannot be separated from physical matter. Outside of the universe (whatever that may mean), time has no meaning. Therefore, to God (an immaterial Being), every moment is the present. Because He does not experience the passage of time, there isn’t one moment in which He’s planning to do one thing, and another in which He decides to do something else.

But if God cannot change His intent, how can prayer (a request intended to influence God’s intent) be effective? I don’t claim to have figured this out completely, but my best guess is that God simply incorporates our prayer into His original choice. Although from our perspective each of our prayers occurs at a particular point in time, God “hears” all prayers simultaneously. It’s hard to visualize, but in that single “moment”, from God’s perspective, He performs every action He ever has or will do. Therefore, at that “moment”, it’s entirely possible for Him to do something in response to a particular prayer, regardless of when the prayer occurs. He didn’t have one intent, hear a prayer, and then have a different intent as a result of the prayer. Rather, He always is aware of the prayer and (at least in some cases) performs the requested action in response. The prayer does not change His mind from one plan to another; it is part of the reason for the original action.

This solution preserves the idea that prayer is important, because it means it’s entirely possible that if we don’t pray for a particular thing, that thing may not happen. The prayer has had a direct impact on the outcome even though God does not change His intent.

This idea also implies a possibility that I would like to mention briefly simply because of how intriguing it is. Because God is not limited by time, it seems to follow that it might be effective to pray for past events, as long as we don’t yet know the outcome. If God hears all prayers simultaneously, in a single “moment”, that would mean the timing of our prayers have no impact on their effectiveness (since the “moment” at which God hears them is not before, after, or during the prayer no matter when it takes place). Therefore, there seems to be no reason that a prayer offered after an event couldn’t impact that event. For example, suppose you know a friend who is taking a difficult test from 12:00 to 1:00, and it’s now 1:05. If you have not yet heard whether the friend passed the test, a prayer for them at this time still may be effective. However, it seems to me (though only intuitively) that once you’ve heard whether your friend passed, further prayer would not be necessary.* This is not a well-developed idea, and it has no impact on the general subject of the effectiveness of prayer, but I thought I would mention it briefly because of how interesting it is.

Ultimately, we should not expect to understand prayer completely. There have been several attempts to study prayer scientifically, with varying results, but it is difficult to study as a result of its nature. Nevertheless, there is solid anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness, as well as the unambiguous promise of God. And, fortunately, it is not necessary to understand prayer in order to do it!

*Science nerds: doesn’t this remind you of quantum mechanics?

Are there Alternative Explanations for the Empty Tomb?

While there are many strong arguments for the existence of God, most (if not all) of these are general and do not support a specific God. It may be possible to show that there was some force or entity external to the universe that set it into motion, but this is nothing more than the God of Deism, an impersonal and largely undefined God. There is a long way yet to go to argue for Christianity.

There are many arguments in favor of Christianity, but the strongest argument is centered on the Resurrection. Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 15:14: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” If we can be confident that Jesus rose from the dead, this is a solid enough foundation that most (if not all) other challenges will not be enough to topple our confidence in the truth of Christianity.

However, the mere fact that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning is not enough to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Indeed, there have been numerous alternative theories that we must face before we can assert that the Resurrection is the only plausible explanation.

1. The Conspiracy Theory

According to this theory, the disciples stole Jesus’ body from the tomb in order to fool everyone into thinking He had risen from the dead. Unlike the others, this theory is mentioned explicitly in the New Testament (Matthew 28:13). This would explain the empty tomb as well as the reports of the sightings of Jesus after His death: the disciples did not actually see Jesus but made up all the stories.

There are several problems with this theory:

• There is no explanation of how they got past the guards at the tomb.  
• There was no motive. It’s not as if the disciples gained any popularity, wealth, or political power as a result of proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, from a material perspective, their lives became much worse as a result!
• They all refused to recant their claims, even faced with death. No one would die for a lie.

2. The Hallucination Theory

It is obvious from analysis of the Conspiracy Theory that the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and could not have made it up. However, many people sincerely believe things that are still false. The Hallucination Theory suggests that the disciples, overcome with grief at the death of their leader, merely imagined that they saw Him.

Problems with this theory include the following:

• Hallucinations are individual events, like dreams. A group of people cannot have the same hallucination at the same time, and yet there are multiple reports in the Gospels of groups of people, even at one point 500 at a single time, seeing Jesus alive.
• The sightings continued over a period of 40 days. Hallucinations generally are isolated events and would not be likely to continue consistently over such a long period of time.
• Since the body would still have been in the tomb in this scenario, it would have been easy for the authorities to show this to be the case and prevent Christianity from ever spreading in the first place.

3. The Swoon Theory

If the disciples weren’t lying or hallucinating, is there any other possible theory that explains the sightings and the empty tomb without accepting that Jesus rose from the dead? In fact, there is. This theory states that Jesus did not completely die on the cross, but was only mistaken as being dead. Once He had lain in the cool, dark tomb for a few days, he was revived and escaped, finding His disciples and proclaiming that He had returned from the dead.

This theory avoids the major problems of the first two, but it actually creates more problems than the other two:

• Anyone who knows the process of crucifixion would rightly doubt that anyone could survive it.
• The Romans were trained killers. It is incredibly unlikely that they could have been mistaken about whether Jesus was dead.
• Lying in a cold, dark tomb without food, water, or medical care hardly seems like the most likely place to recover.
• How would Jesus have single-handedly rolled away the stone and overpowered the guards, especially in His weakened state?
• How would Jesus, considering the state of His body after the crucifixion process, convince His disciples that He was a risen, victorious Savior? Even if He somehow made it this far, it would be very obvious that He was still near death.  

4. The Wrong Tomb

What if the disciples were not lying, didn’t hallucinate, and Jesus was in fact still dead and in the tomb? This is the theory that the disciples were simply mistaken about the tomb in which Jesus was buried. They went to the wrong tomb on Sunday morning, found it empty, and thus began the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. At this point desperation is evident, as this theory seems to fall even shorter than the others:

• It doesn’t explain the appearances of Jesus.
• It is nearly impossible that all of the disciples would have been mistaken; surely at least one would have realized the mistake and found the real tomb with Jesus’ body still in it.
• The Roman or Jewish authorities could have easily pointed out the location of the correct tomb and prevented Christianity from ever gaining momentum.

There are additional theories beyond these four, although these are the most commonly heard. I have only dealt briefly with each, so for those who found this interesting, I encourage you to look into the subject further! Books such as The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Who Moved the Stone? By Frank Morison, and Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace provide much greater detail.

However, I would like to make one more interesting point. The purpose of these theories is to cast doubt on the resurrection of Jesus, but not only do they fail to do so, they result in further support of the resurrection. This is because their very existence proves that there was an empty tomb to explain in the first place. Without it, there would have been no need for alternative theories. As a result, it’s completely impossible for anyone to try to argue against the resurrection of Jesus by claiming that the tomb was not empty, and, therefore, the central piece of evidence for the truth of Christianity rests on a solid foundation.

What Exactly is an Idol?

We would all agree that while the Bible was written long ago in very different cultures from our own, it still is relevant to our lives. However, there are certain portions that need to be “translated” in order to make sense to us in a modern context. For example, blessings often are described as increases in our flocks, but none of us fear that if we ask for God’s blessing our home will be filled with sheep. This wording is specific to shepherds, but when we read it, we understand that it means blessings or prosperity in a general sense.  

The same can be said regarding idols. During the time the Bible was written, there were many people who worshiped literal figures made out of gold, or wood, or other material. However, obviously this isn’t quite so common in the modern age, at least where we live. Yet, we know this doesn’t mean we are free from the danger of having idols. In order to guard against this, we need to understand what it means to have an idol in a modern context.

No doubt we all have heard a teaching or read a devotional on this topic. Often, the word “idol” is used to refer to things that take our time away from God, that are more important to us than God, or that have a higher priority in our lives than God. According to this definition, things such as hobbies, relationships, careers, etc. are labeled idols. It is said that we all worship something; if not God, then something else (such as the material things mentioned above).

No doubt this is a valid point. However, I believe this definition of idols is incomplete and perhaps even misleading. This would mean that I’m “worshipping” books if I spend more time reading than with God. But doesn’t worshiping God mean more than giving Him time? Defining an idol simply as something that takes our time and focus away from God seems to me to imply an inadequate definition of worship. Worshiping God is more than simply giving Him our time. It means to give Him honor, to acknowledge His goodness and sovereignty over us, and literally offer our entire lives to Him. I may waste a lot of time on an activity with little long-term value, but this does not mean I’m surrendering my entire life to it or reverencing it as being holy and perfect.

I would like to suggest that something is an idol not merely if we give it more time than God, but more specifically, if it takes the place of God in our lives in some way. Initially there may not seem to be any difference between these two, but I believe there is a significant contrast. I’m not referring to things that merely occupy our time or that are a priority to us, but rather, to things in which we place our trust or turn to for fulfillment when that trust or fulfillment ought to be in God alone. Assuming this definition, even things or activities that are central to the Christian life may qualify as idols, depending on the role they play in our lives.

For example, good works, or our efforts to improve our character, can become an idol if we believe we actually can earn our way to God. Abstaining from a sinful lifestyle can become an idol if we think it makes us better than other people. Obedience to God can become an idol if attempt to do so with our own power and become prideful as a result. Money can be an idol if we believe that we have enough to eliminate our need for God (or, alternatively, if we don’t have enough but assure ourselves that God will provide it because we “know” we can’t live without it). Ministry can be an idol if we derive our identity and sense of purpose from it. Tithing can be an idol if we do it as a way of “bribing” God into blessing us. Reading the Bible can become an idol if we do it primarily to create the illusion that our hearts are right with God (if in fact they are not).  

Of course, there is nothing inherently bad about these things! But that is precisely the point. It is not about the thing or activity, but rather, our attitude towards it and the role it plays in our lives. Even the most important and valuable religious disciplines can become idols if we place our trust in them rather than in God, or if we put them before our relationship with Him.

A thing also may be an idol if we turn to it in order to receive something we feel we need but are not receiving from God. In the Old Testament, idols were often worshipped for this purpose. A familiar example is the forging of the golden calf by the Israelites while Moses was receiving the stone tablets on the mountain. The Israelites were not satisfied with God’s performance for them, so they created a substitute for God from which they hoped to receive more quickly the fulfillment of their desires.

The bottom line is that anything can be an idol, even (and perhaps especially) good things. We need to be sure we understand ourselves in relation to God and what place He ought to occupy in our lives, and not let anything else occupy that place. Of course, this does not mean we cannot enjoy anything other than God or trust anything else. But it is up to each one of us to analyze our own lives and determine from what we derive our sense of purpose, and in what we have placed our trust for salvation.

Should Everyone Memorize Bible Verses?

For those of us who have been Christians for any significant length of time, it’s likely that we have been encouraged at some point to memorize Bible verses. I have what may be an uncommon opinion of Bible verse memorization, but I want to begin by acknowledging that doing so has been helpful for very many people. I’m certainly not saying that it’s universally a bad idea and should never be done. However, I generally avoid memorizing Bible verses (at least in their exact wording), and I simply want to explain my reasons for having this position.

When I was younger, I recall some of my friends from church being involved in Bible quizzing. I was never involved in these competitions myself, but I was awed by the stories I heard of kids my age having the ability to memorize and recite entire books of the Bible. Yet, even though I was fairly young, a part of me was uncomfortable with Bible quizzing. It seemed to me that mindlessly reciting the words in order to win a competition might somehow detract from the significance and impact of the words. This is not a criticism of anyone who participated in Bible quizzing, it’s simply the thought I had at the time.

Perhaps one of the ideas behind Bible Quizzing was that if these kids knew portions of the Bible so well, their lives couldn’t help but be enriched by the words they had memorized. But I think it possibly might have had the opposite effect: if you become too familiar with something, it can lessen the impact and become a meaningless recitation of words.

I have a one-year-old daughter, and one of the most fascinating things about her is watching her discover the world for the first time. When we take her to the park, she’s mesmerized by the leaves on the ground, the grass, sticks, and anything else she finds. I’m so accustomed to seeing these things that I barely notice them anymore; they’re like background noise that is tuned out. But from her perspective, this was the first time she had ever seen them up close, so they occupied her entire focus. This same phenomenon can happen with words if they are heard, read, or spoken in exactly the same form too frequently; they begin to be stale and less impactful than they might be otherwise. We hear the beginning, realize it’s something we’ve heard many times before, and find it hard not to tune out the rest.        

            It’s important to realize that Bible verses aren’t magic words; they’re not incantations or spells that we say, producing some sort of magical effect. Yes, they are powerful words, but the power comes from their meaning, and the impact that meaning has on us.I still remember the first verse I ever memorized, Phillipians 4:8: “Finally, my friends, keep your minds on whatever is true, pure, right, holy, friendly, and proper. Don’t ever stop thinking about what is truly worthwhile and worthy of praise.” If I read that and truly grasp its meaning and importance, it will hopefully help me manage my own thoughts in a productive and beneficial way. However, if I were to read it in another language that I didn’t understand, would it have the same effect? Clearly not. It’s not merely reading or reciting the words that has an impact on my life; it’s my ability to grasp their meaning, and then to apply it.  

            This is why I generally avoid memorizing Bible verses. I’ve memorized several in the past (and still remember them), but those verses have unfortunately become some of the least meaningful to me, because they’re too familiar. I can recite them without thinking about the words, and that’s precisely the problem.

            I believe the solution is to be familiar with everything in the Bible, and obviously in some cases this will result in virtual memorization of some portions; but it’s possible that, by avoiding focusing on mere memorization, the point of a verse may become fixed in our minds and have an impact on us without becoming stale or easy to tune out. As a result, our attempts to apply those words (and their meaning) to our lives may be far more effective. Once again, memorizing verses has been helpful to many people, and to anyone for whom this is true, I certainly wouldn’t suggest that you stop doing so. However, it’s possible that for others complete memorization may be counterproductive, and I believe it’s wise for each of us to consider for ourselves what would be the best way for us to ensure that the words and ideas in the Bible can be most impactful and familiar. 

How Old is the Universe? (Part 2)

Last week I attempted to make the case that as Christians, we ought to be careful of placing too much weight on a particular interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. While personally I believe in an old rather than young universe, my point was not to defend this position. My intent was to demonstrate our need to have an open mind and embrace, rather than be concerned by, scientific progress.

However, there still may be some who are concerned that an interpretation of Genesis that accommodates an old universe warps the plain meaning of the Bible. As I said last week, the scientific evidence for an old universe is fascinating, but I am not qualified to present it. Rather, in this post, I would like to offer some observations about the Genesis account itself that I believe imply an older universe. If the following is not convincing, my hope is that at least it will further demonstrate the possibility of harmonizing belief in an old universe with the Biblical account.

Christians who hold to the old universe view have a variety of ways of reconciling this view with the Genesis account. One is to accept that the 6 days of creation were literal days, but that there was an unknown (perhaps very large) amount of time between each day. Another approach, which is to consider the days to represent ages of an unknown duration, is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for “day”, “yom”, does not necessarily mean a literal 24-hour day. A final view is that the days are figurative in nature, and that the Genesis account presents creation a logical or thematic order, rather than chronologically.

However, those who hold to the literal 6 day creation view often fear that to accept any alternative interpretation would cast doubt on everything that is recorded in the Bible, that it entail placing our trust in human knowledge over God’s knowledge, or even to support a secular and materialistic agenda. To those with such concerns, I would like to point out that many theologians throughout history, including Augustine, have believed that the days in Genesis were not literally 24 hours, even long before science had suggested this. They drew this conclusion based on the text itself, and I would like to present the following observations about the Genesis account that I believe support the old universe view. Again, my goal is not to prove or disprove either one, but merely to show that the old universe view is, at the very least, viable.

First, we must realize that the Bible does not actually say how God created the universe, or how long it took Him to do it. God’s role in the entire process is beyond dispute, but this still leaves us with quite a bit of flexibility to accept new scientific discoveries without feeling threatened or fear that we have to throw out the belief that God is the author of it all.

When Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth”, this statement is not meant to be merely a summary of what follows. Rather, it is an event that precedes verse two. One reason we know this is that the earth exists and is covered with water already in verse two. The actual creation of the universe, then, could have taken any amount of time.

Some may wonder why God would take such a long time, and assume that if no reason can be imagined, this must mean He didn’t do so. But the same question could be asked of those who believe in a six-day creation. Why not five days, or seven? Why not create it all in a single moment? We must be careful to avoid assuming God would not do a particular thing simply because we can’t come up with a reason that satisfies us.

Secondly, there are several reasons to believe the “days” had to be longer than 24 hours. For example, Adam named all the animals during day 6, but this certainly would take much longer than one day. Also, God said that Adam and Eve would surely die in the day that they ate the fruit, but they continued to live much longer than 24 hours. And in chapter 2 verse 2, when it says that God rested (a phrase that surely incorporates some symbolism, unless God has a recliner chair), this can only mean that He ceased creating. In this case, unless He began creating again on day 8, the 7th day must be longer than 24 hours. If so, the other days may be as well.

Genesis 2:4 says “in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”, using “yom” for day as in the previous chapter. Unless we take this to mean He did it all in a single day (contradicting the previous chapter), we must admit that this use of the word does not refer to a 24 hour period, and therefore, the days in the previous chapter may not either.

Thirdly, there are a few points about the Genesis account that seem to suggest that it isn’t necessarily written in chronological order, which leaves open the possibility that the world is much older than might be initially assumed. The events of each day don’t entirely make sense in the order they are written. For example, the sun isn’t created until day 4, but there’s light long before that. And how could there be an evening and morning without the sun? How do plants grow without the sun?

It’s also interesting to note that there is a thematic correspondence between days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6. This seems to indicate at least some level of poetic creativity meant to make a point:

Day 1	Created light, separated light from darkness, established day and night	Day 4	Created lights in the sky (sun, moon, stars)
Day 2	Created the sky to separate the water above from the water below	Day 5	Created fish in the oceans and birds in the air
Day 3	Separated water from dry land, created plants on the land	Day 6	Created animals and humans

On day 4, God created the lights in the sky to indicate the day and night that were established on day 1. On day 5, God created fish and birds to occupy the water and sky that were created on day 2. And on day 6, God created animals and humans to occupy the dry land and cultivate and eat the plants created on day 3. Overall, the account is structured in order to show a gradual development from chaos to order.

Finally, the style of the text itself clearly is poetic. Different parts of the Bible will be understood best if they are read as the type of literature they are. Some portions are poetry, some are parables, some are history, and in most cases the style is sufficiently evident. This difference is apparent when comparing the creation account to the Gospels or books such as 1 and 2 Kings, which clearly are historical. Of course, this does not mean that the Genesis account is not historical. It simply means that we should expect generalizations (rather than scientifically precise language) as well as certain themes and symbolically vivid language in order to communicate particular ideas. This was a common way to record history at the time Genesis was written.  

If anyone still is uncomfortable with labeling anything in the Genesis account as “symbolism”, consider that it says God “walked” through the garden. Obviously God is not a bipedal creature, and we all would agree He is omnipresent as well. So it cannot be denied that there are at least some figurative elements in the account.

All of these points don’t necessarily make a solid case for the old earth model (although I believe science does), but they do reveal several difficulties with a purely literal interpretation, further allowing for an older age for the universe. Again, my goal is not to prove that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but only to argue that this belief is consistent with the Genesis account and does not in any way deny the foundational beliefs of Christianity.

How Old is the Universe? (Part 1)

       I’ve decided to write about an issue that has divided many Christians. Some of you will disagree with what I say below. However, while I will briefly defend my own viewpoint at a later time, my primary goal here is to set the entire dispute in a larger context and discuss how I feel we ought to approach it, regardless of our own opinions. 

This topic is the debate commonly referred to as “young earth vs. old earth” debate, though it actually deals with the age of the entire universe. The beginning of Genesis (according to its most straightforward interpretation) appears to claim that God created everything within six literal, 24-hour days. James Ussher, Archbishop of the Church of Ireland born in the 16th century, conducted an analysis that included (among other things) the length of time covered by the genealogies in the book of Genesis. This brought him to the conclusion that creation occurred in 4004 BC. Actually, Ussher suggested a very specific date (and even time) for creation, although most believers in a young earth allow for a range of 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The opposing view, held by the majority of scientists, is that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, and the earth itself about 4.6 billion years old. 

       There’s no doubt it would be entertaining and stir things up quite a bit if I were to write extensively on the merits of each viewpoint and defend my own particular conclusion. However, besides the fact that this would take much too long for a blog post, I’m nowhere near qualified to do this. For the sake of full disclosure, I personally believe in the old universe model. I believe there is very strong scientific support for this position, but like I said, I won’t be getting into that here. There is still much I would like to say on this topic, however, and I plan to divide it between two blog posts. In the first, I will discuss why I believe this is an important issue for Christians to discuss and why we need to keep an open mind. 

       Often, when this topic is debated, Christians will briefly disagree but then conclude that it doesn’t really matter in the end, as long as we’re all followers of God and believe He is the creator. Besides, we’ll find out the answer in Heaven, right? 

       I agree and disagree. Certainly our salvation and relationship with God do not depend on our beliefs regarding the age of the universe. However, it is an important issue for us to discuss (and on which we ought to seek a reasonable conclusion) for two reasons: 1: A big deal is often made over this issue, and 2: Our credibility, and the credibility of Christianity, may be at stake. 

Interestingly, if we had been born in the sixteenth century, we wouldn’t be concerned about the age of the universe at all. Rather, the primary controversy would be whether the earth moves or is fixed at the center of the universe. As Galileo discovered, the church was very adamant that the Bible teaches a geocentric universe, and the suggestion that the earth orbited the sun was not taken very well. The church’s geocentric view was based on verses such as the following: 

Psalm 104:5:
“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”

Psalm 93:1:
“The LORD is king. He is clothed with majesty and strength. The earth is set firmly in place and cannot be moved.”

These verses seem pretty clear, but do we take them to mean that the earth doesn’t move? If not, does that mean we are ignoring what the Bible teaches, preferring finite science over God’s infinite knowledge? Of course not. We have no problem accepting the conclusions of science regarding the solar system. In fact, it is because of the advancement of our scientific knowledge that we are better able to understand the intent of these verses. They are referring to the fact that we are firmly established and secure in a figurative sense. They were never meant to make a statement about astronomy. 

       Our knowledge and observations, scientific or otherwise, are not enemies to our understanding of God and should not be disregarded, but rather embraced as aids to our understanding. Without knowledge of the world to provide a context, information in the Bible would practically be useless because we would have no way to understand or apply it. This may be a simplistic example, but it will serve to illustrate my point. When Jesus says in John 10:9 that He is “the door”, we only know what this means because we are familiar with doors. Since we know not to take it literally, we understand what the metaphor actually means. 

       Regarding the creation account, it is possible to accept the overall truth of what the Bible says (that God is the creator of everything) while also acknowledging that it’s not meant to be a science textbook. We can expect it to use general rather than technical language, as well as to skip over or simplify unnecessary scientific details. And this shouldn’t surprise us, because the account of creation needed to be intelligible to people from different millenniums with varying levels of scientific understanding. An account that would be scientifically complete and precise to us today would be gibberish to people who lived thousands of years ago. 

       Still, those who believe in a literal six-day creation may have some remaining concerns. One is that if we allow some flexibility on this issue, it may open the door for us to interpret everything in the Bible however we want, based on our own preferences or biases. Whatever we don’t like could be dismissed as “symbolic.” I would reply that like it or not, we will always have biases based on our worldview and experiences. We may do our best to overcome these biases, but it’s impossible to view anything entirely objectively. This means that the six-day view of creation may be the result of biases as much as any other view. Why should we assume that the simplest interpretation, or the one that comes to mind first, is the correct one? 

       A second concern may be that if we allow flexibility when interpreting the six days of creation, we open the door to assuming that events such as the resurrection, which are foundational to Christianity, may be disregarded as myths. But I believe this fear is unwarranted. In the case of the resurrection, for example, there is an abundance of evidence that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. We know we can trust the Biblical account because of the historical evidence that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses who recorded accurately what they saw. Therefore, regardless of what we believe about creation, an objective analysis of other events recorded in the Bible will show that there is good evidence to back up a literal understanding of the way they were recorded. Even if one there is symbolism or generalizations in one portion of the Bible, this doesn’t mean we must understand every other portion the same way. 

       Ultimately, we must differentiate between the trustworthiness of the Bible and the trustworthiness of our own interpretation. Our interpretation is not infallible. And by not allowing any flexibility in our interpretation, we weaken our position by making it unnecessarily vulnerable to new scientific discovery. 

       This issue is most important when interacting with non-believers, because there may be people who would otherwise be open to the Gospel, but are deterred because of the stance of some Christians on the age of the universe. This is because they are put into a position in which they feel they have to choose between Christianity and science (a false dichotomy), and rightly feel uncomfortable dismissing what they consider to be established facts for the sake of religious belief. Furthermore, they may be uncomfortable with a belief system that does not appear to base its beliefs on evidence, and in fact seems determined to hold onto its beliefs despite growing evidence to the contrary. They may wonder why they should trust what the Bible says about God and salvation if it doesn’t seem to them to be correct even about the material world. Therefore, we should avoid trying to make the Bible say more than it does by insisting on our own particular interpretation, especially if doing so creates the illusion of a disagreement between the Bible and science.

       None of this means that the universe is young or old. That is a fascinating question, but as I said, my intent was not to debate that here. My point is simply that we shouldn’t be so dogmatic about a young universe that we risk ruining the credibility of Christianity or imply that one particular interpretation must be accepted in order to believe the Bible or be an authentic Christian.

       As the title implies, this is only part one. Next week, I will address further possible concerns of those who believe the Bible plainly teaches a literal six-day creation, and I will attempt to argue that, upon close inspection, Genesis itself may support an older view of the Earth and universe. 

Can God be Trusted?

Can we trust God? No doubt we all would respond in the affirmative. No matter how stormy life may seem, at the end of the day we know that even if everything else fails, we still can hold onto God and trust Him. But while this may seem like one of the simplest truths we can know, I think it’s worthwhile to examine more closely. What exactly does it mean to trust God? What exactly are we trusting Him for? Without answers to these questions, saying we trust God may be nothing more than a phrase that gives us a brief emotional boost when we need it. Surely expressing trust in God is (or should be) more than personal reassurance.

If I have a need, and I say I’m trusting God for that need, the plain meaning would be that I’m confident that God will provide it. But does God always provide every one of our needs? Note that I’m talking about legitimate needs, not “wants” we may mistakenly consider to be needs. This is important because many people have trusted God and yet still have had terrible things happen to them, even death. Does this mean that they were wrong to trust God? If we maintain that God can be trusted, trusting Him must mean something other than expecting to receive whatever it is that we need.

We may know this in a superficial sense, recalling that we need to rely only on God and that we should expect trials in this life. But when difficulties come, sometimes we still assume that we can trust God to “take care of us.” This phrase is vague intentionally, in order to leave open a wide range of possible ways in which God may do what we expect Him to. However, don’t we often have something more specific in mind? It’s tempting to decide what’s best for ourselves, and then assume that, since God is reasonable, He must agree. Then we assure ourselves that God will do that particular thing and don’t allow ourselves or others to question, because we’re afraid doing so would be “doubting God.” But who would we really be doubting: God, or our own assumptions? When Jesus was tempted to jump off the roof of the temple, He wasn’t doubting God’s ability to catch Him. The mere fact that God is capable of something does not imply that we ought to expect it simply because we have decided that is what is best in our particular situation.

To clarify, I’m not suggesting that God never communicates His specific will in a situation, or that His will never involves supernatural provision, healing, or some other solution to a problem. Certainly this happens, and while as fallible human beings we can’t be 100% sure that we heard correctly from God, it will be reasonable in certain situations (with sufficient confirmation) to trust for these specific things. However, the danger is that we’ll become too preoccupied with our own well-being, deciding for ourselves what is best and then assuming God is nothing more than a wish-granter who is required to act accordingly.

Therefore, when we say we trust God, we must take into account the possibility that our particular needs may not be met. We may not always have our health, but we can trust God even if we lose it. We may not always have material needs such as food, shelter, or enough money, but even without these, we can still can trust Him. Indeed, at some point we all will lose our lives, in some cases far sooner than we would like; yet, He still can be trusted. Thinking through these possibilities reveals whether our focus is on ourselves, or on God. Are we concerned primarily with what we can get from God, or with how we can serve Him regardless of our own well-being? Further, are we really trusting God? Or are we trusting that He will make sure we have whatever it is that we actually trust?

Is there nothing, then, for which we can trust God? Absolutely there is! We can trust Him for our salvation. We can trust that He will never cease loving us. We can trust Him to keep His promises (although we must carefully distinguish between general and specific promises, a great topic for another time). We can trust Him for ultimate justice, that everything will be made right eventually. And we can trust that He is good and always will do what is best (whether that means intervening in a particular situation or not).

This may leave some of us feeling vulnerable and fragile, and it should. We are not promised comfort or well-being in this world. Certainly it would be nice if God would step in and bail us out if things became too difficult. But we have to be careful to avoid imagining God as being the way we think He ought to be. Ultimately, this realization moves our focus from ourselves to God. It helps us understand that our world revolves around God, and His purposes may be accomplished whether or not we have everything we need. In fact, His purposes often are accomplished better if we don’t have everything we need. Our personal well-being is not the issue when our world is centered on Him. God does not exist simply to serve our needs or make us more comfortable. And we cannot assume that, because He loves us, He will do whatever it is we have determined is best and most loving; or, that if He does not do something for us we think He should, that it means He doesn’t love us.

I believe this is an important topic to discuss because there may be some who have a false expectation that will ultimately turn them away from God. Whether it’s a non-believer who concludes that our God must not be very powerful or care about us, or a believer who begins to doubt God’s love, the belief that the trustworthiness of God implies our needs always will be met is dangerous. It’s imperative that we manage our expectations wisely and be sure we understand God’s promises and what we can expect from Him. We need to remember that we are a supporting character in God’s story, not the other way around.

After all, the end of Hebrews 11 points out that most of the people highlighted in the preceding chapter died without yet receiving what it was for which they were hoping. This should serve as a model for our own trust in God. Ultimately, we have a fragile existence that could end at any time. Life isn’t about us, it’s about God and our service to Him, and sometimes this means not having material comforts. But God can always be trusted for things of eternal importance.

Black Holes, Gravity, and God's Omnipotence

We have brains that function very well, but nevertheless are finite and limited in their ability to understand certain concepts with which we cannot have direct experience. It is impossible, for example, for us to fully understand the idea of infinity, or eternity. We can speak conceptually about something, but our brains are simply not designed to grasp it fully. 

The idea I have in mind presently is the difficulty of comprehending how powerful God is. It’s easy to use words such as “omnipotent”, but more difficult to grasp what this means in a tangible sense (besides a very general example such as the feat of creating the universe).   

I'm a bit of a science nerd, so I enjoy reading about physics and astronomy (and pretending to understand at least some of it). One of my favorite topics is black holes, and as I learned more about black holes, I realized they may provide a way to put the power of God into physical terms. Obviously I’m not a scientist, so my understanding and explanations likely are not complete, but I’ll do my best. 

The first thing to understand about black holes is that they are not holes. Black holes occur when a star with a sufficiently large mass runs out of fuel and collapses under the weight of its own gravity. Stars generally are in a state of equilibrium, a balance between the outward push of internal fusion reactions and the inward pull of gravity. Once a star’s fuel is depleted, there no longer is any outward push to counter the inward pull, and in an instant the star collapses into an extremely dense state. It is now a black hole.

The reason it’s called a “hole” is that its gravity is strong enough to pull anything into itself, even light. This is due to the escape velocity of the black hole. Escape velocity is the speed at which an object must travel in order to escape the gravitational pull of a large body (such as a star, planet, or of course a black hole). The stronger the gravitational pull, the faster the escape velocity must be. The escape velocity of earth is about 7 miles per second (25,000 mph). Light travels much faster, about 186,000 miles per second, so it has no trouble escaping earth. 

However, a black hole, due to its extreme density, has a much stronger gravitational pull than the earth or even the most massive stars. To get an idea of the density of black holes, consider that in theory a black hole doesn’t need to have formed from a star. Any object, if shrunk to a sufficiently small size (while still maintaining the same mass) would eventually reach sufficient density to become a black hole. The earth, for example, would have to be squished down to the size of a pea for this to happen. Imagine how dense this would be, and you have an idea of the density of a black hole.

The gravitational pull of the black hole, therefore, is so strong that even light, with a speed of 186,000 miles per second, is not fast enough to reach the required escape velocity, and is sucked back towards the black hole. This is why it appears black: no light escapes for us to see. Imagine trying to pull apart an object held together with such a strong gravitational force! 

Now consider what we know about the beginning of the universe. For much of history, humanity believed that the universe had no beginning, that it simply existed and was not undergoing any change on a universal scale. Everything changed when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe actually is expanding. This implied that the universe had a beginning (which, of course, Christianity had said all along), because of the following inference: if we were to “rewind” further and further into the past, the universe would become increasingly smaller, until ultimately it would converge to a single point at its beginning, known as a singularity. This would be a point of infinite energy, infinite heat, infinite density, and an unimaginably small size. It is believed that at this singularity all of the laws of physics would break down (and I certainly don’t blame them!). 

Hopefully now my reason for talking about black holes earlier is becoming clear. This singularity is similar to a black hole, but certainly much more extreme. This point was even smaller than a pea, but contained not only the mass of the earth, but all of the matter in the entire universe. 

Though it’s impossible to comprehend, consider how strong the gravitational pull of such a dense point must be, and therefore, how much energy would be required to pull it apart.  

God pulled it apart. 

And He did it with such force that it exploded to a size 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than its initial size, within the first .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds of the universe’s existence. 

If there was ever an appropriate time to say “Mind Blown” this is would be it!