And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed…A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon…The name of the second river is the Gihon…And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. – Genesis chapter 2

Now I’m not foolish enough to hop up and down and say they found Eden, but the thought did sit quietly in a corner of my mind when I read this article. The Tigris and Euphrates go north from the Persian Gulf near Iran and Iraq. After Adam and Eve were evicted, an angel stood guard at the entry of the garden. That would have lasted till the garden was destroyed in the Noah’s flood. The garden was the place where humanity began. I have long thought that the garden of Eden must have been in the Persian Gulf based on the rivers referenced. We don’t know where Pishon and Gihon are but the names of the Tigris and Euphrates haven’t changed since Moses wrote so it must be that Eden was associated with them. I think it is unlikely that we’ll ever find evidence of the garden at the bottom of the Persian Gulf but this is something interesting to consider.

“The Puritans recovered the biblical teaching that the marriage bed was to be honored and not just tolerated. They gave themselves to the married state with a strong commitment, and one of their great contributions to our culture was the establishment of the view that romantic and erotic devotion was sustainable within the covenant of marriage. In discussion this, C.S. Lewis once commented that the exaltation of virginity was a Roman Catholic trait, and ‘that of marriage, a Protestant trait’ . . . The Puritans taught that sexual love within marriage was not only lawful, it was supposed to be exuberant and passionate” (Beyond Stateliest Marble, pp. 46-47).

(Source: Doug Wilson)

Yes, if we turn pure eyes and upright senses toward it, the majesty of God will immediately come to view, subdue our bold rejection, and compel us to obey. – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

“The church is like a swimming pool: all the noise comes from the shallow end.” – W.H. Vanston

NASA found alien life!! NASA found alien life!! This proves without a doubt that evolution is gospel truth and that all religion of any kind is wrong and that Carl Sagan was a god!!

Well, they found life on earth. Not as big a deal, I’ll admit. Also, I’m not sure why NASA of all agencies was looking for life on earth but that’s, I guess, what happens when the government cuts your funding and so there you are.  So what’s the big deal about NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration just so you know) finding life on earth? I mean, we all suspected it was here all along, didn’t we? The big diff is that NASA(?) found a bacteria that is not built out of phosphorus like the rest of the living things we looked at on this planet, nope, this one is made out of arsenic. That is wild, I have to admit.

And where do you think they found this critter? In a bottle of elderberry wine? Nah, that’s been done. Nope, they found it living in Mono Lake in California. Mono Lake is “is an alkaline and hypersaline lake in Mono County, California.” Over the years the water has been becoming increasing rich in arsenic and NASA scientists have been poking around in the mud trying to figure out if there is life in there. And now they’ve found it.

The hysteria surrounding this boils down to the premise “We found life unlike anything we’ve ever seen and so that increases the possibility of finding life on other planets.” Uh. Sure. Unless the little things kind of evolved along with the changing environment they found themselves in. They don’t use water in the process of photosynthesis, these enterprising creatures use arsenic. Because, you know, there’s tons of it around them.

Kind of funny how in the rush to prove evolution they forget evolution in the process.

Loved this from Mike Wittmer:

Imagine asking a woman to marry you and she responds, “Okay, but I’ll need ten thousand dollars up front and monthly payments of $795.” Or being told by your teenage child, “Mom and dad, I’m an adult now and I want to settle up. How much do I owe you for raising me?” Or how would you feel if, after performing a heartfelt song for someone you love, they give you a hug and say, “That meant so much to me. What’s a fair price for your effort?”

God’s grace is free because it is priceless. The cost was the death of God’s own Son and that is something we can’t even understand, let alone get close to paying for. It is offensive and belittles the gift to try to pay God back for what Jesus accomplished to make us his own. The appropriate response is to thank and love the giver. Don’t dishonor the gift by trying to pay for it.

I repent, I repent of parading my liberty
I repent, I repent of paying for what I get for free
And for the way I believe that I am living right
By trading sins for others that are easier to hide
I am wrong and of these things I repent – Derek Webb, I Repent

Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here.” While he was coming, the demon threw him to the ground and convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father. And all were astonished at the majesty of God.

But while they were all marveling at everything he was doing, Jesus said to his disciples, “Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men.” But they did not understand this saying, and it was concealed from them, so that they might not perceive it. And they were afraid to ask him about this saying. – Luke 9:41-45

Why would Jesus rebuke a man for bringing his son to the disciples for healing while he was on the mountain? Was that man “faithless and twisted”? What about the disciples? Did he rebuke them for trying to drive out the demon? Hadn’t he just given them the authority to do just that at the beginning of chapter 9? Surely they weren’t “faithless and twisted” for trying. No, Jesus addressed this rebuke to the “faithless and twisted generation“. The way Luke uses ‘generation’ is most often to speak of unbelieving crowds (see 7:31-35 and 11:49-52). Jesus rebuke was not to the man for asking nor to the disciples for failing, it was to the crowds for perceiving the disciple’s failure as a testimony against Jesus’ ministry. It is hard to criticize Jesus when he did all things well but when his fail the accusations fly.

There is a lot to learn from this. Jesus was very clear that he wouldn’t be around forever. He told the disciples of his murder and resurrection in verse 22. He spoke with Moses and Elijah about his departure (or exodus) in his transfiguration in verse 31. And here in verse 44 he is clear again. If people will only be persuaded by perfectly executed power encounters, things only Jesus can do, then they’re doomed. Jesus would depart and the testimony he would leave behind would be his disciples with their wobbly faith and faulty execution. “How long am I to be with you?” If you put your faith in results while Jesus is not here, you will be disappointed.

This is a all to common accusation against prayer, especially from the New Atheists. “Instead of sitting quietly, get up and do something!” they seem to say. I watched an episode of Futurama the other night and one of the characters visits what is obviously a symbol of organized religion looking for help finding his friend. The Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, etc. priest says that they can pray. The man replies, “Yes, but can you do anything.” There is a beat and the priest says, “No, not really.” Statistically, prayer doesn’t outperform action.

I think this is just the thing Jesus was teaching in this part of Luke. If you trust in performance, you’re going to be disappointed.  I think this is why these events are clustered around the Transfiguration. It shows Jesus in his glory and God’s approval of him. It also shows the all too human response. Peter, James and John don’t want the moment to end so they offer to build tents for Jesus, Elijah and Moses on the mountain so they can remain. But Jesus said he wouldn’t be sticking around. And the witness he’s left behind is his church. Failing, faulty, fragile as it is. God’s power is made clear not in power encounters but in weakness. Jesus didn’t make a mistake or a poor choice. It isn’t about what “works” it is about him.

And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” – Luke 9:21-22

American Protestantism is sometimes criticized for being too individualistic. “Me and Jesus” forgetting that Jesus came to save his people. At the same time, I’m very thankful for the individualism in Christianity. Personal conversion, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the priesthood of all believers, etc. The quote above illustrates one reason why I’m thankful for it.

Jesus here foretold what was going to happen to  him. I know I often glaze over the rejection and get to the death and resurrection. But don’t miss the rejection. The elders, chief priests and scribes were the rulers of the Jews under Roman occupation. It is worse than if Jesus was brought before the Congress, President and Supreme Court and they all told him he was not welcomed here. It is worse because we live in a thoroughly democratized society; we enjoy a large degree of personal freedom. What happened when these leaders rejected Jesus is that the nation rejected him. And yet, because Christianity has a democratizing vein, individual Jews could be, were and would be saved, that is, united to Jesus.

Jesus did come for his people (plural and singular) but a ‘people’ is never an abstraction but is always made up of individuals. And Jesus’ people are comprised of individuals who cannot be numbered from every tribe and language and nation. One by one.

Read this link about Norse myths. Well, read the first paragraph. Okay, don’t go to the link, read it here:

The Norse believed that the universe emerged from an empty, yawning gulf separating worlds made of ice and fire, respectively, inhabited only by a mysterious, hermaphroditic being named Ymir, who became the mother and father of the race of the jotuns, chaotic nature spirits that would later be the enemies of the Norse gods. Eventually, another being, Buri, came into existence, and his grandchildren, Vili, Ve and Odin, decided to create the world and fill it with life. But unlike the Judeo-Christian conception of God, the Norse deities could not create substance out of nothing, so Odin and his brothers did the only sensible thing – they murdered Ymir and made the world out of his body and the sky out of his skull. Ymir’s blood became the sea, his bones and teeth became rocks and mountains, and his brains the clouds.

The act of sacrifice gave great power to the three brothers, and they proceeded to give life and intelligence to human beings.

So what? I mean this is only a myth, right? The Norse didn’t really believe it, did they? Here’s how Mental Floss summed this up: “The outlook of the Norsemen, who often saw the world as a cruel and unforgiving place, was surely influenced by the fact that they lived in a universe made possible only by death.” Absolutely. Creation myths matter. They form or inform how you interpret and understand the universe. Was the world create by two beings wrestling? Then life as a struggle should be expected. Good will get the upper hand at times and then evil will. Is the world a lie, an illusion? Then the ultimate good is to overcome the lie and understand that nothing is real. Truth is almost impossible to come by. Did the world get created by nothing exploding and life happen by accident? You get the idea.

However, what if the creation myth¹The term ‘myth’ needn’t mean that something isn’t true. There are scraps of truth in a lot of different creation stories. It just refers to the stories that explain things to us. tells us about a God who created the world on purpose? Who isn’t part of the universe but isn’t distant from it either? What if this God did it in an orderly fashion and proclaimed it good when he was finished? What should we expect life in that universe to be like? Orderly or chaotic? An impenetrable mystery or a wonder to explore? And in that universe humanity is created especially to be like this God in some ways. How then should humans treat each other? As one of a variety of other species or with care? Creation myths matter. A lot.

A friend of mine is Norwegian and she once told me how thankful she was that Christianity came to Norway because her people were so brutal without it. Understanding the world as a Christian does elevates humanity. People are God’s image bearers and he cares for them so much that he not only speaks to them, but he sent his only Son to die in order to reconcile them to himself. With that view of humanity you’re not free to go and enslave them or hack them up indiscriminately.

Okay, now go back and read the rest of the stories in that link and think about the Vikings and their reputation. Or watch The Thirteenth Warrior. Nah, don’t. It was a lame film. Read Michael Crichton’s book Eaters of the Dead. Crichton was good at research.

It is a tale of two revolutions, the American and the French. Chronologically close and the French were inspired by the American concepts of freedom (as I understand it.)  But philosophically they were different. The American revolution was mostly because of taxation and self-governance ¹I am not a historian, please forgive me if I’m a little off on this. But the people who revolted largely came here because of religious persecution in their homeland. The Puritans wanted to purify the worship in the Anglican church either by reforming it or by starting over. Then there were the Separatists who didn’t want a state church. In addition to these, there were folks just looking to start over, others looking to make money, Deists, Quakers, the non-religious, etc. But there was a large community of folk who were religious and many had been burned by a state church.

So the American revolution was not secular at its core. And by ‘secular’ I mean non-religious. It included a variety of religious viewpoints and wasn’t afraid of them. Religion had a place in the public square. It had a voice and that voice was not to be co-opted or silenced by the government as it had been in England. The Deists Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both recognized the positive role religion played in the formation of our nation. Philosophically, the American revolution was not fought to ensure freedom from religion but, in part, to ensure the free exercise thereof.

The French revolution, however, took a different turn. Yes, it was an effort to throw off the king but it also threw off the church since the two were so close. To be French was to be Catholic at that time. Even in England when the throne oscillated between Protestant and Catholic, there was usually a French tie in the Catholics who ascended to the English throne. So when the French revolution happened, they threw off their king and their church because they were closely related. But they went further and declared religion to be a private matter that had no place in the public arena. This was secularism and France is very secular to this day. The reason France outlawed the burqa is not because they fear Islam but because of the overt religious statement the burqa is. There is no place for that in public in France.

History lesson over. Now to today. I read a letter to the editor today in the Chicago Tribune that startled me a bit. Not the first one (though that did make my filling ache) it was the one titled “A Third Party”. I have kind of been jonesing for a third party for the same reason the author lists. Where the wheels came of was when I read this:

The very thing that the tea party should stand for that would certainly set itself apart from the other two, and create that counterbalance, it isn’t.

That is the upholding of the actual Constitution for which this country fought so very hard to attain.

The separation of church and state. Not to have any one religion, or any religion for that matter, dictate laws and mores.

Steve Himmelman, the author, has confused his revolutions or he isn’t paying attention to what the Tea Party is saying. What I think Mr. Himmelman is getting at in his letter is that he doesn’t like the religious overtones of the Tea Party. But that does not constitute one religion “dictat[ing] laws and mores.” ²Also, I think Mr. Himmelman used “mores” incorrectly. No one can dictate those, they are society’s values and norms. Perhaps he meant “morality.” If the Tea Party issues a statement of faith that members must agree with, that’s a different matter. But when you have a Mormon as the (big) mouth piece on television and an evangelical soccer mom as the most likely presidential nominee, you do not have one religion dictating anything.

I think that what the Pope said in Britain recently has a lot to say to the situation brewing here as well:

Some, [the Pope] said, openly advocate that “the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere.” On the contrary, religion and politics need to be in dialogue, he said…The pope also offered an example of where ethical and moral influences have brought about a notable achievement: the abolition of the slave trade by the British Parliament in 1807.

Religion has a vital role in the public arena and I think it is right that the Pope pointed to the Anglican William Wilberforce as a positive example of politics and religion. I think we could do the same thing here. Not that I see anything close to Wilberforce’s in the Tea Party, but that doesn’t mitigate the place religious faith has in the public debate.

Ideas have consequences. Religious ideas and non-religious ideas. People have to vote in accordance with the implications of their beliefs. If you ask why someone is opposed to abortion or gay marriage, don’t then shout them down if they explain their reasons in terms of their religious views. It isn’t right to ask why someone opposes something and then say that their views are invalid because they are religious. Calvinism has consequences. Roman Catholicism has consequences. Islam has consequences. Atheism has consequences and so does secularism. For some reason only the last two are allowed to be expressed these days.

As a matter of disclosure I am not in favor of the Tea Party. I understand their frustration with the current state of affairs and their desire for smaller government, but I think they go too far.