Fascination

Fascinate: to draw irresistibly the attention or interest of someone. to captivate, charm, or enthral. 

It happens more times than I like to admit: I am sitting in a restaurant having a conversation with friends and my eyes are pulled to the television that is playing some sports game. The allure of the screen: we have all felt its pull. Millions are spent designing things to put on the screen that will attract our attention and hold it there. When sitting in a restaurant talking to a friend and my attention is constantly diverted to the screen, I cannot help but think that I am really saying is that what is on the screen is more worth my attention than they are. What is of highest value should be what captivates our attention.

What is it that fascinates us? What is it the captivates our hearts and our affections? Is it truly worthy of our attention and focus?

We are called to be fascinated with the Lord. We are to be captivated and enthralled with him. This is the heart of the great commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." In other words, he is to be the one we are to be forever fascinated with. The healthy heart beats with love, passion and desire for Jesus.

Consider what David wrote in Psalm 27:4 (ESV):

"One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after:

that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life,

to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord

and to inquire in his temple."

David was fascinated with the the Lord. He loved him. His personality and thoughts captivated his heart. His power and glory enthralled his soul. The Lord was the one thing he desired. He knew fascination of deep love for God.

Or consider what Paul wrote in Philippians 3:8 (ESV).

"I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord."

Paul was focused on knowing him because he realised that Jesus was deserving of our undivided heart. He was willing to lay aside his possessions and his career in the pursuit of knowing Jesus. The desire to know Jesus had overpowered his life. 

Or consider what Jesus said about Mary to her sister Martha (Luke 10:38-42 ESV). You remember what happened. Jesus and had stopped at their home. Martha busied herself with serving people while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus listening to everything he said. Martha became upset because her sister wasn't helping. Jesus told her:

"Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things,

but one thing is necessary.

Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her." 

Jesus said that Mary had the "one necessary thing." What was it? Mary was fascinated with Jesus. She was enthralled by him. She was endlessly distracted by him. She was rightly captivated by him. After all, Jesus is God.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Scriptures knows that we are called to this loving fascination with the Lord. But our hearts are often cold and distracted by other things. We need to bring our cold and lukewarm hearts to him and ask him to warm them. We need to give ourselves to seeking him and throw off everything that distracts us from that goal. If we have met him, we know that he is worthy of all of our attention and affection.

Do you know him? Are you fascinated by him? Is your heart captivated by him?

Back on Facebook - What I Learned During My Hiatus

I am back on Facebook, but I must admit that I made the decision reluctantly. I actually enjoyed my time away from Facebookworld.

Here are some thoughts about what I learned while I was gone.

1. Facebook is a tremendous amplifier.

One of the things that led to my taking a break from FB was that everything seemed so shrill. I found myself becoming concerned about things that people were posting. The need to click or comment was growing stronger and stronger. I finally came to the conclusion that it wasn't simply an unusual election, but that FB itself amp-up the emotional content of stories through the sharing and commenting that went on. So my break was something of an experiment about how FB affected me.

I check the news several times a day. I read a variety of sources: American and European, liberal and conservative, and English and French. During the time away from Facebook I also stayed away from the comment sections of the news articles I was reading. I simply read the news...much like I did back in the day when I would read a newspaper and maybe a magazine or two.

Result: My opinions are just as informed as they were when I was on FB but things are not blown up to catastrophic proportions. I am more relaxed. Frankly, I think my perspective on life and the world is much healthier. In fact, the real world is much nicer than the Facebook world.

2. Facebook is a time waster.

Time is a non-renewable resource. While we all need time to relax, much of my time on FB had to go into the "wasted time" category. Have you ever spent an hour on FB and then wondered, "what was I doing?" Did I really need to watch that 2 minute video of a dancing dog? During my hiatus I found more time for other things that I actually enjoyed more.

3. Facebook is a good way of keeping up with people.

As a pastor of an international church, I have met a lot of people from around the world during the last three years. Facebook has been a useful tool for keeping up with where they are and what they are doing. As someone who was pastor of an amazing group of people in northern Minnesota, FB has been a fun way of following what is happening in their lives. As a person living with an ocean between me and the rest of my family, FB is a great way to remain connected with family. It's keeping up with those connections that I missed the most.

4. Facebook is a terrible way keep in touch with national or international news.

It is like getting your news at the water cooler at work. Would you trust those conversations to give you accurate pictures of the nation or the world? Probably not. News stories on FB should be considered rumours. Click on something other than FB for your news. Don't waste time on the comments. What are my main on-line sources? BBC, Reuters, Google News (US and French editions), France24, Le Monde, La Figaro and the Drudge Report. Note that Google News links to several different sources for each news item. Drudge often sensationalises his headlines, but his page is particularly useful for its links to all of the major news sources.

5. Facebook is a means of connecting people to articles that might interest them.

Like this blog post. I am not tooting my horn, but sometimes there are articles that I think would be of benefit to some of my friends. FB is a way to connect people to those articles. My blog is listed in our church's ebulletin each week, but I notice that there is a spike in traffic when I put a link to it on FB. Given the traffic that comes from France I can only surmise that people click on FB links more than ebulletin links.

But it isn't just my blog. Sometimes I will run across an article that relates to something that is happening in our church and FB is a way of connecting people to the article. There were several times I wanted to make an exception and break my hiatus in order to post a link to an article that addressed something from a biblical perspective.

So what is my FB policy now that I am back on?

I am going to post nothing other than relaxing goldfish videos. Seriously, you've got to see this one. 

You didn't just click on that did you? Really?

Here my "notes to self" as I go back on FB:

• FB is a communication tool rather than an entertainment tool. 
• I need to keep from wasting time on it. 
• Notifications are "off". 
• I'll check it once a day for messages. (Text me if you need a quicker response). 
• It isn't my source national or international news. Don't click on articles or respond. 
• It isn't my job to police "fake news".
• Facebook for keeping up with family and friends. 
• Do a Facebook review every 3 months. If it isn't having a positive impact, unplug it.
• Facebook is not in control. I can live without it. 

The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

On September 11, 2001, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City collapsed. A

commercial jet was flown into each of the buildings. Today, however, there are many people who deny that is what happened. YouTube is filled with videos that begin with the statement, "There is no way that a jet plane could have caused the WTC to collapse." The videos then go on to describe theories about what really happened. If it couldn't have been airplanes, what was it? Missiles? Hidden explosives?

These types of videos point out the importance of the assumptions that we start with when we begin to look at history. What does it take to prove that an event occurred? What is possible?

It is important to remember that in dealing with history we are not dealing with science as is typically understood. Science can be defined as a "systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Science may be able to give us a ideas about what could have happened, but it can never prove that something happened historically. The past cannot be put into a laboratory. 

Instead, historians look at that facts and develop theories about what happened that best account for the facts. Science may be able to help define what could have happened, but cannot definitively tell us what happened. For example, a scientist might be able to recreate the flying of jet aircraft into skyscrapers and demonstrate that a plane can cause a building to collapse. That does not tell us definitively that is what happened on 9-11. 

When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, we are talking about what is claimed to be a unique event. It cannot be replicated. It is an event that is not subject scientific inquiry and cannot be proven by science.

This is why the philosophical questions about God and miracles must come before considering the evidence for the resurrection. For the person who assumes that there is no God or that miracles do not happen, the resurrection is a heart-warming but preposterous fable. If a person believes that resurrections are not possible, then no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. However, his assumptions are usually made without a great deal of thought.

Christians are often asked to "prove God exists". There are any number of philosophical proofs that can advanced, but it is perhaps even more important to ask the atheist to prove that God does not exist. Because he cannot. Believe in evolution does not prove that God does not exist. The existence of evil does not prove that God does not exist. The fact that the church might have taught something later proven to be untrue does not prove that God does not exist. The fact that the atheist has never encountered God does not prove that God does not exist. Pushed into a corner, the best the atheist can offer is that it is the way that "modern" people think. But that doesn't prove anything either.

It is much more intellectually astute to grant the smallest possibility that God might exist and that he might act in the world in a way that disrupts the natural order. That is, there is the smallest of possibilities that God exists and that miracles could happen. It is wise to be skeptical. But it is also wise to remember that a miracle is one possible explanation for the historical evidence.

What is the evidence for the resurrection?

1. Detailed accounts of the death of Jesus and the discovery of the empty tomb.

Because the Bible is bound into a single book, it is easy to forget that it is really a collection of books. For of these books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all contain accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus. These records were written by eyewitnesses or were carefully researched. They provide detailed testimony of what people experienced and contain enough similarities to be certain that they are describing the same events. At the same time, they provide enough variation that it is clear that the accounts were not the creation of a group of people trying to pull off a giant hoax.

2. The empty tomb.

All of the historical evidence points to the fact that the tomb of Jesus was empty. This fact is even granted by the enemies of Jesus and is found in non-biblical sources as well as in the gospel accounts. The enemies of Jesus would have had ample reason to find the body. If the body was in the tomb, they would have certainly known about it.

3. The broken seal.

The enemies of Jesus were well-aware of the claims that Jesus would rise from the dead. Therefore they took incredible precautions to keep some trick from being played by the disciples. They made certain that a Roman guard was posted and that the tomb was sealed with a royal seal. There were severe penalties for breaking a Roman seal.

4. The moved stone

The size of the stone that covered the tomb of Jesus was incredible. Some have estimated that it weighed between 1000 and 2000 kilos. These stones were generally rolled downhill into place and then required enormous effort to remove. The idea that someone snuck into to gravesite and removed a giant stone while it being guarded by Roman soldiers.

5. The grave clothes.

The historical accounts indicated that the linens wrapped around the body were neatly folded. What grave robber neatly folds grave clothes from a grave being guarded by Roman soldiers?

6. The living Roman soldiers.

The penalty for allowing a prisoner to escape was death. How much more the penalty for allowing a dead body to escape! Yet the Roman soldiers who guarded the tomb were not executed, instead were told by their bosses to spread the rumour the disciples had stolen the body. Again, this points to the fact that the enemies of Jesus admit that the grave was empty.

There are more facts that need to be accounted for. But given just these facts, what historical event can best account for them?

1. It is all a myth.

This is a common argument advanced by those who have not really looked at the evidence. Legends and myths do exist, but they take many years to evolve and take shape. We have written texts of the gospels dating to the lifetime of the writers. There simply was no time for a myth or legend to form. In addition, the writers of the gospels were executed for their faith. While many will die for what they believe in, few people will die for what they know to be false. Yet not one of the eyewitnesses recanted their testimony even under the pain of torture and death.

2. Jesus didn't really die

This theory states that Jesus was not dead when placed in the tomb and that after three days he had recovered. This theory does not hold up under scrutiny. Even before the crucifixion, Jesus had been tortured and was incredibly weak. Crucifixion frequently dislocates both shoulders and the nails driven through the wrists and feet would have required immediate medical attention. A spear had been thrust into him. The Roman soldiers who crucified him were professional executioners. They knew death when they saw it. But even if they were mistaken, how plausible is it that Jesus, locked in a completely dark tomb without water for three days, could have recovered enough to roll away the stone?

3. The stolen body.

This theory accounts or the empty tomb. But it does not account for the Roman soldiers being allowed to live. Nor does it explain how the disciples gained enough courage to steal the body. Nor does it account that not a single disciple admitted to the hoax even when being tortured or executed for their faith.

The most plausible explanation for the evidence is that something supernatural happened. The best and most satisfying theory is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by the power of God. The implications of that are breathtaking.

How Do You Know Christianity is True?

Skeptics and scoffers love to watch Christians squirm. One of their favourite questions to ask is "How do you know that Christianity is true?" In classrooms, coffeeshops, and family gatherings the question is asked again and again.

How do you respond to a question like that? Does it make you uncomfortable?

There are a variety of ways to approach the question, but there is much wisdom to be found in how Paul handled it. He was, after all, the most effective evangelist and defender of the faith in the early church. But one of the main reasons I am drawn to watching how he handled a question like that is that he was NOT one of the twelve disciples. In fact, the Bible is silent about whether he ever saw Jesus in the flesh. The first mention of him is at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 when he stood there giving assent to the his killing. Unlike the disciples, he could not say, "I spent three years with Jesus. I walked and ate with him. I heard him teach. I saw the miracles." We don't know if he met Jesus before the crucifixion. We do know that whatever contact he had with the gospel made Paul extremely anti-Christian before he came to faith in Christ. So Paul makes a good example for us who never walked with Jesus when he was here in the flesh.

In Acts 17:16-34 Paul has the opportunity to speak the the Areopagus in Athens. This is the place where the philosophers and leading thinkers of the day met to talk and debate. It was arguably the philosophical center of the world at the time. Rome might have had more power and wealth, but Athens the way in ideas. And the Areopagus was the height of philosophical thought. Here's what happened:

Paul looked out at the skeptical audience. They were not common labourers. They were the top intellectuals in a highly intellectual city. They were always curious about new things, but they were also seasoned debaters. They liked nothing more than a good argument. Each person in the group was proud of their ability to think and not to be easily fooled by the vain thinking of the "uneducated" person.

They could talk endlessly about the different philosophers starting from Thales of Miletus through Socrates and Aristotle up to whatever thinker was currently popular.

They loved debating deep and important topics. Sometimes they debated the existence of god. Some were atheists, some deists, some pantheists, and others believed in multiple "small gods." They would argue about this until their voices grew hoarse, never really being able to come up with an argument that would end all debate.

They talked about the nature of good and evil and argued about ethical issues. Some were strict ascetics and lived austere lives. Others were hedonists. In general, they concluded that a person  should do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't hurt others and did nothing to "excess".

Sometimes they speculated about whether there was life after death and what sort of life it might be if there was. Some thought that there was no life after death. Others believed in reincarnation. Still others believed in some type of reward based after-life. None of them, of course, had actually died and come back to life to report about it, so most of their discussion was about they thought must rationally or logically take place. On this issue, they again were not able to reach a firm conclusion that they would all agree about. 

Their desire to debate and discuss different topics was endless. This group of intellectuals was always hungry for a new idea to discuss and debate. It was easy to be intimidated. Most new ideas were chewed up and spat out as unpalatable. It seemed like this group enjoyed the debate more than anything else. They delighted in proving other people wrong more than  they offering their own ideas.

Paul said a silent prayer, cleared his throat and began to address the intellectuals. He began by noting the variety of things that were worshipped in their city. Indeed, their city was full of different religions. Toleration of different religious opinions was esteemed by the intellectuals, but at the same time such toleration indicated that they didn't think any one religion to be better than another. 

He continued, "I am here to talk about the God that you do not know. This God does not live in a temple. In fact, he is the Creator. He made everything that exists. The sun, the moon and the stars are all works of his hands. He knows what lies at the bottom of the ocean and behind the farthest star.  He is like no other. You cannot serve him like the gods of the many religions in the city. He is the one who gives you life itself, he doesn't 'need' anything. He made all the nations. And he wants us to know him."

The intellectuals were curious and skeptical. A new idea? A new god? A Supreme God? Intriguing! What logical supports would the speaker give? He had not given any so far. Just statements floating in the air with nothing underneath them to hold them up.

The speaker, realising that as a foreigner he faced an uphill battle, knew he needed to make some type of connection with them. He began quoting some of the songs and poems of the day that pointed toward the existence of a supreme being. It would not prove anything, but maybe they would listen a little less skeptically to what he had to say. 

Then he shifted gears. "In the past, God overlooked the ignorance of mankind. But something has changed. God now commands everyone to repent and believe in him because he has fixed a day of judgment."

What was this babbler saying? A God who is going to judge them? What proof did he offer?

"God will judge the world with righteous judgment. He has given the authority to judge to someone and has demonstrated it to us by raising him from the dead."

When the intellectuals heard him talk about the resurrection of the dead, there were three reactions: some mocked, others wanted to talk more, and others believed.

We face a similar cultural situation today. So what can we learn about Paul's handling of the situation?

First, the center of Paul's argument was not philosophical, but historical. He did not try to out-reason the intellectuals. He stated the simple fact of the resurrection and its implications regarding the coming judgment. This is important because the gospel is not a new philosophy to be adopted. It is grounded in a historical event which has been amply documented. He wrote to the Corinthians that this message of the resurrection was of primary importance (1 Cor 15:3-7). God is not an idea to be debated: God has acted decisively in history.

Second, Paul was not afraid of using things in their culture that would help him deliver the message of the gospel. While great care can must be used because the "gods" of a culture are probably not the God of the Bible, there is much in a culture that can be used to help people related to and understand the gospel message. Use it when you can! The idea is not to simply sound hip or trendy, but to show help people listen to what you have to say. For example, a reference to a pop song crying for forgiveness can be used to talk about how we all feel a need to be purified from sin.

Third, he did not win everyone that day. In fact, the responses were divided into three categories. One message but three reactions. This is the way it almost always is, even with a highly effective evangelist. We must remember that the key component of this episode is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit draws some people to faith while others remained hardened. This reality means that we can have confidence to share the gospel because it is the Holy Spirit's job to take the message and bring people to salvation. He can overcome the objections of the most skeptical intellectual.

Perhaps the greatest lesson is that fundamentally we are called to be witnesses and not debaters (Acts 1:8). The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18-30). While those who are perishing will at times mock the gospel, we must not be ashamed of it because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). So let us share the gospel message and leave the results to God!

Of course, the next question is whether the resurrection really happened. How we know it did will be the subject of next week's blog article.