Light-work

Secret Heresy - Pt. 2 of 2

The Secret is no secret! Millions are buying it (literally). What is it's appeal? This life philosophy answers to the natural dispositions of the sin sick heart like hand to glove. If you haven't done so already, check out this series of quotes from the DVD. These statements have a familiar ring to them like something you would have heard in the Garden of Eden where the serpent's mantra was "You will be like God!"

A desire to be like God can be of two types. One is good, the other is bad. It is possible to desire to be like God as children desire to emulate their father. This is exactly the kind of appeal Paul makes in Ephesians 5:1 when he says, "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children." The bad kind of desire to be like God is the desire of the upstart, the one who longs to become God's equal, His rival, or His replacement. This is what Satan was pitching and The Secret has taken a page from his play-book. I don't care how much you dress up The Secret in biblical terminology or attempt to find points of connection between it and biblical truth, you will not be able to escape this most fundamental difference: The Secret and biblical truth have as much in common as Satan does with God.

It gets worse! When the dust settles on the book of Job, God makes this statement to Job's three "friends:" "For this reason my wrath is kindled against you [Eliphaz] and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me, what is right" (Job 42:7). Do you like it when someone misrepresents you, or makes public statements about you that aren't true? God doesn't either. When we talk about God, who He is and what He is like, we better get it right! It is here that The Secret says what would kindle God's wrath. Let me pinpoint some of these misrepresentations.

1. God is omnipresent, but he is also transcendent. This means that God is everywhere, but that He also dwells OUTSIDE of time and space. The Secret doesn't get this and conceives of "God" as a synonym for the universe.
2. Second, there is a denial of the personhood of God in The Secret. God is presented not as a person, He is a force. (Haven't we heard this somewhere before, Obi-wan?) This is an important issue for the purveyors of The Secret because a force is capable of being manipulated  (like electricity) in ways that a person (who has a will) is not.
3. Third, there is a denial of the sovereignty of God embedded in The Secret. God is the controller of circumstances. He is bound by no man and chooses what He deems best to suit His perfect purposes. "Place the attention on what you want to experience" all you want. In the final analysis, God decides what will happen, not you! Yes, it is true that God can choose to fold our desires into His plan, but "thinking positive thoughts" don't have much to do with it. Praying to the God who is in charge, does.

Now, you would think that with so many strikes against it, The Secret would be something that followers of Jesus view as glaringly flawed and unsuitable for their spiritual growth. Surprise - there are saints who are like Luke Skywalker. "I see the good in The Secret." Let's figure out what's going on here, on Monday.

Secret Heresy - Pt. 1 of 2

GM gave me a copy of a DVD called The Secret. She asked if I had heard about it. Should I? Isn't it supposed to be a secret! (Ba-dum - shhh.) According to the official website for The Secret, the DVD is a companion to the book by the same name. The video has been "seen by millions" and there are over 6 million copies of the book in print. I am not being cynical about it; but if this is a secret, it is one of the worst kept.

Rhonda Byrne is the author of the book, the force behind the DVD, and the one attributed with "discovering" the secret. The website makes no modest claim about it: "The Secret reveals the most powerful law in the universe. The knowledge of this law has run like a golden thread through the lives and the teachings of all the prophets, seers, sages and saviors in the world's history, and through the lives of all truly great men and women. All that they have ever accomplished or attained has been done in full accordance with this most powerful law."

So what is it? Here's my executive summary: The secret is based on the law of attraction, the principle that our thoughts are like magnets attracting what we think about. Think bad and you will attract bad outcomes. Think good (like money, power, and success) and you will attract good outcomes. The universe is like a powerful genie (although not a person) that will bring into your life what you think about.

On the surface, this may seem like just another refrain of the song, "Don't worry, be happy!" But there is something deeper and deeply disturbing going on here. I have compiled a series of quotes from the DVD that you should find illuminating. One of those quotes well captures my concern: "You are eternal life; you're source energy; you are God manifested in human form, made to perfection." Where have I heard something like this before - oh yes, the Garden of Eden!

The serpent said to Eve, "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5). Satan drank the Koolaid and believes he can be like God, and here we find him at the dawn of human history trying to sell Eve on the juice. At its heart, the Secret is anything but. It is a lie as old as time - We can be the controllers of our destiny; we can determine what life will give us.

I have more things to say, but I would like you to do a little homework first. Download the series of quotes from the DVD. Then fix Satan's mantra in your mind: "You will be like God." Now read the quotes and see if they don't sound alike. If they do, here's what ought to give you pause. When Satan first introduced his philosophy, he called it a secret. "God has been holding out on you, Eve. But, I am here to dispel his repression by telling you THE SECRET - YOU CAN BE LIKE GOD."

My Aching Head

I seem to have picked up some kind of virus and it has all gone to my head! I saw a Doctor yesterday, had a CAT scan today, and will see a neurologist tomorrow. This is not a headache but the left side of my head really hurts in one area. So I probably won't have any fresh posts for a few days. I am grateful for your prayers. 

An Awesome Education

On Feb. 5, a series of devastating tornadoes swept through the mid-south. This amazing picture has been circulating on the internet (often being identified as the one that hit the Hickory Ridge Mall here in Memphis). This may be an older picture taken by Warren Faidley, the famous storm chaser consulted for the movie Twister.

Despite its origins, who can look at this photograph without awe and wonder? When you see the radio tower to the right and realize the size of the funnel, it is terrible in its majesty. No wonder the "whirlwind" is often cited in the Bible to bring a lesson home. Here's one such passage: When your dread comes like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you, then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me, because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord (Prov. 1:27-29). God wants men to look at this picture and imagine the frightful prospect of its arrival. He wants men to think of standing before it in the open, unsheltered and unprotected.

Once that terrifying picture is fixed in a man's mind, then God wants such a man to make this instructive connection: So is the man who doesn't want to listen to God. The man who rejects God's counsel, the man who has no desire to please God, the man who doesn't want to have anything to do with God's wisdom is standing in the path of terror. It will be too late when he reaps the whirlwind - God will not listen to His cries.

There are times when we think we have a better idea, times when we are tempted to "do things my way." Fix this picture in your mind and put yourself in the picture - it will help you see such notions in their proper light. Defying God's guidance is a terribly bad idea.

The Stupid Way to Success

Boy, do I feel safe! My incredulity meter was swinging widely when I came across a recent quote; It  comes from an editorial by Gary Dorsch following a recent economic pow-wow of the G7 nations, the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, Britain, Italy, China, South Korea, and Russia. These seven control three-quarters of the world’s economy. After their most recent meeting, Jean-Claude Juncker, the Euro-group finance chief declared, “We are not yet at the end of the market crisis. The corrections will drag on for a few weeks, or months. We have agreed in Tokyo that if there are irrational price movements in the markets, we will collectively take suitable measures to calm the financial markets.”

Mr. Juncker was asked what type of collective action the G-7 might take. His answer is what REALLY caught my attention: “Whoever has a strategy should not lay it out. Otherwise it will lose its effect, if it is explained.” Say that again! Your solution will only work if you keep it a secret! I know of only one type of solution which depends on secrecy for its success, it's called a "trap." So, it gives me small comfort to know that the big cheeses of the world have a marvelous plan that will work marvelously as long as we all behave like marvelously stupid lab rats.

How dramatically different from Jesus' approach! Our Lord is not working a plan whose success depends on keeping us in the dark. He wants us to KNOW the truth. And then He wants us to enjoy the benefit of acting on the basis of that truth. Our enemy wants to keep us in the dark - but Jesus wants us to walk in the light. That is where we are safe!

Where has the time gone?

Houston, we have a problem! If the word "day" in chapter one of Genesis refers to a 24 hour day, and if the genealogies of Genesis are complete or anything close to complete, then creation week occurred several thousand years ago. But there is tons of evidence (literally!) which suggests that earth is old: The scientific consensus is that earth has been around for over four billion years. So, is earth recent or old? Science and the Bible can't both be right, can they?

There are two ways to remove (or diminish) this conflict between science and the Bible. One involves the gap theory. There is variety among gap theorists about where they see some missing time. But they all agree that time is missing, namely, a significant period about which nothing (or next to nothing) has been recorded in the Bible. The popularity of this view increased when the Scofield Reference Bible successfully promoted it.

I admit to some skepticism for the mere fact that this proposal is so convenient. It has been discerned "in the nick of time" to rescue the biblical creationist from his discomfort at sounding like a "flat earth" advocate, someone with a blind and unassailable insistence on what amounts to nothing more than scientific clap-trap. Now, a gap proponent can have his 24 hour days and old earth, too. Nice!

Let's give this theory a fair shake. The most popular variety proposes a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Here's how it reads:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light (Gen. 1:1-3).

A gap theorist would say that Gen. 1:3 is the hack mark where the 144 hour clock starts ticking. Verse one describes the original creation that occurred PRIOR to the "recreation" that occurred in 144 hours. There are lots of speculations and surmisings that attempt to connect the dots. One of the more popular connects the fall of Satan to this period of pre-history. It is suggested that his rebellion against God resulted in some sort of cataclysm which rendered the original creation "formless and void." Despite all the huff and puff, I remain unconvinced that this view can travel from "possibility" to "fact."

It is true that there are some missing minutes in the Bible. A dramatic example is found in Isaiah 61:2.  Between the first and second line, there is a time gap spanning two thousand years. How do I know this? I wouldn't, if Jesus hadn't read the passage and pointed this out in Luke 4:16ff. This benefit is not available for "the gap" in Genesis 1:1-3. There is no clear statement from God that an otherwise invisible gap is embedded there. Without this, I cannot say with CERTAINTY that such a gap exists, although I can allow for the possibility.

There are some grammatical issues with the gap theory, but I APPRECIATE the fact that this view takes the Bible seriously. It is not trying to meddle with its language to achieve some forced compliance with what science is saying. It treats a "day" as a day.

There are several passages in the Bible that tell us about pre-history, passages that discuss conditions before space and time. Here's one in John 17:5. Jesus and the Father were both there before space and time, so it is not surprising to overhear it mentioned in their conversation. Jesus requests, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). Jesus was there before the world came into existence. He KNOWS how things came about. I wish He would tell me more, but I must trust Him in this as in all things. I must trust Him that He has told me what I NEED to know.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 2 of 2

Watch a world class illusionist and you will find yourself asking, "How did he do that?" The illusionist will smile in smug silence, unwilling to reveal his secrets. When God created our world from nothing, it transcended the grandest illusion. This was the real thing and it went beyond breathtaking. Unlike the illusionist, God has been quite forthcoming about how He did it. God's diary of the process is available in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

At face value, this account describes a series of 24 hour days of creative activity followed by a seventh day of inactivity. If God created the world in 144 hours, and the genealogies of Genesis are comprehensive or without major gaps, then this world began a few thousand years ago. There would be little reason to think otherwise except for a preponderance of physical evidence suggesting the earth is billions (if not millions) of years old. So one of the ways to ease the tension of this conflict between the Bible and science has been to reappraise the biblical account. In this second look, bible students have found what seem like credible reasons for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to be understood as "ages" or "epochs" spanning millions of years. Will this dog hunt?

There are several reasons why "day" in the creation account of Genesis should be understood as a literal 24 hour day.

1. "Day" is here used with a number. It is true that "day" in a prophetic passage like Zech 12:3 refers to something other than a 24 hour day. But this figurative usage for "day" never occurs when a number modifies it.
2. The phrase "evening and morning" seems irrelevant to anything other than a literal day. In Dan. 8:14 , "2,300 evenings and mornings" is even used as a synonym for "2,300 days." If "days" are ages, how can we meaningfully attach the terms "morning" and "evening" to segments of such days?
   
3. In Genesis 20:11 & 31:17, God is doing the talking. He says that He created the world in "six days." In every instance where day is used in the plural, it refers to 24 hour days. (There is one possible exception in Hosea 6:2 - but this may be attributed to the dynamics of Hebrew poetry.)

There is some other evidence, but I wouldn't weight it too highly: First, Adam's naming of the animals only seems a feasible accomplishment if we are dealing with 24 hour days. Second, the days of creation are the pattern for Israel's week of work (six days) followed by rest (seventh day). Creation week's function as a pattern is strengthened if it consists of seven literal days.

There is no doubt in my mind that the language of Genesis one is descriptive of 24 hour days. Yes, yes, I know this raises many questions. Patience, Grasshopper - all in good time. For now, there is something poignant to be learned here and I don't want you to miss it. In science's reconstruction of earth's history, man is rendered a minuscule and late-coming dot on the vast time-line of history. I love this line from Derek Kidner, "The scientific account of the universe...overwhelms us with statistics that reduce our apparent significance to vanishing-point" (Genesis, p. 57).

The biblical account treats the grand work of creation as a mere prologue before we get down to the real business at hand, filling the planet with a people who will rule it for God. This puts things in their proper perspective. God is willing to tell us how He did it when He created our world. But now it's time to tell us what we most need to know, to tell us about sin, sacrifice, redemption, and restoration. It may not be the big bang. But it IS the big story and something God says we MUST understand.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 1 of 2

Did God create the world in six twenty-four hour days? How do I know, I wasn't there? No one was. Even my (and your) great-great grandfather, Adam, didn't come on the scene until 90% of the creative work was completed. So our only reliable first-hand field report is going to come from God. He is well-qualified to file this account. He wasn't just THERE. He was the One making it all happen. So when He tells me what went down in "creation week," I can take His summary as gospel.

Had he chosen to keep it all a secret, I would be consigned to grope for the truth on my own. But He has not been silent! A comprehensive overview of the process has been provided in Gen. 1:1-2:3. God zooms in to allow us a close-up view of day six in Gen. 2:4-25. And there are numerous references to creation week scattered throughout the Bible in passages like Job 38:1-11. Obviously God WANTS us to know what He did. He hasn't told us all we would LIKE to know, but He has fully supplied what we NEED to know.

This doesn't mean God is opposed to our doing some additional study. He has provided an unassailable  framework for understanding creation in the biblical account, but invites us to "do science" to supplement this understanding. The thesis of Privileged Planet (book and DVD both highly recommended) is intriguing - earth has been ideally designed and positioned in the Milky Way to serve as a celestial observation platform. From it's transparent gas atmosphere to its position in galactic "open space" - it is as if God wants us to check out what He has done. Here is one caveat: The biblical account of creation provides guard-rails to protect us when "good science goes bad." The quality, purity, and reliability of information from the Bible is superior to what science can deliver.

Some may not like this, thinking that science must be "unfettered from religious presuppositions." This notion is at the heart of the objections to intelligent design. It is OK to examine a piece of flint and declare, "This is an arrowhead made by an ancient hunter." It is NOT OK to examine our planet and declare, "This is the work of an intelligent designer." The first statement is about science, but the latter is treated as a religious statement and, therefore, unsuited for scientific examination. This is the kind of compartmentalization that drives me bonkers.

The man who believes there is some great divide between science and the Bible and who refuses to allow the Bible to provide guidance to his scientific studies is in a "catch-22." The more his studies lead him to the truth, the closer he gets to the God of truth whom He wants to avoid. Such a man will not be helped by understanding the biblical account of creation.

But for those who understand that the pursuit of truth is best left unconstrained by this kind of compartmentalized thinking, we can learn much by asking, "What does the Bible say about how the world came into existence?" To do this, we must understand how language works as an instrument of communication. Some critics of a twenty-four hour day viewpoint think it relies on what they term a "literal" or "wooden literal" approach to interpretation. "Literal" interpretation sounds like, and "wooden-literal" interpretation undoubtedly is, an approach to Scripture that does not recognize metaphors and figures of speech. A "wooden-literal" interpretive method would not recognize this statement from Jesus as a figure of speech called hyperbole: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you” (Matt. 18:9). Before we start gouging eyeballs (creepy!), might I propose an alternative?

I find it helpful to distinguish between literal interpretation and normal interpretation. Normal interpretation proposes that normal language behaves, well, normally. (This is the kind of profound insight you have come to expect at Light-work! Never underestimate our power to discern the obvious!) Normal interpretation treats the language of the Bible as a normal mode of human communication, one which, at times, is intended to be understood literally. At other times, it may employ a figure of speech  or a literary device like an extended metaphor. (The extended metaphor is one of my personal favorites - I probably rely on it way too much, like the two buses in the previous post.)

The key to interpreting normal language is identifying the literary markers which tell us when something is supposed to be understood literally, when it is to be understood figuratively, or when it is a joke. So when we look at Genesis one, we must pay attention to words and the connections between them. But we also must pay attention to literary markers which tell us if the author wants to be taken literally.

A Tale of Two Buses

What is Genesis one telling us? And what is it not? This is an interpretive basket of snakes, and I don't particularly care for snakes. But we seem to have tumped the basket over yesterday, so we might as well devote some time to snake sorting.

I want to work up to this question: What biblical basis is there for the days of creation to be understood as twenty-four hour days? Jumping right to this question will probably be counter-productive unless we first deal with some pre-conceptions and assumptions.

First, this issue is not central to a man's salvation. A man is saved by trusting in the accomplishment of Christ on the cross. From the Bible's point of view, this is a work of divine power that dwarfs even the creation of a universe. To create the universe is mere word-work for God. He speaks and it comes into existence. In Ps. 8:3, the heavens are called God's "finger work." To say this is not to diminish the greatness of this creative endeavor. But it must be put into proper perspective.

Our salvation required the death of God's own Son. Here is "difficulty" at the highest order of magnitude for God. The greatest triumph is captured in Jesus' exclamation on the cross, "It is finished!" So when a man is trusting in Jesus for his salvation, He is believing in the greatest miracle of all time. I am not a big fan of evangelism that depends on convincing someone of "twenty-four hour days of creation." If he receives salvation in Jesus, then he has already affirmed God's ability to do lessor things, like create a universe. All He lacks is God's disclosure of the mechanics of how it was accomplished. God can handle this in His good time.

Second, we must recognize the difference between the scientific method and biblical interpretation as means to understanding the truth. Science and the Bible are like two buses traveling in opposite directions from very different starting points. In the case of the Bible, it represents a bus traveling from truth to man. The Bible bus comes from God who IS truth; It has Him as its point of origin; it is God breathed. So it delivers to man what is pure, concentrated, and reliable. It is true we must interpret it, that is, identify exactly what it teaches. But when we can say - This is what the Bible teaches; this it what it says happened - we are getting truth straight from the source.

In the case of science, it represents a bus traveling from man to truth. The scientific method involves the pursuit of an elusive target. One seeks truth by gathering evidence through observation and experimentation. This is followed by proposing a hypothesis to account for the evidence. A good hypothesis explains all the evidence and seems a worthy candidate for the title, "truth." But it's claim is always tenuous. New evidence (that doesn't fit the theory) can pop up without notice. Now it's back to the drawing board for more tests in the relentless pursuit of truth.

This challenge is made more difficult (IMPOSSIBLE?) by a filter that the modern scientist uses to "prescreen" his data. Scientific "objectivity" has come to mean that the scientist factors God out of the equation in order to limit his inquiry to only the physical world. This creates "destination dissonance" for the science bus. If God is the truth, then the closer the science bus gets to truth, the closer it gets to what must be avoided. Passengers on the science bus are rigorously attempting to go somewhere that they tenaciously believe must be avoided. Sounds like being pulled in two directions more than a "greyhound adventure!"

It isn't supposed to be this way. For example, David observed, The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Ps. 19:1). David sees no disconnect between scientific observation and theological implications. He is convinced that study of the nature and scale of the cosmos will propel us toward a better understanding of God. God Himself invites this kind of inquiry. He told Job, "Listen to this, O Job, Stand and consider the wonders of God" (Job 37:14). God is commanding Job to do some science. Set up an observation station, run some tests, evaluate the data - and when you are done, allow your observations to propel your apprehension of who I am! God has it right (as always). And He says there is no essential conflict between robust and rigorous study of His created world and understanding Himself.

So we do not have to be afraid of the data. Let's roll up our sleeves, put on our safety goggles, and look at what the created world tells us about what God has done. But let's recognize that whatever is on the Bible bus comes direct from the source and can give us useful coordinates and road markers to guide the travels of our science bus.

Mammoths and Hippos and Crocs, Oh My!

KB writes: "I have often wondered where we got the idea of the ice age. I work at a public high school and the ice age is mentioned in science as if it is truth.  It is not called a 'theory'.  ...I would like to know if the ice age is mentioned or even slightly implied in the Bible." She also asks, "...in the Book of Job some kind of creature is mentioned as a Leviathan, and Behemoth, what do you think they are?"

Great questions! The concept of an ice age is largely based upon the study of geology, although there is some chemical and fossil evidence, too. I assume from your email address that you live in the Pacific NW. Geologists have discerned considerable evidence of activity consistent with an "ice age scenario" in numerous features surrounding Puget Sound in WA. Most geologists would discern more than one significant advance of ice into the area. I have personally done field studies of some of this evidence as a geology student, and the observable data is quit striking.

For example, a valley carved by glacial ice has a distinctive "u" shape - these features can be observed in areas that have no current glacial activity. Significant advance of ice and glacial activity is the most reasonable explanation for this data, to date. I can understand why someone would present this as "truth" because there does not seem to be any viable alternative explanation for the physical evidence. So even though it is a theory, it is the preferred theory and therefore one people choose as their front-runner for the title, "truth."

There is some evidence which doesn't seem to square with this theory. For example, the remains of  woolly mammoths have been found in a state that suggests they were "flash frozen." Would the slow advance of ice produce such evidence? If not, does the theory need some modification to better account for the evidence?

Let's assume for the moment that the geological data does support the theory that our planet has gone through some significant climatic changes that resulted in an "ice age." Your question (and mine) is, "How would such a view square with what the Bible teaches?" Here are several biblical guard rails that should enter into our answer.

1. There is no event mentioned in the Bible that is described in terms that sound like an "ice age." This does not mean there is a "contradiction" between an "ice age" theory and the Bible - only that it is not specifically mentioned.
2. However, there are some VERY intriguing statements found in Genesis. In Gen. 1:6-10, we learn that God created two major bodies of water, only one of which became oceans or the "seas." Where is the other? In Gen. 2:5-6, we learn that plant hydration was accomplished by a mist which would rise from the earth. "Rain" was not a climactic feature of the world at this time. So the "above ground" body of water produced no rain. And the "below ground" body of water produced the "mist." In Gen. 7:11, we learn that the source of water for the flood came from two sources, the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates of the sky. This much seems clear, the world before the flood had a significantly different set of climactic dynamics than the world we know.
3. If this pre-flood world was more like a giant greenhouse, and if the flood occurred as a result of the collapse of this greenhouse, then dramatic climactic change is something we would expect. It is POSSIBLE that the mechanism for the flood had the effect of (among other things) producing an ice-age type of event.
4. Modern geology and the biblical account of creation do have a fairly clear and serious disagreement about the time-table of these events. Geologists propose that there have been four major ice ages, the most RECENT of which began about 40 million years ago. There is no small debate among students of the Bible about whether the "days" of creation represent literal 24 hour periods or "epochs." The language that is used in the biblical account seems to me (if not to everyone) to clearly describe a sequence of six 24 hour days. So even if there are some gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, this understanding of the Bible suggests that the flood occurred ONLY a few thousand years ago, not 40 million years ago. Any significant advance of ice associated with the flood, by this reckoning, would be a VERY recent occurrence. So two very different views of an "ice-age" timetable are in play here.

Bottom line: The Bible doesn't say anything that denies the possibility of some sort of "ice age" type events. But I do not see how to reconcile science's proposed time-table for the history of our planet with what a "face-value" reading of the the Bible seems to say about the same topic. Some Bible students have eased this tension by interpreting Genesis 1-2 in a way that allows it to describe events that occurred over a greater span of time. I have not found their analysis of the language of Genesis 1-2 convincing.

Leviathan is the name of a creature mentioned in several OT passages. The name means "coiled" or "twisted." The longest description is found in Job 41, where most scholars think the description fits the crocodile. There are several statements - "out of his mouth go burning torches" - that sound like a dragon. But these could be metaphorical statements, something Hebrew poetry is famous for.

The Hebrew word, behema, is used nine times in the OT, usually meaning simply "beasts" or "cattle." But in Job 40:15, "behemoth" seems to be a very particular "beast" whose description matches what we would expect of a hippopotamus.

Arrest Congress?

I would really like to perform a Vulcan mind meld. This interview with Ron Paul is a great follow-up to an earlier post on the health of our currency. I think Paul gets it. I just wish he got it on more issues that matter to me. Wouldn't it be great if we could take his thinking on monetary policy and entitlements and somehow transplant it into the thinking of say, a Mike Huckabee? Alas, reality is so much less accommodating than the perfect world I can imagine.

I do know there is a King coming, and I like EVERYTHING about Him. Maranatha!

Curse you, Thomas Edison!

Congress passed and President Bush signed a bill that will ban the bulb that Edison built. Here's a brief summary from WorldNet. The majority of light-bulbs in your home are a menace to society and must be eliminated! The invention of the incandescent light bulb is popularly associated with Thomas Edison, although he is probably getting all the credit for something to which others made a significant contribution. The associated Wikipedia article tells the bigger story. Now we are entering a phase where Edison is getting all the blame. His sinister device is wasting electricity and must be banned! Please, oh please, uncle Sam, save me from the evil light bulb.

Not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of this salvation, me among them. Yes, I use fluorescent lights in a few select locations like the garage and attic. But please don't make me put them everywhere. Alas, in six years the light bulb police will have cleared the shelves of Mr. Edison's spawn. Is it because they have seen the light or is there some dark purpose behind it all?

It does make me look forward to heaven. Decent lighting will not be a problem - According to Revelation, we won't need lamplight because we will have Lamb-light!  And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb (Rev. 21:23). This light will actually render the sun irrelevant and unnecessary - talk about good reading light. So whether I am sitting under the warm light of an Edison bulb (aah), or squinting in the irritating flicker of fluorescent lighting (argh), I long for the day when we can REALLY SEE!

Twisted Logic - This One But Not That One

Severe weather hit the Mid-South last night. The dispassionate details are captured in this AP story. I am sure there are no words to describe the pain behind the details, especially for the many families who have experienced the loss of a friend or loved one. We pray for God's comfort to be ministered to all who are reeling.

Light-work HQ suffered no damage and only a brief power out - we are grateful. We watched one angry cell pass by on its way to a touchdown north of us. Tornadoes are such fickle fellows. They use some twisted logic to erase one home while leaving its neighbor perfectly intact. Why one; why not the other? I do not know the answer. This is one of those places where the big plan is beyond me, but what I am able to know is enough: God is more than worthy of my trust.

What's In Fort Knox?

An advertisement appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week that you need to know about. I realize that not everyone who reads L-W shares my avid interest in economics, so if you just yawned when I said "economics," you have my permission to check out after you read the next sentence. The implications of what is alleged in this ad could destroy your ability to feed your family.

To appreciate the gravity of what is at stake, let's talk about how society functions with and without a "medium of exchange." In our country, we use pieces of paper called "Federal Reserve Notes" as money. Beads, coins, even packs of American cigarettes (post-war Germany), have been used as a medium of exchange. Without such a convenient device, we are reduced to the use of barter and the velocity of the marketplace slows dramatically.

Imagine a society without "money." Let's say you are a farmer who grows corn. And you would like to purchase a shiny new HDTV. Since there is no medium of exchange, you must find an HDTV retailer who is willing to accept corn in exchange for his product. And if you cannot, then you must ask the HDTV guy what he wants, and he says, "I want milk for my children." So you must now find a dairy farmer who needs corn so you can get the milk to exchange for your HDTV. If you cannot find a dairy farmer who wants corn, then you must ask the dairy farmer what he wants, and he says, "I want some diesel fuel for my tractor." Sigh - This is getting time consuming!

Now consider the marvel of money. It eliminates the time and trouble of having to do product match-ups. The corn farmer can concentrate his energies on growing corn. He can sell corn for this medium and KNOW that someone else will receive this medium in exchange for his HDTV. What a tremendous time saver, this thing called money! There is one catch. The thing used as "money" must have perceived value. This is not the same as real value. (Although real or intrinsic value handily solves the challenge of creating "perceived" value.) Those Federal Reserve Notes we use have no intrinsic value. They are just paper. Because they are "notes," they are IOU's from the government. But if you present one to the government for payment, they will pay off this note by giving you - drum roll please - another IOU. If you say, "I would like an equivalent amount of something else, like gold or silver," they will shrug and say, "No dice! I am only authorized to give you another Federal Reserve Note."

Now it is true that by designating the Federal Reserve Note as legal tender, the US government has put itself on record as saying it will accept these IOU's as payment for taxes. If you owe the IRS, you can give the government back an equivalent amount of what it owes you (Federal Reserve Notes) and it will call things square. Isn't that nice of them!

But these Federal Reserve Notes do have "perceived" value. I can present them to all manner of retailers and they are willing to exchange their stuff for these pieces of paper. They do so because they believe that others will give THEM stuff for these pieces of paper, too. Everyone is happy to receive this paper because they know they can get rid of it for what they want because everyone is happy to receive this paper. (A is true because B is true because A is true? Anything seem a little circular, here?) What would happen if the perception of value for this medium of exchange was eroded? What would happen if your HDTV retailer said, "What do I want with that worthless piece of paper?" Would you still be willing to part with your valuable corn for a piece of paper that no one wants? Duh!

The problem that GATA is attempting to get on the public radar has profound implications for the dollar's perception of value. You cannot turn in your Federal Reserve Notes to the government for gold, but there is a public perception that our government ("we the people," by the way) can make good on all its loans because it has a big pile of gold at Fort Knox. What if it became public knowledge that that big pile of gold is not there? What would this do to the PERCEPTION that Federal Reserve Notes have value? 

Here is an example: Let's say that "Sam" owes you a thousand dollars and has given you a slip of paper that says "I owe you $1,000." (This is the same as holding that amount in Federal Reserve Notes.) Because Sam also has a pile of gold in his "secret room," you're not too worried about his ability to pay you back. But what if you discover that the secret room is EMPTY. And what if you also discover that Sam has given a bazillion "notes" to everybody else in town. Now you are worried! Why? Because you have considerable doubt that Sam will ever pay you back. That slip of paper probably doesn't mean a thing. (This example is actually putting a better face on the situation than reality. The real Uncle Sam has no intention of giving you any of the stash from his secret room to pay off his notes. Ever!)

So if it becomes public knowledge that the secret room is empty, this revelation won't improve people's perception of the dollar's value. And since these Federal Reserve Notes have no intrinsic value, perceived value is all they have going for them. When even this is unmasked as fiction, how will our society function?

Some might protest, "The risk is too high. Let's just keep the door to the secret room locked and assume it's all there." GATA is saying, "If it's all there, make it known and allay our fears. If it's not there, then come clean with the citizens of the country to whom you owe an explanation." It is perfectly appropriate for we, the people, to know where we stand, and I am grateful for GATA saying so! If Fort Knox is empty, a lot of people will have reason to wonder about the worth of their IOU's, and when that happens, you might have trouble finding the guy with milk or corn who wants your Federal Reserve Notes.

So why am I going into all this at Light-work? Two reasons: We assign too much value to money and stuff. Money is a marvelous tool - no argument. But it is not capable of providing true security and this ad reminds us of its tenuousness. Second, the GATA ad invites us to prepare for the possibility of a life without the monetary instruments on which we depend. The Book of Revelation makes the same invitation. It describes a future that includes the global destruction of infra-structure and a monetary meltdown. Think post Hurricane Katrina conditions on a world wide basis coupled with the global disappearance of our current economic system. Revelation says this will happen. If GATA's inquiry shows that the secret room is empty, it might happen soon. Stop living as if the good times will just keep rolling.

Well Known or Well Thought Of?

I can't help myself- I find the "AI Effect" fascinating. You may not know it by this term, but I suspect you recognize it. When I watch the first stage of American Idol (AI) where they do auditions at US cities, I am not seeing anything new - mostly a steady stream of remarkably bad singers (or can't singers) who believe (can they really be serious?) they are THE NEXT AMERICAN IDOL.

I don't know what diagnosis to give this - is this a delusion? Or do they suspect, in the secret recesses of their hearts, that Simon just may be right, despite all their invective to the contrary? Can the antics these people with marginal talent (I am too kind!) are going through be anything more than just that, antics?

I think the answer lies in understanding the "AI Effect," which is a transcendent longing to be well known. Grown men and women who ought to know better are willing to make a spectacle of themselves in the hope that, for at least a few moments, they will be seen and heard by millions. For many contestants, this force is so powerful that it overwhelms their ability to ask a simple question: For what am I well-known?  Because of the AI Effect, a vital connection escapes them. They are not well thought of, and their efforts have only succeeded in EXPONENTIALLY EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF THOSE WHO THINK SO!

The AI Effect can be observed in many venues around us, notably You Tube. The local church is not immune to it. It is easy to think that the challenge before us is to be well known. We could invest lots of dollars in an advertising budget and publicity campaigns to "put CBC on the map."  But of much greater significance is the question, "For what are we known?" Churches in our community have become well-known, but for the wrong reasons, most of them related to schisms and splits. Our challenge is not to be well known but to be well thought of. Our energies are well spent when they are directed at becoming people worth knowing, people with whom an association is genuinely beneficial, precisely because we are servants of God.

Jesus once addressed a church in Asia minor with these words, “I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead” (Rev. 3:1). This church had a reputation; it was well known; it was regarded as a "church on the map." The sad and sober reality was captured in this assessment: The church in Sardis is dead!

I plan to focus my energies on being someone worth knowing because I make God look good. How about you? Do good in the name of Jesus to all with whom you come in contact. You might not be known by millions, but those who do will consider it, and the God whom you serve, a blessing.

It's OK to be Lost

The long awaited fourth season of "Lost" has started - we sure didn't get much story development for a two hour investment. Maybe next week. I am intrigued by the fact, however, that this series has shaped our understanding of the term "lost." The term is an apt descriptor for passengers on Oceanic flight 815 before the plane ever went down! As we get to know them (mostly through "flash-backs") we realize they were carrying way more baggage than what's strewn about the crash site.

Take Jack, for example. Prior to being lost on the island, his life was driven by a hopeless quest for an alcoholic father's approval, skewed by an inability to accept his divorce, and crazed by the transfer of his wife's affections to another. But on the island, he is rescued from himself. He gains a sense of purpose, embraces his role as a leader, and rallies the survivors to defy "the others." Jack is FOUND at the one place where he is LOST. In several "flash forward" scenes introduced in the finale of season three, we are teased by Jack's realization of precisely this truth.

It is fascinating that this series is using the term "lost" to describe those whose lives are a mess. The world might take umbrage at being called "lost," but no more. Network television has now endorsed the use of the term "lost" for those who need a fresh start, whose lives need saving. That this salvation is realized as one is lost is an even more stunning revelation. It sounds like something Jesus would say: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it" (Luke 17:33).

I am definitely NOT saying that "Lost" is preaching the Gospel. But, the popularity of the series opens up GREAT topics for conversation.  Here are some questions you might use:

1. What does the title, "Lost," say about the main characters?  How are they lost?
2. What character do you most identify with? Why?
3. For most of the main characters in the series, they get a fresh start on the island - do you think its possible to get a fresh start in real life? How?
4. Is it possible to lose everything you thought was important and discover what really matters?

I suspect that when we unlock the secret of this island, the good news of salvation in Jesus will NOT be the focus. But, between now and then it's OK to talk about what makes a man lost, and how sometimes  losing your self is the best way to find a life worth living. Your conversation might open a door to sharing the Gospel, the story of the greatest rescue mission of all human history.