The Known World

Observing with the mind

2011-09-28T13:40:03Z

Each year I ask my biology students to do a “vegetation field survey,” which basically involves spending an hour or more at a location near water, with an ample variety of vegetation. They are required to take and select photos or make sketches of pertinent details, to write astute observations, and to logically organize what they capture and write about into a report.

Most ninth grade students are not initially thrilled about the idea of walking around quietly, studying, feeling, and smelling plants and trees. Yet after doing this particular activity for at least six years, I have every time been pleased to hear many students remark about how much fun they had. Some say it was relaxing, or interesting, which I would expect, but many actually describe it as fun! And there are always a few students who say something about “once I got into it, I realized there was a lot to see.”

There is a lot to see. Just as our breathing is not so much limited by our lungs as our cells, and their trained ability to use oxygen (see “The Breath of Life” articles), so our seeing is not so much limited by the organ of the eyes as it is by our mind. It is important to “have the eyes of our heart enlightened” (Ephesians 1:18).

By the way: I’m still trying to get my life on track in order to start up again on monthly articles. Two essays are being fermented ever so slowly at this time. Not throwing in the towel on the series….

Getting the Ball Rolling Again

2011-08-28T22:25:25Z

After almost two years of writing a monthly essay for “The Known World” blog, I lost a bit of mojo back in the spring. I believe that I still have some essays yet to write in this series, and that only then should I move on to compiling/editing selected essays into some type of print or web publication. So if you would, please pray that I will be able to make the time to write what God has still put in front of me. I hope the essays have been a blessing to you, and I would appreciate it if any readers would let me know which one(s) have impacted you, and why. – Chard

Maybe not on a roll right now…

2011-03-30T04:00:39Z

I’m working on an article on “Entropy” that I think will be pretty cool, but I’ve been going a lot of different directions, and having a hard time bringing this one to its finishing. I’ve also got a little something coming together for the next article (which should be April, but may be May), about the concept of non-verbal expression (in particular, the use of muscles around the eye), and what an awesome thing this is. But you will all have to be patient, because the floodgates are not bursting forth with writing at the moment. There are reasons. It’s okay.

MINING FOR TREASURE

2011-02-04T06:59:29Z

THE DILIGENT ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM

Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place where gold is refined. Iron is taken from the earth, And copper is smelted from ore. Man puts an end to darkness, and searches every recess For ore in the darkness and the shadow of death. He breaks open a shaft away from people; In places forgotten by feet they hang far away from men; They swing to and fro. As for the earth, from it comes bread, but underneath it is turned up as by fire; Its stones are the source of sapphires, and it contains gold dust. – Job 28:1-6

My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commands within you, so that you incline your ear to wisdom, and apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, and lift up your voice for understanding, if you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. – Proverbs 2:1-5

Early in the Creation account, in the elaboration on the setting of the Garden of Eden, we find a reference to precious metals and stones: “The name of the first [River] is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there” (Genesis 2:11-12). It is interesting that the benefits of relatively difficult technologies are so quickly referenced, a testament both to man’s ingenuity and God’s desire for man to employ it. By Genesis 4:22, credit is already to given to an individual—Tubal-Cain—who instructed craftsman in the works of bronze and iron. Bronze is an alloy of copper and zinc, requiring that both of these metals are extracted from ore, purified, and then melted together in proper proportion. Iron itself requires a specific process for extraction, and furthermore, we might imply that alloys of iron (which we now call “steel”) were being supervised by Tubal-Cain.

Thus it seems that, commensurate with the “dominion mandate” (Genesis 1:26-28), God expected humankind to work at producing value from the Earth given to him. And analogous to this, we see that many non-material acquisitions in life come about similarly: Through a generous endowment, followed by work: both “smart” and hard.

These non-material treasures available to humankind are the riches of knowledge and wisdom. Keep in mind as these are discussed, however, that “knowledge” is not merely intellectual, but often refers to the ability to know a thing or person intimately (Hebrew yada’), as in the sense of sexual consummation. And also make note that “wisdom” is not so much a heady ability to speak forth impressive insights as it is “life skill,” in the Hebrew chakam—the ability to carry out something proficiently.

To acquire knowledge and wisdom one must initiate the exploration. The Proverbs 2 passage above says that it requires “receiving,” “treasuring,” “inclining one’s ear,” “applying one’s heart,” “crying out” and “lifting up one’s voice,” “seeking,” and “searching.” Put simply, foolishness and ignorance are the default consequence of laziness. To get the non-material treasures of life, as with the material ones, a person must embark on an industrious endeavor. We all know of gold, and yet its abundance in Earth’s crust is a mere 1 part per 200 million by mass. And we all benefit from tons and tons of less precious metals such as iron and aluminum, but their mining, extraction, and refinement require massive amounts of ongoing energetic processes (largely powered by coal, which itself must be diligently worked out of the Earth).

So just as many are industrious to extract materials of great value, through the ages, high philosophers and common workers alike have struggled to find meaning in this life—to understand man’s purpose and to contribute something of value to the age in which one lives. This is not exclusively a Christian effort, but a human one. And so, throughout the ages, we have our heroes—individuals whose extraordinary efforts have influenced how societies think and act. Interestingly, when individuals can not rise to the occasion, we find fictional replacements: some of our greatest influences are found in plays and novels that great writers envisioned. We all value this: The person—real or imagined—that can mine the great truths and actions out of human experience.

Yet in this, we find that history repeats itself, and human deficiency and depravity emerge again and again. And we must find new heroes and new stories to inspire. So, profoundly and accurately enough, many of the most vested students of the profound collapse exhaustedly into existentialism, recognizing that we should ultimately abandon the search for meaning. In a strange way, this is healthy: Modernism has given way to postmodernism, disillusioned with man’s inherent ability to figure things out. Yet it is only healthy if it ultimately leads individuals back around the cycle to pre-modernism, in which humankind does not completely bail out, but instead seeks for supernatural revelation from a Source greater than us. Like abandoning a non-productive mine, humankind’s utter frustration can be productive, providing that the “land” is reassessed. When one recognizes that human fame is fleeting (Ecclesiastes 1:11, 2:16), that the human heart is deceitful “above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), that knowledge ultimately brings sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1:18), that days “fly away” (Job 9:25, Psalm 89:47, 90:10, 144:4), and likewise, riches (Psalm 23:5, 27:24), he or she is motivated to withdraw from the shaft of futile godless human effort and look elsewhere.

In a great irony, one’s massive effort is rewarded not for its sweat, but for its abandonment. God wants us to come to a place of brokenness, where we have struggled, and have realized that it is not in us: “O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). And in this, we strike gold after all. Treasures are found in unexpected places—in the great paradox that is grace. “At that time Jesus answered and said, ‘I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes’” (Matthew 11:25). Like a prospector who follows the rush, we are consumed with the reality that treasure is indeed abundant, and it is there for the taking. God gives freely, and that which he gives is of great value: “My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2-3). In giving up human effort, we find that Christ is Himself the treasure we’ve been looking for, now freely given. It is not about us, but what we contain and become when Christ is in us: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Corinthians 4:7).

Thus, the treasure that we are compelled to seek as human beings is ultimately discovered not in exertion, but first in revelation:

Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, For wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise And knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, And light dwells with Him. – Daniel 2:20-22

Yet we do not remain idle in the midst of our surprise mother lode. God, who authored work and human enterprise in the first place, desires us to “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). Working for our salvation is not required, yet working it out is. And so, as regenerated, freely gifted believers, we must employ the tools God has given us to get after the reserves he has also given us, to work out the treasure, namely the knowledge, wisdom, and righteousness available to the believer. The mystery of this, however, is that the work we do is itself a gift: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). There may be a tendency to think of justification (being saved) and sanctification (being made complete in that salvation) as our tasks alone (the heresy of works righteousness), or as God’s task and our task differentially. To the latter, Paul warns,

Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations…These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. – Colossians 2:20,23

So, in the great paradox that sets Christianity apart from all other endeavors, we work out the treasure of God in us not by works, but by faith at work.

The metaphor is often applied to another less obvious but indisputable treasure: fresh water. In the desert, one is assured fresh water if willing to go deep enough and draw it out. In the desert of human need, springs of living water may pour forth, and if and when they do not, there is always a direction to go: downward, in humility and faith, to where the best and purest of water is found. It is a metaphor illustrated beautifully throughout Scripture—in Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4), and alluded to in Proverbs 20:5: “The purposes of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out” (NIV). Here we may infer that the man who “draws out” the purposes, or helps to work them out, may at times be another individual. Perhaps some of the greatest mining and well-tapping in human history has come in words of exhortation, inspiration, and encouragement to other brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is evident in the way that Jesus taught that he promoted the “mining” of knowledge and wisdom: “Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world’” (Matthew 13:34-35). God has not made the search for deeper things needlessly difficult, but he has made it such that knowledge and wisdom require volitional diligence. He has brought us to the mother lode, and he wants us to dig in. If you haven’t yet done so, discover the treasure that is Christ. And, having done so, roll up your sleeves and get to work. The “unsearchable [past finding out, beyond comprehension] riches of Christ” (Ephesians 3:8) will keep you spiritually wealthy, always wanting more, and despite that, always satisfied.

PLAYING GOD, PART II

2011-01-21T07:22:50Z

BEING THE BODY

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us. – 2 Corinthians 5:20a

In the previous installment of this essay, I perused the idea of “playing God” in the accusative sense: going too far with our technologies. An important distinction was made between made between ill-advised meddling in things original, as compared to the righteous desire to bring some degree of restoration in a fallen creation. This led to the thought that there is indeed a positive aspect to “playing God.” As creatures made in the image of God, and as believers committed to being his ambassadors on the Earth, we must desire to “play God” in the sense of fulfilling his mandated purposes for us here. After all, God gave mankind dominion over Earth and its creatures, and mankind is culpable to use our intelligence to mitigate the mess we’ve made. Furthermore, for believers who recognize that the Church universal is the “Body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27), we realize that, by extension, we “play God” whether we like it or not.

When man and woman were first created, they were the closest thing to God in the universe:

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” – Genesis 1:26-27

This should have been something to celebrate, yet it was immediately called into question though Satan’s temptation concerning the Tree of Knowledge commandment: “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). The woman was tempted with knowing evil (the corruption of good and truth), which would not be beneficial to them; Yet she was also tempted with something she already had—the attribute of being like God. (And interestingly, this is still a tactic of Satan—to work upon our flesh to perceive a lack when there is plenty. We need to be able to say, like David in Psalm 23, “I shall not want.”) So, while we might be reticent to “play God” when it means getting in His way, we should all the more be eager to “play God” when it means carrying out his will. If we don’t think we are “playing God” in doing so, then how do we expect empowerment and effectiveness?

And yet, though created in God’s image, mankind is in a fallen state. This explains why those who believe in God might not think it a good idea for us to try to act in His stead, and why those who do not believe in God don’t care how we might go about trying. Yet the essential nature—the image of God—prevails in mankind, and furthermore, individual human beings can be regenerated:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. - 2 Corinthians 5:17

…as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. – Ephesians 4:21b-24

This is a matter both for individual believers, and for the Church at large. As individuals, we are not just to obey Christ, but to be Christian: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (1 Corinthians 6:19). As the church, we are quite literally Christ’s presence in this world:

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many. – 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

So, how do regenerated believers, and how does the Church universal “play God?” On put another way, what are the activities that bear most upon God’s nature, that He wishes to partner with us in?

CREATING. God has given us creativity. This needs to be clarified, though, as there are two types of “creating”: The creating of something entirely original, out of nothing (Hebrew bara’), and the creating—or making—of something uniquely fashioned from something previous (Hebrew ‘asah). God has a capacity for creating that goes well beyond ours, yet we have the wondrous wherewithal to work with what he has given us. So, while there is “nothing new under the sun” in one sense (see Ecclesiastes 1:9-10), we are nonetheless gifted in recycling and repurposing what has come before us. And in a fallen creation, “repurposing” is noble and essential.

It is critical that we employ our energies and intelligences to freshen up this creation. This includes such activities as designing, building, and repairing—or, put in more poetic terms: envisioning, crafting, and restoring. Human beings can make beauty and benefit from just about any intellectual or physical material available, and to do so is godly, and God-pleasing. Producing works of art and functional designs, conserving and restoring beauty and health where it is threatened or fading—this is a good way to “play God.” And, in reference to the previous essay, this can in some instances involve bioengineering and medical endeavors.

RECONCILING. When Paul called believers “ambassadors,” (see opening scripture), he continued by explaining the main activity of that role: reconciliation. God, in Christ, accomplished His greatest work in reconciling Himself to mankind. To “play God” is to effect this accomplished reconciliation with as many human beings as we are able. When we lead someone to Christ, we are doing one of the things that God most wants. “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Reconciliation is “making things right.” The activity of reconciliation is yet broader than the saving of souls. It is the healing of broken relationships, and the restitution for wrongful actions. God does not need to make restitution, but when we do so, we operate in the same Spirit that made things right in the first place. A God who declared His original creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31) has a vested interest in conserving the goodness therein, or restoring the goodness that has become corrupted. Whenever we make something right, we are acting as God does.

LOVING. Granted, “love” is quite broad, and can mean a number of things. Yet it must be said that this is God’s preeminent activity, and if you and I are truly to “play God,” we must love. Christ regarded loving God as the greatest commandment, with the second greatest being to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). Love is defined in a couple of ways. One is obedience to Christ’s commandments. “And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love” (2 John 1:6, see also 1 John 5:3). This almost seems circular at first glance: To love is to obey Christ, which is to walk in love. Yet this scripture tells us that, by definition, to be like Christ is to love. When we want to love, we will obey. And when we obey, we love. We cannot love without “playing God,” and vice-versa, for “…God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16).

A second definition of love is to lay down one’s life for a friend (John 15:13) or a brother (1 John 3:16); both are broad terms, as “friend” refers to any associate with whom one is familiar, and “brother” is essentially a euphemism for the idea that all persons can ultimately be regarded as family. It refers to the concentric circles of immediate family, extended family, church family, ethnic or national association, and ultimately all humanity. Likewise, the laying down of one’s life can be read at various levels. Certainly, it refers to the willingness to literally die for another, as evidenced by the reference to Christ’s death earlier in 1 John 3:16. Yet it ultimately refers to deferring to another: laying down self-gratification in preference for the legitimate need of another. Philippians 2 elaborates on the attitude that God, in Christ, showed through incarnation, and exhorts us to “let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself” (v.3). So, ironically, perhaps the ultimate way to “play God” is not so much about tinkering with nature, or exerting control over another’s life, as it is about sequestering our will for the benefit of others. The very idea that God defers anything to human will—in the midst of his omnipotence and sovereignty—is the ultimate “laying down”; an enigmatic but tangible aspect of the ultimate Love.

So, to conclude: while we are careful not to act on God’s behalf by violating His original designs or stepping outside of our given authority, we must recognize that as humans we are made in His image, and as believers, we are His Body in this world. And thus, we must “play God,” and share in His work. We must be stewards of who we are, by creating (including repurposing nature), reconciling (restoring fallen mankind as we have opportunity, and making things right in our relationships), and loving (obeying Christ and laying down our will for the benefit of others).

Upcoming articles

2011-01-10T02:03:51Z

I’m working on “Playing God, Part II: Being the Body” for January, and also in the hopper is “Mining for Treasure: The Diligent Unveiling of Knowledge,” probably for February. I hope I have some readers still rolling, and you are always welcome to choose an archived article and have a read. I suggest “A Pilgrimage of Promise” from May 2009. Not too technical but with some great food for thought.

PLAYING GOD, PART I

2010-12-18T07:28:27Z

AUTHORITY AND WILL

…let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. – Genesis 1:26b-27

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. – Genesis 9:6

Humankind’s remarkable progress in technology has brought many to lament that we might be “playing God.” This concern arises with issues of control over life, particularly the manipulation of genetics. Scientists “create” genetically modified organisms (GMOs), while doctors, drugs, and machines foster new ways to prolong life, increasing problematic life-support scenarios. Some nations practice an aggressive euthanasia (mercy killing) while others go even into eugenics (elimination of undesirable ethnicities or traits in a human population). In more recent times, genetic and reproductive technologies have brought us in vitro fertilization, the potential for “designer babies”, the move toward stem-cell organ growth, insertion of full DNA in cells (leading to the potential for cloning), DNA mapping and the associated dilemmas of knowing too much, transgenics (the insertion of one kind of organism’s DNA into another), xenotransplantation (the use of one kind of organism’s organs or tissues in another), and so on.

Yet concerns over “playing God” are not limited to control over life, but over the planet itself. Some contend that we have overused the planet, and in response to the belief in man-caused global warming, a portion of these respond by suggesting that we actively engineer the planet by dispersing vast quantities of particles into the atmosphere. (Actively using known particulate pollutants to “correct” a perceived warming due to CO₂—which is not a pollutant—seems to me the epitome of irrationality and futility; But I will save that discussion for another time.) The “playing God” accusation has even been leveled against constructing dams or harnessing nuclear energy.

So, is that what we are doing: “playing God”? To examine this, we need to look at what “playing God” might mean. Clearly, if someone is making this accusation, that person acknowledges God, and the fact that that God’s authority and our authority differ. Not everyone, and few practicing, influential scientists, openly admit that God exists. So for these persons, “playing God” is not a problem in and of itself. For them, the problem is in violating agreed-upon moral or ethical codes, or in simply acting rashly without considering the consequences. They wouldn’t say we are really “playing God”, yet would advocate for caution. Yet still many acquiesce to a hands-off approach, since their worldview sees progress primarily as technology, with an underlying bias of the evolutionary trial-and-error mess.

Yet for those who do acknowledge a God who has authority unique to ours, the issue is to define the boundaries of our authority. “Playing God” would thus mean to do something that God should only be able to do, if He would do it at all. For example, I discussed in “Created to Be Inhabited” the matter of God’s authority over the heavens (everything beyond Earth): He named the stars, while Adam named the creatures and was given dominion over the Earth. This, in addition to significant issues of practicality and cost, leads me to believe that colonizing the Moon or Mars is not only a misguided idea, but “playing God.” He is the one who determines places to be inhabited (see Isaiah 45:18 and Acts 17:26).

Yet how does this bear upon the issues of control over life? Again, we must address the issue as to what authority has been given us, and we must also consider the entity of individual human will. Regarding authority: Humankind has been given dominion over the vegetation and creatures of Earth, but not over other humans in the general sense. In a particular way, however, institutions such as governments, the church, and the family may indeed exhibit authority over other humans: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Romans 13:1). So, we must see all authority as delegated, beginning with God. Regarding free will: We see in Scripture the remarkable value of independent human will in each soul—so much so that we find ourselves in a fallen state due to the disobedience of the first man and woman, and we find ourselves with opportunity for the free gift of salvation simply by submitting that will to the lordship and saving grace of Christ. God respects the authority He has given us, and he respects the will He has given us. This is why many go on their way apart from Him.

So, while we might have the capacity to affect another human being’s life (and even the conditions surrounding one’s genetic beginnings), we do not have the authority to do so, or to discard such a life through abortion or euthanasia, without sound-minded consent of that individual (which is obviously impossible with a developing embryo). And in the matter of institutional authority, we must consider both the nature of the institution, and how this relates to individual human will. Let’s look at some specific examples:

In vitro fertilization has been called upon frequently in recent decades to bring about a “natural” childbirth, by assisting in the fusing of sperm and egg outside the uterus. In the process, to increase the odds (and profitability for the institution, for sure), a woman’s hormones are augmented so as to increase egg production. This, in itself, is no ethical violation, though it produces significant emotional and physical stresses. The problem lies in the reality that multiple eggs are fertilized,but few blastocysts (early developing humans) are selected for implantation, and even fewer “take” in the uterine lining. The fact that this might lead to excessive multiple births is not inherently wrong, though perhaps unwise; the fact that developmental problems and mortality of “successful” implantations is significantly higher than accepted rates in other medical decisions is also not necessarily wrong, but perhaps an indiscriminate practice; yet the fact that a large percentage of developing humans are discarded or indefinitely frozen—this is a violation of our given authority.

Euthanasia is often defended for its mercy toward the suffering of a human, though “mercy” can be a cover for sinister motives. Suffering, in our fallen world, is unavoidable, and creates this dilemma. To what degree do we interfere with “natural” processes? To answer this, I think we must differentiate between that which is originally natural, and that which is degenerated natural. Here, a Christian worldview is indispensable. It is God-pleasing to actively bring restoration to a fallen creation, a precursor to the ultimate healing that will eventually come about: “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21). Some of our interference in nature—medicine, for example—is necessitated by the fallen state of nature. And since people die, we often have to deal with how they die. And here, the issue of free will surfaces again. When euthanasia or larger-scale eugenics is dictated against the will of a person, this is wrong. This has nothing to do with whether a person is a burden to society, or whether his or her ethnicity is desirable. It has to do with what the person wants. A dying person has a right to die with dignity; a person in pain has a right to have that pain relieved, or even a right to evaluate the quality of their life (such as in a paralyzed state). Are there grey areas in these matters? Yes, for sure, but those must be decided between that person and his or her Maker, not by another.

Can government override human will regarding life? For example, should governmental authority force one to be euthanized against his or her will? I think not. The authority granted to government is necessitated by the fallen state of humanity. Government provides a mitigating influence against society’s propensity toward evil and selfishness; it does not exist to decide what is best for an individual. As such, governmental authority, as seen historically, must often take a backseat to greater and more original realms of authority.

Family, on the other hand, is an original institution, not merely a post-Fall measure. When addressing divorce, Jesus stated of marriage, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not manseparate” (Matthew 19:6). And He established order within this: “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:23-24) “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). Consider this scenario: If a child is capable of pregnancy, but has not the maturity, capacity, or resources to raise a child responsibly, do the parents have a right to restrict sexual behavior, require birth control for a sexually active child, or further (perhaps if the child is mentally ill), have anti-fertility drugs applied so as to make pregnancy impossible? Yes, I think so. Yet this would not be a governmental decision but a parental one. And if parents do not see eye-to-eye on the matter, the father has authority to make the call (assuming he is actively participating as a father, which sadly to say, is not often the case).

Xenotransplantation is another matter for consideration. Is it as violation of the “natural” to have a pig’s heart valve used as a replacement for a human valve? Would it be any more “natural” to use a synthetically-created valve (which, as it turns out, is not as effective or reliable)? Again, we are dealing with the distinction between the originally natural and degenerated natural. To try and fuse human and pig genetics would go against the originally natural distinction of the created “kind,” as we now understand that DNA is the primary caretaker of such distinctions. But to use a pig’s valve for the greater value of sustaining human life is an issue of actively working against the degenerated natural. If such transplantation blesses a human life, and if that person wills such a procedure, this is not “playing God” in any negative sense, but rather acting humanely.

Lastly, we consider cloning. The cloning of humans bears some of the same ethical problems as in vitro fertilization, as viable human beings are inevitably discarded in the process. And even if human cloning could avoid human mortality, it is genetic modification (transgenics, in particular) involving other human lives that have already been initiated, and, as in in vitro mortality or abortion, “cannot speak for themselves” (Proverbs 31:8, NIV). Cloning of animals, on the other hand, is within our authority, and since originally natural forms of cloning indeed exist, we can move forward with some confidence that success is attainable. Nonetheless, we would do well to consider health and mortality issues and weigh the real suffering of God’s creatures against our motives.

If “playing God” means manipulating the creation beyond the authority given to us, and in violation of human will (“playing God” in a matter that He wouldn’t act in the first place), then it is indeed wrong. The problem is not so much in our available technologies, but in 1) oppressive or greedy motives in their application, and 2) the evolutionary lack of discrete distinction between human life and other life. Yet if we are simply mitigating the effects of a degenerated creation—with respect for individual human will in the process—then we are not “playing God” in any negative sense, but acting in line with our dominion mandate.

There is, however, a positive aspect to “playing God.” As creatures made in the image of God, and as believers committed to being his ambassadors on the Earth, we should actually desire to “play God” in the sense of fulfilling his purposes here. We want to help a fallen humanity that often shows no discretion when humans “play God” in the negative sense, and help a fallen humanity that actually disdains God for “playing” Himself! In the second part of this essay, I aim to address this positive side of “playing God.”

HEARING FROM GOD

2010-11-21T23:54:30Z

VOICE RECOGNITION

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. – John 10:27

It has been over twenty years since I studied engineering formally, yet I still recall the wonder I felt when encountering the characteristics of sound. In particular, I was learning about digital sampling, such as that used to encode audio on a CD, and now used in many other applications. I was impressed on several levels. First, that sound is so dynamic: although it has some parallels with light (frequencies, or pitches, are like hues, and intensity, or loudness, is like brightness, and so on), there exists no parallel for a single “frame” of sound. In other words, though we can study a photograph or visual image and see the same instant over and over, one cannot do the same with an “instant” of sound. Second, I appreciated that sound can be so complex: sounds arrive at differing intensities and frequencies, from multiple directions, and are superimposed to produce a continuous change in air pressure at a given location. The sounds of everyday life, let alone musical composition, are richly symphonic, unique to every particular location in space. And third, not so much from class, but by extension, I marveled at the cooperation of the hearing ear, nervous system processing, and mental interpretation that allow one to analyze a cacophony and make sense of it all. To have a conversation in a crowded, bustling room is itself a marvel of biological engineering.

Though my fascination came in the process of sampling sound so as to store and retrieve it, this is little compared to the complexity and speed of today’s processes, in which programs interpret sound for the purpose of comparison and interpretation. More recently, a brief foray into computerized voice recognition algorithms has reawakened my wonder. These must not only identify sound, but parse speech—and not only speech, but a particular individual’s voice. I began to think not only in terms of how a sound is broken down and identified, but in the very nature of voice. A voice might possibly be reduced to its physical characteristics, yet to the hearer it conveys one’s personality, emotion, and volition. So, the last few times I have heard a brother in Christ speak of “hearing from God” or “listening to God,” it stirred my thinking. What is the voice of God, and how do we hear it?

Voices are distinct. How many syllables must a familiar person utter over a scratchy phone connection before we recognize him or her? The human voice is an aesthetically beautiful signature of oneself—like handwriting, the way one walks, dresses, decorates, or goes about things in life. It is tailored by a person’s physiological makeup, regional flair, personality, moods, and more. In singing, it offers that uniquely intangible layer that largely defines the sound of a band. We attempt to describe its qualities: brassy, smooth, warm, lilting, pure, raspy, piercing…and soon struggle for adjectives. Yet we distinguish one from another. This uniqueness is also is true of an instrument itself, particularly when coupled with how it is played. The Lord Himself had an audible voice that Adam recognized in the Garden (Genesis 3:10). God spoke audibly throughout the Old Testament, but also in the New: “…suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (Matthew 3:17, at Jesus baptism, and again at His transfiguration in Matthew 17:5). Jesus, of course, had his own natural voice while gracing our world as a man; we can only imagine what he actually sounded like in conversation with the disciples about fishing, getting lunch, or finding a place to stay.

Voices are also communicative. Language is powerful as is, yet coupled with the manner in which one speaks, one’s voice can relay conviction, concern, enthusiasm, apprehensiveness, authority, tenderness, sarcasm, and so on. It should be no surprise that God Himself exhibited the full spectrum in our Scriptural encounters with His voice. At one extreme, there is no paucity of references to God’s loudness: “These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice…” (Deuteronomy 5:22); “The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered His voice” (2 Samuel 22:14); “The voice of the LORD is powerful; The voice of the LORD is full of majesty. The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars, yes, the LORD splinters the cedars of Lebanon (Psalm 29:4-5); These are only a few references of many, and likewise in the New Testament, hearers were amazed at the authority with which Jesus spoke (Matthew 7:29); “When Jesus said, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground” (John 18:6); Jesus spoke caustically toward the religious hypocrites, and found occasion to curse a fig tree (Matthew 21:19); And, looking to later events: we see that “the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command…” (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

By contrast, God also whispers (in this case, for dramatic effect): “After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper” (1 Kings 19:12). And the same Jesus who told Peter “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33) also questioned him lovingly and affirmed his response in the presence of others (Matthew 16:15-19), encouraged him to walk on the water (Matthew 14:29-30), and chided him gently when he doubted (Matthew 14:31). With a gentle question “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” Jesus released the adulterous woman from her guilt, and then gently voiced the command, “go and sin no more” (John 8:10-11).

Thus, the voice of the Lord, though uniquely His, is delivered according to His various purposes. And His style is part and parcel of His substance. Thus we might also say that a voice can be transformative. After all, we encounter dozens of times in Scripture the command to obey the voice of the Lord, rather than simply his words or commands. A voice doesn’t have to audible at all, only discernable (as a dark example, think of how the voice of Abel’s blood cried out to God after his death, in Genesis 4:10). So, it is unacceptable to excuse our disobedience just because God is not thundering audibly to you or me upon a mountain. The Bible is God’s Word, and also God’s Voice. The major component of hearing from God is discerning what God has spoken in Scripture. We are to align not only with what He says, however He says it, but with the spirit behind it—to respond to the Person of God in obeying His desires for us. Just as we might refer to the “voice of the people” in reference to the people’s will or desire, we must think of God’s voice likewise. I suspect that when a brother in Christ “hears from God,” this is most often the simple matter of responding to God’s Word obediently as prompted by God’s Spirit. Sure, God might individually prompt a believer outside of a particular Scripture, yet audibly or not, it will still be in his voice, and the believer familiar with that voice will know it. Just how pressing is an audible word anyway, given what we have today? “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

And yet it is significant that God has spoken audibly, and that we speak out God’s Word to each other, and to unregenerate souls that may not yet recognize His voice otherwise. In “The Breath of Life” I wrote about the mystical animation that comes through breathing—that “spirit” is literally breath, operating in the material realm to sustain a nonmaterial component of life. It is fitting, then, that spirit, or breath, is the means by which vocal cords are activated. The very breath that sustains us is also employed for this marvelous expression of uniqueness and communication. And in a manner more literally than perhaps we realize, when we allow God to speak into our lives, we receive life. Think of God’s voice as spiritual resuscitation or rescue breathing.

A final attribute of voice to examine here is its capacity to be collective. As mentioned earlier, there can be a single voice of the people. When this “people” is the church, that voice can be as harmonious and magnificent as a trained chorus in performance. Responding with “one voice” indicates obedience (Exodus 24:3), or praise and thanksgiving (2 Chronicles 5:13). The collective singing of praise and worship is powerful, for it converges into something greater than the sum or discord of its parts: “But you are holy, enthroned in the praises of Israel” (Psalm 22:3). And this too, is a voice beyond the audible component, for the praises of the Church are universal—there is a voice of the Bride, in concert with Christ: “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’” (Revelation 22:17).

In an age in which information (from many voices) flows and is processed in such great volume, and computer programs and devices can even identify voices and follow their commands—how critical therefore that human beings, made in God’s image, can hear and recognize God’s voice, and respond to Him. He has a voice expressed pervasively through His creation, His Word, and His believers. It is a distinct, communicative, transformative, and collective voice. We must hear His voice, and speak it too: “…it shall be, if He calls you, that you must say, ‘Speak, LORD, for Your servant hears’…” (1 Samuel 3:9). “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14).

CREATED TO BE INHABITED

2010-11-01T02:21:30Z

THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

“Are we alone in the universe?” To many, especially NASA’s scientists, this is the ultimate question. Why is this so pressing, how is it being addressed, and what can we learn from this quest and from God’s Word on the matter?

For the many naturalists that populate the scientific establishment (particularly in the field of astronomy), the query stems from the belief that we cannot be alone. That is, if the universe has provided 15 billion years in which life evolved here, then surely life must have evolved somewhere else. After all, the universe is estimated to be 150 billion times wider than our home galaxy, the Milky Way.

This search first began by looking for “intelligent” life—presumably the kind that could at least communicate (if not travel) across the great distances of space. The biggest practical effort in this direction has been the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), which in part aims “to explore…the prevalence of life in the universe.” This ongoing project, initiated by the late, great astronomer Carl Sagan, and popularized by a myriad of movies including the 1997 film Contact (adapted from Sagan’s novel of the same name) now boasts an active institute, complete with a website, radio show, “adopt a scientist” program, education and outreach, and of course, nifty apparel and coffee mugs. As of my last check, 72.9% of its polled website visitors believe that we are not alone, and need to keep looking, whereas a mere 5% believe that we are indeed alone. The difficulty of this as a scientific endeavor, however, is represented by the 22.1% who, believing that we are “probably not” alone, nonetheless recognize that we might never find this out.

This is a problem because they are correct in principle: the nature of science is to present a hypothesis—an assertion which must be reasonably testable (and no, an “educated guess” does not necessarily qualify, contrary to what the textbooks often say). When the hypothesis is stated “we are not alone,” then the only course for discrediting this is to look everywhere, finding nothing. This can never be done. If the hypothesis would be stated instead as “we are indeed alone,” then this would gain strength as a working theory the more we search. But the former is not how it is framed, because the evolutionist must believe that Earth is not the only site of the successful accident that we extremely successful accidents call “life.”

So, since 1979, after much number crunching of astronomical imaging data, with massive computing power (assisted by personal computers who participate in the SETI effort when not being used for local tasks), still no recognizable patterns of intelligent communication have been received. (It is notable that intelligent language can indeed been distinguished from data streams, and that our own DNA does in fact fit this criteria.) That being the case, what is the next avenue for the search? For many, it is to look simply for life—not necessarily intelligent life. This (in their understanding of evolution) carries an increased probability, and has thus motivated the search for bacterial spores on the Moon, Mars, or any habitable world.

And that is the rub—the habitable world: For life to evolve, or even to exist if it were to show up somehow (say, by creation), it must have particular atmospheric and climatic conditions. And so the search has morphed slowly into a quest not so much for life, but for places where life could possibly exist (translated: “have evolved,” which, of course, assumes that life did indeed evolve improbably right here at home.) That has led to the search for extra-solar planets (planets outside our solar system), or “exoplanets.” This is a tricky business, as 1) planets produce no light of their own, 2) they are an enormous distance from us, and 3) any light they might reflect is obscured by the relatively blinding light of other stars, and for certain the very stars they orbit.

So, how are these exoplanets “discovered”? Indirectly, by inference: Typically, an exoplanet is announced when a star has the proper wobble to indicate an orbiting planetary body. And this wobble may be so subtle, or in the fore-aft direction, that its detection must also be inferred using the “Doppler shift” of the star’s light. There are some other methods employed as well, but so far only a handful of the nearly five hundred exoplanets “found” to date have been directly observed, imaged in the very low resolution of just a few pixels. The first, Fomalhaut B, orbiting the star Fomalhaut, was imaged by the Hubble Telescope’s Advance Camera for Surveys in 2004, and finally confirmed in 2010 as a gas giant, eight times more massive than Saturn. Of the few directly imaged bodies, there is disagreement as to how many are actually planets, as they may be brown dwarf stars. Of the total, over three hundred are gas giants (like Jupiter), and absolutely none have qualified as “earth-like.” (Though when they are first discovered, this possibility is often stated enthusiastically, and usually written up with hopeful statements about the existence of atmosphere, ice, or water.) The search continues.

One might wonder, though, why evolving life requires an earth-like planet at all. Some scientists, for instance, assert that perhaps we are too Earth-centric (okay, but it’s sort of tough not to be…). That’s a reasonable assertion if one believes that our Earth was not designed for life at all, but it just happened. Given this assumption, why wouldn’t life emerge in different modes or forms, under different conditions? Yet the evolutionist must face the fact that our universe is governed by physical parameters affecting the very chemistry needed for any form of life we might envision. These constraints (a marking characteristic of design, by the way) make it such that the only foreign types of life that might be reasonably imagined are silicon-based forms rather than carbon-based forms. And curiously, those forms did not emerge here, on a planet with plentiful silicon and all the other ideal conditions. And whether silicon- or carbon-based, experts can only envision systems of metabolism (the capture and use of energy) that require an Earth-like atmosphere, with an Earth-like exposure to the sun, Earth-like temperatures, and Earth-like resources. So, Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” (mentioned in my “Great and Small” essay) might seem a lonely place to live, but it’s the only place to live, and as such, most scientists default to the Earth-like planet search. The object of the search, in fact, has often been called “the Goldilocks planet” (not too hot, not too cold…not too massive, not too small…). The irony in all this is that if we are indeed alone in the universe, then we must not be alone at all, because Someone must have singled us out in a creative, purposeful act.

Extraterrestrial life is a glamorous concept, and theists (theistic evolutionists in particular) might also like to believe that God created distant worlds housing additional life, or even other souls like us. And He certainly could have. But what God could have done is not what God said He did in His Word. First, we must recognize that the Bible is entirely Earth-centric in its view of the universe’s creation and purpose. When Scripture recounts the creation, it refers to “the heavens and the earth” as a dichotomy, using that phrasing 91 times. There is the Earth, and there is all else. This is further emphasized by something that theistic evolutionists seem to easily overlook: that Earth was created first, including ocean, land mass, and plant life, prior to the creation of “sun, moon, and stars” (“stars” meaning “luminaries”, and presumably including planets) on Day 4. If the creation account was simply an allegorical tale of God’s drawn-out, ongoing evolutionary process of creation, then this numerical ordering in Genesis 1 would be completely misleading.

Second, we note that when God declared satisfaction with his finished product in Genesis 2:3, there had been no mention of life other than that which has been created in the waters, skies, and land of Earth—a striking oversight if other civilizations were in the plans. And when we read of the great flood of Noah’s time, we find that it was purposed to destroy “all life” without qualification (Genesis 6:17, 9:11,15,17). In fact, other beings of an entirely different ilk are in fact mentioned in other places in Scripture: angels, seraphim, and cherubim, who are not of this physical creation at all. So it is not as if God is omitting secretive information about created beings.

So it appears—from Scripture, not from what some wish that God might have done—that Earth is the chosen, designed, unique place of habitation for us, as well as for all other life in the natural realm. Consider three other passages that speak to this emphasis:
                For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:18)
                I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded. (Isaiah 45:12)
                The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S; But the earth He has given to the children of men. (Psalm 115:16)

In further support of the dichotomy between the heavens and the Earth, we might also expand upon the dominion emphasis in the previous verse. If God has made man uniquely, and given us this world, then it follows that he would give Adam the opportunity to name its creatures (Genesis 2:19-20). And if there exist no other like worlds with inhabitants, then it follows also that He would name the rest: “He counts the numbers of the stars: He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). To state this without qualification would be a disservice to any other races created on any other worlds. “Other Adams” and other habitations are never alluded to in any fashion in Scripture. And this is not because we would somehow be unable to bear such a truth; if such habitations existed, I think to the contrary that God would have referenced their worlds as illustrations or motivations for his purposes here.

So what do we learn from this quest of today’s astronomers? Perhaps we are reminded not only that the suppression of God produces desperation for validation, but also that many of us recognize the need for something beyond us. With the search for extraterrestrial life, there is a vague underlying hope that either 1) something marvelous and superior could augment or rescue our struggling humanity, or 2) we might find ourselves at least one other frail civilization, thereby diminishing the emptiness of living alone in the cold, dark, vast cosmos.

The search for extraterrestrial life is much more than an unpromising scientific endeavor or popular curiosity; it is a search for meaning itself. Yet the answer is found right here:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

THE ULTIMATE REFERENCE POINT

2011-10-25T15:12:41Z

STANDARDS AND CALIBRATION

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. – Hebrews 13:8

“It’s all relative.” The believer in absolutes might cringe at this statement. Yet in itself, the statement is accurate, since all manner of things can indeed be compared with or to something else. But to what are things relative? For example, morally minded Christians such as me are tempted to consider ourselves pretty good, but as compared to the standard of God’s righteousness, “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…” (Isaiah 64:6). (This speaks, of course, of righteousness apart from what God has imputed.) Yet this is not how the relativist makes comparisons. The relativist compares, for sure, but to a variety of convenient and transient “standards” usually to justify immoral behavior or to accommodate individual religious belief. For the post-modernist, collective societal norms are what give some opportune frame of reference. The God-fearing Christian could in a sense say “all is relative,” acknowledging that all is relative to a singular point of reference: God Himself. Either way, we cannot avoid comparison or some frame of reference when making value judgments.

It is quite remarkable the lengths to which humans go to establish points of reference, and it is these points of reference that establish a frame of reference, or worldview. But most see such things as purely empirical, scientific matters. Calendars, time zones, and the marking of time itself have been honed through years and years of permutations, coordinated into international standards through the cooperation of astronomers, mathematicians, geographers, physicists, and historians. Our standards of measure are even now international, as the Système International d’Unités (metric system) makes sure we are all accountable to static points of reference in matters of length (meter), mass (kilogram), and time (second), as well as electric current (ampere), absolute temperature (kelvin), amount of substance in atoms or molecules (mole), and luminous intensity (candela). And these are just the fundamental units. Many other measures are derived from these, such as frequency (hertz), force (newton), radioactivity (lux), catalytic activity (katal), electric resistance (ohm), energy, work, and heat (joule), inductance (henry), and other obscure though important quantities. The International Committee for Weights and Measures consists of eighteen persons and meets annually to discuss reports on these matters. Closer to home, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducts similar annual meetings, and is approaching its one-hundredth year of doing so.

The meter (the standard of length) has itself gone through nine major standard clarifications and updates since 1790, presently based upon both the standard for the second and the standard for the speed of light. Practically, though, it is not defined in the same way that it must be delineated in the lab: 1,579,800.298728 wavelengths of a helium-neon laser light in a vacuum. That crazy number is actually rounded, because this value is less certain than the defined precision of a second. All this just to make sure we have “length” correct.

On some of the most remote mountains in my home state of Idaho are found USGS markers—typically found as round metal disks inscribed with location information, set in concrete. These are used if needed to set up GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) receiver antennae for “differential GPS surveying.” Everything is measured from something else, with the implicit understanding that such points of reference should not change.

Yet implicit in the creation of standards is the concept that all things are indeed in flux, and such change needs to continually revert to a more reliable point of reference. Even the world’s most reliable balances, spectrum analyzers, and all manner of measuring devices must be continually calibrated to known reference values. A “zero” measure must indeed reflect a zero value, and a reliable zero value is still meaningless until a higher value of measure is also calibrated. Furthermore, all points in between and beyond must be reliably measured by a device that physically functions in a true continuum. Much scientific experimentation is invalidated when proper methodology is tainted by improper calibration. As much as we value diversity, there are matters in which we all must “speak the same language.”

In addition to issues of calibration, there are issues of precision. Numerical measurements may be inherently deceptive if not expressed in proper “significant figures.” This concept bewilders high school science students, who, in math class, would determine that 1.013 times 5.3 equals 5.389, when in fact, if those numbers represent actual measures, the result is 5.4. Rounding is not a convenience, but a requirement. I have had to educate students that scientific notation is not primarily about making numbers more compact to write, but about properly representing their actual precision. Showing a finer value than that which is known is equivalent to lying.

Perhaps the most pervasive common technological denominator of all time, the Internet, has forced the necessity of a standard: HTML (hypertext markup language) is the current programming standard for web browsers, and has been modified from its original 1991 version to the HTML5 “platform,” established in 2008 by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), led by a Director, a CEO, and three “Host Institutions.” The way that much of the world presents its information is dictated, of necessity, by this small contingent.

Scripture heralds the importance of these reference points and standards, not merely for pragmatism, but for upholding justice and truth. God is the rationale for the standard: “A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work” (Proverbs 16:11). And the violation of God’s standards is the rationale for despising their change: “Diverse weights are an abomination to the LORD, and dishonest scales are not good” (Proverbs 20:23). We are exhorted to “…not remove the ancient landmark” in Proverbs 22:28 and 23:10. Christ Himself is regarded as humanity’s ultimate reference point, as illustrated through structural technology: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone” (Psalm 118:22). “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. Also I will make justice the measuring line, and righteousness the plummet…’” (Isaiah 28:16). Justice and truth are regarded as something as well-established as the vertical: “Thus He showed me: Behold, the Lord stood on a wall made with a plumb line, with a plumb line in His hand. And the LORD said to me, ‘Amos, what do you see?’ And I said, ‘A plumb line.’ Then the Lord said: ‘Behold, I am setting a plumb line In the midst of my people Israel…’” (Amos 7:7-8).

It is ironic that in a culture that has fashioned a floating “true for you” idea, much of the world still strives to maintain fixed points of reference. Perhaps we believe erroneously that reality’s references are limited only to those things on which we can put a number. But the reality is that even our measureable standards are fleeting. The earth can move (changing all physical reference points), the speed of light deteriorates (changing the very definition of distance), and if atomic decay rates change, our very definition of time changes as well. Polaris will not always be the North Star (it once was Thuban, during the construction of the pyramids), and the equinoxes will drift, our seasonal reference marred by our wobbly planet.

So, what can we really count on? What is a truly reliable standard? Only that which is unchanging. And thankfully, that which is unchanging is also glorious and beneficial to us. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). We need fewer things to gamble on as unchanging, and we need more the One Thing that is unchangeable. Hebrews 7:24 speaks to this, reminding us that Christ’s priesthood is unchangeable, and 12:27 indicates that the shakeable things will be removed, so that the unshakeable can remain. It goes on to say, in verse 28, that “since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.”

Yes, I suppose “all is relative.” Relative to the pivot-point, the cornerstone, the foundation, the baseline, the Origin: God the Creator, God in Christ, and Christ in His Word. All can be measured by Him and to Him. And when we recognize this standard, we know to Whom we must conform:

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. – 2 Corinthians 3:8-11