July 2009 Epistle
of the Church Gathering in Jesus’ Name
602 Oak Knoll
San Antonio, TX 78228
Revival Meeting
Friday, August 7th through Sunday August 16th
with
Pastor Larry West
Also don’t forget:
35th Anniversary Gathering in Jesus’ Name
June 28 (dinner on the grounds)
Men’s Meeting
October 16, 17
Sunday Thanksgiving Open Meeting
November 29
Annual World Evangelism Conference
February 7 – 14, 2010
Why Rational?
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
Acts 26:8
I once watched a televised debate (ABC) between believers Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (of “Left Behind” fame) and the pretentiously named “Rational Response Squad,” a group that aggressively promotes atheism. My initial reaction upon hearing the group’s name when the atheists were introduced was, “why rational?” Why did it seem necessary to call themselves the “rational” ones in the crowd? Could it be that they really think of themselves as more reasonable than everyone else, to the point that there was no better way to describe themselves? Obviously they are convinced that what sets them apart from Christians is their superior ability to reason. Which begs the question.
Calling yourself “rational” as compared to such presumably irrational and “credulous” forbears as Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Bach, Newton, Pascal, Faraday and Pasteur (the list could go on several pages) automatically categorizes you as borderline insane. Of course, unbelievers don’t mind distancing themselves from the average unsophisticated church-goer, and if they want to distance themselves from such thinkers as Paul and Luther and Knox and Calvin and Tyndale and Bunyan and Ussher, maybe they have their “reasons.” But not only are these refusing to identify with Bible-believers, they are even exalting themselves as rational compared to such slow-wits as Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, both “theists.” They have labeled atheism exclusively rational, and reduced their historical membership to the likes of Marx, Lenin and Mao. I guess that’s why they are still just a “squad” and not a whole platoon.
Faith in God is not irrational. Denial of God in the face of creation is not only an “oxymoron,” it is the height of absurdity. The argument arising from our very existence, in light of the first and second law of thermodynamics, the argument which develops from the intricate and interdependent designs in biological systems, along with the argument based on the anthropic principle found in observations as simple as the relatively equal sizes of the sun and moon in the sky, to such immensely improbable “coincidences” like an iron core and consequently magnetic earth, its volcanic activity and proportional size producing oceans and a “biologically probable” atmosphere, its tilt, its speed and rotation and its distance from the sun, and the sun’s placement in the galaxy, and the galaxy’s placement in its cluster, and the cluster’s placement in the universe, all of which display a mind-boggling precision, and each of which is imperative for life to exist on earth, all combined leave little room for skepticism. Not only are believers being reasonable, and unbelievers not terribly rational after all, but unbelievers trying to distinguish themselves by alleging their own superior rationality betrays a “compensation mechanism” reminiscent of an intellectual “Napoleon complex.”
Reasonable Resurrection
But this argument only deals with simple belief in God. In our text Paul asks why the resurrection should be considered incredible? Paul is implying that belief in the resurrection of the dead is as reasonable as belief in God. Anyone who begrudges “theists” the relatively modest label of “rational” must hack up a lung at the thought of granting that respect to moonbeams like Paul talking about the resurrection! Even believers who know faith in God is a rational conclusion may wonder how the resurrection must also be. The fact that Jesus declares that all in the graves will rise again is enough for a believer, but Paul isn’t just declaring that the resurrection is true by revelation. Paul is arguing from reason by asking rhetorically why it seems difficult to believe in it. He appears bewildered that these Greeks and Greek-influenced Jews are skeptical about the resurrection of the dead. Paul even replies to “some” who slyly ask, “how are the dead raised,” by calling them fools.
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
1 Corinthians 15.38
In other words, if you have ever wondered how God will raise up a body that has been burned, or decomposed, or dismembered, Paul says you are a fool for asking. Now that we understand the mechanics of DNA much better than “primitive” Christians such as Paul, we can see that the question is rather stupid. Our bodies are built according to a code, and the actual molecules that make up our bodies are replaceable, in fact, our entire bodies are being replaced constantly throughout our lives. We are made up of entirely different molecules and cells today than we consisted of a decade ago. Because our bodies are not the carbon and water they are made of, but rather a sequence of complex instructions that can be copied, stored, disassembled and reassembled at will. So the question of “how” turns out to be just as absurd as Paul declared, as if our lack of understanding amounts to some argument against God’s word. But Paul didn’t know about DNA. He was reasoning from another angle. The truth is, once the first step of faith is taken, that God exists and that he created us, the resurrection of the dead is almost a “given.” And there are reasons for this not dependent on God’s direct revelation of the promise.
Nature our teacher
Paul explained one of his reasonings to the Corinthians, the clues God placed in nature. Paul used a seed to illustrate one of the most amazing and at the same time most prolific facts of biological nature, the two-phase life of almost all living beings. A seed is a living organism. It is not a piece of a parent plant, like a leaf or a flower. A seed is a new organism, produced by pollination, or fertilization of the flower. The seed develops according to its own DNA, and fulfills its own destiny, as limited as it may seem to us, but yet goes far beyond just maturing on the plant. It separates from the plant, absorbs the nutrients in the fruit, and develops its own “senses,” the ability to detect temperature and moisture, and probably other markers in its environment. Of course, we know it was never meant to be just a seed, even though the vast majority of seeds in nature never become plants in their own right. Most are eaten or destroyed as seeds. But it does not seem “incredible” to us that a seed has a greater potential and inherent destiny than appears on its surface. It seems “rational” to us because we have seen it proven thousands of times. It is planted and it dies as a seed, and then “God gives it a body,” a new body, much more developed than its seed form. Is this irrational speculation?
Animals also have a two-phase life. Insects go through metamorphosis between their larva stage and their adult stage. A caterpillar is a whole animal in its own right, complete with multiple senses, a digestive system, a brain and nervous system, and appendages for movement for self-defense, preparation of habitat, and provision for food. But a caterpillar is not a worm. This is not its final form. It will one day bury itself, or wrap itself in a cocoon, and undergo a spectacular, or in better words, a miraculous transformation, and eventually emerge as a butterfly or other flying insect. All insects have this built into their natures. Caterpillars don’t appear to have wings, but they do, built into their DNA. Amphibians (frogs and salamanders) undergo an equally remarkable transformation, from aquatic to land animals. Some fish also have two stages. Even mammals have an extended gestation stage before birth. Is this “incredible?” No, it is a teaching tool. God has imposed upon our imagination a fact of life, that every creature is more complex than meets the eye. He did this so the promise of resurrection would make sense to us the moment we heard it. And it did. Why should it seem incredible to some? Well, it is clearly not because they are the only rational people on the planet.
Rational Senses
Another reason the resurrection should never seem incredible to anyone is the concept of justice. All men understand the principle of justice, and all men acknowledge it as right and desirable. This is because morality, that is, the difference between right and wrong, actually does exist. It is not just a “human construct,” lacking an absolute foundation. It is one of the “rational senses,” senses which the self-styled “rationalist” must somehow deny even exist (although it is difficult to deny such rational senses as empathy and humor). God gave us the inherent ability to judge between right and wrong, and we all judge, all the time. But right and wrong cannot exist if a higher authority does not exist. So our sense of right and wrong, our ability to “see” it, every bit as real as any of our physical senses, proves the existence of God and judgment.
Justice, then, is the obvious corollary to that. Justice is the promise of judgment, the inherent reasoning in us that right must eventually win. All humans reason this way, and those who reason any other way had to be “trained” away from this universal expectation. Since we all know justice is never completely fulfilled in this life, (just observe our criminal justice system in action), it is eminently reasonable to assume a resurrection. Assuming a resurrection is not the same as proving it, of course, but denying the possibility of resurrection is certainly not more rational than assuming it. Not considering the fact that our sense of justice is our primary “rational sense.”
Reverse Calculation
There is another reason however, and it is a reverse calculation using the very claim the rationalists make for themselves. These unbelievers claim to be rational, and we agree they are rational, even if we don’t grant that they are the only rational beings around. Yet reason cannot reasonably deny a reason for the very existence of reason. Remember, belief in the existence of God is eminently reasonable, in fact, outright denial of his existence is essentially insanity. There is a “reasoner” behind creation. Therefore, the ability to reason implies that there is a reason for the ability, just like a blind man’s eyes prove the existence of light. If you need to think that over, take your time. I’ll wait. We can only consider ourselves to be rational beings if having the ability to reason makes sense. If there is no reason for us to have this ability, then rationality itself is nonsense. Call yourself “rational” and then conclude there is no reason for anything? Hello? That man can reason is evidence enough that there is a reason for his reason. If you never see visual, scientific or mathematical proof of a resurrection of the body, other than the proof Christ made for all time, reason dictates that it is so. If it were not so, nothing makes sense. And because we can reason, it goes to reason that things have to make sense, at least eventually. The simple fact is, nothing makes sense if death is the end of it all. Since sense must make sense, and death makes meaningless nonsense out of everything, it follows that death is not the end of rational beings.
A man coming to the conclusion through his ability to reason that there is no reason for him to reason, no purpose for his thoughts, no meaning behind his understanding, no logical motive for him to learn, or discover, or calculate, or seek God, or worship him, is unreasonable. It is much like a child in the womb coming to the conclusion that his legs are a useless and monstrous deformity, his eyes and ears nothing more than vestigial lumps on his head which might as well be surgically removed, and his taste and smell unnecessary, meaningless and even nauseating burdens while he swims in his own urine. Imagine an argument between twins in the womb, the one, who happens to be a member of the “Rational Fetus Foundation,” insisting to the other that his naive and credulous hope of a “life outside” is irrational, while the other can’t get that tune out of his head, “these feet were made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do.” The song may be just entertainment, not even a deep thought, but it’s far from irrational. I’m not saying these brain-thumpers aren’t smart in their own right, I’m just saying when it comes to understanding creation and its purpose, a quick dismissal of minds like Paul (and Pascal and Pasteur for that matter) is not the most rational behavior. The resurrection has been clearly revealed in the Bible, has been proven both possible and true by Jesus Christ, and all things considered, not only makes perfect sense, it actually makes sense out of everything.