Women of the Bible: Rhoda

Acts 12 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side, and woke him up, saying, “Stand up quickly!” His chains fell off his hands. 8 The angel said to him, “Get dressed and put on your sandals.” He did so. He said to him, “Put on your cloak and follow me.” 9 And he went out and followed him. He didn’t know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he saw a vision. 10 When they were past the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city, which opened to them by itself. They went out, and went down one street, and immediately the angel departed from him.

11 When Peter had come to himself, he said, “Now I truly know that the Lord has sent out his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from everything the Jewish people were expecting.” 12 Thinking about that, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 When Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, she didn’t open the gate for joy, but ran in, and reported that Peter was standing in front of the gate.

15 They said to her, “You are crazy!” But she insisted that it was so. They said, “It is his angel.” 16 But Peter continued knocking. When they had opened, they saw him, and were amazed. 17 But he, beckoning to them with his hand to be silent, declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. He said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place. 

With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray, 28

This post continues a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. The previous post is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color.

That the Lord should have thought it needful in so many forms to repeat the truth, is a lesson of deep import.  It proves that He knows our heart, how doubt and distrust toward God are natural to us, and how easily we are inclined to rest in prayer as a religious work without an answer.  He knows too how, even when we believe that God is the Hearer of prayer, believing prayer that lays hold of the promise, is something spiritual, too high and difficult for the half-hearted disciple.  He therefore at the very outset of His instruction to those who would learn to pray, seeks to lodge this truth deep into their hearts:  prayer does avail much; ask and ye shall receive; every one that asketh, receiveth. This is the fixed eternal law of the kingdom:  if you ask and receive not, it must be because there is something amiss or wanting in the prayer.  Hold on; let the Word and the Spirit teach you to pray aright, but do not let go the confidence He seeks to waken:  Every one that asketh, receiveth.

Thanks for reading!

Excerpts from Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton, 63

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, “For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity.” I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence. But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy from four books, than from one book, one battle, one landscape, and one old friend. The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. Now, the non-Christianity of the average educated man today is almost always, to do him justice, made up of these loose but living experiences.

I can only say that my evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind as his evidences against it. For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true. I discover that the true tide and force of all the facts flows the other way. Let us take cases. Many a sensible modern man must have abandoned Christianity under the pressure of three such converging convictions as these: first, that men, with their shape, structure, and sexuality, are, after all, very much like beasts, a mere variety of the animal kingdom; second, that primeval religion arose in ignorance and fear; third, that priests have blighted societies with bitterness and gloom. Those three anti-Christian arguments are very different; but they are all quite logical and legitimate; and they all converge. The only objection to them (I discover) is that they are all untrue.

If you leave off looking at books about beasts and men, if you begin to look at beasts and men then (if you have any humour or imagination, any sense of the frantic or the farcical) you will observe that the startling thing is not how like man is to the brutes, but how unlike he is. It is the monstrous scale of his divergence that requires an explanation.

That man and brute are like is, in a sense, a truism; but that being so like they should then be so insanely unlike, that is the shock and the enigma. That an ape has hands is far less interesting to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle-bones or the violin; does not carve marble or carve mutton. People talk of barbaric architecture and debased art. But elephants do not build colossal temples of ivory even in a rococo style; camels do not paint even bad pictures, though equipped with the material of many camel’s-hair brushes. Certain modern dreamers say that ants and bees have a society superior to ours. They have, indeed, a civilization; but that very truth only reminds us that it is an inferior civilization. Who ever found an ant-hill decorated with the statues of celebrated ants? Who has seen a bee-hive carved with the images of gorgeous queens of old? No; the chasm between man and other creatures may have a natural explanation, but it is a chasm. We talk of wild animals; but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out. All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability of the tribe or type. All other animals are domestic animals; man alone is ever undomestic, either as a profligate or a monk. So that this first superficial reason for materialism is, if anything, a reason for its opposite; it is exactly where biology leaves off that all religion begins.
It would be the same if I examined the second of the three chance rationalist arguments; the argument that all that we call divine began in some darkness and terror. When I did attempt to examine the foundations of this modern idea I simply found that there were none. Science knows nothing whatever about prehistoric man; for the excellent reason that he is prehistoric. A few professors choose to conjecture that such things as human sacrifice were once innocent and general and that they gradually dwindled; but there is no direct evidence of it, and the small amount of indirect evidence is very much the other way. In the earliest legends we have, such as the tales of Isaac and of Iphigenia, human sacrifice is not introduced as something old, but rather as something new; as a strange and frightful exception darkly demanded by the gods. History says nothing; and legends all say that the earth was kinder in its earliest time. There is no tradition of progress; but the whole human race has a tradition of the Fall.
And if we took the third chance instance, it would be same; the view that priests darken and embitter the world. I look at the world and simply discover that they don’t. Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.
Thus these three facts of experience, such facts as go to make an agnostic, are, in this view, turned totally round. I am left saying, “Give me an explanation, first, of the towering eccentricity of man among the brutes; second, of the vast human tradition of some ancient happiness; third, of the partial perpetuation of such pagan joy in the countries of the Catholic Church.” One explanation, at any rate, covers all three: the theory that twice was the natural order interrupted by some explosion or revelation such as people now call “psychic.” Once Heaven came upon the earth with a power or seal called the image of God, whereby man took command of Nature; and once again (when in empire after empire men had been found wanting) Heaven came to save mankind in the awful shape of a man. This would explain why the mass of men always look backwards; and why the only corner where they in any sense look forwards is the little continent where Christ has His Church.

Orthodoxy, first published in 1908, by G. K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and available from Project Gutenberg. The previous post in this series is here. Thanks for reading! Read Chesterton.

Good Friday poster

 

An attempt at a Good Friday poster.

Note that sin, with an enlarged "i", leads to death, and that despair obscures hope. The scriptural quotation is from the statement of the two disciples, on the road to Emmaus, to a stranger (who turned out to be the risen Jesus.) They said this on Easter evening, but they were still in a Good Friday mood when they said it:
Luke 24:20b the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21a But we were hoping that it was he who would redeem Israel.

The background is from a photo of pollen, in a little puddle in a parking lot.

He is risen! Thanks for reading and looking. The poster is a link to the original, which is on my Flickr photostream, and may be used by anyone, provided the use is non-commercial.

Sunspots 500

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:
Christianity: A video rendering of John Michael Talbot's "Holy is His Name," which is a modernization of the Magnificat, from Luke 1, sung by a young lady. The lyrics are here.
Relevant names seven prominent Christians who have struggled with doubt. You probably have, too.
Computing: Gizmo's Freeware points us to an on-line Color Scheme Generator. It looks like a fine tool.
Wired points out that "many devices are all but impossible to recycle efficiently." The article points out why this is true, and notes some manufacturers that are making recycling easier.
Science: (And photography) A collection of amazing close-ups of insects and their relatives, collected (but not photographed) by me. To see the individual photos, which, sometimes, have a description of what you are seeing, right-click on the photo and open it in a new tab.
Image source (public domain)

Prayers in the Bible: Gideon prays for guidance

One of the best known examples of looking for God's guidance, in the Bible, is the story of Gideon. Here's part of it:

Judges 6:36 Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have spoken, 37 behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then shall I know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have spoken.”

38 It was so; for he rose up early on the next day, and pressed the fleece together, and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.

39 Gideon said to God, “Don’t let your anger be kindled against me, and I will speak but this once. Please let me make a trial just this once with the fleece. Let it now be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew.”

40 God did so that night: for it was dry on the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground. (Quotations from the World English Bible, which is public domain.)

Note that Gideon prayed. He spoke to God, twice. And he asked God, basically, either if God knew what should be done, or, more charitably, if he had understood God correctly. It seems to me that the most important part of this story is that God didn't zap Gideon for his doubt, or for not paying close enough attention. He answered Gideon both times, with, apparently, a small miracle in each case.

The story is even more remarkable when we remember how God spoke to Gideon in the first place, and that God wasn't done speaking to him. Here's how God spoke to Gideon at first:

Judges 6:11 The angel of Yahweh came, and sat under the oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained to Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. 12 The angel of Yahweh appeared to him, and said to him, “Yahweh is with you, you mighty man of valor!”

13 Gideon said to him, “Oh, my lord, if Yahweh is with us, why then has all this happened to us? Where are all his wondrous works which our fathers told us of, saying, ‘Didn’t Yahweh bring us up from Egypt?’ But now Yahweh has cast us off, and delivered us into the hand of Midian.”

14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, “Go in this your might, and save Israel from the hand of Midian. Haven’t I sent you?”

15 He said to him, “O Lord, how shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is the poorest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”

16 Yahweh said to him, “Surely I will be with you, and you shall strike the Midianites as one man.”

17 He said to him, “If now I have found favor in your sight, then show me a sign that it is you who talk with me. 18 Please don’t go away, until I come to you, and bring out my present, and lay it before you.”

He said, “I will wait until you come back.”

19 Gideon went in, and prepared a young goat, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of meal. He put the meat in a basket and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out to him under the oak, and presented it.

20 The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened cakes, and lay them on this rock, and pour out the broth.”

He did so. 21 Then the angel of Yahweh stretched out the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and fire went up out of the rock, and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes; and the angel of Yahweh departed out of his sight.

22 Gideon saw that he was the angel of Yahweh; and Gideon said, “Alas, Lord Yahweh! Because I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face!”

23 Yahweh said to him, “Peace be to you! Don’t be afraid. You shall not die.”

In verse 14, Gideon got a clear command to lead the Israelites. It was accompanied by at least three miracles. God (or an angel) appeared to him, and spoke to him, in the first place. Second, Gideon asked for a sign, and was given one. Third, the angel miraculously disappeared. In spite of all of this, Gideon still wasn't convinced. That's why he made the requests about the fleece. That makes five miracles.

Actually, it seems that Gideon still wasn't sure. In a later passage, God showed him yet another miracle, shortly before he actually led the attack on the Midianites. The point seems to be that, even with people who are hard to convince, God does answer prayer for guidance. It also seems to be true that God doesn't despise honest (or maybe even somewhat dishonest) doubt. Probably the biggest miracle of the entire story is that Gideon, a man who didn't really want to do this, actually did lead the Israelites against the army of Midian, rather than running back home to the farm.

Here is a discussion of another case of honest doubt. These two aren't the only ones in the Bible.

This post is part of a series on prayers in the Bible. The previous one is here.

Russell's teapot

Some time ago, a commenter mentioned Russell's Teapot, and suggested that the idea was pertinent to a post of mine. (See Pete D's first comment on this post.) I had never heard of Russell's Teapot, although I had heard of Bertrand Russell, and I failed to look the matter up right away, which I should have done. I have now done so, and am musing on the topic.

The Wikipedia article on the subject quotes Russell's original statement. Russell's point was that claiming that there is a God, with no scientific proof of His existence, is no more legitimate than claiming that there is a teapot, too small to detect with instruments of any kind, orbiting the sun.

But that's not all. Russell said "since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it. . ." I would claim, and I am not alone, that there is a God, but that I cannot advance any scientific proof of His existence. I claim that I have subjective evidence from personal experience; from observing that sin is in the world, yet most people think that sin and evil is somehow unnatural and wrong; and from the Bible, that God exists. I do not claim that it is not legitimate to doubt God's existence. The validity of my personal experience can be questioned. Sometimes I question it myself. Perhaps our notion that the world is somehow spoiled is mistaken. It is possible that the Bible is a fabrication. In other words, the sentence quoted at the beginning of this paragraph does not apply to my belief, or to that of many other Christians. Just because something cannot be disproved, does not mean that it is not legitimate to doubt its existence.

For example, A could assert that witches can fly. B could respond that she has never seen a witch fly, and even doubt that witches exist. A could counter by asking B to prove that witches do not exist. B could respond that witches have not been found under various circumstances. A could, in that case, respond that there are other circumstances, which B has not experienced, in which witches do exist, and fly. It is not possible for B to examine all possible circumstances, but it is still reasonable for B to doubt that witches can fly.

I don't argue, and I don't think many Christians do, that the fact that Russell cannot disprove God's existence is an important reason for believing in God. I do think that the inability to disprove God's existence is a defense of belief in God. Not a strong one, but a defense. I agree that there is no scientific proof of God's existence. But, as I said, I believe that there are other kinds of proofs of that existence, and that it is not necessary to have scientific proof of His existence for me, and others, to believe in God. There are some things that a significant number of important mainstream scientists believe, that, so far, at least, lack scientific proof. These include the existence of the Higgs boson, and of universes that are parallel to our own, and string theory.

Hebrews 11:3 says: "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." Verse 6, of the same chapter, says "Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him." (WEB -- I'm using the WEB because it is public domain. I can't link directly to a verse in that Bible, because the web site uses frames.) As I understand it, and I may be wrong on more than one level, God offers humans the choice as to whether or not to believe. There is enough evidence, to an honest seeker, to bring about belief, but the evidence must be accepted by faith. Thomas didn't have to feel Christ's wounds to know that he was looking at the Resurrected Lord.

My understanding is that the things that happen in the world, which are the province of science, such as the doings of cells and ecosystems and galaxies and quarks and chemical reactions and photosynthesis and tectonic plates and water drops, are expressions of God Himself. In Psalm 19:1, David wrote:
"The heavens declare the glory of God.
The expanse shows his handiwork."
and in Romans 1:20, Paul said: "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." And it isn't just that God is revealed through the existence of created things. As Colossians 1 puts it: "16 For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together." (WEB) God, mostly God the Son, made things as they are, and so that they work the way they do. He intimately binds up the test tube, the spectrophotometer, the computer recording the data, the scientist herself, and the means of communicating the results. It's no wonder that the experimenter will not find evidence for God in an experiment.


I also see that there is a sin problem in the world, and in me, and that God alone offers a satisfactory solution, namely the sacrificial death of the incarnated Son of God, validated by His resurrection.


Unfortunately, one thing that helps to keep some people from finding faith in God is that some of us who claim to be Christians don't always live a life consistent with the unselfish teaching of Christ.


One of Russell's great efforts, in collaboration with Whitehead, was "an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic." In other words, to prove the legitimacy of mathematics beyond any possible doubt. That attempt, though heroic, failed, with the discovery of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. It is not possible to prove the legitimacy of mathematics beyond any possible doubt. But I use mathematics, and I believe that it is right to do so.

The two, putting math on a completely logical and systematic foundation, and arguing that belief in the existence of God does not make sense, are not the same thing, and not exactly comparable. But, I believe, both efforts were and are futile, even for a man as brilliant as the late Lord Russell.

Thanks for reading. I thank Pete D. for his comment.

James 1:5-6 poster: doubt and instability

An attempt to illustrate James 1:5-6. That was an actual wave, but not a very large one.

If you want to see a larger size, the photo is a link to my Flickr stream, which has larger sizes available.

God is not bothered by honest doubt

Gideon is a classic example. He saw an angel, and knew it was one. He asked for two miracles, wherein a sheepskin, on the grass, was wet when the grass was dry, and the reverse. God was not upset by this, apparently. Then Gideon still doubted, and was told to go into the enemy camp, where he overheard an enemy soldier predicting that he, Gideon would defeat the enemy. (See Judges 6-7)

Thomas, of course, is also a classic example:

John 20:24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (All Bible quotations from the ESV)

And Jude has a warning to leaders, that they should ". . . have mercy on those who doubt." (1:24)

Thanks for reading.

God can, even when we doubt

Numbers 11:18 And say to the people, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the hearing of the Lord, saying, “Who will give us meat to eat? For it was better for us in Egypt.” Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall not eat just one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, 20 but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the Lord who is among you and have wept before him, saying, “Why did we come out of Egypt?”’” 21 But Moses said, “The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot, and you have said, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat a whole month!’ 22 Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and be enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, and be enough for them?” 23 And the Lord said to Moses, “Is the Lord's hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not.” (ESV)

Gray versus Black and White

Gray versus Black and White

Christians disagree over many things, such as:
1) Whether women should be pastors.
2) Whether or not there will be a rapture, and, if so, whether it will be before, during, or after the tribulation.
3) Whether a person who is truly a redeemed believer can lose their salvation or not.
4) Whether or not Christians should expect to speak in tongues, and, if so, whether such utterance is or is not really a language.
5) Whether the days of Genesis 1 were literal consecutive 24-hour days or not.
Some of us like to see things in black and white. We want to know the answers -- the right answers. Some of us don't feel this need, or don't think there is enough evidence to make up our minds. We see things in gray. Generally, that would be me.

There are real dangers in being a black and white person.
1) Most obviously, you might be wrong.* The main reason being wrong is a problem is that if you are hard-nosed enough about your wrong belief, you may turn non-believers away from Christ.**
2) Vehement disagreements between believers will turn away non-believers.
3) God never commanded that we understand exactly what the book of Revelation predicts, for example. We can spend more of our time on such issues than we should, just as we can spend too much time watching TV. Christ has other plans for us.
4) You might disrespect a gray fellow Christian, because she hasn't made up her mind on something that you have. You might disrespect a black and white believer, because he doesn't agree with you. You might be proud of your own firmness.
There are also dangers in being gray:
1) You may be ignoring things that God wants you to know and act on, or you may doubt things that you should believe.
2) God commands that we take the scripture seriously.
3) You may not be spending enough of your thought life on God, lazily saying about whatever issue, "Well, we can't know, so why think about it?"
4) If we don't take our beliefs seriously enough, unbelievers will not consider believing as we do.5) You might disrespect a black and white believer as simple-minded, or be proud of the fact that you haven't made up your mind.

So, my friends, I submit to you that, generally, we should be intermediate between black and whiteness and grayness. I don't know what color that is.
*As Henry Neufeld recently said, there is a sort of unacknowledged doctrine that you have to be doctrinally correct to be eternally saved, but that is one thing we should be black and white about -- you don't have to have all your theological jots and tittles in a row to be redeemed, thanks be to God! (Neufeld's entire essay is splendid.)That's no excuse for not listening to pastors, not studying Sunday School lessons or the equivalent, not reading the Bible, or for ignoring other sources of light.

**For instance, if you say that the Bible says that Christ is returning before you die, and He doesn't, people who don't know much about the Bible, except what you say, will come to the conclusion that they can ignore it.
For another instance, non believing geologists are not likely to respond, if you tell them that the Bible says that they need to repent and believe, if you have also told them that the Bible teaches unequivocally that almost all geological phenomena are the result of Noah's flood.
I thank my wife for constructive criticism. Thanks for reading.

This essay was subject to serious editing on November 22, 2008, without changing the meaning significantly from that posted on the original date.

The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, pt. 6

I continue a series of excerpts from The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith. The book, which is public domain, is, available on-line in its entirety here. This version is somewhat different from the paperback I have in my physical possession. (New York: Ballentine Books, 1986)

These excerpts are from Smith's chapter, "Difficulties Concerning Doubts:"

It seems strange that people, whose very name of Believers implies that their one chiefest characteristic is that they believe, should have to confess to such experiences. And yet it is such a universal habit that I feel if the majority of the Church were to be named over again, the only fitting and descriptive name that could be given them would be that of Doubters. In fact, most Christians have settled down under their doubts, as to a sort of inevitable malady, from which they suffer acutely, but to which they must try to be resigned as a part of the necessary discipline of this earthly life. And they lament over their doubts as a man might lament over his rheumatism, making themselves out as an "interesting case" of especial and peculiar trial, which requires the tenderest sympathy and the utmost consideration.
And this is too often true of believers, who are earnestly longing to enter upon the life and walk of faith, and who have made perhaps many steps towards it. They have got rid, it may be, of the old doubts that once tormented them, as to whether their sins are really forgiven, and whether they shall, after all, get safe to Heaven; but they have not got rid of doubting. They have simply shifted the habit to a higher platform.

I am convinced that to many people doubting is a real luxury, and to deny themselves from indulging in it would be to exercise the hardest piece of self-denial they have ever known.

And this brings me to the practical part of the whole subject, as to how to get deliverance from this fatal habit. My answer would be that the deliverance from this can be by no other means than the deliverance from any other sin. It is to be found in the Lord and in Him only. You must hand your doubting over to Him, as you have learned to hand your other temptations. You must do just what you do with your temper, or your pride. You must give it up to the Lord. I believe myself the only effectual remedy is to take a pledge against it as you would urge a drunkard to do against drink, trusting in the Lord alone to keep you steadfast.

Gray (or is it grey?)

I think Thomas is my favorite bible character, but I’m not sure. Maybe it’s Gideon. Maybe not.

Some people never seem to doubt anything. They seem to have the answers to every question, and they think their answers are God-given. For example, some people say, in unequivocal terms, that the current Israeli regime is always right, and the Palestinians are terrorists, and always wrong, on the authority of scripture. They ignore scripture that indicates that God's promise of the land to Israel came with conditions. They are sure God brought the Israelis back, when it may have been earthly powers who did. Some people understand what the bible says about the origin of human beings, eternal security, baptism, church government, and speaking in tongues. They know what kind of church music is best. They have the correct answers all ready, with no exceptions or ambiguity. It’s all black and white. No gray. That’s not me. I’m gray around my face, and my brain has gray matter. I also think in gray a lot. I can see more than one side to most questions.

Part of my trouble is that I’m an academic. Academics are supposed to argue about questions and answers, and to present more than one side of an issue if they are teaching or writing about it. (They also often use parentheses, and maybe footnotes1, to set out contrary positions as fairly as they can.) But that’s not the whole story. There are academics who argue passionately for one side in some quarrel or other, and don’t seem to credit the other side with any sense whatsoever.

Am I right? Are the black and white people wrong? Naturally, I’m not sure.

One thing that I have noticed is that the black and white thinkers don’t always agree with each other. The question of eternal security will do here. There is scripture to support more than one side of the disagreement over whether, once saved, you are always saved, but you’d never know it from listening to many Christians. There’s only one way, and that’s it. Trouble is, someone else says the same thing about a different way. So there is a problem with being black and white on issues—you can be loudly and spectacularly wrong, or at least disagreed with.

On the other hand (of course!) there are problems with being gray. I can think of but two times when a biblical character is mentioned as being unsure. One of these is Thomas. The other is Gideon. That’s not very many. Paul and Peter, and the other writers of the New Testament, don’t seem to be exhorting us to be wishy-washy, or to nurse our doubts. Quite the contrary. So there’s also a problem with being gray.

I take some consolation from Gideon. Even though an angel appeared to him, and spoke to him, he still wasn’t sure. He asked for a sign. (More than one, in fact) And God didn’t strike him dead for testing Him. God gave him his signs. (I thought the angel was one!) God is not threatened or challenged if I’m really not sure about what He wants me to do, or believe.

I also take some consolation from Thomas. He refused to believe eyewitnesses. He wanted absolute proof. And then, Christ gave it to him. If I really need a sign, or a divine revelation, God can do that.

There are some gray questions, and some gray-thinking people. But there are some things that are certain. Even Thomas testified to that. He proclaimed Jesus as dead and risen Lord. My conclusion (I think) is that lots of things are uncertain, and it’s OK not to be sure of everything, but I’d better be sure of a few things, and the right ones. Thomas doubted, but he got the most important answer right. Jesus is the risen Lord and Christ. (John 20:28) That’s one thing I’d better be black and white on. The rest? Mostly gray.

1This footnote is to notify my regular readers that I intend to produce another post on Gray, at a later date, more or less like the one on, say, Green.

* * * *

August 24, 2009: That post is here.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.