The Shouting Universe

For as long as I can remember in school, I was told the same thing about how all life on earth began and evolved: "Yes, there are challenges. Yes, there are improbabilities - if not impossibilities - needed to be overcome. But, trust the scientists who agree that given enough time, anything can happen." That's what I heard in high school biology and in college. That's what we're told in the media, and from about everyone else in our society.

The modern theory of Darwinian Evolution is now accepted on a mass scale, and if you're one of the few who believe something to the contrary, you are looked at as though you believed the earth were flat. I'm not kidding - this comparison was made by my college professors. "Evolution is not JUST a theory," they say. I discovered then that all major proponents of Darwinian Evolution are aware of the holes in their philosophy, and are secretly hoping no one will notice that their worldview just can't hold water.

I still vividly remember my Biology 101 course where on the first day of class, my professor took the time to explain to us: "This course is entirely about Evolution, and everything we will discuss will go back to Evolution. Evolution is true, and it is a theory just like our current understanding of gravity is a theory - which means it's a fact." These words were pretty intimidating to me as an 18 year old freshman, but I did something way back then that still makes me chuckle ... after that first lecture I approached my professor's desk, introduced myself, then told her that I didn't believe in Evolution. I provided some of my reasoning, and indicated that it would be up to her to convince me by the end of the course. She took up the challenge by stating that it would be no problem for her because Evolution is provable on many levels.

Spoiler alert: by God's grace I passed. But as I progressed through the material, I began to realize some important shortcomings in the modern theory of evolution. The first is that the explanations for the origin of life were (and still are) pretty laughable. I'm sorry, but the theories about non-life spawning life near a volcano, in a soup-like substance, maybe / maybe-not being struck by lightning, embarrasses me. And these theories embarrass scientists too. What's worse is that we can't seem to replicate the process in the laboratory under perfect conditions and odds that we control! Secondly, we look at the similarities between lifeforms and determine that because Evolution can happen on a micro level, and does produce new species, we take the leap that greater useful complexity arises through natural selection! They don't stop with new species evolving, they must insist that new organs, new functions, and new kinds of lifeforms are developed through this process. Textbooks have cute little cartoons to demonstrate new developments, but don't explain *how* this happens.

As I handed in my final exam I leaned in and whispered to my professor: "I wasn't convinced..." She looked at me, smiled, and nodded.

Not too long ago, I finished reading one of the classic books against Evolution: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe. He and I don't see eye to eye on many things, but I would highly recommend this book to help refine your understanding of why Evolution is a flawed theory. He approaches the subject differently than many non-evolutionists do, for example, he doesn't argue from the fossil record. Instead, he argues that the fatal flaw in Darwinian Evolution is that they can't explain their theory on a molecular level.

"Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is as continuous as that of U.S. presidents. And if there are gaps, it does not matter whether they can be explained plausibly. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about whether the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step." (pg. 22).

Behe says later:

"It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place." (Bold Mine; pg. 28).

The real genius of his argument is the idea that complex systems (whether they be organs, or even functions within a cell), reach a point of irreducible complexity. Behe defines it this way:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." (pg. 39).

Darwin's Black Box covers 3 powerful examples of irreducibly complex systems that I found very compelling: the eye, blood clotting, and the immune system. Each of these examples are so powerful and persuasive because of everything involved in these systems. I know enough to know that the eye is a remarkable system, so remarkable in fact that there are countless components that comprise its sheer brilliance. Darwinian Evolution would have us believe that the eye developed in slow, gradual changes over time. But the question is rightly asked: what use is a partial eye to natural selection without key components to make it functional? For instance, an eye without a retina is useless, hence the idea that the eye must have arrived in its completed form by a designer.

"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta." (pg. 233).

It is this last idea that I appreciate but must go much further than he does, because Christians don't just believe in some unknown designer who fashioned life's complexity. Rather, we believe in the one and only God of the Bible, the triune God that we worship and love. Now having said that, I believe that there is incredible use in being able to address and discuss Evolution with people in today's society, because almost everyone you meet believes in Darwinian Evolution. People will want some kind of explanation, and this can help to address their concerns so that you can ultimately point them to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Last week I was talking with an atheist friend about the gospel, and the subject of Evolution suddenly made its way into the conversation. He thought, just like most people think, that Evolution is a scientific reason not to believe in Christianity and the Bible. Using some of the reasoning in Behe's book, I was able to demonstrate the unfoundedness of Evolution. I then immediately made the connection to the reality of God's existence: that the Bible says God has clearly revealed Himself in creation, and in the moral Law written on everyone's heart. My friend didn't like hearing any of this (no sinners do), but Behe is right that molecular biology is shouting at us: "design!"

We know, as Christians, that the entirety of the expanding universe is proclaiming the clear existence of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This is why our appeal to fellow sinners has merit, and why we ought to have great courage when speaking about the truth to others. I'm encouraged by the account of Paul's interaction with Agrippa where he tries to persuade the King to repent and believe in Christ:

"24 While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad." 25 But Paul *said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. 26 For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do." 28 Agrippa replied to Paul, " In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." 29 And Paul said, " I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains."" (Acts 26:24-29, NASB).

One thing is clear: God has revealed Himself to all men everywhere, and requires our repentance. By our love of the Lord and His gospel, and by the love we have for our fellow man, we should be looking for opportunities to make known the great God whom we serve with our whole heart.

"10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men," (2 Corinthians 5:10-11a, NASB).

The Suffering of LGBT People

“To all those who have suffered in silence for so long”

This is to whom Matthew Vines' new book is dedicated, and certainly caused me take a moment to consider the suffering of LGBT people.

I think Vines is on to something here. In fact, I agree with him that Lesbian / Gay / Bi-Sexual / Transgender people are suffering. Some suffering is caused by wicked people. For example, a man stabbed 6 people at a gay pride parade in Jerusalem a few weeks ago. That kind of violence is evil, and must be condemned by Christians. But most of the suffering LGBT people experience is brought on as a direct result of their sin. Sin produces suffering. It can only bring about misery and death: “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

In my Bible reading, I ran across this passage from Psalm 38:3-8 about our sin:

There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your indignation;

There is no health in my bones because of my sin.

For my iniquities are gone over my head;

As a heavy burden they weigh too much for me.

My wounds grow foul and fester

Because of my folly.

I am bent over and greatly bowed down;

I go mourning all day long.

For my loins are filled with burning,

And there is no soundness in my flesh.

I am benumbed and badly crushed;

I groan because of the agitation of my heart.

When we blatantly disobey God’s commands for our lives, this is the result. We lose sleep over our guilt. Sometimes we become sick because of how remorseful we feel. We mourn and groan, and become worse the more time goes on while we pretend everything’s A-Okay. I say all of this, not because I am better than homosexuals - because I’m not better than them. I’m just as sinful as they are. We both descended from Adam, the first man, and we both inherited our guilt from him. But I’m not surprised at all that LGBT people are miserable, because pretending that sin is a good thing will make you miserable! The only way to feel better is to make things right with your Maker.

My response to gay people is one of compassion. I can relate because I understand what it is to be tempted, and to sin. But it is because I love homosexuals that I will warn them of the truth: that God has prescribed for us a certain way to live, and that He is a holy God who is angry with sinners because of our sinful ways. I agree with John MacArthur who recently preached a sermon where he said that we need to warn unbelievers of the wrath to come. There is a final day of judgment coming where those who willfully remain in their sins will pay for their sins in Hell for all eternity.

If you love gay people, you will have compassion on them and warn them of God’s wrath to come. Their only hope is in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I’ll be completely honest with you: I’ve read some of the best books on both sides of this issue, and I was secretly hoping I could get by with listening to the audiobook version of Matthew Vines’ God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. I was breezing through the book, when I realized about halfway through that it deserved even more attention from me. It isn’t that this book is revolutionary, or has a ton of new arguments - there’s really nothing new in his book. To be fair, Vines doesn’t claim to offer anything new. What he does try to do is make his arguments more accessible to a wider audience, and to help train people to infiltrate conservative churches to begin changing them from the inside. It’s because of his goals with this book, and the movement he’s helping along, that I decided to actually read the book.

Matthew Vines didn’t surprise me at all that he believes homosexuals can be true Christians. What threw me for a loop was that he claims to believe in a “high view” of Scripture:

"Like most theologically conservative Christians, I hold what is often called a "high view" of the Bible. That means I Believe all of Scripture is inspired by God and authoritative for my life. While some parts of the Bible address cultural norms that do not directly apply to modern societies, all of Scripture is "useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2, Vines).

Now having finished the book, I believe that Vines’ constant revisionism of Scripture, proves his above statement to be very very false.

"Instead of accepting the divide between more progressive Christians who support marriage equality and conservative Christians who oppose it, this book envisions a future in which all Christians come to embrace and affirm their LGBT brothers and sisters - without undermining their commitment to the authority of the Bible." (3, Vines).

If you’re not careful you might miss the fact that from beginning to end, Vines assumes what he never proves: there there is such a thing as “gay Christians.” He says later on:

"Same-sex attraction is completely natural to me. It's not something I chose or something I can change. And while I could act on my sexual orientation in lustful ways, I could also express it in the context of a committed, monogamous relationship. But based on the traditional interpretation of Scripture, I am uniquely excluded from the possibility of romantic love and intimacy." (29, Vines).

I’ll be the first to admit that I was wrong about how I thought of homosexuality for most of my adult life. Until the past few years, I oversimplified all homosexuals with this summary statement: “Homosexuality is a choice.” Now, I don’t completely disagree with this either, but it isn’t sufficient and doesn’t accurately explain every single person who experiences same-sex attraction. What I mean is that I believe there are those who willfully choose homosexual practices simply out of rebellion (consider teenage rebellion against their parents, as one example), and not primarily because they experience same-sex attractions. Others do have a predisposition to same-sex attractions, and have no opposite-sex attractions at all.

Having said this, it is important to point out that just because one experiences same-sex attractions, or has a particular predisposition for same-sex attractions, doesn’t make homosexuality a good and just thing. Not all attractions and/or predispositions are good, and everyone knows this. I know this. You know this. We all have our own particular sinful predispositions that we ought to struggle against. Some people have a short tempter, others steal, and some struggle against same-sex attraction.

How we feel is never a test for what is good and true. Sometimes I feel like hitting other drivers with my car … that is not a good feeling, and I am forbidden by God to act on this. In fact, the Scripture says this about us:

The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

One final point on the above quote from Vines: “But based on the traditional interpretation of Scripture, I am uniquely excluded from the possibility of romantic love and intimacy.” He is correct that God and the Bible condemn homosexual practice. This does mean that even if God did save Matthew Vines and he continued to only experience same-sex attractions, he would be required by God to remain celibate for life. Scripture never promises us that we will be married, or experience opposite-sex attractions.

However, there is hope for the Christian because our identity isn’t found in our sexual attractions. We are so much more than that. We are made in God’s image, and if you’re a Christian you are a redeemed child of God! Your purpose is to glorify Him, not to satisfy your sexual desires. Jesus said: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Paul wrote to the Christians at Corinth, some who also were named as homosexuals: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). In other words, God radically transforms His redeemed saints. No longer are Christians known for their sin: it doesn’t (and can’t) define us, because the Lord has set us free from bondage to sin. The Scripture doesn’t promise that all sinful desire is removed from us in this life. Christians may well continue to have same-sex attractions after coming to personally know Jesus Christ. Even so, it would be completely inappropriate for Christians to identify themselves as homosexuals, because that is identifying with sin.

Vines’ primary argument recognizes that the Bible has nothing positive to say about homosexual practice. Instead, he tries to demonstrate that what the biblical writers addressed on this subject has nothing to do with our modern understanding of homosexuality:

"But let me say it again: When we study biblical writings about marriage and celibacy, the question is not whether Jesus, Paul, or anyone else endorsed same-sex marriage or whether they instead enjoined gay people to lifelong celibacy. They didn't directly do either one. As we saw in chapter 2, our understanding of same-sex orientation is uniquely modern, so the question we face is how to apply the basic principles of the Bible's teachings to this new situation." (48, Vines).

“We have to remember: what Paul was describing is fundamentally different from what we are discussing.” (103, Vines).

“Our question isn’t whether the Bible addresses the modern concepts of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage. We know it doesn’t. Instead, our question is: Can we translate basic biblical principles about marriage to this new situation without losing something essential in the process?”  (137, Vines).

What is truly amazing about this, and other similar statements in the book, is that he basically argues that the biblical writers (and ultimately God) didn’t understand our modern understanding of homosexuality and sexual orientation. Such a small god Matthew Vines claims to worship! Our heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it? Seemingly, according to Vines, with up-to-date psychology and our current cultural context, we can! The Scriptures have a different answer, however: “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind” (Jeremiah 17:10). Isn’t the point of Scripture that we don’t know our hearts as well as we think, and instead we are to depend on the God who made us, because He made our heart and mind? 

Vines does spend a good portion of the book attempting to revise traditional interpretations of many of the common condemnations of homosexuality in Scripture. I believe he spent the most time on Romans 1, and for good reason. Paul is incredibly clear: homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins. It is the primary example that the Apostle used to demonstrate what happens to people when God removes His restraining hand. Matthew Vines says over and over again that Paul wasn't aware of loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. He couldn't have had in mind our modern understanding of sexual orientation because pederasty and slave abuse was the most common form of same-sex relationships in Roman culture. 

Well, first off, Robert Gagnon demonstrates this argument to be utterly untrue in his book on the subject. Historically, Vines is simply wrong. There are documented cases of same-sex non-coercive relationships in ancient times. Biblically, Paul wasn't only condemning coercive homosexual practice (though that is certainly included), but the discussion in Romans 1 is regarding those who were mutually choosing to be involved. Paul said that they "burned in their desire toward one another." Clearly this can't be limited to coercive relationships between adults and boys, or slave-owners with slaves. 

“If the essence of marriage involves a covenant-keeping relationship of mutual self-giving, then two men or two women can fulfill that purpose as well as a man and a woman can.” (Page 137).

I wrote this in the margins next to this quote: “The words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are haunting your argument throughout the entire book.” The essence of marriage is not defined in the way Vines attempts to redefine it. Jesus - God in human flesh - when asked about marriage in Matthew 19 (and surely knew of our future context), explained that marriage was between one man and one woman. He explained the gift of gender, and that we were created male and female from the beginning. As inconvenient as it is for Vines, and other revisionists like him, Jesus said that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. These two shall become one flesh. He cited the Genesis account as authoritative, and argued for its truthfulness, which we must still do today.

Our culture has changed so quickly on this and other issues, that at times I feel like just giving up, as though we had no hope. But then the Holy Spirit uses the Scriptures to convict me of my poor attitude and reminds of the promises of our God: “For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a skillful psalm. God reigns over the nations, God sits on His holy throne.” (Psalm 47:7-8). I believe we have a wonderful opportunity in this dark time, and that is to be bold and faithful witnesses for our King. We have been redeemed from our sins, and if we really believe the truth then we must speak of what we know to be true. The message we preach is foolishness to the world, but we have this promise also: “Many will see and fear and will trust in the Lord” (Psalm 40:3).

I couldn’t resist but adding and concluding with these words from Paul:

Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. (Philippians 2:14-16).