My Condensed Witness

I haven't been writing on this blog lately.  Maybe you have noticed.  If so, thanks for your appreciation and encouragement.  I really enjoy writing on here, and the feedback that I get gives me more joy than I can describe.  But I have a lot going on right now, so the blog has been put aside in favor of other pursuits.  I hope to relaunch sometime in the coming months, possibly with a redesign and a whole new slant on the work God has called me to here.

This is a relatively unorthodox post, but since I had something written down, I wanted to share it with a wider audience.  I have remained active on an apologetics community on Google+, and there I have become acquainted with several people, among whom are a few atheists.  One guy in particular is a very genuine, respectful, and thoughtful atheist who has given me cause to seriously consider some of my beliefs and to hone my discourse.

Yesterday, this acquaintance asked me to give my personal reasons for adhering to Christianity.  It is a reasonable demand, and one which I think every Christian should be ready to answer (especially given 1 Peter 3:15).  Below is the answer I gave to him, which is a very condensed version of my personal faith journey.  I left quite a bit out since it was off-topic for the thread at hand, but I thought it might still be encouraging or useful for others to see, so I am posting it below.

Thanks for reading, and I hope to get back to writing more regularly soon.

Hey [person's name]. Thanks for the kind words. I'm going to try and sum up a lot of different thoughts I have about religion in a very short space (since it's sort of off-topic for this thread). Feel free to send me a message (I think I have chat open to anyone on my profile, you can check) if you have more questions. 

First, I know I'm not 100% neutral when coming into this topic since I grew up in a Christian home and have been going to church my whole life. I had some serious skepticism in high school about the existence of God and about Christianity in particular. To be honest, even though I would have called myself a Christian then, it was really just a way of making myself feel morally superior to the people around me. 

Senior year of high school, I decided that I either needed to be in or out for real. So I started reading the Bible every day, and to be honest, I was astounded how much difference it made in the way I thought and, necessarily, acted. Since I started taking Christianity seriously, I have had a huge increase in the amount of peace and joy that I feel in my life, as well as a decrease in the amount of stress I put on myself, envy, and pride in general. I realize that some people would say that there are other explanations for this, and I would grant them that possibility, but I know what I was like before I decided to take God seriously, and I am certain that I couldn't have changed like this on my own. There hasn't been a single "in my face" moment that cemented my faith permanently (even though I have been part of some pretty cool things). For me, it's the slow, gradual process of what I can only describe as God working in me over the past six years. 

As to why I am a theist in general: in my humble opinion, theism affords me a great deal that I just don't see in atheism. I have a ton of respect for you, [name], since you see beauty in nature without God and you still uphold morality without a preter-human source. I have been racking my brain for years trying to see how these and other constructs which I feel are unique to the theistic worldview could be feasible in atheism. But I haven't gotten there yet. Maybe it takes a person more intelligent than me, but I can't connect the dots. 

Do I admit that Christianity could be wrong? Yeah, I'll grant that. But the question of which religion is true (if any) is not a question without an answer. Assuming an afterlife, we are going to find out someday which religion is true, so I am picking one and sticking with it until it is proven obviously false. (This is more of a Pascal's Wager type answer for me.) There are certain criteria which I need before I can follow a religion, and Christianity meets all of those. For example, it includes a personal God who gave a direct message to His people. Also, it has been around for a very, very long time (I don't think if God were real He would have waited until now to reveal Himself, so I am leery of relatively "young" religions). It also gives me an objective morality (I know we've debated this some here, but I still hold to the objectivity). It also has an answer for what happens after death. And to be honest, the more I read the Bible, the more it just makes sense. The cohesiveness of Scripture and the beautiful picture that it paints keeps drawing me in further. 

So, in short: I'm a Christian because I'll never know everything, and therefore I'm willing to give God the benefit of the doubt. I'm a Christian because I gave it a shot and it changed my life. I'm a Christian because to me the world makes more sense with this philosophy. I'm a Christian because it gives my life purpose and direction. And I'm a Christian because the message of the Bible is beautiful to me.

Telephone Pictionary

"For last year's words belong to last year's language/ And next year's words await another voice." -T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

 As I am still working on putting the final touches to a very long blog post, I will again make this post a relatively short one.  What I am discussing this week is a difficulty I have had in discussing the Bible with certain atheists.  Being that this subject can often be troublesome enough, there have been times where I have been frustrated even further by one complication which seems to crop up again and again.

This particular issue I have is that some atheists, when they are debating the Bible, often read from the King James Version.  This particular translation of the Bible, which was originally completed in 1611 (Wikipedia), remains one of the most popular translations of the text even to this day.  And while there is nothing in particular wrong with the King James Translation in general, it is a horrible place for most modern people to begin when attempting to approach the Bible.  I will attempt to explain why.

But first, allow me to say that I have nothing against the good old KJV.  We modern English-speaking Christians owe a lot to people like William Tyndale and John Wycliffe who fought to bring the text of the Bible into a language that could be read and understood by people who were not clergy.  The democratization of scripture has been an important factor in shaping the church for the past few centuries (in a mostly positive way).  But that does not necessarily mean that there have never been any problems caused by using this translation.

You Don't Speak Early Modern English

Or maybe you do, but the vast majority of modern people who speak contemporary English do not speak Early Modern English.  This is the first difficulty I have seen with atheists approaching the KJV.  It is literally written in a different language!  Now, I'm not a fool.  I know that Early Modern English is very similar to Modern English in many respects, and much of the KJV can be properly understood, even if one only knows Modern English.  But there are certain significant differences which can confuse and even mislead modern readers if they do not have a sufficient enough background in this older form of communication.

It is due to this fact that I periodically see or hear an atheist talking about how ridiculous the Bible is and how stupid anyone would be to believe in such a book, and then go on to quote a passage from the KJV.  One I have seen recently references Isaiah 34:7- "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." (KJV)  Now, I understand that the wording here is awkward, especially when viewed through a 21st century lens.  But the remark that I have seen most commonly is usually some kind of mockery against Christians for believing in unicorns.

Who cares that this is a prophetic passage full of metaphor and doesn't imply that this is literally what is going to happen?  The very fact that a mythical creature is referenced seems to provide some kind of evidence against the Bible, right?  What these scoffers fail to understand is that the word unicorn here meant something totally different in King James' day than it does today.  In fact, as far as I can find, the English term did not have a well-defined meaning until at least the 18th century.  This chart (though not necessarily exhaustive) indicates that the term did not come into common usage until around 1750, more than a century after the KJV was completed.  Furthermore,the Hebrew word re'em (רֶאֵם), which is the word in question, is known to allude to a different creature entirely (this isn't my area of expertise; see Encyclopedia Mythica for more information).  This term may refer to a real animal, or it may not.  In any case, it is still a part of a metaphorical passage and does not in itself discredit the passage or the Bible as a whole.

Metamorphosis

So why was the scripture translated thus?  I do not know for certain, but I believe that the translators likely did not know the Jewish background of the word and so did a transliteration from the Latin Vulgate (see the verse here, with the Latin translation unicornes).  "Transliteration" is the process by which a new term is created in one language by stylizing a word from a different language which has no adequate counterpart in the destination language.  Many words have come into the English language in this manner.  It is perhaps unfortunate that the term unicorn has taken on a different denotation since the writing of the KJV.  Personally, I still think there is nothing wrong with its use, as long as one understands the background.

In this respect, reading the KJV can be a lot like playing Telephone Pictionary.  This is one of my all-time favorite games to play in a small group (see instructions here).  In short, one person will write a phrase on a piece of paper and then pass it to his neighbor who will draw a picture depicting that phrase.  The picture is then passed to the next player who writes his own phrase describing it.  This phrase is passed to another player who will draw another representation which will itself be interpreted, and so on.  With more and more iterations, the idea depicted on the paper usually gets farther and farther from the initial phrase, generally with hilarious results.

This is what we do many times when we approach the King James Version of the Bible.  This version of the Bible was translated from the original (Hebrew or Greek), and the translator had to be careful to understand the context of the scripture as well as the literal meaning of the words.  Due to the language barrier I described above, we then have to "translate" the Early Modern English text into terms we can understand.  But while doing this, we must be mindful of the context, not only of when the Bible was written but also of when it was translated.  And this can cause substantial difficulties.

"Authorized"

It is for this reason that I advocate using a more modern translation of the Bible.  Unfortunately, some in the English church itself have held onto the King James Version, dubbing it the "Authorized Version" some time around 1814. (again, Wikipedia)  This, among other factors, has led to it being seen as somehow greater than subsequent English-language translations.

Again, I have no major problems with the KJV, but I certainly do not think it is a good place for people who are new to Christianity to start.  So, which translation would I suggest?  Well, I don't think any one translation is far and away better than the rest, but there are some criteria which I would suggest sticking to when choosing a translation to read:

1. Pick a version which was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek.  This will help to avoid the "Telephone Pictionary" effect I described above.  Most modern translations fit this criteria.
2. Pick a version which was translated by a group of people.  In my opinion, groups are far less likely to make mistakes than individuals, and a variety of viewpoints can be invaluable to discerning the most accurate translation of a passage.  Again, most modern translations fit the bill, with the obvious exception of The Message.  There are many differing opinions on this particular translation.  I appreciate the work that Peterson did, and I have no particular objections to this translation, but I tend to stay away from using it for classes and other settings where word-by-word accuracy is important.
3. Pick a version that has been around for a while.  New translations are exciting and can offer new perspectives, but unless you have been a Biblical scholar for a long time, wait until these translations have been vetted by such scholars before using one for your personal study.

I believe quite deeply that the Bible is God's Word.  But I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that a translation error could have been made in a particular version of the text.  And certainly some such errors have been made.  But I have found that the modern translations which I have used are consistent and reliable.  My personal translation of choice (in case you haven't noticed) is the New International Version (NIV), primarily because I am most familiar with this translation (as of the writing of this post, I have read it all the way through more than three times).  However, I also like versions such as the New American Standard (NASB), the New Revised Standard (NRSV), the English Standard (ESV), the New King James (NJKV), the Amplified Bible (AMP), the New Living Translation (NLT), and others.  Each has great value, and I have utilized each for various instances.

The point is, if you are new to the Bible, pick a modern translation that you like and stick with it for a while.  The King James Version is still very useful.  It has a poetry to it that is unlike most modern translations, and the fact that it is less accessible is not always a bad thing for Christians who have been digesting the Word for a long time.  But if you are new to this book, unless you only speak the Middle Early form of English, I would suggest letting the Authorized Version sit for a while.  And we Christians, when talking to someone who is relatively new to the text, would also do well to stay away from the KJV.

I thank God for the people who have worked to create a Bible that I can understand, and I pray blessings on those who continue to update it in our language and those who work hard to bring it to new languages.  This is a book truly unlike any other.

"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?  And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?  And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?  As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'" -Romans 10:14-15

Lost in Translation

I'm in the process of editing what will be one of the longest and (I hope) most important blog posts I have done on this site.  Unfortunately, this blog has languished while I have been giving my attention to that particular post.  I apologize to everyone who has been a supporter of this endeavor; I know it's difficult to follow a thread like this when the posting is inconsistent.  Hopefully I will be able to publish that post before too long and get back to a more regular schedule.  In the mean time, I will be posting lighter topics which will have substantially less discussion.  Thank you for your patience.

Recently I have abandoned most of my typical social networking activity in favor of reading and discussing on Google+.  In particular, I have found a group on that site which is focused on discussing apologetics topics.  The majority of the participants in this community are Christians, but there have been some active atheist participants there as well.

Now, I understand that there is necessarily some tension between people of differing worldviews when it comes to topics of philosophy, and a certain amount of conflict is not a bad thing.  In fact, I am a huge proponent of public debate (the real thing, not what you see on TV) and I love discussing divisive topics with people I don't necessarily agree with.  But there are certain ways to express what I think and how I feel that are immeasurably more effective than others.

A common issue I have had when discussing various topics about my faith is simply a cultural one.  In order to have a proper debate, there must be at least a small amount of agreement between the two parties so that the merits of each side can be properly assessed.  This sliver of understanding is typically philosophical in nature, and it is usually relatively foundational to either side's stance on the topic.

Intruding on the Premises

To illustrate this point, let's examine the case of two people debating whether or not music education should be taught in public schools.  There might be several different positions people can take on this issue, but in order to debate the topic in any meaningful way, a seed of consensus must be established.  This point of agreement is often called a premise.  It might not be explicitly stated, but it is there.

In this case, it is likely that all parties involved in the debate agree that the students' best interests should be one of the most important factors in deciding whether or not to teach music.  Another point of contention could be that since the school system's money is limited, monetary concerns are valid.  All parties might also agree that the program should only be implemented if an adequate instructor can be found.  These considerations, among others, are either explicitly or implicitly agreed upon before meaningful conversation can be had.

The debate itself will likely center around these philosophical foundations.  How do we define students' "best interests?"  And what criteria should we use to determine whether or not music education will further that goal?  How should we divide up the school system's limited resources?  What exactly constitutes an "adequate" instructor?  All of these are questions which might get thrown out once the debate has begun.

For a second, imagine what the process would be like if there were a participant in this discussion who did not agree to one of the premises stated above.  Suppose we were forced to spend the entire debate trying to convince this person that we should have the students' best interests in mind.  There would be no time for a productive debate which might yield a mutually agreeable solution to the issue at hand.  Instead, we would be locked in a fruitless argument with very little ground on which to establish premises with the agitator.  I'm not saying that this discussion would be impossible or that no positive outcomes could be had, but the original question would not have been touched.

I Feel Your Pain

Disclaimer: I am not writing this blog post in an attempt to set forth my beliefs about creationism.  Please keep all comments on topic.  Comments attempting to support or refute creationism or evolutionary theory will be deleted.  There is a time and place for those discussions, but this is not it.

I think many times discussions between atheists and theists suffer from complications like that in the example above.  Even when both sides are respectful and have a sincere passion for the truth, their philosophical foundations can make it impossible for them to communicate on the same wavelength.

The most common example which I have seen in my own life is in discussions about evolutionary theory and creationism.  I am a creationist, and this has driven many of the atheists I talk to crazy, because they are convinced that in order to hold this worldview I have to ignore the entirety of modern science.  The evidence, they say, points conclusively to life which is a happy accident of chemical reactions.

It might surprise them, then, to discover that I agree, in a sense.  The evidence certainly seems to support this hypothesis (to say conclusively is an extreme overstatement), if we first assume that there is no God.  I will grant that if God does not exist, then global speciation by natural selection is the most likely explanation for how all of life got here.

However, I do not grant this philosophical assumption.  In my particular paradigm, it is indeed possible that God created everything on earth in a relatively short amount of time, and that life has been vast and varied virtually from its inception.  And I maintain that at least the majority of the evidence which, to the atheist, must support evolutionary theory can just as adequately be used to support a creationist view of the world.

Therefore, there is always a frustration which results on the part of the atheist when we discuss evolutionary theory.  Why?  Because there is a philosophical disparity which hinders our proper communication.  I feel the same frustration when I am discussing morality with atheists.  It can become a real problem, especially when the void left by normal debate tactics is filled by ad hominem attacks and the like.

So what should the fallout of this discussion be?  Should we abandon discourse altogether between atheists and theists?  Certainly not.  But we should always be mindful of these difficulties when debating with people who hold to other worldviews.  My two basic rules of debate are: (1) Be respectful and (2) Be reasonable.  If we can maintain these two attitudes and attempt to understand the source of the other person's views, we might just be able to have some productive conversation.  That is my hope and my prayer, at any rate.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." -1 Corinthians 1:18

"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  ...And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." -1 Corinthians 15:13-14,17-19

To Infinity... and Beyond!

"Infinity itself looks flat and uninteresting. Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity—distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless." -Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

It has been my experience that very few people spend time thinking about infinity.  They are hardly to blame; as a mathematical concept it is relatively new and mostly ignored at levels lower than calculus.  And this idea barely exists outside of the theoretical realm.  I mean, let's face it, most of the things we describe as "unlimited" are anything but: just look at the recent law suits surrounding cell phone companies and their so-called unlimited data plans.

I believe that this is largely due to the fact that everything we see around us is just the opposite of infinite.  The physical world seems bound by the immutable law of finiteness.  Our money, our time, the population of earth, the number of stars in the galaxy, even the number of atoms in the universe.  All are limited, all quantifiable, all finite.

And in all our experience, we start to think that this must be all there is, that everything in the entire universe must be bounded.  We start to doubt the infinite, and all of a sudden existence starts to seem, well, rather small.  But there are still some out there who claim that infinity is not just a whimsical artifact of mathematical theory.  The Bible itself rails against the notion of existential delimitation: that is to say, the notion that a thing must be finite in order to exist.  In order to describe the deity pertinent to its narrative, this book throws around words like eternal and everlasting.  These words are also used to describe the kingdom that is coming to this earth, and which is inextricably tied to God Himself.

Missing the Forest for the Trees

But how can this be?  Surely anything that claims to be infinite, even in duration, must be completely imaginary.  Only in theory can something truly be boundless.  In fact, I am writing this blog post because I was asked a question very similar to this.  How can someone logically believe in eternal life, or eternity at all?  Now, I do not claim to have a perfect answer to this question, but I would begin my answer by pointing out the practicality of infinity.

We are given to think that nothing around is is infinite, but in that we are mostly incorrect.  It is perhaps true that mankind can never fully understand the concept of infinity, but we can certainly do a little better than this.  Think about all the examples I stated above and you will begin to see the error in our thinking.  What is the one thing that money, population (I'll get to time shortly), stars, and atoms all have in common?  They are all discrete.  Now, do not confuse my meaning.  The mathematicians among us will recognize that this is not discreet, meaning "modestly unobtrusive" (Dictionary.com), but rather the idea of individual parts of a whole.  Each of these examples is one piece of many, and of course there can only be a finite number of them in existence.

Such a digital world we live in!  This way of thinking has even pervaded our sense of time, such that we are only able to conceive of it in terms of seconds and hours and centuries.  And to all these there is surely a limit.  But to a certain group among us, there is another aspect of time which entrances us, which drives us mad for our lack of full comprehension.  This quality which so intrigues and so vexes is what I can most accurately describe as continuity.

Infinity Contained

In my time as a university student, I have taken several different classes which involved not a small amount of mathematical modeling.  And if there is one thing such modeling will impress upon a student, it is how nearly futile the idea itself is.  As George E.P. Box said, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."  Certainly, some processes, like the effect of a single force on a single body, can very nearly be approximated by simple mathematical prestidigitation, but these cases are rare, and they even contain a marginal amount of error.

The reasons for this inaccuracy are many, but I wish to press one in particular upon the reader.  This is the continuity of certain phenomena.  If time were really, in essence, made of tiny, discrete pieces, then there would be a perfect, divisible (i.e. digital) mathematical model for nearly every system and process on earth (or at least a great many more than there are now).  To avoid going too in-depth suffice it to say that this has much to do with the properties of differential equations, which are central to mathematical modeling but are usually impossible to solve with the information provided by nature.  What is done in practice many times is that the whole of something is broken up into smaller pieces, which can be individually analyzed.  This "discretized" model is often adequate for many applications in control theory and physics.  Thus we have studies such as Finite Element Analysis and Discrete Mathematics.

At any rate, the point is that time and other phenomena are not truly discrete, and therefore they can cause problems in algorithms based on discretization.  This can also cause major problems in digital instrumentation: digital machines are capable of reading a signal at certain time intervals—whatever happens in between two different readings is lost.  And because of their discrete natures, these models and machines are fundamentally incapable of ever providing a perfect picture of nature.

What I am attempting to explain (in a far more circuitous way than I first intended), is that time, when considered as an entity, is infinite.  Consider the space of a second: there are infinitely many individual moments contained in this "finite" set of time.  Or think about a ruler.  You can divide an inch into two half-inches, and each half inch into two quarter-inches, and each quarter inch in half again.  The space which resides inside an inch on your ruler is, in a very real sense, infinite.  Instead of all the atoms in the universe, let us consider the mass of only one.  No matter how small an atom might look, it is conceivable that its "mass" (whatever that means) can be divided into infinitely many "pieces."  Even in light of the size of the universe, the difference between empty space and a single atom is infinite, in almost every meaning of the word.  How vain of us to package up the infinite in our tiny, comprehensible units so that we can pretend it does not exist!

Ad Infinitum

I was going to spend some time discussing how the sheer practicality of infinity in the world of mathematics must lend it some significance, but I feel that this argument would be superfluous and hardly impactful after the discussion above.  Suffice it to say that the concept of infinity is nearly as useful to mathematics (especially at and above the level of calculus) as is the concept of zero (which, coincidentally, could be called infinity's multiplicative inverse).

Now, this argument does very little to prove the existence of something which is innumerable (or perhaps indivisible), but I believe it goes a long way in suggesting that infinity can and does exist in the physical universe, especially with regard to unity and continuity.  In this respect, one of the most important concepts in all of Scripture is the idea that God is One. (Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29)  In this sense, God at the very least contains infinity, even if it doesn't say that He takes up an infinite amount of space and/or time.

Perhaps I will strive to show in another post that these ideas too are true (or at least possible) for God.  For now, however, I think this discussion should suffice.  I hope I did not bore my readers; at any rate, this was an important idea for me to put into writing.

"How great you are, Sovereign Lord!  There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears....  You have established your people Israel as your very own forever, and you, Lord, have become their God. 

"And now, Lord God, keep forever the promise you have made concerning your servant and his house.  Do as you promised, so that your name will be great forever.  Then people will say, 'The Lord Almighty is God over Israel!'  And the house of your servant David will be established in your sight. 

"...Now be pleased to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever in your sight; for you, Sovereign Lord, have spoken, and with your blessing the house of your servant will be blessed forever." -2 Samuel 7:22, 24-26, 29

(Still) Good News

"People write negative things, because they feel that's what sells. Good news to them, doesn't sell." -Michael Jackson

After taking a protracted absence, I am excited to once again return to writing at this blog.  I spent the summer catching up on some much-needed rest, but in the process I lost the habit of sitting down and writing each week, which has obviously led to a longer break than I originally intended.  I cannot describe how glad I am to be writing again, and hopefully my efforts in this area will not be wasted.  For those of you who are returning to read after a while, I thank you for your patience and grace toward me, and for those of you who may be new to this blog, I pray that you find it thought-provoking and encouraging.

Since I have not been writing regularly, I have been spending a little less time pondering deeper questions of apologetics, and I have been trying to focus on a slightly simpler concept of Christian theology: the Gospel.  Most people know this word comes from the Old English for "good news," and that when considering the structure of the Bible, it generally signifies the first four books of the New Testament.  In general, however, this term simply refers to the message of the life of Jesus Christ and the redemption and salvation He brought.

I Heard an Old, Old Story

If you are a modern American, there is a fair probability that you either grew up in a church setting.  If not, it is still at least moderately probable that you know the gist of this story from other sources.  This tale is (or more accurately, has been) so pervasive in Western culture that it is nearly impossible to ignore, especially during times like Christmas and Easter.

What I am trying to say is that most people in our society have heard of Jesus in at least some capacity, and after a while it seems like the story might have gotten worn out.  It is more exciting to talk about gifts and travel during Christmastime; Easter seems to be more about good fashion than Good News.  And, let's be honest, this is the way things always go with great stories.  They catch your attention and fascination for a while, but eventually they lose their luster.

Certainly I have gone through my share of seasons where the Gospel is a story I know, but not one I get excited about.  Sometimes I read my Bible more out of habit than from a hunger for more of the Word.  Does this make me a bad Christian?  If you're asking that, then I'd say you've got a skewed concept of what constitutes a Christian.  We are all imperfect, and the amount the Gospel impacts our hearts at various times is correspondingly flawed.

This Old House

But let me tell you, this story never gets old.  Sure, it feels old at times, but each time I decide to come back to it with a fresh mindset, I find the whole narrative so invigorating that all I can do is just sit and think how unbelievably fortunate I am to be a part of it all.  Has the Book changed?  No.  I've been reading out of the same copy of the Bible consistently for four and a half years, and the message never changes.  But I change, and my attitude and perspective change.  And the same News I found to be so Good months earlier strikes me with its benevolence all over again.

The trick is to just keep reading.  Even if this book seems old and uninteresting, all it takes is a slight change in perspective to cause whole new ideas to jump off the page at you.  Just like giving a room in an old house a new coat of paint, new parts of passages can be emphasized and different sections brought into stark relief.  The Gospel feels renewed, and so does your spirit.

I have honestly never met another book like the Bible.  It is so well-aligned with the human spirit and so consistently pertinent to my life that I find it both immediately applicable to my life and intriguingly evasive to my comprehension at the same time.  The Gospel is simple enough for fishermen like James and John to understand it, yet deep enough that a life-long scholar still threw up his hands in consternation at times. "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." (1 Cor. 1:25)  It is because of this that I somewhat understand what the writer means when he states that "the word of God is alive and active." (Hebrews 4:12)  It's a book that has been around many years, but it still has more than enough vitality.

Here's the Point

I say all of this to help you understand a little of why I love the Gospel so much.  Sometimes I get caught up in the specifics: "old-earth creationism" this, "ontological argument" that.  Apologetics is a meritorious study, but what most of the world needs, as always, is not the most correct version of Jesus, but simply Jesus.  I love to discuss topics of theology and philosophy as much as the next guy, but if the next guy and I are ignoring spreading the Gospel in order to have these debates, then we need to re-examine our priorities.  We should, as always, remember the last encouragement Christ gave His disciples before he ascended into Heaven, that they would be His "witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

Finally, I want to impress upon any Christian reading this that reading the Bible consistently (i.e. daily) is essential to the Christian life.  It is the only way I know of to guarantee that the message written therein will at least begin to stick.  This book means so much to me, both as a guide for living and as a description of the life of the Man who was God.  I cannot stress this enough: Christians need to read their Bibles.  If we were consistently doing this, there would be much less misinformation circulating through American media today.

To conclude, I want to say that I am not trying to call out one person or group in writing this.  This post is simply my thoughts about the Gospel and its importance, as well as its priority over apologetics.  I keep praying that this book would continue to have monumental impacts in the lives of people and that those people would not neglect to read it.  Selah.

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.  These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts.  Impress them on your children.  Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.  Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.  Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates." -Deuteronomy 6:4-9