Understanding Lent

In case you’ve missed the subtle reminders (ads for fish sandwich Fridays and friends’ Facebook posts divulging what they’re giving up), the season of Lent is upon us. Some view the 40ish-days (this is addressed later) before Easter as preparation for celebration of Christ’s resurrection. Others claim it’s a man-made ritual that does little to bring anyone closer to the cross. Those in the middle might make a crack about the fuzz found at the bottom of pockets (lint).

To help bring clarity to a perhaps otherwise fuzzy topic, I connected with philosopher/theologian Kenneth Samples.

Ken, many people consider the observance of Lent as unique to the Roman Catholic Church. Are there other denominations that recognize the season?

These days I think engaging in Lent is much more popular in liturgical traditions: Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and, to some extent, Reformed. The typical Baptist or Assemblies of God or Evangelical Free Church might not have much connection.

Can you explain a few aspects of Lent for those unfamiliar?

When you think about it historically, Easter resides at the heart of all branches of Christendom; Lent is this period between Ash Wednesday and Easter. It commemorates Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness and serves as a time of anticipation and preparation. It’s a time to think about the investment God made in salvation, the weightiness of it all. We think also about our sins and the need for repentance as well as the luxuries we have and what we can do without. Lent is especially highlighted during Holy Week—from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday.

What about the biblical significance of the events observed during Lent—Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday?

Ash Wednesday is a time to recognize that we are more sinful than we really know and to anticipate the forgiveness in Christ that came through His death and resurrection. Palm Sunday marks Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem where, less than a week later, he would be crucified. Maundy Thursday recalls the last supper and Christ’s agony. Good Friday is the most solemn day, the day Christ died for our sins. And then we have the great celebration of Easter.

They’re powerful days to think about the Gospel. I see them as having a real biblical basis. As for verses we might point to in support of Ash Wednesday, I think there’s a strong emphasis on a time of repentance. But specific verses? That might be doubtful. It might be more general than specific, such as with the lighting of the candles and special Scripture readings and hymns during the Advent season.

It seems there’s little going on between Ash Wednesday and the next holy day, Palm Sunday.

The length of days represents a connection to Jesus’ fasting for 40 days.

And yet Lent is actually longer than 40 days. I’ve read that this is because Sundays are considered “mini-Easters” and are, therefore, not counted. Is that correct?

I’m not sure except to say that in many of the liturgical churches, Sundays are the Lord’s Day. So every Sunday is, in one sense, another Resurrection Day. It’s like every single week is pointing you to the Resurrection.

What about the criticisms of observing Lent? I’ve heard various arguments; in fact I had a few of my own while growing up in a Catholic home. Usually the concerns are that we ought not be held to a schedule and that we ought to reflect on Christ’s sacrifice at all times, not just on specific days of the year.

It’s important to remember that, as believers, our lives are now caught up in Christ’s life. And the church year recalls and celebrates the events of Christ’s life. Christmas brings us to the Incarnation. The Resurrection is the other side of the church year. I think for far too many Christians who are not part of a liturgical body, all they have when thinking about the Resurrection are Good Friday and Easter Sunday. I like the church year because it brings my everyday life a little closer to Christ’s life.

Some would still argue that giving up chocolate, for instance, does nothing to share in Christ’s suffering.

I don’t think there’s anything petty about giving up something you really enjoy when it’s to say, “Lord, I’m trying to draw all my attention to you.” That’s an individual’s decision. If it’s motivated by grace and out of gratitude for God, I’m not going to tell people how to practice their Lent season.

What about abstaining from meat on Fridays? How does one look at that in light of 1 Corinthians 8 that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat?

That practice of abstaining from meat is probably unique to Catholicism. I’ve never heard of it in other theological traditions. Yet I think it has to do with the idea of sacrifice. I look favorably on Lent if it’s celebrated in light of and because of grace, not in a legalistic, superstitious way, as if bargaining with God. As for fasting, it’s not easy to fast, but when it’s done, it ought to be done with prayer and out of gratitude.

Some might disagree with your acceptance of a predominantly Catholic practice.

I don’t want to sidestep the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism because we do differ. But I think we sometimes overlook the similarities. As branches of Christendom, we need to learn how to get along with each other.

Reminds me of one of my favorite verses, “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity” (Psalm 133:1).

Yeah. That’s a good verse.

***

What I garnered from reflecting on Lent is that all branches of Christianity are equally connected to the 40 days Christ spent alone and hungry in the wilderness, then His entrance into Jerusalem, the Last Supper, Christ’s agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, His Passion, and His Resurrection. Whether that means filet o’ fish Friday or not depends on the individual. But the body is the body, and it’s intertwined with Christ every day of the (liturgical) year.

What do you think about Lent? Is there something you’ve made a decision to give up or focus on during this season?

– Sandra

Related Articles:

It Is a Good Friday

Three Reasons I Love the Advent Season

If Christ Had Not Been Raised: Reasoning through the Resurrection

 

Science, Faith, Reason, Sporks

In the opening scenes of Disney and Pixar’s Wall-E, the titular robot returns home from a full day of garbage cleanup with a little pile of treasures to add to his extensive collection. Carefully, Wall-E puts each item in its place, but a spork stumps him. Does it go with the spoons or with the forks?

Like Wall-E, many of us like to fit things, people, and ideas into neatly structured categories. In the realm of science-faith issues, there seems to be a tendency to compartmentalize the different “sides” of the discussion. As an example, check out the mission statement for Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins’ foundation:

The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

It’s daunting for Christians (or any person of faith, really) to engage in the discussion when we’re pigeon-holed in a category with “fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.” Meanwhile, the claims to clear thinking, free thought, rationality, and reason appear to give the naturalistic worldview an edge in the marketplace of ideas.

But are naturalism and all its branches of thought always as reasonable and logical as they’re portrayed to be?

Closer inspection reveals a number of questionable philosophical assumptions undergirding the naturalist worldview. Christian philosophers Kenneth Samples (of Reasons To Believe) and Dr. Paul Copan (of Palm Beach Atlantic University) both do excellent jobs of analyzing naturalism’s assumptions in their respective books—A World of Difference (Samples) and “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” (Copan).

For example, some branches of naturalism hold to scientism, a philosophical concept that exalts scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge. It is not, however, the same thing as science itself (the study of the natural world). Samples explains:

Scientism maintains a very narrow focus in the types of things it permits as candidates for authentic knowledge and truth….Restricting the possibility of knowledge to the realm of the natural sciences means that religious, philosophical, aesthetic, and moral statements have little or no contribution to make in terms of knowledge and truth.

Copan points out (emphasis original):

The viewpoint of scientism is both arbitrary and self-refuting (and thus incoherent). It demands that all truth-claims have to be scientifically (empirically) verifiable. However, this viewpoint is simply arbitrary. Furthermore, there’s no way to verify scientifically that all truth-claims must be scientifically verifiable. This viewpoint isn’t the result of scientific research (a scientific conclusion); it’s a philosophical assumption.

Not only are such assumptions incoherent, they also place unnecessary and hindering limits on the possible explanations for the nature of the universe and the human experience. Excluding supernatural explanations and theological and philosophical knowledge reveals a prejudice against the nonnatural that is, in Copan’s words, “arbitrary and dogmatic.” Science can’t explain everything. As Samples puts it, “In reality, science alone cannot explain some of the most meaningful human realities of life (for example, values, aesthetics, and meaning).”

It’s no secret that Christianity (indeed, all belief systems) has its fair share of nonsensical and radical devotees. However, it is not fair or even correct to label us all as irrational or ignorant simply because we believe in a supernatural God. Likewise, naturalism is not as uniformly logical and clear-minded as its followers like to claim. Neither group—believers nor skeptics—can be defined by such neat categories.

Perhaps we all belong with the sporks.

— Maureen

Resources: Check out these books by Kenneth Samples and Paul Copan for a little logic and reason from the Christian side of the fence.

• A World of Difference by Samples
• Without a Doubt by Samples
• “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” by Copan
• Is God a Moral Monster? by Copan

Special event: On March 24, people from every facet of the secular movement will converge on Washington DC for a Reason Rally billed as “the largest secular event in world history.” Christian apologetics groups like Ratio Christi and the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance are joining together to represent Christ lovingly and gently in this unique environment. Check out their efforts at www.truereason.org/.

 

Why Do We Have So Much (Cosmic) Stuff?

They say the top three most stressful life events are death, divorce, and….moving. Recent experience tells me why the latter makes the list.

Friends and family stressed their muscles lifting heavy boxes, while I stressed my nerves over the thought of unpacking the seemingly endless piles of stuff. A space heater, several garden gnomes, and a long-forgotten George Foreman Grill flashed back at me like the strobe light from last Halloween. And the message was clear: Do we really need all this stuff?

Others wonder the same thing when taking inventory of the universe.

Astronomers estimate there are somewhere between 200 and 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. And there are perhaps a hundred billion trillion or a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. These numbers alone seem ridiculously huge, and yet stars together with galaxies, gas clouds, planets, and burnt out extinct stars account for 0.27 of the cosmic “stuff” in the universe. (Darkness represents the remaining 99.73 percent.)

It’s no wonder, then, that skeptics question why an all-powerful God would create a universe filled with so much stuff. If His goal was to provide humanity with a home, couldn’t He have made do with less?

Let’s consider for a moment the importance of the “stuff” He created.

Here’s what the evidence says.

In Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, astronomer Hugh Ross explains that the amount of cosmic mass must be extraordinarily fine-tuned (one part in 10⁶⁰) for life to exist. In fact, he says, “the degree of fine-tuning is so great that it’s as if right after the universe’s beginning someone could have destroyed the possibility of life within it by subtracting a single dime’s mass…” One reason is that mass impacts the expansion rate, which also must be highly fine-tuned for life to be possible.

In If God Made the Universe… Hugh lists uranium and thorium abundances among the many cosmic features that must exist at just-right levels and times or we wouldn’t be here to discover them. Or, as another scientist put it briefly, “It’s as if the universe knew we were coming.”

We are living at a unique time and place to witness the whole history of cosmic creation. And this is the amazing message it reveals: “Given the vast quantity of time and resources involved in creating a cosmic home for humanity…only one conclusion makes sense: The Creator of the cosmos places an extremely high value on and has a purpose for human beings.”

 

– Sandra

 

Personality Profile

“I certainly have not the talent which some people possess,” said Darcy, “of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done.”  —Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Like Mr. Darcy of Jane Austen fame, I am an introvert. You’re more likely to find me curled up with a book or watching a movie alone than hobnobbing with friends. Though I’m not necessarily shy, social interaction of any kind, but especially with strangers, exhausts me.

According to the cover article of a recent issue of Time, an estimated 30 percent of the human population is introverted. Article author Bryan Walsh, himself an introvert, explains, “While extroverts draw energy from mingling with large groups of people…introverts find such social interactions taxing.”

For introverts, alone time is vital.

Thanks to advanced technology and ambitious experiments, scientists have discovered that temperament, whether introverted or extroverted, “seems strongly inborn and inherited.” Researchers found that even brain activity can differ between introverts and extroverts.

As I perused the Time article, several things stood out to me.

• Human personalities are incredibly complex. Many factors, temperament included, go into making each individual a unique entity. Sure, certain animals possess distinctive personalities, but not to the extent that humans do.
• Only humans show an interest in studying such things as temperament and personality. Animals don’t analyze each other to find out what makes the other tick. Even more amazing is the fact that we humans are capable of understanding the things we study.
• The human brain is incredibly intricate. Whole sections of our brain are dedicated to relational, intellectual, and communication functions in ways that far exceed even the cleverest critter. Moreover, research suggests that delayed human brain development—compared to animals’—contributes to our enhanced intellectual abilities.

These uniquely human characteristics make me question naturalism’s explanatory power. The mental gulf between humans and animals is enormous despite our shared biological similarities. When I discussed the Time article with RTB philosopher/theologian Ken Samples, also a fellow introvert, he reminded me that human beings appear to differ from animals not only in degree, but also in kind. We’re in a category all our own.

Ken further commented that, while naturalism has yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation for this categorical difference, Christianity attributes it to the fact that we humans bear the image of God. The imago Dei may not be empirically detectable, but as Ken says, “it is demonstrable; we can observe that it’s true” just by looking at the extreme differences between human and animal behavior.

The study of extroversion versus introversion makes another important point: God loves diversity. I’m really glad He saw fit to make us not only different from the animals, but also different from each other by giving each person a special piece of His image to bear. Life is so much more entertaining that way.

— Maureen

Resources: For a demonstration of how Christianity and naturalism measure up as viable worldviews, check out Ken’s book A World Difference. For more on the differences between animals and humans, see Hugh Ross’ latest book, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serving up Sweet FAQs

A casual dinner with my sister reminded me of one of her endearing (and enduring) traits—a penchant­ for sweets. You’d hardly believe it given her small frame, but she readily fesses up that she “eats dinner to get to dessert.”

If there’s one “sweet” thing RTB president Hugh Ross can’t get enough of, it’s Q&A. In fact, the staff often joke that he does talks to get to the Q&A. Of all the questions asked, there are a few staples that Hugh and the other scholars (as well as staff) have come to anticipate.

Here is just a sampling of some of the tasty questions and our responses. Hopefully they will whet your appetite enough to encourage you to grab a second helping and check out the additional resources.

What is RTB’s view on the creation “days” in Genesis?

There are four literal interpretations for the Hebrew word for “day” (yom): part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, 24 hours, or a long but finite period of time. RTB posits that, when considering all biblical creation accounts, the case for long but finite creation days best fits the biblical and scientific evidence.

RTB Topic page: Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth

Article: “The Major Biblical Creation Texts/Creation Accounts”

Take Two post: “Let There Be Light!”

What is RTB’s position on the big bang?

Scientists say the universe had a beginning, is stretching, and will eventually come to an end. Verses like Genesis 1:1–2, Job 9:8, and 2 Peter 3:10 preempted scientific discovery of these properties by nearly two thousand years. RTB considers the big bang “one of the most potent evidences for the existence of God,” specifically the God of the Bible.

RTB Topic page: Big Bang

Article: “Is the Big Bang Biblical?”

Take Two post: “Nacho Average Discovery”

Is belief in an old earth the same as belief in evolution?

RTB scholars believe that God miraculously intervened millions, possibly even billions, of times throughout the history of the universe not only to prepare it for life but also to create each and every new species of life on Earth. Our theistic evolutionist friends would say God initially created and then guided (in some sense) the process through biological evolution to generate life’s history. They would therefore take a nonliteral view of the creation narrative.

RTB 101 page: Theistic Evolution

Article: “Thinking about Theistic Evolution”

Take Two post: “Checking Out the Menu”

What about Adam and Eve?

RTB firmly believes that God supernaturally intervened to create the first human beings (historical Adam and Eve) and endowed them with His image. RTB views hominids and similar creatures (primates) as distinct from humans and not made in God’s image.

RTB 101 page: Hominids; Historical Adam

Straight Thinking podcast: “Did Adam & Eve Really Exist? Jack Collins Interview Parts 1, 2, 3, 4”

Take Two post: “Knuckle Walking to Knuckle Sandwiches”

What is RTB’s position on animal death before the Fall?

Romans 5:12 is often cited as support for the view that no animal death occurred before Adam sinned. Yet a careful examination of the text shows that Adam’s sin introduced death to all humans. RTB views carnivorous activity not as the direct result of sin but as a part of God’s original creation (which is not His ultimate creation) and an example of His provision.

RTB Topic page: Animal Death before Adam

I Didn’t Know That! podcast: “We’re All Related?,Falling Animals and Let’s All Get Along”

Take Two post: “Red in Tooth and Claw”

So…where do dinosaurs fit in all of this?

Some Christians interpret the “behemoth” and “leviathan” mentioned in Job 40–41 as referring to dinosaurs. This view assumes that humanity lived at the same time as dinosaurs. RTB maintains that dinosaurs went extinct long before humanity entered the scene. RTB posits that the behemoth and leviathan mentioned in Job most likely refer to the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively.

RTB 101 page: Dinosaurs

Article: “RTB’s Position on Dinosaurs”

Take Two post: “Past Watchful Dragons”

——-

These are just a few of the many questions brought to the science-faith table. While they may not be as appetizing as the white chocolate cranberry cookies my sister always serves, those curious about God’s Word (Scripture) and God’s world (nature) hunger for answers. And Hugh and the crew are happy to serve up a reply.

Do you have a science-faith question you’d like answered? Send it to ask@reasons.org and it might get on the air. But be sure to skim the I Didn’t Know That! archives to find out if the scholars have already dished out a response.

– Sandra

 

Past Watchful Dragons

This month’s Chinese New Year celebrations will usher in 2012 as the year of the dragon. These legendary beasties have been a favorite fairytale and mythology staple for eons. But are dragons really just figments of our imaginations? Or are they evidence of ancient humans’ encounters with living dinosaurs?

The timing of dinosaurs’ existence is a point of disagreement between young- and old-earth creationists. Based on their interpretation of the Genesis creation days as 24 hours long and their belief that animals did not die before Adam’s fall, young-earth creationists insist that dinosaurs and humans must have coexisted for a time. Worldwide dragon lore—including biblical references to dragons, leviathans, and behemoths—is used as support of this coexistence. (See Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research for details on the young-earth perspective.)

However, scientific research does not support the idea of a dinosaur-human coexistence. Paleontologists estimate that the last wave of dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago—well before humans, and even most mammals, showed up. Furthermore, dinosaur fossils were not recognized for what they really were until the 1800s, making dinosaurs a relatively modern discovery.

Based on these two facts, Reasons To Believe believes it unlikely that the biblical authors make any mention of dinosaurs whatsoever. How, then, do we reconcile the biblical references to behemoths, leviathans, and dragons with the scientific and historic data?

• Passages in the book of Job describing the behemoth and leviathan are likely referring to the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively. This is not a new interpretation. As RTB founder Hugh Ross points out in his book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, prior to the nineteenth-century discovery of dinosaurs most Bible scholars accepted the hippo and croc interpretation. (Even some more recent Bible versions include this view in their footnotes.)

 

• In English Bibles, the word “dragon” appears most notably in Revelation 12–13 and usually refers to Satan. (Other instances of use vary from translation to translation.) In a March 2011 episode of I Didn’t Know That!, RTB scholars Fuz Rana and Dave Rogstad suggest that—given the fact that Revelation’s author, John, was totally ignorant of dinosaurs—it’s more probable that he drew upon well-known mythological imagery to help his readers grasp the strange visions he described than that he referred to a real animal.

So how did we think up dragons? Inspiration for the Chinese dragon did indeed come from dinosaurs—fossilized bones, that is. Whale bones may have also contributed to the stories. Historians believe other reptiles—like the Nile crocodile, spitting cobras, and monitor lizards—also influenced dragon lore.

Thinking about God’s colorful description of the terrifying leviathan in Job 41, it doesn’t surprise me that such relatively modern beasts inspired tall tales and epic mythologies. I can just picture the campfire stories now…

— Maureen

Resources: It’s an undeniable fact that dinosaurs fascinate us. We’ve dedicated an RTB 101 page to helping people understand these monstrous animals and their place in God’s creation.

 

Filing for Spiritual Chapter 11 Protection

Every other day it seems news breaks about another business going belly up and filing for bankruptcy. Earlier this week Hostess became the latest company to bite the cream-filled dust.

Businesses or individuals drowning in debt are grateful for the relief. Yet others might say it is unjust for the financially irresponsible to have debts pardoned while the rest of us whittle away at our own mountain of debt. Perseverance in hopes of paying off debt seems the nobler choice to giving up altogether and asking for help.

The same might be said about perspectives on sin and salvation. Assuming first that sin is acknowledged as a problem (some perspectives wouldn’t go that far), the common thought is that so long as we are generally good, we can boast (but not too much) in our ability to stay “in the black.” Should we avoid racking up exorbitant amounts of sin, then surely we would be ushered into heaven when our days on Earth are over.

According to philosopher and theologian Kenneth Samples, this notion that good people go to heaven and only the truly evil people go to hell is extremely popular. The trouble is, one person might define “good” as simply not causing harm to others while another defines it as a selfless act for another’s benefit.

If there isn’t agreement on how to measure goodness, then how can we be assured of our standing with God?

Christianity says scratch that—no one is good enough. Just as for those drowning in financial debt, the only solution is to claim spiritual bankruptcy.

Salvation through grace, not by works, is just one of the “dangerous ideas” discussed in Kenneth Samples’ latest book, 7 Truths that Changed the World (release date: May 2012). When it comes to salvation, he points out, Christianity alone challenges the assumption that we are capable of clawing our way out of the spiritual red:

The natural human religious instinct is to believe that God accepts people on the basis of their own good works. Thus, historic Christianity has challenged all people to think in a radically different way about how they find acceptance before God.

The solution isn’t to work harder in hopes of willing sin out of our lives. The solution starts with declaring total depravity. The doctrine of total depravity, as Ken has explained, means that humans, though not wholly evil, are “pervasively sinful” and therefore incapable of earning God’s favor on their own. The good news is that Christ’s death on the cross provides much-needed relief and puts those who trust in His goodness in good standing. Ken adds,

Christians can be comforted that no matter how great their sin, God’s gracious gift of salvation in Christ’s atoning death is both complete and permanent.

Not only that, but our “goodness” deficit is filled in what theologians call the Great Exchange. According to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

–Sandra

 

Resources:

Here are a few helpful articles by Ken Samples on some of Christianity’s dangerous ideas:

“Christianity’s Dangerous Ideas“

“Thinking about the Incarnation: The Divine Word Became Flesh“

“What Makes the Christian God Unique?“

“If Christ Had Not Been Raised: Reasoning through the Resurrection“

“Christ’s Cross: Its Fourfold Distinctive Meaning“

“On Becoming a Christian“

 

Animals in the Spotlight

In early elementary school I developed distaste for reading. To remedy the situation, my parents bought books suited to my interests—principally, animals. I willingly devoured Zoobooks magazines, curled up with girl-and-her-horse novels, and thumbed through a well-loved copy of a mammal encyclopedia. Although my literary tastes

Me and my husband with a trio of feathered friends.

expanded over the years, even today few things will catch my attention faster than an animal.

And it seems the animal kingdom has been garnering some attention in popular science news as well.

Over the last week or two, RTB scholars Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross have hopped into the recording studio several times to record comments on recent discoveries involving elephant toes, beaver dams, and a new shark species.

• Elephants’ Sixth “Toe”: For centuries, elephants’ extra digit puzzled scientists. Now extensive research shows that the toe first appeared about 40 million years ago when elephantine animals began growing in size and transitioning to land-based habitats. The question is does this finding support evolution or creation?

Fuz weighed in on this discussion on the December 29, 2011 episode of Science News Flash (SNF). He points out that similar extra digits appear in pandas and moles—leading to the conclusion that this is yet another example of convergence, the independent and repetitious appearance of shared characteristics among unrelated organisms.

We would not expect evolution, as a random, unguided process, to be capable of reproducing designs. Yet convergence abounds in nature (echolocation in dolphins and bats is another prominent example). Such instances, Fuz says, better fit within a creation model, where an intelligent Creator makes repeated used of His designs as would a human engineer.

• Busy Beavers: It might surprise people to learn how many ways beavers have impacted life in North America. It certainly astounded me when I listened to Hugh’s December 30, 2011 SNF episode. Thanks to ground-penetrating radar readings from orbiting satellites, researchers discovered that the once-abundant beaver dams throughout North America exerted substantial influence over subterranean sediment buildups.

That’s a pretty big impact by itself, but Hugh takes beavers’ importance a step or two further. As a Canadian, he has a special appreciation for the way the beaver fur trade supported his home country’s early economy. However, as an animal lover, Hugh notes that furriers definitely overhunted beavers to the detriment of Canada and America’s wetland ecosystems. He explains that beavers are vital to removing nitrogen from water. Too much nitrogen creates dead spaces where fish cannot flourish. Areas like Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico currently face nitrogen’s negative effects. Looks like a restoration of beaver populations may be in order!

• New Shark on the Block: Say “hybrid” and most people probably think “Prius.” But nature is not without hybrids of its own. Recent research revealed the unexpected existence of a new shark. Hybrid animals are not unheard of (think mules or, if you’re Napoleon Dynamite, ligers)—but this cross between common blacktip and Australian blacktip sharks stands out. Not only is it the first known shark hybrid, it’s also fertile and shows signs of being more robust than its progenitors. Scientists suspect changing climate conditions may be responsible for this development.

The animal is being touted as “evolution in action”—and it is. As Fuz points out on the first SNF of 2012, this shark hybrid is an example of microevolution. Through adaptation and speciation, organisms adjust to changing environments and new challenges in order to survive. The peppered moth and Darwin’s famous Galapagos finches are textbook examples.

So do these types of evolution tip the scales in favor of naturalism? Hardly. Fuz notes that there is a big difference between microevolution and the theory that mindless evolution has the creative capacity to produce radically different animals from previous creatures. Discoveries like the hybrid shark make better sense if a Creator endowed His creations with the ability to adapt.

From a layperson’s perspective, it seems a stretch to assume that relatively small adjustments (microevolution), like the elephant’s sixth toe and the hybrid shark, automatically implies large-scale adjustments (macroevolution), like dinosaurs evolving into birds or ape-like creatures into human beings.

When God confronts Job, He points to various animals as examples of His power and glory. Indeed, a visit to the zoo, or even a moment with my pet rabbit, always puts me in awe of God. I can see why Paul wrote in Romans that no man is without excuse because the multifaceted natural world so clearly testifies to God’s existence and His character.

— Maureen

Resources: Are you like me and can’t get enough of animals? Check out Hugh’s latest book, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, for an intriguing look at how animals point us toward our mutual Creator.

 

 

 

Christmas Thoughts from Take Two

The Most Peculiar Gift

It was Christmas morning and my godparents’ living room was filled to capacity with kids, a sea of crumpled up wrapping paper, and sparkling new toys. I was a contemplative teenager with nothing left to open (it didn’t take long to open gift c

 

ard envelopes); so I sat back and, for the first time, beheld the joy that spreads across children’s faces as they

 

unwrap presents. The view was breathtaking.

 

Shortly thereafter I received another gift that was, by most standards, peculiar: a pair of black leg warmers. That was many years ago, but I still cherish that memory (and those legwarmers from my Grams). As odd as it may have been to gift legwarmers, they were precisely what I needed to save my shins from the stress of rigorous dancing. And it told me that my Grams knew me and what I needed and cared enough to provide it.

Hopefully it’s not too much of a stretch to see why her gift reminds me of another peculiar gift, that of a babe in a manger. Michael Nortons writes that “God surprises us” through the Incarnation, “and his name is Jesus.” Kenneth Samples adds, “It is unique to Christianity to discover a God who takes the initiative in becoming flesh in order to redeem sinful human beings.”

It’s this entirely unexpected but much-needed gift that we celebrate each Christmas and every day. That God knows us and what we need (redemption) and cared enough to provide it by coming in the flesh and completing his work on the cross.

This Christmas, may you experience—and share—the joy from the unexpected gift of Jesus.

–Sandra

_______________________________________________________________________________

Two People I Want to Meet in Heaven

When I think of important biblical figures—outside of Jesus—my mind is often drawn to leaders like King David or Queen Esther or the Apostle Paul. These people accomplished great things and some of them even held royal positions. But if you were to ask me who would be first on my list for a heavenly latte and chat, I’d have to say Mary and Joseph.

They were a pair of poor nobodies, living in inconsequential Nazareth. Yet they played pivotal roles in God’s plan of redemption. Their willingness to humbly serve the Lord’s purpose had a lasting impact on the world and also says a lot about their character.

Joseph doesn’t have any “lines” in Scripture, but his obedience astounds me. Every time an angel appears and commands Joseph to do something, he does it. Would I trust God enough to be so faithful?

Mary took a huge risk in accepting God’s calling. Who would believe her that an angel told her she would be the Messiah’s mother? She was also present at Jesus’ crucifixion and watched her boy die a horrific death. Can you imagine her heartbreak?

Throughout her experiences, “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” This contemplativeness is my favorite thing about Mary. In the midst of the hectic schedules, let’s do a little treasuring up of our own and take a quiet moment to ponder God’s great generosity in sending that little baby to Mary and Joseph.

— Maureen

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM TAKE TWO!

 

What Was the Christmas Star?

A couple of weeks ago Take Two discussed 5 common myths about Christmas. Last week, we looked at the significance of the wise men. This week, we glimpse at another key “figure” in the Christmas story—the star of Bethlehem.

Various theories and perspectives abound over what it was that led the wise men to the Christ child. So how does one find clarity in the haze of varied viewpoints? Here’s where having access to astronomers comes in handy. (It comes in handy other times, too.)

Astronomer Hugh Ross explains that the word translated as “star” in Matthew 2 could mean any kind of heavenly body: a star, planet, galaxy, meteor, comet, asteroid, shooting star. It is in the singular, so it’s referring to a single object in the sky. Also, a lot of time had passed between the star’s first and second appearance—something like 15–30 months, Hugh suggests. Finally, the “star” had to be spectacular enough to set the Magi in motion yet not too spectacular as to be noticeable by the average observer or by astronomers and astrologers in Egypt, Greece, India, and China. Hugh explains,

King Herod and the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem seemed oblivious to the star (Matthew 2:1–3). The shepherds outside of Bethlehem “keeping watch over their flocks at night” on the eve of the Messiah’s birth made no note of any astonishingly brilliant star (Luke 2:8–20).

In “What was the Christmas star?” Hugh takes a look at the popular explanations through the lens of science to see which best fits the criteria for the Christmas star.

The star must be

1. A single object
2. Rare in its occurrence
3. Yet not so spectacular as to be obvious to all
4. Able to appear, disappear, and reappear in the same place

 

The comet hypothesis

Comets are fairly common and would not garner special attention from the careful observer. Unusual comets would have been well-documented by Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, and Greek astronomers. Yet there’s no record of an unusual comet having occurred at the estimated time of Christ’s birth. Moreover, though a comet can orbit the Sun, it would not reappear in the same place and form.

The supernova hypothesis

A supernova event would be so spectacular as to catch the attention of even the casual observer, yet again there is no record of such an event occurring at the time of Christ’s birth. Moreover, a star could not “go supernova” twice—it’s one and done—so it would not have reappeared.

The conjunction hypothesis

Conjunctions, whether between two planets or a planet and star, are also fairly common. Any conjunction that may have occurred could well have been uncommon enough to motivate the Magi to begin their journey. The conjunction hypothesis that has received much attention recently (via Rick Larson’s popular DVD, The Star of Bethlehem) points to encounters between Jupiter and Venus in 2 and 3 BC and between Jupiter and Regulus (a star) in that same time period. These conjunctions fail to meet the first criterion because each involved two objects, and Matthew 2 uses aster in the singular. More importantly, these conjunctions occurred after Herod died, and we know from Matthew’s account that Herod was still alive when Christ was born.

So if the Christmas star wasn’t a comet, supernova, or conjunction, then what was it? Hugh leans toward the idea that it was a recurring nova: a single object, sufficiently rare yet not too spectacular, and it appears, disappears (after initial explosion), then reappears (second explosion) 1–2 years later. Yet he stresses that this is only one plausible explanation; no one can claim to have positive proof.

What’s important is that these wise men appear to have paid careful attention to Daniel’s prophecy (9:24–27) of the coming Messiah and were ready to journey at all cost when the time came. What do you think?

 

–Sandra

 

Resources:

For a collection of useful articles, audio messages, and video clips (including RTB’s response to The Star of Bethlehem DVD), check out http://www.reasons.org/christmasstar.