Truth in a Cup

An Illustration Designed to Awaken Awareness of Epistemological Uncertainty

You and I are sitting at a restaurant table. As a Christian, I am faced with the task of demonstrating to you the truth of my religion. Perhaps you need to be persuaded because you do not believe that we can know which religion is correct. Or perhaps you believe in a different religion. At the least, you certainly reject the idea that Christianity is the only true religion. And even more, you are offended that Christians so audaciously claim that they alone have the truth.

Let’s put Truth in a cup. Pretend that the empty cup on the table beside us contains the essence of reality— unadulterated Truth. Whatever Truth may be is in that cup. Now we seal the cup, so that neither of us can see it, and we begin to guess the answer to the question "What is Truth?" Our task, then, is to guess what is in that cup.

Here is how we will go about it: We will each explain what we believe to be the Truth. We will take those beliefs about Truth and will each place them in our own separate cups. When we finish filling our cups with our beliefs, we will open the Truth Cup to see which, if either, matches the Truth.

So we fill our cups. My beliefs are traditional Christian beliefs, and I place them in my cup. Perhaps your beliefs are somewhat agnostic, but you do believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to be moral and treat others with respect. Or maybe you don’t. Regardless, your beliefs, whatever they may be, go into your cup.

Before opening the Truth cup and making our comparison to see who is correct, there are several important things to note about the nature of what is in our cups:

1. We cannot change what is in the Truth cup. The truth is not influenced by what we believe. We can grunt and moan and believe with all the faith we can muster and not alter religious reality one iota. That indeed is assumed in the very definition of reality. Reality is what is, and is not merely what we think it is or what we want it to be. So what we have placed in our cups cannot in any way change what is in the Truth cup.

2. It is impossible for both of us to be right. How do I know that? Because when I compare what is in my cup with what is in your cup, I see that my cup contains the belief that Christianity is the only true religion and that all others are false religions. Your cup on the other hand contains a belief that says that I am wrong and have no right to be so close-minded. So we see from the start, without even opening the Truth cup, that both of them cannot be correct. They are both mutually exclusive.

3. Both of us could be wrong. Of course, it is possible that neither of our cups matches what is in the Truth cup. In that case, we should both commit to changing what we believe to match the truth when it is revealed to us. Only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup.

4. One of us might be correct, and the other wrong. Once again, only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup. The loser must either ignore the Truth or accept it by bringing his or her beliefs into alignment with the Truth.

It is possible that you do not agree with these four assertions. If that is the case, the we will place your disagreement in your cup, and I will place these beliefs in mine. We will then compare them to the Truth in the cup beside us.

Now at this point, we should both come back to the reality of the situation and acknowledge a very real problem with our method. After all, we are just pretending. We are sitting at a table in a restaurant and are staring into some cups imagining that we have life’s ultimate answers mixed up in our soda. Finding out who is correct is not so simple as taking the lid off the cup on the table beside us. In reality, the only way we can know the Truth is if somehow it is revealed to us. Revelation is essential. Our choice is to either have it revealed, or live our lives with no confidence whatsoever that we possess the Truth.

The next question for both of us is, "To whom or what will we go for this revelation?" That’s a hard question, isn't it? It must be someone or something that demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely knows what is in the Truth cup and is capable of and willing to reveal it. Either that, or we are left to play the Truth Cup game with that person or thing as well and ultimately must move on to a greater source. Or perhaps we are left to just make stuff up and then place our faith in it as if we knew it were true.

To whom or what will you go to for this revelation? Does this source demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely know what is in the Truth cup? Is this source capable of revealing it? Is this source willing to reveal it? Do you know that you can you trust your source? Or are you placing your faith in made-up stuff? You may not believe that I should trust my source. However, on what grounds do you assert the certainty of your knowledge?

We are Finally Number One: A Different Take on Robert Byrd’s Legacy

Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in United States history, passed away on June 28, 2010. As a West Virginian, I greatly appreciate the love and respect that he had for our State. But I question whether he has really accomplished what so many have been celebrating upon his passing.

In our local Sunday paper, the public statements of prominent citizens all repeated the same themes: Robert Byrd loved, studied, supported, and protected the constitutional role of the United States Senate, and Robert Byrd loved West Virginia with all his heart. He wrote a multi-volume history of the Senate and always carried a copy of the constitution in his coat pocket. Across the State, at least thirty roads, bridges, buildings, and programs bear his name, representing billions of federal dollars that he has funneled into our State. His affection for and dedication to Senate and the State of West Virginia cannot be questioned.

And yet, at the same time, a constant barrage of statistics throughout his tenure have told us that West Virginia still leads dozens of bad lists and is at the bottom of dozens of good lists, to our great and constant embarrassment. According to Bryan Bolduc of the Wall Street Journal (“Robert Byrd’s Highways to Nowhere,” July 10, 2010), West Virginia ranks 48^th in both median household and per capita income. Over fifty percent of the state’s economy “relies on spending by local, state and federal government—the highest level of any state,” and “West Virginia ranked dead last among the 50 states in the Fraser Institute's Index of Economic Freedom of North America.” All statistics aside, West Virginia has a national reputation of being one of the most poverty stricken and economically backward states in the nation.

Of course, Robert Byrd is not the cause of all these problems. The causes are complex and stretch back through nearly 150 years of statehood. However, in spite of the fact that we have had the longest serving senator in U.S. history, elected again and again by the people of West Virginia, we still have not risen above the bottom in dozens of social, educational, health, and economic categories during his tenure.

Some will argue that since Robert Byrd was a federal senator, he was not responsible for improving conditions on the State and local level. And yet, these are the same people that celebrate the billions of dollars of federally funded projects that they claim are his legacy. Regardless of what Byrd has done for this state, the question remains-- has his federally funded legacy in any way mitigated our endemic problems? Some might say that had Robert Byrd not been our senator for the last 50 years West Virginia might be worse off than what it is. I simply respond that it is harder to get worse off than the bottom.

So, while Robert Byrd is not responsible for our State’s problems, he appears to have done little to alleviate them. Yet, we have elected him again and again and again. And for what? For his constant flag-waving in the name of West Virginia? For his having authored a multi-volume history of the Senate? For his genteel, old-school statesmanship? I doubt the average West Virginian has been motivated to put him back in office for any of these most nationally recognized characteristics. No. West Virginians repeatedly re-elected him for two reasons—1) because he funneled billions of federal funds into dozens of pork projects throughout the state, leading to the perception that he has accomplished something lasting on our behalf, and 2) because he has a reputation for using his political heft to help West Virginians in bad situations. For instance, one person who was repeatedly refused black lung benefits asked for Robert Byrd’s help. Those benefits came through almost immediately with apologies. Every West Virginian knows someone who knows someone who received similar aid from Senator Byrd. And West Virginians have loved him for it, enough to vote him into office for over 50 years.

Of course, Robert Byrd is to be commended for these noble interventions. One cannot help but respect his political clout and willingness to help individuals who needed help. Frankly, however, these anecdotes simply serve to remind us that, though he was a federal senator, Robert Byrd did indeed have great power on the State and local level, and West Virginia remains at the bottom of good lists and at the top of bad ones nonetheless.

What then are we to make of West Virginia’s loyalty to this politician who has not significantly changed our State for the better in spite of 50 years of power? What exactly have we been celebrating upon his passing? Perhaps it is mainly that, finally, we West Virginians have something to be proud of, trivial though it may be. We can now claim to have had the longest serving senator in the history of the United States of America. That was us. No one else. We did it, over and over and over again. We’re number one.

Yea.

Rethinking Living Sacrifices: "Obedience to God's Law" as the Pattern of This World

We are taking a break from our series in the book of Hebrews, namely because it is heady stuff, and I believe that it needs to be doled out in increments that are digestible. So during that break, I have preached on giving for two Sundays, from texts in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. This has caused me to consider life in the church and has drawn me to another way that we are involved in worshiping God--the use of our gifts in worship.

As a pastor, I am keenly aware that Paul's criticism of the Corinthians and Romans for thinking of themselves too highly in the church because of their gifts describes a problem that is alive and well in today's church. I could give many illustrations, but they would spotlight situations and individuals that I have no business calling out publicly at this point in my ministry (why is it not my business right now? Because wisdom tells me it is not. I am in this for the long haul, D.V., and wisdom tells me that some things must be doled out in increments, or else one's ability to dole out anything at all will be cut off before it can be doled out effectively.). But even if I did not know specific examples, common knowledge proves my point. We all know that not all are treated equally in the church, because some act as if others have less to contribute than themselves. Or perhaps some believe others should be contributing something they are not, and when they are not, some think ill of them.

So looking at passages regarding the use of spiritual gifts in the church takes me to Romans 12, where we read,

"I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

The passage continues on to encourage unity in the church vis-a-vis the use of and mutual respect for others spiritual gifts. Paul very much mirrors his comments in Corinthians--Value other's spiritual gifts and love one another. But the introduction to these thoughts in the verse above provides me with a context that I was never taught in my Fundamentalist education. I was taught that the offering of bodies makes this a very material command, i.e., it has to do with the proper interaction of Christians in a material world. Our bodies are not to be tainted by the material world around us. Instead, they are to be holy and pleasing to God. In Fundamentalist terms, this means separating ourselves physically from anything "worldly" that could contaminate us. The Fundamentalist takes support for this from the next sentence--Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world.


Dozens of sermons in my Fundamentalist heritage made applications like--Separate yourself from worldly music. Do not go to places that the world values, like the movie theater or a bar. Do not wear clothes that the world wears. Avoid fads that are common in the culture around you. These defined for me, when I was growing up, what it meant to be a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, unconformed to the world.


Yet today, I see something in these words far simpler and more radical than I was ever taught. Holiness is not a material property, because the locus of evil is within the hearts of humans and devils. Holiness does not exist apart from the opportunity to love or the failure to love. Holiness is primarily defined by our obedience to God's laws, which we know to be, at their core, nothing more nor less than loving God and loving our neighbors. If we love as we ought to love, we will be holy. Holiness is relational. This love is the radical difference from the world that God expects. It is so radical, that even the most gloriously separated and "righteous" among us can live what they believe to be incredibly spiritual lives and still fail miserably at the command to be holy. We tend to be blind to what it means to love people, and instead satisfy ourselves with traditions and commandments that separate us from the material "worldliness."


Christ gave an example of the radicalness of Christian love in the Sermon on the Mount. One of his statements was the following:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Here Christ tells us what is the pattern of this world. It is to love only those who love you. Radical Christianity loves those who do not love you. It loves those who hate you. Yet, I have heard many Christians champion their ungodly treatment of those who are their enemies. They rejoice when enemies fall. They mock them. They look for opportunities to contribute to their demise. They are proud of their "Stand up for myself because I am just that kind of person" mentality.

This of course, is only one example. There are many others that Christ gives. It is interesting that his descriptions of the pattern of the world in the Sermon on the Mount mostly concern self-righteous people who abuse the Law of God. Christ expects a radical difference from the world--And Christians, even in their legalistic adherence to God's law, can be the best example of exactly what it means to pattern themselves after this world. In doing so, they entirely miss the point of being a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.

West Virginians Have Been Told it is Raining

The Great State of West Virginia remains at or near the top of nearly every bad list and at the bottom of every good list of social, economic, educational, and health statistics. For example--

1. Third highest tax burden per citizen in the nation.
2. Third last in median household income and fourth last in personal income per capita.
3. Fifth from the top in percentage of people who live below the poverty level.
4. Fourth highest high school dropout rate.
5. Dead last in percentage of college degrees; third last in graduate degrees.
6. Fourth in the percentage of mobile homes.
7. Highest rate of children who live with their grandparents.
8. Diabetes rate leads the nation, along with high blood pressure rate, cholesterol rate, and loss of natural teeth.
9. Fourth lowest birth rate.
10. Fifth highest cancer death rate.
11. Highest obesity rate.
12. Highest percentage of smokers and users of smokeless tobacco.
13. First in percentage of people living with a disability.

And yet, West Virginians have overwhelmingly re-elected the same ideology to political office for decades on the national and state level. Speaking of lists, is there one for the greatest percentage of people who have been repeatedly bamboozled, and are happy about it? What do we get for our blind allegiance? Do we really prefer the crumbs of federally-funded bridges, roads, buildings, and programs over real and radical improvement to the state of the State? Honestly, I don't care who they are or what party they are from, can we get someone--anyone--who can do something--anything--to actually make a difference within, oh let's say 50 years or so? Fifty years should be enough time to make a difference. Right?

Whoops! Maybe not.

Source: http://www.statemaster.com/state/WV-west-virginia

See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575354870221777334.html

No Weapons Allowed

So, I went to Magic Mart (our local poor mans' Walmart) the other day and noticed a sign displayed prominently at the entrance. It said, "Absolutely No Firearms Permitted on this Property."

I assume that this was aimed at law-abiding citizens with legally acquired guns and concealed carry permits, such as myself. It certainly wasn't aimed at thieves and murderers, was it?

After all, if they saw such a sign, they would stop in their tracks and say to themselves, "Aw shucks! And I wanted to rob this store at gunpoint. I guess I will have to do it with a stick or something. Gimme a second while I go put my gun back in my car."

I think a more effective sign should read, "Absolutely No Thieves or Murderers Permitted on this Property." That of course would prevent them from entering the store with their murdering or thieving intent while at the same time allowing law-abiding citizens to retain their constitutional rights.

No wait. I am sorry. That is just stupid. Murderers and thieves will do what they want regardless of what signs are out front. It is only law-abiding citizens, who have no intent to murder to rob, who will begrudgingly comply with Magic Mart's silly prohibition. So then, does Magic Mart's sign accomplish anything whatsoever of value?

Essays Published

Two of my essays concerning baptism have been recently e-published in Reformed Perspectives Magazine, an online publication of Third Millennium Ministries.

Why Presbyterians Only Baptize Once

Why Presbyterians do not Believe that Baptism Regenerates Souls or Remits Sins

The Christian Religion: All or Nothing

“There is a sense in which spiritual truth is independent of real truth in the Bible for me personally. I can benefit from the spiritual truths of the Bible even if I don’t believe the stories are true. Take Jonah for instance. I admit that I have a difficult time believing that Jonah was swallowed down the gullet of a large fish. But that doesn’t prevent me from valuing the spiritual lessons of the story.”

A friend said these words at a small private gathering one evening a year or so ago. He is a really great guy. Wonderful husband and father, best I can tell. A professor. Very gifted. Intelligent, and keenly aware and respectful of his history in the Reformed Christian tradition. He was baptized into a Presbyterian church as a child, and his father is a well-respected elder at a church and a professor at a local university.

He has said similar things before, revealing a rather loose allegiance to biblical authority for his religion. On another occasion he said, “When we took our vows to join the Presbyterian church, we affirmed that we believe in Jesus for salvation. I don’t think we mean that we necessarily believe everything about the literal Jesus in the Bible, but rather, we believe in ‘spiritual Jesus.’ You know, his teachings about love.”

On both occasions, it was not appropriate for me to challenge him. Religion is a touchy subject among that group of people, and long ago, we agreed to put the subject off limits. But what would I have said to him if it had been appropriate?

I imagine I would have said something like this: “So, that is an interesting perspective. May I ask a question? I have heard you say similar things about the life of Christ. I wonder, are there any miracles that Christ ever did that you might find remotely credible?”

I don’t know for certain, but I think he respects the Christian tradition enough to at least affirm that Christ might have done something miraculous during his lifetime. Perhaps something small. Small and loving. He might, for instance, say something like, “I think Christ must have done something amazing at some point or another. I like the idea of his healing people. He obviously cared for people. I mean, that is the whole point of his life.”

For some reason, people have an easier time accepting that Christ did a few altruistic miracles, or even that he rose from the dead, than some of the more extravagant stories of the Bible. I mean, from the average person’s perspective, Christians would have to admit that there are some pretty unbelievable things in the Bible. Things like a massive flood, the sun moving backward or stopping in the sky, giant fish, Moses and the Red Sea, talking snakes. But a Christianity without an amazing Christ is not a Christianity at all, so I guess that my friend might affirm that Christ did some amazing things, though he probably would question whether the biblical record is entirely accurate in the details. If he would not, “Then at least,” I might think to myself, “he is consistent.”

But if he was willing to affirm anything miraculous about the life of Christ, even the smallest miracle, he would open himself up to a few more questions. Suppose there was a healing. A supernatural fix for someone’s problem by the hand of Christ. Maybe a healed leg or some restored vision. It wouldn’t have to be too amazing. Just a little bit miraculous.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, “what is the difference, to God at least, between a big miracle, and a little one?” If there is a God who some way or another was involved in the making of the universe, he would have to be pretty powerful. The whole “bringing the world into existence” thing is amazing, regardless of whether you accept the details of the biblical account. Why would we believe in a God who could author reality, and if he wanted to, could do a small miracle or two through Jesus Christ, but who could not do something in the mid-range? What is the difference to God in degrees of the miraculous?

What exactly is the nature of the miraculous in the work of Christ? To a powerful Creator, is it any more or less difficult to do a small thing than a big thing? Isn’t the miracle that God reached through the fibers of our reality, into time and space, and meddled in any way, great or small, with the physics of our world? If that is where the miracle truly lies, who is to say that a small miracle is any more believable than a big one? Tinker with a little thing, or slap the globe sideways. What is the difference to God? Why are we more likely to believe the one, but, “No, that whole man-in-a-fish thing, that’s just silly.”

I guess my point is that, if any one thing in the Bible is incredible in the sense of “not believable,” then it all is. Why do some people play the game then? The Bible really is an all-or-nothing book. We have no ground to believe any of it, if we don’t believe all of it. If we believe in God, then why do we doubt anything in the Word of God? And if we doubt anything in the Word of God, why do we even believe in God? If Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, then Christ was just a simple man who lived and died and never did anything worthy of a world religion, least of all, rise from the dead.

I suppose today’s relativists would answer that they like his teaching and his example. A simple “love one another” religion is very attractive. But why do we need Jesus for that? Isn’t it a lot of hassle to work up a whole way of life (or at least go to a weekly church service) around a man that you can’t really trust? You can’t even know that he taught what people say he taught. I think it would just be simpler to let the whole religion thing slide, and just be nice to people. Nevertheless, people will continue with their religion anyway. It may be based upon a work of fiction, something that was made up. But that doesn’t matter . . . does it?