Sermon - 24 January 2012

[go4tli]

The sermon was, in general, excellent. Andy Stanley has a common-
sense approach to things that I kind of like, even though it sometimes
takes him a while to get to the point. ("There are three things we
all know are true, but which we ignore. I'm going to tell you three
things we know. But they're three things we ignore. The Bible tells
us all of these three things. We all know them. But we ignore them.
Even though all of them are Scriptural. There are three principles
God tells us, which we know, but which we're inclined to ignore."
*What are the three things?!?*) I guess it allows people like me who
think more slowly to keep up with his rapid talking pace. :)

Before I get to the meat, though, a few of his points jumped out at
me. First, it might have been worthwhile to point out that even
though God cares about the little investments of time we make in
things that matter, we shouldn't interpret that to mean that God's
will is singularly defined. We might find ourselves in the trap of
thinking, "Well, if God cares that I put in ten minutes a day studying
His Word, He'll like it *even more* if I spend *two hours*!" God's
approval is not based on how often you perform the rituals associated
with the faith -- certainly not for their own sake! I'm reminded in
Amos (5:21-24) of God expressing his *hatred* for the rituals and
feasts the Israelites were observing -- even though they were the
*very observances He had commanded*! We humans have a peculiar way of
confusing the observances of the faith with the faith itself.

This is a particular pet peeve of mine. Lumped in here are "worship
leaders" who tell people to "sing it like you mean it!" or "fake it
till you make it!", making hypocrisy the means by which God is
(supposedly) pleased. We hype our sermons and peform our works in the
flesh, apparently expecting that God will feel embarrassed by our
feeble attempts to make Him look good through our play-acting and
bless us (and endorse our practices) with His presence. Right?

So I wish he'd said something about that.

Anyway, point two -- and one you probably expected given my scientific
bent. Andy expressed surprise that over several million years of
human evolution, procrastination had not been weeded out of the
species... which is why the whole "creation and original sin" thing
made sense to him. Not to put too fine a point on it, but:

* Evolution and "creation and original sin" are not mutually
exclusive. There are lots of scientists who accept both. The theory
of evolution merely describes God's creation method -- it never
asserts that God had nothing to do with creation. And the spiritual
state of man is something evolution never addresses one way or the
other.

* Evolution does not predict that bad things will be weeded out. The
only thing that matters is whether or not hereditary traits are passed
on, and what that means in terms of species diversification. In fact,
if something is not *actively impeding the process*, it will likely be
retained, and may even be pressed into some kind of rudimentary
service. (Consider the whale pelvis, or the ostrich wing, or the
human appendix -- clearly not fulfilling functions as complex as their
structure would indicate, especially as seen in other, similar
organisms.)

* Evolution does not predict that things will even *improve*. "More
capable of passing on genetic material" is a very poor way to describe
"better" -- but that's all evolution predicts. It doesn't predict
increased complexity; it doesn't predict increased intelligence; it
doesn't predict increased *anything*, except (potentially) the ability
to survive in its environment. And that very thing may make it *less*
well-suited to *other* environments (or even its own environment as
that changes over time).

* The amount to which something makes sense to your personal
intuition has no bearing on its truth or falsehood.

I know all this was quite outside Stanley's point -- it's just that
creationist teachers spend a lot of effort describing things that
evolution gets wrong *when they're not even things evolution
addresses*. Of *course* someone would have to be an idiot or
spiritually blinded to accept the creationist version of evolution.
But the only ones seriously stating that evolution is at all like the
things creationist teachers describe *are the creationist teachers*.
It's reminiscent of the geocentrists making fun of the heliocentrists
because only an *idiot* would think that the Earth would be moving at
some colossal velocity *and no one would feel it* -- and only the
spiritually deluded couldn't see the plain evidence in Scripture of
the Earth's stationary nature!

Feh. Anyway.

I liked Stanley's cost-benefit analysis of why we often don't do those
little things that are cumulatively so important. I can certainly
relate. It's even possible for me to convince myself that I'm doing
little things that will help me when I get around (someday) to doing
the little things that are important.

And the concept of irreversible damage being done *when we do nothing*
is a point that was haunting. It *should be* haunting, IMHO.

It's sad that I have a tendency to measure the quality of my time by
its usefulness to *me*. "Boy, I did what *I* wanted to do today.
What a great day." I sense that God and I are going to be having a
lot of talks in the near future about undoing that outlook.