How this youth pastor has embraced the very argument he is trying to avoid…

I saw this article on Facebook and gave it a read.  It was interesting not in that I agree in any sense, but because it tells a story about much of the youth pastors in the USA.

What strikes me immediately is that this is yet another youth pastor who has embraced relativism.  The youth pastor in question is named Tyler Smither and according to his blog he is with the  United Methodist church in north Mississippi.  In his post he states:

When faced with the choice between being theologically correct…as if this is even possible…and being morally responsible, I’ll go with morally responsible every time.

Immediately you should recognize that this is pure relativism.  Who gets to decide what is morally responsible?  Is it him who decides?  How about the government?  Maybe public opinion?  Certainly it is not the word of the living God because that would mean theology dictates morality and he has precluded that from being an option.  It is clear that this youth pastor’s god is pragmatism!  He is simply stating that being theologically correct leads to youth suicide so we need to scrap theology and instead embrace a practical response.  I think he needs to brush up on the Law of Excluded Middle.  In fact we need both Tyler. One does not beget the other!  This is, in fact the same thing that so-called Christian politicians do.  They reduce religion down to a personal, non-public fairy tale that just gives you a smile on your face but doesn’t and should dictate public policy.  It is pure unadulterated ignorance.  In reality we need to strive for theological correctness because it is by that and that alone that we can judge moral responsibility!  If it is not an objective standard then it is no standard at all!  If God is not in charge of morality, then no one is and it comes down to the man with the biggest gun to decide.

There is another issue with his argument that is far more amusing.  He states:

I’ll go with morally responsible every time. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and theologian during World War II. He firmly held the theological position of nonviolence. He believed that complete pacifism was theologically correct. And yet, in the midst of the war, he conspired to assassinate Adolf Hitler; to kill a fellow man. Why? Because in light of what he saw happening to the Jews around him by the Nazis, he felt that it would be morally irresponsible not to. Between the assassination of Hitler and nonviolence, he felt the greater sin would be nonviolence.

Ironically he has embraced the same argument Hitler used to commit genocide.  Hitler’s argument was pragmatic!  He wanted to better society as a whole and the pragmatism he used for this was the elimination of the weak, sick and un-perfect and the transfer and elimination of those who controlled the wealth.   This youth pastor has embraced the very argument he is arguing against and doesn’t seem to realize that pragmatism is the cousin of genocide!  One begets the other if one takes the argument to it’s conclusion.

In a nutshell we really don’t need this in the church.  I agree that it is super sad that youth are committing suicide, but it is only the power of Jesus that will change this.  The answer does not lie in the eliminating of Jesus and replacing him with relativism and pragmatism!  In fact the elimination of Jesus’ grace from the church has caused much of the problem.  We have replaced the teachings of Jesus with tradition, and practical advice from a pastor.  If we want to save our youth, we need to teach our youth morality, not to reject it.

Why do I send my kids to a Christian school when the thing I need to protect them from the most is theology?

I have a question…Why is it that I send my kids to a Christian school so they can learn about God and I still have to spend most of my time protecting them from the Theology, or lack thereof, of the Christian school?

Let me explain, my wife and I are looking at the class options from a well known Christian umbrella school here in Northern Colorado (an umbrella school is a school to supplement home schooling).  The classes range from choir to science to something they call “Christian Worldview.”  No one wants my children to learn the Christian worldview more than I but it has become painfully obvious that they teach everything but the Christian worldview.  The class is taught out of Ken Ham’s “Answers in Genesis” and the results I have seen from other students is a zeal for young earth philosophy and not a single clue about the Christian worldview!  Don’t get me wrong, I have not a single issue with young earthers (I happen not to be one) but the Bible never EVER teaches as a distinctive that we must believe that the earth is ten to twelve thousand years old to be Christian!  It is and has never been a part of Christian theology and wasn’t even an issue of debate until about 200 years ago when the age of science came roaring on the scene.  It has however, become a big part of Christian tradition and philosophy.  Just as we hold to a tradition that there was a little drummer boy at the birth of Christ, we also hold fast to the tradition (not fact) that the earth is younger than it appears.  The previous umbrella school we sent the kids to had the same problem in their worldview class.   In that class they spent more time beating up on other religions than they did giving the kids a positive defense of Christianity!  The result was an appalling display of anti Mormon bigotry that was loaded with loose facts and total falsehoods about the religion.  The kids were 8th graders and I don’t blame them, but in my opinion, the teacher should be fired.  You see I spend a lot of time making sure I have the facts about a religion’s worldview so when we teach our children lies about other worldviews to make ours look good, it is discourteous and completely Unchristian!  The best way to defeat Mormonism is to have a positive approach to Christianity, not a negative approach to Mormonism.  Christianity stands true based on the consistency of the facts.  Mormonism does not and cannot stand the test of truth.

Here’s a thought.  Why not teach the Christian worldview in the Christian worldview class?  In the rare case that perhaps the schools are following this blog, let me layout a nice little syllabus for you for next semester.  If you follow this, you should have kids that can argue the importance of the atonement with as much passion as they have about defending that the earth is ten thousand years old.

1.  The Nature of God – Who is God and what are His characteristics?

2.  The Person of Christ – Who is the God-Man and why is it important that Jesus be this man?

3.  The Nature of the Trinity – What is the trinity and where do we find it in the pages of scripture?

4.  The Nature of the Cross – What is so important about the crucifixion?

5.  The Nature of Man – Why are we the way we are?

6.   The Nature of Sin – What is sin and what is its importance?

7.  The Glorification/Second Coming – How does the story end?

8.  The Nature of Revelation – What is the Bible and why is it important?

I know this stuff is more difficult to teach than that Noah brought dinosaurs on the ark, but these things are Christian theology, not the philosophical difference we have over the age of the earth!

One last thing on this matter.  Why is it that each worldview class seems to have an apologetic spin to it?  Do we really want to be teaching our children apologetics and if we do is this the starting point for teaching scripture?  I can assure you that if a 12 year old tries to defend her position on young earth theology to me, I would bury her.  Not because I am bigger and smarter then her but because I did the foundational work necessary to defend my faith.  I understand the 8 point list above, they more than likely do not.

Christianity is hard and some things are too difficult to teach to a small child.  That’s why Paul talks about giving them milk while they are babies in the faith.  At some point we need to switch from soft food to hard foods with more substance but in the mean time, teach them Theology at their level, don’t fill them full of philosophy!  The order is simple.  First we learn the stories of the bible, then we learn what they mean, only after we know these things do we defend our faith to others.  Your understanding of who God is should guide your philosophy not your overwhelming desire to combat science (a gift from God).

I find myself frustrated, and wondering exactly why Christians school even exist!

How to abuse people with the Bible

Oh how I realize that I could do an entire dissertation on how Christians use the bible to abuse, confuse and over all bash people over the head.  Over time, I’m sure we will have the opportunity to highlight more and more cases of stupidity, but today I want to discuss one of my favorite.  it comes to us from Psalm 105:13-15 and it is usually used in an abusive fashion by summarizing it into one simple statement:

“Don’t not touch God’s anointed”

This statement is a favorite method of pastors to shut down any opposition that they may have to bad theology or poor behavior.  Of course this usually works to stop any opposition because after all, pastors are anointed…right?  I have had this thrown at me from time to time usually is response to a harsh criticism, but unlike many Christians, I actually have read the Bible and know what is being said!  So let’s put this passage in context and maybe, you – the readers – can tell me exactly what Psalm 105:13-15 is actually saying.

[Starting at Psalm 105:7]

He is the Lord our God;
His judgments are in all the earth.
8 He remembers His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations,
The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
10 And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 Saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,”
12 When they were few in number,
Indeed very few, and strangers in it.

13 When they went from one nation to another,
From one kingdom to another people,
14 He permitted no one to do them wrong;
Yes, He rebuked kings for their sakes,
15 Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones,
And do My prophets no harm.”

Knowing that I never, ever read a bible verse, taking the entire thought into account, it becomes clear that anyone claiming to own this verse better have been a Hebrew laying claim to Canaan!  If you’re not a Hebrew laying claim to Canaan, this verse it NOT for you.  Simply speaking if a pastor or anyone else in the church is using this verse as a method of shutting down opposition, it should, in fact, increase the opposition because it is clear that the person making the claim has no idea what they are talking about and should never, ever be teaching the Bible.  The anointed are the JEWS!  The anointed are not your pastor, leaders, or yourself.  Perhaps you are anointed, but this verse doesn’t give you that promise!

There is another question that begs to be answered however.  How is it that we are to test if someone is indeed anointed?  Are we to believe that anyone who goes to bible college or takes on a role as spiritual leader is “anointed”?  How about Jim Jones?  Jones was a pastor and because of a lack of discernment by this followers they were all murdered in the jungle of Guyana.  Maybe he wasn’t anointed after all, but I’m sure the dude throwing this in your face is.  Right?

Here’s the deal.  God was courteous enough to right down a few thought for us and don’t you think it would be polite to actually take the time and read His thoughts?  Don’t you think you owe it to the author (in this case the creator of the universe) to try to understand what He is saying to us?  Some things are hard to understand but Psalm 105 is NOT one of them.

Chuck Smith Passes Away of Cancer at age 86

I  wanted to pay my respects to the family of Chuck Smith over his recent passing at age 86 from lung cancer.  The fact is, the differences I and my followers have had the Calvary over the past years are most definitely secondary and inconsequential to the family of God.  Chuck was and is a brother in Christ who remained steadfast to the ministry of God until the end.  I pray for a quick recovery of this shock to his followers and family.

Chuck had theological differences from myself, but one would be hard pressed to find a man who transformed ministry in the United States this side of the 20th century more than he did. He is to be applauded and respected for his ministry and it is my prayer that more of us would have the courage to take the established traditions of the church as much as he did.  Many of our churches may differ in theological beliefs, but most are touched in some way by the ministry of Chuck.  From  the contemporary music of Maranatha to casual dress in church we all experience some of Chuck’s influence.

To those who were not fans of Chuck, please use wisdom in the matter and refrain from taking advantage of this situation to espouse hatred toward him or speculate on the future of Calvary Chapel.   Any such comments on this blog will be promptly removed.  

Does Metallica Point us to God?

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

As a baby believer, I used to think that God’s creation of Man in Genesis 1 was a description of our physical look.  I thought that God was in fact a being, with special powers, that looked like us.  As I matured in the faith, a came to realize that my original belief about this passage was filled with holes.  For instance, God create man and woman and obviously I didn’t believe that God had both male part and female parts!  Since no two people are the same, it was impossible to reconcile different skin colors, and heights.  I came to be acutely aware that God is not referring to our physical look but something on the inside of us.  I came to understand that God is referring to our essence, our identity, perhaps even our soul.  These invisible attributes are in fact an imprint on man that points us to our creator who has the same essence.  So what are these attributes that God is referring to in Gen 1? I think that the best way to discover the attributes that man received from God is to simply look at God’s own actions in the text.


God is the perfect creator.  He loves to create and is the author of the concept of creation.  When God created Man, He gave us a desire to create as well.   A great deal of our time is spent in creation mode and it is what we are at our best.  I know I am at my happiest when I am creating something.  It is God who has given us the ability to created new and exciting things and our creation glorifies Him.


In the beginning the earth was in chaos (void and without form).  God then systematically created order to the universe.  He ordered the waters in the sky and earth, added the Sun, Moon and stars. He created creatures on the earth the produce based on their own kind.  He then created man and ordered his life by giving him woman and then instructed them to subdue the earth.  He created seasons and and tides and weather systems.  He ordered the chaos.  God loves order and we too love order.  We are in fact, unable to live in a world without order.  We take jobs as scientists that study and explain the order of things. We develop laws and governments to help to keep society orderly, and we punish the disorder of things.  If you look at the pages of Genesis 1, you will notice that God uttered “it was Good” about each of His creations except for when He created the Heavens (space).  Did God forget to say the words or this there something about space that makes it not good.  Perhaps God did not utter “it was good” because the Universe is a cold, dark and disorderly place that is not suitable for His crown of creation?  It appears to me that God ordered things to make it perfect for man and space is no place for man to live.  God orderly attributes were given to us in our creation as well and we absolutely crave order in all things.  Anyone who hates order is a sociopath which is a  brain disease that causes people to not recognize orderly versus disorderly.  Order is a gift from God.


When God created He uttered the words “It was good”.  In order for God to utter these words, He must recognize that things can be bad. Though everything God created, is by it’s nature good (meaning it has a holy intended purpose) he must still understand the contrast to goodness.  Man also knows what is good and bad.  Though we might from time to time suppress this knowledge, we still deep down know when we are sinning or when we are going right.  Though before the fall we had no capacity to define badness, we still had the ability to recognize it once we had something to compare to.  This is evident in the text of the fall of man.  As soon as they disobeyed, they were aware of their sin. They did not say “Hey, Good piece of Fruit thank for sharing Snake!”.  They said (and I am paraphrasing here) “Oh Crap!  What have we done?”  God knows good and bad and we also know good and bad.  The difference between God and man is that God cannot do bad because it is against His nature.  Our nature is different and we are most definitely able to do what we shouldn’t.


God’s creation is awe inspiring!  Everything He creates not only has utility to it, but also has beauty to it.  God did not just create the universe but He also created the most beautiful painting imaginable while doing it!  As we stare out into space we are struck with it’s beauty and are moved by its creation.  When we see an elaborate spider web that is spun in a seemingly random patter to create a work of art, we are memorized by it.  God necessarily must recognize beauty in order to create beautiful things.  We too have this attribute.  Even though a spider can create a beautiful thing (a web) they do not recognize it as beautiful. we do, because we are different than the spider, we have the attribute of aesthetics within us.  When we create, we are constantly looking to add our mark of beauty to it.  Consider Apple Computer products.  The iPhone is not the most powerful phone, nor the most practical one, but they sell like hot cakes because they look good.  We emotionally purchase things based on how they make us feel, not because they are the best alternative to solving our problems.  We love beautiful things, and are thus attracted to them.  Do to is attracted to beautiful things otherwise He would have no interest in creating and being involved in His creation.

The difference between deism and theism is the involvement of God in His creation.  The God of Christianity is a theistic one who is continually involved in His creation and this is a testament to His desire for beautiful things.  He was not disinterested in His creation like deism involves, he was and is activity involved in it at all times.


So to answer the question in my title, “Does Metallica point us to God?”  The answer is “YES”.  I am not suggesting that Metallica is a Christian band nor am I saying that the lyrics are pointing us to God.  What I am suggesting that any music, even Metallica moves us and this is our ability to recognize the attributes that God has given us.  Music is an orderly creation.  We know if the music is right and edifying or bad and not edifying.  Most importantly we recognize it’s beauty and aesthetic qualities and receive an emotional – not practical – response to it.  There is absolutely no other reason for music but to get us in touch with out emotions.  Music provides not other reason for existence.  Music is more than just the combination notes on a page. Music is indeed a creation of God and our ability to recognize it’s beauty is a gift given to us by God.  So though you might not like Metallica, one must still conclude that the band displays the gifts given to us by our creator and we should glorify God is this.

What not to do as a Christian

DriscollA friend of mine posted this quote on her Facebook page the other day and it strikes me that this is a good example of what not to do as a Christian.   I don’t mean to assume that my friend did something wrong,  I am not really attacking her, but I definitely have a thing or two to say about Mark Driscoll’s use of this quote.  At first glance there doesn’t seem to be any major issue with the quote.  I see what he is intending to do. He is using religion to mean a system of rules and rules don’t save or redeem.  I get it and would be in agreement if that was indeed the context of the original quote, but when one dives deeper into the meaning and the logic of the quote, it becomes a bit more problematic.

Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery. – Robert Ingersoll

First let’s take the quote at face value.  Religion is defined as an organized system of beliefs.  Are organized systems of beliefs slavery?  No one actually believes they are or they would have no ability to believe anything at all especially if someone also holds the same belief.  We are in fact, called to do this as Christians.  We learn about Christ by going to a book that is a collection of truths and we believe those truths to actually be true.  Is Driscoll suggesting that beliefs no matter how organized are a bad things and thus should be avoided?  Why should I “believe” that?  Am I supposed to run around making up my mind with absolutely no facts to support it just for the sake of  not being enslaved by my beliefs?  The quote is in fact nonsensical and meaningless if the word religion objectively has meaning.  So using the true and accurate definition of the term religion leaves Mark Dirscoll with a contradiction because he would not know what to believe if he did not have access to an organized set of beliefs to help him understand and define things as true or false.  Though it is Jesus who saves, it is our organized system of beliefs that keep us OUT of slavery; it doesn’t fling us into it.  Certainly beliefs can enslave us but it is not the belief that enslaves, it is the embracing of false beliefs that enslaves.

The bigger issue here is that words actually have meaning but Driscoll prefers to redefine words for his own special purposes.  To be fair, he’s not the only one who does this and if you asked most Christians if Christianity is a religion they would answer with the Pavlovian response of “no, it’s a relationship”.  As if religion and relationship are opposed to one another.  However anyone from the outside would certainly consider Christianity a religion and in fact most with say it is the perfect example of one.  What Driscoll is doing with his redefinition of words is called relativism and there is quite frankly no room in Christianity for relativists.  It begs the question as to what other important words are redefined by the church and its leaders so that they can boil down the Christian gospel to a 120 character Tweet.  The real issue for most people is the desire to see Christianity as a love religion with no rules, but certainly this is not the case.   Though salvation comes through the drawing of man to God and the relationship that follows, one cannot just remove the need for rules because of it.  Certainly I can’t use my relationship with God as an excuse for committing adultery or fornication.  Christianity has rules and we are inclined to follow them not because we will be struck down but because of our obedience to the Father of the Universe is part of a love relationship.  We have added many man made rules to Christianity but that is not a problem for the religion of Christianity, it is just a testament to the corruption of man.

There is however a much, much bigger issue with this quote and I hope that my readers already see the problem.  along with words having meaning is the concept that writers have a context in which they are making claims.  When we look at the words in the bible, we should seek to understand the context in which it was intended.  When Paul talks about the need for head covering for women, is Paul making a universal truth or is he speaking to a particular group of people who were experiencing a particular issue?   Though we debate over this in the church, it is clear that the reason for the debate is not because we are troubled over the words, but the context of Paul’s words.  Understanding context can sometimes be difficult but it is our obligation to try to find it.  So getting back to Mark’s tweet, is Mark representing the author of the quote properly or is he simply hijacking someones words for his purposes?

Robert Ingersoll the author of the quote was called “The Great Agnostic”.  He was an enemy of Christ, not a friend!  Ingersoll is not making the point that Driscoll is making, but he is actually making the exact opposite point of Driscoll.  Ingersoll knows what the word “religion” means and he is using the word in the exact same way as me.  So what Ingersoll is saying is, “Christianity enslaves people!”  This leaves Driscoll with three possible reason for quoting Ingersoll.  He either has no idea who Ingersoll is and thus was mistaken as to the context. He doesn’t care to be courteous to the author and is fine with misquoting him. Or he reject Christianity and has thus quoted Ingersoll properly.   Thought I doubt it to be the latter, there is no room for any of these options  in Christianity and it is especially problematic when quoted from a man who has millions of loyal followers who see Driscoll as a quick path the truth.  This calls Mark Driscoll’s character into question.  How can I trust anything he says?  How do I trust that when Mark Driscoll quotes other dead thinkers – people like Paul and Peter – that he is quoting them accurately?  How can I trust that this man does his homework and pays attention to important details in the Bible when he couldn’t take a second to Google a man before he quoted him? I asked Mark Driscoll these questions and am eagerly awaiting a response, but like with most pastors who eventually start to believe their own press, I don’t expect I will hear anything back.  Especially when the only response should be an apology to the author of the quote. We don’t like to apologize to dead enemies of the faith especially when we have twisted their words and context to serve our selfish ambitions.  If anyone feels differently, I would ask you where you have evidence to suggest that God is okay with us misrepresenting people even if our intent is a good one and the person wronged is evil?  Certainly I would not want some atheist using my words out of context to prove a point and I doubt Driscoll would like this either.

My dream is that Christians would start to take their faith seriously.  Instead of accepting everything that comes out of the mouth of a man in skinny Jeans, we’d start to think for ourselves through the context of the organized truths provided in the scriptures, corporate worship and the Holy Spirit.  We need to grow past the milk in the bible and start to eat some of the meat. Most importantly, we need to realize that we are being watched by everyone and if we lie about someone’s words to make a point we will ultimately be branded a liar not as thoughtful and courteous.

Let me end with some other quotes from Robert G. Ingersoll and you tell me if this man is a friend of foe to Christ

“If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.”

“The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it.”


“The Great Agnostic”

Evolution and Unexplained Attributes of Plants

FImagerom the title I selected for this post, one might think this a boring article on why science is wrong and why religion is right.  After all, it appears that modern American Christians are hell bent on showing the science as a medium is from Satan and not from the Creator of all things.  My daughter, a home school student, is constantly bombarded with “science” books that try to discount modern science by layering biblical philosophy on top of scientific evidence, no matter how many problem these books create regarding other theological points in the long run.

In reality, my plan today is to use science to not only show an inconsistency in it’s philosophy in regard to evolution but also to challenge the modern Christian’s thought regarding a topic that is generally accepted as “off limits” for Christians.  The topic is one of my favorites when it comes to making Christians feel uncomfortable.  The topic is drugs.

Don’t misunderstand me here, I am in no way giving a free pass to Christians to get high, stoned, or wasted.  I am not advocating taking a trip into another dimension! What I am advocating is giving some thought to the words of the Creator when He uttered “and it was good”

A common scientific principle of evolution is that evolution does not produce attributes in organisms that are not directly beneficial to the organism. If we see an attribute that seems to benefit others and not the organism then we have a problem. There is, of course, the possibility that some attribute is no longer beneficial and is left over from previous evolutionary cycles but some attributes don’t seem to ever benefit the organism and this can be problematic to the theory of evolution.  Take for instance plants.  Plants have certain attributes that seem only benefit others.  Marijuana has Tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC), The Poppy has morphine, codeine, papaverine, thebaine and noscapine, and of course Heroin.  All of these ingredients benefit others and no theory of evolution has sufficiently produced a benefit to the actual flower or plant.  So the question remains, why were these attributes included in the design of the plant?  This is problematic to Christians as well given that the concept of self medicating is generally considered a no, no in Christians thought.  This however, is a man-made concept.  People throughout history have used plants as medication and modern medicine didn’t really exist until the 11th century.  So if God is timeless, then He certainly doesn’t forbid the use of plants for medicine.  In fact most of our drugs started from a natural component and it wasn’t until patent medicine became a money making opportunity in the 17th century that we see synthetics hit the market.  What then do we say about this?  Are we to assume that natural medicine from plants was good then but now we know better?  President candidate Mitt Romney made this point when he was talking to a gentleman suffering from ALS.  When confronted by the man in a wheel chair, the man said he has tried all modern medicines to help him deal with his ALS.  He stated that only Cannabis seems to help.  Romney, a “religious” man, stated “Have you tried any of the synthetic marijuana?”  He then went on to say, “I will never accept that marijuana is medicine”  What struck me about this comment is that Romney trusts modern science more than hid creator!  He assumes that science can make medicine but God can only create drugs!  In what world would anyone advocate the use of a chemicals created by a fallible human over that of a product made by God Himself?  In addition, Romney is saying that even though Marijuana and synthetic alternatives have similar active ingredients, Marijuana is bad and the same drug in synthetic forms is magically good!  So man’s creation is good and God’s is sinful?  Really?  Granted in many cases these man-made chemicals are better to treat an individual symptom with but in the case of synthetic THC, they simply are not and everyone knows it.  Never mind the side effects from synthetics!  The reason for Romney’s statement is a testament to what campaign contributions and bad theology can do to the mind of the ignorant.  Romney is unable to see the truth through 100 plus years of taboo and neither are many of my Christian brothers and sisters.  This is especially true with Marijuana.  We see that the Opium Poppy produces pain medicines, and we see the the Coca Leaf produces anesthetics but we can’t seem to find any benefit to Pot!  Science seems to have the same problem.  There really doesn’t seem to be any reason for THC, or Opium in evolution!  I guess science and many Christians actually agree on something! 

What if, however, we are to assume that these plants were created and not evolved?  What then might we say about These ingredients?  What do we know about the bible regarding God and man?

1. God created all things

2. God uttered that all things are good

3. That God gave man all plants and animals

4. God told us to be good stewards of the land

5. Man is a bunch sinful depraved abusers


Given these five points, is it not entirely possible to show that the reason drugs exist is for our use?  Abuse is part of the human condition, created during the fall so the fact that people abuse drugs is not all together concerning regarding my argument.  After all, it is part of the human nature to be depraved.  We are in the constant state of abuse so to do anything other than abuse would change the very nature of man.  This nature is only changed when God Himself changes it though the replacement of our hearts and making us righteous in Christ.  Our abuse is not relevant to God’s creation for a holy intended purpose.  If it were relevant, humanity would not exist either!  


My point it this.  God created these drugs and I believe He created them for a holy intended purpose. Though evolution will continue to present arguments to remove God from the equation, it will always be working with one hand tied behind its back.  You see we, as Christians, understand that all things were created good and God created ingredients in plants that can help heal the body, reduce pain and even provide for a little relaxation in stressful times. Instead of us railing against drugs as bad for society, we should be falling back on Christianity’s oldest and basic premise, that God created.  We mustn’t jump to point number two that man fell and start our theology from there.  Drugs are, at their very core holy and the fact that man abuses is not a testament to the drug, but to the human condition.  

One basic premise of evolution tells a story about God, so let me give one more piece of advice given to me by the great philosopher, Indiana Jones.  He said in the third and in my opinion best, movie (the Last Crusade) “maybe you should try reading books [on evolution] instead of burning them!  God is everywhere EVEN in the theory of evolution and if you read up on it, God will make Himself known even in something that seems to oppose Him.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 225 other followers