Wow! It was a busy day! Today, we saw 442 people, shared the gospel with them, and gave away 357 pairs of glasses. The word is getting around to many communities in Accra about our eye clinic. We expect another busy day tomorrow! Check out the pictures and stories from today.
There’s more to come tomorrow!
I’m not in San Antonio anymore, that’s for sure. Instead, I am halfway across the world in Ghana, Africa with a team of my fellow Concordians and, together, we are hosting an eye clinic. There are many people in this region of Ghana in desperate need of glasses. We have the special privilege and pleasure of providing people here with the glasses they need in order to see. In the process, we also get to point people to the One in whom they can see God Himself – Jesus Christ – by sharing the gospel.
As I’ve been working as a part of this vision clinic, I’ve been pondering one of my favorite stories in Scripture:
As [Jesus] went along, He saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” (John 9:1-3)
In the ancient world – and especially among the ancient Jews – it was generally presumed that if you faced a trial, a trouble, or an ailment, it was because you had committed some heinous sin to deserve that trial, trouble, or ailment. Your sin and your trouble were intimately and inexorably interwoven in ancient thinking. For instance, Rabbi Ammi wrote, “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity.” If you were suffering, the rabbis taught, it was because you had done something wrong. In fact, some rabbis taught that not only could a person be punished for his own sin, but a child could be punished for his parents’ sin. Some rabbis believed, for example, that the untimely death of a child was the direct result of his mother’s dalliance in idolatry while he was still in the womb! Such was the close correlation between sin and tragedy.
Thus, it is really no surprise that, one day, as Jesus and His disciples are walking around and see a man born blind, the disciples ask: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind” (John 9:2)? Jesus’ disciples know the teaching of their Jewish rabbis well. They know a man cannot be born blind unless there is some sin to warrant such blindness.
But what the rabbis assumed about the connection between sin and trouble isn’t what a rabbi named Jesus knows about this blind man’s plight. This is why, instead of pointing to a specific sin committed by this man which had resulted in his blindness, Jesus explains to His disciples: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (John 9:3). This suffering is not the result of this sin or that sin. Rather, God is up to something in this suffering: He is using it to display His work.
The Greek word for “display” is phanero’o, from the word phos meaning, “light.” God, it seems, desires to bring this man darkened by blindness into the light of seeing. But God’s desire centers not only on the light of physical seeing, but on the light of spiritual seeing as well. In other words, Jesus, through His eventual healing of this man born blind, desires to bring this man not only into the light of the sun, but into the light of faith. And this is exactly what happens in the end: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” Jesus asks. “Lord, I believe,” the man responds (John 9:35, 38). When this man confesses his faith in Christ, he is brought into the light not only physically through the recovering of his sight, but spiritually through his trust in Christ.
All this week in Ghana, our goal is to help people see in two ways – spiritually and physically. I covet your prayers that eyes would be opened – not only by the glasses we share, but by the truth of the Gospel we proclaim!
Was Jesus really human?
These days, this question does not get asked a lot. Rather, people wonder whether or not Jesus was God. And time and time again, people come to the conclusion that Jesus is not, was not, and, indeed, could not have been God. Take, for instance, Reza Aslan, author of the bestseller Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. In an interview with NPR about his book, Reza summarizes his position on Jesus’ divinity:
If you’re asking if whether Jesus expected to be seen as God made flesh, as the living embodiment, the incarnation of God, then the answer to that is absolutely no. Such a thing did not exist in Judaism. In the 5,000-year history of Jewish thought, the notion of a God-man is completely anathema to everything Judaism stands for. The idea that Jesus could’ve conceived of Himself — or that even His followers could’ve conceived of Him — as divine, contradicts everything that has ever been said about Judaism as a religion.[1]
There’s no way, Reza says, Jesus’ followers could have considered Him to be divine. He was only a man who led a failed revolution as a failed run-of-the-mill Messiah.
In my studies for a class I’m teaching on Galatians, I came across some terrific commentary from the second-century church father Tertullian on Galatians 4:4-5. The apostle Paul writes in these verses: “But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” Tertullian comments on Paul’s phrase “born of a woman”:
To what shifts you resort, in your attempt to rob the syllable “of” of its proper force as a preposition, and to substitute another for it in a sense not found throughout the Holy Scriptures! You say that He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin, and in a womb, not of a womb.[2]
In Tertullian’s day, there were people trying to rob Jesus not of His divinity, but of His humanity. A group of called the Docetists considered everything corporeal to be evil while holding anything non-corporeal to be good. They thus denied that the non-corporeal God of the universe would ever dare to take on corporeal human flesh. This group taught that though Jesus may have been born “through” Mary, he was not born “of” Mary. In other words, He did not take on human flesh as a genuine offspring of a genuine human mother. Rather, He merely passed through Mary as an immaterial God and received nothing concrete from her. Indeed, the Docetists taught that though Jesus may have appeared to be a physical being, He was not. In fact, the very name “Docetist” comes from the Greek word meaning, “to appear.” Jesus, then, was simply an apparition – divine, yes, but certainly not a corporeal human.
Tertullian has no time for such teaching concerning Christ. He says that Docetists “murder truth”[3] and vigorously makes the case for Christ’s humanity. Thus, the problem in the early Church was not that some denied Jesus’ divinity, but that many denied His humanity! Reza has the problem exactly backwards.
Ultimately, to deny Jesus’ humanity or His divinity is to deny Him. Paul is crystal clear concerning the person of Christ: He is God’s Son and He is born of a woman. He is both God and man. Any other or lesser confession of Christ simply will not do.
[1] “Christ In Context: ‘Zealot’ Explores The Life Of Jesus,” NPR (7.15.2013).
[2] Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 20.
[3] Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 5.
It’s really the Enlightenment’s fault. Ever since René Descartes decided the best catalyst for rational inquiry was skepticism, the skepticism supposedly necessary to reason and the faith integral to religion have been regularly presented as at odds with each other, or, at the very least, best quarantined from each other. Consider this from Descartes devotee and Old Testament critic, Benedict Spinoza:
Those who do not know how to distinguish philosophy from theology dispute as to whether Scripture should be subject to reason or whether, on the contrary, reason should be the servant of Scripture: that is to say, whether the sense of Scripture should be accommodated to reason or whether reason should be subordinated to Scripture … It is obvious that both are absolutely wrong. For whichever position we adopt, we would have to distort either reason or Scripture since we have demonstrated that the Bible does not teach philosophical matters but only piety, and everything in Scripture is adapted to the understanding and preconceptions of the common people.[1]
Spinoza passionately contends that reason and religion must be kept in two separate spheres. If they are not, he warns, Scripture will distort reason and reason will distort Scripture. But key to understanding Spinoza’s argument for the separation of Scripture and reason is why these two entities distort each other. “Scripture,” Spinoza explains, “is adapted to the understanding and preconceptions of the common people.” Spinoza assumes that the biblical characters of antiquity did not have the intellectual faculties necessary to imbibe the great rational truths of the Enlightenment. Spinoza elsewhere explains:
God adapted His revelations to the understanding and opinions of the prophets [and other biblical authors as well], and that the prophets could be ignorant of matters of purely philosophical reason that are not concerned with charity and how to live; and indeed they really were ignorant in this respect and held contradictory views. Hence knowledge about natural and spiritual matters is by no means to be sought from them.[2]
Isn’t that nice. God would have revealed matters of rational, philosophical reason to the biblical writers, but because they were not smart enough to understand them, God had to stick with giving them moral platitudes about “charity and how to live.” Thankfully, Spinoza does understand the truths of rational philosophy and can explain them to us full-throatedly.
Unfortunately, Spinoza’s parings of reason with intelligence and religion with ignorance are still assumed in and normative to the thinking of our day. Consider this from the Huffington Post:
Are religious people less intelligent than atheists?
That’s the provocative conclusion of a new review of 63 studies of intelligence and religion that span the past century. The meta-analysis showed that in 53 of the studies, conducted between 1928 to 2012, there was an inverse relation between religiosity – having religious beliefs, or performing religious rituals – and intelligence. That is, on average, non-believers scored higher than religious people on intelligence tests.
What might explain the effect?
Scientists behind studies included in the review most often suggested that “religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better.’”[3]
Now, the rules of rational and, for that matter, statistical inquiry remind us that correlation does not equal causation. So, to surmise that religious beliefs decrease IQ from a study that happens to show some people with religious beliefs have lower IQ’s than those without religious beliefs is suspect at best. Indeed, Jordan Silberman, a co-author of the study, admitted as much to the Huffington Post:
I’m sure there are intelligent religious people and unintelligent atheists out there … The findings pertain to the average intelligence of religious and non-religious people, but they don’t necessarily apply to any single person. Knowing that a person is religious would not lead me to bet any money on whether or not the person is intelligent.
Silberman concedes that there are many anomalies that counter his correlation between religious belief and lower IQ’s, which speaks forcefully against any kind of causation. Thus, this study gives us no real insight into to whether or not religion and rationality are truly at odds with each other.
So why do I bring all of this up? Because, regardless of whether or not it is true, firmly ingrained into our society’s zeitgeist is the narrative that religion and reason are irreconcilable. I, however, believe this to be false. Christians can make full use of their rational faculties without having to sell their faith to the strictures of a seventeenth century movement and its incorrigible assumptions concerning the incompatibility of reason and religion. Regardless of any assumptions bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment, we know that we have far more than just reason or just religion, “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). And His mind bridges both reason and religion. After all, His command created both reason and religion.
[1] Benedict Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, Michael Silverthorne & Jonathan Israel, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 186.
[2] Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, 40.
[3] Macrina Cooper-White, “Religious People Branded As Less Intelligent Than Atheists In Provocative New Study,” The Huffington Post (8.14.2013).
It used to be just a fanciful myth. Now, it’s a psychological reality. When the Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León came to believe some waters at Bimini, the westernmost islands of the Bahamas, could reverse aging and restore youthfulness, he set out on an expedition to find what we have come to know as the Fountain of Youth.
These days, we don’t need a fountain to enjoy perpetual youth, just a psychological pronouncement. An article published in BBC News chronicles the shift in the way psychologists are viewing youthful adolescence. Sarah Helps, a clinical psychologist, explains:
We used to think that the brain was fully developed by very early teenagerhood and we now realise that the brain doesn’t stop developing until mid-20s or even early 30s. There’s a lot more information and evidence to suggest that actually brain development in various forms goes on throughout the life span.[1]
It is with this research in mind that child psychologists have now identified three stages of adolescence: early adolescence from 12-14 years, middle adolescence from 15-17 years, and late adolescence after 18 years. Notice there is no upper limit on late adolescence. Adolescence, it seems, can now extend into an indeterminable future. We can be forever young. Bob Dylan would be ecstatic.
This is quite a shift from the beginning of the twentieth century when, according to columnist Diana West, “Children in their teen years aspired to adulthood; significantly, they didn’t aspire to adolescence.”[2] It used to be children wanted to leave adolescence as quickly as they could so they could enjoy the promising perks of adulthood. Now, more and more grown-ups are eschewing adulthood, with all of its responsibilities, for the nostalgic perks of childhood.
I am not going to argue against scientific evidence that suggests the human brain continues to develop into the late 20s and 30s. This is, I am certain, true. But this does not mean that, even while brains are developing, these “late adolescents” are somehow incapable of living – or should not be living – as reasonably developed adults. Indeed, in any area of life, challenge is necessary for development. If one wants to develop physical strength, he must endure challenging workouts. If one wants to increase intellectual acumen, she must challenge herself with reading, researching, and thinking. If one wants to develop in maturity, he must challenge himself to live as an independent, responsible adult rather than as a dependent, carefree child.
Perhaps it is Gary Cross, Distinguished Professor of Modern History at Penn State University, who states the problem with the increasingly delayed transition into adulthood most succinctly when he writes of young men who refuse to leave the thrills of adolescence: “The culture of the boy-men today is less a life stage than a lifestyle, less a transition from childhood to adulthood than a choice to live like a teen ‘forever.’”[3] Brain development may indeed be a product of psychological biology. Maturity and immaturity, however, are consequences of moral volition.
Choose wisely.
[1] Lucy Wallis, “Is 25 the new cut-off point for adulthood?” BBC News Magazine (9.23.2013).
[2] Diana West, The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007), 1.
[3] Gary Cross, Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 5.