The Whistle Blower

A ‘whistle blower’ is somebody who reveals misconduct (usually among the leadership) of an organization. This person is prepared to stick out his neck for the long-term good of the organization.  In doing so, he usually risks his own reputation by the reprisals of those whose status may get damaged by the publication and those who prefer to hide the bad things to maintain the status quo.  Few people are prepared to take on such a role today, as it requires conviction, courage, and the willingness to suffer the consequences.

Over the years I had become seriously concerned about some practices and (largely informal) teachings in the Canadian Reformed churches.  Issues included: regeneration and faith, covenant promise and covenant curse, a form of Hyper-Calvinism in reaction to Arminianism, denominational pride, and an under-emphasis of mission.  Since the denominational media were strictly censored at that time, I opted for writing and publishing a book.  From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 1998, I researched these topics and wrote the book ‘Praying for Rain’.  Unfortunately there were few people interested or brave enough to think through the issues with me (although several were prepared to lecture me, especially afterwards), and very few people wanted to help me in editing my writing.  Even now I hesitate to personally thank the few who did, as most of my apparent supporters quickly abandoned me as soon as the manure hit the fan.

At the time I was a Math and Science teacher at one of the larger Canadian Reformed high schools. Already a few times earlier I had stuck out my neck by challenging some church traditions, like, “May we mow our lawn on Sunday?” and “Are the six creation days necessarily 24 hours each?”  Already three weeks prior to publication, the school board requested a copy of my manuscript as several parents in the Niagara Peninsula reportedly had complained about some things that I had said in class.  No parents had ever come to me, and no school board member had come for a personal talk about those complaints, so I expressed my regret of their obvious disregard of the Matthew 18 principle.  Nevertheless, since I was not afraid to share my views, I agreed to give them the requested document.  The board -after some searching- found two men willing to examine my manuscript to see whether the parental concerns were justified: the pastor who was the apparent ring leader of the concerned parents and a theology professor.  I never heard what those parental concerns had been.

I officially published “Praying for Rain” on the first day of spring, 1998.  I remember it felt like a winter day: perhaps it was an ominous sign.  Soon the board-appointed committee presented their report.*  In it they listed and described eight points on which I was said to deviate from the church confessions.  I wrote a rebuttal, and at a hearing, I defended it to the committee.  I gave the theologians a run for their money. The professor kept saying that, “Having the promise is the only ground for infant baptism”, so I reminded him that all who hear the Gospel receive the promise of salvation. I asked, “Don’t we agree this is insufficient ground for their baptism?”  The pastor insisted that the little children in his church were believers, too. So, I asked him why they were not admitted to the Lord’s Supper. His response: “They cannot understand the meaning.”  He should have said, “They are under the legal (alcohol) drinking age”!  In May the board had studied the issues and prepared an “acknowledgment” for me to sign.  By signing it, I would promise to never refer to my book or to any of its contents and give my unreserved agreement with a collection of (out of context) phrases from the confessions and the Church Order of 1618, 1619.  Failure to sign this document would result in immediate job termination.  Since I could not in good conscience agree that (1) the Bible demands that infants of believers MUST be baptized, and (2) the Lord’s Supper is only for Reformed believers, I was forced to take the consequences.  On Victoria Day, 1998, I was allowed to pick up my personal belongings from the school building.  The board distributed the committee report (not my rebuttal, naturally) and the “acknowledgment” to all my (former) colleagues. Several said they could not sign the latter either, but they were assured, “No need to worry. Only whistle blowers need to sign!”

During the next six weeks we had three elder visits from the church.  Each time they pressured us to voluntarily put ourselves under discipline. I did not think we were living in sin, so we did not give in to their request. Against the advice of the nearest Can. Ref. church, our consistory then proceeded to put us under discipline.  They presented me with a report that accused me of six heretical teachings.* Although I had more or less expected discipline, it was still a shock to be treated as an unbeliever.  One of our elders had just given me a glowing recommendation for my seminary studies; another had just celebrated with us the publication of my book. Although the whole experience was quite traumatic for our family, now I think, “Wow, in three months’ time, they already dropped two of the eight heresies. Within a year I might be vindicated!”

After several other elder visits on which I was told to withdraw my book, the pastor himself came for a visit. It was November 30, 1998.  Little did we realize at the time that this meeting would be a turning point.  In his introduction, our pastor assured me he was not interested in nit-picking on minor issues. Rather, he wanted to deal with my one crucial heresy.  (This should have been a great comfort to me. Somehow he had just whittled down the six heretical views to just one real issue!)  Since these events happened about fifteen years ago, I will insert a slightly edited section of my report, written shortly after the meeting.

The pastor had great objections to my written suggestion that the Spirit’s work (of ‘preparing the soil’) can precede the hearing of the Gospel.  He asked me how one could seriously love to hear the truth, even if this would condemn him as a sinner.  I related to him the story of our friend Paul K., who was urged to read the Scripture, after he had an unbearable sense of sin and misery.  I added that this also expressed in John 16.8, where Jesus tells us, that “The Spirit will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin...”  The pastor said, he disagreed with my interpretation of “the world” as those who do not know the Word.  He asked me how one can be saved.  I told him, that from a human perspective, most reject the Gospel, while some accept it as the truth (as the Parable of the seed also suggests).  Yet, from God’s perspective, some receive the gift of repentance and faith, while others are allowed to perish in their rebellion.  Apparently, it was not the answer he hoped or expected to hear.  Twice he repeated his question, and both times I repeated my response.

He was particularly concerned that I called this preparing work of the Spirit “an act of God’s grace”.  He claimed that we had different definitions of “grace”, and that my view was terribly wrong.  Arminius, he claimed, had said the same thing, and therefore it must be wrong, and I had to be wrong too.  Yet, if we look at the terms used in Scripture, we find that grace is even given to the wicked (Isaiah 26.10).  If God comes to people with the Good News, He comes with His love.  In evangelism, we can say, “God loves you!”  In proclaiming Christ, we share with them the love of Christ.  Yet, the pastor claimed that “having grace” is a matter of all or nothing: While our children get irresistible grace, most others don’t get any grace from God.  He had serious concerns with my suggestion, that this (preparatory) work of the Spirit is resistible.  Yet, Acts 7.51 tells us that in Stephen’s time the religious leaders did resist the Holy Sprit.  

I suggested that we ought to let classis (the regional convention of Canadian Reformed Churches) be the judge on this issue. At least one time earlier I had approached him about his over-reaction to Arminianism.  So, I would appeal to the regional assembly (Classical Convention) and let them decide whether I was Arminian or my pastor a Hyper-Calvinist.

The first Classis Convention of 2000 decided to appoint a committee to see whether or not my consistory was correct in putting both of us under discipline.   Three or four months later, at their next convention, it was decided that our elders were fully justified to treat us as unbelievers and to bar us from the Supper of our Lord.

Regarding the doctrinal disagreement between my pastor and me, the first Classical Convention decided that this first had to be discussed with the local church counsel.  Our consistory replied a few months later: “We are fully behind our pastor and his teaching, and we are convinced he is teaching the full Gospel and the balanced biblical truth!”  So, the second Classis convention must have appointed another committee with at least one or two professors.  I had supplied detailed references from the pastor’s sermons and his published articles.  Yet, on this case I never got an official reply.   Slowly, the reason for the lack of response became clear: They wanted to protect the pastor’s good reputation, and it would be too embarrassing that a church member without formal theological training should know better than the elders and the pastors who had studied so much. I thought I had not been treated fairly, but one senior pastor in the region told me, “You have seriously angered the leaders (in criticizing the churches and your pastor’s teaching); therefore you should not expect to get justice.”  Whistle blower’s fate! 

Yet, something had changed! After one morning service, the same professor of the Guido committee assured me “I no longer preach like that. I have learned from these affairs!”  The last thing my pastor told me was, “Well, I guess my doctrine was not perfect, but at least I am not a heretic, like you!”  Several times, a seminary professor would visit to preach in our church in an obvious attempt to restore some of the damage of unbalanced preaching. Later someone told me that at that time our pastor had to have every sermon scrutinized before he was allowed to preach.  When I heard this, I realized that it must have been a very traumatic and humiliating experience for him.  I wrote him a letter of apology for all the hardships that he had to endure because of me.  

In August, 1999 we had our only and final meeting with the church counsel.  In this meeting it became clear that, even if we were not heretics, we would still be kept under discipline for not attending all Sundays’ services.  Nevertheless, we were responsible for our children, who had suffered much under the doom and gloom of angry men and were at risk of hating forever anything related to the church.  Therefore, we had regularly visited a Reformed Baptist church, where we experienced a loving community, godly young people, and preaching that challenged the hearers to accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior!  For the spiritual wellbeing of our children we had to say farewell to the Can. Ref. church community.  

Nevertheless, we were not prepared to get rebaptized to join the Baptist church.  So, we hoped to join one of the local churches that had separated from the CRC. Two churches rejected our request for membership. Interestingly, when their counsels met our former Can. Ref. elders, they heard nothing about my doctrinal errors or heresy.  Suddenly, my status changed from heretic to trouble maker and aggressor, or: in other words: a whistle blower like Klaas Schilder and his buddies!  (The one pastor assured me that for nonconformists there is no place in the Kingdom of God: he was the pastor of an Independent CRC!  The other pastor criticized us for not humbly accepting the verdict of our elders, but when I asked him about his CRC elders when he had rejected them, he shot venom from his mouth.) Interestingly, as the Can. Ref. churches longed to be united with such churches, “the big doctrinal smoke screen” no longer worked to their advantage.  Nobody ever thanked me for fighting the good fight for the true doctrine. “Better a good name than a pure doctrine” seems to have been the elders’ motto.  

Shortly thereafter, two true friends dared to stand up for us and challenged their own URC counsel. Their elders read my book and found no heresy therein.  We were embraced as members in good standing.  We owe our deepest gratitude to these brothers and our Lord, who gave us new hope in a new church home.  Although eventually I could not pursue ministry in that church, most of our closest friends are still in that congregation!  

It was my church counsel that used the term ‘heretical’.  When I told some Baptist friends that I had been branded a heretic, they said, “Wow, you’re just like Marten Luther!”  Then I realized that ‘heretic’ just means: one who criticizes the church’s teachings (and gets in trouble for it).  They also said that all churches need whistle blowers: Without challenges, a church will die.  They were right.  The church must be a dynamic reality: Also the Reformed church is never done reforming: this was my first lesson in the book.  When we reject the whistle blowers, like Israel which killed its prophets, we are like people who pull the batteries from their smoke alarms.  When we try fanatically to maintain the church’s status quo, our traditions and our confessions easily become our idols.  Meanwhile, we will foster a generation of hypocrites and rubber-stamps, while those who seek to personally and critically appropriate their doctrinal confessions are pushed to the church’s margins or beyond.  

* In the summer I inserted an addendum of four corrections to my book, but this never made a difference in our treatment.  All relevant documents -except those that contain my classical case against our pastor- are published at https://sites.google.com/site/pr4rain/praying-for-rain-the-book

re: comment from a sister
Already seven years ago we came to personal closure: no more spite or anger. With Joseph I would say, "You did evil, but God used it for good, even your own good."
Yet, the issues do not disappear. I started this blog when I got a request to deliver a box of copies of my old book. There are many people wrestling with such issues.
We must learn from our mistakes. I think I did: I pick my battles carefully today. I never got in trouble teaching in public school or even planting in China. I hope and trust the Can. Ref. leaders also learned through it.
Looking back, I know I was not like Jesus, as a sheep going to the slaughter. I still kicked and screamed. Yet, in the same situation today, if I were in a church that would say, "You leave us, then you leave Christ!" and "There may be flies on you guys; there ain't no flies on us!", I would still be a whistle blower for the truth.
 

Legacy of the Liberation

Summer 2006. From Holland we made a trip through Central Europe.  After our immigration to Canada -in 1983- this area had opened up, and it was time to take a look behind the former Iron Curtain.  We were still quite Dutch (read: frugal, or cheap), so we had decided to borrow a tent and go camping.  On the first camp ground already we noticed that almost all the (car) licence plates were Dutch.  After visiting Terezin and Prague, we drove south to meet up with my brother and his family, who were camping at Letni Den, in the south of the country.  This was a campground for Dutch Christians.  We arrived on a Friday, and I noticed the same day that they were looking for a speaker for the Sunday service.  I volunteered.  I had preached in a Canadian nursing home and in CRC churches, but I had never preached in the Dutch language and never dreamt of preaching in the Czech Republic.

I had just read the best seller “Knielen op een Bed Violen”*, which had been published a year earlier.  In this book, the author describes his father’s life as he became entangled in an ultra-conservative, experiential church in central Holland.  In his father’s deep desire to experience the power of God and to please the brutal leaders of the church, he despised his wife and neglected his children.  Although many readers felt that the critical analysis was an attack on the church of Christ, I argued that it was -for a great part- a justified attack, for the father’s ‘faith’ was not one of thankfulness and love, but one of selfish ambition, where he became a slave to a system and where spiritual experience was considered of greater value than the love of Christ.  When churches promote such attitudes, they do not build the Kingdom of God.  Near the end of the message I used the term “ware kerk” (genuine church), and suddenly many eyes lit up.  Finally, they could peg this Canadian visitor: Obviously I had grown up in the Liberated Reformed Church!*

1945 was the year of Liberation! The Canadians had pushed across the great Dutch rivers to send the Nazi Germans open and give our ancestors their freedom.  It was also the year that a significant segment of the (Dutch) Reformed Churches broke off to start another denomination or federation of churches.  Let me try to explain the situation in one paragraph.

At the time the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands formed a sizeable group with significant political power. One of its strong leaders had been Dr. Abraham Kuyper.  In his attempt to explain the relationship between (infant) baptism and regeneration, he proposed the theory of “presumed regeneration”.  Since we cannot know for sure that (or if) the infant is (or will be) truly regenerated, we must at that time presume that this is so.**  For a group of young theologians, most notably Klaas Schilder, this was an unacceptable theory, but Synod (the national leadership convention) decided to proimote Kuyper’s theory as the only legitimate view: all churches had to submit to it.  Schilder wrote a brochure against the wrongs of “extra-scriptural binding”. So, when he and his followers separated in 1945, they had two reasons: (1) rejecting the theory of presumed regeneration and (2) rejecting the adopted form of church government, where the big conventions could force the local congregations on such issues.

Now, the Dutch Confession (Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis) explains that not all institutions, called ‘church’ are actually ‘churches of Christ’.  So, it contrasts the genuine church with the fake church.  The first does all things (teaching, sacraments, and discipline) right, while the latter does everything wrong.  When you read Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church or Jesus’ letters to the churches at Sardis and Laodicea (Rev. 3), you must conclude that some churches are still considered churches of God, even when there are already many problems.  Obviously, the Dutch Confession portrays the extremes of Good vs. Bad. In reality, however, there is a gradient: No church is perfect, but some are worse than others.  The ones that have gone truly bad have ‘lost the Lampstand” and have become ‘Synagogues of Satan’ (Westminster Confession).

Nevertheless, those who liberated themselves from the “synodical tyranny” to “continue as the true Reformed churches in The Netherlands” naturally stressed the evil in the others.  Were they not teaching errors in their ‘presumed regeneration’, and had they not abused church discipline against Schilder and his friends?  In the heat of the struggle, the perspective was “black & white”: Obviously the Synodicals formed the fake church, while the Liberated ones constituted the genuine church. 

This “Liberation” caused a lot of broken relationships.  Friends were separated for life, and families were torn apart.  One of my mother’s aunts decided to stay in the good old Reformed church. She probably did not understand all the fuss of the quarrelsome relatives.  She would downplay the problems at family gatherings, “After all, we are still brothers and sisters!”  My father strongly objected.  He made it clear to us that she no longer was a sister in Christ.  When a pastor from a neighboring church told us in a sermon how he had prayed in the hospital with someone from the syndical churches, my father made it clear at home that we must avoid such terrible practices or the promotion of such ideas.

For the next forty years or so, this kind of denominational pride continued, and any criticism was vehemently denied.  Most leaders would be sure to toe the line that only we were the Genuine Church.  During the years after the Liberation, many Dutch folk left for Canada.  When they came here, they found the CRC (Christian Reformed Church), sister churches of the Kuyper Kerk.  It did not take long for the newly arrived trouble makers to put them for a choice.  Would the CRC accept them as the only true continuation of the Reformed churches in The Netherlands?  In Canada, there had been no push for Kuyperian theories like ‘presumed regeneration’ and the leaders saw no need to abandon their Dutch sister church to join the trouble makers.  Consequently, the verdict was easy: In the Canadian Reformed view, by default the CRC had become the Fake Church, in effect: the Synagogue of Satan.  This attitude is still hard to fight, and in fact, most leaders seem reluctant to fight the church traditions.  Even fairly recently some Can. Ref. churches would place their young people under discipline if they chose to have a CRC member as potential marriage partner.

*Jan Siebelink, Knielen op een bed violen, januari 2005

**among the objectors, some would believe that all baptized children are (or will be) regenerated (which must imply that they are elect and cannot lose salvation), while others insisted that there is no actual connection between baptism and regeneration (even though Titus 3: 5 suggests there is).

Chatting about Church

For many years I had the desire to study theology and to work in ministry.  Ironically, getting fired from my teaching job allowed me to enroll as full-time student in an M. Div. program.  After a few years I graduated, but at that time there seemed little prospect in getting a position in ministry.  Although I kept getting positive confirmations of a calling, the local Reformed churches treated me either as a heretic, a liberal, or as stubborn student who preached too long.

So, with some friends we decided to offer free ESL classes, for which we could use the meeting rooms of our downtown church building.  It took some patient perseverance: the first month nobody came. Then a small group of Korean Christians came who wanted to improve their English language skills. Finally we got our first Chinese student: a medical doctor from South China!  After several months we got more Chinese friends, and we were happy that they wanted to learn more about Christianity and the Bible.  Several of them would attend church with us, and the second year we started a Saturday night Bible study group.

The church members, many of which were senior Dutch immigrants, had a mixed response. While some were delighted to have Asian seekers attend the services, others were not so happy. One older sister explained her concern.

We have relatives (or friends?) in New Zealand.  The Dutch immigrants worked hard there to get a congregation, a building, and a pastor.  Yet, they were not content to be a “Dutch church”, so they started to invite the local population, trying to make them feel at home.  This was so successful that eventually the worship style and services changed (in response to the shift in membership backgrounds).  After some time, the church no longer felt like the “good old religion” or like the traditional church the Dutch had grown up with.  So, the older pioneers started to leave, and tragically they lost their church to others.

In such situations we are forced to evaluate our priorities. What is our purpose? Are we trying to build the church of God, or do we seek to build a place and community where we feel good, and where our own felt needs are met?  Are we prepared to leave our comfort zone or lose our possessions if that would serve to build God’s Kingdom?  In Acts 8 (vss. 1 – 8) we see how the Enemy tried to destroy the church, scattering the disciples. Yet, God used this persecution to spread the Gospel.  The letter to the Hebrews reminds Christians how they had joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew that they had better and lasting possessions. (Hebrews 10: 34b)

In the Bible the concept of ‘church’ never refers to a building. Yet, in western culture, it’s the first thing that comes to mind. When you Google for ‘church’ pictures, you get mostly church buildings. As most people today seem to confuse “church” with “church building”, it should not surprise us that the building can become an idol for the congregation.  In Jesus’ days, the Jews used God’s Temple (The House of God) as evidence and proof that God was with them.  Ezekiel (ch. 10) already warned that God would leave his temple so that the majestic buildings, the pride of the Jews, would become an empty shell.  Jesus himself declared that He was God’s Temple: It was in Him that God dwelt among His people: Immanuel.  The temple buildings would soon be destroyed, while God would build His house in the disciples of Jesus Christ.

There is a second misconception about the church. Already in Romans 14 we read about divisions in the church, and over time we can see a growing list of issues regarding the interpretation and the application of the Word of God. Add to that the cultural diversity of humankind, which results in a variety of worship styles, and it is easy to see how the church of God could become fragmented.  As it is natural for culture groups to protect and propagate their own convictions and practices, so church groups often ended up viewing their own ideas and lifestyles as superior to all others and a hallmark of the (only) proper way to be a Christian.  So, over time, the focus often shifted from the Gospel and Christ to membership in the correct group with the right doctrine.  Indeed, in my home tradition for instance, the word “Reformed” was considered more important than the word “Christian”, and there was more emphasis on following John Calvin than on being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  All this well-meant ‘protection of the truth’ often resulted in another form of idolatry, where Christ was no longer at the center.

When I studied at a Baptistic seminary, I noticed that while the Reformed folks would question the Baptists in their faith, as they publicly despised the Sabbath by going to a restaurant on Sundays, the Baptist folks would question the Reformed since these ‘Christians’ did not hesitate to enjoy a good glass of wine or a nice cigar.  Also, in the traditional Reformed churches they would agree that Baptist churches could not be churches of Jesus Christ as they refused to baptise the infants of believers. Meanwhile the (FEB) Baptist churches defined the church as “the gathering of immersed believers”, which would exclude most Reformed-Presbyterian churches.

We must mention a third area of confusion when it comes to defining the church.  In the Bible we see the church described from two distinct perspectives. The most common reference is to regular local meetings of Christian believers. Local Christians might be meeting (at least) every Sunday in somebody’s home. There they would study the Word of God, unite in prayer and song, and ‘break bread’ to remember Christ crucified (and risen from the dead).  The other biblical perspective looks at the world-wide gathering of all Christian believers, whereby all (true) Christian believers belong to Christ’s Body, which is the church (Col.1).

Now, it is clear from various N.T. letters that not all those who are ‘in the church’ (as members of a local gathering) are true believers ‘of the church’ (that is: they are not by true faith united to Christ’s body).  On the other hand (Hebr. 10:25), we find reference to Christians who did not consider it important to attend regular worship meetings in a Christian community.  Yet, while it is essential to have true faith, it is also very important to belong to a local church for mutual encouragement and strengthening, for united praise and prayer, and for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.  Furthermore, in the church we must exercise and experience the love of Christ, for it is in this love that we can be built up in unity, and it is in this way that God wants us to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God. Those who refuse to live in community with other Christians are often full of pride or lacking in Spirit fruit. If we grow as disciples of Christ, we must (more and more) walk and talk like Jesus did (1 John 2), and consider others as better than ourselves (Phil. 2).

The Bible is full of apparent contradictions and areas of tension. In most of these areas we see some churches and Christians overemphasize one particular perspective while others underemphasize the same.   So, in modern society with its promotion of personal freedom and selfish ambition, we can find many who insist that faith is a private relationship between “Jesus and me”. The new generation hates to make long-term commitments in fear of losing their freedom.  Yet, there are also churches that don’t want to talk about ‘universal church’ or ‘Body of Christ’. In the Canadian Reformed Churches, the common understanding used to be that the total membership of their churches (and their sister churches) was pretty much congruent or equivalent with the total of all true believers.  If you belonged to the right church group, you were presumed to have true faith unless or until you publicly failed to follow a specific code of conduct, or if you publicly challenged their particular theology or teaching.

Although I had always been respected as a good church member, my publication of “Praying for Rain” suddenly put a stop to this. In my “heretical teachings” I had shown myself not to be a Christian, and therefore I was “excluded by the elders from the Christian congregation and (in their judgment) … by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ.” (Heidelberg Catechism. Q, A 85) My wife, when asked, told the elders that she supported me. So, she too was placed under discipline and treated as an unbeliever.  Interestingly, at one of the monthly elder visits (where they refused to discuss the theological issues) one elder exclaimed, ‘I am happy that in all this trouble, you and your wife are still united.’  I replied, ‘What? You are happy that not only I am on my way to hell, but that my wife is joining me there?’  He was shocked with my explanation; he really did not know what he was doing.  

A Theory of Knowledge: Science and Faith

Faith and science both refer to knowing and knowledge.  Science claims to have reliable knowledge, gathered through observation and (experimental) verification. Yet, faith typically refers to the certainty of things that are not verifiable through direct personal observation or experimentation.  Both involve knowledge that is accepted as reliable and true.  Both rely heavily on education, where knowledge is passed on: from parents to children, teachers to students, and community leaders to the citizens.  Also, teachers learn from other teachers: in classes and the media, through the Internet, and books.  But, ultimately, where does the knowledge come from; how do the educators know?

The first source of new knowledge is through observation. Yet, observations must be recorded or described, and they must be interpreted before they can contribute to human knowledge.  Observation and interpretation are not objective activities. People from different age groups, cultural backgrounds, and periods in history make different observations when they witness similar events. When we make observations, we first focus on the anomalies: the things that appear different from what we expect them to be.  Yet, if they are too different we may not even see what is going on.  Next, as we try to interpret the things we have just seen, we can only do so in context with our prior knowledge, whether this was obtained through education or personal experience. Our (personal or communal) body of knowledge does not just consist of facts; the facts are connected to specific interpretations and incorporated into a particular worldview.  

Is the global climate warming at unprecedented rates? Are we past the global peak in oil production? Are GM foods safe?  Can Native tribes learn about medicinal plants through contact with spirits? How did Ed Leedskalnin build his Coral Castle*?  Although the scientific method (of acquiring knowledge) requires repetitive experimentation, today’s scientists are involved with many problems where this cannot be done. Also, those who make the observations typically have their own agendas, such as: they expect to see a negative environmental impact from modernization; they want to promote GM foods; they deny that spirits exist or that miracles occur.  The researcher typically shares the worldview that is dominant in the culture of his place and time. We all know that strict communist regimes demand their scientists to promote the communist worldview, and we are not surprised to see that scientists in Islamic societies favor interpretations consistent with their faith. So, in North American academia, we ought not to be surprised that atheistic interpretations are favored.  Reference to a god (or intelligent design) are typically dismissed as unscientific (meaning: not consistent with the prevailing worldview), and the proponents of such ideas are often expelled from academic positions**.

If two thousand years ago -in Jerusalem- a man who had been crucified walked out of the grave, and if –against all odds- there is an amazing chain of witnesses to testify to this event***, then those who bother to find this evidence may still come to different conclusions. Historians, who recognize the evidence yet insist that miracles don’t happen, will continue to deny that it took place.  Christian faith hinges on the fact of the resurrection of the crucified Christ.  Observation, therefore, is a crucial component of Christian faith. Just as in science, however, almost all the things that we “know”, we have learned from teachers whom we trust.  

Years ago I regularly went with a friend to Saturday morning men’s breakfasts at a downtown church. For one of those mornings I had invited him to join us afterwards at home. Just that morning the breakfast talk was about the Creation story of Genesis. Later at home I asked my friend, “What did you think of this morning’s talk?”  He did not hesitate, “Ridiculous!  Who still believes in such primitive myths? Nobody has seen serpents talking and such stuff!”  I could sympathise with his response, for in today’s Age of Science, this is the commonly held worldview. Yet, I asked him, “O.k., What is your story of the beginnings? Do you believe humans evolved from complex animals, which evolved from simple animals, and ultimately from lifeless things like rocks?”  He replied, “Well, something like that!”  I concluded, “Well, that’s just as fantastic! Nobody ever saw humans come from animals or living things from lifeless things!” How do you know your story is true?  He defended himself by reminding me that today’s scientists all seem to agree on this. So, I concluded, “You believe your silly story, because you trust in scientists who have never observed what they insist happened; I believe my incredible story, because it’s the story that Jesus accepted as the truth. Which source is most reliable?  The Bible claims that Jesus was present at and actively involved with creation.  And he has proven that he is truth by predicting his resurrection and then walking out of his grave.  Finally, my friend admitted that he had been born in a Christian family, but that later he decided to reject the teaching of the church. He acknowledged his bias when it came to choosing between two unlikely stories.

There is yet another way in which humans gain knowledge! When we restrict human information sources to observation and education, we implicitly assume there is no God or other spiritual being, who has passed on knowledge to humankind. When I ask people in modernized countries, “How do tribal people know which plants can be used to heal specific problems?”, the standard answer is, “By experimentation and by passing on this knowledge though the generations.”  Yet, if this is what we say, we are showing little respect for or comprehension of tribal cultures and their traditional methods.  For, they themselves would say that such knowledge is acquired through shamans who receive specific instructions from the spirit world.  In western culture, “we” don’t believe there is a spirit world, and therefore we fail to observe or accept the explanations tribal people offer.

Modern science views humankind at the center of the universe. Anything we know must come from our efforts to observe, interpret, and apply.  Yet, if we would shake off our secular (read: atheistic) bias, we should recognize that God, gods, or spirits may know more than we do, and that they might be able to communicate such knowledge to us.  In other words, we can know things not only through education and personal observation (or experience), but also through revelation by supernatural beings.  People from all times and places knew about this, but modern man (with his atheistic bias) has cast this from his mind.

From where do we get the idea to divide a year into 52 weeks? There seems to be no basis for it in the periods of sun or moon or stars!  The Bible tells us that God created all things (on the earth) in six days, after which he rested on the seventh day.  If we don’t accept there is a God, who revealed this to us (in images and words that we might comprehend), we are forced to conclude that ancient cultures came up with the idea of using weeks of seven days.

Years ago we had a neighbor, who had grown up in the R.C. church, but later became an atheist. As he had a great respect for modern science, I challenged him, “How can you be so sure there is no God? Why is your mind so strongly opposed to this?”  He thought it was most logical, but he had no proof at all.  One day, I told him, “I figure that spirits (which you have declared non-existent) have influenced your mind!  In rejecting God, you have opened your mind to the Enemy’s brainstorm sessions so that you accept for certain and true the things that you cannot observe and verify! By denying Satan’s existence, you have become his easy prey!”  This is the faith of an atheist!  

So, it seems that science and faith both rely on education, observation, and revelation.  True faith can never just rely on hearsay. At the very least it is informed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit.  Also, if we grow in personal relationship with God, we must come to personally experience His presence and His power. If we put God in the center of our lives through true faith, we must come to experience God, as He is the One who, by His Spirit, dwells in us!

*http://paranormal.about.com/od/moremadscience/a/coral-castle-secrets.htm

**Ben Stein, “Expelled”                                *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M