EXPECT AND EXTEND MERCY

Expect and Extend Mercy

Read: Luke 18:9–14
Bible in a Year: 2 Chronicles 10–12; John 11:30–57

God, have mercy on me, a sinner.—Luke 18:13

When I complained that a friend’s choices were leading her deeper into sin and how her actions affected me, the woman I prayed with weekly placed her hand over mine. “Let’s pray for all of us.”

I frowned. “All of us?”

“Yes,” she said. “Aren’t you the one who always says Jesus sets our standard of holiness, so we shouldn’t compare our sins to the sins of others?”

“That truth hurts a little,” I said, “but you’re right. My judgmental attitude and spiritual pride are no better or worse than her sins.”

“And by talking about your friend, we’re gossiping. So—”

“We’re sinning.” I lowered my head. “Please, pray for us.”

In Luke 18, Jesus shared a parable about two men approaching the temple to pray in very different ways (vv. 9-14). Like the Pharisee, we can become trapped in a circle of comparing ourselves to other people. We can boast about ourselves (vv. 11-12) and live as though we have the right to judge and the responsibility or the power to change others.

But when we look to Jesus as our example of holy living and encounter His goodness firsthand, like the tax collector, our desperate need for God’s grace is magnified (v. 13). As we experience the Lord’s loving compassion and forgiveness personally, we’ll be forever changed and empowered to expect and extend mercy, not condemnation, to others. —Xochitl Dixon

Lord, please keep us from falling into the trap of comparing ourselves to others. Mold us and make us more like You.

When we realize the depth of our need for mercy, we can more readily offer mercy to others.

INSIGHT: The two characters in today’s parable have similarities and differences. The obvious similarity is that both the Pharisee and the tax collector went up to the temple to pray. They both had an idea of presenting themselves to God, of communicating and communing with Him. Each of their self-perceptions was influenced by their occupation or position in society. The Pharisees were meticulous rule-keepers, and by the law the Pharisee was likely righteous. Tax collectors were notorious for exploiting the populace and taking more than was rightly due.The difference between them is that the Pharisee viewed himself in comparison to the tax collector, but the tax collector viewed himself in comparison to God. While the Pharisee thanked God that he was not like the tax collector and judged his standing by comparison, the tax collector did not ask to be made more like the Pharisee. He could only look down and ask for mercy. J.R. Hudberg

Share your thoughts on today’s devotional on Facebook or odb.org.

LET HONOR MEET HONOR

Let Honor Meet Honor

Read: Matthew 6:1–6
Bible in a Year: 2 Chronicles 7–9; John 11:1–29

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.—Matthew 6:1

I’ve always been impressed by the solemn, magnificent simplicity of the Changing of the Guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. The carefully choreographed event is a moving tribute to soldiers whose names—and sacrifice—are “known but to God.” Equally moving are the private moments of steady pacing when the crowds are gone: back and forth, hour after hour, day by day, in even the worst weather.

In September 2003, Hurricane Isabel was bearing down on Washington, DC, and the guards were told they could seek shelter during the worst of the storm. Surprising almost no one, the guards refused! They unselfishly stood their post to honor their fallen comrades even in the face of a hurricane.

Underlying Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 6:1-6, I believe, is His desire for us to live with an unrelenting, selfless devotion to Him. The Bible calls us to good deeds and holy living, but these are to be acts of worship and obedience (vv. 4-6), not orchestrated acts for self-glorification (v. 2). The apostle Paul endorses this whole-life faithfulness when he pleads with us to make our bodies “a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1).

May our private and public moments speak of our devotion and wholehearted commitment to You, Lord. —Randy Kilgore

Grant me the strength this day, O Lord, to persevere, to return honor to Your name where I am serving. My desire is to give myself in selfless devotion because of Your love for me.

The more we serve Christ, the less we will serve self.

INSIGHT: In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Jesus issues a warning about showcased religiosity and hypocrisy (6:1-8). After His strong caution against it, He gives us the proper motivation. Our reason to share with open hands, to raise our hands in prayer, and to fold them before an empty plate is both stated and implied. When we do these things, we do them out of love for the Father, the source of all good things, knowing He will bless our efforts. The approval of the Father is better than any praise we may receive from friends and neighbors. It is the reward from Him that we should truly and deeply desire.   J.R. Hudberg

Share your thoughts on today’s devotional on Facebook or odb.org.

NOT ONE SPARROW

Not One Sparrow

Read: Matthew 10:28–33
Bible in a Year: 2 Chronicles 4–6; John 10:24–42

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his faithful servants.—Psalm 116:15

My mother, so dignified and proper her entire life, now lay in a hospice bed, held captive by debilitating age. Struggling for breath, her declining condition contradicted the gorgeous spring day that danced invitingly on the other side of the windowpane.

All the emotional preparation in the world cannot sufficiently brace us for the stark reality of goodbye. Death is such an indignity! I thought.

I diverted my gaze to the birdfeeder outside the window. A grosbeak flitted close to help itself to some seed. Instantly a familiar phrase popped into my mind: “Not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it” (Matt. 10:29 nlt). Jesus had said that to His disciples as He gave them marching orders for a mission to Judea, but the principle applies to all of us. “You are worth more than many sparrows,” He told them (v. 31).

My mom stirred and opened her eyes. Reaching back to her childhood, she used a Dutch term of endearment for her own mother and declared, “Muti’s dead!”

“Yes,” my wife agreed. “She’s with Jesus now.” Uncertain, Mom continued. “And Joyce and Jim?” she questioned of her sister and brother. “Yes, they’re with Jesus too,” said my wife. “But we’ll be with them soon!”

“It’s hard to wait,” Mom said quietly. —Tim Gustafson

Heavenly Father, this life can be so hard and painful. But You! . . . You are right there with us, loving us, keeping us, holding us! And You promise never to leave us or forsake us. 

Death is the last shadow before heaven’s dawn.

INSIGHT: Part of the emphasis in today’s reading is the value God places on every human life. When we face the death of those dear to us—or our own death—it is a comfort to remember how deeply God cares for us. In fact, the psalmist accentuates this assurance, saying, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his faithful servants” (Ps. 116:15). Amazing—the eternal God is concerned about the human experience of death. Though this death is the consequence of our rebellion and fall, God offers us His life so that even though we will inevitably face physical death Jesus promises, “The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die” (John 11:25-26). This shows that His promise to always be with us extends through this life and beyond—even surpassing death. How can this comfort us as we face the passing of loved ones? As we face our own mortality? For more on the subject of heaven, read Our Eternal Home at discoveryseries.org/rd911. Bill Crowder

Share your thoughts on today’s devotional on Facebook or odb.org.

SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-ACCEPTANCE, AND LONELINESS

SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-ACCEPTANCE, AND LONELINESS

For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at:  www.Mannsword.blogspot.com

It is both odd and tragic in this age of the internet, cell phones, text-messaging, and various forms of e-communications, that we should still be discussing the ills of isolation and loneliness. However, despite all the outlets at our disposal to “reach-out,” the problems seem to be escalating along with the resulting depression. Psychiatrists Jacqueline Olds and Richard Schwartz cite two “major studies” in this regard. In the first:

∑       “McPherson found that between 1985 and 2004, the number of people with whom the average American discussed ‘important matters’ dropped from three to two. Even more stunning, the number of people who said that there was no one with whom they discussed important matters tripled: in 2004, individuals without a single confidant now made up nearly a quarter of those surveyed” (The Lonely American, 2).

Many explanations are brought forward to explain our growing isolation. Some cite America’s legendary pioneering spirit and our emphasis on self-reliance. Others suggest that loneliness is a product of our frenetic pace. However, these explanations fail to explain the recent nose-dive in levels of intimacy, since we have always been self-reliant and frenetic! In addition to this, there is the finding of James Buie that “Depression…for those born after 1950 is as much as twenty times higher than the incidence rate for those born before 1910” (quoted from Edward Welch, Depression: A Stubborn Darkness, 113).

What then has happened to us in recent decades? I’d like to suggest that one of the greatest culprits for these phenomena has ironically been the quest for self-esteem. Welch appropriately asks: “What happens when people are raised on a steady diet of ‘You are great, you can do anything, you deserve it, you are the best’…Depression and denial are the only two options left.”

I would add loneliness and isolation to this equation. What happens when we are intent on building self-esteem? We accentuate the positive and deny the negative, since the negative contradicts everything we want to think about ourselves. However, this quest puts us out-of-touch with reality.

Besides, it also becomes increasingly difficult to accept criticism, which tears apart everything that we are trying to achieve, the face that we have constructed for ourselves. In this quest, we have become estranged from our true self and also from others.

From others? Yes! Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how the quest for self-esteem alienates is to compare it to its opposite – self-acceptance – which is the quest to accept reality, which includes the self, the way it is and not the way we want it to be.

When we are self-accepting, we are not defensive. We are not trying to put an image of self out there and, in a sense, require that others accept this image as the price-tag of entry. In The Significant Life, George Weaver cites President Lyndon B. Johnson as an example of the self-aggrandizement of self-esteem:

∑       According to one commentator, “It is a curious footnote to history that long before he ran into trouble, Johnson had turned central Texas into a living monument to his heritage and his journey to the summit (the L.B.J birthplace, the L.B.J. boyhood home, the L.B.J. state park, the L.B.J. ranch and more).” (22)

Johnson had presented to the world the face of “heightened significance.” Who else would set up props which essentially say, “Look at me!” In order to affiliate with such a person, we are required to accept this face. If instead, we regard Johnson as just another human being or even criticize one aspect of his façade, any further affiliation, let alone friendship, would be doomed. It is package that we have to buy as is.

I want to make the point that the vast majority of us have a face we are trying to sell, both to ourselves and to the world. Any attempt at friendship must accept this face. When we don’t accept this façade, there will be some degree of underlying conflict. Why? Because our face or has become utterly needful to us, like a drug! Therefore, any criticism or failure to acknowledge this face deprives us of our significance, our necessary sense of self.

This is problematic, because we are not asking the other person to accept us as they see us. We are asking them to accept our inflated concept of self. If this self-concept is too greatly at variance to what we see, there will be disharmony. Just try befriending someone who believes that he is Napoleon. There will be conflict unless you indulge him by accepting his self-concept. However, there will be no basis for true friendship.

The quest for self-esteem is truth-aversive and undercuts the possibility of standing together with others. True human friendship requires some commonality – some common ground where two people can meet, even if it only entails enjoyment of the same food. However, the pursuit of self-esteem and its plume places a demand upon the other person to agree and appreciate it.

In contrast, self-acceptance (SA) has no such demands. SA has a different posture. It says, “I am willing to accept the truth about myself.” Although such a person still enjoys being admired and appreciated, it makes no demand upon the other to provide such commodities.

SA is at peace with itself. It doesn’t have to obsessively defend its image against reality and anything that might threaten it. SA already accepts the fact that it has many undesirable characteristics and is willing to make the necessary adjustments.

I am very sensitive and don’t like criticism, but I know that I need it. This is because I know that I too have my blind spots. I don’t have the most winsome personality – far from it – but people feel that they can be themselves around me, because I can be myself around them. Because I can accept myself as I truly am – and I still have a long way to go – I can also accept others, even if they too have their glaring weaknesses.

Why loneliness? I think that one of the reasons for loneliness is our failure to connect. The quest for self-esteem does not come forth with a bouquet of roses but a list of requirements. It is a walled city that requires the exact shibboleth to gain entry. Besides, it is a shibboleth that few care to learn.

Of course, there are other factors. Our main preoccupation is not to give that bouquet of roses but to receive them. But when both parties are expecting roses, both will be disappointed.

Instead, we need to return to the adage: “It is better to give than to receive.” But how? It is hard to want to give when our needs are so glaring and demanding. I therefore must confess that I was never able to attain any measure of SA on my own. Each one of my five highly-recommended psychologists had left me worse off than I had been before, despite their many positive affirmations. Instead, I needed the confidence in the definitive affirmations that can only come from Christ Himself. Only this was able to interrupt my quest to feel good about myself.

BLOG - http://www.mannsword.blogspot.com

New York School of the Bible: http://www.nysb.nyc/

DYSFUNCTIONAL

Dysfunctional

Read: Romans 3:10–26
Bible in a Year: 2 Chronicles 1–3; John 10:1–23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.—Romans 3:23

The word dysfunctional is often used to describe individuals, families, relationships, organizations, and even governments. While functional means it’s in proper working order, dysfunctional is the opposite—it’s broken, not working properly, unable to do what it was designed to do.

In his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul begins by describing a spiritually dysfunctional humanity (1:18-32). We are all part of that rebellious company: “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. . . . For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:12, 23).

The good news is that “all are justified freely by [God’s] grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus . . . to be received by faith” (vv. 24-25). When we invite Christ into our lives and accept God’s offer of forgiveness and new life, we are on the path to becoming the person He created us to be. We don’t immediately become perfect, but we no longer have to remain broken and dysfunctional.

Through the Holy Spirit we receive daily strength to honor God in what we say and do and to “put off [our] old self . . . to be made new in the attitude of [our] minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:22-24). —David McCasland

Lord, in our dysfunctional lives we turn to You for restoration and strength. Thank You for Your amazing grace and love!

Drawing close to Christ helps us to live as He designed us.

INSIGHT: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control are the fruit the Spirit grows in our lives because we “belong to Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:22-24). In what area can you ask the Spirit to help you grow? J.R. Hudberg

Share your thoughts on today’s devotional on Facebook or odb.org.

NAVIGATING ROUGH WATERS

Navigating Rough Waters

Read: 1 Chronicles 28:9–20
Bible in a Year: 1 Chronicles 28–29; John 9:24–41

Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the Lord God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or forsake you.—1 Chronicles 28:20

I was enjoying the start of my first whitewater rafting experience—until I heard the roar of the rapids up ahead. My emotions were flooded with feelings of uncertainty, fear, and insecurity at the same time. Riding through the whitewater was a first-rate, white-knuckle experience! And then, suddenly, it was over. The guide in the back of the raft had navigated us through. I was safe—at least until the next set of rapids.

Transitions in our lives can be like whitewater experiences. The inevitable leaps from one season of life to the next—college to career, changing jobs, living with parents to living alone or with a spouse, career to retirement, youth to old age—are all marked by uncertainty and insecurity.

In one of the most significant transitions recorded in Old Testament history, Solomon assumed the throne from his father David. I’m sure he was filled with uncertainty about the future. His father’s advice? “Be strong and courageous, and do the work. . . . For the Lord God, my God, is with you” (1 Chron. 28:20).

We’ll have our fair share of tough transitions in life. But with God in our raft we’re not alone. Keeping our eyes on the One who is navigating the rapids brings joy and security. He’s taken lots of others through before. —Joe Stowell

God guides us through the rapids of change.

INSIGHT: King David had desired to build God’s temple (1 Chron. 17:1), but God told him he could not because of the blood he had shed as a warrior (28:3). Instead, the privilege and responsibility for this project would fall upon the shoulders of David’s son Solomon. It is understandable that Solomon would be apprehensive about assuming this role. But his father admonished him to trust in God and do the work. Indeed, God was faithful as Solomon built the temple and took his father’s place as king.

Are you facing a transition? Reflect on God’s faithfulness and ask Him for strength to carry you through.  Dennis Fisher

Share your thoughts on today’s devotional on Facebook or odb.org.

WHERE MUST WE STAND WHEN OUR FREEDOM OF WORSHIP IS THREATENED

Please leave comments on my blog:

∑       www.Mannsword.blogspot.com or my

∑       Facebook page: “Apologetics for Today.”

By His Mercies Alone, Daniel

For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site above.

Where must We Stand when our Freedom of Worship is Threatened

When my daughter was 16, she asked:

• Dad, if I marry a non-Christian, would you walk me down the aisle?

I answered, “no way!” to which she responded:

• Dad, love is hard to find. You need to take it where you can find it.

I tried to explain to her as best as could that I couldn’t participate in something that I regarded as sinful. I could no more give her away to a non-Christian than I could to another woman:

• While you want me to affirm your relationship with your future husband, you do not seem willing to affirm my relationship with Christ.

My daughter might not have gotten the point, but she knew that it was futile trying to budge me. (Incidentally, she did marry a Christian and thanks me for my uncompromising stance!) However, we are confronted with new pressures today – an aggressive and militant secularism that also refuses to budge:

• If churches are forced by new legislation or by civil suits to conduct homosexual “marriage” ceremonies against their beliefs, it would constitute “a piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands, millions even, of people of faith … will be ruthlessly trampled upon,” said the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

• David Cameron's government has announced that gay "marriage" legislation will be introduced next week. But in a statement issued November 15th, UKIP warned that the writing is on the wall for churches if the government introduces legislation creating gay “marriage.” 

• It is “inevitable that gay couples will seek the right to marry in Church and that Churches will refuse to permit them to do so,” said UKIP. Despite the government’s assurances, “there will, very soon after the introduction of gay civil marriage, be a challenge in first the domestic courts of England and Wales and then in the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the exclusion of gay people from the right to have a religious ceremony of marriage is unlawful discrimination against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lawsuits-against-churches-inevitable-with-gay-marriage-law-uk-independence?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=43eced516b-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_12_10_2012&utm_medium=email

Will the churches budge? I’m afraid that many already have and many others will follow. It’s just too easy to justify what everyone else has justified:

• Well, it’s now a law, and allowing them to use our buildings is not the same thing as allowing them to dictate our faith.

However, it is not that easy. Such a move will divide and poison a congregation. If not to divide them, it will make compromise much more acceptable. “Well, we’ve turned over our church for the sake of peace. Let’s just rejoice with them in their marriage and be peacemakers!” But how can we rejoice over what is offensive to our Lord!

• Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. (Psalm 1:1)

We are not at liberty to support the agenda of the world. John warns us against aiding and abetting sin:

• If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. (2 John 1:10-11)

Although I tend to believe that there might be extenuating circumstances, these do not include allowing the State to take away our liberty to exercise discernment in these matters.

We have to keep ourselves pure from evil. When we help sinners in their pursuit of evil, we are partaking of that evil. Consequently, Paul warned against even ordaining a brother too quickly, because we are then responsible for what this brother will subsequently do. In regards to this, we must keep ourselves “pure” (1 Tim.5:22), and how much more when we know that we are promoting what is wrong before God!

By allowing the State to dictate how the church is to use its own resources will also push the congregation to accept something that they cannot accept. Christians have to retain moral control of their own space. Paul had against warned violating our conscience:

• But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

Even if eating lobster isn’t wrong, if a Christian thinks it’s wrong, it is wrong! Therefore, by eating, he dishonor God and damages his conscience. Therefore, if the pastoral leadership allows same-sex marriage into the church, this also involves their congregants, perhaps enabling them to compromise and violate their relationship with Christ. Paul used the example of eating in a pagan temple:

• For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. (1 Cor. 8:10-13)

Facilitating a gay marriage in the church will also require at least a minimal participation of the staff. In some sense, they will be walking the bride-to-be down the aisle. This is something that we can’t do without becoming participants. It would be like renting out our church facilities for a KKK conference. Instead, we are warned to stay apart from any contact with sin:

• Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Ephes. 5:11)

The good King of Judah, Jehoshaphat, made an ill-advised treaty with an evil king. Consequently:

• He agreed with him to construct a fleet of trading ships. After these were built at Ezion Geber, Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, "Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made." The ships were wrecked and were not able to set sail to trade. (2 Chron. 20:36-37)

Jehoshaphat yoked himself with the wrong person, thereby compromising his relationship with his Lord. When we offer our resources for sinful purposes, this is exactly what we are doing:

• Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Some congregants might think:

• Well, this could prove an excellent opportunity for us to give out tracts and talk about our faith. After all, it’s our church. We can do what we want within it!

No! You will find that you no longer own your own church. It has now become subject to the State, and you will be arrested for disorderly conduct! You have already forfeited your sovereignty over your own property.

If we can no longer talk freely about our Lord in our own space, then we have lost the right to speak freely about the Lord anywhere. If we agree to this restriction, then we must agree to any restriction that the State wants to impose on evangelism and our freedom of speech.

When we become yoked to the wrong parties, we can no longer anticipate what other compromises will follow. Next, the church will have to remove anything that might be deemed offensive from the walls.

Against this enforced conformity, our Constitution has rejected any State incursions upon the practice of our religion:

• Congress cannot make a law that favors the establishment of one particular religion; that prohibits the free exercise of religion; or that restricts freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people to gather and engage in peaceful demonstrations and to petition the government for redress of their grievances. (First Amendment)

Where must we stand on this issue? Where Peter stood before the Sanhedrin! The Sanhedrin had forbidden the Apostles to speak about Jesus, but Peter responded: "We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). We must do likewise! To do anything less is to wound our conscience and our relationship with God.

Martin Luther, the great reformer, had found himself in a similar situation. At the Diet of Worms, Luther’s church had asked him to “repudiate your books and the errors which they contain." To this he responded:

• Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or by manifest evidence...I cannot and will not retract, for we must never act contrary to our conscience....Here I stand. God help me! Amen!

Here too we must stand and do nothing “contrary to our conscience!”

MATERIALISM, ATHEISM, AND THE DENIAL OF FREEWILL

MATERIALISM, ATHEISM, AND THE DENIAL OF FREEWILL

Please leave comments on my blog:

∑       www.Mannsword.blogspot.com or my

∑       Facebook page: “Apologetics for Today.”

By His Mercies Alone, Daniel

For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site above.

Materialism, Atheism, and the Denial of Freewill

If we start with an impoverished worldview – one that can’t embrace all of the nuances of reality – it means that we have a faulty worldview and that our conclusions will be skewed.

The atheist starts out with the presupposition or worldview that there is no spiritual reality, just matter and energy – what you see is what you get. Accordingly, thinking and choosing must also exclusively be a matter of chemical-electrical activity.

This understanding leaves little or no room for freewill. Consequently, there is no basis for any thought, choice or decision somewhat independent of our steady stream of chemical reactions. Every thought and decision is therefore the result of prior brain chemistry.

Even as far back as 1871, Thomas Huxley, a zealous advocate of Charles Darwin, advocated for this position:

• Mind is a function of [just] matter, when that matter has attained a certain degree of organization.

Similarly, in his new book, “Free Will,” atheist Sam Harris writes, “Free will is an illusion.” What feels like freewill is nothing more than chemical processes.

With such an impoverished worldview, counter-factual and counter-intuitive conclusions quickly multiply. Here are several:

A denial of freewill goes against everything we intuitively know about ourselves and our lives. When I make any decision, like flipping through the TV channels, it seems that I am freely choosing one station over another. Of course, like anyone else, I am subject to powerful biological-genetic forces. Admittedly, I am biologically predisposed to not like loud and glitzy programming. Therefore, some will say, “Well, this proves you’re pre-programmed to make certain choices.”

Although there is truth in this claim, it falls far short of proving that pre-programming is the only factor involved in my choices.

Of course, Harris and the other atheists will respond, “Your experience of free choice is just an illusion.” However, if something that I experience with such clarity is illusory, perhaps my own existence and the existence of this world are also illusory. Perhaps I’m just someone else’s consciousness. Perhaps, as some Buddhists claim, we are just part of one universal consciousness and lack any individual existence.

However, if our intuitions and perceptions are simply part of this great delusion, then science and all reason are also part of this same delusion, along with Harris’ thinking. If our thinking and perceiving are illusory, so too are Harris’ challenge and the entirety of his book.

The extent of freewill differs among people. The heroin addict is more constrained in his free choices than before he became addicted. Christians report that, in Christ, they have come to enjoy a greater measure of freedom. They are not as constrained by their psychological needs for approval and success as they had been. If these observations of relative freedom are true, then the narrow, unvarying materialistic view of the atheists is invalidated. From their view, everyone is equally and completely controlled by brain chemistry. Consequently, there can be no room for varying degrees of freewill – the very thing we find!

We can perceive a distinction between purely chemical determination of our behavior and our relatively free responses. Wilder Penfield, the father of modern neurosurgery performed experiments demonstrating that brain activity doesn’t seem to account for all of our mental experience. Lee Edward Travis sums up his findings this way:

• Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a nonphysical reality that interacted with the brain. (The Mysterious Matter of the Mind, 95-96)

There appears to be a distinction between brain chemistry and a nonphysical reality – the home of freewill. J.P. Moreland commented on another interesting aspect of Penfield’s findings:

• No matter how much Penfield probed the cerebral cortex, he said, “There is no place…where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide.” (The Case for the Creator, Lee Strobel, 258)

If our mind is no more than a physical brain, then we should expect that electrical charges could stimulate every kind of response. However, this isn’t the case. It seems that our choices and beliefs cannot be entirely accounted for by the physical brain. Meanwhile,

atheism bases its non-freewill claim on the “observations” that everything is material. However, this does not seem to be the complete story.

There seems to be a nonphysical basis for thinking. Strobel writes:

• In their journal article, Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, describe their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured, lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning, during the time that their brains were not functioning. The effects of oxygen starvation or drugs – objections commonly offered by skeptics – were ruled out as factors. (Strobel, 251)

This contradicts the atheistic narrative that thinking and choosing depend exclusively upon brain activity. In order to maintain their narrow materialistic worldview, the atheist is forced to discount this kind of study along with the many accounts of extra-body experiences.

If our brain chemistry compels all of our choices, then we cannot truly be culpable and responsible moral agents. This idea is humanly demeaning. This is very significant because it will affect how we view ourselves, our fellow humans and also how we treat them. If humans are no more than sophisticated chemical machines, there is a greater likelihood that we will use them like machines.

The atheist might agree that their view of freewill seriously compromises our estimation of humanity. However, he often retorts, “I’m more interested in truth than in what feels good.”

However, the denial of freewill goes far beyond the question of a lower estimation of humanity. This denial undermines everything upon which civilization is based – justice, right and wrong, reward and punishment.

If biology alone made the rapist rape, then it is not just to punish him. After all, he could make no other choice. Consequently, no punishment is just and no reward is deserved. It’s just a matter of chemistry not morality.

These ideas mean the destruction of civilization, and the atheists recognize this. Consequently, they are scrambling to resurrect the concept of moral responsibility, which they have undermined. Professor of Philosophy, Chad Meister, writes about Harris’s muddled scrambling:

• While in Harris’s view we lack free will and moral culpability for our actions, he nonetheless believes that we can still be “blameworthy” for our actions. How so? “Because,” he says, “what we do subsequent to conscious planning tends to most fully reflect the global properties of the our minds” (Christian Research Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 59)

Oddly, Harris claims that we can be “blameworthy” without being morally culpable. This is a blatant contradiction. If our “conscious planning” and what we do subsequently are strictly the products of brain chemistry, then there still can be no basis for either “blameworthiness” or moral culpability. They die a common death with the denial of freewill.

Some atheists are candid enough to admit that this is a real problem for their worldview. However, they continue to bring charges against the burglar who tore up their apartment. In this, their actions contradict their worldview. While they seek justice, they admit that they lack any possible basis for this concept in their pre-determined chemical world.

The denial of freewill seems to also constitute a denial of any meaningful thought. All brain chemistry is subject to the laws of nature. Consequently, all thinking and choosing are the result of formulas. However, formulas and laws produce repeated and predictable patterns, not information, not the nuances of thought. Clearly, the books that we write and the discoveries that we make don’t reflect repeated, formulaic. Instead, these creations reflect something greater – reasoning, the weighing of evidence for and against various paradigms. All of this requires something beyond what chemistry can offer. It requires the subtle and gloriously nuanced ability to freely choose among various thoughts and ideas.

Why are people atheists? Why do we trap ourselves in narrow boxes, which effectively obstruct our vision? One atheist friend explained to me the great relief he had experienced once he adopted the no-freewill position. He was no longer responsible for his behavior, and his sense of guilt became greatly diminished. He is what he is. Who can blame him!

While I can sympathize with this, Christ offers another way – a way to not only diminish guilt but to obliterate it. Besides, Christ obliterates our guilt in a way that doesn’t infringe upon moral responsibility. He replaces gratitude for guilt, gladness in service for gutless, going-with-the-flow biological determinism.

When a worldview fails to work, when it can’t be coherently lived out, we should be free to discard or modify it. This represents sanity, but sanity has no place within biological determinism.