← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
What If a Darwinist Denies There’s Something Wrong with the World?
00:58:00
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
A
Sam. All right, my dear friends, welcome to the show. It's called Standeria, and I'm your host, Greg Koukl. And thank you for joining me. We have open mic segment this hour, and that means people have called in in advance leaving questions, and you can do the same if you're not able to call in during our live show, which is Tuesdays from 4 until 6pm Louisiana time, whatever that is. If you want to call in, then you can dial 855-2439. And if you can't, then you can also go to our website, our homepage@str.org you can look under the podcasts section there. And under live broadcasts, you'll see the option for open mic. You can click the button and leave your question. And eventually, if it's something I didn't speak to, we will eventually get to it. I generally try to do the questions in the order that they have been received, first in, first out. But sometimes it takes weeks or even months for us to get to your questions. So thank you for your patience, but thank you for sending the questions in. And if you'd like to send a question, that's the way to do it. So I'm looking at a fellow named Chuck here who has a question about the problem of evil and Darwinian evolution. So let's just kick our show off here with Chuck's question. Chuck, what's on your mind? Hi, Greg, this is Chuck from Memphis.
- [02:05]
B
When you say that almost everybody acknowledges that there's something wrong with the world. I'm wondering what you say if a Darwinist says that's simply survival of the fittest. Everything that Christians think is wrong with the world is just the dog eat dog nature of the place. Thanks.
- [02:26]
A
Okay, that was short and sweet. I appreciate it. Chuck, you said that the Darwinist would say dog eat dog world. That's all that's happening here. And those things that Christians think is wrong with the world is just the reality of nature read in tooth and claw kind of playing itself out. I think it was the philosopher Thomas Hobbes that said, life in an unregulated state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Okay, well, it isn't as if these characterizations are inconsistent with each other. First of all, it's not just Christians that think this. My point is that it doesn't matter where you live or when you lived, that everybody knows that something is wrong with the world. So I am appealing to a universal awareness of the brokenness of the world, that the world is not the way things ought to be. And if it turns out that the world is a dog eat dog world where it's just merely survival of the fittest, that would be the kind of Darwinian characterization it. Well, people see that and they say, well, that may be the way it is, but that's not the way the world is supposed to be. All right? And incidentally, Darwinism isn't just survival of the fittest. That's a general characterization that anyone could use. Darwinism is meant to be a characterization of how biologically that plays out to create diversification of the biological world. All right? So I mean, even if you're not a Darwinist, you could just look around and say, wow, yeah, dog eat dog world, survival of the fittest. Or as Thomas Hods had pointed out, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, the world is a dangerous place to be. Got that? The point that people are making is that is their sense, their moral intuition, if you will, their moral common sense that this isn't the way it's supposed to be, it's supposed to be different. And that's why people can raise the concern about the problem of evil when talking about the issue of God. If there is a God who is good and powerful, then how can there be so much evil in the world? Notice they don't take exception with the concept of there being evil in the world. That's a given. They all know this. It is a universal awareness that the world is morally broken. And part of that universal awareness is the sense that we are part of the problem. Okay? It's just not that the world is broken, but we are broken too. Now of course this makes perfect sense in the Christian worldview, but it doesn't make perfect sense in a naturalistic atheistic worldview where Darwin is the only. The Darwinian explanation of the development of life in its complexity is the only going concern right now. Certainly not some form of special creation or intelligent design. On that view, no. This is all the atheist has to work with pretty much. But notice that on that view you can't say that things are not the way they're supposed to be because there is no suppose about it. They just are. What's wrong with the world? Nothing. What about the problem of evil? There is no problem of evil. Why not? Because there is no objective morality. Because it's just molecules in motion. The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. To cite Carl Sagan's famous comment in the documentary the Cosmos. So my appeal in making that comment is just to make the point that there is a universal understanding of the moral brokenness of the world. Now, they may not use that terminology, but that's precisely what they're referring to. Now, what I've done is I've tried to take that common sense notion, that feature of reality, and leverage it to make the case for Christianity as an accurate picture of reality, or at least Christian theism. Frankly, any form of theism is going to be able to be leveraged on this particular point because this amounts to the moral argument for the existence of God. Now, we haven't gotten, if we succeed in this, we've just gotten a moral God. We haven't gotten the God of the Bible necessarily, or Jesus or anything. There's more to it than that. But nevertheless, this is an important part of it. Now, somebody who wants to say that's just survival of the fittest, notice what they're doing. This is hand waving. This is an appeal to a naturalistic process that gives no room for moral, objective, moral categories that we use to describe the brokenness of the world. Okay? And they're right. If atheism is true, then it's just dog eat dog, right? Nature red and tooth and claw, as I mentioned a moment ago. And that's merely a description. Now, the process of the development of the biological realm, that's a separate question that Darwin attempted to answer. But this isn't Darwinism we're talking about. This is just a person saying there's nothing wrong with the world. It's just proceeding as nature does without any God or any moral construct. And we call it evil or wrong or broken. But it's not because there is no criterion by which we can assess the condition of the world to call it broken. My point simply is, I am not coming up with a criterion to call it broken. I am saying there is a brokenness that we're all aware of. All right, this isn't like I'm coming up with the color spectrum in order to then show you green and red and yellow, purple, whatever. No, we already perceive these things and the color spectrum is a way of organizing that so we can understand it better. All right, same thing here. We perceive the brokenness of the world, and it's not just bad things that we don't like. Our sense is the world shouldn't be this way, which is precisely why the problem of evil is raised against the existence of God. Because if there were a God, it wouldn't be this way. On that view, given that objection. So the appeal to Darwin is not even appropriate here. The appeal to naturalism might be appropriate by saying, well, that's just the way it is and there's a competition for limited resources and consequently there's going to be ugly things that happen. And, and that's just the nature of nature. All right, well, that's basically a materialistic worldview. Here's the problem when we countenance that when we reflect on it, when we see these things happening, it isn't just dog eating dog, it's humans killing humans and mistreating them in a whole bunch of different ways and in very creative ways. This is the objection of the problem of evil. And it's not, I don't think it's going to be adequate for most people just to say, oh, that's just nature doing its thing. And that's all you can say about it. Because people realize, no, that's not all you can say about it. You can say that's the way it is and it's not right. It isn't the way it's supposed to be, which implies that there is a way it's supposed to be, which implies that there's a sposer sposing how it should be. But it's not that way now. So my appeal to this general sense that people have that the world is broken again, it doesn't matter where you live or when you lived. This is a universal awareness of something wrong. Which, by the way, is why every religion, every worldview offers an antidote. It offers a way to escape the brokenness of the world. Now, I guess if you're an atheist, you could say, well, it's not really broken because it wasn't made for any purpose, but it is a bit unpleasant sometimes. And so what we can do is work to avoid the unpleasantness. Okay, fair enough. That would be consistent with your view. But you have to bite the bullet and say it's not really broken. There is no evil in the world. Now that's going to be hard to do because we know too much. It's just too obvious to everyone, which is why I make that particular appeal. And this gives us a kind of a starting point or a launching pad, a given that everyone agrees to. And it's not just that they agree to it, it's they agree to it for a reason. Because reality is like that. That's like everybody says, characteristically, the sky is blue. Why do they say that? Because they can look up and see it. And they all agree that when it's not clouded over, there's Not a lot of smog. The sky is blue. I'm making the same kind of appeal here. People believe something's wrong because they're perceiving the wrongness that's in the world. Dog eat dog, Survival of the fittest. Yeah, you can put it that way. But that ain't the way it's supposed to be. Something's amiss from that, with that. And this is what people are raising the objection of to just do the hand. The evolutionary Darwinian hand waving is not enough to make this thing go away, is my point. There is a moral quality to the way the world is. Or maybe I should say there's an immoral quality, which is why people raise the question of the problem of evil. But there you go, Chuck. I hope that's helpful for you. Let's see, I have one here right at the top of the list. Kyle, and it's Jason. He has a question about baptism. Jase?
- [13:47]
B
Hello, Greg. My name's Jason. We were recently invited to the baptism of my 15 year old nephew. At first I was thrilled that he was finally getting involved in the church and was going to be baptized. Then I learned that this baptism was taking place. This church is one of the Lutheran churches that positively publicly affirms LGBTQ persons and lifestyles. And this concerned me. I was wondering what your thoughts were on attending and celebrating such a baptism at such a. At that type of a church.
- [14:29]
A
Well, Jason, this is a good question. It's somewhat kin to the question about whether it's right for a Christian to attend a same sex wedding. It's similar, but it's not the same. In this case, you have a 15 year old that's being baptized. That's a sacrament of Christianity. It's a solemn sacrament and it indicates a certain conviction by the person being baptized. All right, now if it's in a more what progressive church, in this case a Lutheran church that affirms LGBTQ lifestyles? Well, I think that's a problem with the church in general. The question here is about your being part of or attending the baptism of the 15 year old in the context of this church that believes other things that are severely heterodox ain't right, in other words. And I guess my question would be, why is the 15 year old being baptized at all? What does that person think is going on? Now, my suspicion is that that person is being baptized as an expression of his commitment to Christ in some significant measure. All right, now, is that something you can celebrate? I think the answer to that is yes. You can celebrate that. And therefore, even though the church itself has heterodox views on other issues, there wouldn't be anything wrong, it seems to me, in attending that church to celebrate a legitimate baptism of this 15 year old relative. So I think it would be okay. Now, my suspicion is that this church has other theological flaws than just this one because these beliefs come in packages usually. And the reason that they are gay affirming is because of their they have a view of the Bible that allows them to disqualify certain passages that aren't convenient for them. And they still want to be identified as Christians because they think Jesus is cool and they want to kind of affirm some aspects of Jesus and being a follower of Jesus, but they don't want to get too extreme and be a fundy and that kind of stuff. So they can make adjustments. So what other adjustments are they making in their theology would be the question. And if there are significant adjustments, and this one here is a significant adjustment all by itself, well, it might be that you'll be in a position to encourage the 15 year old who has some commitment to Jesus in virtue of the baptism to find a more orthodox Bible believing church to participate in. Now 15 years old, he's probably going to the church that his parents take him to. So it would be hard to drag that person off. But if you are being invited to the baptism, it's because you have some role, some relationship with that family and with the 15 year old, which means that you may have opportunity to influence their spiritual growth in the future. And I would take every advantage to try to do that, to help out. That would be my take on this. I don't think that you're sitting because you're crossing the threshold of a place of worship that champions this non biblical contrary to Christ teaching. Nevertheless, you've got a young man who's getting baptized for a reason, identifying with Christ. And so he may be a young Christian that is in a position to be encouraged and discipled. Don't even know what his view is on the LGBT issues. But taken as you've offered it, Jason, I don't see any significant problem with doing that. Now, if it turns out that even though I say I don't think it's going to be wrong for you to do that because you're celebrating a good thing in the life of the 15 year old, his baptism, you still may not feel comfortable with it. And Paul says what? 1 Corinthians 14, is that where it is? Or Romans 14. I guess that if you can't do certain things that might be morally benign, morally acceptable in themselves, but you can't do them in faith with full confidence. It's better not to do them. So in this case, you follow your conscience as to the merits. I think it's okay to go to a baptism of someone to celebrate the baptism if they're being baptized into Christ. Now, if it was LDS baptism, that would be an entirely different matter because you can't in good conscience celebrate an LDS baptism. Okay, Because LDS is not Christian. They make really nice people. Not trying to put them down, but I'm just saying it's a different religion, so that sort of masquerading as Christian. So there you go. And I don't know, maybe the baptism has already taken place because it took so long to get to your question, but at least in general, now people have my point of view on this particular issue. Let's take a quick break here on Stand to Reason. I'll be back in just a moment.
- [20:24]
C
As a high school teacher, I always had a red pen close at hand. When I wasn't in front of my students teaching a lesson, you could find me assessing assignments, grading essays, and evaluating exams. The red pen played a crucial role in the educational development of my students. With it, I questioned their assumptions, exposed their errors, and challenged them to think critically. You see, a good teacher doesn't merely tell his students that they're wrong. A good teacher shows his students why they're wrong so they don't make the same mistakes twice. He corrects because he cares. Last year I was scrolling through social media and frankly, I was discouraged at all the bad thinking that undergirded much of what I was reading. Then it hit me. What if someone applied the red pen to this flawed thinking? And Red pen logic with Mr. B was born. In the last few months, Red Pen Logic has grown in popularity through our engaging and shareable educational graphics and videos. We are helping people, especially young people, assess bad thinking by using good thinking, and we have a lot of fun in the process. So here's your homework assignment, like the Red Pen Logic Facebook page so you don't miss our next graphic. And subscribe at the red Pen Logic YouTube channel so you don't miss a single video. Class dismissed.
- [21:42]
A
Would you like an STR speaker to speak at your event? Greg, Allen, Tim, and John are available both in person and online. Simply email bookingstr.org to schedule them today.
- [21:54]
C
Our speakers can address a wide range.
- [21:56]
A
Of topics from bioethics, gender issues and science to theology, philosophy, and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a biblical perspective. Whether it's a Sunday sermon, conference or online event, we are here to equip Christians to effectively influence the culture for Christ. To explore speaker bios, learn more about the topics we cover, or discover additional options, visit str.org then email bookingsdr.org to secure Greg, Alan, Tim, or John for your event. All right, we've got obviously more questions here that I want to speak to. You know, doing the open mic calls is fun because we get a different kind of variety of questions. Amy and I noticed this on Strask as well. And incidentally, if you like this show, I think there's a spot that I do here that you'll hear on occasion. If you like this show, you're going to really like STRs, because you get me, which is good if you like this show. But you also get Amy hall. And she adds so much more to our interaction on the questions that people leave for us to answer. But it just seems like each set of circumstances, whether it's the live calls or whether it's open mics or whether it's Strask, they kind of have a certain flavor to them, you know, and so I end up getting on the open mic calls, things that I. Things I've never really thought about before. But here's one from Tom about. Oh, wait, is that. That's not the one I want. Rob. Rob's next. Okay. About human value and animals for pets. Okay, Rob. Hi, my name is Rob calling from Indianapolis. My wife and I host a monthly discussion group. We discuss philosophy and theology. We have two atheists who come in this last session. We were discussing what it means to be human based on your worldview. The atheist challenge to us was, if our worldview is correct and humans are more valuable than animals, then why do we have two dogs? We should rather get rid of the dogs and take in an orphan, or we should get rid of the dogs and use the money we use to take care of the dogs to give to orphans. How would you respond to that challenge? Thank you very much. All right, this is what I was referring to earlier when it's like, okay, never heard this one before, but it's worth thinking about. I don't have a problem with pets at all. And I don't think that this creates some kind of contradiction in our worldview, because there are a host of things that are valuable in different measures for us that we can legitimately pursue. Now, I think that if a person's lifestyle is utterly lavish and self consuming. No, that's not the right word. It's not self centered, all right? And there is desperate need around them and they're giving no attention to that, then there's something wrong. All right? But spending something on yourself for personal enjoyment, like for a pet, this doesn't strike me as being inappropriate. Now I do have a question for the atheists because it's so odd that they would say, well, if you think human beings are more valuable than animals, my question is going to be, wait a minute, don't you think human beings are more valuable than animals? Don't you think that? Or do you think that all animals and all human beings all have the same value? That's what I wanted to ask them. I actually think that humans have a kind of intuition that human beings are special, they're unique. This is part of what we're built with that you can't though some people do this and some people are twisted and that's the way we characterize them when it happens and can take human life with impunity and it doesn't bother them. We universally acknowledge that as a problem, not just an inconvenience to other humans whose lives they take. Something's wrong with that person. We call them a psychopath because they don't have a conscience. But this is all predicated on the notion that human beings are special, that they're distinct in their value, they are unique in that regard with transcendent value. And since that seems to be a feature of reality, the question then is what view of reality makes the most sense of that? Okay, and so when somebody challenges the Christian like the atheists do, Rob, in your study or your group discussion, well then if you think humans are, wait, don't you agree with that? And if the other person doesn't agree with that, well then I think something's amiss. Something's amiss. Okay, so when a busload of children gets killed in a car accident, that is no different than a bunch of birds getting hit on the freeway. All right? Living things die by accident and there's no distinction between them. I think even atheists, if they're being even handed, fair minded, they're saying no, it seems like it's different, it feels different. Well, maybe it feels different because it is different. Your feelings aren't betraying you in this situation. That would be my sense. So then if the atheist is willing to say no, there is a difference, then why can't we just say, well, wait a minute, you drove over here to be part of our group tonight. And you spent money on gas and there are people that are valuable human beings on your take that are not being fed. Why don't you use the gas money to feed those people? If you actually think that human beings are more valuable than animals or more valuable than our meeting tonight or something everybody can be taken to task for, that is the point I'm making. If, if we're going to take the Christian to task, or should say the person who thinks that human beings are made the image of God and that's what makes them unique and valuable, then why can't we take the atheist to task for having the same belief without any grounding for it, and then not ordering their lives as if everything needs to be spent on the other human beings and nothing on our personal pleasures? So it strikes me that this works just as much against the atheist view as it does us. As long as they're affirming that humans are special. If they're not affirming humans are special, that's a different problem and that's wildly counterintuitive, and I'm going to want a reckoning for that. Really? Really? You don't believe that? You think it's to swat a mosquito and to kill a human being as the same moral consequence, or I should say maybe, nor moral consequence. In either case, I'm going to question them on that. So I think the proper way to answer this is what I suggested at the beginning. There's a lot of different things that we have the freedom to spend our money on and freedom to enjoy. And sometimes those are pets. And actually there are pets in scripture. Amy just gave me a reference from Proverbs, so I've got to look this proverb up here. Where's Proverbs? Oh, it's before Isaiah. Okay, so Proverbs 12:10. I was just curious knowing this question's coming up. So a righteous man has regard for the life of his animal. All right, they're not. Yeah, she's saying they're not perfectly parallel, but the animal here is a beast that's taking. That is being used. Yeah, that's right. It's not really a pet. But you mentioned 2 Samuel 12:3. Nathan is giving the account to David and he's trapping David with a reference to a lamb that is cared for by the family, etc. Etc. So I mean, I mean, it isn't like you're going to find a lot of pets in the scripture, but it just strikes me there are lots of different things, though. That we get to spend our money on. But we ought to be giving consideration to the poor in our family. We do that. We have the Orange County Rescue Mission, which we know is going to use our funds really well. We know the people there. We know who runs it. We know how it operates. And I don't have to give 20 bucks here and there to people on the corner. I don't know where that's going, how that's going to be spent. But I do know how the money that my wife and I send to the Orange County Rescue Mission in this particular case is going to benefit other people, not just their physical needs, but their spiritual needs as well. So making that part of your budget is really important. And if all you're doing is building your menagerie with no concern for human misery, well, then you're out of whack. Something's wrong with that. But I don't think that a person who believes that humans are more valuable than animals means they can never spend any money on an animal as long as there's some kind of human misery in the world. Okay? And if you want to call that inconsistent, well, you can call it inconsistent. And by the way, that's the most that any atheist can make of this. You Christians are not living consistently with your view. Okay, I admit that. But that doesn't mean our view is false. And the issue is whether human beings are in fact intrinsically valuable. That's the question that matters in this discussion, not whether Christians are consistent every single moment with it. All right, because we're not. In fact, nobody is consistent every single moment with whatever worldview he holds. It's just the nature of being human right now. Fallen human. We do live inconsistent lives. I'm not justifying that. I'm just simply saying that the best you could say about this concern is that there is an inconsistency in Christians beliefs and their behavior, but it doesn't demonstrate that their beliefs are false. And I think the belief about human beings being valuable intrinsically, transcendently is obviously true and justified. All right, let's see, who do we have next here? Oh, we got Tom and. All right, let's see. This has to do with God and the way he refers to himself. Tom.
- [34:21]
B
Hello Greg. Want to thank you and the whole stand to Reason crew for being available and being able to answer questions that I keep having. I've been noticing in some of the end books of the Old Testament that God refers to himself as the Lord of Heaven's armies. I know that it has Something to do with his audience and the circumstances that he would choose to use that over and over again. But I was hoping that you could lay it out a little bit better and clear it up for me. Thanks.
- [35:09]
A
Well, Tom, I don't know if I can clear up if the question has to do with why are phrases like these used more frequently towards the end of the Hebrew Scriptures rather than early on? It's just speculation on my part. I don't know. I don't know that anybody knows. However, I have a suspicion. But phrases like the Lord of Heaven's armies or Lord of hosts, these are phrases that focus on a particular role or function of God as a military might. In other words, this is the God who makes things happen in a military sense. He can defeat nations. And indeed, there are occasions in the record of the Hebrew peoples where God does intervene, if you recall, where Elijah can see a whole heavenly host surrounding the armies that are besieging Jerusalem. And then those heavenly hosts, that heavenly host ended up destroying the siege makers. And so there's a famous scene about that. That's the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Heaven's armies. And there are many different characterizations of God in the Scriptures that tell us different things about his character and about who he is. And Jehovah, Jireh, you know, God provides, for example. I don't know all about all the names and all the Hebrew and everything. And some have done studies on this. It can be very satisfying, edifying, helpful, and understanding more about God. But this terminology seems to be focused in on a warrior aspect, a leader of armies, a leader of legions that can do work to accomplish God's purposes. So we know. And I'm just at the end of the book of Deuteronomy right now, as I'm reading through the Scriptures again, little by little by little, and just like Deuteronomy 20 or 22 or 23 or whatever. But there are these statements that God is going to care for the Jews if they obey Him. If they follow his lead and do as he tells them to do, then he is going to prosper them. And part of the prosperity has to do with the enemies of God that are therefore the enemies of Israel, who God will defeat through them. Do not fear them, he says over and over and over. Do not fear them. The Lord of hosts is with you now, that's in Deuteronomy. And he's talking about in the future, as they obey, then God will be there as a protector. And this is part of the Abrahamic covenant where God promises to Abraham protection for the people that he will create from Abraham's loins. You know, whoever blesses you, I will bless, and whoever curses you, I will curse. So there's a protective element that God has promised. And you see this in Deuteronomy a number of times, and especially in Deuteronomy 28:30, where it's clear that the covenant that God just made with them is a provisional or conditional covenant. If they do good, they get good. If they do bad, they get bad. And so God is going to bring the armies of Israel, he being their commander, their Lord of hosts, against the armies of the pagan nations who are now ripe for judgment for their immorality. God's been patient for 400 years. You see that in Genesis 15, I think. And that's where God says the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete. And so there's this 400 year period where the Jews multiply in Egypt and then they are released to take over the land and be the agents of, of destruction and judgment on these people that were profoundly sinful, profoundly decadent. But God says, when you go into this land, do not do what they do. Do not take up their customs, don't adopt their idolatry, don't burn your children with fire as they do. Do not do as they do because I am driving them out before you because of what they've been doing. And if you do the same thing that they did, I'm going to drive you out. So it isn't like God's playing favorites in his ethnic cleansing. It's not ethnic cleansing, it's judgment for sin. And the Jews, God says, will get the exact same judgment if they do the same sin, which they did. And as time went on, they got more and more secularized, farther and farther away from their divine commission. And they adopted all of these behaviors of the pagan nations around them and God visited judgment on them. So all to say, as the history of Israel proceeds, I wouldn't be surprised that the prophets are using bellicose, militaristic, warlike language to describe the God who is their God. Because now, given their behavior, he is setting his sights on them to bring the the heaven's armies against the Jews for the same reason he brought it against the pagans, for their immorality. Now that's a speculation on why that verse kind of shows up. I should say that characterization of God shows up there later on. If it does, like you're suggesting later on in the revelation, it's because circumstances have changed. And there are more and more and more warnings to Israel about impending doom, judgment coming from the Lord of hosts, the Lord of Heaven's armies, because of their immorality. Of course, that does come in two different ways to the Northern kingdom, to the Assyrian dispersion in roughly 800s, I think, BC and then 586 with the Babylonian captivity. And Nebuchadnezzar sent his troops and they carried away in captivity, destroyed Jerusalem, etc. So I wouldn't be surprised if that term is repeated. It's because of the nation of Israel and what's happening in that time. All right. Okay, what do we got next here? Let's take Jason's question about worship.
- [43:01]
B
Hey, Greg, this is Jason from Oklahoma. I've been listening to you since the 1900s after I heard you on the Bible Answer man podcast.
- [43:11]
A
Oh, my goodness.
- [43:12]
B
And I am a strategic partner and have been for quite a while, proudly, just because of your encouragement and influence in my Christian life. My question is, I recently heard you discussing worship music, and I believe that you said that you did not like to sing about your feelings. And I have a kindred spirit with that. And however, I'm reading through the Psalms right now in my daily Bible reading. And as I read through the Psalms even this morning, I noticed there's a lot of personal pronouns in some of them. And so I did not. I was wondering your thoughts on this. Is it maybe okay to. Or better to sing songs if they are personal to you, like personal feelings or what. What makes it difficult for me and, and I assume you to sing songs that have personal pronouns about our feelings for God. But I appreciate you a lot, pray for you and support you financially. So God bless you.
- [44:27]
A
Wow. Thank you, Jason. Thanks so much. And especially for praying for being a strategic partner. That's fabulous for us. And I'm touched that you're taking our work personally and remembering us in prayer because we need it. And what we're able to accomplish, I'm just saying, is not being accomplished in the force of my own prayers. All right. It's, you know, multitudes of others like yourself that are helping us, not just in prayer, but also financially. So thanks for all of that. So let me give some context to my comment about singing about my feelings. I am not opposed to singing about my feelings per se. In fact, this morning when I'm driving to the office, I just was singing. I was singing about my feelings. There's a song that I vary the language, the wording too, a little bit. I don't even know the title. But the lyric that I sing is, Jesus, Jesus, how I love you How I need you more and more Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus oh, for grace to love you more now, some might recognize that pattern of lyrics not quite the same, obviously, than the song itself and the music that goes with it. And it's a sweet little song. I adjust the lyrics so that they're personal to me. So when I'm singing this, I'm singing from my heart to Jesus about my love for Jesus, all right? And I'm appealing to him that by his grace I could love him more. I don't think I love Jesus very strongly, and other people love him a whole lot more. I feel like I'm more attached to the Father, because that's who I pray to. And Jesus is kind of off to the side just speaking personally for a moment. But I'm aware of that liability in my life. And so I'm praying using this song as the prayer, okay? Using the lyrics or at least the song as a foundation, the music. And then I adjust the lyrics to make them personal to me. And so sometimes when there is a song where we're singing about Jesus, in our God is an awesome God, he reigns. Okay? There's a song that has that lyric in it. And I might say, lord, you're an awesome God. You reign in heaven above. So I will sing this when I'm by myself in the first person to God himself. Rather than singing about it about him, I'm singing to him so that as a lyric about God. The other one is a lyric about me and my feelings and my desires. That is not a problem, especially in the context in which I'm doing it. I'm expressing genuine emotions that are appropriate to talk to God about. And sometimes they're anguish. I mean, sometimes I'm reciting Psalm 13, and that Psalm is, how long, O Lord, will you forsake me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? Me? How long will I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart all the day? How long will my enemies be triumphant over me? I know those. The lines, because I say them a lot. And what am I doing? I'm pouring out my emotions to God before Him in an honest and transparent way, just the same way that David did when he originally wrote that psalm. So there's nothing wrong with that per se. I was speaking about certain habits in worship, all right? Where when worship leaders are leading the congregation in worship, a lot of times they're peppy songs that are Celebrating our emotions. And they're often emotions that we're not necessarily having at that time. We're not experiencing that. And so then for me to say, oh, life is all wonderful with you, Jesus, or whatever the lyric happens to be. And you know what I'm talking about some of these songs, I'm thinking, well, I can't say that with integrity. In fact, right now, I'm feeling kind of low. I might be thinking. And I don't want to be jumping up and down singing Glory Hallelujah because it's not authentic. And sometimes I wish that the worship leaders would start out more slowly with more contemplative music that kind of expresses a more of a different attitude, a different heart. I don't have worship songs in front of me that I could use as an example right now, but that's a concern to me. When it seems like the team is trying to. The worship team, that is, or the worship leader is trying to amp us up and get us into an emotional state that is expressed in the words, but not something that we're actually experiencing, at least at the moment. I think they're trying to create that feeling. So in those circumstances, I don't want to be singing about my feelings, because my feelings aren't edifying, maybe in that moment. But I can sing with confidence about God and about his nature and about what he has done for us and for me. And I could sing thanks to him and glorify for Him. And there's all kinds of music that is an example of that. Okay, here's a popular hymn that I think is useful here. You are the air I Breathe. Okay, that's the opening lyric. You are the air I breathe. All right. Well, that's an expression of my deep dependence on God. And it's especially valuable when I'm feeling out of it. When I'm feeling anguish or difficulty or hardship, I'm acknowledging, I can't do this without you. You are the air I breathe. Faith. Now, there is a set of lyrics in there that I'm a little troubled with. And it says, you, holy word spoken for me. And I think that might be making reference to hearing the voice of God that gives a person a lift. I'm going to say your holy word written for me. It's given to me to lift me up and encourage me. And so, you know, I might adjust the lyric when I'm singing it so that it's consistent with my understanding of good theology. All right. But it still is an expression of my emotional investment in God, at the moment, I'm feeling like I need him. And I want to express that now. Are there times where I feel more rejoicing? Sure. And then the rejoicing music would be appropriate. My concern is when I think there is, for lack of a better word, kind of manipulation. What the musician or worship leader is trying to do is manipulate me with the music to get me to generate an attitude or a feeling that isn't really authentic. It's more self focused, where I don't want to focus on me in those situations. I want to focus on the Lord. It turns out that older hymns are more like that. They're more theocentric, they're more Christocentric. They celebrate the work of the cross more. What is the. A mighty fortress is our God. So this is a Martin Luther piece that's magnificent. And it's almost militant in the way it. Like a military. What's the word? Pace to it or chant to it, you know, and it's talking about. It's an encouragement song, you know, about us fighting the devil, you know, and that he has no equal. We can't stand against him ourselves. But one word, one name can rescue us. And that's what that's celebrating. Martin Luther celebrating there. That's a totally different kind of song that is not focused on me. It's the kind of thing that no matter what frame of mind I happen to be in, I can sing that with integrity. And then when I sing that with integrity, because it's true, I do find my emotions being influenced. Music has the ability to influence emotions. I just want it to influence them with regards to God in a legitimate way, not in a manipulative way. Okay. So I'm not down on the personal pronouns, unless all the personal pronouns are doing. Are just announcing all these great feelings that I'm not really feeling at the moment. I just want my worship to be truthful and authentic and not about me so much. Are there exceptions to that? Yes. I even gave one as I was singing here this morning on my way to the office. You know, I'm connecting with God through song. The song was very. I love the melody of that particular piece. I can sing it over and over and over. There's a song that we used to sing during the Jesus movement. Make me more like you, Jesus make me more like you Give me a heart that's filled with love make me more like you now that's a very simple song. I loved the simplicity of a lot of songs that we sang. When I was first to Christian. And it has a. I'm not going to do the melody for you, but that would be a little weird. But it has a very simple, sweet melody to it. And I could sing that over and over and over again and it will have an emotional impact on me. And it will because of the music and the content. The content is a prayer that I'm praying to God with full conviction and full sincerity. Give me a heart that's filled with love and make me more like you. I need that. I need that desperately for so many circumstances, for my family, for ministry, for my team, for God's sake. I need that. And so consequently I'm going to pray that and sing that and what the musical aspect of that, because it's so lovely to me. It's such a beautiful melody. It ignites my soul, it lifts my soul emotionally, it refreshes my soul to pray this prayer musically. And there are other songs that are like that. So I'm not against using personal pronouns per se. I'm not against singing are singing songs that express my feelings, especially if they're actually expressing my genuine feelings. I am reluctant to be, I think, pushed and pulled. And what it feels like sometimes is manipulated by well meaning worship leaders to get me to feel something by forcing me to follow them in the lyrics where I sing a bunch of stuff that isn't true about myself that I resist. And that I think is a problem with worship anyway. You do what you can with what's given to you, whatever worship leader you have. But when I'm on my own, I find those songs that really speak to my heart and that I could sing in a personal prayer to God authentically and in a way that really expresses my heart towards him. So there you go. Appreciate your call, Jason. And that you're a strategic partner and that you're praying for me and for us. That's great. All right, friends, that's it for this hour. Greg Kokol here for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven. Bye bye now. Sam.