Jesus said, "I am The Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6).

Welcome to the essay series, Explore the WAY. Here we explore reasons for believing in God through Jesus Christ. These essays offer concise examinations of important issues, summarizing evidence that God exists, Jesus is The Christ, and the Bible is trustworthy and authoritative. For those wondering, doubting, thinking, or wanting to go deeper into issues of faith, what follows are explorations of the many reasons to believe.
​

• If you are a Christian, we hope to strengthen your discipleship.
• If you have not given God much thought, we hope to inspire you.
• If you have doubts, we hope to engage you.
• If you have been hurt by the church or by Christians, we hope to encourage you.

Yet, the great fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, offers a relevant caution: 

     “Data! data! data!” he cried impatiently. “I can’t make bricks without clay.”*

Building a sturdy house of faith includes data (evidence), and this series presents data worthy of serious consideration. However, the accumulation of information alone does not guarantee a deep and saving faith in Christ. Data/evidence provides the bricks necessary for building, but the foundation of faith remains a personal encounter with God. As C.S. Lewis wrote, faith "is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted."  Evidence can point the Way, but it cannot replace encounter with the Waymaker.

​SCROLL down to begin with essay #1.

* From "The Adventures of the Copper Beeches"

1.  God exists - the First Cause
2.  Fine-Tuned Cosmos
3.  Fine-Tuned Biology
​4.  Objective Beauty
5.  Objective Morality
6.  Personal Experience
7.  Trustworthy Bible
​8.  Truth of the Resurrection
9.  Importance of the Church
10.  Christ is Near & Far
11.  Why Evil & Suffering
12.  The Summary

​The band Blind Faith (with Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood) produced some great music, but blind faith is a lousy way to think about God. From the ancient Israelites to all of us today, God does not expect blind faith. We possess eyes to see, ears to hear, and a mind to think. Examples from the Bible include Moses hearing from God in a burning bush and seeing the Lord’s mighty works (Ex. 3-12), the disciples listening to Jesus’ preaching and witnessing his resurrection (Mk. 9, Lk. 24), Mary pondering what she was told (Lk. 2), and Paul saying that believers should think of all the good things of God (Ph. 4). In addition, we receive further reasons to believe through science, logic, and personal experience.
 
Certainly, belief in God’s existence requires faith and trust. Although we can never "prove" God's existence in this life, the accumulated evidence steadily leads to the conclusion that God truly is real. Still, strictly speaking, none of us can actually "prove" anything. To prove is to absolutely establish that something could never be another way. We cannot prove we exist or that we are actually reading this essay. Perhaps we are dreaming, or we are just a brain in a vat being fed experiences. In actuality, none of us base our lives on proof; we base our lives on accumulated evidence that leads to the best conclusion. The pilot cannot prove to me that the plane we are on won't fall out of the sky. However, the accumulated evidence tells me that the plane has been well-constructed and maintained by the airline, the pilot is well-trained, planes rarely fall out of the sky, and the pilot is equally motivated to stay in the air and land safely. Based on this accumulated evidence, I board the plane confidently because I have faith and trust that it is the best conclusion. 

God continues to reveal Himself in remarkable ways that tip the scales heavily in favor of belief. That’s why we present this series: to explore some of those reasons to believe. If you are a Christian, we hope to strengthen your discipleship. If you have not given God much thought, we hope to inspire you. If you have doubts, we hope to engage you. If you have been hurt by the church or hurt by Christians, we hope to encourage your healing. In all, we hope you’ll “Explore the Way” of faith in Christ.
 
First, we begin with the fundamental question, the first among questions. Before we can explore who God is, whether the Bible is trustworthy, or did Jesus really rise from the dead, we must ask why is there something instead of nothing; how and why are we here at all instead of a vast, dark nothingness? The moment something begins to exist, an explanation is expected. How and why did something come into existence in the first place? If we look at a violin, we don’t assume that it “popped” into existence out of pure nothingness. We presume it began to exist (it had a beginning, it was created), and thus it had a beginner (it was caused to exist in the first place).
 
Thus, the proposition follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (a beginner of some kind).
2. The Universe began to exist (via the Big Bang).
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause (the Beginner, a.k.a. the First Cause).

There are only two options when it comes to the origin of the Universe. Either the Universe has eternally existed, or it was caused to exist (it had a beginning). “Nothing” cannot create something because it is nothing – no thing! Scientific evidence now demonstrates that the Universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, and thus if space, physical matter, and time had a beginning, then the beginner (the First Cause) must be spaceless, non-physical, timeless, and powerful (with no beginning). Sounds a lot like God! In other words, if space, matter, and time had a beginning, the Beginner could not have been created out of matter, nor bound by time because they had not yet been caused to exist. That which is timeless, outside of time, what we call God, is by definition without a beginning and was not caused to exist. The assertion, "If God created the universe, who created God?" is therefore nonsensical. 

In addition, Einstein's theory of General Relativity shows that space, matter, and time are co-relative, which means they had a co-beginning; they came into existence together. Theologian Thomas Aquinas referred to God as the Uncaused First Cause, and Aristotle described God as the Unmoved Mover. We know that matter (physical substance) is not eternal. All matter decays. Yet, John 1 in the New Testament speaks of the eternal presence of the Word, the non-physical mind of God, prior to creation. The accumulated cosmological evidence supports this assertion. As mathematician John Lennox stated, "Either matter gave rise to mind, or mind gave rise to matter."

Does this evidence-based Uncaused First Cause proposition demonstrate without a doubt that God exists? Perhaps not on its own to everyone, but this foundational proposition is also the first piece of a large and extended family of evidence that makes the case for God’s existence and thus compels our attention. This series of essays, in a concise and discernable format, present accumulated evidence that faith in God and Jesus Christ is the most rational conclusion.

Science, logic, the Bible, history, archaeology, philosophy, personal experiences: God is not hidden, just veiled. God offers various types of evidence for His existence, and God reveals Himself in ways that fortify faith without halting our desire to pursue more of Him. Our challenge is to pursue and ponder what God reveals in order to believe and grow in faith – deep faith, but never blind faith. There are reasons to believe. When Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood sang, “Can’t find my way home,” we can imagine Jesus responding, “Yes, you can. Follow me.”

​Consider a man walking – hundreds of years in the future. He pushes through a set of trees and sees a tremendous mountain. On the peak, he beholds four giant faces as if they are emerging from the mountain itself. What should he assume? What would you assume? Did these four intricately detailed faces we know as Mount Rushmore come about by the natural processes of rain and erosion? Of course not. That man and you would wonder, “Who designed and created such an impressive display?”
 
In our previous essay, we demonstrated that the Universe is not eternal (Big Bang evidence shows that the Universe had a beginning), everything that has a beginning has a first cause, and something cannot spring into existence out of absolute nothingness. As such, based on the accumulated evidence, the best answer to the origin of our Universe is a designed beginning emanating from a kind of mind (John 1) - sometimes referred to as the Uncaused First Cause or the Unmoved First Mover. Next in our exploration, we can additionally identify data that point to this Creator of the cosmos via the remarkable design within outer space.
 
In 2007, Antony Flew, one of the 20th century’s most prominent philosopher and atheist (a person who does not believe in God) stunningly announced that he now believed in God. In his thundering book, There Is a God, Flew stated his belief in a “divine Source” because it was the best answer to the evidence that had “emerged from science.” Following the Big Bang, as we look across the cosmos of planets, stars, celestial dust, and black holes, we are faced with two options:

1. The cosmos came about by unguided, random chance.
2. The cosmos is designed, that signs of design are evident, and that these signs point to a Designer (God).

(It is important to also note that while there remains more than enough evidence of design in the Universe to infer a Designer (God), there is also evidence of deformity, decay, and disease. Later in this series, we will explore the characteristics of God and whether God and His creation are imperfect, or whether, as the Bible describes, there was a Fall, a corruption of God’s good creation.)
 
What then is the evidence for an extraordinarily fine-tuned Universe that we can measure and study? Although much of cosmology and astrophysics can get very technical, consider this: If you gather all the stars, planets, moons, galaxies, nebulae, gas, and dust in the Universe, it makes up just .27% of the ingredients in the Universe. The rest is made up mostly of dark energy and dark matter. The point being, if we were to change the total quantity of the ingredients in the Universe by just 1 part in 10 to the 122nd power, there would be no possibility for life. That number is a 1 with 122 zeroes after it. That’s a big number, and that’s big fine tuning!

In other words, think of a gigantic muffin recipe calling for enough flour to fill the entire volume of planet Earth. We all know how tiny a single grain of flour is. Consider this: If you were to add ONE GRAIN of flour or take away ONE GRAIN, the recipe would be ruined. That is how extraordinarily fine-tuned our Universe is and how mathematically impossible it is that creation came about by random chance.
 
Additionally, our Universe is expanding (stretching) and it has been since the beginning. However, if the rate of expansion one millisecond after the Big Bang had been smaller by 1 part in a hundred thousand million million, the Universe would have collapsed on itself. If the charge of an electron had been only slightly different, stars would have exploded. If the strength of gravity were changed by 1 part in ten thousand billion billion billion there would be no life-supporting world. The exact tilt of Earth’s axis, the position and characteristics of our Moon, the specific role of Jupiter, and many other precise factors all contribute to a Universe perfected for life. In short, our Universe displays truly remarkable, unfathomable, fine tuning on the order of numbers so big that they are almost impossible to comprehend. Only a Designer best explains such elegant and complex order.
 
Critics counter with a theory known as the multiverse, the idea being that if you have enough universes beyond ours (a near infinite number), one is sure to randomly, and by pure chance, support life. However, multiverse remains only a theory supported by speculation and not by independent evidence. Is it wise to bet everything on such speculation and unsubstantiated theory?
 
If we would never believe that the faces of Mount Rushmore were the result of random rain and erosion, then why would we ever believe our Universe randomly took shape to such a profoundly perfect degree? The science and the numbers don’t lie. The finely tuned aspects of our Universe remain truly extraordinary, and they only become more so as time and science have advanced. That is what Antony Flew meant when he said his faith relied on what had “emerged from science.” 

p.s. FYI: "Do You Know the Muffin Man" is a traditional English nursery rhyme referenced in the movie, Shrek.

​Macro or micro. Big or small. Biggest or smallest.
 
In our previous essay, we explored the macro – the Universe – the biggest, most vast expanse in all of existence. Despite its sheer immensity, we can still observe the Universe and measure its exquisite, fine-tuned design. This week, we peer inward, deeply inward, into the micro – molecular biology – and yet again we find exquisite, impossibly complex, fine-tuned design.
 
As we examine the building blocks of life, what are our options?
(a) Life originated because of random happenstance.
(b) Life originated because of finely tuned design.
​
If (a) is correct, then life has no ultimate meaning; we are merely a product of accidental chemical and electrical impulses - no plan and no purpose. If (b) is correct, then something that is designed must have a designer, and if a Designer (God) exists, then life by definition possesses deep spiritual and metaphysical meaning beyond our mortal comprehension.
 
The development of electron microscopes in the early 1930s opened up a tiny world that previous scientists could not have imagined. The further we examine the realm of microscopic life, the more we discover astonishing complexity. 
 
If you are walking along the beach and you see “Jacob loves Rachel” written in the sand, you don’t assume the waves wrote it. Even a short message of basic information such as this requires a mind to produce it. Natural forces do not create new messages of information.

DNA is a complex molecule containing the instructions that guide the development, survival, and reproduction of every form of life on Earth. Within human DNA, a "message" 3.2 billion letters long resides in every one of the 40 trillion cells in the body. Every cell of every living thing carries DNA. Even a one-cell amoeba has within it a volume of information equal to 1,000 large textbooks. If you stretch out all of the DNA strands in a human body, they could reach to the Moon and back 200,00 times. That’s a lot of information!
 
DNA operates like an enormous computer code, and where there is a code there must be a coder, where there is a message there must be a messenger. Additionally, DNA doesn’t mutate to create new information necessary to produce increasingly complex body types. In the same way that typos are mistakes that do not add substantive new information to an essay, DNA mutations do not generate new and more complex bodies. You don't get new and intelligent chapters of information in a book through random typos. The complexity of DNA information instead represents positive evidence for an intelligent designer.
 
Consider also the flagellum, a hairlike “tail” that helps some cells and microorganisms move and swim. A bacterial flagellum, like a motor on a boat, is a type of rotating propeller attached to a drive shaft and motor fueled by a flow of acid. It is a remarkably complex microscopic system of numerous different parts with specific functions that relate only to flagellum movement. Remove just one of the 40 different proteins necessary for the construction and activity of a flagellum, or any of its unique parts, and it ceases to work as intended. The odds of a flagellum emerging on its
​own by random chance were calculated by scientists to be virtually impossible, falling outside of the accepted boundaries of random probability. Either the flagellum is the result of an inconceivable series of coincidences after coincidences, or it is by design, which then requires a designer.

​Countless other biological systems are equally or even more complex: the human eye, biochemistry of vision, blood clotting, cell membranes, antibodies, photosynthesis, and many more. All are composed of different parts that must come together in extremely intricate ways for the system to function properly. Furthermore, these disparate parts possess no function apart from the system in which they operate. Yet, if there is no Designer, these parts must somehow develop separately (with no independent purpose) and then assemble together unguided in order to collectively produce a phenomenally intricate system such as human vision or a flagellum. The more we discover about micro-complexity, the clearer it becomes that random, indiscriminate development simply cannot stand up to sustained scrutiny.
 
Still, some scientists steadfastly refuse any other possibility beyond a random, natural (material, physical) explanation for the origin and complexity of life. As Dr. Richard Lewontin, biologist and geneticist, asserted:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism… Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
 
As the evidence accumulates for the reality of design, where to place our faith becomes clear. Biochemist, Michael Denton, sums it up well:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

“In all ranks of life, the human heart yearns for the beautiful; and the beautiful things that God makes are His gift to all alike.”  
      - Harriet Beecher Stowe
 
“Wow, look at that beautiful sunset!”
“Are you kidding me?! Sunsets are disgusting and ugly! They make my stomach turn.”
      Said no one, ever.
 
People from different lands and cultures across human history recognize the beauty of a colorful sunset. Poets, painters, and musicians throughout time have written, sung, and depicted the beautiful wonder of sunsets, waterfalls, mountains, lakes, people, animals, and more in art of all kinds. Beauty surrounds us, but is beauty only in the eye of the beholder? Is beauty just an individual statement of preference?
 
In our previous three essays, we explored three rather technical assertions:
1. The Universe did not self-create from absolute nothingness, but in fact had a beginning (Big Bang) and therefore a Beginner (God).
2. The cosmos gives ample evidence of extreme fine tuning, and the odds of this occurring by random chance remain so long as to be impossible. The more that scientists learn of the Universe and its properties, the longer the odds become for it all occurring randomly.
3. Biology, and especially DNA, also demonstrate extreme fine tuning, which random chance fails to explain. Such fine tuning testifies to a Fine Tuner (God).
These represent three significant arguments for the existence of God, but they can also become complex and detailed subjects. What if we can perceive God through something as straightforward as beauty?
 
Why do we all recognize beauty? First, we need to clarify the concepts of objective and subjective. Consider: Jacob and Rachel enter a room. The thermostat accurately shows the temperature is 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Jacob says it feels hot. Rachel says it feels cold. The temperature is objectively 75 degrees. They both know it is 75 degrees, but what they feel is subjective. Likewise, with beauty. No one looks upon a red rose, the Grand Canyon, or a golden retriever puppy and sees repulsive ugliness. (Any such person would be rightly described as disconnected from reality.) Such things are objectively beautiful, we all agree, even though we may feel a subjective level of intensity for such beauty. We can objectively recognize classical music as beautiful while subjectively feeling that “it’s not my kind of music.” (Which would be unfortunate.) Many examples of objective beauty exist across time and cultures. All human beings agree that some things are objectively beautiful. How can this be?

There remain essentially two candidates for addressing objective beauty. The first is naturalism (a.k.a. materialism or physicalism): the belief that all things naturally arise from within nature – nothing exists outside of our physical world. Naturalistic explanations often deny the existence of objective beauty at all. As author, Steven E. Parrish notes: “Given naturalism and an impersonal Universe…one would have to say that beauty is something totally subjective, and the fact that we see beauty and enjoy beautiful things is a product of mindless evolution. In this case, it is something of a quirk. If the mutations of our ancestors had been a little different, we might think that piles of garbage were beautiful.”
 
If naturalism accepts any form of objective beauty, it is ascribed to evolution (a theory of unguided, natural processes), which states that any so-called beauty has value only if it furthers the health and fertility of our species. Yet, one can imagine our ancient ancestors gazing at the beauty of a sunset while not noticing the approaching lion, thereby making beauty a detriment to survival. And if beauty aids in survival, shouldn't apes, dogs, and termites also demonstrate some kind of appreciation or expression of beauty? Presumably they, too, want to survive. In fact, animals survive just fine without beauty. Shouldn’t humans also be able to survive and thrive without beauty if we are merely a higher form of animal as evolutionists insist? Plus, we all recognize and appreciate many beautiful things that have nothing to do with survival or reproduction. In short, naturalism fails to explain why objective beauty exists at all.
 
The Christian faith affirms objective beauty not because of naturalism but because of supernaturalism – a spiritual framework for scientific and philosophical perspectives. This represents the best option for explaining objective beauty. The proposition is presented as follows:
a. If objective beauty exists, then a standard of beauty exists outside of mere human preferences.
b. Objective beauty does exist as demonstrated across time and cultures.
c. Therefore, an objective standard of beauty exists outside of ourselves, our needs, and our individual perspectives or preferences.
 
The Bible asserts that God created all things and thus created and identified that which is objectively beautiful. Given that God is the supernatural standard of creation, God determines the very definition of beautiful. Human beings, created in God’s image, are thus given the unique ability to recognize, appreciate, and create beauty. As a result, human beings across time and cultures demonstrate a God-given unified appreciation of objective beauty.

Countless philosophers and writers recognize the certainty of objective beauty:
Greek philosopher, Plato: "The soul longs for the beautiful itself, not merely for beautiful things...”, and beauty in the material world awakens desire for the Form of Beauty—an eternal, objective standard.
Poet John Keats: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.” 
C.S. Lewis: “Every joy reminds us, faintly, that there is something beyond the world we see. Every delight points to a Reality we have not yet encountered.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; he has a perception of the Beautiful as a standard that exists beyond himself.”
G.K. Chesterton: "To love beauty is to acknowledge that something more exists than the mere practical or utilitarian world...the world will never starve for want of wonders, but only for want of wonder.”

The evidence (uniformity across time and cultures, our experiences, and our own common sense) argues for the existence of objective beauty, which demonstrates a standard beyond ourselves. Naturalism fails to explain the existence and origin of objective beauty, while supernaturalism stands as the most rational explanation. God reigns as the creator and the standard of beauty, and we uniquely recognize and appreciate beauty because we are made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1). In this sense, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, the Divine Beholder. As Helen Keller, born blind and deaf, so beautifully stated: “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart.”

What is tall? Is 5’8” tall? Perhaps to someone who is 5’3”. Is 6’2” tall? Not to someone who is 6’9”. Is tall in Denmark the same as tall in Guatemala? Unless there exists an objective standard for what tall is (a definition outside of personal or societal opinion), tall becomes a matter of subjective opinion. 
 
The previous essay noted in more detail the difference between objective and subjective, but to summarize, objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of a room. Subjective is how one feels about the temperature: too warm, too cold, or just right. Subjective is opinion, objective is truth regardless of opinion. As with tall, how do we know what good and evil are? Is there an objective moral standard outside of ourselves, and if so, from where did it originate? Do human beings possess certain moral standards, such as murder is evil, that exist across time and cultures, principles recognized as always good or evil despite era or society?

Our conscience and moral experiences tell us that objective moral values do exist. When we are old enough to know what murder is, and given a properly functioning mind, we know that murder is wrong. In the same way that we trust our senses to convince us that physical objects exist (we can see them, touch them, and experience them), we know objective morality exists based upon our moral experiences. A man might state that he does not believe in objective moral values, but as soon as he is mistreated, he will react as if such a standard does exist. "That's not fair!" he will exclaim. Nearly all human beings agree that one ought to try to save a drowning person. But "oughts" and "shoulds" appeal fundamentally to an objective standard. And abusing a child for fun is always wrong. We don't need to be taught such a truth, and we can't not know it. In the absence of rational reasons to disprove our experiences, we are justified in believing them.

Given that objective morality exists, the question remains: from where or from whom do such morals originate? Our options are:
1. Individuals and societies determine moral standards.
2. Morality evolves over time, and thus societies become increasingly moral over time.
3. Certain moral standards are established outside of ourselves (ostensibly by a Creator and are a part of the creation of human beings).

The problem with #1 is that it is entirely subjective, based solely on opinion. As such, Society-A decides that murdering other humans is always morally bad. So, what? Society-B decides that murder is morally good as long as it benefits them. Without an objective moral standard outside of opinion, Society-A cannot tell B that murdering them is morally wrong. It is all opinion.

Point of note:

• Murder and killing are not the same. Murder is the immoral, unlawful killing of a human being. Certain killings under certain circumstances can be both moral and legal as in self-defense, law enforcement, or morally necessary warfare.

Under option #1, societal morals are determined by consensus or force. For instance, I convince others that my moral views are correct, and we establish laws codifying and enforcing them. Or, you have the biggest weapon and are able to impose your moral views on others. In either scenario, morality is based on and enforced by subjective choices, which can then be changed anytime by further consensus or force. Option #1 fails to explain the existence of objective moral values.
 
Option #2 posits that human beings are evolutionally hard-wired to value human flourishing, to esteem what is good for the survival of our species. Thus, as time and evolution progresses, we gain further experience and knowledge, and our morality (and thus our flourishing as a species) supposedly increases. In such a framework, we somehow know in our nature that basic morality is good for human thriving. The problem with this assertion is that it fails in practicality. Although a man may value his flourishing, as well as his tribe's, it does not therefore follow that he will morally value the thriving and flourishing (or even survival) of another individual or tribe. In fact, human history has shown again and again, across time and cultures, that human flourishing is a subjective concept based on the availability of resources, land, safety, and degree of tribalism. If my morality is based on what is good for me and my tribe, it is not objective morality at all. It remains purely subjective. Although human flourishing can be an important aspect of moral discourse, it offers no answer for why and how objective moral values exist at all. 

If option #2 is correct that morality progressively evolves, then we can never actually know what is truly moral. What we think is moral now might be morally evil later as we “evolve.” Further, any evolution-based moral statement could be easily countered by responding, "Who says?! Isn't it just as likely that we are evolving away from your moral view and toward my moral view?" Plus, this option still ultimately supports an objective moral standard beyond ourselves—one toward which we are supposedly evolving.

Consider again the statement that abusing a child for fun is objectively morally wrong. The human flourishing and societal arguments assert that it is always wrong because it damages the child, likely for life, and is damaging to the abuser, thus making overall society worse and impeding human flourishing. However, what if a pill could be developed to ensure that the child would have no memory or scars from the abuse, and that the abuser would also not be psychologically damaged. Because of this pill, no societal harm is done, and no human flourishing is impeded. Is it still morally wrong to abuse a child for fun? Of course, it is! We all know it is objectively morally wrong and evil under any circumstances.

Furthermore, evolutionary theory rests on the idea of natural selection. The weak die so that the strong may live and ensure the survival of the species. If, as evolutionists declare, humans are just a higher form of ape, then we, too, would be guided by natural selection. Should we then abandon or even kill the weak and the infirmed? Hitler's Mein Kampf referenced natural selection as a rationale for the extermination of millions of people he deemed inferior and subhuman. The atheist responds again that human flourishing is the guiding moral principle, not natural selection, and thus Nazism violated the flourishing of millions of people. Yet in evolution, a flourishing species depends on natural selection as a mechanism for ensuring survival. And again, who decides which human flourishing and by what standard? Mine? My tribe's? Your tribe's? What if I don't agree with your definition of human flourishing? On what objective basis would you say I'm wrong? Option #2 fails for multiple reasons.

Contrary to natural selection, human cultures across millennia have heralded the self-sacrificing hero, caring for the sick, and rescuing the weak. If morality rests on evolution and natural selection, the strongest fireman should never risk his valuable life to save an old woman from a burning building who was too weak to escape on her own. Clearly, objective morality cannot be based on evolution and natural selection, and instead the accumulated evidence demonstrates the existence of an objective standard of morality outside of ourselves.

C.S. Lewis in his book The Joyful Christian said, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." He further argued that the assertion during World War II that the Allies' ideas were better than the Nazis' ideas was ultimately an appeal to a standard beyond both. The Nuremberg Trials successfully appealed to objective morality by establishing a legal framework that held state representatives accountable for their actions, regardless of their nation's political, sociological, or theological views.

As a result, the proposition follows:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then some kind of moral Creator outside of us must exist who established such moral standards.
2. Objective moral standards do exist.
3. Therefore, a moral Creator (God) exists.
 
Points of note:

• A society is indeed based on both subjective and objective morality. There are absolute moral truths, as well as moral guidelines that vary in different cultures. For example, America agrees on certain subjective moral standards of kindness toward animals. Other cultures use different subjective standards. Torturing animals remains objectively immoral, while other animal use is guided by subjective cultural values. 
• The existence of objective morality does not mean that people's behavior necessarily and always adheres to this morality. God created human beings with the ability to know objective morality (through our conscience and experiences) and still not follow it. Our ability to violate objective moral standards is not relevant to the fundamental issues of the origin and existence of objective morality.  
• Experience and evidence clearly demonstrate that a person who does not believe in God can still be morally good and kind. Conversely, someone professing religious moral values remains capable of committing morally bad acts. (They either do not truly believe what they profess, or because sin still impacts an honestly religious person.) However, these two truths have nothing to do with the origin and existence of objective morality. 

If there is no God, murder is not objectively wrong. If there is no God, the Allies of World War II were not objectively right and Hitler's Axis objectively wrong. If there is no God, 9/11 was entirely subjective, subject to opinion and preference. Whether we believe in God or not, none of us live out a morally subjective world view. We do not accept that abusing a child for fun can be considered morally good in another culture. We rightly object to the assertion that, "It's good to them, so who are we to impose our morality on their culture?" Thank God (literally) we all understand that it remains objectively morally wrong to abuse a child for fun. Experience and evidence validate the reality of objective moral values.

God gifts each of us with a basic moral compass. We know this deep down. This moral compass (conscience and mind) doesn't make clear every moral dilemma, but on basic issues of fundamental morality, we know deep down what is objectively good or evil. God also, in His infinite wisdom, allows us to deny objective morality, ignore it, or convince ourselves otherwise; yet it remains our only infallible guide toward a decent and moral culture. As George Washington famously proclaimed:
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

During the surgery, Pam Reynold’s eyes were taped shut, plugs were placed in her ears, and her body temperature was held at 50 degrees. She was clinically dead while undergoing a hypothermic cardiac arrest procedure to remove a life-threatening aneurysm. The whole operation was life-threatening, yet she survived. Later, Pam described in great detail everything that happened in her operating room from a viewpoint floating above her body: the personnel she had never met before, the specific instruments she had never seen before, how they were being used, the sounds they made, and the things specific people said. She was dead, but then she was revived and was able to describe everything that happened to her while she was dead. Seems unreal, but Pam's experience truly happened.
 
A neurosurgeon, Dr. Eben Alexander, was placed in a medically induced coma due to brain and spinal cord swelling. The coma made him essentially brain dead, supported only by machines, but he was revived. He later recounted that while in the coma, he somehow left his body, entered a realm of bright light and great peace, and met a young woman he did not know. Adopted as a child, and long after his near-death experience, Eben finally met his birth parents and was shown a photo of his previously unknown biological sister who died years earlier. He immediately recognized her as the young woman he met within the bright light of his death coma. His career in neuroscience previously told him that such a conscious experience while clinically brain dead was impossible. But it truly happened.
 
Millions of people across history and cultures describe very similar near-death experiences of bright light, peace, and spiritual calm. These spiritual experiences resonate so strongly within many people that nothing can shake them from publicly proclaiming what they know to be true. Others with similar near-death encounters prefer to only whisper about their mysterious spiritual experiences that so profoundly impacted their perspectives, life directions, and views of God. Their descriptions offer equally profound insights, but they opt to shield themselves from the misguided criticisms and irrational aspersions so often directed at such accounts. Unlike with science and data, personal spiritual experiences cannot be measured, duplicated in a lab, or placed under a microscope. Nevertheless, such moments remain so real to so many people that their reports cannot be swept aside with a dismissive wave of the hand.

The immediate followers of Jesus of Nazareth claimed to have met and touched their crucified and risen Lord. So certain of their experiences, their previous fears of arrest and of their own crucifixions disappeared as they risked death to boldly proclaim this life-giving truth. Most, as history records, were tortured and executed for their enduring message of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul of Tarsus, an early persecutor of the first Christians, also encountered the resurrected Christ and became a Christian, a spiritual encounter so profound that it completely changed the direction of his life. He, too, suffered afflictions for proclaiming the truth of his experiences. Why would all these followers of Christ abandon their previous fears and unbelief to risk death? They did so because they were unshakably certain of their spiritual experiences.
 
Consider also that we all accept things as true that cannot be absolutely proven. To prove something is true means that it cannot possibly be another way. For example, we cannot prove that our existence did not begin five minutes ago with a built-in appearance of age, or that our brain is not just in a vat of chemicals being stimulated by a laboratory scientist. Yet, we all still hold certain properly basic beliefs (our foundation of knowledge) based on our experiences such as sight, sound, and touch. We agree there is a physical world around us because of what we experience. We may not be able to prove we possess an actual history longer than five minutes, but we all rationally accept this to be true based on our shared experiences. Similarly, it can be entirely rational to believe that our personal spiritual experiences are true in the absence of any provably more rational explanation.
 
A young child hears the voice of Jesus telling her, “Paint what you see.” At age four, she begins to create. Having never been to church or raised in a religious home, she nevertheless paints Christian images with extraordinary skill, including a remarkable portrait of Jesus (below) completed when she was only eight years old. Should we discount the impact of Akiane’s spiritual experiences upon her astonishing artistic skills? She asserts that spiritual experiences guided her. In the absence of a more provably rational explanation, it is, in fact, equally or more rational to believe her sincere and fervent accounts of her spiritual experiences that so impacted her life and marvelous abilities.
 
Despite the fact that some people lie about their experiences, are simply mistaken, or can be explained scientifically, countless other personal spiritual experiences impact scores of people for reasons that remain very difficult to comprehend or explain. Such personal spiritual experiences bring life-changing results and unshakeable religious certainty. Neurologists still cannot scientifically explain near-death experiences or instances of consciousness separate from our physical body. Visions, healings, even prayerful guidance or insight astound and captivate millions of believers. Such spiritual experiences defy naturalistic explanations while insisting on deep spiritual discernment of metaphysical realities.
 
Aside from theologians, scientists, and philosophers, perhaps pop musician Justin Timberlake put it most clearly: “I can honestly say I am a Christian, but my spirituality has been developed on the road and is based on my experiences with God.” 

​Our minds are made to understand God; our feelings are made to experience God.

Pam, Eben, Akiane, Jesus' apostles, and countless others across millennia all proclaim the truth and the mystery of spiritual encounters. Even if only ONE person actually experienced spiritual consciousness apart from their physical body, then there must be more to each of us than mere physical matter. While clinically dead, Pam floated above her physical body seeing and hearing all that took place in the operating room. Eben was spiritually visited by someone he did not know but would know later. We are all, in fact, both soul and body, spirit and matter, created in the image of a spirit God (Gen. 1) and given a physical body within this material world.

Want to know more about God? Consider reaching out to people who’ve had personal experiences with God and ask them. Chances are, they’d love to tell you.

They abandoned worshiping at the Jerusalem temple in the 300s B.C. because of widespread religious corruption, gathered up their scrolls of Scripture (the Hebrew Bible), and retreated to Qumran near the Dead Sea. When the Romans threatened the region, these believers hid their scrolls in the dry caves high above Qumran. The scrolls remained hidden until 1947, over 2,000 years later, when a Bedouin boy found them while searching for his goat.
 
The Dead Sea Scrolls represent one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in history, and they authenticate in remarkable ways the reliability of our contemporary Old Testament texts. Among the many discoveries was a complete scroll of the entire book of Isaiah. Although our oldest manuscript of Isaiah at that time was from the 1000s A.D., the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah, written 1,000 years earlier, was a near exact match! For example, in comparing the manuscript to the scroll, of the 166 words in Isaiah chapter 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of the letters are simply a matter of spelling, which do not affect the meaning at all. Four more letters are minor style changes, such as an added “and.” The remaining three letters spell the word "light," which is added in verse 11 and does not affect the meaning of the passage. In short, what the Dead Sea scrolls demonstrate are highly careful and exact transmissions of Biblical texts over literally thousands of years. This careful preservation is consistent with the prior oral tradition as expressed in the Bible’s book of Deuteronomy 31, which records God telling Moses to read out loud the law (their Bible) every seven years. Such a tradition preserved the accuracy of the text for generations to come.
 
For the New Testament, our confidence in its reliability is even greater. True, we do not, for instance, possess the original parchment on which Mark first wrote his Gospel. However, this should not be surprising because we essentially have NO originals for any of the writings from the ancient world. Still, is it rational to believe that we possess what the New Testament authors originally wrote? Or, has the text passed through too many hands over too much time to be trusted?
 
The truth is that the New Testament remains the best-preserved ancient text in history with 27,000 complete books or sections of ancient text in our possession. The oldest section dates to mere decades from the original, and the oldest complete New Testament dates to a little more than 200 years after the original. Compared to Homer’s The Iliad, the second best preserved ancient work, which is routinely taught in schools as historical literature, there remains just 643 complete works or fragments of the text, but the oldest copy dates to 500 years from the time of the original.
 
Critics claim that the New Testament includes 400,000 variations among the many copies of the ancient texts, which sounds like a lot. However, of those variations, the vast majority are due to simple (easily identifiable) scribal errors of spelling or grammar that do not affect the meaning of the text. Less than 1% of those variations have any bearing on the meaning of the text, and NO Christian beliefs or teachings are called into question by those very few variations within the ancient New Testament texts. In fact, with ongoing advancements in archaeology and ancient Greek scholarship, Bible & Theology scholar Wesley Huff asserts, "As time goes on, we're not getting farther away from the original wording of the Bible, we're actually getting closer." The King James Bible of 1620 primarily relied on 31 ancient manuscripts to produce its English translation. Fast forward to today, and we now have over 5000 additional Greek manuscripts to support our current English translations.

Alongside the dedicated preservation of the New Testament text, its internal evidence demonstrates its truth. No credible scholar disputes that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died in the early first century A.D in the Roman province of Judaea. Several historical sources beyond the New Testament confirm that reality: Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historian Tacitus, Thallus, Clement of Alexandria, The Didache, and more. Altogether, these sources in conjunction with the New Testament itself provide near-contemporaneous accounts of an actual historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth.

If the Gospels had been edited over time, or made more "sellable," embarrassing or less palatable details would have certainly been removed or altered. Instead, the disciples are often portrayed as not understanding (Mark 8-9, Matthew 15), motivated by status (Luke 22, Matthew 20), and lacking faith and courage (Mark 4, Matthew 14, 26). And in the first century, women were not eligible to testify independently in a Jewish court of law. They were considered too emotional and unreliable. Yet in the Gospels, remarkably, women are the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ. They provide the first testimony to his resurrection. Additionally, Jesus calls Peter, “Satan" (Matthew 16), and the disciples later cower in fear following Jesus’ crucifixion thinking they will be arrested and killed next. Such details would certainly have been edited out of the New Testament, except the authors and scribes sought, first and foremost, to truthfully record what actually happened.
 
Finally, most of the books of the New Testament were written prior to 70 A.D., within roughly 35 years of the crucifixion, by eyewitnesses, personal associates of eyewitnesses, and within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. There remained plenty of people, including perhaps Mary herself, who could have corrected any inaccuracies within the New Testament gospels and letters. History also records that most of those who first proclaimed the reality of Christ’s resurrection died excruciating deaths. At any point they could have renounced their faith and lived. They didn’t because they knew the truth. 
 
Police detectives call it chain of custody: evidence collected at the scene and properly handed from one to another to another all the way to the court room. In recording the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we know that John the apostle, an eyewitness, collected evidence in constructing his gospel. He had three students, Papias, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote to their students what they learned from John. Their student, Irenaeus, wrote to his student, Hippolytus. From there to the first council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) to today, we see that what is proclaimed about Jesus in the New Testament has not changed. As retired homicide detective, Warner Wallace, notes, “The Jesus we know today, God in flesh, born of a virgin, rose from the dead, that Jesus is present at every stage in the chain of custody to today.” 

All of the combined evidence leads to the most rational and best conclusion that God exists (see our previous six essays), and that God in Christ through man preserved His Word for us and to us in the Old and New Testaments. We do indeed possess accurate accounts of the historical people, events, and teachings of Christianity. According to classical literature scholar, Giorgio Pasquali, “No other Greek text is handed down so richly and credibly as the New Testament.”

He wrote close to 30% of the entire New Testament, and he was beaten, jailed, and likely killed because of his message. Paul the apostle wrote to the new Christian church in Corinth: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14).
 
The literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is Christianity. But did it really happen? Could it really happen? The fact is, if the resurrection was an actual moment in history, it literally changes everything! What then are the most common objections to the resurrection?
 
First, Jesus wasn’t really dead (known as swoon theory): he may have been arrested and crucified, but he somehow survived, perhaps through a drug-induced drink (Mark 15:36). Although this objection remains a common one, it actually receives little scholarly attention because:
   (a) the Romans were experts at crucifixion
   (b) soldiers themselves risked death if they failed to complete an execution
   (c) even if Jesus survived, his bloody and agonized body would not have caused followers to believe in a resurrection any more than it would today.
 
Second, the dead body was stolen. Jesus was certainly no common criminal as he generated great interest and a significant following. The Jewish ruling council had a vested interest in making sure he was dead and buried in a guarded tomb. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all note that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. The first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb did assume a stolen body. Soon after, as Jesus’ resurrection was being proclaimed, if the Romans or Jews possessed the stolen body, all they had to do was present it to stop any further talk of resurrection. They didn’t because it wasn’t.
 
Third, claims of resurrection were a mass hallucination of people who wanted to believe a resurrection had occurred. Actually, the Bible describes Jesus’ followers as having given him up for dead (Luke 24:1-11; John 20:24-26), and they were shocked by his resurrection, not expecting it. Hallucinations are not a group phenomenon, and the Bible records Jesus appearing at different times, to different people, and in different circumstances, thus making mass hallucination implausible.
 
Fourth, although the Bible accounts appear to contradict each other in their details of the resurrection, a disciplined approach to Bible study yields their harmony. For example, Matthew describes one angel at the empty tomb while John describes two. However, only one angel speaks. Matthew could simply be highlighting the one who spoke, and of course, whenever you have two of something, you also have one. Both writers are describing the same scene but with different emphases. Furthermore, critics would still object if all the accounts of the resurrection were exactly alike. Slightly differing but consistent accounts demonstrate evidence of non-collusion.
 
Even if there were significant discrepancies within the New Testament (there are not), the unity of minimal facts demonstrates the Bible's total and firm agreement that:
   (a) Jesus was a real person in history
   (b) he was crucified, dead, and entombed
   (c) his followers cowered in fear assuming they were next to be arrested and killed
   (d) he was resurrected in bodily form
   (e) he appeared to his closest disciples and to many others who then charged fearlessly into the crowds only days later to declare his resurrection

No evidence exists showing any early form of Christianity that did not proclaim the resurrection as the true and central belief. In fact, from the earliest moments of Christian worship, before they were even known as "Christians," believers were proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ and his sacrificial crucifixion and resurrection. When the apostle Thomas was first told of the resurrection witnessed by his fellow apostles, he was skeptical. But when Thomas saw and touched the Resurrected Christ for himself, he did not say, "Jesus!" or "Rabbi!". He said, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).
 
Historians note that it takes 30-60 years before legend can usurp facts. As long as eyewitnesses are alive, fanciful legend gets muted. Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth, written barely 20 years after the resurrection, was far too early to have incorporated legend. Paul was an eyewitness to the Resurrected Christ, and initially a reluctant one given that before his Christian transformation he was a zealous Jew who arrested and persecuted Christians. What motive would he have had, or would all of the first witnesses have had, to lie about their belief in the resurrection? History records that the most influential of these first witnesses all died for their beliefs, horrible deaths, thus further underscoring the truth of their encounters with the Resurrected Christ.
 
The central tenets of Christianity initially seem so illogical:
(1) its central figure arrested and crucified as the lowest form of criminal
(2) its first followers confused about his message, objected to him at times, denied knowing him, and hid in fear after his death
(3) its first eyewitnesses to the resurrection were women whom ancient near eastern culture considered unreliable and unacceptable in individua court testimony
No one would invent such shocking and unexpected details in order to “start” a new religion. And no one would die a tortuous death for a known lie. In fact, if such events weren't actually true, and weren't attested to by eyewitnesses at the time the New Testament was written, one would certainly expect such "embarrassing" details to be altered or deleted. They were not because the New Testament authors wrote what they knew took place.
 
The accounts in the New Testament reliably describe real human beings reacting as real human beings would. They wept at Jesus’ torture and mourned his humiliating death. His closest associates feared for their own imminent arrest and condemnation, and when confronted with an empty tomb, they assumed a stolen body. And yet, within days, those questioning, mournful, terrified men marched into the Jerusalem crowds at great personal risk, in full view of the Jewish and Roman leaders, boldly declaring Jesus’ resurrection! What happened to them to cause such a rapid transformation? The answer is the same experience that caused Peter to reverse his denial of knowing Jesus in order to proclaim him the Divine Savior, for Jesus’ own brother, James, to proclaim him the Lord’s Messiah, and for Paul to cease persecuting Christians in order to proclaim him God in flesh – Jesus truly did rise from the dead!
 
In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed the coming of the Messiah (Isaiah 7, 9, 52-53). Paul saw and experienced the fullness of this Resurrected Christ that he wrote about and that we confidently proclaim today:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also…Christ has indeed been raised from the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
 
Post Script:
If the resurrection is truly central to Christianity, why is it being addressed in article #8 of this series? Why not first?
 
Our series began by demonstrating the existence of God via
- science: cosmology (something cannot come from nothing), our exquisitely fine-tuned universe, the extreme complexity of biology
- philosophy: objective morality and objective beauty indicate a standard outside of ourselves
- personal experience: human consciousness exists beyond physical existence
- reliability of the Bible: its trustworthiness and truthfulness
 
With this foundation of evidence and information, we can now better assess the reasons to believe that the resurrection actually occurred.

Welcome, Christmas morning!
You happily open a gift from a friend, and although it is nice, it’s just not you. The thoughtfulness of the gift is well-appreciated, but it isn’t quite right because this friend doesn’t actually know you that well. The next gift you open is so perfect, so you, so exactly right! Your emotions overwhelm you because this gift-giver knows you very well; in fact, this gift-giver knows you far better than you even know yourself. This gift is the Church, and this Gift-Giver is Christ himself. He knows us and has given us exactly what we need:
“The Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).
 
What is the Church? We may understand it in two ways:
Universal Church: composed of all the followers of Christ worldwide and not bound by an organization or building
Individual church: local assemblies of followers of Christ who gather for sacred purposes, typically within a building.
Much of the New Testament consists of letters to fledgling churches. The Bible calls the Church the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, Temple of God, Communion of Believers, and Divine Family. What a tremendous gift, indeed!
 
Why is the church so important? Christ’s church remains an institution in which his followers can spiritually grow and thrive, support each other, and make known the gospel - an organization for all time meant to teach and live out the example of Jesus Christ. The church offers worship, a place of praise and prayer, it teaches and preaches the great truths of the Bible, and it offers the comfort of traditions and rituals that connect to thousands of years of inspired believers. The church was never meant to simply reflect the temperature of the culture around it, like a thermometer. Instead, the church exists to be a thermostat, helping to set the temperature of culture and society through love, kindness, wisdom, and knowledge as expressed by Christ in the Bible.
 
Some prefer to say, “I’m spiritual, but not religious.” Sadly, there are those with an honest desire for spiritual nourishment who too often reject the very gift of the church given by Christ. The Bible, tradition, and experience make it clear that there are no Christian islands. Believers are meant to be together in the church, supporting one other, encouraging one other, serving the needs of others, and holding each other to high standards in Christianity.

“Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another" (Hebrews 10:25-25).

In this age of individualism and relativism (all is relative to personal preference), a strictly personal spiritualism inevitably leads to “the Church of Me” – my preferences, my wants, my standards. Christ’s gift to us offers a better way.
 
Yet, some churches and some church people have acted hurtfully. According to the Word of God (and our own practical experience), all human beings are sinful, imperfect, and struggle with right and wrong. As such, individual churches, members, and even ministers can sometimes cause hurt, wrongly condemn, and constrain honest questions or doubts. Such hurts must always be acknowledged and corrected. Jesus even recognized this reality: “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the teachings you have learned; avoid them" (Romans 16:17). Still, when we encounter a bad doctor or receive an incorrect diagnosis, we don’t reject the medical establishment altogether. We find a better doctor. If we encounter a hurt from within a church, we need not reject all churches but rather find a better one.
 
G.K. Chesterton once noted, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.” Non-believer David Foster Wallace added, “There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships.” The question then remains, what will we worship and how? Do we worship sports, money, power, social media, lust, politics? How do we order our time, money, and priorities? Do we choose to worship what we want, how we want, and when we want? The history, tradition, rituals, and truth of faith call us to something higher than our particular preferences, desires, and preferred standards of behavior. The church, in all its glory and admitted imperfection, calls us to gather together for support, encouragement, knowledge, accountability, and wisdom so that we can best receive, proclaim, and demonstrate the Good News of life in Christ.
 
The mission of Jesus as God/Man/Savior established an unstoppable movement reflected by the church - a living example of the love and expectations of God. Jesus Christ knows us – he knows us far better than we know ourselves. He knows what gift we need - more than we even realize – and the great benefits of embracing this gift.
​
“On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).

Jesus shows you how to swing a bat. Jesus passes you the soccer ball. Jesus gets the rebound.
 
A series of statuettes went on sale a number of years ago under the theme, “Jesus is my coach.” In that series, Jesus is shown helping children in various sports. The images are warm, personal, and supportive, as if Jesus stands beside us encouraging us in whatever sport we choose. (See below.) Although Jesus’ true presence is not specifically about helping us swing a bat more effectively, such images are not thematically wrong, just vey incomplete.
 
Biblically, it is the Holy Spirit of God who offers guidance and encouragement, not about our specific rebounding skills, but assisting us in living a full and Godly life:

• “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).

However, it remains difficult for physical, material human beings to envision and relate to a purely immaterial Holy Spirit or an "out there somewhere" God. As such, Jesus, God in flesh, becomes the identifiable, physical manifestation of God. Despite their playful presentation, these statuettes display the larger truth that God remains near to and involved with His creation. In theological terms, this care and nearness is called God’s IMMANENCE: the intimate and active connection between God and His followers:

• “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows" (Matthew 10:30-31).
• "Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7).
• "You have searched me, Lord, and you know me...where can I go from your Spirit...you created my inmost being"  (Psalm 139).

 
Still, there is much more to God than His immanence:

• “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
• “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8).
• “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?” (Romans 11:34).
• “Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7).
• “Christ is the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, and He upholds all things by the Word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3).

Here, we recognize God’s exalted “otherness.” God in Father/Son/Holy Spirit is also TRANSCENDENT, maker of the heavens and earth, awesome in Word and deed, powerful and wise in ways that transcend far beyond mere mortal beings.

God exists as both immanent AND transcendent, near and far. He knew us before we were born, stitched each of us together, initiated our beating heart, and died for us because of His great love for us. The Bible calls Jesus, Immanuel, which literally means “God WITH us.” He also transcends human beings in every conceivable way and to a limitless degree. He set the stars and planets in motion, and Revelation 19:16 calls him “King of kings and Lord of lords.”
 
For each of us, the challenge remains to hold God’s immanence and transcendence in proper balance. Too much of the immanence of Christ, and we risk reducing God to our buddy, our pal, our amigo who understands that we want to sleep instead of going to church, or to “worship” on the lake while fishing. Over emphasis of God’s immanence risks our trying to mold God into what we want, our standards, and our desires. Our will, not God's will.
 
The transcendence of God should cause us to fall to our knees before the awesomeness of God. We become aware of God’s omnipotence, the ultimate source of morality and wisdom, the Creator and Sustainer of all. However, if we overemphasize God’s supreme greatness, we risk feeling small, insignificant, invisible, and separated from God.
 
God exists both near and far, loving and personally encouraging, as well as immeasurably powerful and grand. God’s immanence reminds us of His deep and abiding care for each of us while His transcendence reminds us that He alone is worthy of our worship and reverence. To hold both in proper balance is to experience the fullness of God.
 
The great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, summed up God’s immanence and transcendence:

• “Though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not…He died not for one person, but for each person. If there had been only one person made, He would have done no less.” 

and…

• ​“God is ‘absolute being’—or rather the Absolute Being—in the sense that He alone exists in His own right…a man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a prisoner can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.”

One look at the news and the age-old question arises again: why does a good God allow evil and suffering in the world?

We take up this difficult question in week 11 of this series because such a complex issue must not be considered in a vacuum; it must be considered in the light of established rational reasons for belief in God, that a God-given objective morality exists, and we can know God through the trustworthiness of the Bible and personal experience. With all this in mind, we can begin to approach the problem of evil and suffering.
 
First, consider that we humans, believers in God or not, all recognize “shoulds” and “oughts.” We should be good. We ought to be kind. Humans should be better than we are. We ought not do evil. The fact that we all speak this way, and we all recognize that humans fail to meet such a standard, begs the questions: if there is no God, what are these shoulds and oughts for which we are striving? Who says we should be “better”? And how are “good” and “better” even defined apart from a God standard? What mysterious universal “good” are non-believers trying to attain? The truth is, without a God standard, good, better, should, and ought are mere opinions of an individual or group. To speak of good and evil is to speak of the nature and standards of God.
 
Genesis 1 makes it clear that God created all things “good.” Evil, therefore, exists as a parasite upon goodness, a twisting of the good. Badness is only spoiled goodness, and there must be something good before it can spoil. Evil is rust on iron or a hole in the roof. We can explain the perverted from the normal, but we cannot explain the normal from the perverted. As such, God is not the author of evil in the same way He is the author of good. God created all things good, but gave us an ability to do otherwise, which we have exercised. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis illustrates this basic truth. We are not as we should be, and we all know it.
 
God knows and allows evil and suffering to occur but only within the boundaries of a greater good that only God knows; we do not know all things because we are not God. Again, God exists and God is good, and so we can trust that although we avoid and abhor evil, we also know that God always intends a greater good. This understanding makes evil and suffering no less difficult, but it does place our understanding (and our coping) within God’s wider perspective. Personal responsibility remains even as God knows and allows evil and suffering in order to bring about a greater good. “What you meant for evil against me, God meant for good,” said Joseph, sold into slavery, yet rose to prominence and saved many lives from famine (Genesis 50:20).

In addition, some moral goods are impossible apart from their response to evil. The church father Origen (c. A.D. 185-253) said, “Virtue is not virtue if it is untested and unexamined.” While the first humans (Adam and Eve) lacked sin in the beginning, they also lacked suffering and struggle that help produce virtue. Courage, heroism, self-sacrifice, as well as triumph and patience remain unrealized without struggle, danger, and even the reality of death. As Marshall Shelley of Denver Seminary observed, "The greatest evangelist I ever knew never said a word or took a step." His severely disabled daughter, who lived only a few weeks, drew people together and inspired them in deeper and more beautiful ways than could have ever been otherwise possible.
 
Ultimately, there remains a certain synergy among good and evil. Although evil is a twisting of good, our joy and happiness in life is made much sweeter because we know and experience the opposite. Evil gives joy and happiness greater value because of the alternative. If only joy existed, would we even appreciate it or understand it without knowing and experiencing the opposite?
 
Finally, a quick word about suffering caused by nature, sometimes incorrectly referred to as “natural evil.” Earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural phenomena can certainly cause great suffering and devastation. Yet, we must also recognize that such acts of nature are an important part of sustaining life on earth. As astrophysicist Hugh Ross notes:
“[Hurricanes] counterbalance the ocean’s tendency to leach carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked, would result in our planet’s catastrophic cooling.”
Earthquakes return essential nutrients to the land, tornados remove dense vegetation allowing new and diverse growth, and most of the viruses in our bodies are highly beneficial. Just as water, necessary for life, can also cause floods, and fire that warms can also burn, nature’s necessary attributes can sometimes cause harm. Within such harm, however, we yet find opportunities for kindness, sacrifice, and other virtues.
 
Evil is, well, a necessary evil. However, what is truly despairing is not evil itself. What is truly despairing is that with no God, there is no meaning in suffering. Such pain, and grief, and hardship become just bad luck - no purpose, no certainty of greater good, no deeper perspective. Just sadness. With God, no suffering is ever meaningless. It matters deeply to God who loves goodness, hates evil, weeps with us, and offers comfort. Romans 8:28 tells us, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good." God is in the business of bringing goodness out of evil. After all, He brought a Resurrection out of a crucifixion. “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55).
 
“Every good and perfect gift comes from God” (James 1:17). Yet, as imperfect, sinful human beings, we pervert our God-given goodness. Many questions about evil and suffering become boomerang questions coming right back at us. Why does God allow evil and suffering? Perhaps God responds, why do you allow evil and suffering? Why does God allow violence? Why do you allow violence? God is all good, all loving, all powerful, yet also infinite in His righteousness and wisdom. In ways we can never fully comprehend, God allows evil for the purpose of a redemptive greater good, a good exemplified on an evil cross that leads to resurrection and our eternal salvation – the greatest good of all!

The final step in wrapping a special Christmas gift involves tying a bow around it. That’s what we’re doing with this essay. We’re tying a bow around this series that demonstrates the case for God’s existence through science, reason, logic, as well as history, archaeology, philosophy, and theology. This exploration of the evidence also allows us to further consider who we are in relation to each other and to our Creator.
 
To summarize, our 11 essays addressed…
The Big Bang:  Whatever begins to exist has a cause (a beginner). The Universe began to exist via the Big Bang, therefore, the Universe had a cause (the Beginner, a.k.a. the Uncaused First Cause). The Universe emerged from absolute nothing by an uncreated Creator who created space, time, and matter, and thus must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and all-powerful. 
The Cosmos:  Our astonishingly complex and finely-tuned cosmos reveals the work of a Fine-Tuner (a Mind, an Author, a Creator). It takes irrational faith to believe that such extraordinary complexity appeared on its own from nothing.
Biology:  DNA, various biological systems in our bodies, and even microscopic organisms show, astonishing complexity and fine-tuning that demonstrate a Fine-Tuner.
Beauty:  Humans all agree on basic forms of universal beauty. This can only be because a standard of beauty exists outside of ourselves – that is, God.
Morality: Humans also concur on basic forms of morality. Despite our ability to override or deny this morality, such universal beliefs again argue for a standard outside of ourselves – that is, God.
Personal Experience:  Intense spiritual moments such as near-death experiences exhibit the truth of a spirit realm beyond our physical existence - a different kind of consciousness.
The Bible: Comprehensive historical understanding and disciplined interpretation confirm that the Bible remains the unique, trustworthy, and authoritative source about God and faith.
The Resurrection of Christ: Bible passages and historical accounts of Jesus’ first followers present a reliable and convincing case that Christ, God in flesh, did indeed physically rise from the dead as the New Testament asserts.
The Church: The fashionable insistence that one can be “spiritual but not religious” denies the truth that Christ gave His followers The Church as a critical institution for supporting, growing, and guiding every believer throughout their faith journey.
Immanence & Transcendence: Christ is both our close friend and supporter (immanent), as well as the Christ of the universe: Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of all things (transcendent). Believers must hold both in balance without overemphasis on either.
Evil & Suffering: God allows evil and suffering for a greater good, for expressing virtues that we otherwise could not, and for us to better understand and appreciate joy that we cannot without the alternative. In addition, our human expectations of “shoulds,” “oughts,” and “betters” indicates a mysterious universal human ideal of goodness that only makes sense within the context of God, the Author and example of that ideal toward which we strive.
 
The Christian worldview (an overall conception of reality) is, in the deepest sense, a system of truth assertions about reality. All of these topics are wonderfully rich and profound, which makes them difficult to condense into short essays. We encourage you to review this series, read additional materials, watch online debates, discuss with others, ask questions, and seek further answers. As Philip Yancey observed, “When I am tempted to complain about God's lack of presence, I remind myself that God has much more reason to complain about my lack of presence.”
 
The bumper sticker, “God Is Love,” remains only partially accurate. God is love as demonstrated through His good creation, His extensive mercy, and especially His self-sacrificial Crucifixion and Resurrection. In addition to His love, God expresses expectations and standards for His ultimate creation. God expects us to seek Him and find Him, to think as well as feel, and to live morally according to the life of Jesus Christ. God is perfect, we are not. Perfection cannot accept even the tiniest amount of imperfection, otherwise perfection ceases to exist. As a result, we need a perfect Savior to bridge the gap between our human flaws and our ultimate communion with our perfect Creator. Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine, God in flesh, is that unique and authoritative bridge.
 
As Douglas Groothuis asserted, “God is the Creator of the universe…God is not some subtle aspect of nature, nor does God emerge over time through natural processes…Rather, God is metaphysically distinct from creation eternally and inexorably. God, the Creator, is personal. The act of creation was not an automatic effect of an impersonal being or system, but it flowed from the will of an intelligent and active Creator. God initiated and was pleased with creation (Genesis 1) and even delighted in His handiwork (Proverbs 8)…It is in human beings that heaven and earth meet in thought. Made in God’s image, we are also personal beings who can detect God’s fingerprints in creation and His voice in conscience and through Scripture.”
 
God gifted us with extraordinary minds with which to ponder and wonder. We humans endlessly ask questions about ourselves, our place in the universe, and whether there is anything beyond it. Only God holds all the answers, yet in His personal connection to us, God offers extensive evidence of His presence, His character, and His purpose for humanity. Will we think, pursue, and believe?