Author: kevingdrendel

I am sixtiesh, an English Literature major in college and an attorney by profession. Faith informs my life, and this blog is about my faith journey.

Does God Throw Wildflowers into a Furnace?

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

The title to this piece seems like a silly question, right? But Jesus said,

“Consider how the wildflowers grow: They don’t labor or spin thread. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was adorned like one of these. If that’s how God clothes the grass, which is in the field today and is thrown into the furnace tomorrow, how much more will he do for you — you of little faith?”
 
Luke 12:27‭-‬28 CSB

So, we need to ask again, “Does God throw wildflowers into a furnace?” I think it’s pretty safe to say that He doesn’t, right? Jesus is speaking allegorically here.

Jesus is saying in flowery terms that flowers are here today and gone tomorrow. They are beautiful, but only for a short time. No one reads this passage to mean that has a furnace where He throws all the wildflowers in the world. A wildflower furnace.

In the context of this little parable, Jesus is saying that wildflowers are magnificent in their splendor, though they last only a short time. The fact that God makes such temporary things as wildflowers beautiful in splendor is meant to give us hope and faith that He has much more splendor in store for us, the creatures He made in His own image!

These words give us great hope when life seems to be taking us down. No one interprets what Jesus says here as a lesson in the way God disposes of wildflowers. It’s a lesson about putting our faith in God.

Continue reading “Does God Throw Wildflowers into a Furnace?” →

My Thoughts on “Thoughts and Prayers” and the American Gun Problem

Faith, if it does not have works, is dead

kevingdrendel7 Comments

I don’t use the phrase “thoughts and prayers” anymore. If you have been on social media in the last however many years, you know why. That phrase has been a typical and favored response to tragedy and hardship as long as I can remember, but it meets now with harsh rebukes.

I wince every time.

As a Christian for 40 years, I hold prayer sacred, even if I fall somewhat short in my own prayer life. A statement that I am thinking of you and praying for you and your situation is a polite staple of good manners. It is a benevolent expression of good will.

Some of the most vocal critics of “thoughts and prayers” hate and despise my Christian faith. Their criticism is full of venom.

The criticism is aimed at Christians, so I took it personally. I believe in prayer. I believe in the need to rely on God and turn to Him for guidance and wisdom. Just because you don’t believe in prayer doesn’t mean that prayer is an improper response for the person who believes.

At the same time, I have come to realize that I need to follow Christ instead of responding in anger. It’s taken me some years, but I have realized something about our public proclamations of “thoughts and prayers” that I hadn’t seen – maybe wasn’t willing to see – before.

We say, “thoughts and prayers”, in response to a cancer diagnosis, or a loved one’s death, or the loss of a job or other hardship or misfortune. We can say it so much, it can become barely more meaningful than wishing someone a good day. Still, it’s a proper thing to say, especially if we mean it.

School shootings and similar tragedies have taken a toll on that benevolent phrase. Our public statements of “thoughts and prayers” have been exposed as hollow sentiments be people who urge gun control. That some people who are quick to offer “thoughts and prayers” are just as quick to shoot down discussions of smarter and more effective gun control smacks of hypocrisy.

I have bristled at the implied criticism. I don’t own guns. I don’t own a FOID card. I am not a gun enthusiast. I am ambivalent on the 2nd Amendment, but I am not (have not been) sure of the right way to go about dealing with the mass shooting phenomenon in our country.

Social media is like a scatter bomb, not a surgical strike. It lends itself to blasting everyone in the direction aimed. Memes are the epitome of mindless criticism. Perhaps, that’s why I bristle so much. It’s so unproductive!

A perfectly good and proper response has been turned into a meme by a meme!

On the other hand, I have come to realize that my feeling of being personally affronted has led me into the very error that I bristle against. Overgeneralizing and failing to deal with nuance is the bane of social media and modern society, and I am also susceptible to it.

Platitudes do wear thin. In the aftermath of another wanton mass shooting that took the lives of 19 fourth graders and their 2 teachers, platitudes ring especially hollow. How many times can we say, “thoughts and prayers”, about a clear problem we have in our country that does not happen with the same frequency in any other developed country in the world?

When will we gain the will to do something about it? Do we care to do anything about it? We have to care, but what do we do?

Continue reading “My Thoughts on “Thoughts and Prayers” and the American Gun Problem” →

“If I Were God….”: An Exploration of the Human Heart and Need for God

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Photo Credit to Tyler Drendel, a sunrise at Fermi National Laboratory in Batavia, IL

The last episode of the Unbelievable? Podcast (May 21, 2022) featured Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins on Biology, Belief and Covid: Can science and faith be reconciled? Justin Brierly has set the standard for facilitating thoughtful, civil conversations on opposing views of the world, like faith and atheism.

In this particular conversation, Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project and well-known scientist who professes religious faith, just finished explaining briefly why he came to believe in God at the age of 27. Richard Dawkins, the very well-known scientist and “new atheist”, responded this way:

“If I were God and I wanted to create life, maybe even human life, which is part of the expectation of a religious person, I think I would not use such a wasteful, long-drawn-out process. I think I would just go for it. Why would you choose natural selection, which has the possibly unfortunate property that it could have come about without you? Why would God have chosen a mechanism to unfold His design and chose the very mechanism that would make Him superfluous?

Dawkins speculated that God might have thought, “I wonder what would happen if I set up a primeval, self-replicating molecule and leave it to see what happens.” Dawkins called such an experiment “interesting” and sympathized with the thought of God experimenting in that way. Then he added, “If I wanted to make complex life, I wouldn’t choose that astonishingly wasteful, profligate – cruel actually – way of doing it.”

Dawkins focused on the suffering that comes from competition and evading starvation. He focused on the weeding out process of some animals starving to death, being eaten by predators and succumbing to disease. Dawkins summarized, “It is not a benign process at all.”

Dawkins admitted that this line of thinking is “not a good argument”, but it is what “struck” him as Francis Collins was talking. Indeed, I have heard Richard Dawkins say similar things in debate and in his writings. This line of thinking is obviously compelling to him, good argument or not.

I don’t want to be overly critical of Dawkins. I am not here to blast him or judge him. We all have a judge, I believe, and it isn’t me!

Dawkins is not an ignorant man, obviously. He is a foremost scientist who is a very poignant and elegant communicator and champion of the evolutionary paradigm. His many books and body of work speak to his exceptional intelligence. As people go, he is at the top of the food chain in scientific knowledge and understanding.

Francis Collins is good company for Dawkins, having advanced the relatively new science and understanding of human DNA, perhaps, further than any person before him. Yet, these two men have diametrically opposed views of whether God exists. Neither of them is an intellectual slouch.

I am writing, though, on what Richard Dawkins said. Just as Dawkins was “struck” by what Collins said to respond in the way he did, I am struck to respond by what Dawkins said.

His instinct or intuition or line of thought – whatever you want to call it – was to consider, “If I were God….” Dawkins gravitated toward comparing what he would do if he were God and the world as it exists. Dawkins’s point is, ultimately, that he finds the world as it exists not to live up to what he would have created if he were God.

Let’s examine that line of thinking.

Continue reading ““If I Were God….”: An Exploration of the Human Heart and Need for God” →

Drinking Living Water & Embracing the Unseen: of Science and Faith

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

My inspiration this morning comes from “the woman at the well” and Galileo. They are separated by about 1500 years, but their stories resonate together for me this morning.

The theme is inspired by the questions: “How should we read Scripture?” and “How should we understand science and faith?” Those questions were relevant over 2000 years ago; they were relevant 500 years ago; and they are still relevant today.

Michael Guillen, in his book, Believing is Seeing, reveals how logical and trans logical thinking are different tools, and each have a place in the intellectual toolbox. Logic is necessary to understand simple, “trivial” truths, but “profound” truths, he says, require trans logical thinking.

We err to apply logic to every problem. Simple matters are the province of logic, but complex matters require trans logic. As much as we might want to keep complex matters simple, we cannot gain insight into many complex matters without a willingness to go beyond the familiar confines of simple logic.

Guillen recognized the necessity to stretch beyond simple logic to more complex, trans logical thinking, among other things, in the realization that dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe. In other words, 95% of the universe is invisible to us! (p. 9)

If we insist on limiting ourselves to things that we can see, touch, feel, smell, and hear, we must give up on 95% of the universe. If we want to explore outside the boundaries of what we can see, we need to adopt more robust, trans logical thinking.

Trans logical thinking is not anti logic, but it isn’t as linear as logic, and it may require holding things in tension that may seem contrary on their face. Classical physics and quantum physics are good examples of things we believe are both true, but which seem to be contradictory on their face.

If we are not willing to give up on 95% of reality, we must be willing to adapt. We must let go of our insistence that everything be reduced to what we can affirm with our senses and to what will fit into simple formulas and logical constraints. We need to think outside the box.

Guillen sees a parallel in the “stretching” that scientists must do to grapple with the unseen world at the edges of simple science and the revelation of the Bible of more “spiritual” things:

“’What no eye has seen,
    what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived’ —
    the things God has prepared for those who love him—
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.”

1 Corinthians 2:9

What the Spirit of God can reveal to us is somewhat similar to the stretching the scientist must do in his thinking to understand things like dark matter and dark energy, quarks, quantum entanglement and other mysteries of science that defy Aristotelian logic and conventional principals. For people who like to live with their feet planted solidly on the ground and with certainty anchoring their beliefs, the prospect of revelation by God’s Holy Spirit is like a black hole. We dare not venture too close for fear of being sucked into a black hole.

Yet, God not only invites us in; He insists that we venture close to understand Him.

“The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.”

1 Corinthians 2:10-13

The difference between logic and trans logic in science and the study of the edges of the physical world have application to the metaphysical world in the encounter of the woman at the well with Jesus. I will lay out the similarities I see below.

Continue reading “Drinking Living Water & Embracing the Unseen: of Science and Faith” →

How Did Jesus, the Exact Representation of God, Describe Himself and Demonstrate Who He Is?

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

I find myself contemplating often the words Jesus used to describe his purpose. Jesus gave us description immediately before he launched into his public ministry. This is the way it went down, and this is what he said:

“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“’The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’

‘And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.’”

Luke 4:16-21

The famous announcement of his purpose came after John the Baptist piqued the interest of the local people, proclaiming, “Prepare the way for the Lord”. It came after John the Baptist challenged people to repent and be baptized.

The announcement took place after Jesus spent 40 days out in the wilderness being tempted by the devil. Jesus had not yet begun his “public ministry”, when he stood up to read in his home town synagogue from the words of Isaiah, the Prophet – words spoken about Jesus over 500 years before that day.

This was the announcement of what Jesus came to do. The Spirit was on him to proclaim good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of our Lord’s favor.

It wasn’t just a prophecy to be fulfilled. It was the very purpose for which God emptied Himself and became a man incarnate. God came to reveal Himself in the material world, to reveal His very heart and His love for mankind.

This was the message that He was trying to convey over the many centuries through the one people who inclined an ear toward Him. But, they didn’t completely get it. They wandered and strayed in their devotion to God, and they mistook His law for nothing but a code of conduct that might earn them the favor of God.

They didn’t understand the relationship He desired to form with them. They didn’t understand His love for them or the singularity of His own devotion to them and the purposes He established for them before the foundation of the heavens and the earth.

They didn’t even recognize Him when He came to them, albeit emptied of all that would not fit into human form (Phil. 2:5-7) They didn’t recognize Him stripped of all His power, holiness and glory.

He did not come with pomp and circumstance. He came humbly in the form of a man just like them. His coming was barely a whisper. is arrival went all but unnoticed. Born in a humble setting to poor, common parents, he grew up in an area of Judea that was off the beaten path and not a little “backwards”.

His first 30 years of life were so unremarkable we know next to nothing about them. The first public stir that is recorded is the day he stood up and read from the Isaiah scroll, sat down, and announced, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

People were so unready for anything extraordinary from Jesus that they marveled and asked each other, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22) Then, he seemed to provoke them (Luke 4:23-28), and they burned with anger at his audacity. (Luke 4:28)

It was an inauspicious start to his “public ministry”. He bombed in his hometown synagogue.

What he said of himself, however, is preserved for eternity. It is the key to understanding the heart and character of God revealed through Jesus, “the exact representation of His nature”. (Heb. 1:3) What Jesus said that day and what Jesus did is the best demonstration of God’s heart and character that we, as finite beings, might understand.

Continue reading “How Did Jesus, the Exact Representation of God, Describe Himself and Demonstrate Who He Is?” →