Water - God's Signature

Great artists are usually associated to specific characteristics found in their masterpieces. These characteristics are used to distinguish them and associate the piece to the artist. For example, the structure of Michelangelo’s Pietà is pyramidal and the vertex coincides with Mary's head, sharing certain similarities with his Madonna and Child, which was completed shortly after. The long, oval face of Mary is a reminiscent of the Pietà. Mozart’s music is a wonderful representation of the Classical style; however, clarity, balance, and transparency are very specific characteristics of his work.

Interestingly enough, the same trend is also seen in science. The uniqueness of certain organisms are only found in specific species,  For example, the botulinum toxin, which is the most acutely lethal toxin known to man, is only produced by one species of the genus Clostridium, the Clostridium botulinum. Many people may not recognize that name at first, but mostly everyone has heard about Botox, which is a commercial product that contains the toxin in minute concentrations used as a wrinkle reducer.

Looking deeper into science, which by the way is my favorite subject, we can find the signature of the Creator everywhere in His creation; we just have to look for it! Let me open a little parenthesis here.  Being a scientist, I cannot (and emphasize the CANNOT) understand why scientists around the world and across generations do not believe in our Creator God or lose their faith, many times claiming that they could not find enough scientific evidence of His existence. On the contrary, the more I study science and living beings (from microorganisms to humans), the more I find God in His creation.

Water . . . so many people underestimate this simple substance. Water is composed of two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen.  Very simple, right? Well, not really. As with the simplicity of Mozart’s work, we may underestimate the exceptional power of His finest masterpieces with simplistic notions of its delicacy. Water is so important that Jesus compared Himself to it (John 4:10-13, NIV), and He also said “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5) The word “water” is mentioned more than 700 times in the Bible. The first mention of water in Scripture is found in Genesis 1:2 and the last in Revelation 22:17. In between those two books, water flows right through the pages of Scripture. Amazingly, there is no specific mention of when the water was created.  Water was there with God even before light was created. Genesis 1:1-2 (emphasis added) says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

A little bit more science . . . everyone knows that our cells are made of about 80% water, but that does not happen only with human beings. Earth is about 80% water.  All living creatures have about the same percentage of water, from a single cell bacterium to a complex body of a mammal. Therefore, we are basically water! Before creating the world, God was hovering over the waters, and after creating everything He still hovering over the waters. Just imagine the intimate relationship each creature can have with the Creator if we allow Him to hover over each cell of our bodies.

When God designed the living beings, including us, He placed His little signature, water. The composition of our body is so perfect that, by being made of water, we do not boil (literally) under the climatic conditions we have.  Animals can live under frozen lakes, rivers, or oceans because the water does not freeze completely (with few exceptions). In a frozen lake, the water below the frozen surface is always 4°C (39.2°F), which is suitable for life. In contrast, it is plausible to assume that the absence of water is, therefore, absence of life. There is a continuing debate in science about viruses; some scientists believe that they are living creatures and some do not. Personally, I believe that viruses distort the definition of life. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery of cells, which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction and metabolism. In addition to all that, they lack water in their composition.

We also use the properties of water to teach children about the Trinity. Just like God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, the same molecule of water can exist in three forms. We can get a little more technical and say that, as the Trinity, water can be three in one at the same time, and this is called the triple point of water. In thermodynamics, the triple point of a substance is the temperature and pressure at which the three phases (gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium. The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapor can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapor pressure of 611.73 Pascal. We may have gotten too technical here, but all of that tells us that, if water can coexist in three different forms in equilibrium, why can’t God?

God uses simple things to show us that He is always present and that we can find Him in all creation because He was the One that designed everything. He is not an “unknown” artist. He wants us to know Him and understand Him through His marvelous masterpiece.

Fernanda Santos

PhD and Member of FHC

Confessions of an SDA Meat Eater

My personal observance of a healthy lifestyle has had its ups and downs. As a member of a church that promotes a healthy vegetarian lifestyle, my youth was filled with vegetarian fare. My stay-at-home mother made us whole wheat tortillas from scratch for our burritos, an amazing lentil soup, and did her best to get us boys to eat what vegetables she could, although the fruit was no problem.

At some point, I took to heart the scriptural relevance of “not eating meat sacrificed to idols” and “one man eats only vegetables” as related to faith rather than diet in order to take advantage of the freedom to do as my conscience dictates. This decision may have been somewhat reactionary to the borderline overbearing dogma I was hearing at the time from some in the church. This issue of vegetarianism, among several others, was presented as being on the same importance as any other matter, rather than at a second or third tier importance verses a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I wonder how many others have had similar reactions?

Something has been happening across the western landscape in recent years. People have begun to realize that the American diet in the modern era has devastating consequences. Engaging Films such as Food Inc. and Forks over Knives have made a persuasive argument for whole foods and the vegetarian diet. Just this last week in the June 11, 2012, issue of Time magazine, a full article on health featured Rick Warren’s Saddleback church. The program they are using is called the Daniel Plan, based on Daniel 1:8,12.  Really? The Daniel Plan? I thought Adventists had the corner on that market of healthy living for the past hundred years. Why aren’t we featured in Time magazine?

In the past, Adventists have been sited in several venues such as “The Secrets of Long Life” published by National Geographic that highlighted the Loma Linda community, the Adventist Health Studies, and lately Creation Health by Monica Reed.  These have all contributed to an important conversation we are supposed to be having with our neighbors and friends.

So how can we continue to be a part of the global dialogue on health-related issues? We need to advocate and be published in our institutions on a continual basis. We need to be fresh and relevant.  Most of all, we need to keep the message in its proper place in the context of religion.  This may prevent many who, like myself, “threw the baby out with the bath water” because of the way this vital message was presented. The message is relevant.  The message extends the years of life.  The message extends the quality of life.  The message is a tool in the tool box that points to instructions our Creator has given us on how to take care of ourselves. The message is of secondary importance to the centrality of Christ, but it is important nonetheless.

So the next time I’m eyeing Four Rivers, I just might keep heading down the road and enjoy Ethos restaurant instead. It’s fresh, it’s relevant, and it’s important.

Richard Hickam

In The Beginning God by John Monday

“In the beginning God.”  These have become some of my favorite words in scripture.  They bring comfort, stability, and assurance - although that hasn’t always been the case.  For too long, these four words have been nothing more than a throw-away introduction, a lead into real and important biblical stories and principles.  While they used to be a thoughtless statement of an obvious fact, they have become the words that echo in and undergird the universe. 

The story that follows that ominous introduction, is a beautiful depiction of the power of God in creation.  It’s filled with rhyme and repetition, with nuanced language and cultural imagery, but most importantly, it’s filled with God.  The first chapter of Genesis places God squarely in the midst of the story.  It leaves no doubt that God is the author and finisher of creation and that he is intimately and inextricably intertwined with every facet of his creation.  It is the account of love’s beginning. 

Unfortunately, those words, that story, have become some of the most divisive words both inside and outside the church.  Rather than hearing the story, we’ve begun to focus on the “facts.”  Rather than being awed by the God, we’ve become lost in the details.  But does it have to be that way?

Can we accept others with different views on these facts? Can we view the Bible and Genesis as a book about who and why, rather than about how and when? Can we accept that "In the Beginning God" is the abiding truth, and exactly how and when are secondary issues?  Can we trust that God also speaks through nature ("look to the birds and they will tell you") and that, for many, nature points to a very old and long creation process? Can we accept that someone who believes that God has been in this process for 14,000,000,000 years rather than 7,000 years can be a God follower?  Can we accept that time and creation methodologies are not the issues and that God and redemption are?

This isn’t an argument for one scientific version of creation or another.  The question is, does it matter?  God followers should be the most flexible of all people, not the most rigid.  If it turns out that God took 14 billion years to create the world, then let’s be awed by his incredibly long vision and planning, if it turns out that he spoke everything into existence yesterday complete with memories and history, then so be it.  Let’s praise and thank the geologists, biologists, astronomers, and physicists that are studying God’s creation.  It’s through their efforts that the majesty of God’s handiwork is revealed.  If a new scientific discovery is made next year that indicates the previous dating methodologies were flawed and the world is actually 7,000 years old, well great!

The Gospel of Christ is extraordinarily resilient.  The truth of Jesus and the good news of his love and salvation have and will continue to adapt to all cultures, realities, peoples, times and sciences.  As long as we remain focused on the point - God - then we will remain malleable, and God will use us for his purpose.  But if we insist on dogma, if we assert that we know it all and there is nothing more to learn, if we refuse to adapt our religion to the mission of Christ, and the realities of the world, then God will find someone else.  God will be there.  Whether or not we will is up to us.

I'm tired. I’m tired of a faith that is forever dying on meaningless hills.  Tired of a faith that dies from religious dogma.  I'm tired of having to apologize for christians before being able to tell those seeking God about his love, his forgiveness, his grace, his story.

So help me out. Is this an acceptable outline of faith?:

• God created us.
• God loved us more than we can possibly imagine.
• We wanted to become our own authority, so we walked away from God.
• We screwed up.
• Having chosen imperfection, rebellion, and disease, we can never attain the perfect love of God.
• God has pursued us ever since the day we walked away.
• We really screwed up.
• Since we are now fatally flawed and completely incapable of restoring a relationship with God, he provided a way back.
• Jesus is God’s way back.  Jesus came and earned what he did not need to attain (redemption and unity with God), and attained what he did not earn (death for our rebellion).
• Jesus demonstrated by his life of flawless obedience, his death for crimes he did not commit, and his resurrection from the dead, that he is indeed holy, God, and the world's way to restoration.
• Jesus freely gives what only he has earned to all who will accept.
• God re-creates us in Christ.

Is this gospel okay? Or do people have to accede to our peculiarities? 

If someone hears this and says, "YES, that's what I've always wanted!" can we say welcome to the family of God? Or do they have to agree that the earth is 6938 years old before Jesus will accept them?

Maybe there are other specifics they have to agree to?  Maybe they have to agree to never dance again.  Maybe they have to be immersed in water, or tithe, or avoid alcohol, or accept a prophet, or go to church school, or sell their TV, or genuflect, or avoid eating certain foods, or eat certain foods, or throw away all their jewelry, or put on certain jewelry, or regard a certain day as holy, or regard all days as the same, or or or . . .

Or maybe Jesus meant what he said:  Believe in the Son, and have eternal life.

Can we really live lives of generosity, grace and acceptance?  Can we really love without fear?  Give without expectation? Help without strings?  Can we just go into all the world, love them into a life-long friendship with God, and let Him worry about guarding the gate? Could it really be that simple?

John Monday

7-Day Creation: Crossing the Literal Line by Tami Cinquemani

Updated June 13, 2011:

In response to an article I recently read in the June 2011 issue of Ministry Magazine, I wrote the following blog on the topic of a 7 Literal Day Creation. I’m afraid my thoughts may have been misunderstood, so I’m going to try to clarify my intent in writing this blog.

First and foremost, I would like to state that the very purpose of a blog is to offer one’s personal opinion on a topic. This blog is NOT a church position paper. It is MY thoughts on this topic, and nothing more.

I think there is so much to gain and nothing to lose in respectful and intelligent conversation on topics. Since a great deal of my time and energy is in church work, much of what I read and listen to is of a more spiritual nature from a variety of sources and thought processes. We have so much to learn from the opinion and perspective of others, and I think it is unfortunate when a Christian of any persuasion appears to fear the freedom of critical thinking and attempts to stifle conversation on a religious topic. This was my concern with the article I was responding to.

My intention was not to take a stand on the issue of a 7 Literal Day Creation. My intent was only to suggest there is room given biblically for more than one conclusion on the matter. I never even stated my personal opinion outside of making it very clear that I absolutely believe it was God who did the creating.

Please understand – my ONLY point is that these are conversations that are healthy to have, and they should be encouraged rather than stifled. I hope this clears up any misconceptions of any perceived agenda in my blog.

TC

In the June 2011 issue of Ministry Magazine, Dr. Greg A. King, dean of the School of Religion at Southern Adventist University, laid out his argument for why it is necessary to believe in a literal 7-day creation. I have to admit that I was quite distressed after I finished reading the article.

Though I appreciate the sincerity with which Dr. King shared his beliefs on the subject, I absolutely disagreed with his selective hermeneutics and found it disheartening that Christians would put so much effort into their insistence that every believer fall in line with this presumption. I also fear this type of dogmatic essay will only serve to squelch healthy conversation and, as a result, do damage to relationships within and outside of the Christian church.

I don’t disagree that the Bible uses the time frame of a “day” when relaying the creation account. I also know that there are other places in the Bible where biblical scholars have chosen to adopt a “day-for-a-year” principle.

As far as the importance of sticking to a “literal “interpretation of the Bible, there are areas, such as the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) or the entire book of Job where the genre uses allegorical illustrations to prove a point. The Bible was written by and initially for people who probably believed the world was flat and that sea monsters filled the oceans. It’s crucial that we consider culture and context as we read scripture. Should we subjectively pick and choose what we believe is literal or figurative?

I’m not saying I don’t believe God created our world (I do). I’m not even opposed to the idea that He did it in seven literal days (He may have). All I’m saying is that, whether it was in seven literal 24-hour periods of time or millions of years doesn’t change the value I place in scripture or the purpose I find in a weekly opportunity to worship and rest on Sabbath, and it absolutely has no effect whatsoever on my salvation.

I strongly believe we need to be open to what scientific discovery has to offer, honestly admit that the bible does not demand a definite time stamp on creation, and stop pointing fingers at those who come to a different conclusion than we do. The fact is, there was only One who was there at the time who actually knows how things went down, and I think it’s time we stopped trying to put our words in His mouth.

Tami Cinquemani

Cruel Hope? by John Monday

“In the beginning God...” Gen 1:1

Steven Hawking, the eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist, made headlines this week when he said “Heaven is a fairytale for people afraid of the dark.” A bold remark from a man who has been facing the prospect of an early death from ALS for almost 50 years. I’ve long been an admirer of Dr. Hawking. His mind, his writing, and his personal triumph, are brilliant and inspiring, but I’m confounded by his seeming ability to face death and eternity so stoically. I wonder if his stoicism might be his way of coping with a truth that we all eventually come to understand...death is inevitable.

However certain death is, it’s rarely welcome - I mean truly welcome. There are times when - due to suffering, illness, injury or disability - we may accept the inevitability of death, maybe even come to see it as a release, but it’s rarely welcome. Given the choice, wouldn’t most choose life? And if healthy, vibrant, active life were offered, who would choose death?

However, once we’ve embraced death, it’s nearly impossible to allow hope for life; it would just be too painful. We view with pity those that cling to vain hope when we see their end coming. We generally think they would be better off to accept reality and enjoy their remaining days rather than grasp at hopeless cures. This is a sentiment echoed by the apostle Paul when he said “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:19) He understood that clinging to false hope is a worse fate than accepting cold reality.

Believing in God can be like that. Those who have taken the leap and crossed the line to disbelief don’t want to endure the pain of failed hope, so they reject hope and embrace the inevitability of death. To believe in a God that knows all, created all, loves all, and restores all is simply too inconceivable and too risky.

Would even the most hardened heart say, “I don’t want to be loved. I don’t want joy. I don’t want to engage in an exciting life with the one who loves me most?” Of course not! The truth is they’ve lost hope that life without the fear of death is possible, so to entertain notions of God is akin to believing that a magic pill is going to cure my end-stage cancer. So can we believe the first four words of the bible?

To believe them is to believe the inconceivable. Is there really a God who created everything? Who has a dynamic knowledge of the all that is? Who knows the number of galaxies in the universe, the number of stars in each galaxy the nature of every planet spinning around every star - and is totally focused on ME? wants to be with ME? loves ME?

Our minds strain to conceive such a God.

But to reject God defies logic. Everything in our human experience, everything in the universe, everything in our heart screams that we are created on purpose, for a purpose, with a purpose. Reason demands that where there is a garden there is a gardener, where there is a building there is a builder, where there is order there is one who ordered.

So we’re left with a decision: Do we reject reason, reject hope, reject the longing of our hearts and embrace a chaotic, random, pointless existence? Or do we believe in a God who is more vast, more able, more imminent, more omniscient, more personal, and more loving than we can ever imagine? The choice is ours and, from our limited perspective, there are valid reasons for either.

To believe in God requires risk and courage. It requires us to open ourselves to the eternal, to the majestic, to the most amazing life imaginable. It requires us to relinquish control. It means suffering the ultimate disappointment if God is a lie. So maybe Stephen Hawking is right and Heaven is a fairytale for those afraid of the dark, or maybe he’s wrong and a Godless universe is a place of denial for those afraid of the light.

I choose to follow the desire of my heart. I choose hope. I choose God. If you believe the first four words, the rest is easy.

In the beginning God...

John Monday

Life or Knowledge? by Stanley Pomianowski

In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given the option of at least two extraordinary trees: the Tree of Life (ToL) and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (ToK). The fruit from the ToL must have been really rich in anti-oxidants and other nutrients because by eating the fruit you would live forever.

Awesome.

The fruit from the ToK must have been full of omega-3s because it increased your “knowledge.” The fruit also killed you.

Not as awesome.

Satan promised Eve that she would be “like God” when she ate from the forbidden fruit; also, that she would be smarter and that God didn’t want her to be that way. We definitely know that becoming more like God from eating the fruit was a lie, but what about the knowledge part?

Online and in real life, I have run into an increasing number of atheists. They all seem to have one general idea about Christians: we’re stupid.

You see, to an atheist, Christians seem to have one answer for everything: God did it. And that just doesn’t jive with their scientific method. (In my opinion, we’re not being stupid or ignorant when we give this answer for this is what our textbook, the Bible, tells us about creation.) I wish I knew better how to communicate with them in their language so that they could understand that Jesus loves them. To me, faith and God make so much sense! The information in the Bible has logic to it.

I think that the devil is very crafty, but he has a very singular and repetitive technique. He’s still convincing people to eat from the Tree of Knowledge over the Tree of Life. People are giving up life! He’s got people believing that we need knowledge over Life AND that you can’t have Life and knowledge. I think that God wants us to be more like Him, and have Life eternal, and grow in wisdom.

“But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever! Amen” – 2 Peter 3:18

So my question to you, dear reader, is: Is “God did it” a good enough answer?

Stanley Pomianowski,

Church Member and Guest Blogger

The Principles of God and the Scientific Method by Chad Hess

I have read several books that have talked about our relationship with God and the Christian preoccupation with principles. John Eldredge talks about how we seek to derive principles so we can control God's wildness. This is not to say there is no virtue in trying to understand the principles in a passage. I do think there is some legitimacy in it, but it can be taken to an extreme and be made an end in itself. But our search for principles can be quite closely entwined with the modern emphasis on the scientific method. One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is that a finding must be repeatable. If it is a true scientific fact, the results can be repeated if the same circumstances happen.

Do we try to apply this scientific method to God? If something is true about the way God works, then the result can be repeated in similar scenarios. If God never changes and God never makes a mistake, shouldn't we expect Him to respond in the same way? If the same result isn't repeated, then maybe that original result was imagined, or misunderstood or whatever. It certainly wasn't theological fact, because if it was, it would happen again. And I'm not just talking about miracles; I'm talking about the everyday workings of God. But isn't this approach an attempt to control God? If we can figure out "the way things work", then we can control things ourselves. Because when we're really honest with ourselves, there have been times when we wished God had done things differently. So if we can figure out all the principles by which God operates, we can manipulate situations to turn out the way we want them.

The problem with all this is that God is a person. He is a living being who is just as capable of free will as we are. And He doesn't like being controlled any more than you and I do. Besides this, we can never fully understand God and the way He works. If I could completely understand God, especially at my limited knowledge of 28 years, He wouldn't be a very great God. Again, I'm not saying there are not principles at work in the way God relates to us. I'm just saying there is a danger in putting our trust in those principles. Instead we should get to know this God as a person (not a fact), and trust in that.

Chad Hess