« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
Here's the audio of a sermon I preached in Ivyland. This is the children's talk (which, strangely, got clipped at the beginning); the adult sermon will be in the next post.
"Intelligent Design" has been much in the news lately. The Dover, Pennsylvania, school board (elected by the people to represent their wishes) decided that students should be told about this alternative to the theory of evolution. Opponents of intelligent design filed a lawsuit seeking to have a single unelected federal judge dictate otherwise. The case is now being tried in federal court in Harrisburg.
The headlines always frame the issue in terms of "science versus religion" (i.e. medieval superstitious nonsense versus enlightened, modern, verifiable fact; or... the creeps who persecuted Galileo now want to destroy the folks that brought you your iPod). But this is false—the real controversy is not between science and religion but between materialism and theism.
The evolutionists and the media claim intelligent design is just a new name for "creationism," but this also is false. "Creationism" is based on a literal reading of the Bible story of creation; intelligent design makes no appeal to the Bible, but to observable phenomena discovered by science and subject to scientific investigation.
The main point of the intelligent design theory is that the complexity of biological forms is such that they must all have been formed together, not through successive stages, because the absence of even one component would make the whole structure useless and thus of no evolutionary advantage. Think of the intricate structure of a human being's inner ear, for instance. If any part of it were missing we could not hear. Why, then, would "natural selection" cause the incomplete and imperfect structure to be passed on to future generations until it evolved into a working mechanism for hearing? The amazing complexity and perfection of nature is even more evident at the cellular, chemical and atomic level.
Opponents of intelligent design say it shouldn't be taught in science classes (or even mentioned) because it isn't science. But, I believe, intelligent design is at least as much based on science as evolution is. And since evolution is taught in science classes, this would seem to be the logical place to at least notify students that an alternate theory exists.
Scientists have a right to define their own discipline and say what is scientific and what is not, but here we have a case in which there are scientists on both sides of the question. Some scientists believe in intelligent design—a smaller number than believe in evolution, but enough so that we can't just dismiss intelligent design as having no scientific support.
It seems to me that proponents of evolution overstate the scientific basis of their theory, and understate the scientific validity of intelligent design. In any case, the question is not which theory is more scientific, but which is more true.
It is not evolution per se that believers in God object to, but the presumed mechanism of it: natural selection. This explanation is not the only way to interpret the facts science presents, and I think it rests upon a prior assumption that nature is everything, and that life and all its forms arose by chance. Encapsulating this idea within a scientific theory doesn't make that particular component of the theory any more "scientific" than the theistic premise. And that particular component is the sticking point.
Can a New Church person believe in evolution? Why not? The idea of evolving life forms in itself doesn't require denial of God, and even the "selection" part of natural selection doesn't bother me, as long as it is understood that Divine intelligence set up the whole system and is operating through it. In other words, it is God in nature who is doing the selecting, not nature on its own.
Most evolutionists don't come right out and say "there is no God," but the clear message of the theory in its orthodox form (especially the natural selection part) is that there is no need for a God to account for the creation of living forms. The message may be subtle and unspoken, but it is quite clear; and parents who believe in God naturally object to having their children imbibe atheism.
Proponents of the theory of evolution say the meaning of the word "theory" here is different from the way it is used in ordinary speech; a scientific theory is a well-thought-out and testable explanation for observed phenomena. Fine, but does that definition of "theory" truly fit the theory of evolution? Is it really in the same category as the theory of relativity or quantum theory? Evolutionists imply that their theory is just as firmly established as physics theories, but would a physicist ever defend relativity, for instance, by saying it is just as firmly established as evolution? No, they never do. Evolution seems to be more in the category of theories such as "multiple universes" in physics—hardly as solid as many other more truly scientific theories.
Interestingly, at the same time evolutionists are panicking over the intrusion of religion into science, physicists are raising questions which can only be called theological in nature. A number of popular books on physics by physicists include the word "God" in the title (The Mind of God, The God Particle, etc.).
As I understand it, the theory of evolution requires enormous amounts of time for chance to do its work of producing the complex systems that make life possible. But isn't this just using the words "time" and "chance" in much the same way as a theist uses God—to account for things which defy natural explanation? Time and chance are the "God of the gaps" of the Darwinists.
Theoretically, a roomful of monkeys and typewriters will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare, word for word. Just give them enough time. I decided to test this, and it actually works! I locked 100 monkeys in my garage with 100 typewriters, and within a few hours they had already come up with the lyrics to several Bob Dylan songs, and by the next day they had, in fact, produced all the works of Shakespeare, word for word, except that in their version King Lear was mainly upset about the trans fat in potato chips.
Their crowning achievement, though, was this fabulous article which you've just read!
[Listen to this sermon preached at Ivyland New Church, in Ivyland, PA, here.]
Now they came to Jericho. As He went out of Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road begging.And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" Then many warned him to be quiet; but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"
So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be called.
Then they called the blind man, saying to him, "Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you."
And throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to Jesus.
So Jesus answered and said to him, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
The blind man said to Him, "Rabboni, that I may receive my sight."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your faith has made you well."
And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road. (Mark 10:46-52)
We’ve been talking these last few weeks about the Universal Human Form, sometimes called the Grand Man. We know that the Lord is Human; this is one of our most powerful teachings. And everything He creates is a reflection of Him. As the crown of His Creation, we are an image and likeness of Him: we have arms, we have legs, we have a head, a body, face, eyes, nose, mouth, all because these reflect the Humanity of the Lord. In less obvious ways, the Lord’s Word is in the Human form. The Lord’s kingdom—His Church, Heaven—are also in the Human form. So in the Word, when you read stories that seem to focus on a particular aspect of the human body, and of human function, it’s telling you something particular about the way the world the Lord created works.
And today, we heard a story about the eyes. Now we know from many places in the Writings for the New Church that eyes—when the Word mentions "eyes", it’s the Lord’s way of telling us something about our intellect—our understanding—about that part of our mind that learns, that thinks, that understands.
We’re here because the Lord needs something outside of Himself to love, so He created us. And what He wants is for us to love Him, to do what He says because that will bring us closer to Him; but before we can do that we have to know what He says. And the way we know what the Lord says is through His Word. And in fact, it’s through the reading of His Word. He wants us to open this Book.
Now, today you heard from the Word. But even then you couldn’t have heard unless somebody looked at words on a page—unless somebody used their eyes. So it’s easy to understand how the eyes represent that gateway into our mind by which the truth comes in.
Now, we’ll read from the Arcana Coelestia, from number 2383, a portion just from the very beginning.
...In the Word blindness is used in reference to people who are immersed in falsity, and also to people who have no knowledge of the truth. Both kinds of people are called blind, though who are meant in any one place becomes clear from the train of thought, especially that in the internal sense…. (Secrets of Heaven 2383:1)
So there are two kinds of spiritual blindness.
There are a lot of people in this world who do not have the Word. They don’t have the truths that are in this Word. They may come upon some truths, by various round about ways, but they don’t have the Word. So in one sense at least they are spiritually blind. And it’s not their fault.
In this world there are a lot of people who do have the Word. But they only have the surface. They have the letter of the Word but they don’t have it’s spirit. They haven’t been given the New Revelation that unlocks the deeper meaning of the Word. So while they have the Word, in a sense they are still spiritually blind, and it’s not their fault.
In this room there are people—all of us, myself, all of you—who in some ways do not understand some of the truth that the Lord teaches us. That’s okay. Sometimes what the Word teaches doesn’t seem straightforward; sometimes it’s complicated. There are things we don’t understand. In a way, we are all spiritually blind. And that’s not our fault.
That’s one kind of spiritual blindness. But sometimes we have the truth, we have the Word, we know what the Lord is really saying to us, and we don’t like it.
We all have some evil in us. And when that evil is confronted with the truth, what the hells do is they want to cover our eyes. The hells hate the light of heaven; they hate truth.
So there’s a part in us that will make up lies to cover up and make okay our evil desires: "It’s alright if I mistreat that person; they’re not nice to anybody. It’s okay when I behave that way." "I know it says I’m not supposed to do it, but when I do it nobody gets hurt. And if it feels good, how can it be bad?" These are lies. These are falsities. And when you’re immersed in falsities, you’re spiritually blind.
Now not all falsities come from the hells through us. Some falsities we’re taught. The world teaches a lot of falsities: "What’s true for you is the truth. What’s true for him, is his truth." That’s a lie. But we’re taught it. And that’s another way that we can be spiritually blind.
Now what kind of blind was Bartimaeus?
Normally in the Word, when we read a story about the Lord healing the blind, it’s talking about—mostly—the Lord spiritually healing those people who don’t have the truth. They’re spiritually blind from ignorance. And when we look at Bartimaeus, we also see that in addition to being blind, he’s a beggar. He’s poor. And in the Word the poor are very clearly those people who don’t have much spiritual wealth from the Word.
So Bartimaeus is blind because he doesn’t have much truth. But if we look a little bit deeper, we also see that Bartimaeus’ name, from Aramaic, means "Son of the Unclean". And he’s sitting right outside of Jericho, which often represents the evil from falsity. So Bartimaeus is also spiritually blind from evil. So he’s both.
So what this story is, is it’s the Lord telling us how to deal with spiritual blindness, no matter what kind it is, whether it’s from ignorance—from no fault of our own—or because we’re caught up in our own desires.
So, the story...
The Lord is walking along, and Bartimaeus hears that Jesus the Nazarene is coming. And he cries out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy!"
The Lord has many different names; he’s referred to in many ways in the Word. And "the Son of David" talks about the Lord in His outermost. Bartimaeus, in the story, he’s connecting the Lord with the messianic prophecies, that a descendant of David would come back some day. In the internal sense, the Son of David is the letter of the Word. It’s the Lord with us in its most outermost form.
So Bartimaeus, the blind man, the spiritually blind within us—even though we can’t see, we can recognize: the Lord’s in here, there’s something special about the Lord’s Word.
And he says, "Have mercy!" Some translations say, "Take pity on me!" The Lord is Mercy Itself.
The people around Bartimaeus try to quiet him. And, in the internal sense this attack on Bartimaeus is like an attack of falsities from the hells: "The Word belongs up there. Should I open it when I’m angry? Do we approach the Word when we’re feeling dark? Just leave the Word up on the altar; go to the Lord on Sundays. Open the Word when we feel good with the Lord." These are things that the hells tell us.
Bartimaeus ignores the calls to be quiet, and so should we. When we’re confused, we need to go to the Lord—we need to speak up. We need to pray, "Have mercy!" And the Lord will hear us.
The Lord heard Bartimaeus, and He stood in His place. And He commanded that Bartimaeus be brought to Him. And the people (I don’t know if they’re the same people—I’ve wondered about that) and the people go to Bartimaeus and say, "Good news! Get up! He’s calling you." And here Bartimaeus does something interesting: he throws off his cloak.
Now we know, in the Word, clothing is a reference to external things in our lives—often external doctrines or external facts, and also external, natural misconceptions: fallacies and falsities. Bartimaeus’ cloak was probably a pretty ratty thing. This guy’s been sitting by the side of the road, he’s been begging—he can’t see to take care of himself. This cloak has probably kept him (at least he thinks) warm, comfortable, safe, as he sits by the side of the road. But when the Lord calls Him he takes it off. And this is something that we need to do too. We need to look at ourselves and think, "What assumptions am I taking to the Word? What ideas of my own, that I’m taking comfort in, maybe don’t belong in the presence of the Lord?"
And when Bartimaeus goes up to Him, the Lord asks him the question—and He asks this question over and over again in the Word and He asks it of each of us, over and over again: "What do you want, that I can do for you?"
The Lord knows what Bartimaeus wants; the Lord knows what we all want. He’s not asking because He doesn’t know. He asks because we need to put it into words. It’s not enough to know that we suffer; we have to tell the Lord, "I’m blind. I don’t understand. My life’s not working out, thinking the way I’m thinking. I need your help. Lord, that I may see!"
And immediately, Bartimaeus sees; the Lord says, "Your faith has healed you. Go your way." And this is the core of faith. What did Bartimaeus do? He acknowledged the Lord in His Divine Human, he said, "Son of David! Jesus! Have mercy!" He recognized that there’s good stuff in the Word! And he went to it. And he humbled himself. And he said to the Lord, "Rabboni", he called Him "my master", "my teacher". That’s the beginning of faith. But more importantly, he went to the Lord. It wasn’t just a matter of the lips; he got up, he took off his cloak, and he went to the Lord. And that’s real faith. And as a result, he did not go back to Jericho, he did not put back on his cloak, he followed the Lord, to Jerusalem.
So we have a seven step process. I don’t know if you were counting steps, but there are seven steps in here.
One: "Son of David!" Open the book! Look to the Lord in His Divine Human.
Two: "Have mercy!" Pray. We often neglect prayer because it seems almost "magical", sometimes hard to believe in, especially when we’re in a dark time. But prayer is very important, and if we don’t go to the Lord, acknowledging for ourselves what we need, we’re not ready to receive His help.
Three: we’re going to face temptations, and we have to fight them. The temptation to leave the Lord on the altar, the temptation to leave the Lord in church, to leave Him for Sunday—don’t listen to those hellish voices that tell you, "You’re not ready to approach the Lord. He’s too good for you."
Then: we have to take off our cloak. We have to look at ourselves. We can’t go to the Word with our own preconceived ideas. The Lord wants us to read the Word the way Mary sat at his feet and listened. Let’s not go looking for a particular answer, let’s go to see what the Lord says.
"Rabboni—My master, my teacher." We have to acknowledge that the Lord is the one who understands. And if we’re going to understand its going to be by humbling ourselves before Him, not thinking we have all the answers.
The second to last step, it’s not our step, it’s the Lord’s: we see. Now it’s important to remember, here, or to note, that we’re not Bartimaeus—we contain many "Bartimaeuses". What I mean by this is, the Lord’s not going to grant perfect wisdom the first time we ask. He’s going to heal a blind spot. There’s something that we’re not seeing, that He’ll help us with. But we’re going to have to come back, to have another Bartimaeus healed, to have another blind spot healed, and this is the process of life.
And then finally, step seven—this is the Seventh Day of Creation, this is the culmination: we follow the Lord.
And that’s the process.
"Son of David!" "Have mercy!" Don’t listen to the voices, don’t listen to the crowd. Take off your cloak. Say, "My master, my teacher." Be healed. And follow the Lord.
Amen.