Free Indeed

      Today is a cold, rainy day in Arkansas.  A lot of our ministry-related meetings today were cancelled, or changed from in-person visits to phone calls.  Between all of this, I have been reading a book that just came out today.  This is Becoming Free Indeed, by Jinger Duggar Vuolo.  I am going to interact with it.  If you are interested in this book, you can order it here.  I got it on Kindle, which was how I was able to read it today.

     Jinger Duggar Vuolo is the sixth child of the famous Duggar family (who ended up with nineteen children).  This family was on television for several years, espousing conservative values.  I, too, consider myself a conservative.  I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant.  I hold to orthodox biblical views on all issues.   I am a Republican, and even within our local Republican party, I am part of a more conservative contingent with the party.  In spite of this, compared to the Duggars, I would probably be viewed as a liberal.  

     For many years, the Duggars gave the rest of the world a glimpse into what it meant to hold their brand of conservative values.  The oldest of the Duggar children were about a decade younger than me, so by the time they were famous, I was in my late 20's, a homeowner, and working in my career.  As I said, I, too, was a conservative Christian, but vastly different than the way it was expressed on their show.  I didn't really watch their show much, but from what I saw, I felt that there was no room for someone like me in their world.  They seemed to disagree with young women going to college, owning a house, or holding a job.  By far and large, they seemed to value women marrying very young and having babies right away.  On all of those counts, I was guilty.  I was a college graduate, a home owner, a job-holder, and was single and childless.  Even when I did get married a couple of years later, my relationship with my fiance (now husband) did not emulate the way the Duggars do relationships.  I was walking strongly with the Lord, but didn't feel any sense of camaraderie with what the Duggars seemed to be pushing.  

     In spite of their difference from the way I believed and lived, I did agree with them on some things, so it was sort of a conflict for me when I would hear people say that the Duggars were a representation of what it meant to be a Christian, a home-schooler, Baptist, or a Conservative.  Yet I felt just as conflicted when I heard them referred to as a hate group.  To this day, conflicting opinions about their family run ramped online.  I became a lot more aware of them after their oldest son Josh got into moral trouble in 2015, and then much worse trouble in 2021.  Josh is now doing time in federal prison for child porn charges.  In spite of the fact that he waited until his wedding to even kiss his wife, and followed all the man-made rules, he failed miserably in what really mattered.  He has been unfaithful and abusive, and now has shown how deeply depraved he is in engaging in child porn.  However, other members of the Duggar family have done well for themselves.  Some of the older daughters, notably Jill and Jinger, have removed themselves from some of the extremism they were raised with, but have not left Christianity.  I really respect that, especially in a day when so many former evangelicals are "deconstructing" their faith and becoming "progressives" (which has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible).  Rather than deconstructing their faith, these Duggar sisters seem to be disentangling the truth from errors, and they are looking to the Bible to do this.  This is what Jinger's book was about.  

     Jinger's book is not a tell-all about her family.  She does condemn her brother Josh's actions in one chapter, but otherwise, speaks very positively of her family and upbringing.  However, the object of her concern was a man named Bill Gothard, who led an organization called Institute of Basic Life Principles (IBLP).  Jinger's family was deeply involved with the IBLP, and Bill Gothard's teachings were vital to their lives.  In this book, Jinger compares Gothard's teachings to what the Bible actually says, and how she has broken away from the teachings of the IBLP without leaving the Bible or Christianity.  For this, I am very proud of her, and admire her.  

Bill Gothard

     Bill Gothard teaches a lot of very odd, random things, and uses obscure Bible verses out of context to validate them.  When I was 26, (the single, home-owning career woman), I attended a group that watched the videos of what is called Bill Gothard's "basic seminar."  A few things he said were good points, but a lot were odd to me.  One thing he said was that it was wrong for single women to move out of their parents' homes.  As a biblical basis, all he really had to stand on was this: Rachel and Leah would never have met Jacob if they had moved out and gotten an apartment somewhere.  Okay, that is flimsy at best.  Really, Rachel and Leah would probably have been better off if they hadn't met Jacob!  God used their story for His glory, and to continue His chosen family, but they weren't living out His perfect will for relationships in what happened.  Secondly, though, just because Rachel and Leah didn't get an apartment doesn't mean God forbids it!  If they had moved out, and God wanted them to still meet Jacob, He would have worked it out.  I think it's odd to make a rule like this for women without a better argument than this.  

     Jinger relayed several Bill Gothard anecdotes.  All of his legalistic teachings led to deeper fear and insecurity.  He taught that if you stepped outside of his principles, God would allow terrible things to happen.  Jinger grew up worried that if she was around someone who listened to rock music, or who wore pants (a no-no for women in Bill Gothard's teachings), God might allow her family to be in a terrible car accident.  Obedience was out of fear.  One very bizarre story that Bill Gothard shared with them all was about a woman who lost her sons in a terrible boating accident.  The pastor went over to comfort her.  In the course of this visit, the pastor noticed a painting on her living room wall with a sailboat, and he told her that by having this piece of art on her wall, she had put it into her son's minds to go boating, and had therefore caused their death.  This extra-biblical warning about artwork had people terrified about everything, and determined to do everything just right, so as to be protected.  Instead, they should have been taught to rest in the grace of God.  This man was not a true Bible teacher.  He didn't teach in-depth Bible study, or systematic theology of any kind.  He was a leader who used some verses to promote his own agenda.  

     In one particular story relayed, Bill Gothard was approached by a deeply troubled woman with a lot of baggage.  She wanted to become a Christian, and instead of giving her the gospel, Bill Gothard said he told her that her life was too messed up to invite Jesus into.  She needed to clean up her act for a while, and then, when she was at a better place, she could get saved.  This is preposterous!  Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10)!  The thief on the cross was able to receive Christ's forgiveness, without having a chance to clean up his act (Luke 23:39-43).  Jesus spent time with the demon possessed, the tax collectors (who were known cheaters and traitors), and prostitutes.  He didn't condone their sin, but he came to save and redeem them.  And we are all like them.  We are all sinners.  God doesn't rank sin by misdemeanor and felony.  All of us are on an equal footing--sinful and in need of redemption.  Bill Gothard was wrong to tell this woman that!  This anecdote makes me wonder if he is a Christian at all.  He appeared to purport a works-based gospel.  There is no life so messed up Jesus can't come in and redeem it if that person turns to Him.  

     Bill Gothard would talk about rhemas.  That is, the Holy Spirit speaking personally in our hearts.  I believe in this experience.  I believe it is in line with what Bible teaches about God's guidance in our lives.  But the experience of believing God is talking to you is subjective, and can be misunderstood.  People can have an emotional experience and think it's God.  People can be wrong.  People can misuse these things to manipulate others, or add to scripture.  That is what Bill Gothard did.  I believe when God speaks to us, it is usually something just for us, about something we are going through and need an answer on.  It isn't something we build a doctrine out of for others to follow.  Also, even in just our personal lives, we need to make sure what we believe we are being told lines up with the Bible.  Anything that doesn't line up with the Bible is not of God.  The Holy Spirit would never contradict the word of God, nor would he give new revelations we are supposed to take as equal to scripture.  We need to be so careful about having a word from the Lord.  I will return to this.  

     Jinger also shared about Bill Gothard's perversion.  He was accused of a lot of sexual misconduct by several women, spanning many years.  This led to his resignation from the IBLP in 2014.  His organization is now a shell of what it once was.  Some of the women who were hurt by him set up a website called Recovering Grace.  They share their stories, and show each other the grace of Jesus in healing from these hurts.  You can look at the website here.   Some of it is honestly fascinating, and it is encouraging to see many of these women claiming Christ's victory over what happened.  Like Jinger's book, they are mostly disentangling, not deconstructing.  

  

     The bottom line of Jinger's book in regards to Bill Gothard was that his teachings were man-made, not biblical.  He was controlling and hard, and his teachings couldn't even change him.  They were external, and couldn't change the heart.  Jinger even draws some parallels between Bill Gothard and her own brother Josh.  

     So how did Jinger realize she didn't want to be part of Bill Gothard's cult anymore?  I don't want to steal her whole story (read the book!), but God brought people into her life who were Christians, but who were not part of the IBLP.  One of them was her eventual husband, Jeremy.  God used these people to open her eyes to the fact that there were godly people who weren't associated with the IBLP.  She then started really studying the Bible for itself, not just the verses Bill Gothard threw out to support his agenda.  She went from seeing the Bible as a self-improvement book about her to a Holy Book about God, with Him as the central character.  Her journey was one of looking to the Bible for answers, and that is what I wish more people who questioned their childhood faith would do.  Way to go, Jinger!  God has guided her to a much more grounded version of Christianity.  I'll also add that I enjoyed reading about a Bible-believing Christian who lives in and loves Los Angeles!  

Jinger Vuolo and her husband Jeremy

     Mostly, I was impressed with Jinger's insights, and I think she is on solid footing biblically, but I had a slight concern.  Not a big one, because she is being guided by the Bible, and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who will guide her into all truth (John 16:13).  But here is where I see a little imbalance.  She is so wary of how Bill Gothard misused these rhemas (hearing from the Lord) that she seems to deny this can happen at all.  She seems to believe the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to us at all (she didn't say this, that's just what I'm picking up from the tone of what she is saying).  Because Bill Gothard told bizarre stories about God killing a woman's sons because she had a picture of a sailboat (implying she should have sought the Lord before hanging that picture up), Jinger seems to go the other extreme in saying that God doesn't give us specific guidance about anything in our lives, and we just do what we want, as long as it's not defined in the Bible as a sin.  Because Bill Gothard taught a man-centered gospel, Jinger seems to go so far the other way (making it God-centered, as it should be), that she seems to deny any way the Bible can apply to our lives at all.  She isn't terribly extreme in this, and I truly think she can balance out in time.  But it brings up some thoughts for me.

1) The Holy Spirit Speaks to us today.  I said earlier that these "rhemas" can be misused and misapplied.  I have had people very manipulatively tell me God told them this or that, in the hopes that they could control me, or the situation.  But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  All through the Bible, we see God guiding His people.  One of my favorites is in Genesis 24.  I wrote a post about this passage recently (And He Loved Her, October 14, 2022).  God clearly guided Abraham's servant in his quest to find Isaac's wife.  Psalm 32:8 says, I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you.  Isaiah 30:21 says, Your ears will hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” whenever you turn to the right or to the left.  There are examples of God speaking to people, such as Samuel in First Samuel 16 (when he anointed David).  In the New Testament, we are told about the Holy Spirit.  In John 16:13, Jesus said, When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.  In the book of Acts, we see God communicating with the apostles as they spread the gospel.  He guides us today.  

     I remember one particular time when God spoke to me about something very heavy on my heart.  I had just been through a break-up from a young man I thought I would marry.  I was in need of God's presence and comfort (interesting that the Holy Spirit is called the Comforter in John 14:26).  I had this really strong urge to hold out for this boyfriend to return to my life.  But I needed an answer.  I was in agony, and needed to know.  I really prayed for God to show me how to think of this boyfriend.  Then, I went to study the lesson I would be teaching that Wednesday night at AWANA.  I was in First Samuel 16, and as I studied, verse 1 jumped out at me.  Now the Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him... In that moment, it was as if the Lord were asking me, "How long will you mourn for this guy, seeing that I have removed him from your life?"  I did not create a new doctrine . I did not put this experience on others, saying God was telling everyone to forget their old boyfriends.  This was just for me, right then.  I felt relief, and deeply loved by God.  I knew He had heard me, and was working on my behalf.  I will expound more on this in the next point.

2) God directly guides us.  Bill Gothard overdid it.  He implied that we need to seek God's guidance about what artwork to hang on the wall.  God calls us to rest in Him.  We can't be at rest when we're agonizing over this stuff.  And yet, that doesn't mean God doesn't care about the details of our lives, or guide us toward certain things.  Jinger seemed to say (pretty close to these words, actually) that we can do whatever we want, as long as it isn't defined in the Bible as a sin.  She said that God doesn't tell us who we're supposed to marry, or anything specific like that.  We choose that.  I get no comfort or encouragement from this teaching.  I know my life would be lost and a mess if I hadn't relied on God's direct leading in the specifics of my life.  I didn't just do whatever I wanted, with my only guidance being to make sure it wasn't defined as sin.  I know God led my husband and me together.  I know that He led us to the ministry we are in, as well as other steps our lives have taken along the way.  Just avoiding sin isn't living the victorious Christian life.  It's a step in the right direction.  Galatians 5:25 tells us to keep in step with the Spirit.  We aren't just to avoid sin, but to do what we are called by God to do.  

     God tells us what is sin in scripture.  Lying is a sin.  Murder is a sin.  These things are obvious.  But what about getting on a boat?  Is that sinful?  Not according to scripture.  Nothing in the Mosaic law about it.  And yet Jonah was sinning when he boarded the boat to Tarshish.  Why was he sinning?  Because he was going against what God specifically led him to do.  There you have it.  It isn't just enough to avoid sin.  We need to be seeking and following God's leading in our lives.  

     In my example about First Samuel 16:1 telling me to forget this past boyfriend, I was obeying what God was telling me to do.  I wasn't putting that on anyone else.  I prayed for an answer and got one.  My heart was broken.  I was poor in spirit.  I needed that.  God loves me, and saw my need to hear from Him.  According to scripture, would it have been wrong for me to hold out for the boyfriend, or try to win him back?  No.  There is nothing in the Bible that would condemn that.  But God wasn't leading me to that.  Maybe someone else in a similar situation would have been led differently.  More power to them.  I just needed to obey how I was being led.  I am so glad I obeyed God.  My husband is so much better for me, and was worth the wait.  I didn't need to waste any further time on the old boyfriend.  My time is valuable, and God wouldn't want me to waste it.  So teach us to number our days that we might get a heart of wisdom, Psalm 90:12.  

     What does that verse in First Samuel 16:1 teach about God?  It teaches, first of all, that He speaks to us, because He spoke to Samuel.  Secondly, it teaches He wants us to move forward in victory, rather than remain paralyzed by the grief of the past.  Third, if you read on in the passage, you see that God led Samuel to anoint Saul's replacement.  God wanted Samuel to move on in His plans, and the same is true for us. This teaching is reiterated in other passages, such as Philippians 3:13-14 (forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus) and Hebrews 12:1 (let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us.).  This all lines up biblically.  I knew that God was speaking to me then.  That's another thing.  When the Holy Spirit speaks, we know.  God is able to communicate with His children so that we know it's Him.  I believe hearing from God like this should be a normal part of the Christian life and experience.  

3) Application to our lives.  Yes, the Bible is a God-centered book.  The Bible is about God.  Some people read the Bible in a self-centered way.  And yet God did write the Bible for us to know Him.  He loves us.  By the power of the Holy Spirit, the Bible can be applied to our lives.  It is supposed to happen.  Sometimes, it is very dramatic, like my experience of knowing I was called to move on from an ex-boyfriend after reading First Samuel 16:1.  Other times, it is more seemingly commonplace, such as reading the Bible, realizing what I'm doing isn't lining up with what God has said, and making the needed changes to be in obedience.  In the book, Jinger used the example of the story of David and Goliath, from First Samuel 17.  She said that when she was under Bill Gothard, she would look at each part of the story and try to think what it might mean to her, personally.  She would try to analyze why David picked up 5 stones (why not 4 or 6?) and try to conjure up some deep application for herself that didn't really exist.  I get where that would be futile.  But then, she went on to give another example from the story about giants, and how we should try to defeat the giants in our lives with God's help.  She concluded this was wrong, and that the passage wasn't about her and she was wrong to have thought like this.  I don't know that I agree completely.  What does the story of David and Goliath teach us about God?  He is victorious, and gives His people the victory against overwhelming odds.  He uses the willing (such as David).  Can that be applied to our lives?  Sure it can!  We all face obstacles that we need God's help to overcome.  This isn't a name-it-and-claim it promise that we'll always win.  My husband ran for Constable this past fall, and did not win.  God never promised him he would win.  But in Christ, my husband was able to look past the defeat to the spiritual victory, and good God had done in and through the campaign.  First Corinthians 12:57 says, But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Likewise, First John 5:4 says, For everyone born of God overcomes the world.  This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.  Christians are victors.  So, can we apply that from reading the story of David and Goliath?  Yes!  The Bible is about God, but it applies to us.  

     Jinger Duggar Vuolo is diligently trying to align her beliefs with the Bible, and I applaud her.  Her book was mostly a very well-done effort.  I disagree with some of the mechanics of how she believes the Bible should be read and applied (or not applied), and how the Holy Spirit speaks to us today.  She has seen so many abuses of these truths, it isn't surprising to me that she holds the beliefs she nows does about this.  She is now aligned with a church in Los Angeles that is very much known for minimizing the Holy Spirit.  While her current pastor is not the pervert or manipulator Bill Gothard is, he is a force to be reckoned with, and I have personally crossed swords with many from that church in the past when I taught evangelism classes in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley.  I fought many of my own personal spiritual battles as a young woman in L.A. dealing with this kind of theology.  I can see myself in my early 20's, driving through L.A. trying to make sense of things that had happened, and what I was being told by proponents of this church.  I had to conclude that they were wrong about this, even if they were right about other things.  I guess that was my own time of "disentangling" in my life.  I have never been sorry for the time I spent wrestling with these things, letting God teach and guide me.  I know God will be faithful to Jinger, as He has been to me!

Blast from the Past

      I'll never forget that first summer I worked with Pastor Gorman* (name changed).  I was twenty years old--experienced but zealous.  I held the same convictions and beliefs I hold today, but I have since mellowed and prioritized, learning how to pick my battles.  When you're a young, zealous college student (even if you are a committed Christian), every battle feels worth fighting.  Wisdom and experience (and just plain normal growth in our Christian lives) teach us that isn't always the case.  

I am pictured at age 20, around the start of the story in today's post. Here, I am with another good ministry friend (in case you can't tell, I'm on the right). 

     Pastor Gorman and I were hired at the same time, and we ended up working together seven and a half years.  It was mostly wonderful...but that first summer--well, I'll get to that.  

     Pastor Gorman was a calm, patient, gentle person.  I gleaned so much from him.  I'll never forget our adventures taking kids up to camp, being part of home Bible studies, or doing evangelism at the Los Angeles County Fair.  So much of what I put into practice today was learned from this wise, kind man.  He led many people I love very much to Christ, and discipled them as they took their first baby steps of faith.  Everyone loved him.  I could share story after story of lives he impacted.  I am confident he will hear Jesus say "Well done" one day.  

     In all the time I knew him, I never saw him angry.  The most upset I saw him was in a Bible study once, when some of the youth were goofing off, and he said, "Come on!" in a kind of annoyed voice.  I was so surprised to hear him even that mad (even though it was pretty mild), and I thought the Rapture would probably happen then!  A bunch of us jokingly called him the Violent Aggressor (the joke was in the fact that this was the opposite of who he was).  

     Pastor Gorman was at my Bible college graduation, and my wedding.  He served as a reference for me a few different times.  He played an important, supportive role in my life.  I say all this to illustrate that I held him in high regard.  I still do. 

My Bible College graduation (at which Pastor Gorman was present), age 24.  This time, I'm on the left.  My hair was longer and straighter by then!  HA! HA!  Also, the friend beside me is not the same as in the earlier picture, though she sort of resembles her.  She was the valedictorian and I was the salutatorian.

     Only one thing ever frustrated me about Pastor Gorman, this giant of the faith.  He was so overwhelmingly calm and gentle, and he wouldn't allow me to own negative feelings or emotions.  In ministry, we often ran into hard things.  That's what happens in life in general, and even more so in ministry.  Satan loves to pit us against each other.  When a difficulty would happen, Pastor Gorman would calmly tell me to forgive and not talk about it anymore.  If I didn't feel over it yet, I was told phrases such as, "You need to give preference to others," or "You need to forgive."  Or he would just tell me not to be negative.  This was at a time before the phrase "toxic positivity" was used, but those words could definitely have applied to Pastor Gorman at times.  There is truth to what he was saying, but there is also a time and place when we need to talk about negative things, or deal with unpleasant situations.  I remember him even getting onto me once for sharing my testimony, because it had something negative in it (even though it ended on a note of victory).  He told me, "Those things are in the past, and you shouldn't dwell on them anymore."  

     Pastor Gorman wasn't a hypocrite about this.  I constantly saw him extend positive kindness to everyone, no matter how they acted.  One time, he took someone out to lunch who had really hurt his family.  He wanted to be a blessing.  I just watched this, knowing I could never be that good and godly like him.  

     How did this make me feel?  Well, at the time, I really saw myself as spiritually inferior to him, and I felt terrible about myself for somehow not being as forgiving or positive as him.  I thought the fact that I wasn't over things ten seconds after they happened must mean I was a despicable human being, a horrible Christian, and that God must be disgusted with me.  Please know that Pastor Gorman didn't ever tell me that.  That was the conclusion I drew about myself based on his admonition to be more positive than I was able to be.  

     I went forward in my life trying to just let things go, even when really, in my heart, I knew they should be addressed.  I allowed people who hurt me to continue having access to my life, because I believed anything less was unforgiving and negative.  I remember one time, I was leading a Bible study group with a woman who was very difficult, but I refused to allow myself to have any negative thoughts about her.  The hurt feelings just festered inside of me, and led to very bad things for me.  

Me (center) at an event with people from the Bible study.  The difficult woman is not pictured,  but this was a time in my life that I was stuffing my feelings and practicing toxic positivity. God had a lot to show me.

     Years later, I learned that it is healthy to have those boundaries, even if only in my own mind.  Admitting how hard people can be is how we start to heal from what they did.  We can choose forgiveness and heal once we actually acknowledge and move forward from it.  I had been criticized (in a gentle, nice way, but criticized nonetheless) by Pastor Gorman for needing to do this, so I had stopped.  It had made me feel crazy inside to try to be sweet and positive all the time, even when someone was doing something very wrong.  Jeremiah 6:14 TLB says, You can't heal a wound by saying it's not there.  Talking about problems is how we heal.  It doesn't mean we are unkind.  It doesn't mean we complain.  It means we speak the truth.  Jesus spoke the truth.  We tend to think of Jesus as meek and mild all the time, but He also turned over the tables of the money changers (Matthew 21)!  He confronted the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (John 8).  By the same token,  the Apostle Paul continued to tell his story (Philippians 3), even negative aspects, not dwelling there, but using it to teach.  

     Back to my very first summer with Pastor Gorman.  We went to camp.  His teenaged daughter Paula* (name changed) attended with us, and I was her counselor.  I had just met Pastor Gorman and his family, and I barely knew them.  Paula pushed a lot of limits at camp.  It appeared she was doing it intentionally.  When someone would correct her (it usually wasn't even me, but some other camp staff), she would act like a martyr.  I caught her in a boys cabin (completely forbidden), and she was standing and carrying herself in a flirtatious way when I caught her.  Her behavior at camp indicated she was boy-crazy and wanted to be the center of attention all the time.  There was one incident where another staff was talking to her, and Paula made some sort of commitment to Christ.  I wasn't part of that conversation at all, but later, I heard a few different stories about it (ranging from Paula approaching this staff and saying she wanted to rededicate her life to Christ, to Paula saying she wasn't really saved and wanted to get saved, to this counselor approaching Paula and telling her that she obviously wasn't saved and needed to get saved for real).  I don't know what really happened, but Paula was deeply offended after the conversation.  As with every other situation, she acted like a victim.  

     At the time, I kind of judged Pastor Gorman by his daughter's conduct, but as I got to know him better after that camp, I saw that he was a really wonderful pastor.  He and his wife loved the Lord very much, and it wasn't their fault their daughter was making the choices she was.  They had raised her to know the Lord.  Over time, it became clear that Paula was very bitter toward all of us from the camp.  She no longer attended church with her family.  I began to wonder if I had been too hard on her at any point.  I am not perfect.  As I said at the beginning, I was young, and could be a little zealous.  Had I been legalistic at all?  I asked Pastor Gorman, and he said it would mean a lot if I reached out to her and wrote a kind note, offering to talk with her and clear the air from anything at camp.  I did this.  In fact, I did this a few times over the years.  Paula never responded to me, but when I would occasionally see her, she was usually pretty sweet.  I thought things were fine.  

     God led my life in a few directions, and I was no longer working with Pastor Gorman.  I was in touch with him, but not part of his daily or weekly ministry anymore.  In 2020, the Lord led my husband and me into our current ministry.  I wanted to tell Pastor Gorman about it.  I wrote him a letter, as well as tried other ways to communicate with him, but to no avail.  I chalked it up to the fact that he was busy, we were busy, and our lives no longer had that commonality.  I was a little disappointed he could lose touch after we had served so long together in the past, but I didn't dwell on it.  

Our missionary prayer card, which I sent to Pastor Gorman

     This week (January of 2023), I received a random phone call from Pastor Gorman.  I was overjoyed to hear from him!  A flood of memories came over me--memories of seeing him lead my friends to Christ, of his wife leading the kids in Christmas caroling, of all of us going on hayrides together as a group at church picnics, and of us taking kids camping.  So many good feelings settled in my heart--for a minute.

     He told me he wanted to catch up, but he had to say something first.  The gist of it was, he had been holding a grudge against me for the last few years (approximately 2018 to the present), and that was why he hadn't responded to my attempts at contact.  I was shocked to hear this.  The champion of forgiveness who never got angry had held a grudge against me?  What had I done???  It must have been something really terrible for this gentle, kind man to harbor that kind of resentment!  The old shame came over me, just as it had when he'd tell me I wasn't being positive enough, or that I was wrong to need to talk about problems.  And yet it struck me as hypocritical, because I had never wanted to hold a grudge.  I had wanted to talk about problems so I wouldn't have to hold the grudge.  He had always put the kibosh on it.  And yet here, he was doing the same thing he had accused me of so many times.  But I had to keep in mind, he was calling to acknowledge this, and apologize to me.  He even asked my forgiveness for this.  

     So what was the grudge about?  It was about Paula's summer at camp so many years ago (2002).  The camp where she broke every rule, then played the victim when she was held accountable.  She had bitterly refused to forgive those she felt had sinned against her.  Every time she has talked about it over the years, the stories got worse.  Around 2018, she told her father that someone had tried to cast a demon out of her at the camp, and this made her dad snap, hence the start of his grudge.  Of course, by that time, the camp experience was sixteen years in the past, and is now twenty-one years in the past.  Even though Paula said the person who did this was male, Pastor Gorman somehow held a grudge against me for it.  I was floored upon hearing this.  First of all, it was the first time I had heard anything about this.  Secondly, it obviously wasn't me, since I am not male!  But somehow, about five years ago (when she shared this version of the story), he started resenting me for it, and then, recently, God convicted him, so he called to apologize.  That's great...but this was new information to me, and I need to process this. 

     I can't prove that the demon thing didn't happen, but I disbelieve Paula's claim.  I can't see anyone from that camp doing that.  This story is consistent with how she was then, embellishing things to make herself look like the innocent martyr and everyone else look outrageous and crazy.  Many people from back then have tried to reach out to Paula over the years (myself included), and she has refused to let any of us help her.  She's happier being miserable.  That makes me sad, but her father's admitted grudge against me made me suddenly realize something.

     I am not despicable!  While I will always consider Pastor Gorman to be a godly man, his positive forgiveness wasn't really positive or forgiveness.  It was a weakness in that it was an inability to deal with real problems, and then he spiritualized it.  In actuality, he was sweeping conflicts under the rug, instead of working them out.  He was stronger and more spiritual than me in many ways, but not in this.  And that's okay!  It doesn't mean he is despicable either.  It just means that I wasn't walking in sin back then by needing to deal with things.  All those years of doing ministry with him, feeling like I was a bad person because I needed to deal with problems, I was in the right.  I was stronger than I knew.  I was not displeasing to God.  God was not disgusted with me!  I can look back at myself in my 20's, and see a young woman I like that much better!  In that sense, it is redemptive.

Me at age 27, a likable Christian servant, with some students I was discipling.  I can now feel good about who I was then, and am now.  By the way, this picture was taken in Riverside, California.   Who says California doesn't have seasons?  Look at those gorgeous trees!  

    All the same, it hurt my feelings that someone I had done so much ministry with could think so little of me as to hold this grudge, without the benefit of consideration.  I had been in ignorant bliss about it, and would have preferred not to know he had felt this way.  If God convicted him, I would have preferred he just reach out and catch up, without telling me all this stuff.  The conversation ended on a positive note, but my feelings are still processing this.

     So here is the takeaway (after the final point, I'll conclude).  

1) Just because you admire many things about someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say or do.  Search the Bible for answers. (...they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.  Acts 17:11)

2). You can admire a person and still admit they are wrong about something.  (Biblical examples: Paul clearly had a high regard for Peter, but he disagreed with his behavior, and in Galatians 2:11, he rebuked him.  Paul and Barnabas had a "sharp disagreement" about John Mark in Acts 15, but Paul later spoke positively about both Barnabas and John Mark --First Corinthians 9:6, Second Timothy 4:11).  

3) It is right and good to talk about problems in the right spirit.  This is better than letting it fester inside and then blow up later (Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord...  Isaiah 1:18). 

4) Positivity without acknowledging the negative things is toxic positivity, and it is not godly or spiritual (For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself.  Second Corinthians 1:8).  

5) Feeling like you can't be around someone who has broken your trust or hurt you is not the same as unforgiveness.  It is okay to take your time and process, and it is okay if you are never ready to be close to that person (especially if that person has not made any sort of amends).  It is okay to remove yourself from bad situations with dangerous people.  As long as you aren't seeking revenge or wishing them ill will, you are taking care of yourself (biblical example: David fled from King Saul, yet refused to get revenge on him.  He still stayed away from him for his own safety--First Samuel 19, 24 and 26).  

6) Don't second-guess your past self.  You can't go back in time and re-do anything, and you did what you knew to do at the time.  My zealous 20-year-old self probably did some things that summer with Paula that I would do differently today, but I wasn't acting with malice or ill-intent.  I was doing my best at the time.  That was all I could do then, and all I can do now is to let it go (forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead. Philippians 3:13b)  

7) Don't make an idol of your pastor or mentor.  I can see that I did this with Pastor Gorman, and saw myself as falling so far short, when in reality, I had a strength he didn't recognize.  He is a godly man, and wouldn't want me to look to him that way.  (Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  Hebrews 12:2).

8) Don't deny your own gifts in light of others' weaknesses.  (Do not neglect the gift that is in you... First Timothy 4:14).  

9) If you sin against someone in your heart, and they have no idea, and there is no other damage that it can have in their life, don't tell them.  Let them remain in ignorant bliss.  Make it right with the Lord, and then leave it be.  It's just common sense!  (A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly. Proverbs 12:23).  

10) Sometimes, people are in your past and not your present for a reason.  Some friends are for a lifetime, but some are just for a season, and that is okay.  You can still value what a person was to you, and look forward to a more perfect relationship in Heaven!  (A man who has too many friends comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. Proverbs 18:24.  Also, biblical example: the disciples were all close while they walked with Jesus, but their lives as apostles later took them in different directions in their service for Christ.  We don't know how much they kept in touch, but they focused on the race set out for them.  We know they reunited in Heaven, and so will all believers, and our relationships will be perfected). 

     In conclusion, I can now look back on my time with Pastor Gorman realistically.  I can cherish the joys of serving the Lord and learning under him.  I can like the young woman I was, who was open to learning from her pastor, but also possessed some discernment he did not.  I can realize Pastor Gorman was godly, but not perfect, and I can forgive him his faults, as he forgave me.  I can move forward in what God has for me!  I pray you can do the same in your life.  The best is yet to come.  

Dr. King

      Today is Martin Luther King Day.  These bank holidays that are not major holidays of Christmas caliber are easy to forget about, until you try to go to the post office and find it closed, reminding you that it is, in fact a legal holiday.  But let's look at Martin Luther King, the man behind today's holiday.  We are going to examine: 1) What kind of a man he was.  2) What he believed.  3) What would he think of the world today? and 4) What does scripture say about Dr. King's goals?  

     Martin Luther King, Jr. was born Michael King, Jr. on January 15, 1929.  He was the son and grandson of pastors, and grew up in Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia.  King would eventually co-pastor this church as well--which is something many today do not mention when they bring this man up: Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister, a God-fearing man. The Bible played a very important role in King's upbringing, and he grew up having his father read the Word to him and his siblings, and his grandmother instilled scripture in them as well.  

     As a young child, King befriended a white little boy.  When the boys started school, they were required to attend separate schools in the segregrated South.  Shortly after this, the white boy's parents stopped allowing King to play with their son.  They told him, "we are white, and you are colored."  Confused, young King went home and talked to his parents about it.  In return, they sadly told their son about slavery and racism.  King's heart was torn by this, and, as he later put it, he "determined to hate every white person."  I can't blame a child for feeling that hurt and anger.  He had just unfairly lost a friend, and then been told some very sad parts of our nation's history.  But his parents didn't allow hate to settle in their son's heart.  They told him it was his Christian duty to love everyone.  Doubtless, his parents' early teaching later led him to make statements such as, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." and "Let no man pull you so low that you hate him."  Clearly, King was taught to see hate as a weakness, and love as a strength.  

     In spite of his parents' urging to love all, they were not silent about the evils of segregation.  King heard his father speak out against it, as well as stand up against racist treatment he received.  He told his son, "I don't care how long I have to live with this system.  I will never accept it."  Watching his father respond to racism with respectful dignity made an impression on young King.  

     King still struggled.  As a teenager, he doubted the faith of his family, and struggled with hatred toward white people.  He was a very bright young man, noted for being a good public speaker, and a good dancer.  He was admitted into Morehouse College at age 15.  During that summer, he went to work up in Connecticut, and was very surprised at what he found there.  Black and white people attended church together.  The lack of segregation was a shock to him, and he slowly started opening his heart to God and Christianity again, as well as the possibility that white people were not all hateful.  At age 18, he determined to go into the ministry, and use his pulpit for fight the evils of racism.  This passion, he believed, was his calling in life.  

     While attending seminary, King fell in love with a white woman.  Their relationship lasted six months, and he seriously considered marrying her, but he was strongly advised that doing so would damage his calling to minister in the South at that time.  Believing it for the best, he ended the relationship, but it broke his heart for a long time after.

     King eventually fell in love with and married Coretta Scott, and they had four children.  Initially based in Alabama, King and his family eventually went to Atlanta, where he took the co-pastorship of his childhood church, Ebenezer Baptist.  During his time in Alabama, King oversaw the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which transformed his image from being a simple minister to a national activist.  

     In 1957, along with a few others, King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization that still operates today.  This group was inspired by the crusades of evangelist Billy Graham (who had befriended Martin Luther King).  

     King was unhappy with the limited amount of time and effort then-President Kennedy was putting into ending segregation.  He reached out to the President, urging him to follow Abraham Lincoln's example and sign an executive order that would enforce civil rights nationwide-- a sort of Second Emancipation Proclamation.  Kennedy did not sign the order.  

     It should be noted here that, according to King's niece Alveda King, Martin Luther King was a Republican--something else many fail to acknowledge today.  However, his allegiance was to God, not to any party.  He is quoted as having said, "I don't think the Republican Party is a party full of almighty God, nor is the Democrat Party.  They both have weaknesses.  And I'm not extricably bound to either party." I'll return to this later, but I'll state here that the parties at that time were not entirely what they are today.  They were dealing with different issues.  There were leaders of both parties King is said to have liked, and disliked.  This reveals that King was a man motivated by God, not by political power.  Many who site him today would do well to pattern their priorities after his.  

     King continued to oversee the Civil Rights movement.  His commitment to nonviolence has been intriguing to many.  He had six principles he followed: 1) Evil can resist evil without resorting to violence.  2) Nonviolence seeks to win the friendship and understanding of the opponent, not to humiliate him.  3) Evil itself, not the people committing the evil acts, should be opposed.  4) Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering can be redemptive.  5) nonviolent resistance avoids “external physical violence” and “internal violence of spirit” as well: “The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him”. The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men.”  6) The nonviolent resister must have a “deep faith in the future."  In other words, that justice would ultimately happen.  King was truly a man of character to hold such convictions.  

     On August 28, 1963, King made his famous "I Have a Dream Speech."  I think it is so important for today's activists to study this speech, and what King's dream consisted of.  His dream did not involve burning down cities and businesses.  His dream did not involve labeling others as oppressors.  His dream did not involve blaming people for sins their ancestors may or may not have committed.  His dream did not involve viewing our country or our founding fathers negatively.  His dream did not involve rewriting US history to make faith-based leaders into oppressive bigots.  Here is what his dream involved: 

     "...I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character...that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers..."  If you want to read or listen to the entire speech, you can just click here.  

     King accomplished a lot.  For the sake of time, I am not going to go over every experience he faced in the Civil Rights Movement, but I will quote from his final speech, commonly referred to as his "I've been to the Mountaintop" address.  It was delivered in Memphis, Tennessee, at the headquarters of the Church of God in Christ, on April 3, 1968.  His flight to Memphis had been delayed, due to a bomb threat.  In light of this, he said in his address, "And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."  It was almost as if he knew what was ahead...

     King was shot in his hotel the next day, April 4, 1968.  He died about an hour later, after unsuccessful emergency surgery.  

     We have examined what kind of man Martin Luther King was, and what he believed in.  He was a Christian man, committed to justice, nonviolence, and God.  What would he think of the world today?

     I think he would be grieved about any and all racism and injustice, as we all should be.  I think he would be saddened that some (certainly not all) people segregate themselves, even though segregation is no longer a legal threat.  At the same time, I think he would be overjoyed that schools, churches and places of business are no longer segregated in the South.  I think he would be delighted that a lot of headway has been made in Civil Rights.  

     I also think he would be saddened by the violence of movements like Black Lives Matter (even though he would agree with their name, he would not agree with much of their ideology).  I think he would be grieved by Dr. Chanequa Walter Barns (an African-American theologian) who prayed, "Dear God, help me to hate white people...".  Her prayer was published in the progressive book, A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal.  This kind of anger and hatred goes against everything King stood and worked for.  He fought for friendship between people of different skin colors.  He fought for the same rights all Americans were supposed to enjoy.  He fought for all to be judged by their character.  These are true and noble ideals.  Sadly, many of today's activists fall far short of King's vision of equality and love.  I also think King would be unhappy by the way some people almost unthinkingly go along with certain political parties.  He would urge us to examine the platforms, and see which lines most closely to God's ideals (especially, as I alluded to earlier, the parties are not what they were in the mid-20th century).  He would also urge us to support candidates on their own merits, not just the fact that they are running on behalf of a certain party.  

     I believe Martin Luther King would be disgusted by George Floyd's ruthless murder three years ago, but he would have been equally disgusted by the way liberals of all races have made George Floyd (a criminal and illegal drug user) into a hero.  He would almost have certainly have condemned the disrespect and violence against police officers that followed George Floyd's murder.  King worked within the law.  He would not have condoned lawbreaking, unless man's law conflicted with God's, in which case he always chose God's.

     I think Martin Luther King was a man of conviction, and he would ask no less of us today.  

     Finally, were King's dreams and ideals biblical?  I think so!  First Samuel 16:7 urges, Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.  We are to see people for who they really are, not their physical appearance.  Acts 10:34 states that God is no respecter of persons.  Sounds like King's desire to be judged on the content of character aligns pretty well with the Bible.  King's desire for justice was also biblical, as Proverbs 20:23 states (Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good).  The Civil Rights movement was Dr. King's calling!

     Today, as you enjoy a day off, think about the man whose life and legacy made that possible.  Consider his ideals of love for all, aligning with candidates who are closest to what God has said (rather that toting the party line), and justice.  As a Christian, are you doing your part to make these hopes a reality?  Ask God today to show you His plan for you.  Like King, you can come to your own "mountaintop" in His plans for you!  

Further articles of interest:

https://www.unodc.org/documents/e4j/Secondary/Terrorism_Violent_Extremism_Six_Principles_of_Non-Violence.pdf

https://pontiaclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/vol-2-issue-15-may-12.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/story/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-republican-or-a-democrat

It Couldn't Just Happen!

     We live in world that has never known God--not since Genesis chapter 3, when sin entered the world.  Throughout history, people have been denying the truth they don't want to face.  They'll believe anything, even the story that we evolved from a lower life form.  Many people in our society today believe the Theory of Evolution to be a fact.  It is taught that way in our public schools, and we are regularly exposed to such statements as: Montana Hunter Finds 75-million-year-old fossil. (Reuters News Service) or Scientists say all humans are related to a single woman who lived 150,000 years ago in Africa. (National Geographic).  Even older, wholesome mid-20th-century television programs, such as Leave it to Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show make factual-sounding side-references to Evolution.  This should give a clue as to how long it has had a foothold in our society.  Because people have long held Evolution to be true, they state it as an undeniable fact in textbooks, on television, in news media outlets, etc.  They interpret everything through that lens, no questions asked, no proof required.  But are they correct?  Almost as important, are they being held accountable for the claims they are making? 

     Many Christians aren't sure how to answer the questions raised by these types of claims.  Some of it is a lack of understanding of basic words.  For example, to evolve (little e) means to undergo change.  By that definition, all living things evolve.  Over time, there can be small changes within species, and this is part of little e evolution, also called microevolution.  These changes can be scientifically observed.  The Theory of Evolution (capital E) is a different story.  This theory (and yes, it is a theory, not an undeniable, verified fact) makes much more extreme claims.  Evolutionists believe: 1) Life began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals. 2) All living things today developed from a common, one-celled ancestor. 3) Over millions of years, these living things gradually changed into the fish, reptiles, birds and mammals of today's world.  Unlike microevolution, this type of Evolution claims species evolve into higher life forms over time.  This is called macroevolution.  While microevolution is scientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven.  

     In this post, I am going to examine the evidence.  It is my hope that you will be encouraged by where it takes us, and bolstered in your faith!  I am a student of these things, but I am not a scientist myself, so I will be using layman's terms--for my benefit if not for yours!  I will also try to provide names and details of everything I state, so you can look these things up and study them for yourself if you want.  This is a big topic, and I could make this post very, very long if I followed every argument, so I am rather basic, but I hope I still have some good food for thought, and aid you in further study.

     There have always been scientists who believed in God and the claims of scripture, and others who did not.  Prior to the early 1960's, many of the atheistic scientists believed that the universe had no beginning, and that it just always existed.  That changed in 1962, when the light from a particular star--quasar 3C 273--was studied.  From examining their light waves, astronomers discovered a shifting in the black lines, and a "red shift" in the light.  What did this mean?  It was determined that the galaxies were traveling away from us at 100-million miles per hour!  This led scientists to believe that the universe is expanding, and if it is expanding, the universe had to have had a beginning.  

     Understandably, this encouraged Christians who were in the field of science, because it was evidence for God having created the universe at a particular time.  You'd think the unbelievers would be convinced, right?  Wrong!  As the Bible warns us to expect, these non-Christian scientists maintained their atheism, subscribing to the "Big Bang Theory" the belief that the universe started by an explosion billions of years ago, and that "Big Bang" set everything in motion to become what it is today.  And yet, in spite of their unwavering commitment to a godless universe, they cannot say what caused the Big Bang, nor can they determine what happened before it.  Within this belief, all they have are guesses. 

     The Bible does not tell us exactly when or how God created the universe, but the very first thing we are told is that In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1).  God spoke, and it was.  The universe had a beginning, and I humbly assert that belief in God is the only real explanation.  

     Some people want to argue, "Well, who created God?" and if we don't have a simple answer to that, then they place God as the same category as the Big Bang, and yet it is not a fair question or comparison.  Apologist Greg Koukl answers that question by saying, "You don't believe God was created, because you don't believe in Him.  I don't believe God was created, because I believe He is eternal.  Since neither of us believes God was created, that isn't a fair question."  I think that is a good answer, and I recommend sticking with something like that if you ever get into that kind of discussion.  It's true that this argument won't answer all their questions about belief in God, but it will get you out of an unfair hot seat.  

     Our universe is orderly, not a chaotic mess that would be caused by an explosion.  It is ordered by a set of laws.  If these laws were even slightly different, life could not exist.  For example, only the exact amount of gravity allows our free movement, without us floating away.  If the universe had started in chaos, it would have only been able to produce more chaos, and these orderly laws would never have developed.  This means that they had to be put into our universe at the starting point for them to exist today.  The Law of Entropy, also called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, tells us that anything that is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized.  Right there, that shoots down the Big Bang, which states the opposite is true--an unexplained chaotic explosion formed our orderly universe.  Albert Einstein viewed the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the premier law of all science.  And it supports Intelligent Design, not random chance.

     So why doesn't everyone believe in God?  Romans 1:18 says that they by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  Verse 19 goes on to say, For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  This verse is clear that the evidence is there, but it will only strengthen the belief of those who already want to know the truth.  As for those who are determined not to believe, verse 20 says, So they are without excuse.  It is important to note that no reasonable conclusion about our universe has ever been offered apart from God's existence.  They keep trying, but every theory they come up with violates the laws of the universe in some way or other.  

     Let's look at earth--our planet.  It is unusual.  It is the only planet in our solar system that could facilitate life.  Earth is the exact right distance from the sun.  If earth got just 1% less energy from the sun, it would begin to freeze.  It if got 1% more, it would become unbearably hot.  The earth continues to receive the exact needed amount of energy, and it has remained this way throughout history.  The sun's photons (heat and light particles) travel to earth at a very slow, long journey.  If they arrived faster, without having lost a great deal of their power on the trip, they would be too powerful, destroying life on earth.  

     Remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics?  It states that things start out organized, but move toward chaos.  That is true in almost anything.  Yet the processes on earth don't seem to be breaking down and turning into chaos.  I am referring to the way the atmosphere, ocean, plants and animals all take energy from the sun in an organized way.  Rather than braking down, these processes even seem to adjust constantly to maintain that balance without which all life would end.  This was what led Russian scientist Dr. Boris P. Dotsenko to belief in God.  He stated, As I thought about all of that, it suddenly dawned on me that there must be a very powerful organizing force counteracting this disorganizing tendency within nature, keeping the universe controlled and in order.  This force must not be material; otherwise, it too would become disordered.  I concluded that this power must be both omnipotent and omniscient.  There must be a God--one God--controlling everything!  This quote is taken from Scientists Who Believe, put out by Moody Press.  You can read more about Dr. Boris P. Dotsenko's journey to Christianity in this 1973 article from Christianity Today.  

     Evolution requires billions of years, and throwing out these astronomical numbers allows Evolutionists to explain what would otherwise seem unexplainable--such as the extinction of certain animals, or the Grand Canyon's formation, to give a few examples.  However, scientists are learning that many things on our planet point to quick cataclysms, not the slow processes of great amounts of time required by Evolution.  A cataclysm is a large-scale and violent event in the natural world.  At one time, scientists didn't believe cataclysms had anything to do with world history.  That has changed.  Cataclysms have been verified, bringing the "millions of years" claims of Evolution into question.  

     A noteworthy cataclysm happened about 3,700 years ago.  A volcano on the island of Santorini (in the Aegean Sea, between Greece and Turkey) erupted violently, with the force of hundreds of hydrogen bombs.  Volcanic fires shot miles into the sky, causing a fiery rain that spread for miles, dropping ash 100 feet thick on nearby islands.  The island dropped into a deep hole in the sea, causing tidal waves hundreds of feet high.   Hundreds of thousands were killed, and a civilization was wiped out.  There is still evidence of this terrible disaster 3,700 years later.  This tragedy has given validation to the idea of cataclysms causing very fast change.  

     This idea of cataclysmic change was furthered by questioning: what happened to dinosaurs? No one knows exactly what happened, but because they disappear from the fossil record so suddenly, scientists now believe that they died in a catastrophe.  

     A theory that further gives a nod to cataclysms is the continental drift.  The shapes of the continents have led some to believe that they used to all be connected, and have drifted apart, due to a cataclysm of movement of the earth's plates (see pictured below).  This may or may not be true, but the possibility has given rise to the belief in cataclysmic events.  

Continental Drift theory illustrates how the continents may have fit together in the past, prior to a worldwide cataclysm that might have divided them. 

     Many Bible-believing scientists believe the Genesis flood (which would be considered a worldwide cataclysm) is responsible for many of the earth's unique features today, including the formation of the Grand Canyon.  In all transparency, we don't know 100% which features on earth were formed as a result of the Genesis flood, but we do know this: scientists who once scoffed at the idea of cataclysms are now accepting them as part of our world history.  These same scientists, suppressing the truth, scoff and deny the possibility of a worldwide flood, but it actually makes perfect sense and explains a lot.  

      The date of the earth is a question to many.  Many who believe in Evolution claim that given billions of years, anything could have happened.  As I already pointed out, it is easy for proponents of Evolution to throw around the phrase "billions of years" to give credence to their claims.  But let's really look at that.  The fact of Creation (which we can conclude from the Bible, as well as the evidence that supports it) is distinct and different from the date of creation.  There are Bible-believing Creationists who differ on how old they believe the earth is.  The genealogical evidence in scripture leads many biblical scholars to conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, though we cannot put too fine a point on it.  

     In contrast, Evolutionary scientists speak factually about dates, just as they speak factually about Evolution.  The record in the rocks is not as compelling as they would like people to think.  Proponents of Evolution are not really at all certain the dates they give are correct.  They conclude that rocks and fossils discovered beneath other rocks and fossils are older, which is a reasonable assumption.  But there is no way to determine how much older, or even how old any of them are.  All they have are guesses.  The dating system they use, radiometric dating, is not considered completely reliable either.  Simply put, this dating method tries to determine age by observing decay.  However, it is understood and agreed upon that it is only reliable up to 100,000 years--far less than the millions and billions Evolutionist throw around.  Secondly, though, even assuming its accuracy up until 100,000 years requires some assumptions that cannot be proven (for deeper explanation of how this works, you can look it up.  I'm just giving the basics here on a very complex process).  

     One particular example in the fossil record that is problematic for Evolutionists was discovered in Agate Springs, Nebraska.  This slab holds the bones of over 9,000 different animals, all jumbled together.  These animals (including rhinoceroses, camels, giant boars, and many other strange as well as modern animals) were all tossed together by some violent flood and were buried quickly, before their bodies could decay or be eaten.  The sudden burial together of kinds of animals who should not be found in the same part of the world cannot be explained by Evolutionists. 

     Another problem is posed for Evolutionists by the idea of soil.  For the earth to support life, we need it to contain soil made of weathered rock, chemicals that water washes from the rocks, air and water.  But soil must contain organic matter, and must have millions of tiny living organisms in it, if anything is to grow.  This poses a problem for those who believe in slow Evolution over millions or billions of years.  Where did the soil that living things need in order to exist come from before there were living things to fill the soil with organic matter?  

     Here's a thought.  What was the earth like when God created it?  Some Christians raise the possibility that, just as God created Adam as an adult, He likely created the earth "all grown up" as well, with mature trees already planted and growing.  If this is the case, light and heat were traveling from the sun already, as if they had been doing so for millions of years.  Considering this possibility, can we really tell from the evidence how old the earth is?  Despite many unexplainable mysteries, a study of our world should convince us that the universe, our planet, and life itself really couldn't just happen.  In the beginning there was God!  

     Evolutionists also point to similarities between species (for example, between apes and humans) and say this is irrefutable proof that they are related and have a common ancestor.  In reality, similarity is not proof of relationship.  For many years, Evolutionists had a now-debunked belief about how horses evolved.  A fossil called Eohippus was believed to be the ancestor of the modern horse.  In the 20th century, this was considered the absolute truth, and was presented in colleges as irrefutable proof of Evolution.  Today, no one believes this fossil was a close relative of the modern horse.  Instead, it is now seen to be related to the rock rabbit!  Similarities do not necessarily mean interrelatedness.  On the other hand, these similarities give evidence that the same Designer created them, with what they needed to survive.  

     When I was a teenager, learning to refute Evolution with the Bible (and the claims of science), one point that was often raised was the lack of evidence of "missing links."  An argument made was that we still have apes, and we still have humans, but we don't have "in-between" creatures walking around.  This was a very good point.  It was also pointed out that many of what Evolutionists thought were the skeletal remains of missing links ended up being debunked (Neanderthal man, for example, was believed at one time to be a missing link, but was later concluded to be fully human.  Piltdown man, another supposed missing link, turned out to be a hoax.  You can look it up--no conclusive missing link is verified by the scientific community, and most have been at least challenged, if not altogether disproven).  In fact, the term "missing link" has largely fallen out of favor now, but was used to refer to transitional beings (a sub-human still similar to apelike ancestors).  

This was the common portrayal of Evolution for many years, showing the ape, the human, and everything they believed came between.  Of course, none of these in-between characters were ever discovered conclusively.  Now, many Evolutions have ditched this model.

     My teen years, when I learned these arguments, were back when it was more common for Evolutions to say we evolved from apes.  Now, the claim is more along the lines of saying we evolved form a common ancestor to the ape.  I honestly cannot tell you when the wording changed, or when Evolutionists changed their consensus about common ancestry, or what reasons were given, because all I know was what I was taught in the past, and what is being said now.  In trying to research that particular aspect of it to write this part of the post, I came up with no answers as to how the narrative changed, so if you know more about that than I do, you can clue me in.  It is my considered belief that the story had to change, because of the lack of evidence.  Saying we evolved from an unknown common ancestor buys them a little more credibility.  But they're still lacking in evidence.  Even with this whitewashed way of stating it, there is no conclusive evidence of this supposed common ancestor we allegedly share with apes.  

     Yet even now, with less emphasis on "missing links" some Evolutions are still claiming to find archeological remains of human ancestors.  It would be unwise to believe them at face value, because at one time, the claims about Neanderthal man and Piltdown man were also hailed as the truth, but were later disproven.  Some Evolutionists are honestly deceived by these things, but some are underhanded about it, such as Eugene DuBois.  He discovered what was termed Java man, but was later determined to be a mix of human and animal bones that were fossilized together.  Eugene DuBois realized his error when he found a whole human skull in the same find--but he kept silent for almost 30 years, because he didn't want to debunk his find, or debunk Evolution.  Because of his silence, some today still think Java man "proves" Evolution.  Don't be misled! 

     There are also Creationists who don't do the field justice.  One famous Creationist apologist was Kent Hovind, who used a lot of arguments that are not largely encouraged in the field of Creation science.  His talks had good points, but also a lot of conspiracy theories.  It should also be noted that he ended up doing time in jail for tax evasion.  I mention Kent Hovind to point out that people on both sides can have bad arguments, and behave wrongly.  It is not my intent to vilify Evolutionists or deify Creationists.  I just want to get to the truth.  Just because we believe something doesn't mean we agree with everyone else who believes in it.  We need to have integrity.  

     Evolution claims that species evolved from other, lower species.  Scientifically, this doesn't check out.  Why?  Because of genes and chromosomes.  These are like long, thin strings largely composed of DNA and proteins.  They make up the code for the animals' characteristics.  The code is different for each kind of living creature.  Cells in a fish, for example, do not contain the code for a bird, a cat, or a human.  Each kind of living creature can only reproduce its own kind.  However, while living creatures cannot give birth to a different species, offsprings are not identical to parents.  Every cat, dog, horse and human is a unique individual, and have small differences from all others of their species...but they do not cease to be that species.  The small differences within a species is a variation.  This is what makes evolution (with a small e) realistic, but Evolution (with a capital E) a fantasy.  

 

     An examination of nature should also point us to faith in God as our Creator.  When one examines the intricacies of the way Emperor penguins care for their chicks, the African gazelle's cooling system, the Australian malleefowl's ability to determine the change in temperature to a tenth of a degree, and communities of insects like termites and bees, how can we believe they just happened by random chance?  Still more in-depth are the cases in which species depend on each other to live, and could not exist without each other--what are the odds that these species would have Evolved at the same time (IE: certain insects and plants)?  Even more than that, the Bible says we are made in God's image, and examining the human body is a study in itself.  

     There is a difference between good and bad science.  Good science constantly searches for new information and is open to correction.  Good science doesn't jump to conclusions.  When one doesn't have enough info, or has the wrong info, the theories they accept can be very wrong.  A good scientist will be cautious, while a less capable one will jump to conclusions.  Everyone has biases, and available evidence is seen through the lens of those biases.  But a good scientist is open to the truth, wherever it leads him.  That is why accepting Evolution as an unquestionable fact is not real science.  Science must be questioned.  Moreover, in order for it be considered science at all, it needs to be observable, measurable and repeatable.  Evolution is none of these things, nor is Creationism.  Both are matters of faith.  If you know me, you know my faith is in the claims of scripture, and I believe the evidence supports the claims of the Bible.  The authors of the book Streams of Civilization (Copyright 1992, Mary Stanton and Albert Hyma) refuse to even call Evolution or Creation a theory, because neither can be tested scientifically.  They are beliefs.  

     For many years, some devout Christians and some secular atheists mistakenly believed that science and Christianity are incompatible.  These particular Christians threw out all science, believing it supported unbiblical beliefs, while the atheists threw out the Bible, believing it to be contrary to science.  This supposed disconnect between science and the Bible still happens, but both sides are wrong.  The Bible and science are not incompatible.  God created science.  It speaks of His glory and power!  Psalm 19 begins, The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.  Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put eternity into man’s heart... God gave us everything we need to place our faith in Him.  We already read from Romans 1 why some don't.  Disbelief isn't based on lack of evidence.  It is based on a choice.  

     When my dad was eleven years old, he watched on TV as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon.  He asked his dad, who was seated beside him in their living room, "Wouldn't it be great if God left a Bible on the moon, and when they found it, everyone watching would know God was real after all, since no one could have put it there but Him?"  In my father's eleven-year-old mind, this would be irrefutable proof that God existed, and would make atheism obsolete.  You'd think it would be that way, but my grandfather knew better.  "No, son," he told my dad, "God could carve John 3:16 in the moon, and people would still find reasons not to believe.  People who don't want to believe just won't, no matter how much evidence is out there."  What choices have you made where God is concerned?  

     One of my pet peeves in this day and age is the number of people from my generation leaving historic biblical Christianity for the "progressive" brand of the faith (by the way, progressive Christianity is anything but Christian, but I have addressed that in other posts, and anything further right now is a conversation for another time).  Some of these progressives make statements they won't substantiate, such as, "Well, I couldn't believe the book of Genesis anymore, when science supports Evolution."  They make these claims, yet won't give examples of how they believe science supports Evolution, and they expect to be taken seriously.  I don't do that.  I take it as a given that you are an intelligent person who may not agree with everything I say here.  That is okay.  I try to back up everything I say with sources you can look up and make your own decisions about.  Having said that...

     I will close by encouraging you to look these things up for yourself.  If you don't believe me, do your own research.  Study it out for yourself.  A tool that helped me with these truths as a teenager was a book entitled It Couldn't Just Happen, originally published in 1987 by Lawrence O. Richards.  A newer edition is available now, and can be ordered from Amazon and many of the other normal book vendors.  This is just one of many tools that can help aid in your study to find the truth, and some points in it have helped me in writing this post.  A great resource is the organization Answers in Genesis, and I recommend you look up their website here.  Another book, which I referred to, is Streams of Civilization, by Mary Stanton and Albert Hyma.  Let me know your favorite apologetic references, and what you discover!  Remember what is promised in Jeremiah 20:13, You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.