God's furniture in the dark

I just finished reading about the life of Helen Keller. The dark silence was her suffocating enemy, and yet at the same time, her great clarifier. She had no distractions--only darkness blocking out any context. Fear, anger, craving, passion all swirled within her, but the darkness gave her focus.

There is an element of freedom in being blind to what lies ahead. We are ALL blind to what lies ahead; we just don't realize it until something unexpected happens, leaving us aware of our fragility. The vulnerability we feel in dark silence rouses our courage to move forward even when we can’t see what’s in front of us.

It reminds me of God’s call to Abram to leave home and go to "a land I will show you." Taking steps in the darkness is faith. The furniture of God’s dimension is all around us. We know it’s there because, like Helen Keller, we are constantly bumping into it, but taking the steps is still such a fearful thing. I can't see God--what if He's not who He says He is? Where is He leading me? I'm bruised from the collisions--"Why would a good God have put that in my way?! Why didn’t He take it out of my path, or at least guide me around it?"—but these things are proof of His existence, His ownership, and His goodness. We can't see the shapes and colors behind the dark or hear the other-dimensional melodies, but the obstacles He places in our path still teach us about Him. We bump into the furniture, grope for His hand, and feel the vibrations of His voice; we know He’s there.

Our darkness is our only opportunity to show Him we trust Him. When our eyes are opened we will see plainly, and then He will overwhelm us--there will be no faith, just seeing. I want a ferocious faith that takes steps in the dark and flings itself on His goodness. Everyone experiences darkness and silence, but knowing Him brings context to the darkness. Faith in His word and His character are our beacon of light. We do not stumble around in despair, but walk confidently in the light of hope, trusting Him in darkness or in light.

On Thanksgiving Day morning, my pastor Matt Chandler had a seizure and was rushed to the hospital where MRI and CT scans revealed a tumor in the right frontal lobe of his brain. Yesterday he was in surgery for seven hours and is recovering well so far--a great relief to the thousands who love him and have been posting encouragement, hope, and prayer on Facebook from all over the world.

I've thought a lot about death this week. And life. About what matters...and what doesn't. It turns out my list of what matters most goes far beyond important things like happiness and my family, as precious as they are. Watching Matt and his family walk this road has challenged me:

• to quit wasting time on things that don't matter
  
• to stare in the face of suffering and trust fiercely in God's goodness
• to stop coddling the part of me that wants my own way
• to continually persist in surrendering all I am, all I have, and all I want to God
• to let God's view of me shape my life, not that of culture or other people

We have fasted, prayed, and pleaded for Matt's life, but most of all we've flung ourselves in wonder on God's goodness and have been reminded that keeping our hands open to the Lord is the only way to peace and joy. Everything I am and everything I have belongs to God: my husband, my children, my friendships, my finances, my health--everything. It is His to do with what He will. I just want more of Him. And if suffering gets me more of Him, I will walk through it with joy. He is my great reward--not anything He gives, but He Himself.

Steve McCoy explains on his blog the "deep blessing of having our theology put to the test:"

"It reveals whether we truly believe God is in control. Whether our peace will come from laying our anxieties before him. Whether we believe our spouse is the treasure God intends. Whether God is truly a greater treasure for us than our spouse. It's God's mercy that we go through times where there is nothing to lean on but Him."

Thank you, God, for Your "deep blessings" that push us to long for You beyond our capacity. You heal us body and soul.

Thank you, Matt. You stir up my affection for Him even in your suffering. Praying constantly for your quick recovery. Come back to us soon. We love you more than you know.

pacifier idolatry

"Tomorrow night will be your first night as a REAL big boy!" I explained to Denton enthusiastically. "We're going to get rid of the pacifiers and you can go to sleep on your own, just like Creed does!"

"Okay, Mommy!" he agreed. "I want to be a big boy!"

Bedtime came and I had already removed the pacifiers to the top of the toy shelves. After several mournful attempts to get me to return the pacifiers (tearfully explaining that he didn't want to be a big boy after all; that he really needs the pacifiers; that he doesn't want to do this anymore; that he wants "the cool of the pacifier;" etc.) and several course corrections, he came sobbing to the door again:

"Mommy?"
"What."
"I just have to say one thing."
"What is it?"

(long pause)

"Uh...it's that I just really want my pacifier."
"Denton."
"What..."
"You already told me this and my answer was 'No.' My answer is still 'no' and it will always be 'no.'"
"Ugh! Mommy!! I don't want you to SAY this!!!"
"Close the door and go back to your bed."
"Mommy, I am still sad!"
"I know. You just have to be brave. I'm sorry it's so hard...but you can do it! When you wake up in the morning you won't be sad anymore."

After separating the boys, it only took a few moments for the house to settle into blissful silence--they had both gone to sleep. Little did I know this was because Denton had climbed up his bookcase and acquired the coveted item. When I checked on him before I turned in for the night, there he was--out cold...with a pacifier dangling from his mouth. Mommy had officially lost the battle, but the war was still on.

A couple of days later, I bought a computer game that Denton really wanted. We installed it "together" with great ceremony. Then after we'd filled in his name and prep'd for the first game, I said, "Now we're going to turn it off. But if you can show me that you're a big boy tonight by going to sleep without your pacifier, you can get up in the morning and play this game all by yourself!"

"But I want to play it NOW, Mommy!" he protested.

"I know. But I'm not sure you're big enough to do it yet. You need to show me that you're a big boy tonight and then I'll know you're big enough to play your own computer game."

"Okay, Mommy," he said. And with that, he ran to his room, grabbed his pacifier, and threw it in the bathroom trash can. (I fished it out and disposed of it behind the scenes so he couldn't retrieve it in a weak moment later on.) I braced myself for bedtime, when he would want it back. But bedtime came and went with no resistance, no struggle, and no complaining! He went right to sleep and woke up to a morning of gaming.

What happened?

Denton found something he wanted MORE. The promise of gaming was so motivating that letting go of the pacifier was worth it.

How like Denton I am as I cling to the "fruitless joys" in my life, unwilling to let go of them for more of God. My little boy showed me that when I won't let go of something, it's because I love it most. When I love God more, the pain of letting other things go is overshadowed by my longing for Him. Even the "good" things in my life become chains to spiritual infancy if I become too attached to them. They are substitutions...pacifiers. I often don't recognize my pacifiers as such because they aren't always tangible things. But they are always rooted in my desire to soothe myself rather than yielding to God and trusting Him for peace. Release and obedience is an act of worship; a declaration that He is sweeter to me than any other thing.

Your love is sweeter than all pleasure
Your love is richer than all treasure
Your love is better than all fruitless joys
You are better

None compare to You
With my heart and mind and soul
I'll chase You

(from "You Are Better" by Michael Bleeker and Steve Miller 2004)

garments

Actions are clothing
Hiding…expressing—
The wrapper
All we see
of ourselves.
Of others.

Actions speak
But not the loudest.

The loudest sound pounds on in our ears
The background pulse;
Throbbing undercurrent of every deed.

POUND molestation
POUND feeding the hungry
POUND suicide
POUND going to church
POUND murder
POUND fasting
POUND rape
POUND giving to charity
POUND thirsting for power
POUND teaching Sunday School

POUND

POUND

POUND

Our incessant drive
Our one goal
Our true desire
Our central thrust:

SELF.

Controlling my own life.
Charting my own course.
Earning my own way.
Dominating you.
Dominating myself.
Dominating Him.

Through sin.
Through religion.
At our best.
At our worst.

We pump the same blood
With the same intensity.
The heinous criminal,
The devout lawkeeper.
We are the same.

But we don’t believe it
Because of the garments

Burn away the fabric of deeds
Good and bad;
Sins and morality;
They are chaff in the wind—
Ashes all.

The glare of naked skin is all we have.

No more security in the good I do
No more cowering in the shadow of the bad
Just me
Naked
Raw
Scorched
Singed
The truth
Exposed
Like a middle finger in my heart
Bent to self-exaltation

The good girl
Is
The murderer:

The law-keeper
Who
Won’t be ruled

I am what I am
All my bad
All my good
Tainted
and
Vulgar.

Glaring.

My sins
An unbleachable bloodstain
My righteousness
Bloody rags

ALL
An offense
To His holiness
The middle finger
In my heart
Thrusting at heaven
Screaming
I WILL DO IT MYSELF

Into the naked crowd of the world
He stakes His claim
Through tendons and flesh
Hands open and writhing
Smeared with my pain;
My rage at His claims to supremacy
In a shower of my spit and cursing
He screams toward heaven

I WILL DO IT MYSELF

And becomes
My garment.

cravings, culture, and Christians

I think our efforts as evangelical Christians to "be culturally relevant" are largely backfiring, especially with younger people who are craving a sense of reverence, stillness, beauty, and the eternal in their lives.

Many churches have gone "mega" (huge stadium-style buildings, entertainment-based services, shorter sermons, "seeker-sensitive" styling, etc.) in an attempt to make Christ relevant to the average unchurched person.

The problem is...Christ IS relevant to the average unchurched person--already. All this hype only makes it look like He wasn't to begin with. And worse than that, it distracts from the eternal, universal Truth that can only be found in Him; it suffocates true worship by centering around US, not Him.

We're designed for worship. But when it terminates on us, even worship is unsatisfying. Instead of letting the gospel speak into and shape our current experience, we distract from it by "making it edgy" and pouring it into a corporate-organized, entertainment-styled package. We underestimate people (and God's ability to reach them), thinking they will only be interested in the truth if it comes to them in the season's hottest colors or via video venue with professionally-mixed music.

Have we forgotten that God's truth is timeless? That our little lives are just a drop in the bucket of history? That people want more than a hyped-up version of God? Have we created Him in our own image and lost sight of Who He really is? Because if we knew and experienced Him, we would feel no need to hype Him up. He is more than enough: uncontainable, immeasurable, and overwhelming. THIS is what we crave. We muddy His glory (and intensify our angst) when we reveal Him as anything less.

If we spent more time in stillness and humility before Him (individually and corporately), I think our need for all this drama would fade. Our lives would declare Him. People would see His true glory as we live transparently and they see what He can do in a yielded person. It's breathtaking.

We're technology minded, but exhausted from looking at screens. We Facebook, Twitter, text, post, and 12-step, but still ache for someone to really know us. We fill ourselves with fast food, caffeine, Velveeta, silicone, and HDTV, but crave what's real. God is the only One Who can give it to us. The church is not selling something, but revealing Someone. Let's not get in the way.

better than

The boys were eating ice cream cones the other day when Creed said thoughtfully, "Mommy, Daddy is better than ice cream."

Coming from a five year old, this is no small compliment. As fabulous as Daddy is, few five-year-old boys would rate him superior while submerged in chocolate ice cream.

Most of us are the same way. The "ice cream" of life varies from person to person, but those things we savor most compete with our adoration of God. What I immerse myself in is what I love. What I love is what I immerse myself in.

Lord, stir up my affections for You so that everything I experience satisfies and stimulates my hunger for You.

Psalm 63

proof of God's love

"While we were yet in weakness [powerless to help ourselves], at the fitting time Christ died for (in behalf of) the ungodly. Now it is an extraordinary thing for one to give his life even for an upright man, though perhaps for a noble and lovable and generous benefactor someone might even dare to die. But God shows and clearly proves His [own] love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for us. Therefore, since we are now justified (acquitted, made righteous, and brought into right relationship with God) by Christ's blood, how much more [certain is it that] we shall be saved by Him from the indignation and wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it is much more [certain], now that we are reconciled, that we shall be saved (daily delivered from sin's dominion) through His [resurrection] life." --Romans 5:6-10

from love alone

"Should I worship Him from fear of hell, may I be cast into it. Should I serve Him from desire of gaining heaven, may He keep me out. But should I worship Him from love alone, may He reveal Himself to me, that my whole heart may be filled with His love and presence."

--Sadhu Sundar Singh (1889-1929), Meditations on Various Aspects of the Spiritual Life

entertainment-based worship?

I am beginning to view doctrine more broadly--as more than just a set of beliefs. I really think how we worship declares what we believe about God just as much as our doctrinal statement (maybe even more).

What are we saying about God when we:

• come to church in flip flops and jeans
• create worship venues so everyone can sing songs in the style they prefer
• build purely functional "worship centers" devoid of any beauty or embellishment
• eliminate light and windows from the sanctuary in favor of media screens
• rename sanctuaries "worship centers" and churches "campuses"
• fill worship services with dramas and announcements/ads for upcoming events, and any moments of silence with music
• greet worshippers with "enjoy the service today"

I worry that we are remaking worship into something for us rather than valuing it as a gift we bring to God. More and more it seems to reflect/imitate our culture, rather than stand in contrast to it. When I enter a church and it feels the same as the rest of my life (complete with Christian pop music I've heard on the radio all week, the same rushed pace, the same noise level, the same dress code, the same kind of building I've been in all week), I miss a sense of having been in God's presence. Are we trying to create something no different than every other part of our lives, or is it happening accidentally?

"Mommy, why does God love us?"

There was a long pause as I considered this.

My mind wandered back to the first moment I held my infant boy. So helpless. He didn't even know who I was--only that I was familiar; that something inside him was drawn to me; needed me; would die without me. He didn't know me; didn't love me. He just needed me. He hadn't done anything yet except be mine. And that was why I loved him. I loved him because I made him. I loved him because he was mine to love.

Romans 5:6-10

Maybe He loves us because that's what He's like.

Mapping spiritual experience in the brain

This is a fascinating article about the relationship between scientific and spiritual experience as seen in the study of the brain. Very cool.

TILL WE HAVE MINDS

William P Cheshire Jr. Ethics & Medicine. Highland Park: Spring 2009. Vol. 25, Iss. 1; pg. 11, 7 pgs

Abstract (Summary)

"2 Constraining their definition of truth to "factual human knowledge," the panel, led by professor of molecular biology Lee Silver, posed the provocative question, whether "science has effectively demonstrated that religious beliefs have no place in the rational mind. Language, for example, has been mapped in this way, as fMRI studies have shown involvement of the occipital cortex in reading text, the left posterior temporal lobe (Wernicke's area) in comprehending language, the right temporal lobe in assessing context, and the left inferior frontal lobe (Broca's area) in producing speech.4 In recent years fMRI has turned to investigating the moral domain.

Full Text (2865 words)

Copyright Bioethics Press Spring 2009

[Headnote]

GREY MATTERS

Nothing is yet in its true form.

C. S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces1

A panel of Princeton University scientists recently gathered together to deliberate "whether strong religious belief can coexist with reliance on science."2 Constraining their definition of truth to "factual human knowledge," the panel, led by professor of molecular biology Lee Silver, posed the provocative question, whether "science has effectively demonstrated that religious beliefs have no place in the rational mind."2 How one decides that question guides the answer to a related question essential for the Christian physician. How can faith in Jesus Christ coexist with medical science?

Central to newfound confidence in the claim that science has superseded faith is the expanding scientific account not only of nature but also of human nature. At the leading edge of this research, neuro science is unveiling spectacular discoveries about the brain. Neuron by neuron, the brain is yielding its intimate details to sophisticated neurochemical, neurogenetic and neuroimaging methodologies. The molecular basis of perception, reasoning, decision, faith and belief- every category of thought - has become accessible to the scrutiny of neuro science. Neuroscience thus offers an increasingly detailed account - in purely physical terms - of mental processes that previously were understood to be within the purview of philosophy, religion and the arts.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which detects regional increases in blood flow that accompany neural activity, has become a powerful tool to investigate the neuronal architecture of the brain systems underlying specific cognitive functions. Whereas in the past, localizing brain functions relied on the study of patients with brain lesions that happened to destroy those functions,3 fMRI permits precise, noninvasive, spatial and temporal resolution of psychological processes in the intact, living brain. Brain regions showing increased metabolic activity over baseline will "light up" on fMRI scans. Language, for example, has been mapped in this way, as fMRI studies have shown involvement of the occipital cortex in reading text, the left posterior temporal lobe (Wernicke's area) in comprehending language, the right temporal lobe in assessing context, and the left inferior frontal lobe (Broca's area) in producing speech.4

In recent years fMRI has turned to investigating the moral domain. Studies of subjects presented with moral dilemmas have shown that there is no one moral center in the brain.5'6 Rather, moral thought corresponds to a complex network of complementary cognitive processes traceable to a variety of discrete brain regions. Moral discernment engages systems of sensory decoding and abstract reasoning. Intuitive judgments heed long-term memories' emotional tags. Conscious decision integrates the sometimes competing neural streams of reasoning and intuition in the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices, where there exists what C. S. Lewis recognized metaphorically as a liaison between "cerebral man and visceral man."7'8 Finally, implementation, planning, and self-control of moral action require healthy frontal lobes.

Religious thought, too, has reclined under the scanner for analysis. Some of the brain correlates of belief and disbelief have recently been identified.9 Just as for language and moral judgment, investigations have not found any one "God spot" in the brain, as if religious ideas were compartmentalized and detached from other thoughts and concerns.

In an experiment that produced a brain phenomenon apparently indistinguishable from spiritual experience, neuro scientist Michael Persinger applied transcranial magnetic stimulation to the cerebral cortex of healthy volunteers. Even when the subjects were not told that the device was turned on, they reported a mystical sense of another's presence.10 Philosopher Patricia Churchland cites that study as evidence that all religious experiences are ultimately neurobiological in cause.11 However, one synthetic experience in the laboratory does not invalidate the spiritual awareness that many Christians testify has provided them comfort or insight during life's trials. Artificially inducing what Lewis called a numinous sensation12 by stimulating the parietal cortex no more disproves the existence of the transcendent than would stimulating the occipital cortex and causing the illusion of light disprove the existence of the sun and stars. The intensity of subjective experience in isolation from reason is not necessarily a reliable guide to truth.

If future technologies were to penetrate the brain with even higher resolution and, applying every conceivable biophysical stimulus, still fail to extract an objective sign of mental transcendence, the case for Christianity would not be weakened. Scientific facts, while valid and useful, are not the only ways of knowing about the world. The competence of science is limited to the measurement of phenomena that are quantifiable and consistently reproducible.13 These include the structure of inanimate matter and predictable patterns of fields of energy. Even here nature conceals subtle details that are permanently incalculable and forever untraceable. Most importantly, the universally human questions of origin, purpose, and ultimate meaning surpass what can be fully answered at the material level. Such questions engage the mind and its capacities for abstract thought, conscience and personal agency, all of which resist a complete explanation in scientific terms. At the patient's bedside, physicians understand that beyond scientific diagrams, gene maps and charts, there is a further aspect to human nature. The truly spiritual aspect of the human mind may be a gentle whisper, which science, despite its remarkable proficiency, overlooks (1 Kings 19:12, NIV; John 3:8; Heb 11:3).

Prevailing interpretations of neuroscience research presuppose that all brain phenomena are causally determined chains of biophysical events. If truth be established by the volume of data, then a naturalistic appraisal of the human mind would seem to be gaining in acceptance. Frequent comparisons of the brain to the computer reinforce the broader cultural plausibility of a materialistic understanding of human nature. Within that framework, there can be no assurance that the concept of free will, with its weighty implications for personal moral responsibility and autonomy in medical decision-making, has any meaning. Neuropsychologists now debate whether free will might be nothing more than an illusion, since the outcome of a decision can be predicted by changes detectable in the prefrontal and parietal cortices seconds before entering conscious awareness.14 Alongside increasing optimism in science is a growing skepticism among many contemporary philosophers who ask whether all of consciousness ultimately reduces to an accidental matrix of synaptic impulses.15-18 According to that view, one's decision to choose the good over selfish interests would be automatically determined solely by antecedent physical forces. Whatever one's reply to Jesus' question, "Who do you say I am?" (Matt 16:15), the materialist recognizes only a reflex, as if belief were equivalent to a yawn.

So impressive is the expanding horizon of neuroscience that Francis Crick, codiscoverer of DNA's double helix, has posited what he called his "astonishing hypothesis," which is, "... that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."19

Despite the rhetorical certainty the words, "in fact" seem to imply, Crick's claim is no more than a hypothesis. It is not, of course, a scientific hypothesis, but rather a metaphysical one which exceeds what science can legitimately claim. Crick's sweeping negative assertion that we are no more than cells and molecules defies verification, since the scientific method is qualified to describe only what can be empirically observed and quantified. By defining human consciousness exclusively in terms of matter in motion, Crick assumes as a premise the very conclusion that he wishes to reach.

The contributions of neuro science are necessary, but not sufficient, to explain human thought. A functional neuroanatomical account of moral reasoning broadens the explanation of how one reasons, but it cannot show how one ought to reason. Nor can a scientific description limited to factual knowledge about the brain inspire the care of the sick or resolve difficult dilemmas in medical ethics. Less astonishingly, acceptance of Crick's hypothesis would reduce the value one accords to others. A materialistic appraisal of human nature would thus impoverish medicine. The obligations to love one's neighbor (Lev 19:18; Mark 12:31) and serve one another (Gal 5:13) would make little sense if the ethos of health care were based on the lonely view that patients are essentially churning aggregations of molecules.

Nor does the naturalistic methodology of neuro science adequately account for the scientist behind the experiment whose mind engages nature by drawing inferences and reasoning with inquisitiveness and intentionality. There is, after all, a Crick behind the hypothesis. C. S. Lewis considered naturalism to be self-refuting because it is inconsistent with the validity of reasoning, on which all possible knowledge depends.20 If mental processes were dictated solely by a deterministic biophysical chain of causation in the brain, then the scientist would have no reason to believe that scientific insights into nature are true and trustworthy rather than just a reflection of the way the brain happens to work.21 Attempts to explain reason naturalistically end up explaining it away.

Not only must the reasoning mind in some way stand apart from nature to comprehend nature, but the mind that considers science encounters, knowingly or not, signs of a creative Mind behind nature (Psalm 19:1; Rom 1:20). The mere possibility of engaging in scientific investigation depends on the attributes of that Mind. On this point the record of history is instructive, for science as a fruitful and self-sustaining enterprise was stillborn in previous cultures that believed nature to be undirected or the Mind behind nature to be capricious.22 Modern science emerged in history at a time when Western European culture was steeped in the understanding that the universe is the orderly creation of a rational God. For only a rational God could have authored a coherent universe that scientists can confidently investigate and hope to comprehend.22 The salient question, then, is not whether religious beliefs have a place in the rational mind but, more properly, what kinds of religious beliefs are rationally compatible with all that is known about nature and the human condition.

If the scientific account has truly displaced rational belief in God, then the Christian faith is empty and futile, the dead perish without hope of afterlife, sins are unfor given, and those who place their hope in Christ are the most pitiable of people (1 Cor 15:17-19). There is, however, much more than the narrow analysis of naturalism to consider. A worldview purged of theological content casts aside the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of Western history informed by monotheism, disregards the contemporary discourse concerning the unavoidably transcendent implications of the origin of the universe and its particular conditions finely tuned to support life,23 and ignores the healing contributions of innumerable healthcare professionals through the ages inspired to serve the sick by their faith in a loving God.24

There is a larger view of human nature than is dreamt of in the philosophy of naturalism. Judeo-Christian teaching bases human dignity on the understanding that humankind is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). This imago Dei, which all men and women bear, is not a scientific notion and thus cannot be defined by physical, genetic or cognitive criteria alone. From a biblical perspective, every human being has value beyond measure (Matt 18:14, 25:40; 2 Pet 3:9). The Hebrew Scriptures declare (e.g., 2 Chron 7:14; Psalm 105:4; Jer 29:13) and the New Testament affirms (e.g., Matt 11:28-30; John 3:16; Rev 3:20), that human beings have the special capacity to enter into a personal relationship with God. This larger view accommodates all that science reveals about human nature. That the human brain is a vast assembly of 100 billion neurons exchanging signals through 160 trillion synapses25 comes as no surprise to the biblical perspective on humanity as "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). To the scientific account the larger view adds hope exceeding anything technology can deliver (John 11:25; 1 Cor 15:22, 51-57; Col 1:27).26

This larger view promises that science can never disprove the existence of God. There is no area of brain function off limits to neuro science, provided the experiments are conducted ethically. Scientific discoveries have hardly put to rest the dialectic between science and faith. On the contrary, they reinvigorate it. Thinking about the brain with all the mind deepens the scientific appraisal. In so doing, it is important to be attentive to unstated philosophical presuppositions regarding the nature of humanity and reality. Rather than question whether science has replaced religion, a better question to ask is, what should be the right relationship of one to the other?

The story of neuro science is punctuated with reminders that the reality of God is not dependent on human thought, as if His sovereign provision and guidance were the result of human striving or faith the product of sufficient effort to imagine Him clearly. There is assurance in His grace and rest in His presence (Psalms 23, 46:10).

The subject of neuro science - the human brain - is at once wondrous and wanting. In all of creation nothing more intricate is known. Yet its thoughts are imperfect and its behavior gravely flawed. The mind is not yet in its true form. The renewing of the mind requires communion with the mind of God (Isa 1:18; Rom 12:2), whose thoughts the Scriptures indicate are vast and profound (Psalms 92:5, 139:17, NIV) and utterly unlike our own (Isaiah 55:8-9). It is unnecessary to ask what kind of science can apprehend the mind of God, as if that were possible. For God, in His mercy, through His Son has bridged the unfathomable divide and invites all people to draw near to Him (Rom 10:610). The mind of faith looks to what science has not yet seen (Heb 11:1). Herein lies the hope of seeing God face to face (1 Cor 13:12).

[Sidebar]

The views expressed herein are his own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Mayo Clinic, USA.

This article first appeared in Volume 39, No. 4 (Winter 2008) of Today's Christian Doctor, the journal of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations; P.O. Box 7500; Bristol, TN 37621-7500. Phone: (423) 844-1000; Website: www.cmda.org. Used by permission.

[Reference] » View reference page with links

References

1. Lewis CS. Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (1956). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 1984, p. 305.

2. Princeton Alumni Weekly, May 14, 2008, p. 18.

3. Damasio H, Grabowski T, Frank R, et al. The return of Phineas Gage: clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. Science 1994; 264: 1102-1105.

4. Bookheimer S. Functional MRI of language: new approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 2002; 25: 151-188.

5. Greene J, Haidt J. How (and where) does moral judgment work? TRENDS Cogn Sci 2002; 6(12): 517-523.

6. Moll J, de Oliveira-Souza R, Eslinger PJ. Morals and the human brain: a working model. NeuroReport 2003; 14(3): 299-305.

7. Lewis, CS. The Abolition of Man (1947). New York: Macmillan, 1978, pp. 34-35.

8. Cheshire WP. When eloquence is inarticulate. Ethics & Medicine 2006; 22(3): 135-138.

9. Harris S, Sheth SA, Cohen MS. Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Ann Neurol 200 8;63 (2): 141-147.

10. Cook CM, Persinger MA. Experimental induction of the "sensed presence" in normal subjects and an exceptional subject. Percept Mot Skills 1997;85(2):683-693.

11. Churchland PS. Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, pp. 386-392.

12. Lewis CS. The Problem of Pain (1940). New York: Macmillan, 1962, p. 17.

13. Jaki SL. The Brain-Mind Unity: The Strangest Difference. Pinckney, Michigan: Real View Books, 2004.

14. Soon CS, Brass M, Heinz HJ, Haynes JD. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 2008;11:543-545.

15. Churchland, pp. 127-199.

16. Dennett DC. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1991.

17. Farah MJ. Neuroethics: a guide for the perplexed. Cerebrum 2004; 6(4): 29-38.

18. Farah MJ. Neuroethics. Virtual Mentor 2004; 6(8): accessed athttp://virtualmentor.ama-assn. org/2004/08/oped2-0408.html

19. Crick F. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Touchstone, 1994, p. 3.

20. Lewis CS. Miracles (1947). New York: Macmillan, 1978, pp. 12-24.

21. Reppert V. C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

22. Jaki SL. Science and Creation. Edinburgh, U.K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1977. Professor Jaki was this author's mentor while a visiting professor at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981.

23. Ross H. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. 3 edition. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001.

24. Cheshire WP Twigs of terebinth: the ethical origins of the hospital in Judeo -Christian traidtion. Ethics & Medicine 2003; 19(3): 143-153.

25. Cheshire WP From biochemical synapse to bioethical synapse. Ethics & Medicine 2008; 24(2): 77-82.

26. Cheshire WP In the twilight of aging, a twinkle of hope. Ethics & Medicine 2008; 24(1): 9-14.

runner's high

Blood pumping
Anxious muscles tremble
Anticipating the shot
Eyes raised…
Finish line in the distance

Released by the gun
Flying with commencement energy
Breath, heart, feet combine
Pulsing in synchronized rhythm…

Pain seeps and throbs
Muffling thought
Feet falling into place
By some strange strength

Ecstasy…
Is agony collapsed at the finish;
Gasping for joy
Because the Prize
Exceeds the sacrifice.

communion

I took the cup
Held it in my warm palm
Watched the rich blood-color
Realized the wine
Pulsing in its cup—
Tremors rhythmed from my hand
Like ripples in a small red pond—
I saw my heart in the cup
Alive and pulsing
His death my lifeblood