I am only as sick as my secrets

They say everybody has a skeletons or two in the closet. You know, the secrets we hope nobody will ever discover. Well some skeletons are smellier than others, and the smellier they are, the more defensive we are likely to be, the more covered, the more fearful about the possibility of discovery.

With all the recent Senate scandals in the news, there seems to be an emphasis on transparency. I am thinking about certain politicians coming out and admitting “Well yes I smoked pot once or twice in my youth.” I don't know how believable the “once or twice” is, or how recent the youth (I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up!), but there is something about confession that is indeed good for the soul.

It is a Biblical principle actually “Confess your faults one to another, that you may be healed.” We have not done this well either inside or outside the Church. Well it's hard, you have to allow yourself to be vulnerable, and let's face it people can be very judgmental. I have been called to a level of openness that quite frankly is scarey. More than once I have had the experience of a confession coming back to me as accusation. It is not a lot of fun! The Biblical admonition though, if done properly, would preclude this. It is “to one another,” not to a priest, not to the World in general (as in airing one's dirty laundry in public), but to one another. That is to someone who will in turn confess to you. This way it is held in confidentiality. So we need to find people (one, a small group, a fellowship) who are safe, non-judgmental, encouraging, affirming and who will come along side to help us get up and out of the pits we too easily fall into. It's called humility.

It is good to get these things off our chest, it is healing, and no more so within a genuine Christian faith where the assurance that “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,” plays a powerful role in the healing process. What a feeling to be forgiven, to be able to start over with a clean conscience – justified (just as if I had never sinned), free. When we keep up the high and towering walls to safeguard our secrets, we keep the bad in as well as the bad out, and we also keep the good out too. We are only as sick as our secrets.

In the beginning, nothing created everything that is out of nothing!

There are basically three philosophical possibilities for origins. Firstly there is the possibility that the universe always existed. In spite of the fact that this contradicts the theory of relativity, many Scientists held this view even as recently as the 1960's (it was called the steady state theory). Even Einstein believed this until the red shift observed in the spectrum of light emitted from distant stars confirmed the expanding universe. As far as I know nobody holds this view today.

The second possibility is that something outside the Universe and independent of it (God, god, gods, the force etc.) created everything that is out of nothing. The third possibility is the naturalistic explanation, the view that the observable universe is all there is. The claim by those who hold this third view is that this is the most logical of the three positions. But is it?

There are many who affirm that evolution has given us a perfectly valid explanation of it all. Now I am not writing today to debate evolution (but see “Not invested in the truth or falsity of evolution” November 2012), however it is simply not true that evolution explains it all. Even if you hold that the evolution of all things evolved from a single cell, you still have to ask where the single cell came from. In an interview Richard Dawkins, the well known evangelical (in his zeal) proponent of this view, was asked what evidence he had for his belief that only natural explanations of the universe are valid. He had to admit that he had none. So he and others who hold this view hold it by faith. And in terms of origins, their faith statement boils down to “In the beginning, nothing created everything that is out of nothing!” Is this really more logical than the theistic view?