About a week-and-a-half ago I suggested that we could read the Old Testament to find out more than just ethics and morality. I suggested that as we read the Old Testament we could actually discover one of the most ancient worldviews in recorded history: the worldview of the Jewish people.

Now, any worldview has to reckon with big questions and fundamental issues. The Jewish worldview begins, ends and has as both its center and circumference its concept of God. And their concept of God stood in stark contrast to other belief systems of the time in the most significant of ways.

The Jewish people believed that there is one God. There may be other supernatural beings — both good and evil — but there is only one God (YHWH), and this God alone is to be worshiped.

This is a huge shift from the commonly accepted wisdom that was around when the Old Testament began to be written. If we take a conservative approach (and — believe it or not — I’m considered theologically conservative by most measures) and say that Moses started writing Genesis during the 40-years of wandering in the wilderness after the Exodus, we can safely assume that the Jews coming out of Egypt may have bought into some of the Egyptian assumption that there was actually a pantheon of gods — several dozen of them — each with specialized abilities and powers — most with limitations and geographical boundaries.

So, they might have been a little surprised to find out that there’s really just one God who had no limits and was not bound to a specific location.

This, to me, is fascinating. Think through this with me. If the Old Testament is accurate, all human beings came from one man and one woman (Adam & Eve). Furthermore, all human beings could trace their lineage back to one man (Noah) and his family (Shem, Ham & Japheth). Even if these names and stories are viewed metaphorically, we can agree that the Old Testament claims all humans come from common stock if you go back far enough, right?

Now, that would mean that at some point in time, everyone believed in the same God, wouldn’t it? That theory is called “original monotheism” — and much has been written about it. The most compelling case is probably provided by Dr. Winfried Corduan. His version of the theory actually states, “[R]eligion began with God himself, who revealed himself to human beings. Consequently, all other religions are deviations from this original starting point” (A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity & World Religions, p. 17).

Okay, that’s the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me. What I’m wondering is why do you suppose humanity moved from monotheism (the belief that there’s just one God) to polytheism (the belief that there are multiple gods) in the first place? And why do you think it was so important for Moses to establish the oneness of God?

I’m starting a new sermon series this Sunday at River Park Community Church. It’s called “I Doubt It” (a title I stole outright from my friend Carey Nieuwhoff). In this series I plan to address the doubts that plague so many of us.

We doubt God can be both good and all-powerful. We doubt Christianity and Science can ever be allies. We doubt whether or not we can ever know anything for certain. Part of being a finite human with a limited IQ is that we’ll always have doubts, and we’ll always find ourselves having to live by faith.

The real issue isn’t whether or not you have faith. The real issue is where you place your faith. And why.

We’re going to try to look at this as honestly as I can. But I’m wondering about your doubts today. What are some things you doubt? And what are some doubts you’d like to hear addressed in this series?

Over on Facebook, my good friend Madeleine left this comment in response to yesterday’s post:

Yes! it’s all in the prepositions! First the NIV specifies that God works “in” all things (both good and bad). He is actively involved in the events of our lives. [T]hese things don’t happen without God’s work.

Second,the NIV says these things happen “for” us, not just “to” us as in the KJ translation. The NIV implies that our lives are used by God to shape us according to his purpose. It would be easy to infer from the KJ that good things happen to people who love God, which doesn’t happen in reality.

What a difference a few 2-letter words made in shaping the psyche of Western civilization!

Great insight, Maddy!

Now, I found an interesting footnote the other day. (Yes, I’m the kind of guy who actually reads footnotes). This is a footnote in the TNIV — the update of the NIV from a couple of years ago. The translators suggest this as a possible rendering of the verse in question:

“And we know that in all things God works together with those who love him to bring about what is good—with those who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

How does that reading sit with you?

I just posted this ad over at Wineskins Magazine’s new section for ministers in search of a job. I’m trying really hard not to sound desperate, but I’m feeling a lot of pressure to find a way to provide for my family. I never thought I’d be back on the market so soon, but God has his plans — and they’re incredibly hard to figure out sometimes!

Bad Pastor Seeks Good Home

Smart, clever, seminary-trained theologian has a near-photographic memory and an uncanny ability to assimilate information. Can leap theological questions in a single bound. Has published three books and written even more articles. Is an engaging speaker and can translate the Bible into a language almost anyone can understand.

His wife writes all his promotional material for him.

And his wife knows that not only is her husband incredibly gifted, he’s also incredibly human. He struggles. He slips. He stumbles. He falls sometimes, and sometimes he can’t seem to get up by himself.

And so this pastor is seeking a good home, a safe place to serve. He needs a church full of grace, willing to listen to the truth spoken in love, wanting to become more and more like the man who gave his life for them.

He needs a church where people understand that pastors are people too, that smart and clever people are also vulnerable people who need just as much grace as everyone else.

If you think you may be that church, this incredibly human pastor would love to speak with you.

The other day, I posted a note from a friend. She’s struggling with the idea of whether or not things are supposed to turn out well for people who love and follow God.

In her note, and in several of your responses, a verse was referred to but never actually quoted. The verse in question is Romans 8:28, which says, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

At least that’s how the King James Version has it.

The NIV has it this way: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

There’s a subtle but profound difference in the two translations. Can you spot it? How might that subtle but profound difference actually change the way you think about this verse?

People have always had ideas about big concepts like where we come from, where we’re going and how we ought to live in the meantime (origin, destiny and morality). It’s safe to assume that these ideas of theirs generally fit together to form some sort of cohesive worldview or philosophy.

It’s also safe to assume that people have always shared their thoughts about these big concepts with the people around them. Communities formed shared opinions about these things and cultures were established on the basis of these shared beliefs, passing a way of life down from generation to generation.

Every once in a while someone might come up with a new idea, but it would have probably taken a long time for that new idea to become generally accepted and absorbed into the commonly held beliefs of a community. So, it’s most likely the case that worldviews were handed down without much variation.

But every so often, something radical might happen to change things. It could have been a flood or a fire or some other natural disaster. More often than not, however, it was war. See, war wasn’t just seen as a conflict of military strength; it was seen as a conflict of ideologies. One community with its beliefs attempted to overwhelm another community with its beliefs.

The side that won got to claim that its worldview was superior. They got to force their worldview on those who had been conquered.

Consequently, most of the earliest philosophies have been completely lost or have come down to us in very limited and fragmented forms. We have no way to go back and discover what they believed. All we can do is guess. And it’s always wise to remember that guesses are just guesses — some are educated, most are not. The fragments that remain will always be open to multiple interpretations.

But the earliest collection of materials that can reasonably be called a coherent worldview is contained in the Old Testament. There were certainly other cultures that predate the Hebrews, but we don’t know very much about what those older cultures thought — especially compared to the legacy contained in the earliest portions of the Jewish Scriptures.

Now, this brings us to what I consider to be a rather interesting question. I absolutely believe that there is much more contained in the Old Testament than simply the components of an ancient worldview. There is beautiful poetry and historically accurate data. There are ethical teachings, and there is prudent wisdom.

But how might it change the way you understand the Old Testament if you read it as an explanation for why the Hebrews thought and lived as they did? What if we stopped reading it simply for moral instructions or practical advice on how to live and started reading it to find a way of thinking about God, ourselves and the world in which we live?

I have a friend from high school who sent me this note in response to the current situation I’m having to endure with my job and our finances:

We moved to Florida for my husband’s job and to be close to his family, and 2 years later he is out of work, and most of his family has moved away for financial reasons. I only have 3 years teaching experience in this county, and Florida’s economy is about as bad as California’s. I may not have a job after this school year. We would have to do a short sell or let our house go into foreclosure. We owe more than we could sell this house for. I’ve always believed that all things work for the best for those who love the Lord, but my faith is pretty low right now. I’ll pray for you.

Obviously, I appreciate her honesty. Far too often, Christians suffer through confusing circumstances and pretend to be “okay”. During difficult times, it’s important to remember that the largest portion of the Book of Psalms is taken up with what are called “Psalms of Lament” — which is a fancy way of saying “Psalms of Complaining”. Jewish people knew that God was big enough to handle anything as long as they were honest with him. So, they learned as a people how to kvetch. Christians could take a lesson from them.

But that’s not what I really want to talk about right now. I want to talk about that last little bit of her note — the part where she says, “I’ve always believed that all things work for the best for those who love the Lord.”

Is her belief correct? Do all things really work for the best for those who love the Lord?

Standing with both feet firmly planted in the 21st Century now, we find ourselves at a philosophical crossroads. The modern experiment of the past 500 years has failed to produce a workable worldview upon which we can all agree. So, our choice is between an extreme relativism (which is practically indistinguishable from total despair, chaos and nihilism) or to start over again.

Going back simply isn’t an option (that would be the “rock” from the title of this post).

Now…since you’ve bothered to read this far, I’m going to guess you’re unwilling to accept the despair. That will be my assumption as we move forward in this discussion — that you don’t really want to embrace the radical relativism of true postmodernism.

Furthermore, I will assume that many of the folks who read this blog are actually in a position to shape the thinking of many others. That means you have the huge responsibility to offer those others a philosophy that actually works.

See, the people with whom you associate — whether they’re people in your church or your family or your small group or your classroom or your breakroom — they need a worldview that can answer meaninglessness and suffering and despair. They have to have a set of beliefs that can become the foundation for a society in which people can look for and find purpose, value, love and truth.

This leads us to another fork in the road (these forks are the “hard places” from the title of this post — see how clever I am?). We can either endeavor to create a brand new worldview that everyone can accept, or we can re-establish and re-authenticate the Christian worldview. In theory, this worldview already serves as the foundation of our society. Also in theory, this worldview already is accepted by one-third of the world’s population.

If it seems a ridiculously difficult challenge to take the fork to the left (the creation of a brand new worldview), the fork to the right ain’t no picnic, either! As Peter Hicks says, “If we believe that a God-centered worldview can provide a basis for life in the twenty-first century, we need to show how making God the basis for meaning and truth and value answers the questions and needs of women and men in the twenty-first century.”

But, in order to do that, we may need to look at the various ways in which people have attempted to answer those questions and needs in the past. We may need to work through the differences between a philosophy that has God as its starting point and a philosophy that has human beings as its starting point.

We need to know why, after more than 2,000 years, when just about every other philosophy gave God a starring role, people in the last couple hundred years or so have started trying to produce worldviews that exclude him. And we need to honestly look at the damage these attempts have caused.

To do this, we need to study the story of philosophy. What follows may be a long journey, but I’m committed to seeing how far I can guide you through this. We’ll start with two major worldviews that were in existence prior to the rise of Greek thought: the Hebrew and the Hindu.

Before we do that, however, I have a question (I usually do, right?): Until fairly recently, it was normally assumed that early beliefs and worldviews were automatically false. At the very least, they were considered inferior to the way we see things now. People use words like “primitive” to give the impression that people back then were crude and illogical and not as sophisticated as we are today.

I wonder if this tells us more about ourselves than it tells us about them.

Why do you think people are so quick to dismiss early belief systems? Do we really believe that the latest ideas are necessarily better than the earlier ones?

I’ve shared this information with some of you privately. I believe it is now time to share it publicly.

When we set out to plant a new church in Ventura County, we knew it would be very difficult. Not only were we attempting to plant a relevant church environment in a heavily unchurched area, we were also doing so in the midst of historic economic difficulties.

We knew it would be expensive and hard. We had no idea, however, just how bad the economy would sour in California — that the real estate market would lose 40% of its value or that the state would find itself $42 billion dollars in debt. We had no idea that the stock market would lose 18% of its value in a single month or that people might be forced to stop giving funds they had committed to our cause in order to keep their families fed.

I believe that the money we’ve raised has been put to good use, and people are discovering a safe place to bring their spiritual questions. However, River Park Community Church is now desperately close to running out of funds. It appears that our best recourse may be to pare down our staff significantly until things can stabilize. In other words, the best thing for this local church may be the worst thing for me and my family: I may need to move on.

At this point, there is very little I am sure about. I don’t know what the next steps are for the Turners. We still own our house in the Atlanta area, so that may be an option. There may be another church somewhere who wants a really bad pastor like me. I may find a job out here selling shoes or something. I really don’t know.

Here are three things I feel relatively sure about: (1) God has called me to provide for my family; (2) God has given me certain gifts (primarily of teaching and strategic thinking) to build up the body of Christ; (3) I should use the latter to accomplish the former.

Here are two things I feel absolutely sure about: (1) God is in control; (2) He has my best interests at heart.

Here is something I’m wondering about: Is there anyone out there who can help me?

Things have happened very quickly, and it appears that I will need to have some decisions made within the next couple of weeks. I need an income and a place to live.

It’s 2009, people. The times they have a-chang-ed. There’s a black man in the White House. There’s this thing called the Internet. We have hybrid cars that can tell you where the closest Thai restaurant is and park themselves when they get you there.

Of course, we still can’t sell Coke and Pepsi products in the same place, but that only serves as a reminder that we continue to live in a fallen world.

So, why — oh why — can’t we all just get along?

Maybe you think every person is created equal and should only be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Meanwhile, the man at the employment agency believes some races deserve preferential treatment.

Can’t we all just get along?

Maybe you think the government should protect the rights of unborn American children. Meanwhile, your college professor believes parents should have the right to terminate the life of a child up until the age of two or three.

Can’t we all just get along?

Maybe you think it’s important to tell your clients the truth about the actual cost of a project and the potential risks involved. Meanwhile, your boss wants you to spin things a little and use some fuzzy math here and there.

Can’t we all just get along?

Obviously, there are certain situations in which we can’t all just get along. And the reason I bring this up is because there was a time when it was actually possible to agree to disagree over fundamental issues of ethics and morality. You could go on believing that women are property and children are chattel. You just did that in your little corner of the world.

Over here in our little corner of the world we did things our way.

The problem now is that “over here” doesn’t seem as far and removed from “over there” as it used to. The world is shrinking and so are our options. If we are ever going to be able to “just get along”, we’re going to have to find some shared principles and beliefs.

But the real issue at stake isn’t whether your truth is better than my truth. The real issue we’re dealing with nowadays is whether there is any such thing as truth at all.

So…how do we proceed? We must have some agreement on fundamentals in order to co-exist. But who among us will arbitrate? Who will answer Pilate’s great question to Jesus: “Quid est veritas?”

Until we figure this out, we’ll never be able to get along.