On "Making Sense of God, An Invitation to the Skeptical"

I just started reading Timothy Keller's new book, "Making Sense of God, An Invitation to the Skeptical", and it is so insightful and intriguing that I find myself taking notes and responding to it.
This series, then, will consist both of quotes from Keller's book and my own responses to it. In this sense it is not a review, critique, or a study guide; rather, this series will be my attempt to synthesize and summarize what I have studied and experienced over my life-- that is, what I have learned and have come to believe.

So, I start with these two quotes: the first from the preface where Keller defines "secular" and the second is from Chapter One, "Isn't Religion Going Away?"

"A secular person is one who does not know if there is a God 

or any supernatural realm beyond the natural world. 

Everything, in this view, has a scientific explanation."

"Strict secularism holds that people are only physical entities without souls,

that when loved ones die they simply cease to exist,

that sensations of love and beauty are just neurological-chemical events,

that there is no right or wrong outside of what we 

in our minds determine and choose."

The first quote is Keller's definition--the one he will use throughout his book--so I won't respond to it. It comes from his forty years of working in Manhatten and talking with the skeptics and seekers prevalent there, as well as with believers, both strong in their faith and those trying to maintain their faith in the materialistic culture of New York.

I, on the other hand, have only rarely had a personal conversation with someone who would admit to believing all that Keller describes in the second quote. I have, however, known some people who do hold to the second and fourth parts of  that description.

One man in his eighties and recovering from surgery, responded to my query about his readiness to die with the statement that he was ready because it would essentially mean the end of his struggle. He went on to say that he believed that this life is all there is--that once he died that would be the end of him. I was surprised at this answer since he was a fellow church member, and I assumed that he had the Christian hope of eternal life with God.

And on the fourth part of Keller's quote--the part about right and wrong--I know many people who reject biblical standards in favor of having a cafeteria approach to morality. Right and wrong are what they determine them to be. In many ways they are "good" people--some by comparison are better than I am. But on certain moral issues the word "sin" for them does not apply.

I have to say that my own life is not fully consistent with biblical standards. I must admit that I am included in this verse in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." This is why I am so grateful for the grace of God through Jesus Christ as seen in Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" and in Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes...".

I know I need grace and to be saved from my sinful nature. That, it appears, is what differentiates me from the "secular" person Keller describes: one who knows they need forgiveness from those they have harmed but not from a God they don't believe exists.

I do believe God exists and that Jesus Christ came not just to teach us how to live, but to make eternal life with God possible, reconciling us (and me in particular) to God by his sacrificial death, resurrection, and his presence in my life in the person of the Holy Spirit.

I'm eager to read more of Keller's book, for I hope it will help me give hope to others who are asking, "Is this all there is?"

How To Sell Your Current Home And Buy Another

"Can I find the new home I want and then sell my current home?" That is a question I get often, and my answer is always the same, "It depends."

Most of the time a client asks that question, what they really are asking is whether they can make an offer on a new home contingent on selling theirs. In most markets the answer is a definite, "No". Rarely will everything align to make it reasonable for a home Seller to accept an offer that has a home-to-sell contingency. That would just give total control of the sale of the Seller's home to the Buyer, with no guarantees and with no ability to accept another offer.

Here are the most common ways a Seller can sell their home and buy another. Almost all of them have some good features and some not so good.

1. Find the new home and write an offer to buy it with cash. Then sell your current home. This is a non-contingent offer that requires you to have sufficient cash on hand to buy the new home. For those able to do it, this has many great advantages: you have a better chance of your offer being accepted; you can take your time moving out of your current home; and you don't have the problem of losing the house you really like because you don't have your home on the market yet.
2. Find the new home and write an offer to buy it with a loan. Then sell your current home. This is a non-contingent offer that requires you to have sufficient down payment cash on hand and the income to get the loan. If you have a loan balance on your current home, you must have enough income to qualify for the new loan and continue making your current home's payment. This is almost as good as option #1 except that it often produces some anxiety about making two house payments.
   
   If you are over 62, you might have an option of using a Reverse Mortgage to buy the new home. This option has some special requirements, so we definitely need to talk about them.
   
3. Put your home on the market to sell, and then write an offer on the new home when yours is Under Contract. In my experience, this is the option most move-up or move-down clients have to choose. They don't have the cash or the income to buy a home without having theirs sold first. It does allow you to write an acceptable offer though, even if your home is not closed yet. Most Sellers will accept an offer contingent on the closing of a property that is Under Contract and due to close at a reasonable date. Sometimes they require that your contract is beyond the inspection contingency date, however.
   What I generally do in this situation is start looking at homes to buy as soon as we put your home on the market. This allows you to find the neighborhood where you want to live, and to identify one or more homes that you would like to buy. Then, once an offer on your home is accepted, we go back to those homes you have pre-selected and that are still available (along with other new listings in those areas).
4. Buying a new builder's home is a different situation. Unless the builder has an inventory home that you like, you have to plan to get your home sold before the new one will be available. This generally involves selling your home, living in a temporary home or apartment, and then moving into the new home when it is completed.
   This is very common for new builder home buyers because the builders will require a non-contingent status in their contracts. At some point in the construction schedule, they will require you to either have your home sold and closed or to sign a waiver of contingency. That means you agree to proceed with the purchase of the new home and you can demonstrate that you have the resources to buy it even if your home doesn't sell first.

Every situation is unique, so if you are thinking of moving that will likely involve selling your home and buying another one, call me. I can help you work through all the options open to you. For all my contact information, see www.antleproperties.net. 

Another friend from church, Evan Mazunik, posted a comment on Facebook with a link to this article, by Samuel Whitefield " Four Issues to Consider Before You Vote Trump – What is Really at Stake and said this: "I found the following article convicting & illuminating: '...a Clinton presidency is not the biggest thing at stake in this election. The biggest thing at stake in this election is the church’s prophetic voice to the culture.'"

In the article linked to, Samuel Whitefield shares his concern that “the church”, and in particular “the evangelical church” is too closely tied with politics; and again too closely tied in particular with the Republican party.

He obviously took a long time to research and write his 20 page, 9,000-word article; and I don’t have the time to react to all of it. I just have these three things to say in response:

(1)  There is no “the evangelical church”. Yes, some religious leaders or organizations have come out in public support of Trump, but evangelicals are fragmented. There is no longer a “moral majority” with political power. Even the Tea Party movement (which is not necessarily evangelical) is not unified.

    Whitefield says “Now is the time for the church to break free of every political machine in order to become a prophetic voice to the nation.”; and closely below that says “As a church we have put too little value on our call to be a prophetic witness to the nation. We have allowed the siren call of political saviors to obscure our higher calling to function in society as a voice with a single allegiance.”

To have a prophetic voice with a single allegiance, requires a unified Body of Christ. When Christians can’t even agree on what style of music leads to the most sincere worship, agreement on a highly complex political issue or candidate is a pipe dream.

(2)  America (or “the evangelical church”) is not necessarily looking for a savior. But a super majority says the country is headed in the wrong direction. The “Church” has a prophetic role to play, but it is not to inveigh against a particular candidate for president or advocate for another. Its prophetic role is to lift up Jesus as the Savior and preach that we have hope only in God leading Christians to trust in Jesus and non-Christians to see the hopelessness of trusting in any person.

(3)  Yes, there are several evangelical pastors and leaders who have endorsed Trump. They get the headlines and TV appearances. However, there is no single leader of evangelical Christians, so who does Whitefield endorse to be the “prophetic voice” that will effectively separate “the evangelical church” from the Republican party or from Trump?

In conclusion, Samuel Whitefield is a voice on the same side of the argument as John Mark Reynolds. Wayne Grudem (and others not cited) are on the opposite side. The argument is whether a Christian (or “the evangelical church”) can, should, or should not support Donald Trump. Each has an opinion, and each argument is pretty much one-sided. Each speaks for himself; none speak for me.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion, friends. Now I think I better get back to my main responsibilities.

Philosophers Argue On Whether A Vote For Trump Is Moral. I'm still left with a dilemma.

Two well-known Christian philosophy professors disagree on whether voting for Trump is a positive moral choice or a "wicked deed" that will stain any person who does so.

After reading both of them (see links below), I am still left with a dilemma: is there a Christian reason, a moral reason, to vote for Trump, Clinton, or neither?

I like my friend Ken Roberts' take on the situation--"I personally believe we have two lousy presidential candidates; but one of them will be our next president. At this point we must shift our thinking and decide which of the two parties will best represent my values."  (See his complete comment at  https://www.facebook.com/ken.roberts.5836/posts/1362735437089056 .)

I too have concluded that I have to shift from trying to choose which of two extremely undesirable candidates would make the best president (or the least worst president) to decide which party would best represent my values. I even like that he said "my values" because each voter has to decide that for himself or herself.

The articles in question are:

Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice, by Wayne Grudem, and A Good Man Justifies a Wicked Deed: Grudem on Trump, by John Mark Reynolds.

I originally said that I was also a long-time fan of John Mark Reynolds, but I saw that he wrote for Patheos.com and I confused him with another Patheos.com writer, Mark D. Roberts (whom I heartily recommend).  I can hear and agree with the anguish in Reynold's post about Grudem's article concerning the moral dilemma intrinsic in this year's election. I want to agree with Grudem. And, I can't find any of Reynolds' complaints about Trump that I disagree with. So I am left with without any candidate I can vote for without feeling disgusted.

Yet, in the end, I must decide. The Supreme Court argument Grudem makes is a strong one, although it leaves me with the feeling that I'm making an "end justifies the means" choice. Or perhaps more to the point, I feel like I'm in one of those bad moral choices offered in an ethics class which presents two options that are both unthinkable--a true moral dilemma. And, unlike Captain Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test, we can't just change the rules (or "cheat") to come up with a third alternative.

Not to decide is to decide, but the lazy way to do it. Not to vote is to vote, and is also the lazy way to do it.

After my original comment on Facebook, I needed to add this. Having re-read the articles by both Grudem and Reynolds, I have one complaint about the one by Reynolds. He excoriates Trump for his character (rightly in my view) and says he is “manifestly unworthy of the office of President of the United States.” He categorically states that “if we follow Professor Grudem’s advice we will lose this election and lose all moral authority to say character counts in the White House.

But Reynolds does not, in this article, give the reader a similar critique of Hillary Clinton (or even a link to another article with a similar critique of her character). Is the reader to infer that if we vote for Clinton, or don’t vote at all, we will retain the moral authority to say that character counts in the White house?

Grudem is not balanced either—he does cite some of Trump’s “flaws”, but devotes most of his article to giving reasons to vote for him anyway, many of them tied to the current and future vacancies in the Supreme Court. Reynolds does not acknowledge even one possible reason for voting for Trump (or against Clinton); and in spite of having the Supreme Court seal accompanying his article, he does not address Grudem’s argument on this point at all. In fact, he doesn’t even mention the Court.

Reynolds, like Grudem, is a well-known author and professor. After reading his response to Grudem, I checked out his biography and some additional Patheos posts; and I’m very impressed. Had he mentioned or linked to his Patheos post from July 29, 2016, “Maybe Cyrus is Cyrus: Pray God sends Help” his one-sided critique on July 30, 2016 would be easier to accept. However, even in that blog post there is not a good answer. For this election, it does not appear that God is sending a Cyrus to save the day.

Again, I don’t find anything Reynolds wrote about Trump’s character that I can deny.

I am still left with the dilemma that Ken Roberts stated so clearly: one of them will be president. How should I vote? I will pray and I will vote.

Likely, though, I’ll not be voting for the candidate but for the party that I think will give better the country what is needed for the next four years.