Faith and Science

Tonight I am a resource at a Cru meeting on apologetics and will focus on Faith & Science.  I hope to have a brief handout which will include my email address and a link to this blog, so that I can provide additional resources.

The Bible's perspective

In Genesis 1 we see each part of the universe created deliberately as an act of God, as beautiful and good. The passage describes the earth "teeming" with life, and describes all of nature as created by God's pleasure in an orderly fashion.

It is reasonable to believe that the Creator of the universe, a universe with physical laws, uses those laws and processes to do his will.

Beginning in Job 38 and continuing for four chapters, God challenges Job to "step to the blackboard" and explain, even control, a variety of natural phenomena. Here are verses 4-11 at the beginning of that passage:

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?"

Acts 12:23 on Herod's death:
"Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died."

So which is it -- an angel struck him down or he was eaten by worms?  (Or both be true?)

Romans 1:20 -- Nature is a witness to God's work.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Psalm 8,

"Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
in the heavens...."

Psalm 19: 1-4,

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.

They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun."

Common Myths about Faith and Science

1. The Bible is a science textbook. (This belief, not supported by Scripture, leads to false assumptions by Christians about the world we live in. No, the earth is not flat....)

2. Hebrew scholars insist that creation must have been in six 24-hour days. (Some Young-Earth creationists claim, "Whenever yom [the Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1] is preceded by a numerical article we are forced to accept it as a literal day." A Hebrew scholar, Dr. J. Oliver Buswell reacts to that, "the very form of [this claim] reveals the fact that the author has never had a course in Hebrew...." Although there are different agreements about the various uses of the word yom in Genesis 1, there are significant hermeneutical errors in claiming it must be "24 hours".)

3. Faith is "blind faith", without any justification. (No, a better word might be "trust".  A Christian lives by "trust", relying on an invisible God whose actions may not always be seen.)

4. A naturalistic world view is completely rational and logical. (The argument used to justify naturalism is circular: "I dismiss anything outside the naturalistic world because there is nothing outside the naturalistic world.")

Some Resources that I recommend

American Scientific Affiliation (an organization of scientists who are Christians)

BioLogos (started by Francis Collins) focus on Evolution and Science. The organization is led by biologists who are Christians. BioLogos defends evolution from a Biblical Christian viewpoint.

Reasons to Believe (founded by Hugh Ross) focuses on scientific arguments for Christianity. RTB argues for progressive creation of some type (the universe is billions of years old) but does not endorse evolution.
Musings on Science and Theology, by RJS, is an excellent blog which covers a variety of issues of science and faith, especially as they relate to biology.

The following books are in my personal library. (I have another dozen books or more in my personal library, but these are my favorites.)

"Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy" (a guide for educators from the American Scientific Affiliation) -- email me for a pdf copy of this.

"Creation of Evolution?" by Charles Hummel, an Intervarsity pamphlet summarizing the issues.. A review appears here.

Science and its Limits, by Del Ratzsch, an excellent examination of what science can and cannot do.
The Language of God, by Francis Collins, explains why Collins sees science as providing evidence for God.

The Fingerprint of God, by Hugh Ross, explains why Ross sees science as providing evidence for God.

The Fourth Day, by Howard Van Till. Subtitle: "What the Bible and the Heavens are telling us about Creation".  The viewpoint of an astronomer.

Science Held Hostage, by Van Till, Young, Menninga.  Subtitle: "What Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism."
Evolution, Nature & Scripture in Conflict? by Pattle P. T. Pun. This a favorite of mine, as Pun aggressively dismantles the arguments for Young-Earth Creationism while carefully explaining what we know about biology and evolution... and scripture.

My contact information

My blog, with links: https://longingforabettercountry.blogspot.com

Email: KenWSmith54 (at) gmail (dot) com

The Trinity

Christians supposedly believe in "the Trinity", a popular but confusing doctrine that gives the impression that Christians believe in three gods. It is my conviction that Christians in the United States place far too much emphasis on minor doctrinal differences and are far too willing to forget their main mission (and love) in order to "take a stand" on confusing topics.  (See, for example, this blogpost that raises concerns about "complementarians" and the Trinity and this Wikipedia article for a history of some of the past viewpoints and disagreements!)

The theological concept of the "Trinity" of God dates to the second century and is an attempt to understand the way God is represented in creation, in Jesus and in the Holy Spirit. The concept is not explicit in the Scriptures, but various pieces of it are implied in certain passages.

That there is only one God, not three, is clear throughout Scripture. The Old Testament "Shema Israel" passage, in Deuteronomy 6:4, makes that a basic principle of the faith of Israel.

In John 1: 1-4, we are introduced to the Word (Logos) of God, the creative mind of God, with God from the beginning of creation, finally made flesh (John 1:14) in the appearance of Jesus.

In Hebrews 1: 1-3, Jesus is similarly described as the one through whom the universe was made. Furthermore, he is the "exact representation" of God. I cannot read those passages without reading the claim that Jesus is God, in some human representation of him.

In John 14: 16-17, Jesus promises to send "a Comforter" who will live within his followers and we see this Comforter appear at Pentecost in Acts 2.  The early church seemed to view the Holy Spirit as the presence of God (or Jesus) internally guiding the believer and Paul seems to explicitly identify the Holy Spirit with Jesus (eg. II Corinthians 3:17.)

There is a popular explanation of the Trinity in a diagram (see below.) The diagram makes no sense to me, as it violates our understanding of "is" or "equal."  As a mathematician, if God=Son and God=Father then Father=Son by the transitive property of equality!  Apparently the word "is" here means something different than the way I typically use it.  I am uncomfortable with an argument that relies (to quote an American president) "on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

That people consider this important is clear.  But it is not important that a Christian sort this out. If the Bible only provides a sketch of the complexity of God, I see no obligation to take that sketch and create an intricate (and flawed) systematic theology. Nor am I obligated to endorse someone else's detailed (and flawed) theology.

The website GotQuestions.org attempts to lay out the Biblical theology for the Trinity.  There is some good material these, including a number of related Old Testament passages.  But I appreciate most that the site wisely ends with this paragraph:

"The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God's greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34)."

Ruth, Dreamers... and a Plea

The Old Testament books of Joshua and Judges describe the pagan nations that routinely fought the young nation of Israel, attempting to destroy it.

One of these evil pagan nations was Moab.

In the midst of this history, in the time of the Judges, a pagan woman, a Moabite refugee, enters the small Judean town of Bethlehem. In Bethlehem she is welcomed and protected. And in the sovereign plan of God, she has a son (a "Redeemer".) Her great-grandchild is David, a future king. In her lineage is the Messiah, the Son of David.

The line of Jesus goes back through this Moabite refugee welcomed by the village of Bethlehem.

The book of Ruth displays God's sovereign plans, the ways that God works out, over a long period of time, His redemption. The short book of Ruth is a beautiful work. Read through it slowly!  Read it as a romance, if you will, between Ruth and Boaz ... and between God and the widow and orphan.

Do not miss an undercurrent theme in the book of Ruth -- indeed, throughout the Old Testament -- the emphatic insistence that the people of Israel were to welcome the alien and the stranger. God worked through the "alien and stranger". In the Old Testament there are two, three dozen explicit instructions to welcome, protect and shield the alien!

And so, to my Christian friends, a plea –

   IF you have looked at the heartbeat of a fetus and -- knowing that it had a beating heart and felt pain -- if in love for the vulnerable fetus, you have taken a stand for the unborn,
   IF you are aware of those sweet children who are born with an extra copy of chromosome 21 and if you have then acted in love for those with Downs Syndrome (some of you even have started calling it Ups Syndrome!)

THEN, as your brother in Christ, seeking to speak in the Holy Spirit, I plea with you, I beg, that you consider the plight of the "undocumented aliens" and those "dreamers" around you who love this country, their home!

They are in your block.  They live near you and go to your church.

Please, walk down the block, cry with them and pray with them! And then (as you would for the unborn and those with Downs) take a stand for the Immigrant. Reach out to your congressional representative and ask that our country find a way to legally welcome these people who love the USA and who are doing so much for our beautiful country!

My wife and I are currently involved in a Christian ministry that includes at least three students who have publicly identified themselves as DACA recipients.  These friends are anxious and frightened. Last year they studied hard, hoping to soon graduate and start a career. Now they are afraid that in six months they will be deported to a country they do not know.

And IF you are sympathetic with the unborn and IF you are sympathetic with those with Downs but can still turn your back on the Dreamers – if you as a Christian, but can ignore two dozen Old Testament passages on the immigrant  – if you can find words like "Obama" or "America" or "Muslim extremist" to ignore that scared neighbor down the block – then your conscience has been seared.  I pray, in Jesus name, that you RESET your conscience – that you put Jesus above your job and your country – and I beg that you weep with the dreamers and then act to protect them.  If Jesus is your Lord and Savior, if your Master is concerned about the unborn and the child with Downs, then please prayerfully, slowly, read through the last half of Matthew 25, read the book of Ruth, read through the more than two dozen Old Testament commands, and see your dreamer neighbor as God does!

Republican, Democrat or Independent, this issue is above American politics. It is an issue for Christians, residents of a different country (Hebrews 11:13-16.)  Please, act as a citizen of that eternal kingdom!

Some Teachings of Jesus (21st Century Texas Version)

In modern 21st century USA, it is common for people to use Christianity as a comfortable crutch, offering a convenient spiritual side to their lives.  But Christianity was never intended that way; Jesus never made the religious people feel comfortable but challenged them at every turn.  To make that point, let's take a few of his statements and simply move them into the 21st century American culture.

Matthew 23: 1 - 13, 23
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The religious leaders preach from their Sunday pulpits, with lots of helpful teachings on honesty and morality.  Do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They create large churches with choirs that praise their country.  They love the place of honor on talk shows and political campaigns. They love to be seen in the White House, in pictures praying with the president.  They love the title of Evangelical Leader....

 “Woe to you, religious leaders and evangelical pastors, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces....  You have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. 

Luke 9: 25 - 37
On one occasion a religious leader stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”...

“What does the Bible say?” Jesus asked. “How do you read it?”

The religious leader answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said, “A black family lived in an apartment in Houston's Fifth Ward when a terrible flood destroyed their home. Trapped and drowning in the rising flood waters, they called out for help. 

A large nearby church had water damage and said, 'We are not ready yet.' 

FEMA said, 'Shipments are on the way.' 

But two Dreamers, illegal immigrants, got out their fishing boat and rode the waves and waters into the apartment complex.  They pulled the family out, took them and their pets to dry land and found shelter for them. These two paid, out of their own small savings, for food and water for the family and prayed with them.

Which of these three, the church, the government, or the illegal immigrant, was their neighbor?"

The religious expert replied, “The one who had mercy on them.”

Jesus told him, “Yes. Go and do likewise.”

(Sadly, as I write this, a Dreamer has died helping others in the Houston flood waters. See this article.)

Conclusion

"Most people want Jesus as a consultant rather than a king". 

 (A quote of Tim Keller, passed on to me by a friend.)  

If we seek to have Jesus as king, instead of a comfortable consultant, we will struggle.  We will not fit into the current religious system. We will recognize that the religious system loves prestige and power and ignores the poor. But if Jesus is King, we have no choices here. He rejected prestige and power and he cared for the poor. We must have the same view.

I make no claims that this is easy or that I manage to accomplish this. But I must try.

On the Confederate Flag

My ancestors fought for the confederacy; one served in the Georgia 53rd Infantry Regiment throughout the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War he was an overseer on a Georgia plantation; after the war he moved his destitute family to Cass County, Texas.

I grew up in east Texas with a confederate flag in my bedroom. I was taught that that symbol represented the regional pride of the South.

I was proud of my Southern heritage ... until I became a Christian in high school. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, I then understood that ALL of us are equally loved and adored by God. God favors NO race. Indeed, my Savior, Jesus, was the brown-skinned Messiah of the Jews!

Every culture has its strengths; every culture has it sins. A love for the South is part of my heritage and I embrace that. But the South also has its sins. I am especially moved by the Christian forgiveness encapsulated in a speech of Dr. King:

"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 one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

God has allowed me to sit at the table of brotherhood -- amongst the red hills of Georgia! -- with sons and daughters of former slaves. It was a joyful experience for me.

As a follower of the Messiah, I repudiate the symbolism of the confederate flag. It is today a symbol of racism and race hatred. I react to it with nausea. I have no respect for that flag and I pray for those who see anything positive, in this day, in displaying that flag.

Is the Church Anti-Science?

Is the church anti-science?

This was a question posed by the local chapter of Ratio Christi and the topic I chose to discuss at one of the Friday meetings of this group.

Is the church anti-science?  Yes.

And No.

To really look at this question carefully, we need to define Science and Church.  By "the Church" I simply mean the visible representation of Christianity, across time (but with an emphasis on present day.)  Related to "the Church" is the concept of "Biblical teaching", that is, concepts that are expressed or taught by Scripture.

By "Science" I mean the knowledge built up from investigation, experimentation and measurement. (From Wikipedia, "Science ... builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.")

Is it Church or Culture?

The culture I live in (early 21st century USA) is often ignorant of scientific concepts, unaware of the meanings of probability and correlation and is confused about the role of scientific experiment.

In our culture, people misjudge lottery odds, see a cold snap as disproving global warming, drink coca-cola (or coffee or red wine) based on a news reports about a recent "scientific discovery". At times this is humorous (I love Big Bang Theory) but society's abuse of science can be deadly, for example, when it comes to serious misunderstandings about vaccines or tobacco.  (One example of a significant misunderstanding in Italy led to geologists being charged with manslaughter after an earthquake, see here.)

Our culture reveres scientists and yet, at the same time, makes fun of them and feels threatened by them.  These different reactions are connected.  They are due to significant misunderstanding of scientific development.  It is easy to fear someone that is highly revered or appears very powerful, whether a scientist, wizard or politician.

Because of the reverence for science, our culture often hears of "scientific" concepts that support a certain viewpoint (or corporate product) but which may have no real relationship to scientific experimentation.

The church in America (sadly) reflects our culture.  Everything said about our society can be said about the church in America.

The conflict between science and faith

Although the church in America reflects our culture, there is a sharper conflict between the church and science (on some levels) because of the nature of religious faith and practice.  This is often expressed as "Faith versus Science" but this phrase is misleading.

The conflict might be better described as "Conviction versus Science". And in this realm there is some legitimacy to claims by scientists that certain aspects of the Church rebuff scientific investigation and discovery.

The attacks by scientists on "faith" is easily deflected. Where religious people use the word "faith", many of us might use "trust".  We "trust" God based on our experiences and reasoning about the nature of God and most of us don't use "blind faith", despite the claim by (almost) every atheist that we do!

However the church often asks for "complete conviction" on issues where there is not a Biblical need for confidence.  The church (in various times and places) has insisted that its followers affirm a set of beliefs and has not allowed questioning or dissent.

It is OK to say, "I don't know"

If you think you know all the answers, then a genuine seeker, one who is thoughtful and mature,  will tend to shy away from you, for they will see your confident answers as simplistic attempts to cover up deep problems.

This is true in science. Most genuine scientists have lots of questions about almost everything, including the nature of the universe and the existence of God or the actions of God in the universe. If our faith makes us claim to know all the answers (to very hard questions!) then we should not be surprised if they shy away.

Two stories

Years ago, I had a friend, a philosophy professor, tutor me through a number of the great works of philosophy, beginning with Plato's Republic.  (I think we spent a year in Plato's Republic! It was wonderful!)  After two to three years of this conversational friendship -- with me learning much more from him than he from me -- my friend called me up one Saturday morning and said, "Ken, I just thought you should know, since you wear your religion on your shirt sleeves, that I have decided to set aside the next semester to study God and learn how to love God."  Our years of philosophy conversation had led me to a place where I was certainly more humble than I had been before and I think it also contributed (a little?) to my friend's decision to make God and Christ the focus of his personal philosophy and beliefs.

This occurred because I wanted to learn and I genuinely enjoyed our friendship. I was not confident and sure of everything.

I did not make my friend an evangelistic target.

Another time, I was invited to be in a debate over Christianity and Atheism.  This debate was hosted by the university Philosophy Club and would  take the following format: each side would have a student advocate and a professor advocate.  I and a philosophy major (who happened to attend my church) would defend Christianity and debate an atheist philosophy professor and another philosophy student.  I agreed to the debate, on the condition that my professorial opponent go out with me for beers afterwards.  This condition was acceped, indeed, two philosophy professors joined me for drinks afterwards at a local pub.

In the debate I took the stance that I was still learning and still seeking answers. I was weary of the stereotypical church stance, "I know all the answers and have no doubts."  In fact, I was quite willing to admit to having lots of questions. (I had learned a great deal from my philosophy tutor, mentioned earlier!)  It was somewhat easy for me to take this "humble approach" since everyone knew I was a mathematics professor and not a philosophy professor!

I think the debate went well.  There were some things I could have answered better, and at least once, in a question from a genuine seeker, I clearly missed the mark.  (Some of the fumbling on my part were overcome by a very articulate young Christian woman who was my partner in the debate!)

One of the things that is still vivid to me from the debate is that in the Question and Answer period at the end of the debate, several guys sitting in the back row tried to "fix" my answers.  I had not come across as the confident Christian they knew I should have been!  I had not corrected some the "errors" of my opponents.  These young college men did not really ask questions but made a number of strong statements in support of Christianity.  They acted out the very stereotype I had tried to avoid -- they knew all the answers and were frustrated that I was so dumb.  (Or so it seemed.)

I don't think anyone was convinced by the cocky claims of these young men.  I appreciate their desire to serve Jesus, but the questions we were discussing were hard! If you are 22 and think you have all the answers, the main thing you communicate will be your youthfulness, not your wisdom!

At the pub afterwards, I had an enjoyable evening.  I asked lots of questions.  At one point I suggested a trade -- we each should share the most vulnerable aspects of our own beliefs.  What is the weakest part of our beliefs?  (I love that question!)  My answer was, "The existence of evil."  Both of my friends (one an aggressive atheist, the other agnostic) said, quickly, "The issue of design."  The universe seems beautiful.  It has the "illusion" of design.  If anything keeps an atheist awake at night (listening to my friends) it would be the nagging belief that maybe the beauty and design of the universe is not illusion!

Question authority!

The modern science vs. religion debate is much more complicated than popular science would imply. (See, for example, the Galileo dispute.)

Unfortunately, some within the Christian community attempt a "homerun" against science, trying to derail scientific reasoning by claiming evidence for a "young earth". As people in the church argue for a young earth, other Christians in the sciences push back against this.  This has been going on for a long time! More recently, in the last decade, a number of Christians have confronted the half-truth approach of young-earth organizations such as Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. It is my opinion that Christians need to be more aggressive in confronting groups like AIG or ICR. These groups make a mockery of the depth and complexity of the Bible and Christian belief. I appreciate posts like this review of a recent Christian film on creation.

There are a variety of good resources for Christians in the sciences. For example, here for an article from Reasons to Believe (an organization started by astronomer Hugh Ross.)  Reasons to Believe (RTB) also has some nice articles on engaging the Church in intellectual pursuits.  I recommend this article at RTB. (I appreciate colleague Darren Williams recommending this link to me.)

I personally recommend BioLogos, started by NIH director, Francis Collins. A related excellent blog is Musings on Science and Theology by RJS, a Michigan scientist who is a friend of a friend.

At some point it comes down to us. What do we say within the church and how do we say it?  (I led a class on Science and Creation at a church, working through parts of Genesis.  I am also more confrontational with AIG people....)

At times the emphasis on conviction is on the other foot: see typical simplistic Facebook quotes of Bertrand Russell.

It is OK to not know, to be unsure, to have questions. But don't stop with the questions!

Believing in God in a Children's Hospital

In the twentieth century we had bumper stickers on cars. A "bumper sticker mentality" described beliefs so simplistic that they could be put on a bumper sticker.  The modern version of this simplicity is the Facebook meme, a simplistic idea that spreads on Facebook, shared by the small percentage of people who actually agree with the simplistic post. (Did I mention that these ideas are simplistic??)

Here is a meme that recently came across my FB feed:

This FB bumper sticker briefly mentions two legitimate issues in philosophy and religion, but, of course, it just touches on the tip of these philosophical icebergs, as if they were shallow concepts, not deep. An atheist may attempt to explain away beauty as mere illusion while Christians must deal with the problem of evil and pain.

A children's hospital will rub one's face in the problem of pain.

But the problem of evil has a long and deep discussion within Christian philosophy, going back to the book of Job in the Old Testament and discussed in some depth by C. S. Lewis in  his book  The Problem of Pain at the end of World War II.

I am vividly reminded of this meme by some recent visits to a hospital, Children's Minnesota in St. Paul.

Most of us do not visit children's hospitals because we are curious or because we have philosophical questions. For many of us, a visit to a children's hospital is forced on us by the pain and grief of an ill child that we dearly love. Years ago, Jan and I visited a children's hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, at the invitation of a frightened young couple whose daughter was critically ill. I recall tearing up and crying, just getting off the elevator. The sight of numerous children bundled into hospital beds with anxious parents standing nearby -- all that innocent suffering -- it was overwhelming.  

I had the same feeling this time. This time the sick little girl was my granddaughter and the anxious parents were my son and daughter-in-law. This deepened the pain. We cried and prayed over the little bundle in the hospital bed and worried and hoped -- and then rejoiced -- as she slowly got better.

During the week that our granddaughter was in the PICU at Children's Minnesota, she was treated by devoted nurses and doctors. This began in the hurried flurry of activity in the ER as the little girl was admitted and then continued throughout the week.  (We have hopes that our granddaughter will be discharged later in the coming week!)  

In addition to experienced and dedicated staff, there were a variety of other support services, including the Ronald McDonald Family Room in a nearby wing of the hospital. The "Family Room" has friendly staff and many awesome resources for parents and family members dealing with a child in a nearby wing. The "Family Room" includes four private sleeping rooms and a kitchen with lots of different foods (some ready to be microwaved.) There was a bright, exceptional children’s play area with staff who were ready to play with young children. Guest could do laundry, take a shower, nap, relax, recover.  They could talk to other families; home-cooked meals are offered on a regular schedule. Yes, it is traumatic to have a child in this part of the hospital but the staff understand the suffering and they help families eat, sleep, grieve and then hurry back to hovering over their child’s bed. Alex and Sierra had opportunities to meet other anxious couples at the Ronald McDonald house during their visits.

If there is to be pain and evil in the world, I am grateful that there are places like a children's hospital, where one can see a variety of caring people reaching out, as a hand of God, to hurting families. Each actor, whether doctor, nurse, security, or Family Room staff, each seems to be using his or her talents in critical acts of compassion.  I am grateful to God for children's hospitals. 

The Samaritans

Any reader of the New Testament learns that there is a collection of people called "the Samaritans." They are mentioned by Jewish leaders in derogatory ways (in the Gospel of John, for example) while Jesus uses them in his story about the "Good Samaritan."  The Samaritans represent a New Testament ethnic and racial division and it is interesting to see how Jesus interacts with the Samaritans.

To the devout Jew, the Samaritans were a mixed breed, involved in a false version of Judaism. To many the term "Samaritan" was derogatory. When Nicodemus challenges the Jewish leaders in John, they respond by calling him a Samaritan.

The Samaritans developed as a separate, distinct portion of Israel, probably around the time of the Assyrian invasion in 721 BCE. They may have originated from the northern tribes of Israel and were later accused of intermarriage with the local, pagan inhabitants.  A lengthy Wikipedia article on the Samaritans provides considerable details of their history.

In that racial environment, Jesus goes out of his way to include them in his ministry.  He deliberately begins a conversation with a single Samaritan woman in John 4, breaking a number of social taboos. He heals Samaritans in the gospels.  He uses a Samaritan as his central figure in a lecture on the meaning of the phrase "Love your neighbor" (see Luke 10: 30-37.)  Luke's gospel also records Jesus healing ten lepers; it is the Samaritan who returns to thank him (Luke 17: 11-19.) In John 8, Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan, a charge which he does not refute.  (He is also charged with being demon-possessed and does respond to that accusation.)

In Acts, Samaria is the next region, after Judea, to be evangelized. (Acts 1:8, Acts 8:1-25.)

Throughout the gospels, contrary to the religious leaders, Jesus is seen as deliberately singling out the Samaritan in a positive manner, looking to them, defending them.  Both the gospel accounts of Luke and John emphasize this, Luke because after the Good News of the Jewish Messiah reached those dirty Samaritans, it went on even further, to people completely outside the world of Israel, to the Greek Gentiles who needed a Savior.  Luke was one.

In our own lives there a Samaritans that are easy to dismiss or reject.  If we can see them as Jesus did... then we will be modeling the citizenship of Heaven.