Formless and Empty: Genesis Meets Science Part 3

I’ve written before about how science and Genesis 1:1 tell the same story of the beginning of the universe. Regarding the very first moment of time, the Biblical account of creation and the big bang model of the universe share many striking similarities. But what comes next? Do the stories continue to agree, or do they part ways?

The answer may surprise you.

For this article, let’s focus our efforts on the following verse:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

~Genesis 1:2 (KJV)

When we read this passage, most Christians are probably going to visualize something like a world completely covered by oceans, partly because “the deep” is a common term that we use in order to avoid repeating boring words like ocean or sea or water (because one can never have too many words which describe the same thing), and partly because we know that subsequent verses mention the waters being separated by dry land.

But that mental image is wrong on many levels.

What Is The "Value" Of Life? (What If Atheists Are Right, Part 2)

When debating the questions of existence with an atheist, at some point the value of human life will inevitably arise. This happened with my previous post, when a viewer on my YouTube channel challenged the idea that eternal life would be valuable. She said quite correctly that scarcity gives items, even our time, higher value. It’s basically Economics 101: supply and demand. Simple concept. For example…

In the US today, we tend to take water for granted. It’s typically abundant and cheap. But elsewhere in the world, that’s not necessarily the case. Desert-dwelling societies put a much higher value on water, and access to water may play a central role in their economy. But where I live, I pay about $30-$40 a month and I can shower, do laundry, run the tap, and flush the pooper as much as I want.

Water is an absolute necessity for life as we know it, so it makes sense that a scarcity of it makes it that much more valuable to us. But humans also place high value on a lot of things that are not necessary for survival at all.

What If Atheists Are Right?

Atheists are quick to point out the differences between religions (and especially between different denominations of the same religion) as proof that people of faith have failed to come to any kind of
consensus. That alone, they say, is enough to prove that faith is nothing more than a bunch of superstitious hogwash. But they are overlooking something when they resort to this argument. Even though there are literally thousands of different religions, there is one factor that they all have in common.

I’m going to call it “continuity.”

According to the Pew Research Center, 84% of the people on this planet are affiliated with a religion. This means that the vast majority of humanity shares the belief that there is something more to our
existence than this life. Whether it’s Heaven, Nirvana, reincarnation, or returning your energy to the cosmos, people of faith all believe that some aspect of what we call “us” continues to exist beyond physical death.

Hence… continuity.

Atheists say that this is all there is, and when you die… it’s GAME OVER.

Now, I love science. Almost more than I love barbeque. Probably less than pizza… I also believe that there is more to reality than science can explain. But… what if I’m wrong? If atheists are right, and science is the only appropriate way to interpret reality, what does the future look like for humanity as a species?

In the Beginning: Big Bang or the Bible?

For as long as I can remember, there has been a battle
raging between the Bible and science.

Actually, let me correct that statement: there has
been a battle raging between proponents of the Bible and proponents of science.
The battle is between people, and that’s an important distinction, because
science and the Bible are not enemies.

Human beings are generally FAR too eager to choose
sides in arguments, and then once a side has been chosen, to completely
disregard, discredit, and even attempt to destroy the other side. That’s what
has happened in the so-called “debate” between scientists and believers - BUT
believe it or not, science and the Bible get along just fine.

The first sentence of the Bible is: In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth. In case you were wondering, “the heavens and the earth”
means… everything. The Bible says quite plainly that the only reason that there
is “something” instead of “nothing” is because God made it. He made it all!

Contrary to what some new-age religions claim, God and
the universe are not the same thing. He is the creator, not the creation, and
as such, He exists independently, outside of that creation, and - according to causality
- He must have existed BEFORE what He created.

Even if you’ve never heard the term “causality,” you’re
probably quite familiar with it by its other name: the law of cause and effect.
Those two words must occur in that order. CAUSE first, EFFECT second. Any
observable effect happens after whatever caused it. It’s a very common sense
type of thinking, but it’s also one of the cornerstones of modern science.

Ten Principles of Success You NEED to Practice

So here’s what happened. I was working on research for a completely different topic, having a little trouble zeroing in on the main idea, when I stumbled across a list I had written some years ago. As it turns out, the list consisted of ten points -or principles- about success, and it became instantly clear that THIS was to be the next project.

The principles in the list that follows are not necessarily gentle, comforting sentiments. They are neither warm nor fuzzy, though they are intended to be helpful.  And by the way, that warm, fuzzy feeling people try to use to inspire you can actually be a destructive thing. 

Why is that? 

It’s because of the Participation Trophy Effect, which gives one the false impression that any outcome is acceptable - praiseworthy, in fact - even when the results are less than stellar.  They say, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions,” and this kind of feel-good approach to success based on repetitive unconditional affirmation is a perfect example of good intentions gone wrong.

This approach actually does more harm than good in the long run.  Part of this is because it holds us back from producing our very best results by failing to provide a motivation for improvement. But this method is also ultimately self-defeating. At some point, you will inevitably encounter serious criticism (now it might be a fair, unbiased, valid critique of your performance, or it might be someone trolling you - either way, the result is the same). If our only exposure to feedback has been in an echo chamber of safe-space trigger-free bubble-wrapped mumbo-jumbo, any criticism that comes our way will likely be crippling.

A truly meaningful, positive self-image can only be built by realistic evaluation. Warm, fuzzy feelings pale in comparison to the satisfaction you feel when you have actually had to overcome some serious difficulties in order to accomplish something.  So, the following comments are intended to point you toward something spectacular, and then push you forward.

Romans 14 and Doubtful Things

In Romans chapter 14, the Apostle Paul addresses a conflict between certain believers at the church in Rome. Two issues were brought up, actually. The first one was about food. Specifically, some people thought that it was wrong to eat meat, and that believers should only eat vegetables. The second issue was about which holy days should be observed.

And Paul gave them the same answer for both questions:

Let each be convinced in his own mind. In other words, that issue isn’t really worth the stress it would place on one's relationship with other believers, so Paul suggests that the best resolution in cases like this is to simply live and let live.

If you want to eat only veggies, fine, do that. But if you like a good steak, feel free to chow down! Observe whichever holy days you see fit to observe - or don’t. Just be sure of two things:

1) That you are honoring God in your heart as you are doing (or not doing) these things, and…

2) Don’t try to force your opinion about these things on other people.

Now there were serious reasons why people were asking these questions, and they had to do with the culture both inside and around the new, growing church in Rome. Some of these early Christians were Jews that had come to believe that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah, and the Jews of course followed quite a few traditions prescribed by Old Testament Law. But other new members of the church were Gentiles - basically anyone who wasn’t a Jew - and they naturally had other ideas about certain things. And of course, the culture outside the church was, in a word, worldly.

But Paul’s answer here does more than just settle the questions about these two topics. What we’re actually seeing is the establishment of the Biblical principle of CONSCIENCE. This is the principle which is to be followed whenever we confront what Paul referred to as doubtful disputations or doubtful things: disagreements over topics which aren’t directly addressed in scripture.

Paul essentially says that if God has given you the liberty to do this or that, then by all means, go ahead and do it! (Or abstain from it, if you prefer!) 

DISCLAIMER: It’s very important to mention that this liberty only pertains to things which are not specifically mentioned in scripture (and yes, we’re talking about Old Testament Law here). So if scripture says that action X is a sin, then it IS a sin. The New Testament (or New Covenant), based on Christ’s atoning death, is a new solution to the problem of sin. It does not change the definition of sin. We don’t get to have opinions about it. Sin, as they say, is sin.

But the Bible doesn’t specifically mention every possible action that a person could take. That was true in the book of Genesis with Adam & Eve, it was true in the first century church, and it’s true today. Of course, we now have many, many more options available to us than in times past, which makes it that much more important for US to understand this Biblical principle of conscience.

Here’s how it works: Paul mentions that if a person believes that action X is a sin, then for that person, action X IS ACTUALLY a sin! For that person, action X leads to the same internal consequences as any other sin, because if they were to participate in it, they would feel guilt, remorse, and shame. It violates their conscience in exactly the same way that any of the explicitly named sins would do.

And because of this, you have to be careful not to try to force someone to agree with you on matters like this. That’s where this whole idea of the stumbling block comes in, and it also happens to be one of the areas in which the church has failed… miserably.

Do you know why there are so many different Christian denominations? It’s because we, the members of the Body of Christ, have let disagreements divide us into factions. Whether it’s the question of full-immersion, deep-water baptism vs “sprinkling,” eternal security of the believer vs possible loss of salvation, election/predestination vs free will, or any number of other doctrinal divisions, we the people of the church have allowed the placement of thousands of stumbling blocks which prevent us from worshiping God in complete unity.

Non-believers are seeing all of this, and they are often quick to point out that we can’t even agree amongst ourselves. It’s one of the leading reasons why they think we’re all a bunch of fruitcakes and hypocrites.

Paul tells us that if our actions grieve another believer, then we are no longer walking in love. He later goes on to say: “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.” That sounds a whole lot like something Jesus would say. You know, that whole, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” thing.

In MY mind, I am thoroughly convinced that most of the disagreements over church doctrine need to be tossed into a large bin labeled ROMANS 14. Paul makes a number of statements in his various epistles which pinpoint the one and only irrevocable, un-do-withoutable truth of Christianity, which is that Jesus, he who is the Christ or Messiah, is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that he was resurrected from the dead. This is the central fact of faith that a Christian must accept. Without this lynchpin, nothing else matters.

Now please don’t think I’m discouraging discussion and debate about difficult topics. When you come to a disagreement about the Bible or how you should live out your faith, talking through the topic is certainly helpful and healthy, so long as the purpose of the discussion is to find some common ground or mutual understanding. After all, virtually every doctrinal dispute has some kind of plausible scriptural reasoning behind it, and we always need to keep in mind the possibility that the other view just might be the right one. In any event, such a debate should NEVER become a point of contention that puts stress on your relationship with another believer, no matter what denomination they come from.

Even (no, especially) if it's one of those "out there" denominations that believes some crazy ideas about the Bible, because none of us actually has a flawless understanding of scripture.

In the great passage about love from 1 Corinthians 13, Paul says, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully…” This echoes the Old Testament idea that God’s thoughts are high above our own, and I’m pretty convinced that what Paul is saying in Romans 14 about doubtful disputations goes hand-in-hand with these other passages of scripture.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are things in the Bible which you think you understand, that you don’t understand at all. And I am FULLY aware that the same goes for me. It’s a little bit terrifying to know that in spite of all my studying and research, there will inevitably be times when I say something that is incorrect - just plain wrong - even though I’m totally convinced that I’m right. And I know that the Bible says that those who teach will be judged more strictly.

None of us understands God completely. None of us interprets everything in the Bible correctly. And most certainly, none of us are perfect at putting what we DO know to use in our everyday lives.

So the one and only thing that you or I should ever doubt about God, the Bible, and everything, is our own understanding. In the end, we just have to take what we know, do the very best we can with it, and leave the rest to Him.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart,

    and do not lean on your own understanding."

~Proverbs 3:5

On Watches, Razors, and Men

This ad says, "We see the good in men." This is a vital aspect of the "conversation" which is being mostly ignored by "woke" social justice warriors. Kudos to Egard Watches and their ad team for delivering a message which builds people up!

Gillette, as you surely know by now, has released an ad which many claim to be little more than an attack on men. After viewing the controversial Gillette ad, I have mixed feelings about it. Let's start with the good points...

I love the clip of Terry Crews they included. He's on point with his comments. Accountability is huge, and men SHOULD hold each other accountable. This is a Biblical principle, too. We read in Proverbs 27:17 that, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:6 reveals that, “Wounds inflicted by the correction of a friend prove he is faithful.”

I am sure that I agree with Gillette that men who behave in a toxic manner need to be called out and put in their place, and that men of good character should be well-equipped to do just that. Assuming that this was the goal, then the Gillette ad could and should be considered to have good intentions.

But as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The Gillette ad fails by presenting a picture of men through a single, narrow lens; an unfair stereotype no better than other unfair stereotypes (some examples being the barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen housewife, the lazy shiftless negro, the dumb blonde, the stupid drunk redneck, the greasy Mexican, the thug from the hood, etc - all of which are poor, negative, and even hateful representations of the demographic in question).

Of course, the difficulty with stereotypes is that they are true, or at least they are SOMETIMES true. There are individuals who fit into every category I mentioned above, and yes, that definitely includes men who are toxic.

And let me be clear: I completely agree with Gillette that toxic men who treat women badly, who bully and intimidate others, and who resort readily to violence are far from “The Best a Man Can Get.” Those traits are not even masculine, really. Those guys are not, in fact, men... at all. They are immature overgrown children who never learned how to be men.

As a friend of mine posted just yesterday, we used to call these guys "douchebags." We also used to understand that they do not represent men as a whole. But that differentiation is sadly being replaced by a militant feminist view of men in which any individual with a Y-chromosome is seen as being inherently evil or toxic in some way. Gillette's ad fails by seeming to openly accept this distorted view of men.

There is one point in the ad where things go irrevocably wrong, and it hinges on ONE WORD:

"Some."

For all of their good intentions, Gillette fails by accepting the notion that most men are the problem, and only some are doing right. In other words, they have it exactly backwards.

That point - that ONE WORD - turns what should be a fair challenge for all men to hold each other accountable into just another overly “woke” sound bite. An unfair stereotype, if ever there was one.

Gillette and those who love the ad would say that they are challenging men to do what’s right, and I would agree that challenging men to do what’s right is a good thing. But have they accomplished this, or have they simply chastised men in general for the bad behavior of a few?

It's very easy to see why many were offended by the ad, yet the good intentions behind it are also pretty clear. So what should we do when good intentions fail to produce good results?  We have all failed to deliver good results alongside our good intentions at some point. The Gillette marketing team, in trying to address a societal problem, has delivered results which many find offensive.

Being offended is not necessarily unreasonable, but how should we respond after we are offended? Do we respond in kind? Do we lash out with (self) righteous indignation? Or might we be better served to forgive the transgressors for their shortcomings and work toward resolution?

We all will most certainly be better served by men who stand for what’s right, even when (especially when) faced with all that is wrong with the world. That’s a point which we should all agree on, and it seems like a good place to start.

Goliath in Zagreb

When Dr. Jackie Lamar asked me to write a piece for the Arkansas Saxophones to premiere at the 2018 World Saxophone Congress, I instantly hopped on board and straightaway began to compose with great procrastination.

One should never be too hasty. At least, that's what my good friend, Treebeard, always says.

I spent most of my career as a saxophonist playing bari in various ensembles, and I always like to give the bari player something interesting when I write for saxophones. Very soon, the idea that this piece would retell the epic of David and Goliath was firmly planted in my mind, right next to some rather neglected Azaleas.

For those of you who may be less familiar with the various flavors of saxophone, the bari (short for baritone) sax is one of the bigger ones. It's the one that looks like part of it got caught in a pretzel-twister, and it has a pretty low sound. If saxophones had strings, the bari would be a cello.

Fortunately... they don't.

Anyway, the bari player takes up the role of the Phillistine giant, Goliath, in this tune. He's a cocky loudmouth who spends most of his time strutting around like he's king of the world. And so is Goliath.

;) In reality, the guy playing bari is Andy Wright, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a better human than him. And he certainly knows his way around a saxophone.

I chucked in a little bit of everything: some funky blues for Goliath, some intense modern harmonies for the fight scene, a little bit of Gothic morose-ness inspired by Penny Dreadful on Netflix, a few soft pretties, and a couple of stupid saxophone tricks like multiphonics and slap-tongue.

After rehearsing the piece, Dr. Lamar and the ensemble decided that it didn't suck much, and they would play it in Zagreb (Croatia) during the World Saxophone Congress of July, 2018.

And play it they did!

All self-immolating sarcasm aside, I'm rather glad with the way the piece turned out, and I'm immensely grateful to Dr. Lamar and the Arkansas Saxophones for taking my music to the other side of the planet. Enjoy the video!

Oh and if you happen to be looking for some saxophone choir music, you can find this tune and others on the MUSIC tab of my website, www.wadleyoriginals.com.

World Premiere Performance of 'Temporal Physics'

Wadley Publications proudly presents Alto Saxophonist Dr. Brent Bristow and Pianist Mary Jo Parker in the world premiere performance of Temporal Physics by Craig Wadley.

This recital is part of the 2018 Arkansas Saxophone Symposium, to be hosted by the University of Arkansas - Fort Smith. All events are free and open to the public.

For more information regarding the symposium, please visit: https://www.facebook.com/events/2022626114624940/

Temporal Physics is now available for purchase:

www.wadleypublications.com
https://goo.gl/qP5iPW

Commissioned by Dr. Brent Bristow of Arkansas State University (Beebe), Temporal Physics is a single-movement sonatina for alto saxophone and piano. Featuring a cornucopia of meter changes, the piece explores various stylistic treatments of two brief melodic motifs. Temporal Physics drops hints of different musical eras while remaining a truly contemporary display of soloistic virtuosity.

Groovin' Goliath

Groovin’ Goliath (and the slingshot of doom) for saxophone choir combines elements of blues, traditional and non-traditional tonal structures, shifting metrical landscapes, and saxophonic sound effects in this retelling of the epic tale of David and Goliath. The giant still loses the fight, but the biggest saxes reign supreme in this battle royale!

Commissioned by Dr. Jackie Lamar and the Arkansas Saxophones for the World Saxophone Congress in Zagreb, Croatia – July 2018.

Freelance composer/arranger Craig Wadley holds Bachelor of Music Education and Master of Music degrees from Arkansas State University. Mr. Wadley’s studies in composition were primarily with Dr. Jared Spears (Arkansas State University) and Dr. Kamran Ince (University of Memphis), and his works have been performed across the United States. As a saxophonist, Mr. Wadley studied with Ken Hatch (Arkansas State University) and Allen Rippe (University of Memphis), and has performed most notably with the Memphis Saxophone Quartet and The Temptations.

Temporal Physics

Commissioned by Dr. Brent Bristow of Arkansas State University (Beebe), Temporal Physics is a single-movement sonatina for alto saxophone and piano. Featuring a cornucopia of meter changes, the piece explores various stylistic treatments of two brief melodic motifs. Temporal Physics drops hints of different musical eras while remaining a truly contemporary display of soloistic virtuosity.