The Bible and Me Part I - Beginning to Question

[I've struggled for a long time with my relationship with the Bible. It has been a rich source of insight and spiritual nourishment to me, but also at times, a source of deep doubt and confusion. My intention in this series is to share a little of how that relationship has developed over time. If you're a Christian and you're trying to work out your own approach to the Bible then it won't give you all the answers, but it may give you some questions and insights that could help you along the way. If you're not a believer, but you're interested in the Christian faith - or in Christians in particular - then it may give you a little insight into how some of us tick!]

I was brought up as an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian and the Bible has always been a central - indeed crucial - part of my faith. Without the Bible I would probably have a completely different view of God - if I even believed in God at all. Without the Bible I would probably have no idea who Jesus was and I wouldn't be calling myself a Christian. My faith is based on mine (and others') experience, as well as on the Bible, but without the Bible I would have no framework for that faith and would probably not have had the chance to encounter, or respond to God - or Jesus - in the way that I do today.

I was taught from a very young age that the Bible was "The Word of God". Although I didn't know the technical term at the time, I was also taught that it was essentially "inerrant" - i.e. because it was The Word of God, it contained no mistakes, factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies. It was to be believed unequivocally and without question. To disobey anything the Bible told me was to disobey God himself.

As I grew up it gradually became apparent that things were not quite this simple. There were some bits of the Bible for example - mostly in the Old Testament - that didn't apply to me. The old Levitical laws about things like not eating shellfish or not mixing together 2 types of fabric, applied only to those under the old Jewish Covenant and were not rules that I was expected to follow today. OK, so that made sense - so far so good!

I also started to notice that there were some events that were recorded in the Bible more than once, and that the accounts of these didn't always seem to match up. For example, there are some quite big differences in the way the story of Jesus' resurrection is recorded across the 4 different gospels. We did an exercise once in a church youth group that I belonged to, where we attempted to reconcile the 4 accounts by taking them all apart and putting them back together again in a way that made them all fit - in order to demonstrate the fact that they were actually compatible, just told from different angles with different bits missing. To my mind though, we had to work so hard in order to do this, that it was almost as though the accounts weren't really fully compatible with one another at all...

And then there was the whole question of creation and/or evolution. It was probably in my early teens that I first started to become aware of this potential dichotomy. At that time, a popular view on this (and fairly acceptable, in the Christian circles that I moved in) was that the "days" in the Genesis creation account could just as well refer to millions of years. This was justified on the basis that, "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years" (the Bible, 2 Peter 3:8), and also on the fact that since there was no sun right at the beginning, then who could say how long a day was?! And the order of events in the Genesis creation account more-or-less corresponds to the scientific account anyway, so they're perfectly compatible! - except that when you get right down to it, it actually doesn't...

Then when I went to University I was introduced to a rather radical idea - and because it came from a visiting speaker at our Christian Union, who otherwise seemed to believe in and know the same God that I did, and because he was also quite a high up member of the London Bible College (I think he might've been the president, but I can't remember now), I was able to treat it with a little more credence than I might've done otherwise. The idea was this: What if the Genesis creation account is actually a myth? What if it isn't even intended to be treated as a literal account? What if it's just there to teach us stuff about God and about ourselves and about how we relate to Him and to the world? What if it isn't - and isn't meant to be - a scientifically accurate, historical account?

This idea made quite a lot of sense to me. After all, it seemed very unlikely that there was anyone actually there, that far back, who was able to write - and certainly no-one who was there before Adam and Eve to witness the first 5 days! If the Genesis creation account did come directly from God himself (the only other possibility!), then it had to have been somehow revealed to someone so they could write it down. But how would God explain something like that to someone who had none of the scientific knowledge that we have today? Surely the point of it wasn't to teach science in any case, it was to teach us about our relationship with God and with the world?

This was probably the first time I seriously entertained the idea that perhaps the Bible wasn't all meant to be taken entirely literally after all (apart from things like Jesus' parables, which were obviously just stories that he told in order to make a point).

[The Bible and Me Part II - Creation]
[The Bible and Me Part III - Inerrancy]
[The Bible and Me Part IV - Scripture vs Tradition]
[The Bible and Me Part V - Job]
[The Bible and Me Part VI - The Difficult Bits]
[The Bible and Me Part VII - The Supernatural]
[The Bible and Me Part VIII - Noah and the Flood]

When I Survey...

Thirty years ago I thought I pretty much understood the purpose and significance of Jesus' death on the cross. I'm not sure I would have used words like "purpose" or "significance" at the time though - after all, I was only 11 years old!

I was brought up in an evangelical Christian home, and the standard explanation went something like this:

1. We have all sinned and sin needs to be punished.
2. But - God loves us and doesn't want to punish us.
3. So, God sent Jesus in our place - to take the punishment we deserved on the cross so that we could be forgiven.
4. If I accept what Jesus has done for me then my sins can be forgiven and after I die I can spend eternity with God in heaven.

There's lots of things that are good about this explanation, one or two things that aren't so good, some bits that people tend to struggle with, and quite a lot of stuff that I still don't fully understand.

One part that people do often seem to have trouble with is number 3. If I deserve to be punished, then how is it in any way fair or good for God to punish Jesus in my place? Personally however, I've never particularly had a problem with this - not because I see God as an angry tyrant who is happy to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, but because of the way I see Jesus. I see Jesus as God. I see Him and the Father as somehow one and yet separate at the same time. I can't fully explain this, but based on my experience, in my head and in my heart (and also in classical Christian theology) it somehow seems to fit. What Jesus did was a voluntary act, but it was also an act of self-sacrifice on God's own part! It was about Him laying Himself down on our behalf, not about Him punishing somebody else who didn't deserve it (and it was us who doled out the punishment here in any case...)

I think another valid question though, is why does wrongdoing even need to be punished in the first place? Why can't God just forgive us without either sacrificing Himself, or punishing someone else instead? After all, we forgive each other all the time without dishing out any punishment (at least, many of us do anyway...), so why can't God just do the same?

I still don't have a perfect answer to that question, but as an older Christian I have become aware that there are many different ways of appreciating what Jesus did on the cross - many analogies if you like - and they may not all be perfect in every way, but they do help to deepen our understanding of what was going on. I've also become more and more aware that there was a lot more going on at the cross than I first realised (and probably still a lot more that I'm not yet able to appreciate!) Jesus didn't just die to achieve a straightforward substitution of him for me, so that I could go to a better place when I died - what he did was a lot more profound and revolutionary than that!

I've recently been quite struck by Tom Wright's take on this in "How God Became King". At one point in this book, Wright draws the reader's attention to a story in chapter 10 of Mark's gospel, where James and John - two of Jesus' disciples - ask him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory". Just to put this in context, his disciples believed at this point that Jesus was the "Messiah" - who was the subject of many Jewish prophecies - and presumably still had fairly traditional ideas about what this meant. They were expecting him to overthrow the Romans somehow and establish his own kingdom, and James and John were trying to make sure they got the best positions in the new order! Unsurprisingly this attempt wasn't particularly well received by the rest of the group! There then follows some teaching from Jesus about his somewhat unconventional approach to power, in which he emphasises the importance of servanthood in the kingdom which he is about to establish (and also of suffering, although in quite cryptic terms at this point). Jesus also informs James and John that, "to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared."

Later on in Mark chapter 15, after Jesus has been betrayed and condemned to die, the story continues:

And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the governor's headquarters), and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him. And they began to salute Him, "Hail, King of the Jews!
...
And it was the third hour when they crucified him. And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews." And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. [my emphasis]

This then, is the new Kingdom which Jesus has set out to inaugurate! And these are the privileged positions which the two disciples had been clamouring for!

The double-irony of this story is that the Romans were mocking Jesus for having failed in his mission, but in doing so they were, without realising it, confirming the very success of what he had come to achieve! - this was the inauguration of his new Kingdom! This was to be a Kingdom based on love and self-sacrifice, not on power imposed on others, by force, against their will. This wasn't just the creation of a new Kingdom, it was the creation of a completely new type of Kingdom - one that would subvert all the other kingdoms of the world because it was based on entirely different principles!

Conventional logic says that this kind of Kingdom shouldn't work, but as well as challenging our understanding of power, this approach also challenges our understanding of God Himself. This is a God who comes to serve and to lay down His life, not a God who imposes His will imperiously from above. If this is what God is like, then this can work because He is the author of life and He has made all of us in His image. This is the message of the resurrection - that love wins, life triumphs over death and evil and oppression will not get the last word!

If the resurrection didn't happen then this is a nice story with a powerful message but you have to question whether it really has any lasting significance. But if it really did happen then the world is not the same way up as it appears to be. The poor and the merciful and the righteous really will be blessed and the meek really will inherit the earth - although if Jesus' example is anything to go by then getting there may not be an easy ride! The kingdoms of this world that rely on coercion and control are on their way out. A new world order has arrived and is already undermining and subverting them.

This is the Kingdom that Jesus came to establish and it is the Kingdom which I am a part of. I have to admit that I sometimes (OK, often!) struggle to get my head (and my heart) around its principles! It is a Kingdom that has often not been well represented by those who have claimed to be its ambassadors - either because it was too radical for them to fully take to heart or comprehend, or because they have had an entirely different, and much more this-current-worldly agenda! But it is a Kingdom that lives on in Jesus and in all those who (however much they fail) in honesty of heart try to follow him. And it is the Kingdom that will triumph in the end!

And this is the Messiah who I serve. A Messiah - and a God - full of grace. A God who has taken the worst that I can throw at Him and has responded with love and with forgiveness for all of my sins. A God who, in the end, has won and subverted (and is continuing to subvert) my heart!

Upside down God, turn my heart right-side up!

Upside down God, turn my life right-way up!

Amen!

Je Suis Charlie

The title of this post is not intended to imply my support for cartoons or images that some may find insulting or offensive.

As a Christian myself I'm fairly used to my faith being insulted and even to being insulted myself occasionally because of it, but it doesn't particularly bother me. I follow a persecuted saviour who commands me to "love my enemies" and most of the founders of my faith were persecuted for it, so to some extent at least I consider insults to be par for the course!

I personally don't really "get" why images of Muhammad are such a big deal for Muslims and I don't think that non-Muslims should be forced to adhere to the same standards. I also don't believe in offending people deliberately though, unless there is a good reason to do so.

None of this is a judgement on Charlie Hebdo or on their editor, Stephane Charbonnier, who was killed in today's attack - I don't know everything they published, I don't have an opinion regarding whether they should have done or not, and it doesn't make any difference - there can be no justification whatsoever for what has just taken place!

I want to say something to any Muslims who may be reading this. I know that many Muslims - probably the majority, at least in the west - will be as appalled as I am about what has just happened. I am sorry for your sake, as well as for those who were killed and their friends and relatives, because I know that some of you will almost certainly bear the backlash for something that you feel just as badly about as I do.

If you're one of those who doesn't feel like this though - if you're one of those that is pleased that your prophet has been "avenged" - will you please think again?!:

What kind of prophet needs to be avenged by violent deaths because someone pictured him in a cartoon? And what kind of God is so insecure and has such a brittle ego that he feels threatened by such a thing and needs puny human beings to "protect" his reputation in so brutal a fashion? And what kind of reputation do you think you're creating for this God anyway?

"Allahu Akbar" - "God is great"! He might be great, but is he good? And if he isn't good then why are you serving him? Are you really sure that you're serving the right God...? (and if he's so great then why does he need you to defend him anyway...?)

Hassan Chalghoumi - an imam of the Paris suburb of Drancy - has said of the attackers: "Their prophet is Satan. There is no connection between the Islamic faith and this minority."

If you're one of those who condones this attack, then please think again really hard about whether you're really following the right prophet, or the right God...!

When Peter Denied Jesus

I've recently been re-reading the story of Peter's denial of Jesus. For anyone unfamiliar with the story, it starts just after Jesus had celebrated his last Passover meal with his disciples (prior to his crucifixion), and it goes like this (see Matthew's gospel, chapter 26, verse 30):

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them,“You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same. 

Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane ...

While they were there, Judas (a disciple of Jesus, who had betrayed him to his enemies) appeared with "a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people" who seized Jesus and arrested him. All the disciples fled (as Jesus predicted!) but Peter followed Jesus:

... at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end ... And a servant girl came up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean." And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied it with an oath: "I do not know the man." After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you." Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.

I think the traditional way to read this story is that Peter is somewhat on the cocky side to begin with (no pun intended!), but turns out to be a bit of a coward when it really comes down to it and ends up having to eat a large and incredibly painful dose of humble pie - at least that's the way I've usually read this and I think is how I've usually seen it presented.

This time round though, I saw things a little differently:

All his disciples, including Peter, believe that Jesus is the Messiah. This means they are expecting him to be the great hero who is somehow going to overthrow the Romans and restore Israel to the Jews. For the most part, Jesus has been quite careful not to make too many public claims in this regard because would-be-Messiahs are not popular with either the Romans, or the Jewish authorities who rule under them and are very wary of upsetting the status quo. In the last few days though, he's been very deliberately blowing his cover. He's clashed very publicly with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem's temple courts in the middle of Israel's busiest and most important festival and he's ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey, in fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, as his followers have thronged the streets, proclaiming him as "the Son of David" - a Messianic title! The disciples are expecting something very big to happen soon. Jesus has tried to warn them that things are not going to turn out the way they are expecting, but so far they don't seem to have got the message. When Peter says he is willing to die with Jesus, he means that if necessary he will go down fighting.

Judas' betrayal catches them all off guard - except for Jesus. Their great heroic leader is captured and the game is up! The disciples scatter - just as Jesus had predicted. All except Peter, who is made of stronger stuff. Peter is no coward. Even though his hopes of Jesus' Messianic rule appear to have been dashed to pieces, Peter remains true to his friend and follows - as close as he dares - to see what will happen to him.

Peter is in a very dangerous and vulnerable place. He's on his own and his master and friend is on trial for sedition. It's no wonder he doesn't want to be identified and is willing to lie to cover himself. But when he has to do so the third time, and swears with a curse on himself that he doesn't know his master and best friend, the cock crows and reminds him of Jesus' words, and he is cut to the quick as he realises that his courage has failed him and in spite of his promises he has denied the person he loves most in this world!

Fast forward then, to after Jesus' resurrection, and the gospel of John gives this account (see John chapter 21, from verse 15):

Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time,“Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

I've heard it pointed out - quite perceptively I think - that just as Peter denies Jesus three times, so Jesus asks him here three times if he loves him - effectively giving him the chance to re-instate himself. We know that Peter means it, and Jesus knows it too, and the first two times Jesus responds by giving Peter responsibility for leading his church. The last time he predicts that Peter is eventually to face exactly the kind of death that he was unprepared for the last time around.

What I particularly love about this - and what particularly catches my attention just now - is how deeply Jesus knows Peter. Jesus knows what he's capable of, and what he isn't capable of. He knows him better than anyone else and better even than he knows himself - and he gives him responsibility.

How secure would you feel, to be given responsibility by someone who knows you as well as this...?

What's up with Halloween?

So after a long absence from the blogosphere, I thought I'd dip my toe back in again. I've been meaning to write something for a while, was casting around for a subject, and a friend of mine posted this question on Facebook:

Out of interest what does Halloween mean to you?

My friend is a Christian - which perhaps partly explains why she was even asking the question! Some of the answers given were from Christians and some weren't. Here are a few extracts:

Stress trying to explain to the girls why we don't celebrate it and trying to come up with fun alternatives

... stressed about how much it's growing as a festival ... I'm not happy about how evil is becoming acceptable and cute.

For me it means ghouls, ghosts and spirits ... A time when spirits can cross over.

Halloween has never been about celebrating evil for anyone I've known. For me it's a giant community fancy dress party themed around death. It was a source of endless joy as a child and was the only time I got to meet my neighbours.

Halloween is ... a satanic festival made up to look like harmless fun

Honestly, for us its just a bit of fun. My 4 year old is so excited about it this year - for him it's just about getting dressing up and going to a party.

I worry about [kids] being out in the dark asking for money, no one knows what might be put into the sweets and what strangers will give them attention. I won't be answering the door tonight. To be honest I hate Halloween!

If you're not a Christian you may well be wondering what all the fuss is about, but for many believers like myself (and also for some other people), Halloween can be a bit of an awkward time of year. It's such a popular festival - and is becoming more so all the time - and yet it's not one that we feel like we want to join in with.

As a Christian, I've never liked Halloween. Although most people do just seem to see it as harmless fun, most of the things it celebrates, even if they are somewhat caricatured, are pretty much the polar opposite of quite a lot of the most important things that I believe in.

The Christian faith is a celebration of life, not death! There is one great death at the heart of it, which was an act of incredible self sacrifice intended to make life available to everyone else. And right at the heart of that is the message that ultimately life triumphs over death, as Jesus demonstrated by rising from the grave! Halloween is about death and destruction - taking good things and corrupting them so they appear horrible and grotesque. In the words of the apostle Paul in the New Testament book of Phillipians: "fill your minds with those things that are good and that deserve praise: things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable". Halloween is the opposite of those things.

But then of course, nobody actually takes Halloween seriously. Well, perhaps most people don't, but then there are some people who do... Halloween isn't harmless fun for everyone. Some people are fascinated by the darker, more destructive side of spirituality and genuinely believe* they can make use of this to exert power over, and to harm others. Halloween is their night. It's in the spirit of the festival anyway, they're just taking it a bit further, and a bit more literally, than most of us do...!

So why do the rest of us celebrate Halloween? Perhaps it's because we enjoy making fun of the things that scare us - the deep down buried things - and perhaps that makes us feel a bit more powerful and less afraid? Perhaps Halloween gives us a culturally acceptable way to externalise our fears and to feel like we have some level of control over them, without having to face them for what they really are, or having to do anything so painful or uncomfortable as actually talking about them with another person...?

So maybe Halloween is an escape, or maybe it's an unhealthy fascination with the macabre, or maybe it's a dangerous and unhealthy draw towards the darker side of spirituality? Or perhaps it's a heady mixture of all of those things?

None of this sounds like a great idea to me, and so this is why I don't celebrate Halloween.

But you may have a different view.

What does Halloween mean to you...?


*I happen to believe as well - although I'm not going to defend this view here - that there is genuine power to be found through these kinds of spiritual practices, but that those who practice them are messing with forces much bigger than they are, that they don't understand and cannot really control. I also believe that the power of God is a lot greater, particularly as it's been made available to us through the self-giving sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.

Things I don't understand about God

Usually, when writing posts on this blog, I do my best to sound wise and knowledgeable. If you're laughing as you read this, then I may not have succeeded! At the very least I generally try to sound like a Christian who thinks about stuff and has at least some idea what he's talking about.

Generally then, I don't tend to spend a lot of time talking about the things I know I don't understand. So I thought it might make a nice change if I did!

Like most Christians I have doubts. Sometimes I look at the world and I wonder: Is there really a God after all? Am I just fooling myself? Usually my conclusion is that there is and I'm not, but sometimes I feel firmer in that conviction than others and there are always some questions that remain unanswered. So here is one of them:

It seems to me that pretty much everything in nature - at least in the animal kingdom - is ultimately based on violence. Violence is used to determine leadership, territory and mating. If you're a carnivore then you have to be violent in order to survive. If you're a herbivore then you either need to be violent enough to resist your attackers, or have some other way of avoiding, escaping from or defending yourself against violence if you want to live for very long.

One of the central tenets of the Christian faith though, is that God is love. Indeed, this is one of my central reasons for believing in God. Love is the only thing that really gives meaning to life. Without love, life doesn't make sense. It makes sense to me therefore, that the creator of the Universe would have love as His very essence. It also makes sense to me that God would be personal - not just some sort of impersonal cosmic force - as love is personal by definition, not something that can exist on its own in some kind of cosmic vacuum.

So why would a God of love create a natural order that has violence so deeply written into it? I don't understand this. One popular explanation among some evangelical Christians is that this is a result of 'the fall' - meaning that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God, the whole of creation changed and that it wasn't like this before. But there are several problems with this.

It seems fairly clear to me that the world has been here for a few billion years, despite what the young earth creationists might have to say about it. The Biblical creation story doesn't read to me like an account that is intended to be taken entirely literally, and even if it was, it says very little about the state of nature before the fall. It makes sense to me that the relationship between humans and the world would have been negatively affected by the breakdown in relationship between man and God. It even makes sense to me for the world to have suffered as a result of this, in ways we don't fully understand. All the records we have though, suggest that violence has been very much a part of life on planet earth, for a long time before human beings appeared.

So this is a question I don't know the answer to - although it doesn't stop me from believing in God. I wonder what you think?

The Spirituality of Computer Programming

About 18 years ago I had an unusual experience.  I found myself crying - albeit fairly briefly - over a few lines of a small computer program.  I am not referring though, to cries of frustration in response to a particularly badly written piece of code.  I can't remember what the code was now, or even whether it was mine or somebody else's.  I seem to remember (although I'm not certain) that it was written in a language called Lisp.

In the Christian circles that I've found myself involved with over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about the "sacred/secular divide".  This has to do with the fact that - particularly in Evangelical churches but probably in other Christian traditions as well - some parts of life are often treated - explicitly or implicitly - as more "holy" or "spiritual" than others.

So for example, going to Church, reading the Bible, or working for churches, charities or missionary organisations is often considered more worthwhile or significant than cleaning your teeth, watching television, being a good primary school teacher, or - indeed - writing computer programs!

This seems to be a little at odds with the Bible itself.  For example, Psalm 24 verse 1:

The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.

Or  Colossians 3 verses 23-24:

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward.

Or Philippians 4 verse 8:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

As well as being contradictory to the Bible, this artificial sacred/secular split also goes against common sense.   If God made the whole of the created order, including human beings with their skills, tastes and ingenuity, then it makes sense that the whole of life would be important to Him.  And if it's important to Him then it should also be important to me.

So - getting back to my original subject - what does God have to say about computer programming...?  I have to admit that the Bible is a little sketchy on this topic!  I'm not sure exactly why I got so tearful all those years ago over those few lines of computer code, but I was praying at the time and I did feel genuinely moved, and felt that God was moved by what I was seeing.

The best way I can think to make sense of this is that computing is a small but very significant part of mankind's technological development, and that technology was always part of God's intention for us.  It springs out of our God-given ingenuity, curiosity and creativity and is part of our call to rule over creation and fulfil it's potential.  It is up to us of course, whether we use these God-given skills wisely or not and ultimately, whether creation suffers or benefits from our stewardship.  God cares that we have these skills though, and He cares deeply about how we use and develop them, and what we do with them.

I have always felt passionate about computer programming - although I also feel slightly embarrassed to admit this "in print"!  I have a very logical mind, but I also have a fairly strong creative streak.  The existence of computers gives me a unique opportunity to combine these 2 things.  Because of computing, I can create something, purely out of logic, with no physical form, which nevertheless still somehow exists in a very precise and clearly defined way, is unique to me, and has an obvious and measurable impact on the real world!  Just a few decades ago, such a thing would have been completely unheard of.  I often feel as though I was born for such a time as this!

As well as having a practical use though, computer programs have something else that is common to anything we create, but which most non-programmers (and even some programmers) might be surprised by.  Computer programs have - or at least can have - beauty!  (the flip-side to this of course, is that they can be extremely ugly as well!).  I'm not just talking about the beauty of a well-designed web page or graphical user interface - although that's part of it of course - I'm talking about the code itself!

Computer code consists of logical solutions to problems.  But there are almost always a near infinite number of ways that any particular problem can be solved.  There are complicated ways and easy ways.  There are ugly ways - and yes, beautiful ways!  The word "beauty" isn't used that often by computer programmers when they talk about their code - instead the word "elegance" tends to be preferred instead.  An elegant piece of code is one that does what it's intended to do clearly, succinctly and efficiently and is - ideally - easy for others to understand and maintain.  But it has an aesthetic as well as a functional quality - it is pleasing to the developer, and to any other developer who sees it and has an eye for that sort of thing.

I have to admit that I sometimes struggle with the fact that I put so much effort into creating  beautiful things that are so rarely and seldom appreciated - or even understood!  Sure, users appreciate the outward form of my programs and are pleased with what they do (assuming I've done a good job) but hardly anyone fully appreciates what goes on underneath.  If I'm working as part of a team, which has a good quality control process in place, then parts of my code will be checked by other programmers occasionally to make sure I'm not doing anything stupid, but that's not quite the same thing.  Just occasionally I get to share my work with another programmer, who might be impressed by it, or a programmer who happens to read my code might appreciate what I've done and even mention it, but this is quite a rare thing.

It strikes me that a lot of creation itself seems to be like this.  Beauty is everywhere in all sorts of unexpected and inaccessible places and we continually seem to be discovering more of it.  It's almost like God didn't care that most of it would never be seen - although I'm sure He also delights in our continuing discovery of it.  It seems to me though, that God delights in beauty for its own sake - although, like my computer programs, most of it seems to have a functional purpose as well.  It's part of His creative nature, His joy, His exuberance.  He doesn't just create to perform a task, or for the sake of it.  Beauty, infuses everything He makes.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.     (Genesis 1 verse 31)