Intent before Content

    Intent before Content, or Content follows Intent.  Put another way, your intentions will lead your conclusion.  To provide a simple example, I will use the beauty, or lack thereof, of Tucson.  I don't like the desert, and I don't like excessive heat.  Therefore, I tend to think the least of Tucson--I want to see the worst, because I have already decided I don't like this town.  I often miss that there is beauty in the mountains that surround our town, and there is comfort in a town in which a snow shovel is not necessary.  My intent to see Tucson as ugly controls the content of what I allow to sit at the table of my ideas.
    For a better example, take the philospher Thomas Nagel.  He has stated,  "It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”  While I appreciate the honesty Dr. Nagel displays--which is quite uncommon among atheists--he displays well his bias.  His intent may drive him to refuse God at all cost, even to the realms of absolute absurdity and irrationality.  Intent before content.  This is a simple idea, but many people forget its truth.  Christians often forget this idea to their detriment, and to the loss of the truth of God.
     I see this idea creating judgmental and defensive Christians.  For instance, for many years, and even still now, many Christians lose their minds at the mention of the "Big Bang."  I noted during a recent Sunday School class that I think the Big Bang is completely valid.  Some people sat in stunned silence, others wanted to attack me.  Thankfully for me, they could not conclude in their minds why I might be wrong, nor articulate any arguments.  The "Big Bang" is simply the idea that all time, space and matter started at a singularity that "exploded."  Why is this a bad idea for the Christian?  I argue it isn't.  I argue that it fits well with Genesis 1:1 and fits well within all logic.  But this is a different topic for a different day.  Perhaps it is that many atheists have crammed Darwinian Evolution  down our throats, or attempted other arguments from science to disprove God.  However, this does not mean that science is the negation of God.
    This leads to another point.  This past Sunday, while in a new Sunday School class on the C.S. Lewis book, Mere Christianity, A few ideas about Intelligent Design were thrown about.  The context was chapter 4 of the first section of the book in which Mr. Lewis is pointing out the difference between the Materialist view and the Religious view.  Someone commented that there is a difference between Intelligent Design and what he called "Intelligent Biblical Design."  As my church is traditionally young earth, it became clear that "Intelligent Biblical Design" is another way of saying Creationism.  It is obvious that Intelligent Design is different from Creationism, but need not be any more different than Deism and Theism.  It seemed, after a few more comments, the group wanted to commence the Intelligent Design assault, but thankfully our leader pushed back to the text and moved along the discussion.  When we got to the last paragraph of chapter 4, the real fun began, as I could no longer remain silent.    The text reads, "...I ought to mention the Inbetween view called Life-Force philosophy, Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution."  Unless I am wrong, this idea, called by the three different names, deals with a creator who started everything, but then went hands off, or set thing in motion to allow things to evolve (think Darwinian Evolution with an initial purpose).   But the reader decided to include Intelligent Design with the sentence, reading it as, "...I ought to mention the Inbetween view called Life-Force philosophy, Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution, or Intelligent Design."  I waited until the rest of the paragraph was read, but then raise my hand; I had been silent in the class till this point.  I tell you the truth...neither did I raise my voice nor use any ad hominem language or tactics.  I stated something very close to, if not exactly, "I don't think we should so quickly or arbitrarily throw Intelligent Design into the sentence above.  This runs the risk of great error."  Just as with the "Big Bang" story, most people were in stunned silence.  However, the spouse of the person who read the section quickly, angrily and incoherently rambled off something that included me not knowing the context.
    For the sake of arguing, let's assume I don't understand the context of the above situation, of which I was present and listening.  Heck let's assume, up to this point, this post is completely biased and irrational.  With all that said...Intelligent Design does not assume an impersonal designer, as does the other ideas C.S. Lewis mentioned.  In fairness, it does not assume the Christian God.  At the most basic level it simply assumes a Designer.  Starting with that, we must then ask the question, what type of Designer must have created our universe? I think ultimately you will discover that the idea of Intelligent Design will lead to the Christian God.

All that to say this...

    May I offer my opinion to the Christians who may read this.  I think God is the source of Truth.  Therefore, I think the intent of Christians should be to find truth, regardless of what content that includes.  Truth can come from science, sociology, philosophy, the bum on the corner of Speedway and Stone.  If we would refuse the temptation to reject something based on its source, we might be amazed at what we uncover.  The "Big Bang" is a great example, as it is a great testament to the existence of God.  As many Christian Scholars are finding out, the long held fears or denials of Christians about certain subjects or truth are unmerited.  It seems many of the strong-holds in the case against God were/are actually beacons pointing us to God.  Intend to find the truth, no matter what, and God will reveal Himself as the content, and source, of that truth.