Mankind has always been intrigued with space, and what’s in it. The ancients believed that outer space and its contents have meaning to life. Some persons carry it so far that they live by their stars (demi-gods) to guide them. Those ancients grouped the stars, and named them. Some of the names continue today to identify the same outlines. The stars, the planets, and the functions of the extra-terrestrial with the influences of the Sun on life, the moon on the tides, and rain on the sod, intrigue us. The world would be a dead planet without them. We have perceived the heavens, also called the firmament, to be beautiful and influential. The achievement of human beings to go into space in the 20th century enhanced interest. Space became the new frontier to conquer. New instruments zoomed outer space into homes by television. Astronauts described the beauty of what they saw from space, principally earth’s beauty, dressed in blue. A Russian astronaut said he looked for God in space, but did not find him. John Glenn, the American astronaut, believed that the beauty of space was, for him, an evidence of God. Both men found, in space, what they believed before they went into space. One looked for literalness, and the other for the invisible. Serious observers argue there is no beauty in what has been found, except for earth. The remainder, as they see it, is desolate. With whom among the pundits do we agree?
Take away, for our consideration, the esthetics of space largely related to light and darkness, day and night. Go beyond the importance of near space in the influence of wind and rain, of Sun and moon. What do we really have? There gradually has grown mild consternation among the scientists relative to space. They believed that with the discovery of better equipment, and better aids to learning that things would become simpler, and explanations emerge. Instead they find the problems greater, and their disappointments larger. Some have stated that space is a hodge- podge – no sense to it. Only four percent or so of space has matter in it, and that functions without much clarity. A Princeton researcher said that if he did not have the available facts, related to the universe, he would believe the present description of it to be a fairy tale. And, No one would make it like it is. He wonders about energy, but interprets it to be ugly, arbitrary and accidental.
There are serious and conflicting views of this and much else in our existence. The earth is both beautiful and harsh. The family is both magnificent and a cause of deep human sorrows. Work is both life meaning for us, and a burden borne heavily. Life and creation are paradoxical, whether in the birth of a child, or in the reality of a parched desert. Scripture addresses the whole matter. Sin did not affect the earth only but all that we know as the biblical firmament. In the end, we are told, there will be a new earth and heaven, the old is passed away, all things have become new. If we were to discover the perfection of space that some scientists hoped for, we might doubt some views of Scripture. God would not destroy something perfect and replace it with the perfect. That is perfect will never be destroyed by God. And, in the end, that is how God means to conclude the creation we know – in redemptive perfection. Once we sense the spiritual perspective we have important understanding. In immortality the blessed beings will work for perfect progress. As ephemeral as the story sounds, and belief in that narrative is not necessary to faith for one’s personal redemption, the information is helpful in the interpretation of what we have to work with in the natural context. We need to believe that God does know our problems related to nature and remembers that we are dust. We in turn need to believe God is and that he means to extend perfection including redeemed mankind in the process. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020