September 6, 2026

As mentioned Einsteins theory described gravity as mass interacting with spaces, curving it like you might get if you placed a bowling ball on a trampoline. His description however although more accurate than Newton needed some repulsive force to keep matter from congealing together into one massive ball. Einstein added a constant to his equations which he called the cosmological constant. This allowed for time-space to not compress and allowed for the empty spaces between bodies in the universe. Other physicists questioned Einsteins cosmological constant suggesting that in fact the density and radius of the universe changed or varied with time. Einstein rejected this theory and wrote rebuttals of the scientists who suggested it favouring a steady state universe. 

In 1927 Belgian physicist Georges Lemaitre offered solutions to Einsteins field equations based on observations of distant galaxies. Lemaitre used Vesto Slipher’s research on the doppler effect and distant galaxies. The data indicated that galaxies that were further away were moving faster than those closer Galaxies. His solution suggested a universe which was expanding in all directions expanding in a spherical shape. This further implied that in the past the universe was also smaller. As mentioned above Einstein was highly critical of this theory. 

In 1931 Einstein famously visited Mt Wilson to look through Hubble’s telescope this event is often presented as the definitive moment that changed Einsteins mind. Upon considering Hubble’s data which showed red shift of galaxies was proportional to their distance Einstein was forced to admit that the universe was expanding. He called his insistence on his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life. Red shift is caused by the lengthening of light waves into the infrared spectrum caused when an object is moving away from the observer. Thus, more redshift indicates greater speed of movement away. 

The implications of this expanding universe were immediately evident to scientists. British Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington said “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me.” Einstein himself expressed a similar sentiment regarding Lemaitre’s hypothesis saying his primeval atom hypothesis was inspired by the Chrisitan dogma of creation, and totally unjustified from the physical point of view.” Robert Dicke explained “An infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past. A finite universe, by contrast, would force scientists to confront uncomfortable questions about the ultimate beginning of the material universe itself. It also raised the possibility that the universe had begun in something like a creation event produced by a cause that existed independently of matter, space, time and energy.” 

~ Kevin Cleary

August 30, 2026

From the time that Galileo calculated that the earth was orbiting the sun and not vis-versa critics of Christianity have claimed that the science of the cosmos was contrary to the record of creation found in Genesis 1:1. These claims are often overstated as Galileo remained a man of faith even during his conflict with the Catholic church. In fact he famously stated “the laws of nature are written by God in the language of mathematics.” As physicists learned more about how the universe functioned they usually did so with the conviction voiced by Kepler that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Isaac Newton wrote in his famous principia Mathematica that “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being” 

From Newton to Einstein most scientists held to the steady state theory of the universe. However, around the turn of the last century things started to change. Most are familiar with Newtonian physics and may have used some of his equations in high school to calculate gravitational pull. 

Einstein arrives on the scene and develops the theory of general relativity stating that time, space and matter are related to one another. One of the ways we might think of what Einstein discovered is to imagine being extremely fast perhaps like the comic book character Flash. The faster we move the closer we become to being in two places at the same time thus we can consider time and space to be relative. Einstein used a different experiment to demonstrate this principal. He imagined two people one standing on a train platform the other onboard the train which is moving very fast almost as fast as light. Further he imagined two simultaneous lighting strikes on at each end of the train. He points out that only for the person on the platform would the strikes be simultaneous. For the person on the train who is moving away from one strike and toward the other the strike would appear to be separate as they would perceive the one at the front first and the one at the back second. In this way Einstein showed that time is different depending on perspective or relative. Einstein showed that Newtons understanding of the universe was wrong and instead developed general relativity to explain the interaction of matter. Rather than bodies attracting one another Einstein envisioned gravity as mass bending or distorting space similar to how a bowling ball would deform a trampoline. Einstein wrote a series of equations which are known as field equations in which he described his theory of general relativity. The most famous of his equations is of course the relationship between energy and mater E=Mc2. 

Einstein initially didn’t realize it but his theory would demand the universe had a beginning.

~ Kevin Cleary

August 23, 2026

We don’t know how it’s going to happen or what is going to be the cause but we often talk about how we want to go. Most often you hear, “I want to go to sleep and not wake up” or “I want to die doing something I love.” I have never heard anyone say they wanted to be eaten by a crocodile or burned at the stake. 

We are essentially saying I don’t want it to hurt and I don’t want it to be drawn out. Today I want to think about the moment after. When our souls have left our bodies and we have entered what we generally today call the afterlife. Let me say we don’t know much about this because we don’t have access. I know there are these 30 minutes in heaven books or variations on it; they may be nice fairy tales but the fact is, we don’t know from direct experience. It should also be said here that God has not revealed every detail and so there will be some questions we just can’t answer but he has given us what we need to know so that we can “not mourn as others do, who have no hope.”

The very moment leading up to and at death may be different depending on circumstances I suspect a heart attack is different than a bullet wound which is different than drowning, or burning, or being attacked by a lion. 

What about the moment just after, perhaps we can gain some insights into that:

Eccl 12:7 says the body returns to dust but the soul returns to God who gave it

Luke 16:19-31 tells us that Lazarus was carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom while the rich man dies and is in torment. 

II Cor 5:8 Paul says he would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord

Luke 23:43 Jesus tells the criminal on the cross “today you will be with me in paradise”

Ex 3:6 God says “I Am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” using the present tense. Indicating that those individuals were living when Moses spoke to God hundreds of years after their physical deaths. 

These passages and others remind us that while our physical bodies are finite our souls are not and we can anticipate experiencing eternity in one way or another. We must then be sure that our physical lives here on earth are lived with an eye toward eternity. Knowing that we have placed our hope in the only one who has ever died and then returned to tell the tale. Who is then uniquely able to say “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me” 

~ Kevin Cleary

August 16, 2026

Today, we often have less in common with our neighbours than previous generations did. Many hold values and beliefs that differ from our own. Yet by learning a little about those around us, we may find common ground that opens the door to conversations about God’s truth.

With that in mind, here is a snapshot of Barrie’s religious landscape according to Statistics Canada:

• Non-religious/Secular: ~41% (the fastest-growing group)
• Catholic: ~24%
• Other Christian traditions: ~17% (United Church, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.)
• Islam: ~2.5%
• Hinduism: ~1.5%

A few observations stand out. First, we are most likely to encounter people who identify as non-religious. Given Canada’s increasingly secular culture, this is not surprising.

So how can we engage with those who have no religious affiliation?

Conversations about meaning, morality, truth, and purpose can provide natural opportunities to discuss faith.

It can also be helpful to be familiar with secular thinkers who affirm principles consistent with Christian morality. Writers such as Louise Perry, Gad Saad, Debra Soh, and Tom Holland may provide useful points of connection. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins argues for an objective view of truth in The God Delusion.

Once a conversation has begun, simple, accessible Christian apologetics can be helpful. Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is a good introduction. Apologetics Press also offers valuable material, though some resources are quite technical, so beginning with introductory content is often best.

Podcasts can be another useful bridge. Joe Rogan, for example, has interviewed guests such as Wesley Huff and Stephen Meyer. Sharing those conversations may spark further discussion. Other helpful podcasts include Uncommon Knowledge and The Diary of a CEO.

While every person is different and no single approach works for everyone, these tools can help create meaningful opportunities for conversation. And don’t underestimate the simple invitation to attend church. Many people cite a personal invitation as a key factor in their conversion.

~ Kevin Cleary

August 9, 2026

What do you think Jesus meant when he said, “And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two?” • Mt 5.41

Jesus said this to Jews, whose first two kings — Saul and David — were “soldier kings” …

To an audience whose most recent indigenous ruler-kings, the Hasmoneans, drove out the Syrian Antiochus Epiphanes and his army … To listeners, some of whom might have been Zealots, waiting for/looking for an opportunity to overthrow their Roman oppressors …

To many who, just like the apostles after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, may have been waiting for the arrival of a physical kingdom. 

And yet, Jesus taught them to go the second mile. Don’t just go one … go two. Submit to Roman soldiers. Who serve the emperor, Tiberius. An emperor they did not vote for. They were taught by Jesus to submit to soldiers who would COMPEL them (KJV, NKJV, RV), who would FORCE them (NASB, NAS95, NIV, RSV, NRSV, CSB, NET, ERV, RV), who would DEMAND (NLT) that they walk and carry their loads and assist them as unpaid porters, even labourers in building projects.

Is there a message in this text that applies to 21st century Christians? In this country, the land of the free and the home of the brave? Where we are often more concerned about individual and political rights—and control—than service to others?

Three times in the greater context of Mt 5.41, Jesus taught his followers to suffer wrong …

For a greater good. They were to endure slaps to the face. Forfeit their shirt. And go the second mile when conscripted by a soldier in the Roman army. Do not, in these situations, escalate wrong by responding in kind. Accept the duty. Accept the wrong. Immediately after teaching the disciples to endure hardships and indignity, he encouraged them to positively and overtly reach out to others for good. Give to those who ask. Lend to those who need. The message here, as often found in the teachings of Jesus; Do not seek to dominate, rule or control. Seek to serve others. Even if it costs you. And service to others always costs us.

Love your neighbour today.

It might cost you, but that’s okay.

You will be following Jesus in doing so.

Double love, Jody Apple

~ Kevin Cleary