tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58673485472640870862024-03-13T08:41:09.396-07:00Balancing Faith and Reason Since 1966Do you believe that faith and intellect can complement each other? Are you asking questions about Christianity, church or the Bible that make others uneasy? Do you refuse to stop thinking for yourself, yet want to embrace a spiritual path? If so, then welcome aboard!Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-56245924385621926492011-08-01T10:02:00.000-07:002011-08-01T10:05:09.114-07:00A Very Brief PostThe God of Calvinism loves the elect.<br><br />The God of Calvinism has no regard for their freedom of choice or essential personhood, evidenced by his overt manipulation of them. <br><br />Can both be true?Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-32791257924283917192011-07-21T21:00:00.000-07:002011-07-21T21:01:55.856-07:00Is Gandhi in Hell?It appears that the gates of Hell are under assault once again. This time the charge is led by a 40 year old Evangelical minister named Rob Bell.<br />His new book <u>Love Wins</u> has brittle fundamentalists all in knots.<br /><br />I’ve read it and, as I expected, was left scratching my head, wondering what all the fuss is about. Despite the shrill allegations of his detractors, Bell never says that Hell doesn’t exist. Nor does he use the dreaded “U” word – Universalism.<br /><br />For those of you not familiar with this term, it basically means that, when all is said and done, every human being who has ever lived will end up in God’s kingdom. It comes in a few different varieties. For example, pluralistic notions of Universalism teach that all, or nearly all, religions lead to salvation (abusive cults such as Jim Jones’s are usually considered to not be “true faiths). But even those who are openly irreligious will ultimately find their way to Heaven in this scheme.<br /><br />A variant on this position is Christian Universalism. It maintains that Jesus is unique among the world’s spiritual leaders in that he is the means by which all people will be redeemed. It differs from mainstream Evangelicalism, however, in teaching that all persons who ever lived will ultimately come to faith in Christ, if not in this life then in the next one.<br /><br />For those who want to know more about this conception, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Reconciliation">here’s a link to an excellent article about it: </a><br /><br /><u>Love Wins</u> never says that Bell is a Universalist. In fact, it doesn’t spell out what he believes on the matter at all. But it does ask some questions that many people don’t want to deal with. That’s one of the reasons that it has been viciously attacked and misrepresented by Evangelical power brokers such as the staunch Calvinist John Piper.<br /><br />What are some of the questions Love Wins raises? Here’s a list:<br />- What becomes of people who live virtuous, compassionate lives, yet don’t become Christians? What happens to them after death? Bell uses the specific example of Gandhi when he brings up this issue.<br />- What about those who would have heard the Gospel, but circumstances prevented it? As Bell puts it, “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?”<br />- Why would a loving God choose to keep anyone in a conscious state of horrific torment for endless eons of time? Even major league bad guys like Hitler and Saddam Hussein committed finite amounts of evil during their lives. How does that rate infinite punishment?<br />- Is it possible that Hell is meant to be a purgative and corrective experience, rather than purely retributive? If it is, does that mean that the people in it may one day be released, their characters reformed, their souls ready to experience union with God?<br /><br />As I said before, Bell doesn’t give us answers to these concerns. He offers them as points to consider when pondering whether the traditional ideas about Hell and who goes there should be reevaluated. For this modest and reasoned effort on he has been called a heretic and false prophet. The editor of Christianity Today even tried to hang that most offensive of terms, “liberal,” around Bell’s neck.<br /><br />For my two cents, I am firmly in Bells’ camp, though my personal views tend more towards Annihilationism. Below is a link to a page that will tell you everything you ever wanted to know and more about it.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism">Click here for everything you ever wanted to know about Annihilationism. </a><br /><br />The notion that everyone who doesn’t profess faith in Jesus during this life is doomed to an eternity of torment is absurd and repulsive. It makes a mockery of God’s fairness, compassion and love. And, despite what its defenders claim, it in no way is a logical consequence of God’s holiness or desire for justice. Quite the opposite is true.<br /><br />Perhaps the soundest rejection of common notions about Hell comes from Jesus himself. In the entire Bible there is only one passage that offers a prolonged description of Hell. It’s in the Gospel of Luke I’m posting it below. The text is from the English Standard Version, Luke 16:19-31.<br /><i><br />19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.<br /><br /><br />25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’<br /><br /><br />27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”</i><br /><br /><br />A careful reading of these verses brings out several key points:<br /><br />1.) Jesus goes out of his way to show that the rich guy was a really bad dude. He let poor Lazarus lay in the dirt outside his front door and starve while he stuffed his face. He was no Gandhi. Muhammad, Confucius, the Buddha and countless other moral and spiritual leaders would have found him loathsome.<br />2.) The rich guy keeps his superior attitude even in the fires of Hell. When he looks up and watches Lazarus being comforted by Abraham, does he say, “Oh my God, forgive me! I see the error of my ways!”? Hardly. Instead he sees a chance to enslave the man who he let suffer such degradation. “Hey, Abraham, send that loser out to get me some water! It’s hot as Hell down here!” This is one cold-hearted piece of crap.<br />3.) He knew full well that what he did was wrong, even when he was alive and could have changed his ways. Note that he’s aware of the Old Testament; i.e. “Moses and the prophets.” Their writings are filled with exhortations to practice social justice and to care for the poor. The rich man lived his life in direct violation of God’s position on these matters.<br /><br />The point of the story is obvious. Jesus is saying that divine punishment awaits those who refuse to help others in need, who know full well that they should do so, and whose hearts are so hard that even after death they maintain their self-centeredness.<br /><br />These details make it clear that he wasn’t speaking of people like Gandhi, a man who devoted his life to helping the poor and oppressed. He wasn’t raising the specter of Hell over the men and women of good will that are found in all faiths. There is no basis in the passage whatsoever for the claim that non-Christians suffer eternal torment after death.<br /><br />“But Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life,’ supporters of the old view may counter. “Doesn’t that mean that those who die without knowing Him are doomed?” No. It doesn't.<br /><br />Let’s assume for now that Christian claims of Jesus’ uniqueness are correct. Let’s agree that no man comes to God the Father except through him, for the moment at least. Even if we allow that, <i>it does not mean that Christianity is the only way to Christ. </i><br /><br />CS Lewis dealt with this issue in a beautiful way in his Chronicles of Narnia series. The character Emeth worshipped a false god throughout the series, yet in its culmination Aslan, who was an allegorical representation of Jesus, welcomed into heaven. Emeth, in following truth to the best of his understanding, was in reality giving service to God, although his conception of the Divine was incorrect.<br /><br />Commenting on this later, Lewis wrote:<br /><i>I think that every prayer which is sincerely made, even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God, and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ. (Lewis, C.S. The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume III: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy. New York: Harper San Francisco, 2007) </i><br /><br /><br />The fundamentalist view of Hell is wholly unnecessary to a high view<br />of Jesus. It also lacks support from the Bible. Why, then, do so many fight tooth and nail to maintain it? Some say that Hell is essential to the church’s mission. “Why would Jesus command us to spread the Gospel to the world,” they ask, “if most or all will ultimately be saved anyway?”<br /><br />This argument rests on a faulty premise, though. It assumes that the primary purpose of Christianity is to serve as an escape tunnel from this world to the next one. But this is an impoverished view that minimizes the power of Jesus to work in human hearts.<br /><br />His words have given comfort and hope to marginalized people across the globe. They have inspired civil rights leaders, labor unions, and other movements for social justice. Christ has provided spiritual renewal and moral guidance to millions.<br /><br />If these things aren’t enough to inspire his followers to carry on his mission, then threats of eternal damnation won’t do so either. In fact the traditional doctrine of Hell has served the church’s enemies well throughout the centuries, and continues to do so. Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins delight in waving it in the faces of those who profess faith in a God of love.<br /><br />No, Gandhi isn’t in Hell. Nor are the vast majority of people who have lived. Their souls are cradled in the arms of a merciful Parent, who graciously invites we the living to partner with Jesus in making the world a better place. We’re joined in that mission by people of good will from all religions.<br /><br />This is a far more powerful vision than the one held by the poor, deluded ones, who cling to the tired old ideas about Hell. It respects and exalts the God and Father of Jesus, who, as the Scripture says, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). Knowing that is His will gives us glad reason to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.”Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-56723098435237564052011-06-26T18:58:00.000-07:002011-06-28T20:20:54.463-07:00So you say you want heaven on earth...<span class="Apple-style-span"> Challenging one’s assumptions is an excellent mental exercise that I try to engage in occasionally. Recently I’ve been pondering the problem of evil, which, in a nut shell, works like this:<br /><br />1.) God is supposedly both all-good and all-powerful.<br />2.) But evil exists.<br />3.) If there were truly an all-good and all-powerful God, He/She/It would not allow that to be the case.<br />4.) Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Are we absolutely sure about # 3? Theologians who defend the traditional idea of God have formulated a number of responses to it. For example, they have argued that there can be no free will without the possibility of evil, and that without evil there would be no way to develop our moral character. CS Lewis uses a combination of the two responses in his book <i>The Problem of Pain</i>.<br /><br />Others have taken another tack, arguing that, yes, God is all-good, but is not all-powerful. Thus He (forgive my use of the male pronoun in reference to the Deity; it’s an old habit) is doing everything He can do to prevent evil, but some tragedies slip through anyway. That is the approach Rabbi Harold Kushner uses in his work <i>When Bad Things Happen to Good People</i>.<br /><br />These approaches, as well as others, have much to commend them, and they have brought peace and comfort to many. But underlying the whole issue is an unspoken assumption: that a world without evil would be better for humans than the one we have now.<br /><br />“Of course!” we are tempted to respond. “The world would certainly be better without pain, disease, suffering, death, car wrecks, toothaches, cancer, ingrown toenails, war, etc., etc., etc.” This seems so obvious that it’s almost never questioned.<br /><br />But what if it’s wrong?<br /><br />I was watching<i> The Matrix </i>recently when I noted something one of the agents said to the character Neo…<br /><br /><br /><b>If you’re not familiar with the plot of<i> The Matrix</i>, it’s that the world we see around us is an illusion created by a massive network of computers that send signals to our senses, fooling us into believing that what we see, taste, touch, feel, and smell is real. We’re all actually held immobile while nutrients are pumped into our bodies.</b><br /><br /><br />Back to what I was saying. An agent (sort of a computer generated government spy) tells the hero, Neo, that originally the illusory world created for the human race was a perfect one. But our brains rejected it. In order to keep us happily deceived, the computer network had to introduce a degree of pain, toil, and trouble into the images it feeds us. It seems we humans couldn’t stand living in an ideal society.<br /><br />That may sound silly. Maybe it is. But I invite you to try a little experiment. Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding out that overnight all nations had disbanded their militaries and renounced the use of force. The soldiers are leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and are on their way home for good. Down at the army base they’re fitting tanks with bulldozer blades and tossing all the guns into a giant pit. Fighter planes are returning to their home bases to have their bombs and missiles removed. Battleships are throwing their shells in the ocean to make room for relief supplies to hungry people.<br /><br />Sound good so far?<br /><br />Let’s carry it a little further. You soon learn that there is no more crime. All the crooks, from petty thieves to corporate villains, have reformed and are now devoting themselves to good works. The jails and prisons release all the former bad guys, who immediately go about making amends for all the wrong they ever did. Police officers have little to do besides direct traffic and give directions. No one even speeds anymore.<br /><br />Still with me?<br /><br />Follow this line of thinking a little further. After war and crime have ceased, a group of scientists discover a simple chemical formula that eliminates all disease and death. Pharmaceutical companies manufacture it and sell it at cost. “How could we even think of making a profit off of something that can help so many persons?” declares the president of Johnson and Johnson. He then announces that he is turning his posh mansion into a homeless shelter.<br /><br />Sounds good, doesn’t it? There would surely be lots of tears and hugs and church services. At first.<br /><br />What would things be like a year from then, when people turn on the news only to hear that all is well throughout the world? What will conversations be like when the government is run entirely by true statesmen and women who never take bribes and who think only of the common good? What will Letterman and Leno use for material, when all Hollywood celebrities are clean and sober and stay happily married forever?<br /><br />What would <i> you </i> do if that right-wing/left-wing pundit you despise came up to you, admitted they had been in error, and told you they would be fair and balanced for real from now on? Would you rejoice at their turning over a new leaf? Or might you be a tad disappointed that you no longer had a reason to resent them?<br /><br />Imagine everyday life in this idyllic society. “How you doing tonight, Jim?” says someone to their neighbor, who is walking his dog through Central Park at 3 a.m., while a group of Crips hands out candy to children and tells them to be careful crossing the street. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, a man loses his wallet, only to have it retrieved by a fellow in a Heaven’s Angels motorcycle vest, who runs after him to give it back.<br /><br />When the sun breaks people turn on their TV sets, while a cheery announcer tells them that everyone is well fed and safe, that the climate has balanced perfectly across the globe, and that the musical recording artist Big Nice Guy has just released a CD entitled, “Life Sure is Swell.”<br /><br />Would you really want to live in that world?<br /><br />You can quibble with parts of this scenario. You can say that we could still have songs about the ghetto and social injustice and broken hearts and movies filled with violence and mayhem. But how silly would they seem in a world where nothing like that existed? We could still have alcohol and illicit affairs, yes. But why drink when there’s nothing you’re trying to forget? Why cheat on a perfect spouse? Why have television, when all Jerry Springer can put on his show are well-adjusted families talking about how much they love each other? Would anyone even bother to watch?<br /><br />What would humans do in a world where there was no death or disease to remind us of how precious life is, no abhorrent evils to fill us with moral anguish and outrage, no common threats to make us forget our differences and band together?<br /><br />Might we grow desperate for relief from paradise? Might we use our human ingenuity to invent imaginary wrongs to be angry about, fictitious insults and injuries to pick fights over? Would we take a world where all the gentle, peaceful creatures are happy and safe, and turn it into a nightmare for them and for us? Was the script writer for <i>The Matrix</i> right?<br /><br />What is 1st Thessalonians, chapter five, verse three talking about when it declares, “Just as people are saying, ‘Everything is peaceful and secure,’ then disaster will fall on them...And there will be no escape.”<br /><br />I have always thought that verse was a reference to divine wrath pouring itself out on Judgment Day. But what if it’s not? What if it's simply an astute observation of what we will do to ourselves, once diplomacy and science and education have done all the things we wish they would do?<br /><br />What if this really is the best of all possible worlds, at least for creatures like us? Given freedom from the Devil, would we turn into demons? Could we live in Heaven, or would we make it into Hell? And if we would, what does that say about the kind of people we really are?</span><b><b></b></b>Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-79842425017916118262011-06-12T17:08:00.000-07:002011-06-12T18:09:59.288-07:00And Now for Something Totally DifferentWhen I started this blog I intended to comment solely on matters of faith. Recently other issues have been on my mind, however. One of them is the state of the American mind, and of the educational system that is supposed to enrich, inform and enable it.<br><br /> We’re a very smart people. We have the highest level of technological development on earth. Devices that would have seemed hopelessly complex to scientists and technicians a few decades ago are today considered archaic and useless. We launch shuttles into space, immerse ourselves in virtual gaming worlds, and converse with people thousands of miles away as casually as we talk to someone sitting beside us.<br><br /> And we’re a very stupid people. We’re ignorant of basic facts about our history and our heritage. Many Americans have no idea how many houses of Congress there are, what the significance of the date 1776 is, or why we’re a republic instead of a democracy.<br><br /> Our ignorance grows more abysmal when it comes to seperating valid arguments from pure BS. Consider the following:<br><br />“His opinion about the budget can’t be right. After all, he has a degree in history, not economics!”<br><br />“Does this pill really make you lose weight? Well, ask yourself: would millions of people be buying it if it didn’t?”<br><br />“Obama wants to tax the rich and give the money to the poor. That makes him a Socialist!”<br><br />“Conservatives like to talk about family values. So did Hitler. Doesn’t that make you suspicious?” <br><br />“Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. After all, look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.”<br><br />“Studies show that every year since 1950 the number of children killed by guns has doubled.”<br><br /> All of the above statements are seriously flawed. I don’t mean that they’re not true. I mean that they employ faulty logic that any person of average intelligence should be able to see through without trouble. In the case of the last one, what it says is simply impossible.<br><br /> Yet how many times a day do we hear things like this said by politicians, salespeople, and pundits? That’s because there is something deep within us that prefers feelings to facts and wants to believe that our prejudicial attitudes and personal hatreds are morally justified. And there are very clever persons on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as advertisers, spin doctors, and opinion makers who earn very good money catering to this part of our nature.<br><br /> Why does this fact worry me? Because I love my country, and because for it to remain free its people must be able to critically and intelligently examine the claims they hear, and decide what they believe based on facts and logic, not hearsay and hysteria. Furthermore, they must be able to listen to the opinions of those they disagree with in a civil fashion and consider what they say, instead of automatically assuming it’s wrong.<br><br /> Without these abilities a representative government cannot properly function. And it is those very abilities that are not being nurtured in our society. <br><br /> When was the last time you read a book or watched a program where multiple sides of an issue were presented, and you were left to make up your own mind which was right? Despite the claims of some to be “fair and balanced,” there simply is no market for that kind of presentation. Fox News and MSNBC sift their broadcasts through their chosen ideological filter. <br> <br />Add to that the misinformation foisted on us by commercials and ads and the barrage of propaganda flowing from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, and NPR. Almost never are we motivated to challenge our pet beliefs or engage in open dialogue with our ideological opponents.<br />When we do encounter those form the “other side,” the usual result is a shouting match marked by insults and fallacious reasoning.<br><br /> Our society cannot be healthy so long as this is the order of the day.<br />Idiots can’t govern themselves. Those in power know this quite well, which, in my opinion, is why they make no attempt to encourage truly free thinking or civil, rational discourse between people with differing beliefs.<br> <br /> When I watch shows like “Meet the Press” I see a skilled liar from one political party matched against an equally skilled liar from the opposing party. They don’t answer questions, they evade them. I suspect that, deep inside, the important thing to both sides is keeping the people acting like sheep, even those in the opposing shepherd’s flock. The one thing that the monied interests fear above all is the American public demanding to be told the truth, whether it’s what they want to hear or not.<br><br /> Jesus knew that we have these tendencies. That is why he was such a strong proponent of self-examination. We worry more about the speck in our brother’s eye than the wooden beam in our own. That’s because it’s always easier to point a finger than to look in the mirror.<br><br /> Yet real, honest self-examination is a habit all of us need to cultivate. We need to challenge ourselves to justify our beliefs, our actions, and our motives. It is terrifyingly easy for human beings to wrap our worst instincts in robes of righteousness. Do you think that the people who burned the “witches” of Salem thought of themselves as murderers? Hardly. In their minds they were protecting their children and their community from a horrid menace. They were following the only course of action acceptable to decent people – or so they thought.<br><br /> Fast forward from those times to the early 21st century, and what do you hear? “Those damn Republicans don’t care about the poor; that’s why they oppose social programs.” (Reality check: many conservatives are passionate about helping the less fortunate; they simply don’t think the government does a very good job of it). <br><br /> Another common accusation: “Liberals don’t love this country like we real patriots do; that’s why they criticize it so much.” (Reality check: most people who are left of center do love America, and it is that love that leads them to criticize its faults, in the hope of making it a better nation).<br><br /> Our enemies aren’t those we disagree with. The ones we should fear are those who profit from keeping us pitted against each other, who spoon feed us selected facts that reinforce what we already believe, and who encourage us to think of the other side as morons, traitors, bigots, or fascists.<br><br /> Consider these book titles: “Stupid White Men, and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation;” and “Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government.” Each is authored by a man who is so convinced he is right that he feels free to demean and demonize those with whom he disagrees. And both men have grown filthy rich off of whipping up the fears and prejudices of their particular followers.<br><br /> In my humble effort to combat their influence, I want to recommend a couple of books myself. Below are their Amazon links:<br><br /><a href= http://www.amazon.com/Wingnuts-Lunatic-Fringe-Hijacking-America/dp/B004I1JQAM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307922219&sr=1-1> Here’s one. </a><br><br /><a href = http://www.amazon.com/Damned-Lies-Statistics-Untangling-Politicians/dp/0520219783/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307922352&sr=1-1> And here’s the other. </a><br><br /> Yes, I know I’m pimping for a megabucks corporation by referring you to Amazon. If you like, buy the books from another source. Or check them out at the library. What matters to me is that both be read by as many people as possible.<br><br /> I’d also like to encourage anyone reading this to commit to critically thinking about EVERYTHING you read or hear, including this blog. Season your faith with a healthy dose of skepticism and your trust with an urge to verify. You, this country, and the world will all be better places for the effort. Peace.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-374295628985106672011-05-23T12:23:00.000-07:002011-05-23T12:30:52.850-07:00What the Amish Taught me about TechnologyIf there’s a support group for Facebook addicts, then I need to join up. I’ve had a love/hate relationship with the site for years. This morning, however, after receiving a notice from a “friend” that I was among the ones she would purge from her contacts list (“nothing personal, Bill”), I deactivated my account, hopefully for the last time.<br><br /> Oh, and I still don’t own an IPod or IPad, though I do have a Kindle.<br><br /> The question of technology’s effect on our humanity is a growing one in the minds of many people. It has been troubling me for some months now, as I noted the ease with which I and others casually “friend” and “defriend” persons with a mouse click, giving little consideration to the fact that they aren’t simply images on a computer screen. They are living, breathing human beings, with thoughts and needs and strengths and faults and feelings. Unlike us shallow types, they may actually be foolish enough to believe that the word “friend” still means something.<br><br /> I’m reminded of a book I read almost twenty years ago, entitled <span style="font-style:italic;">How to Live Without Electricity.</span> It was written by an Amish gentleman who lives in Pennsylvania. Obviously I didn’t accept everything he had to say, demonstrated by the fact that I’m typing these words into a PC while a light bulb burns overhead – though in my defense I must add that it’s a low wattage fluorescent.<br><br /> However, his central thesis struck me to the core, and has remained with me ever since. In explaining why his spiritual community eschews many modern conveniences, he explained that it had nothing to do with legalistic notions about radio and TV and automobiles being inherently evil. The actual reasons are more nuanced and thoughtful. <br><br /> The Amish people decided long ago that is was foolish to accept technological innovations uncritically, without considering how they would affect their primary goal of living in close relationships and mutual interdependence. Television may provide hours of entertainment, but it causes persons to withdraw into their own private worlds, forgetting about the living, breathing human beings around them. Power driven tools make work more efficient, but they make community projects, such as raising a barn together, seem trite and unnecessary.<br><br /> Given my current disgust with online social media, I can’t help but reflect on these things and wonder if the Plain People are onto something the rest of us could learn from. Having ten thousand “friends” cheapens the meaning of the word almost to extinction. Rushing to the mall or a big box store to get the latest cell phone or video game console, without first asking why we’re doing so, is the sort of thing that leads to obscene levels of credit card debt, and economic depressions when we can’t make those monthly payments.<br><br /> This isn’t to say that such products are evil, of course. To the contrary, technology has given us unprecedented opportunities for education, enrichment, and, yes, entertainment. In and of themselves these things are not wicked. The danger arises when we adopt a “latest is greatest” mindset and neglect to ask ourselves what our motives are for adding yet another technological gadget to our possessions. <br><br /> Is it because of status? Do we fear being behind the curve or looking antiquated in front of our friends and neighbors? Is it due to a commercial being entertaining or a sales person being persuasive? Are we afraid the kids will nag us if we don’t pacify their incessant demands? All of these are great reasons NOT to make the purchase.<br><br /> Material possessions, as well as the activities we engage in, should be means to an end, namely to live productive, healthy, meaning filled lives. Ones that help us to learn, to grow, to strengthen our bonds with other people, or to enhance our spiritual or intellectual lives, are wise and well made investments. On the other hand, those that make it easier for us to waste time, go further in debt, or dehumanize others should be avoided, no matter how attractive the Sirens of Capitalism make them seem.<br><br /> That is what the Amish taught me about technology. I pray to God that I will take the lesson to heart, and apply it fully to my own life. Maybe you should do so too. Email me if you agree. Or just send me a tweet.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-11875538110674594252011-05-15T18:37:00.000-07:002011-05-15T18:47:23.163-07:00Why Jesus is a MuslimThroughout American history there have been events that became frozen in our memories, so much so that we remember exactly where we were when we heard about them. Those who are old enough can tell you exactly where they were when President Kennedy was shot or when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. I recall hearing about the space shuttle Challenger disaster during college.<br><br /> But all of us who lived through the last decade can recall the moment we heard about the World Trade Center towers being attacked. I remember switching on the television and looking at a skyscraper with smoke pouring out of it. I thought it was an odd sort of action movie at first. Then, I stopped and listened to what the newscasters were saying. I felt a wave of outrage, as I realized that, for the first time in six decades, my nation had been attacked on its own soil.<br><br /> Like other Americans I soon heard the name Osama Bin Ladin for the first time. And I shared the satisfaction that others felt the night he met his Maker, and I feel nothing but pride now for the brave men who did justice upon him. They have nothing to apologize for.<br><br /> 9/11 changed the United States in deep and profound ways. A sense of patriotism was rekindled among our people. Suddenly the American flag was seen everywhere. And we resolved to defend our nation from its enemies.<br><br /> But, regrettably, some of us betrayed the ideals on which our country was founded. Many Americans blamed all Muslims for the actions of a tiny minority. Others used the anger that we rightfully felt to advance their private agendas. Soon a wave of propaganda flooded the Internet, and spilled over into other media sources. Overnight, people who have never met a Muslim in their lives became "experts" on Sharia law, and were spreading hysterical nonsense with no basis in fact. Especially shameful is that many of them were doing so in the name of Christ. <br><br /> Both the terms Muslim as well as Christian have very noble meanings. To be a Muslim literally means to be one who submits themselves to the will of God. A Christian, in the most basic sense of the word, is someone who follows the example and the teachings of Jesus Christ. <br><br /> Islam and Christianity share a common heritage, drawing many of their beliefs about God from the sacred writings of the Jewish people. Both Jesus and Muhammad were men of great faith, and lovers of justice, mercy and charity. The New Testament, and the Koran, have inspired great works of art and architecture. They’ve nourished the study of the humanities and the sciences. And they’ve provided millions with moral direction, as well as comfort in times of sorrow. <br> <br /> I was discussing these issues online recently when a Muslim friend brought up an interesting point. He said that it was wrong to call Osama Bin Ladin <br />a Muslim. His point was that no one who slaughters innocent people is submitted to the will of God. <br><br /> I immediately saw the truth in his words. And I was reminded of how the word Christian is tossed about so carelessly here in the United States. <br><br /> Jesus was a man of peace, who commanded his disciples to love their neighbors. You can’t love your neighbor and at the same time twist, and distort, what he believes. You can’t share the love of Christ with him in one moment, and, in the next, tell him he’s not welcome in your community. Unfortunately, that's the reception many Muslim Americans have received since the tragic events of 9/11. <br><br /> Much of the propaganda about Islam has a great deal to say about Sharia law. Now it is true that in some Middle Eastern nations people use, or rather misuse, aspects of this teaching to justify cruelty and discrimination. But this is in no way unique to Muslims. The history of Christianity is rife with examples of the Bible being used to justify such things as slavery, witch hunts, and massacres of helpless persons. In the days before the Civil War, some clergymen defended slavery on scriptural grounds, saying that the relationship between slave and master was like the relationship between Christ and his church. <br><br /> These perversions of Jesus’ message aren’t simply relics of a distant past. They go on till this day, as those who have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church can attest to. Any good thing can be used for evil, when it falls into the hands of evil men. <br><br /> Muslims will tell you that there is a wide ranging difference of opinion as to what Sharia law means, and how it should be practiced. In this way they are like Christians, who have no trouble debating about the tenets of their own faith.<br><br /> The struggle against anti-Islamic prejudice has been cast as a contest between those who love America, and those who would leave it defenseless against terrorism. That’s nonsense. There is no patriotism, in trying to deny to any group of Americans, the rights for which so many, including Muslim Americans, have fought and died. Those who engage in anti-Islamic bigotry, are guilty of the ideological equivalent, of spitting on the American flag. Many of them persist in this behavior, even when the errors in their thinking are pointed out. When they do so, they show they have no respect for the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or the other great documents that form the basis of our society. They may wrap themselves in the Stars and Stripes, but the symbol they truly align themselves with is the one Germany marched under, during the second world war. <br> <br /> The current debate over Islam isn’t between Christians and Muslims. It’s not about patriotism vs. political correctness. The actual struggle is much older. It’s the ancient battle between those who love peace, and the ones who crave hatred and bloodshed.<br><br /> The peacemaker seeks to build bridges between cultures and nations. The hatemonger wants to tear them down. The peacemaker heals, the hatemonger spreads the disease of prejudice. The peacemaker seeks the good of humanity. The hatemonger wants death and destruction. The peacemaker’s tools are education and understanding. The hatemonger’s weapons are ignorance and fear. The hatemonger’s goal is to incite violence. The peacemaker’s goal, is to be a child of God. The two are endlessly opposed. Which side ultimately wins, is up to you and to me.<br><br /> The peacemaker is doing the will of God. In that sense, all men and women of peace ARE Muslims, even those of us who call ourselves Christians. In the same way, everyone who works for peace walks in the ways of Jesus, and in that sense they are all Christians, even those who are Muslims. <br><br /> Working for peace doesn’t mean that we lower our national defenses or forego dispensing justice. Nor does it mean that we abandon the distinctive teachings of our respective faith. But it does mean that we take the Apostle Paul seriously when he writes, “Insofar as it is possible with you, live at peace with all people” (Romans 12:18). It means that we remember the words of Saint Francis, when he said “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.”<br><br /> It means that we take every opportunity to find common ground with others. And it means that if we have a question or concern about their beliefs, we go to them about it, and not some questionable source on the Internet.<br><br /> In saying these things I’m correcting myself more than anyone else. God knows that I have failed to live up to these ideals more times than I can count. But we need not be perfect in doing what is right, to agree that we can, and should, strive towards it. So, in closing, I ask you to accept my prayer that the God of Abraham, of Jesus, and of Muhammad, and of every man and woman of goodwill, shall guide us all in the ways of peace, now, and forever. God bless you, God bless America, and God bless every person and every nation, on the face of the earth.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-83564729559390944832011-04-19T09:26:00.000-07:002011-04-19T09:47:34.503-07:00Is Gandhi in Hell?It appears that the gates of Hell are under assault once again. This time the charge is led by a 40 year old Evangelical minister named Rob Bell.<br />His new book <u>Love Wins</u> has brittle fundamentalists all in knots.<br><br /> I’ve read it and, as I expected, was left scratching my head, wondering what all the fuss is about. Despite the shrill allegations of his detractors, Bell never says that Hell doesn’t exist. Nor does he use the dreaded “U” word – Universalism.<br><br /> For those of you not familiar with this term, it basically means that, when all is said and done, every human being who has ever lived will end up in God’s kingdom. It comes in a few different varieties. For example, pluralistic notions of Universalism teach that all, or nearly all, religions lead to salvation (abusive cults such as Jim Jones’s are usually considered to not be “true faiths). But even those who are openly irreligious will ultimately find their way to Heaven in this scheme.<br><br /> A variant on this position is Christian Universalism. It maintains that Jesus is unique among the world’s spiritual leaders in that he is the means by which all people will be redeemed. It differs from mainstream Evangelicalism, however, in teaching that all persons who ever lived will ultimately come to faith in Christ, if not in this life then in the next one.<br><br />For those who want to know more about this conception, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Reconciliation">here’s a link to an excellent article about it: </a> <br><br /> <u>Love Wins</u> never says that Bell is a Universalist. In fact, it doesn’t spell out what he believes on the matter at all. But it does ask some questions that many people don’t want to deal with. That’s one of the reasons that it has been viciously attacked and misrepresented by Evangelical power brokers such as the staunch Calvinist John Piper.<br><br /> What are some of the questions Love Wins raises? Here’s a list:<br />- What becomes of people who live virtuous, compassionate lives, yet don’t become Christians? What happens to them after death? Bell uses the specific example of Gandhi when he brings up this issue.<br />- What about those who would have heard the Gospel, but circumstances prevented it? As Bell puts it, “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?”<br />- Why would a loving God choose to keep anyone in a conscious state of horrific torment for endless eons of time? Even major league bad guys like Hitler and Saddam Hussein committed finite amounts of evil during their lives. How does that rate infinite punishment?<br />- Is it possible that Hell is meant to be a purgative and corrective experience, rather than purely retributive? If it is, does that mean that the people in it may one day be released, their characters reformed, their souls ready to experience union with God?<br><br /> As I said before, Bell doesn’t give us answers to these concerns. He offers them as points to consider when pondering whether the traditional ideas about Hell and who goes there should be reevaluated. For this modest and reasoned effort on he has been called a heretic and false prophet. The editor of Christianity Today even tried to hang that most offensive of terms, “liberal,” around Bell’s neck.<br><br /> For my two cents, I am firmly in Bells’ camp, though my personal views tend more towards Annihilationism. Below is a link to a page that will tell you everything you ever wanted to know and more about it. <br> <br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism"> Click here for everything you ever wanted to know about Annihilationism. </a><br><br /> The notion that everyone who doesn’t profess faith in Jesus during this life is doomed to an eternity of torment is absurd and repulsive. It makes a mockery of God’s fairness, compassion and love. And, despite what its defenders claim, it in no way is a logical consequence of God’s holiness or desire for justice. Quite the opposite is true.<br><br /> Perhaps the soundest rejection of common notions about Hell comes from Jesus himself. In the entire Bible there is only one passage that offers a prolonged description of Hell. It’s in the Gospel of Luke I’m posting it below. The text is from the English Standard Version, Luke 16:19-31.<br><i><br />19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.<br><br /><br />25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’<br> <br /><br />27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”</i><br><br /><br /> A careful reading of these verses brings out several key points:<br><br />1.) Jesus goes out of his way to show that the rich guy was a really bad dude. He let poor Lazarus lay in the dirt outside his front door and starve while he stuffed his face. He was no Gandhi. Muhammad, Confucius, the Buddha and countless other moral and spiritual leaders would have found him loathsome.<br />2.) The rich guy keeps his superior attitude even in the fires of Hell. When he looks up and watches Lazarus being comforted by Abraham, does he say, “Oh my God, forgive me! I see the error of my ways!”? Hardly. Instead he sees a chance to enslave the man who he let suffer such degradation. “Hey, Abraham, send that loser out to get me some water! It’s hot as Hell down here!” This is one cold-hearted piece of crap.<br />3.) He knew full well that what he did was wrong, even when he was alive and could have changed his ways. Note that he’s aware of the Old Testament; i.e. “Moses and the prophets.” Their writings are filled with exhortations to practice social justice and to care for the poor. The rich man lived his life in direct violation of God’s position on these matters.<br><br /> The point of the story is obvious. Jesus is saying that divine punishment awaits those who refuse to help others in need, who know full well that they should do so, and whose hearts are so hard that even after death they maintain their self-centeredness. <br><br /> These details make it clear that he wasn’t speaking of people like Gandhi, a man who devoted his life to helping the poor and oppressed. He wasn’t raising the specter of Hell over the men and women of good will that are found in all faiths. There is no basis in the passage whatsoever for the claim that non-Christians suffer eternal torment after death. <br> <br /> “But Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life,’ supporters of the old view may counter. “Doesn’t that mean that those who die without knowing Him are doomed?” No. It doesn't. <br><br /> Let’s assume for now that Christian claims of Jesus’ uniqueness are correct. Let’s agree that no man comes to God the Father except through him, for the moment at least. Even if we allow that, <i>it does not mean that Christianity is the only way to Christ. </i> <br> <br /> CS Lewis dealt with this issue in a beautiful way in his Chronicles of Narnia series. The character Emeth worshipped a false god throughout the series, yet in its culmination Aslan, who was an allegorical representation of Jesus, welcomed into heaven. Emeth, in following truth to the best of his understanding, was in reality giving service to God, although his conception of the Divine was incorrect. <br> <br /> Commenting on this later, Lewis wrote:<br /> <i> I think that every prayer which is sincerely made, even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God, and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ. (Lewis, C.S. The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume III: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy. New York: Harper San Francisco, 2007) </i> <br><br /><br /> The fundamentalist view of Hell is wholly unnecessary to a high view <br />of Jesus. It also lacks support from the Bible. Why, then, do so many fight tooth and nail to maintain it? Some say that Hell is essential to the church’s mission. “Why would Jesus command us to spread the Gospel to the world,” they ask, “if most or all will ultimately be saved anyway?” <br><br /> This argument rests on a faulty premise, though. It assumes that the primary purpose of Christianity is to serve as an escape tunnel from this world to the next one. But this is an impoverished view that minimizes the power of Jesus to work in human hearts. <br><br /> His words have given comfort and hope to marginalized people across the globe. They have inspired civil rights leaders, labor unions, and other movements for social justice. Christ has provided spiritual renewal and moral guidance to millions. <br><br /> If these things aren’t enough to inspire his followers to carry on his mission, then threats of eternal damnation won’t do so either. In fact the traditional doctrine of Hell has served the church’s enemies well throughout the centuries, and continues to do so. Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins delight in waving it in the faces of those who profess faith in a God of love. <br><br /> No, Gandhi isn’t in Hell. Nor are the vast majority of people who have lived. Their souls are cradled in the arms of a merciful Parent, who graciously invites we the living to partner with Jesus in making the world a better place. We’re joined in that mission by people of good will from all religions. <br><br /> This is a far more powerful vision than the one held by the poor, deluded ones, who cling to the tired old ideas about Hell. It respects and exalts the God and Father of Jesus, who, as the Scripture says, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). Knowing that is His will gives us glad reason to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.”Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-3454643717713129152011-02-06T22:18:00.000-08:002011-02-06T22:36:44.652-08:00Jesus Isn't a Nice GuyEvangelicals have far more in common than a set of shared beliefs. They form an entire subculture, complete with its own books, music and celebrities. The best way to understand them is to make a trip to your local Christian bookstore.<br /> <br /> There you’ll find an extensive variety of items, ranging from Bibles in dozens of different versions to things known as “Jesus junk.” These are mugs, bracelets, posters, etc. that have been made holy by pasting Scripture verses or hokey sayings across them. One of my all time favorites<br />was the tee shirt that sported a logo similar to that used by Gold’s Gym. The graphic artist cleverly removed the “l” from “Gold’s” so that it read “God’s Gym.” The slogan was later changed to “The Lord’s Gym” due to copyright infringement issues. <br /> <br /> More striking than these words, however, was the illustration underneath them. It showed a very muscular Jesus struggling to lift a mammoth cross, with the words “the sins of the world” written across it. Below this it said “bench press this!” It’s sights like this that make me want to laugh and cry at the same time.<br /> <br /> You’ll find other classy items at the Christian bookstore. Among them are knick knacks with sayings meant to inspire the owner. A very popular choice is the plaque with this verse from Jeremiah: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” – Jeremiah 29:11.<br /> <br /> Let me share a little bit about the book of Jeremiah. It’s the gloomiest piece of literature you’ll ever read. It’s filled with woeful statements directed against Israel for abandoning God. It’s so depressing that it’s coined a term. The word “jeremiad” refers to a person who dwells on the negative and<br />spreads bad news further than Johnny Appleseed scattered – well, apple seeds.<br /> <br /> The above mentioned verse is the singular bright spot in the entire text. It’s basically the Lord’s assurance to His people that after He’s dragging them through the mud and slapping them around He’ll do something nice for them. Yahweh’s methods in the Old Testament was often akin to the way R. Lee Ermey might deal with a group of green recruits.<br /> <br /> If you don’t know who that is then I suggest googling his name. He’s a prolific actor as well as a colorful character, a heck of a guy. In particular I urge you to watch the film “Full Metal Jacket” in which he portrays a Marine drill instructor during the Vietnam War.<br /> <br /> Anyway, my point is that the Jeremiah verse shouldn’t be understood to mean God has a wonderful plan for your life. Interpreting it that way is ridiculous. That doesn’t prevent millions of people from doing so, however. For many Christians, understanding the Bible’s real message is less important than getting a buzz from it.<br /> <br /> Books are big sellers at the Christian bookstore. In fact I’ll say this for Evangelicals: on average they read far more than the typical American. While many of the volumes found on the shelves are well worth having there are others that are pure crap. Falling into this category is a wildly popular one entitled "Jesus Calling: Enjoying Peace in His Presence." <br /><br /> The woman who wrote it is an interesting character. She has a Master’s degree in Philosophy and other impressive credentials. She’s also a fan of recovered memory “therapy,” a pseudo-psychological school of thought popular in the 1980s. Back then it was commonly believed that thousands of Americans had been abused by Devil worshipers during childhood, and the resulting trauma caused them to repress any memories of it. <br /><br /> A legion of therapists arose who said they had the ability to help them recall what happened, by using guided imagery and hypnosis. In reality they were using the suggestibility of their patients to plant recollections of thing that never occurred.<br /><br /> The results of this nonsense were tragic. Innocent people across the nation were accused of horrific crimes, often by their own kids. Some of them were sentenced to prison, though their convictions were eventually overturned. A series of lawsuits and investigative reports ultimately discredited the quacks that were peddling this garbage, but not before many families and lives were ruined forever.<br />None of this has deterred the author of Jesus Calling from continuing to believe in it, however.<br /><br /> In the introduction she claims that one day she put pen in hand, cleared her mind and Christ took over from there, using her body as a conduit to write personal messages to her. From reading them I’ve found that the Jesus is quite a sentimentalist. Over and over he tells her how much he loves her, how he wants good things for her and wishes she would just fall into his arms and trust him completely.<br />Strangely absent from these love letters are the sort of things he’s noted for saying in the Gospels. He never tells her “you faithless and perverse generation, how long do I have to put up with you?” Personally I would have been happy if once, just once, he told her something like this: “put down that stupid pen and go out and do something useful. My words in the Gospels were good enough for every other follower of mine. They’ll have to be good enough for you too.” He disappointed me by not tossing that into the mix.<br /><br /> Of course my sarcasm is evident. Jesus didn’t inspire the syrupy platitudes that infest this tome. The author invented them herself, and, in a case of reverse plagiarism, she gave God the credit. I believe she kept the royalty checks, however.<br />What strikes me is how easily most of the book’s fans, and there are millions of them, have accepted it as a genuine message from Christ. This would put it on a par with the Bible. That fact should throw up a red flag in the mind of every Evangelical who reads it. <br /><br /> Apparently this occurred to the author. In the introduction she says that these writings “were not inspired as Scripture is.” This begs the question “what does that mean?” If both books contain God’s words then they are equally inspired. Churches worldwide should read from Jesus Calling every Sunday. The Gideons should put copies in hotel rooms. The Pope should proclaim to the world that new Scriptures have been written.<br /> <br /> What’s behind the mass enthusiasm for his book? A number of things are. First and foremost is the fact that the world is filled with sad, lonely, hurting people who are less comfortless by those around them. So starved are they for any hope that they read things like Jesus Calling out of desperation. It makes them feel better. Unfortunately it also leaves them vulnerable to being manipulated. Nonetheless I feel nothing but compassion for them.<br /> <br /> I have a far less charitable attitude towards people who misuse Bible verses like the one in Jeremiah. One of the most despicable religious movements in the world today is known as the Prosperity Gospel. It can be summed up in one sentence: God wants you to be rich and healthy, and if you’re not it’s your own fault. Televangelists love to preach this nonsense, as it’s a perfect setup to bilk money out of people. They challenge their viewers to “step out in faith” by sending in a donation, so that the Lord can return their investment with interest.<br /> <br /> Most “ministries” that peddle this nonsense don’t show their financial statements to the public. There’s an unfortunate loophole in IRS regulations that makes that optional for non-profit organizations, although all legitimate ones release theirs anyway. Because of this the preacher running the scam can spend virtually all of the incoming funds on his lavish lifestyle, and then throw whatever is left at a soup kitchen or orphanage. That way he can report that the money received is helping to feed the hungry and house the homeless.<br /> <br /> I feel sorry for the people who fall for this BS. Many of them are partially to blame for it, however. Most scams rely on the victim’s greed to help hook them. After all, we enjoy our greed. Very few of us follow Paul’s advice in 1st Timothy 6:6-10:<br /> <br /><br /><blockquote>But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Jesus never said that he’s concerned about our earthly success. He never intended for us to see him as a cheerleader or business coach to inspire us to get a better job or a bigger house. He came to turn the world upside down, to make a mockery of its value system and confront us with the nasty things about ourselves we refuse to face. He brought comfort to the comfortless; that is true. But to those who were already comfortable he brought great discomfort. Much of what he said was coarse, provocative and unlikely to build rapport between him and others. Consider the following:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead people's bones and every kind of impurity.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>If people come to me and are not ready to abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as their own lives, they cannot be my disciples.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (How closed-minded!).</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.’ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.’ The woman came and knelt before him. ‘Lord, help me!’ she said. He replied, ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.’ “ (Yes, he did go on to help the woman’s child, but not before first trying to provoke her by insulting her ethnic heritage).</blockquote> <br /><br /><br /><br /> Not exactly meek and mild, was he? Face it, you wouldn’t want Jesus at your next party. Corporate CEO's wouldn’t welcome him into their boardrooms. Politicians might want their picture taken with him, but they would ban him from their strategy meetings.<br /> <br /> So far in this post I’ve picked on Evangelicals. It’s time to take a swipe at the other end of the spectrum. I’m currently reading a book entitled “The Historical Jesus: Five Views.” The first essay in it is written by a liberal professor named Dominick Crossan. In it he transforms Jesus into a first century political liberal, a non-violent activist concerned with social justice for the marginalized.<br /> <br /> As another scholar points out in his response, Crossan’s view is based less on evidence than it is on the all too human tendency to form God in our own image. The more books I read by revisionist biblical scholars the more convinced I become that they’re not interested in finding the historical person behind the gospel stories. Their real agenda is to make Christ politically correct, the sort of guy who would fit in well at an anti-Wal-Mart protest or a PBS fundraiser. “You’re so right, Jesus. Obama is much too conservative. Would you like a glass of wine, or maybe some organic fruit?”<br /> <br /> These efforts are as doomed to failure as the Religious Right’s crusade to make Christ into a ball cap-wearing, Pledge of Allegiance reciting, homophobic clone of themselves. He won’t play along with our efforts to make him safe, friendly or comfortable.<br /> <br /> Let me say here that I don’t believe Jesus’ intention was to insult and degrade people for its own sake. He wasn’t a sadist. But he did speak plainly, even rudely to people when he felt it would force them to confront themselves and acknowledge their own character flaws and hypocrisy.<br /> <br /> With this in mind, I’d like to suggest some things Jesus might actually say if we were to have a conversation with him:<br /><br /><br />“You didn’t need to get those shoes. You’ve already got fifty pairs. Why are you obsessed with looking like people on television? Underneath their designer clothes and silicone breasts they’re as lonely and insecure as you. Why not look at Mother Teresa as someone to emulate, or that cleaning woman who works evenings at your office? She has more character and class than anyone in Hollywood, which you’d find out if you took the time to speak with her for a change.”<br /><br />“Smoking a cigarette, I see. I don’t know what bugs me more, your willingness to pour carbon monoxide into your lungs or your support for an evil corporation that peddles poison to teenagers. And don’t get me started on that garbage you eat.”<br /><br /><br />“Boy, you really sounded self-righteous at that rally this morning, condemning people who look at pornography. You achieved your goal; everyone thinks you’d make a great Senator. Just make sure they don’t find out about those websites you visit late at night. What? How did I know about that? I know everything!”<br /><br /><br />“You get a bonus at work and what do you do with it? You waste the money on that camper. You know as well as I do that you didn’t get it for family trips. You just wanted your neighbors to see it parked in front of your house. You are one sick, superficial piece of crap, you know that? How long will I have to wait before you grow up a little?”<br /><br /><br />“Yes, I heard that singer say he doesn’t believe in me. I also heard you say he was going to Hell for it. You’re an asshole. That poor guy was beaten half to death by his dad when he was eight years old. The only people who ever showed him any acceptance were the drug addicts at school. He’s clinically depressed and angry at the world. Maybe you should have taken the time to find out a little about him before pronouncing judgment. It’s always easier for you to point a finger than to look in the mirror, isn’t it, you Hell-bound hypocrite?”<br /><br /><br /><br />“I’ve heard your prayers to me for your cancer to be healed. It’s not going to happen. We all have crosses to bear in this world and this is yours. Yes, I have reasons for letting this occur and I’ll gladly share them with you on the Other Side. In the meantime you’ll have to take life one day at a time and relish each moment, because time is running out for you.”<br /><br /><br />“You can ask me till your dying day why I let your child get killed in that car wreck, but you won’t get an answer this side of the grave. Cursing my name won’t change my mind about that. If you want to make her death mean something then I suggest donating money or doing volunteer work for Mothers Against Drunk Driving or some other worthy cause in her name. I’ll suffer with you in your grief. But I won’t take it away.”<br /><br /> <br />Imagine the Son of God calling us to tell us these things. Would we pick up the phone?<br /><br /> Jesus isn’t a nice guy, in the sense of being agreeable and avoiding conflict. He’s not interested in winning friends and being the life of the party. He’s often coarse and unsettling. Yet for all of this he’s the most genuine person who ever lived. Following him doesn’t mean drifting along on a cloud of bliss from one spiritual high to the next. Being his disciple may bring more sadness and loss into your life than if you ignored him totally. That’s not a very comforting thought, but it’s the truth. He loves you too much to tell you anything else.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-615266096466078982010-10-08T19:00:00.000-07:002010-10-09T06:35:19.652-07:00Atheists are Fundamentalists TooWarning: this post is going to be a bit different in tone than my previous ones. <br /><br />Anyone who has visited this blog should have figured out by now that I have problems with narrow-minded people. But not all such persons are equally to blame for their short-sightedness. Many, especially religious fundamentalists, are simply the products of factors outside their control. These include the brains they were born with, the homes they were raised in and their opportunities, or lack thereof, for education and intellectual enrichment.<br /><br />An individual with limited mental faculties, who was reared in a home with few or no books in it and who was never encouraged to pursue academics has quite frankly been handed a raw deal. Such unfortunate persons are, on the whole, unlikely to ever be counted among the world's academic giants. This is no fault of theirs, and I hold no animosity whatsoever against them. <br /><br />However, not everyone who is unlearned fits this stereotype. There are millions who were born with excellent cognitive abilities. They have supportive families and access to outstanding educational facilities. Yet despite these advantages they have chosen willful ignorance about subjects which they hold strong opinions of. <br /><br />What's worse, some of them pretend to speak authoritatively on these topics. When called on their errors they ignore their critics and continue to spread nonsense. Worst of all they do this while declaring themselves to be champions of science and Reason.<br /><br />The Economist magazine's website recently held a debate on the question "is religion a force for good or evil?" Representing the latter position was a rather uptight gentleman named Sam Harris. He is known in atheist circles as one of the "four horsemen," popular writers who attack religious faith. Other members of this fraternity include Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," Christopher Hitchens, who penned "God is not Great," and Daniel Dennett, most famous for his tome "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."<br /><br />Personally I feel that comparing these fellows to the apocalyptic images in Revelation is a bit of a stretch. I refer to them as "The Four Stooges." (Yes, I know what you're saying: there were only three stooges. But that's only if you don't count Shemp).<br /><br />Anyway, the following were some of Harris' salvos in what proved to be a rather heated exchange:<br /><br /><br />"The truth claims of the world's major religions are not merely strange, they are patently ludicrous. The paradise promised to devout Muslims in the Koran is a garden complete with rivers of milk and honey, and enough silk brocade, almonds and virgins to go around. This vision of sublimity is so time-bound and provincial as to leave no doubt as to its origin. It is analogous to a modern cult organised around the promise of an afterlife in which every soul gets to drive a new Lexus." <br /><br />"There is no question that people can transform their lives for the better, and many of these experiences are generally considered "spiritual", in that they can seem to confirm some of the core doctrines of the world's religions. Of course, they do nothing of the sort—because, as has already been conceded, the world's religions are mutually incompatible. The fact that Christian and Hindu contemplatives can both experience devotion, ecstasy, compassion, rapture, self-transcendence and other remarkable mental states proves, beyond any doubt, that such phenomena do not depend on the truth of any religious doctrine."<br /><br />"Given the antiquity of the world's religions, their mutual incompatibility and the frequent barbarism enshrined as wisdom in their canons, there is no chance whatsoever that any one of them is the best possible description of this range of human experience. Whatever is true about us in "spiritual" terms can be discovered in the present and understood in the context of a maturing science of the human mind."<br /><br /><br />"When we doubt that science (and reason generally) can apply to questions of morality, meaning and spiritual concern, we are essentially saying there are truths that resist honest observation and clear reasoning, but which yield their wonders to minds that have been sufficiently prepared by lies (re: religious teachings)."<br /><br />The above quotes are typical of remarks made by the Four Stooges. Some observations about them:<br /><br />1.) They display a dismal lack of knowledge about the subject they criticize. For example,<br />consider the egregious errors Harris commits in this portion:<br /><br /> "The world's religions are mutually incompatible. The fact that Christian and Hindu contemplatives can both experience devotion, ecstasy, compassion, rapture, self-transcendence and other remarkable mental states proves, beyond any doubt, that such phenomena do not depend on the truth of any religious doctrine."<br /><br />This statement conveniently ignores the many areas of agreement between the major world faiths. Hinduism and Christianity differ in many respects to be sure. Yet there are also numerous points on which they concur. Each affirms that the physical world is transcended and supported by a greater Reality which is eternal and spiritual in nature. Both religions tell us that the Universe is governed by benevolent deities. <br /><br />Yes, Hindus do believe in a pantheon of gods. However, the majority of them acknowledge one God who is supreme above all, usually referred to as Vishnu, who, like the Christian Trinity, manifests Himself as three different persons.<br /><br />They also have roughly equivalent moral codes. They acknowledge wrongdoing causes suffering and they teach that through faith, self-denial and practical compassion, humans may be united in sweetest fellowship with God, the source of all good.<br /><br />These commonalities are shared by Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians and practitioners of lesser known faiths. Even Buddhism, which does not address the idea of God directly, proclaims the reality of the spiritual world. It also urges its adherents to practice charity, self-control and detachment from materialism and sensual desires.<br /><br />An honest look at the major world faiths shows that Harris' charges of incompatibility are vastly overblown. To the contrary, they display remarkable agreement in many areas. This has lead many reasonable persons, including myself, to believe that they are akin to thirsty pilgrims, each of whom has found sustenance by drinking from the same well of divine truth.<br /><br />Because of this, Christian and Hindu mystics are united with the same transcendent Reality in their metaphysical quests. They both experience the ineffable joy of touching the One who is ultimately beyond the power of language to describe. This affirms rather than denies the truth of their respective faith traditions. Harris' dismissal of these things is not only wrong-headed, it's pathetic.<br /><br />2.) They reveal themselves as not only ignorant but also obscenely arrogant, judging the past by 21st century standards and making no attempt to understand or appreciate the rich subtleties and symbolism in sacred literature.<br /><br />For example, Harris writes:<br /><br /> "The truth claims of the world's major religions are not merely strange, they are patently ludicrous. The paradise promised to devout Muslims in the Koran is a garden complete with rivers of milk and honey, and enough silk brocade, almonds and virgins to go around. This vision of sublimity is so time-bound and provincial as to leave no doubt as to its origin."<br /><br />To rebut this claim one need only realize that to the ancients symbols such as rivers flowing with milk and honey were never meant to be taken literally. They are poetic devices intended to convey truths too profound for words to fully express. <br /><br />To those interested in learning more about this subject I heartily recommend Karen Armstrong's outstanding book "The Case for God." In it she demolishes Harris' objections. <br /><br />3.) While they speak incessantly of science and rationality, in the end they abuse both Reason and the scientific method for their own agendas.<br /><br />Consider these words from Harris:<br /><br />"When we doubt that science (and reason generally) can apply to questions of morality, meaning and spiritual concern, we are essentially saying there are truths that resist honest observation and clear reasoning, but which yield their wonders to minds that have been sufficiently prepared by lies (re: religious teachings)."<br /><br />Implicit in this statement is the notion that honest observation and clear reasoning are beyond the capabilities of people with spiritual convictions. But history reveals just the opposite. Plato, Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Confucius, Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King - all of them, and countless others, were keen observers of the world and excellent thinkers. Each of them also believed in God or some other form of spiritual reality. To say that their minds were "prepared by lies" is not only puerile, it's silly and stupid.<br /><br />Regarding science, it's benefits to humanity are obvious. It has done a marvelous job of explaining how the physical world works, by carefully observing physical processes, developing theories to explain their workings and then testing those claims through experimentation.<br /><br />Yet like all disciplines it has its limits. For example, how one one test the truth of this statement: "it is morally wrong to murder elderly women for their pension checks?" <br /><br />To begin with one would first have to observe a valid moral standard then compare the act against it. But where in Nature do we find moral standards, valid or otherwise? The very concept of morality is a result of intuitive notions that cannot be verified by observing the natural world. The same is true of our ideas of beauty, our appreciation of music and the insights we gain from reading great literature, or from simply watching a sunset. These things are beyond science's ability to address. <br /><br />Nor can the scientific disciplines shed any light on questions such as whether people have rights, if there is an ultimate purpose for existence or if there is anything beyond the world of our senses. Like it or not, these issues are the province of artists, philosophers and theologians, and the answers they provide are at best well thought out leaps of faith. On these matters science is mute.<br /><br />After spending much time reading their words and listening to their vitriolic diatribes, I've concluded that it isn't love of truth that drives the Four Stooges and their fans. It's something much more crass: a hatred of those with different opinions mixed with the urge to feel superior to those same people. To nurture these desires they have embarked on a campaign supported by a mountain of rhetoric, half-truths and outright lies. <br /><br />They are as ignorant and intolerant as the most narrow-minded religious bigot. In their case, though, it's a willful ignorance, which they hold to in spite of their intellectual gifts and access to knowledge. Thus in the final analysis they are the worst fundamentalists of all.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-51185285347664057292010-03-10T16:38:00.000-08:002010-03-11T21:20:57.082-08:00The Anti-Christ is Among us AgainThe 1990s was a time of intense speculation. The year 2000 was looming in the minds of virtually everyone. Cottage industries devoted to foretelling what the dawn of the new millennium would bring popped up everywhere. Anyone who remembers the Y2K hysteria knows just how much anxiety people were feeling about the events that lay just beyond December 31st, 1999, 11:59 pm.<br /><br /> This effect was not unfelt by those who insist on treating the Bible like a fortune teller’s crystal ball. Theologians amateur and pro were trying to line up the words of Daniel and Revelation with the headlines in the daily news. I had an extended dialogue for a while with a very sincere fellow in an AOL discussion group. He was convinced that he had identified the Anti-Christ as none other than then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He had studied the career of the vicious dictator in depth and found in his biography unmistakable parallels with prophetic verses. He was convinced that by the year 2000 Hussein would reveal himself as the long awaited false messiah who would usher in the final seven year tribulation culminating in Jesus’ return to the planet Earth. <br /><br /> I recall trying to persuade this obviously nice and rather intelligent person that he was<br />most likely in error. When confronted with my posts, though, he had a pat answer: “just wait. You’ll see I was right soon enough.”<br /><br /> It’s now the year 2010, and, alas, Saddam Hussein failed to live up to expectations. The deposed despot was found cowering in a farmhouse on December 14th 2003 and executed in 2006, paying the ultimate penalty for his lengthy list of crimes against humanity. I thought about my old friend on that day and wondered how he was dealing with being shown the error in his thinking. I’ve long since lost contact with him, but I wish him well.<br /><br /> Not to worry, of course. Those who insist on reading the biblical text in a hyper-literal fashion have fresh new candidates for the position of Anti-Christ. The expansion of the Internet since the 1990s allows them to publicize their theories to a worldwide audience. As of the time of this writing the current favorite appears to be President Barack Obama. Trying to pin the label of Christ’s ultimate enemy on our first African-American chief executive is practically an obsession with many. <br /><br /> Googling (is that a word?) the words “Obama Anti-Christ” returns well over one million results. One that caught my eye is www.antichristidentity.com. The site’s owner claims to have examined over 4,000 pieces of documentation regarding Obama’s link to a conspiracy to establish a one-world government. In addition he and his “research staff” have listened to 5,000 hours of Obama’s speeches, combing through them for cryptic phrases and code<br />words that demonstrate the president’s connection to unnamed anti-Christian organizations.<br /><br /><br /><br /> The best part: he will gladly send you his full report for the low, low price of $19.97. Better hurry, though. As the site owner warns, his page may disappear from the Internet at any time if “they” have their way.<br /><br /> Dissent is the sign of a healthy democracy, and disagreement with a president’s polices is not only acceptable but vital to public discourse. The insanely irrational hatred many people feel for the current occupant of the White House goes far beyond this, however.<br />Many of those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome have openly declared that our 44th president is the Anti-Christ. Others, while not directly assigning him that label, say that there is a 90% or better probability that he fits the bill. Still others deny that he is the one the Bible calls “the man of sin” but believe that he is paving the way for the end of the world. I recommend Googling the words "Obama verichip" for a wild and amusing trip down conspiracy lane.<br /><br /> A hall of fame could be devoted to the persons in the 20th century alone that were accused of being the Anti-Christ. John F. Kennedy was suspected because he was wounded in the head, as Revelation says the Beast will be. Hitler was pegged as well, though not without ample justification in my view. Henry Kissinger was a suspect. Even Ronald Wilson Reagan didn’t escape suspicion. After all, he had three names, first, middle and last, each with six letters. As if more proof was necessary! But my favorite of all comes from the 1988 book “Gorbachev: Has the Real Anti-Christ Come?” If you’re interested in studying the writer’s case you can pick up a copy of his earth-shaking tome at Amazon.com for a penny.<br /><br /> Whence comes all of this nonsense? Personal prejudices and our all too human tendency to demonize those with whom we disagree surely play a role. But in my opinion blame must also be assigned to a way of interpreting the Bible which fails to respect its status as an ancient yet timeless masterpiece that conveys moral and spiritual truths to its readers. Modern fundamentalists, along with many evangelicals, have torn the scriptures out of their historical and literary context, in the process trying to turn them into a Christianized version of the daily horoscope or a psychic hotline.<br /><br /> Jesus’ first lengthy discourse in the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew chapters five and seven as well as in the other Synoptic Gospels. In it he declares the value system that his movement would be based upon. When viewed in their historical context <br />his statements are nothing short of radical:<br /><br /> “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.’<br /> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”<br /> “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”<br /> <br /> The world in which Christ lived was ruled by the Roman Empire, which held itself together for 600 years through the swift and unmerciful use of force. The Romans never asked anyone's permission before conquering them. They simply marched in and claimed whatever territory caught their eye, slaughtering or enslaving any who opposed them. <br /><br /> Their response to dissent was as effective as it was simple: mass murder. They imported both humans and animals by the thousands into Rome itself, to be slaughtered in the Coliseum while thousands watched and cheered. There was nothing about the Romans that was merciful, peaceful or meek. <br /><br /> Jesus fought Rome in a way that was as brilliant as it was subtle. He didn’t attack its armies, its leaders or its wealth. He went after its values. This approach was identified correctly, albeit scornfully, by Nietzsche in his “Genealogy of Morals.” <br /><br /> After his Resurrection and Ascension Jesus’ followers continued his mission. In short order they caught the attention of their Roman oppressors, who disapproved of the troublesome new sect and its message of peace. The book of Acts chronicles key events in this struggle. Paul as well as other New Testament writers used the powers of faith and of the pen to undermine the glorification of cruelty and martial strength that the culture of their conquerors was based upon.<br /><br /> What does any of this have to do with our topic? Simply this: the prophetic writings of the New Testament were written within the context of this struggle initiated by Jesus against the dominant values system of the world. They should be understood within that context.<br /><br /> The literal Roman Empire fell fifteen hundred years ago. It will not return. But the worldview that underlay it is alive and well. It reappeared in the religious wars of medieval times, in the struggle for wealth and power between the Vatican and Europe’s secular rulers, and in the battle cries of despots like Napoleon and Hitler. It rears its ugly head today on every continent and in every nation and every community. Wherever one person or group seeks to exploit and control others, wherever those in authority abuse their powers for self-enrichment, wherever an adult torments a helpless child, wherever workers are denied a fair day’s pay, wherever corporate and political bosses conspire to cheat the public, wherever an animal is mistreated - there the spirit of the Empire rises once more.<br /><br /> So my old friend was right. Saddam Hussein was the Anti-Christ, in that he embraced the values and practices opposed by Jesus. In that sense so was Hitler,<br />and Idi Amin, and every major and minor tyrant in history. And where such evil tries to assert itself, God’s Spirit is present as well, moving within the human heart to resist and overcome the spirit of ancient pagan Rome, to lay its ghost to its long overdue rest.<br /><br /> This is the crucial message of all the New Testament: that God, through Jesus, has overcome the evils of the world, not through force, but by the sacrifice on the cross. The message of a man nailed to a tree has the power to overcome a billion swords. This struggle will continue until the time of the End, which, as Jesus himself said, is known to no one but God (Mark 13:32).<br /><br /> So then, who is the Anti-Christ? Simply put, whoever embraces the values of a world where power is the ultimate determinant and people are treated as the means to an end. This truth is at once liberating and troubling. For we may find that, rather than living in presidents or politicians, he dwells instead in the person in the mirror. God grant us the wisdom and courage to see ourselves as we truly are.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-43213105093525857452009-10-19T12:09:00.001-07:002009-10-19T12:09:30.222-07:00Evil: a Primer<p>I went to see "Paranormal Activity" this weekend. I love a good scary movie and this one didn't disappoint. It's a far cry from the usual, wretched gorefests that Hollywood produces en masse.<br />The scares were subtle, the monster virtually unseen, and the story not all that implausible in my opinion. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys being creeped out every now and then. Don't take the kids!</p> <p>With Halloween just around the corner, my thoughts have turned to the dark side of spirituality:<br />namely evil, including its biblical personifications as Satan or the Devil. This is one topic that liberal theologians are guilty of glossing over, in my opinion. In fact, one of my misgivings with those further to the left than I am is that they don't seem to take evil seriously.</p> <p>When people do bad things it's not uncommon for progressives to blame poverty or lack of education or mental illness. I suspect that's because it's difficult for a basically good person to think that anyone could willingly and gleefully indulge their propensities for malicious selfishness. That is what I believe underlies most of the truly horrific things we hear about on the news and read of in history books. Mix these two thoughts together: "all that matters is what I want" and "it might be fun to hurt someone else." The result is monsters worse than anything dreamed of by Edgar Allen Poe or Stephen King, because they're real. Think Charles Manson, Josef Stalin, or the man whose name comes up in any discussion of evil, Der Fuhrer.</p> <p>The other side of the Christian spectrum has its own misconceptions about evil. They look for it behind bushes, peek in the shadows, and dream up wacky conspiracy theories. They read badly written novels about secret Illuminati - New Age cabals trying to outlaw the Bible and teach past life regression techniques to kids. They not only recognize evil's existence, they give it an arcane mystique and blame demons for such earthly woes as mental disease and financial misfortune.</p> <p>Worst of all, they look for the Devil in all the wrong places. I recall with cynicism one particular All Hallows' Eve, when I was in Bible college, and a group of my fellow students drove to the top of a hillside after dark. There they prayed to "bind the wicked forces that were rampant that night," i.e. Satan and his henchmen, who were surely lurking in plastic masks, bags full of candy and drive-in slasher movie marathons.</p> <p>It was all very melodramatic, and surely gave those who participated in it the feeling that they were accomplishing something. But when they came down from the hillside and retired to their safe, comfortable dormitory rooms, there was just as much real evil surrounding them as before their little excursion. The problem was they couldn't see it, despite, or because, it was right in front of them.</p> <p>A few weeks ago I took a drive in the Tennessee mountains, which are especially beautiful this time of year. But marring the lovely colors of Fall and the rustic cabins and farms was the ugly sight of tobacco drying in barns owned by major agricultural producers as well as part-time farmers. This picturesque land, in which the best apples on earth are grown, is used to produce a toxic weed that gets shipped to the giant cigarette factories in eastern North Carolina. There it's turned into a deadly, addictive product that's sold in almost every retail outlet across the USA as well as the rest of the globe.</p> <p>Go a little further east in the great state of NC and you'll encounter corporate owned pig farms, where swine are crowded together for the entirety of their short lives, pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and then slaughtered to feed our ravenous appetite for things that kill us. These unfortunate creatures do leave their mark on the land, though. They produce countless tons of<br />feces and urine, which agribusiness tries to control by pouring into massive artificial lagoons. But toxins from these giant lakes of crap leech into the water table, poisoning the impoverished residents of the area, who rely on wells for their water supply. To make things worse the overfilled ponds occasionally burst, releasing rivers of raw sewage that flow through yards and fields where children play. Sometimes they even make it to the ocean, where it turns the waters foul and kills thousands of fish.</p> <p>Saturated fat and tobacco kill millions of Americans every year, and their production isn't only allowed but encouraged by the government. Last year I watched my father-in-law, who smoked most of his life, die a slow, agonizing death as lung cancer ate his body from the inside. People I care about have seemed healthy one day only to collapse the next, dead from arteries clogged by sausage biscuits and bacon eaten in indiscriminate amounts for decades.</p> <p>Journey back to the mountains I was speaking of earlier. Go just a little south of the part of Tennessee I was in. You'll find yourself in Cherokee, NC, home of a monster casino that was supposed to lift the American Indians who live in the area from poverty yet for some reason never did. I visited it recently, not to gamble but just out of curiosity. I was only able to stay for a few minutes though, because the air was filled with second hand smoke; NC doesn't yet ban smoking in public buildings. In fact the endless rows of electronic slot machines were equipped with ash trays, so that the patrons could destroy their bodies even as they handed their rent and grocery money to a megabucks corporation that offered them nothing in return but false hopes.</p> <p>The saddest thing about the visit was seeing the throngs of people that were there. Not only was the vast parking lot almost completely full but more vehicles poured in through the entryway by the second. Judging from their dress and language I could discern that most of them weren't the stereotypical well-heeled seniors spending their kid's inheritance. They were people who hold jobs that could provide them and their families with a reasonable standard of living, but for the fact that they were willingly throwing their modest wages away. Maybe their children will learn to eat the Chinese-made ribbons that every patron was given on their way out, so that they would feel like a "winner" no matter how empty their pockets were.</p> <p>The point of this depressing tour isn't to bash Dixie, the land that I love and that has nurtured me all my life. What I'm trying point out is this: there's no need to look for the Devil in haunted houses, spooky movies or Harry Potter books. Wherever you are, just look around.<br />You'll see things just as wicked, just as abominable and despicable as the spectacles I've described here. They won't be hiding behind the bushes, they'll be right in your face.</p> <p>As much as I admire Augustine, he was wrong about evil. It's not merely the absence of good. It's a powerful, active force that corrupts whatever it touches and struggles constantly against God's efforts to redeem His creation. We can no longer afford to pretend it doesn't exist. Nor can we waste time looking for it in the wrong places. If the mission Jesus gave us is to be fulfilled, evil must be recognized, it must be pointed out, and it must be fought. May we be given both the wisdom and courage to do just that. Peace.</p>Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-50215755349526358092009-09-07T17:04:00.000-07:002009-09-07T20:08:25.219-07:00Why I Don't Believe in (that) GodI thought that title would grab your attention!<br /><br />Ever since Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" came out in 2006, I've had numerous dialogues with atheists on the subject of the Almighty's existence. I have noticed a consistent theme in their thinking. They are prone to a fallacy known as "all or none thinking."<br /><br />This is how it works. They raise legitimate questions about the coherence of the traditional Christian understanding of God's nature. They may wonder how it is possible for anyone to have free will if the Lord knows everything we will ever do. They might also question what sort of God would punish His Son for the sins of others, and through that miscarriage of justice find a basis for forgiving humans of their shortcomings. When the fail to find satisfactory answers to these concerns then they triumphantly proclaim "aha! There is no God!" And off they go on their merry way.<br /><br />The problem with this line of reasoning is that it contains a faulty assumption: <span style="font-style: italic;">that there is only one possible conception of God.</span><br /><br />In earlier posts I've discussed how the God of our Lord Jesus Christ has been badly maligned by well meaning theologians in the pre-modern era. It's easy to see how clear thinking, mentally healthy persons would have trouble believing in the God of John Calvin, for instance. Likewise, the deity proclaimed from many (though by no means all) evangelical and fundamentalist pulpits is far from the sort of Heavenly Father I would care to worship.<br /><br />Any Being that would cast people into everlasting torment for not believing in a gospel they never heard should be relegated to the ash heap of history. The same is likewise true of a God who worries about people of homosexual orientation forming loving, lasting relationships, while ignoring far weightier matters of economic and social justice. These ideas about the nature of the Ultimate say more about the psychological maladies of their inventors than they do about spiritual truth.<br /><br />If we dispense with these distorted caricatures, however, who or what do we put in their place? This very topic has been the subject of my thoughts, prayers, studies and reflections for the last several years.<br /><br />I don't pretend to have found Buddha-like enlightenment in any of these matters. But I have reached some conclusions about what I think the true God of the Universe is like, and I want to share them in point by point fashion:<br /><br />1.) God is in some way intimately related to the Universe, far more so than Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have long believed. The image of a Cosmic Sovereign sitting high above and well beyond His creation is fraught with philosophical shortcomings. In its place we must develop a conception of a loving Parent, Guide and Friend who is our fellow traveler through time and space.<br /><br />This God "feels our pain," to borrow a somewhat trite phrase. He rejoices with us in our moments of ecstasy and suffers with us in our times of pain and grief. He either cannot fully control our actions or, as I suspect, could do so but chooses not to.<br /><br />He sees the evil and suffering which blight this world, and graciously invites us to partner with Him in redeeming it from the curses of sin and mortality. The death of His Son on the cross is an integral part of this plan, in ways that we humans cannot fully fathom. However, we can look upon the death and resurrection of Jesus (yes, I do believe that Christ rose from the dead) as demonstration of both Gods' love for us and the eventual triumph we will share with Him when evil and death have at last been purged from creation.<br /><br />The question of why this evil exists at all leads into my second point:<br /><br />2. ) God is not yet in full control of our world. I don't know why, but His ultimate desires for His children have not yet been realized. He struggles both with the forces of chaos and of moral evil on a moment by moment basis. As He possesses unlimited power and all possible knowledge, His final triumph is assured. However, like a boxer trading blows with an able but inferior opponent, he suffers setbacks and temporary defeats in His ages-long struggle.<br /><br />These forces of chaos and of moral wrongdoing are personified in the entity known in the Bible as Satan, or the Devil. I believe that this archfiend is more than a simple personification, however. He or it is a conscious presence that pervades the Universe and actively resists God's redemptive efforts.<br /><br />3.) God does not know exactly how the future will unfold, but nevertheless some things about it are certain. For one, it will bring the ultimate victory of the three Divine Persons known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit over the Evil One and his allies. This is the underlying and overarching message of the apocalyptic books of the Bible, including Revelation. The exact day and time of this event is not yet determined, and is partially affected by our actions, or conversely our inaction, as God's agents and co-workers in the redemptive process.<br /><br />This victory will result in a physical transformation of the creation that will alter the laws of nature, resulting in a remaking of the world into a place of overwhelming peace and benevolence.<br /><br />It will also entail the redemption of the vast majority of the people who have ever lived. If any are lost it will be a vanishingly small number who, while in full knowledge of their actions and in complete control of their wills, reject the offer of the Divine Persons to participate in this new epoch of unending harmony.<br /><br />These poor souls are the ones whom Jude 1:13 describes as "raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever."<br />Their ultimate fate will not be endless torture, but rather a merciful snuffing out of their conscious existence in the Universe.<br /><br />4.)As a Christian, I believe that God works primarily, but by no means exclusively, through the church to accomplish His redemptive goals. The compassionate Jew or Muslim, the kind Buddhist or Hindu, and all people of goodwill, even those of no particular faith - all of these are God's children and His partners in the redemptive program. They will share in the final victory and the blessedness of the world to come.<br /><br />5.) This will perhaps be most shocking of all to my more conservative readers, but I say with full conviction that <span style="font-style: italic;">the God I have described in this post is also the Deity described in the Old and New Testaments, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the beloved Son and the eternal Spirit.</span> I see no conflict in holding to both a high view of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the views I have described in the preceding words.<br /><br />To those interested in pursuing this last line of thought for themselves I recommend the following works by theologians, philosophers of religion and biblical scholars of widely varying church affiliations and educational backgrounds. For the reader's convenience I am listing these in hyperlink form. Clicking on them will lead to their listings at Amazon.com.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Adequate-God-Dialogue-between/dp/0802847390/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252369495&sr=8-10"><br />Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Bible-Homosexuality-Revised-Expanded/dp/066423397X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252376690&sr=1-1">Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Possible-Biblical-Introduction-Open/dp/080106290X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252376757&sr=1-1">God of the Possible: an Introduction to the Open View of God </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Time-Bible-Future/dp/0802860907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252376842&sr=1-1">In God's Time: the Bible and the Future</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060834471/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252376927&sr=1-3">God's Politics</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Openness-God-Challenge-Traditional-Understanding/dp/0830818529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252376984&sr=1-1">The Openness of God: a Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Wideness-Gods-Mercy-Finality-Religions/dp/0310535913/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252377065&sr=1-1">A Wideness in God's Mercy </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Really-Wrestling-Traditional-Living-Discussion/dp/1931038023/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1252377145&sr=1-2"> What does the Bible Really Say about Hell? Wrestling with the Traditional View </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inescapable-Love-God-Thomas-Talbott/dp/1581128312/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252377243&sr=1-4"> The Inescapable Love of God </a><br /><br />I trust these resources will be of benefit to those who, like me, seek for the truth. As always, your own thoughts, expressed in a civil and thoughtful tone, are welcome here.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-11184480530111797192009-06-25T17:13:00.000-07:002009-06-25T17:16:54.257-07:00Family HistoryThe following has nothing whatsoever to do with theology, philosophy or the price of eggs for that matter. But it has met with a strongly positive reception among my readers so I thought I'd post it here. Just a little background information about Yours Truly.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="content"> <div>My mother grew up during the Great Depression. When she was in her teens he held a job as a janitor which paid 50 cents a week. Her mother would take half of it and buy basics like flour and cornmeal in big cloth sacks. When the sacks were empty she would sew them into dresses for my mother and her siblings. </div> <div>The other 25 cents was my mother's to keep. On Saturdays she and my aunt (her younger sister) would walk into town. The quarter would buy them movie tickets and snacks to munch on during the shows. They would get news reels, a couple of cartoons, a short feature such as a Three Stooges bit, a chapter in a serial adventure like Flash Gordon and then the main feature. Afterwards they took what was left of the 25 cents and bought ice cream at the drug store.</div> <div>They raised pigs, from which most of their meat came. They grew vegetables and canned them, so they always had food. Winters were cold and summers were hot, but they survived. </div> <div>My father's family grew up in the mountains of northern Georgia. They survived by hunting, fishing and I believe a little moonshining. They knew better than to stray too far from the cabin because bobcats and mountain lions prowled the woods. Among their sources of cash were turnip and collard greens, which grew in abundance in the mountain climate. When the crop came in they loaded up the wagon with greens, hitched up the mule and rode into town square, where they sold their produce.</div> <div>My father was a heathen and a Hell raiser all his 83 years (actually he cut back on the heavy drinking after he turned 75). When I became a teenager I couldn't rebel against him by getting involved with sex and alcohol, as he had long ago mastered those vices and I would never have been able to keep up with him. So I took the only route I could to defy him: I kept my nose clean and joined a church. That really set him off, but he finally came to peace with it when he got into his 70s and calmed down a little.</div> <div>One of my most vivid memories is when he asked me to buy him a large print Bible; he was about 81 at the time and decided it was finally time to read the Good Book. I sent him a copy along with his usual Christmas gifts of cigars and peach brandy.</div> <div>He finally passed away at age 83 of a kidney infection that he ignored for months until it shut his body down. When we went to clean up his home I found the Bible, with several well-turned pages in it. It sat next to a stack of pamphlets about Viagra. Apparently his spiritual life wasn't the only thing he sought to resurrect in his sunset years.</div> </div>Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-54286160139021478552009-06-22T18:05:00.000-07:002009-06-22T21:21:26.107-07:00The Gospel According to CalvinIn the last post we looked at some of the antiquated, neurotic and downright silly ideas that people have had about the nature of God. In this offering I want to expand on that theme a bit. Here we go:<br /><br /><br />“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation”<br />-John Calvin<br /><br />I try to be tolerant. I long to be open-minded. I sincerely want to evaluate all opinions without bias or emotion.<br /><br />But there is a belief system that sickens me to my core and derails my powers of objectivity almost completely. It is the classic form of Calvinism created by a sick man and held to by his equally sick followers over the last five centuries. To me it contains all that is wrong with the view of God that has dominated Christian theology for over fifteen hundred years.<br /><br /><p>Christian thinkers, even brilliant and devout ones, are influenced by the political realities of their day. The ancients were no exception to this rule. They saw that the power to do as one willed was the defining characteristic of earthly kings, and integrated this fact into their religious beliefs.<br /><br />Augustine (354-430) was one of the greatest minds in the history of the church. His works are marked by their depth of thought and the love for Christ expressed in their words. They offer powerful insights into fields as disparate as physics, ethics, aesthetics and rhetoric. Their contributions to theology and philosophy are inestimable.<br /><br />Like all of us, however, this illuminating thinker was a product of the times in which he lived. As a citizen of the late Roman empire, he modeled his ideas about God on the example set by the Caesars, who ruled with an iron fist. He saw God as a cosmic monarch who used His omnipotence to accomplish His will, including His desires for our salvation. Augustine declared that in His sovereignty God chooses some humans to be His children and rejects all others, consigning them to Hell.<br /><br />Aquinas (1225-1274), building on this theme of divine fiat, taught that eternal punishment of sinners was perfectly just. After all, in the feudal society in which he lived it was a grave matter to offend the honor of a nobleman, and what greater example of royalty was there than God Himself? The Almighty possesses infinite honor, so an offense against Him merits eternal punishment.<br /></p><p>These ideas influenced later writers and scholastics. Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote volumes about the love and mercy of God, yet he also believed that the Lord arbitrarily chose some to go to Hell while only a lucky few would enjoy His mercy. It’s likely that these ideas were largely to blame for the malicious and vengeful tone of his later writings.<br /><br />The notion of God as all-controlling hyper-sovereign found its fullest expression in the writings of John Calvin. He lived from 1509 to 1564 and much of that time dominating the lives of the citizens of Geneva.<br /></p><p>Contemporary thinkers believe Calvin was deeply neurotic and likely suffered from major mental illnesses. Without a doubt he was rigid, dour and intolerant in the extreme. It’s not surprising that such a man would mold the God of love into his own hateful image. His theological ideas were marked by a belief in a cruel, arbitrary and despotic deity and an extremely low view of his fellow human beings.<br /><br />The key to Calvin’s theology is an obsessive focus on the sovereignty of God.<br />Like Anselm and Augustine before him, he saw his Maker through the eyes of the monarchial society he lived in, imagining the Creator as the Ultimate King, with total and unshakeable control over the earth.<br /><br />In Calvinist thinking the Almighty has predestined each of us to behave exactly as He wills. Thus God, through His pawn Satan, caused Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. He did this to glorify Himself, both by damning most of His children to Hell and by forcing a few of them to accept His Son’s blood sacrifice on the cross as payment for the evil deeds they were coerced into performing.<br /><br />So, according to this great theologian, our Heavenly Father drives us to commit sins through no choice of our own, for which He then condemns us. But to show His merciful side He murdered His beloved son Jesus. This was done to appease His wrath against a few people that He arbitrarily chooses to spare from Hell<br /><br />This sadistic and twisted plan was, in Calvin‘s mind, a beautiful example of divine mercy. He taught that the people in Heaven should praise God for His benevolence while those in Hell should praise Him for His justice. This guy really needed some Prozac and a good psychiatrist!<br /><br />Needless to mention, there have been a number of free-thinking people who have objected to this nonsense over the centuries. John Wesley (1703-1791) issued a devastating critique of it in his classic sermon “On Free Grace." Consider his words, which follow:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">However much I love the persons who teach it, I hate the doctrine of predestination. It is a doctrine which, if it were true or even possible, one could rightly say to our enemy the devil, "You fool, why do keep strutting around with your arrogance and malice? Your efforts to damn souls are as useless and meaningless as our attempts to save them. Have you not heard that God has taken your work out of your hands; and that he does it much more effectively than you ever could?”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“You, with all your kingdoms and powers, can only assault those humans who resist you; but God can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! You can only entice; but His unchangeable command to leave thousands of souls in death forces them to keep sinning till they fall into everlasting torture. You can only tempt; He forces us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. You fool, why do you prowl about, seeking whom you may devour? </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Have you not heard that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men?”</span><br /><br />There are scores of lengthy volumes in print, written by scholars of prodigious intellect, that expose the biblical, philosophical and theological shortcomings of Calvinist thought. But none of them do a better job of pointing out its inherent absurdities than the two brief paragraphs above. In my mind Wesley’s remarks are brilliant. Their brevity and profundity are matched by only a handful of works throughout history.<br /><br />As mentioned before, the concept of God as an oppressive dictator has its roots in ancient ideas about the proper role of government. It has been enormously influential throughout the history of the church. It is also directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who tells us that the role of the strong is to serve the weak (Matthew 20:20-28):<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">20Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">21"What is it you want?" he asked.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">22"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "We can," they answered.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">23Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."</span><br /><br />With the coming of the Enlightenment the old notions about God’s nature centering on His power began to lose their grip on the church. In their place far more Christ-like conceptions emerged, centering around His love. We will explore these next time.<br /><br />As a concluding thought, I should mention that in this post I have given only a very general treatment of the beliefs and history I have discussed. For those wanting to explore these issues in more depth I recommend the book "Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views," edited by Bruce Ware and available from online merchants such as Amazon. It contains articles by scholars who support Calvin’s views as well as others who are critical of them.<br /><br />I’ve long believed in the importance in hearing all sides of an argument before deciding one’s own position. Of course this applies to my beliefs as well. For all you know I could be full of BS, so I urge you to put my writings to the test before you agree with them. Peace.<br /></p>Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-340585154247240272009-05-24T19:33:00.000-07:002009-05-26T23:11:28.402-07:00Why it's Time for a New GodThe title of this post is not only purposely provocative, it's also not quite accurate. What I want to discuss is not getting rid of God, but rather dispensing with some silly ideas about what the Creator must be like.<br /><br />My misgivings with the deity many Christians believe in began during my college days. I attended a conservative religious school. The administration of the institution tried to steer the bulk of the student body towards being pastors or missionaries. One tactic they employed was to make us feel guilty about the "billions of unreached people" who would go to Hell because nobody preached the Christian gospel to them.<br />I recall the man who taught my New Testament Introduction class saying that God had provided the means for humanity's salvation on the cross, but that He left it up to the church to spread the news of that provision. Thus, anyone who did not hear about Christ in this life, for whatever reason, who be tortured forever to satisfy the "justice" of the Almighty. <br /><br />Not only would things turn out horribly wrong for those poor souls, but matters would not go well for us at the Final Judgment, if we heard God's call to preach and ignored it. At the very least we would watch as the unsaved were tossed into the Lake of Fire. And Jesus would be forever disappointed with us for letting it happen.<br /><br />But the hereafter wasn't our only source of anxiety. Like most young people, we were concerned with our futures here on earth. We wondered how we would make a living, who we would marry, and how we would ever repay our student loans with the tiny pay most ministers earn. <br /><br />Not to worry, we were assured. God was in control, and would care for all of our needs. Our job was to simply step out in faith and we would be miraculously taken care of. To reinforce this message we were told apocryphal tales about cash strapped clergy who the Lord had miraculously provided for. We all knew the story about the pastor whose church couldn't pay him a proper salary, but who received a check in the mail just in time to pay his rent and buy his family some food. <br /><br />For some reason the man's name and location were never mentioned, so we were unable to verify the account.<br /><br />Another yarn peddled to us concerned two missionaries lost in the jungle and on the verge of starvation. Weak with hunger, they collapsed to the ground, and as they did one looked up and saw a nearby fruit tree. Struggling to his feet, he picked the sweet produce for him and his companion, and they regained their strength and went about the work of evangelizing the locals. <br /><br />Exactly who this devoted pair were remained a mystery, but we were assured the story was true.<br /><br />Needless to say these wonderful tales clashed with reality. The little town the college was in was filled with graduates who had finished school deeply in debt. Unable to raise financial support to be pastors or missionaries, and without marketable job skills, they labored in low paid factory jobs, stocked shelves at grocery stores, flipped burgers or waited tables for their former classmates.<br />There were no miraculous checks showing up in their mailboxes.<br /><br />Like all people of faith, our trust in our beliefs was tested from time to time. Particularly tragic was what happened to the Dean of Men's daughter, a lovely young girl named Kimberly, who was traveling in a car that struck a tree at a high rate of speed one sunny afternoon. She flew through the windshield and into the large oak that the vehicle had collided with. She was rushed to the hospital and the entire campus prayed intensely for her recovery. For the first few days after the wreck it seemed that God was listening, as reports came from the hospital that she would be fine.<br /><br />Then about five days after the accident she slipped into a coma. She was dead within seventy two hours. It seemed the God who routed checks to cash strapped pastors and grew apples for starving missionaries was unwilling to intervene in her case.<br /><br />Not that this caused any of us to lose our faith, of course. The power of the human mind to rationalize unwanted news is nothing if not astounding. I recall one of my classmates saying that a pair of people had gotten saved after hearing of Kimberly's death. "I can see why God would let her die," he opined, "if it would save two souls from Hell. It was worth it."<br /><br />One friend of mine chose not to dismiss her doubts so easily, and she approached a professor with her concerns. Instead of addressing the issues she raised he told her that she needed to "surrender her rights to the Lord," including her right to question her faith. <br /><br />I share these bleak memories with you to illustrate the kind of God that too many people believe in:<br /><br />1.) One who tosses people into Hell for not believing the correct facts about Him, even if they never had a chance to hear them;<br /><br />2.) One who has a highly detailed plan for our lives, including our choice of vocations and the exact identity of our spouses;<br /><br />3.) One who provides for his followers, unless He sees that sacrificing one of them will gain him two additional pawns for His chess match with the Devil;<br /><br />4.) One who demands we stop thinking for ourselves and blindly trust what we are told by ecclesiastical authority figures.<br /><br />Over the years I have watched dozens of old friends who believed in this God degenerate into bitter, enraged and pitiful caricatures of their former selves. And it's little wonder that they've turned out that way. Committing one's heart, mind and life to such a deranged Creature is like being married to an abusive, alcoholic spouse.<br />The victim is worn down by the need to make excuses, to rationalize, and to blame oneself for the failings of their partner.<br /><br /> This goes on year after torturous year, until finally they realize how deeply they have been betrayed. When that dark day arrives there is nothing left but a final plunge into nihilistic despair.<br /><br />It's said that we all create God in our own image, and I wonder how sick the people were who invented this Cosmic Despot from their fears, hatreds and insecurities. Their twisted view of the Almighty has haunted humanity for too long. It is time for their God to go.<br /><br />All well and good, of course, but then the question comes to mind of what kind of Being will take his place. That's the topic I will be exploring in future posts. We'll explore how powerful God really is, how He can and cannot intervene in the universe, what Christ's death really means for us, the kind of life Jesus wants us to live, and how we will be judged in the world after this one.<br /><br />In the meantime I close with a prayer for my old mentors and fellow students. It's based on a quote from Voltaire which I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing for the occasion:<br /><br />"May the true God of the Universe, who doesn't send people to Hell for other's actions, doesn't micro-manage His children's lives, doesn't treat us like pawns, and doesn't demand that we commit intellectual suicide - may He forgive the pitiful creatures who blaspheme Him."<br /><br />To which I say a hearty "Amen."Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-76417825411620328012009-04-14T19:22:00.000-07:002009-04-14T20:54:36.448-07:00Why I'm soft on fundamentalistsA parable of Jesus from Luke 18:9-14:<br /><br />And he spoke this parable to some self-righteous people who hated and looked down on others. "Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and said these words: 'God, I thank you that I am not as other men: extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this fellow, a tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all I possess."<br /><br />"And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying 'God be merciful to me a sinner.'"<br /><br />"I tell you, this man went down to his house forgiven of his sins, and the Pharisee did not. For anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."<br /><br />This story always comes to my mind when I read comments like those posted recently by a fellow blogger, a Progressive Christian minister who noticed that a nearby conservative church has the message "Christ died for your sins" posted on its sign.<br />He chose to amuse himself a bit by making fun of the message, using words like "fetishism" and "torture" to paint a caricature of how his fellow Christians interpreted the meaning of the crucifixion.<br /><br />Even more discouraging to me were the comments posted by those who joined this fellow in ridiculing these good people. The scent of self-righteous smugness was apparent in their words, as they condemned their brothers and sisters in Christ as backwards, ignorant, homophobic and superstitious.<br /><br />No one suggested starting a dialogue with the members of the fundamentalist church. No one suggested trying to see things from their point of view. They were too busy patting themselves on the back for their enlightened, tolerant ideals to see that they were modeling the same attitudes and actions that they claimed to despise.<br /><br />It has never ceased to amaze me has we humans can so easily forget one of Jesus' core messages: that it is our own sins and shortcomings that we must be quick to note and to condemn, not those of others. Fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalist Evangelicals love to call Progressive believers heretics. They condemn us as anti-family and anti-American. They say we don't honor the Bible, that we compromise with evil, and that we are out of touch elitists. Sometimes they even push God out of His rightful place as judge of humanity and consign us to Hell.<br /><br />And how do we react? We raise our noses in the air and talk in superior tones about our critics. We accuse them of being anti-science because they mistrust the theory of evolution. We label them as hateful because they have sincere concerns about the morality of welcoming practicing homosexuals into the church. We make snide remarks about their family trees, we wonder if they drive pickup trucks and live in trailer parks, and we engage in silly paranoid discussions about how many guns they own. All too often we liken them to Hitler, knowing full well that the comparison is not only unjustified but slanderous. <br /><br />And all the time we are doing this, we forget words like these:<br /><br />"Condemn not and you will not be condemned."<br /><br />"Bless those who curse you, do good to those who despitefully use you and persecute you."<br /><br />"Why do you seek to remove the speck from your brother's eye, and ignore the plank that is in your own?"<br /><br />"Who are you to judge another man's servant? It is by his own master that he stands or falls. And he will stand, because the Lord is able to make him stand."<br /><br />"Why do you judge your brother? And why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all appear at the judgment seat of Christ."<br /><br />"It's easier to point a finger than to look in the mirror." (Okay, that one isn't in the Bible, but I like it so much I tossed it in the mix anyway.<br /><br />And yes, I know that there are many on the Religious Right who would abolish government aid to the poor, declare Jihad on all Muslims, ban Harry Potter books, forbid the teaching of evolution, imprison homosexuals, etc., etc. if they could.<br /><br />And I have heard the oh-so-handy rationalization "but it's perfectly okay to be intolerant of intolerance!" proclaimed by liberals and progressives looking for an excuse to indulge their own raging xenophobia.<br /><br />But I never forget that intolerance, suspicion, groupthink, tribalism and a host of other ills are not the sole province of any one group of people. We are all looking for an excuse to hate and to dehumanize others. If we can no longer do so on the basis on race or sexual orientation, well then, we will simply use the fact that "they" don't believe everything I believe, therefore "they" are the enemy.<br /><br />The terrifying truth is this: the shadow of Hitler hangs not only over political conservatives and religious fundamentalists. It also looms large over their ideological opponents. All of us - ALL OF US - are potential witch hunters. Let a well-spoken leader assure us of our own superiority, let him or her tell us that we are justified in our fears and hatreds, and we can all be manipulated into becoming a mob, burning, destroying, killing those sub-human - (fill in the blank here with your favorite prejudical term - queer, socialist, tree-hugger; or, if you like, fascist, redneck, homophobe - whatever; all those terms, when spoken in hatred, are spawned from the same dark corner of the human soul).<br /><br />Jesus knew these things, and that is why he urges us so strongly to be slow to judge others, but quick to examine ourselves; slow to speak, but quick to listen; and slow to become angry, but quick to forgive and to seek reconciliation with all people. This is the way of peace, it is the way of Christ. And, if we are to call ourselves Christians, it must be our way as well. May God help it to be so.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-19484509022328096652009-02-22T20:21:00.000-08:002009-02-22T20:23:13.428-08:00Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Darwin?It was with a touch of sadness that I read a pair of letters printed recently in the newspaper. The first was written by a man who was upset at a local natural history museum for hosting a “Darwin Day” celebration. The poor fellow claimed that the theory of evolution is an affront to the Bible and Christianity and should not be taught.<br /><br /> About a week later a response from a local atheist was published. It started out by attacking the previous letter. Not content with this, however, the author went on to launch a assault on all religion, decrying it as dangerous and intolerant. By the end of the piece it was clear that this person thought that all people of faith are filled with hatred and violent impulses. He also expressed his disdain for spiritual approaches to discovering life’s meaning and purpose.<br /><br /> Those two letter writers are far from a couple of isolated cranks. They are combatants in a much larger conflict. Like warring mobs of blood thirsty school kids, folks on both sides of the Evolution/Creation controversy have been trying to provoke their champions into mixing it up for well over a century now. <br /><br />On one side are the perennially insecure Christian fundamentalists, cheering for Jesus to knock Darwin out once and for all. On the other are hysterical, xenophobic anti-Christian atheists and agnostics, who swing the theory of natural selection like a club, hoping it will deal a fatal blow to the Almighty and clear the way for materialism to reign unopposed.<br /><br />Sometimes I picture Christ and Darwin standing side by side, looking down from heaven and shaking their heads, wondering what all the furor is over. In all of the attempts to destroy religion or to censor science a simple and most profound principle has been overlooked: that all truth is God’s truth. Believers have nothing to fear from scientific insight. And science has nothing to fear from spiritual beliefs.<br /><br />I say this with confidence, having studied both the theory of evolution and the creation accounts in Genesis over the past twenty years. I have read books by scientists both critical and supportive of Darwin’s claims, and studied the positions of biblical scholars of all persuasions. <br /><br />In this debate there are two small and very vocal groups of extremists. On one side are the Young Earth Creationists, represented by the likes of Ken Ham and Duane Gish. These people claim that the Earth is no more than ten thousand years old, and anyone who says otherwise is either deceived by the Devil or an outright liar. They interpret Genesis ultra-literally and try to force science to support their untenable worldview.<br /><br />In the other camp are militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. They claim that evolution destroys all rational basis for belief in God. Dawkins is especially fanatical in his beliefs, saying that religion is not only false but evil. His recent book The God Delusion, which I read with some amusement, paints a caricature of believers as ignorant Bible thumpers, anxious to burn all free thinking persons at the stake.<br /><br />The tragic part of this silly pissing war is how it drowns out the voices of countless others, those who respect both religion and science, and are trying to find areas of common ground between the two disciplines. Some of the more prominent persons in this group include geneticist Francis Collins, whose book The Language of God finds signs of God’s handiwork in the marvelous things which science has discovered, including the evolutionary process. <br /><br />Another person of note is Brown University Professor Ken Miller, who wrote the outstanding volume Finding Darwin’s God. Brown defends evolution against the Creationists and Christianity against the off the wall polemics of Dawkins and his ilk. Approaching the subject from a different perspective, physicist and author Paul Davies finds grounds for belief in a Higher Power in the marvelous way the Universe displays a sense of order and rationality.<br /><br />These men, and others like them, have no quarrel with either Darwin or Jesus. Collins and Miller find in Genesis a beautiful narrative about how God is the ultimate cause for creation. In stories like that of Adam and Eve they see profound commentaries on how humanity is led astray both by pride and the lust of the eye. Davies, while not a member of any organized religion, finds in his studies of the heavens ample proof that there is a Purpose underlying everything we see.<br /><br />Reflecting once more on the aforementioned letter writers, I see that both of them missed the mark. The Christian fundamentalist is anxious to put God in a box, lest the Almighty and his ways prove too wondrous to comprehend. On the other hand the militant atheist is a bigot, and a small minded one at that. He sees religion through a filter clouded by his own arrogance and closed-mindedness. Both men have my pity. And, looking down from some corner of God’s vast and marvelous universe, I suspect that two other pairs of eyes regard them in the same way, while they wait patiently for the human race to grow up.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-88404421047150023822009-02-10T20:08:00.000-08:002009-02-11T23:04:46.818-08:00This is Heresy?<p>One thing I recall with a mixture of confusion and sadness from my fundamentalist days is the endless witch hunt for "false teachers." To explain: among ultra-conservative Christians doctrinal correctness is an obsession. Visit an average religious bookstore and you'll quickly notice a plethora of books raging against the latest "deception" to threaten the church.<br /></p><p>In recent years prominent Evangelicals have railed against ministers such as Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, who question the policies of the Religious Right. They have condemned those who seek to find a place in the church for gays and lesbians. Some of the witch hunters even battle among themselves, Calvinist vs. Arminian, Charismatic vs. Cessationist, Post-Tribber vs. Pre-Tribber.</p><p>However, some of their most caustic attacks have been launched against those who question their concept of God. I'm not talking here about thinkers on the far left such as Jonathan Spong who openly reject historic doctrines like the Trinity or the deity of Christ. I'm referring to a growing body of moderate pastors and theologians who question the degree to which the Almighty stands apart from the world as an omnipotent and all-controlling monarch.</p><p>For centuries Christian theology students have been taught doctrines about God that emphasize His sovereignty, power and unchangeableness. Influenced heavily by the writings of Aristotle and Plato, this notion of the Deity paints Him as in absolute<br />control of earthly events. In addition He is seen as possessing exhaustive knowledge of the future, including what humans will do before they do it. Further God is described as being absolutely complete in Himself, so much so that He in no way needs His creatures' fellowship or love.<br /></p><p>If this God sounds odd to you then you're not alone. Numerous passages in both Old and New Testament describe a Divine Person who is deeply affected by his children's thoughts and actions. He is angered and saddened when they sin, and delighted when they change their ways and seek his face. He alters his plans when asked to do so by Moses or other prophets. On occasion he is even surprised by things that humans do.</p><p>It's interesting to watch Bible college and seminary professors from conservative schools dance their way around these passages. Ask them how the Bible should be understood and they will lecture you on the vital importance of literal interpretation. But confront with a God who doesn't match their ideal of a stern, impassive control freak and they use every trick in the book to explain such an unmanly deity away.</p><p>I write all of this to prepare you for a letter written by a nice fellow named Bart Campolo. He is the son of Tony Campolo, who is a professor at Eastern College and an early pioneer in the Progressive Christian movement. A self-professed Evangelical, the senior Campolo holds fast to orthodox views of God, Christ, the Bible, etc. while also espousing left of center politicial and social views. He is the author of many, many books, including a personal favorite, "Twenty Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch," as well as the critically acclaimed "Red Letter Christians." While I don't agree with everything he says, I have profound respect for the man, who is as sincere and loving a follower of Christ as has ever walked the planet.</p><p>Bart, his progeny, is a great guy in his own right, and the pastor of a small church in Cincinatti, called Walnut Hills Fellowship, that ministers to residents of the inner city. The younger Campolo labors tirelessly among the poor, the destitute and the forgotten, showing them God's love in word and deed.</p><p>A few years ago he received a letter from a young lady named Sarah. She wrote to him about a nine year old girl who was gang raped, and consequently now hated God for letting that happen to her. Sarah asked Bart how he reconciled his belief in a good God with such horrible tragedies.<br /></p><p>Wanting to provide an honest response, Campolo searched his soul, questioning everything he had been taught about Jesus and the Gospel. His internal struggle led to his writing the following letter, a reply to Sarah's: </p><p style="font-style: italic;">Dear Sarah,<br /></p><p style="font-style: italic;">Thank you for writing to me. Over the past few years, I have become convinced that yours is actually the single most important question in the world. As Rabbi Harold Kushner observes, “Virtually every meaningful conversation I’ve had with<br />people about God has either started with that question or gotten around to it before long.”</p><p style="font-style: italic;"> While I am sure my answer will not be as eloquent as his, I will do my best.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">First of all, while I certainly believe my most cherished ideas about God are supported by the Bible (what Christian says otherwise?), I must admit they did not originate there. On the contrary, most of these ideas were formed during that difficult time I described to you, when I was suddenly disillusioned by the suffering and injustice I discovered in the inner-city, and did not trust the Bible at all.<br /></p><p style="font-style: italic;">At that point, for the first time, I realized that a person’s life does not depend on whether he or she believes in God, but rather on what kind of God he or she believes in. I also realized, for better or worse, that the only evidence I was could rely on was that which I saw for myself.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">What I saw then, and still see now, is a world filled with dazzling goodness and horrific evil, with love and hate, with beauty and ugliness, with life and death. In the face of such clear duality, it seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, that there are but a handful of spiritual possibilities:</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">1.) There are no spiritual forces. The material universe is all. Our lives bear no larger meaning, and those who hope for more hope in vain. In this case, considering that 9-year old rape victim, I despair.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">2.) There is only one spiritual force at work in the universe, encompassing both good and evil. This world is precisely as this force wills it to be, and everything—including the rapes of children—happens according to its plan. In this case, again, I despair.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">3.) There are two diametrically opposing spiritual forces at work in the universe, one entirely good and loving and the other entirely evil. Satan (or whatever one chooses to call that evil force) is most powerful and therefore will utterly triumph in the end. The suffering of that poor little girl is but a foretaste of the complete suffering that is to come for us all. In this case, of course, I despair.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">4.) There are two opposing spiritual forces at work in the universe, one entirely good and loving and the other entirely evil. God (or whatever one chooses to call that good and loving force) is most powerful, and therefore will utterly triumph in the end. The suffering of that poor little girl - Satan’s doing - will somehow be redeemed and she herself will be healed as part of the complete redemption and absolute healing that is to come for all of us. In this case—and in this case alone—I rejoice, and gladly pledge my allegiance to this good and loving God.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">I cannot prove or disprove any of these possibilities, of course, based on the evidence of my experience. What I know with certainty, however, is the one that makes me want to go on living, the one I choose for my own sake, the one I deem worthy of my allegiance. I may be wrong in this matter, but I am not in doubt. If indeed faith is being sure of what we hope for, then truly I am a man of faith, for I absolutely know what I hope to be true: That God is completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving, that God is doing all that He can to overcome evil (which is evidently a long and difficult task), and that God will utterly triumph in the end, despite any and all indications to the contrary.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">This first article of faith was the starting point of my journey back to Jesus, and it remains the foundation of my faith. I came to trust the Bible again, of course, but only because it so clearly bears witness to the God of love I had already chosen to believe in. I especially follow the teachings of Jesus because those teachings—and his life, death, and resurrection—seem to me the best expression of the ultimate truth of God, which we Christians call grace. Indeed, these days I trust Jesus even when I don’t understand him, because I have become so convinced that He knows what He is talking about, that He is who he is talking about, and that He alone fully grasps that which I can only hope is true.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">Unfortunately for me, God may be very different than I hope, in which case I may be in big trouble come Judgment Day. Perhaps, as many believe, the truth is that God created and predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, according to His will. Perhaps such caprice only seems unloving to us because we don’t understand. Perhaps, as many believe, everyone who dies without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior goes to Hell to suffer forever.</p><p style="font-style: italic;"> Most important of all, perhaps God’s sovereignty is such that, although He could indeed prevent little girls from being raped, He is no less just or merciful when He doesn’t, and both those children and we who love them should uncritically give Him our thanks and praise in any case.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that. For me to do otherwise would be to despair.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff, remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, God can give my place in Heaven to someone else, and go ahead and send me to Hell.<br /></p><p style="font-style: italic;">For better or worse, I am simply not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking Him, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility, because, quite frankly, anything less is not enough to give me hope, to keep me alive, to be worth the trouble of believing.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">You can figure out the rest. I don’t hate God because I don’t believe God is fully in control of this world yet. Heck, God is not fully in control of me yet, even when I want Him to be, so how could I possibly believe that God is making it all happen out there in the street? I don’t hate God because I believe He is always doing the best He can, within the limits of human freedom, which even He cannot escape.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">On that last point, consider for a moment the essential relationship between human freedom and love, and then consider the essential identity between love and God. If God is love, if He made us for love in His image, then He had no choice but to make us free, to leave us free, and to win us for His Kingdom as free agents (which, evidently, is a long and difficult task). So He did, and so He will.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">I don’t hate God because, although I suppose He knows everything that can be known at any given point in time, I don’t suppose He knows or controls everything that is going to happen. I also don’t hate God because I really believe in Satan (and also in my own, moving-in-the-right-direction-but-still-pretty-doggoned-sinful nature).<br /></p><p style="font-style: italic;">I don’t hate God because it seems to me that this world is a battleground between good and evil, not a puppet show with just one person pulling all the strings. I don’t hate God because the God I have chosen to believe in isn’t hateable, and because I refuse to believe in the kind of God that is.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">Now here is the good news: I may be entirely wrong, but even in my darkest hours, my God of love hasn’t stopped speaking to me. On the contrary, I hear His voice in places I never did before, always saying the same things, one way or another: I am with you. I’m sorry about all the pain. It hurts me too, especially when my little ones suffer. I have always loved you and I always will. Do the best you can, but don’t worry. Everything will be all right in the end. Trust me.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">And I do. And I hope you will too, sooner than later.</p><p style="font-style: italic;">Your Friend,</p><p style="font-style: italic;">Bart</p><br />The above letter was published in a Christian youth magazine. Many of those who read it were touched by Campolo's sincerity and thoughtfulness. They noted how his words paralleled those of the Psalms that deal with the problem of believing in a loving God while living in a world of sorrow.<br /><br />Not all were so charitable. Word of the piece reached self-appointed witch hunters, who bombarded the publication's editor with demands that it be removed from the organization's web site. They also commented at length on their own web sites about Campolo's letter. The following is a brief quote from one:<br /><br /><span> <span style="font-style: italic;">I don’t often link to “bad theology” articles in order to bash them, but I’m making an exception here. It is rare for a writer to be this honest about the functional sovereignty of his own mind in determining the object of his worship.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> In other words, Bart Campolo is an idolater of the first-order.</span></span><br /><br />That is tame compared to remarks penned by other Guardians of the Truth, who openly called Tony and Bart a "father and son team of heretics" and called on them to repent of their false teachings. One site even said that the elder Campolo was a Marxist, due to his not towing the Religious Right's hard-core political line.<br /><br /></span><span>Somewhere in all of this they forgot that behind that letter was a man who was trying to make sense of the despair and tragedy he faces in his efforts to bring the message of Christ to the lost and dying. They claimed that their attacks on him were compelled by their love for Jesus. But given their approach that seems unlikely.</span><br /><span><br />No, scratch underneath the paper-thin surface of their self-righteous fury and the truth emerges. Bart Campolo's real sin in his critic's eye <span style="font-style: italic;">was in thinking for himself</span>. He dared to question the patristic, domineering, hyper-masculine God that his detractors created in their own image.<br /><br />In doing so he challenged their power over their followers. They reacted as reactionaries and despots have throughout the centuries, with pompous insults and baseless accusations.<br /><br />In observing their behavior I have drawn the conclusion that it is not the heretics we need to fear so much as those who call other people heretics. This doesn't mean that people with differing views should not defend their own beliefs and challenge those of others; far from it. But when a good man is slandered and his work censored, then it is time to call foul on the witch hunters.<br /><br />I would also submit that Campolo is absolutely correct in saying that it matters what God one believes in. His opponents have dispensed with the God of the Bible. In his place they have substituted a cruel, capricious deity that possesses their own qualities. But I had better stop there, before I engage in the same sort of demagoguery I have criticized them for.<br /><br />If you would like to know more about Bart Campolo and the work his church is doing, I refer you to their website: www.thewalnuthillsfellowship.org.<br /><br />And if you want to learn more about the God he - and I - believe in, then I highly recommend the book "God of the Possible: a Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God" by Gregory Boyd, available at Amazon and other book sellers. Peace. <br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-59317802503025656052009-02-01T20:02:00.000-08:002009-02-12T20:15:52.774-08:00God, Gay Marriage and the BibleAbout a month before last November's election I received a letter from an organization called Focus on the Family. It's a Colorado-based ministry led by James Dobson, who holds a doctorate in psychology and has written several excellent books on spousal relations and child rearing. Unfortunately Dobson is also a highly vocal supporter of the Religious Right, and the letter reflected his distorted views not only on the Bible but also on the real threats American families are facing.<br /><br />The letter opened with a plea for me to imagine Washington DC under democratic control, which according to the good doctor would be a field day for the "radical homosexuals" and their supporters. Same sex marriage would be forced on the states, and kids would be taught that being gay is normal. Worst of all, liberal judges would use their judicial power to shove their hideous anti-God agenda down the throats of the American people.<br /><br />Fortunately, according to the letter, there was still time to save our nation from this direct assault on the family. I was urged to help get the vote out for those candidates who honor traditional values and would stand up to the sodomites and their allies - all while shooting defenseless, terrified wolves from helicopters, I assume. I think there was also a request for a financial donation, but I'm not sure. I read the letter with a sad smile, reflecting on how much this apparently sincere man and his supporters misunderstand both the Bible and the real threats to America's families.<br /><br />Homophobia has been used to rally the troops in conservative religious circles for decades. In recent years the prospect of gay marriage has been lifted up like a hideous specter in fundamentalist and evangelical churches across the U.S. All of this causes me concern. But what really gets my blood boiling is when Dobson and his ilk declare that they are fighting for the Bible against those who hate it and its teachings.<br /><br />Those who think that the God of Scripture is an impassioned homophobe need to take a closer look at the book they claim such reverence for. Search the text of both Testaments and you will find scant reference to homosexuality at all. What's more,<br />the few passages that do refer to it are notably obscure in their meanings. There is significant evidence that they have been grossly misinterpreted over the centuries to justify prejudice aganst God's gay and lesbian children.<br /><br />Space and time don't permit me to go into detail on these matters. I refer interested parties to the excellent book "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality" by Jack Rogers. Rogers is an evangelical Presbyterian minister who holds a high view of Scripture. In the book he shows that <img src="file:///C:/Users/bill/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/bill/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /> nowhere does the Bible condemn loving, committed, monogamous relationships between same sex partners. In fact, he says that such unions should be blessed and celebrated by the church as Christian marriages, a position I agree with wholeheartedly.<br /><br />The Religious Right cannot abide such a view. In my opinion that it because homophobia is one of their most potent tools. There is a widespread belief among parents that being gay is somehow contagious, and that their kids may be seduced into renouncing their heterosexuality because of contact with gays. Such fears touch on deepset, primal feelings, including the desire for one's line to be carried on through grandchildren.<br /><br />There is no evidence whatsoever that these concerns are justified. Homosexuality is not contagious. Despite having gay friends I remain straight as the proverbial arrow, for example. Nor is God terribly concerned about the subject, if the Bible is any indication of the Almighty's mindset. America's families have nothing to fear from the likes of Barney Frank and Melissa Etheridge.<br /><br />The tragedy here is not simply that Dobson and his cohorts have misidentified gays as a threat to the family. For all their alleged reverence for the Bible, they have ignored an issue that is not only mentioned profusely throughout Scripture but is also a major cause of marital strife and family discord. While remaining virtually silent about homosexuality, Jesus and the biblical writers have much to say about greed, and the oppression of poor and working people.<br /><br /><br />"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you."<br /><br />James 5:1-5<br /><br />"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight."<br /><br />Luke 16:13-14<br /><br />" 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."<br /><br />Ezekiel 16:49<br /><br /><br />"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness."<br /><br />1 Timothy 6:9-11<br /><br /><br />The Bible has a great deal to say about social justice. This includes but isn't limited to giving to charity. It also incorporates addressing unjust economic and social structures, about making sure that those who work receive decent wages, and that the justice system functions without regard to wheather the accused is wealthy or destitute.<br /><br />But how often does the Religious Right speak up for minimum wage legistlation, for enforcing workplace safety laws, or for universal access to health care? When did Dobson or his sanctimonious friends ever question the morality of letting pharmaceutical firms reap obscene profits off of medicines, while those who depend on those drugs cannot afford them? I've yet to hear them deal with these concerns at all, except to occasionally blame "big government" and laud the virtues of unrestrained capitalism.<br /><br />The Bible is filled with warnings about greed, with pleas for the marginalized, and with dire warnings about God's wrath falling on those who oppress and exploit the impoverished. Yet despite blatant examples of how these sins are committed gleefully across the United States, those who declare themselves the Bible's chief defenders are silent on these issues, focusing their vitriol solely on two issues: abortion (which will be the subject of a later post) and gay rights.<br /><br />In doing so they ignore what study after study has shown to be by far the chief cause of divorce and family strife in this country: financial problems. In fairness it must be stated these are often caused by personal irresponsibility, such as out of control credit card use. However, it cannot be denied that the erosion of wages, the destruction of jobs, and the shrinking safety net for the sick and needy are contributing to the breakdown of families across the nation. Why do we not hear Dobson and his organization speaking out on these issues with the same zeal that they show in attacking gays?<br /><br />Where is the fundamentalist's outrage over the unrestrained greed on the part of Wall Street executives, who have moved jobs overseas to exploit slave labor? Why don't we hear those on the Religious Right preach against predatory lending by the megabanks, and other unethical, greed driven actions that caused the current economic crisis? Where is their moral outrage about the increasing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and how that has given the wealthy and powerful undue influence in Washington?<br /><br />All of those problems are not only threats to marriages and families, they are also clearly in violation of numerous biblical passages. Yet on these matters so-called Bible believing Christians are deafeningly silent.<br /><br />The hopeful side of me likes to believe that those like Dobson are sincere in their concern for the family and their reverence for the Bible, that they are simply misinformed and in need of gentle correction. But the cynic within, who is all too many times correct, says that their demonization of gays and their neglect of real biblical concerns reveals where their true concerns lie. Perhaps underneath all those professions of love for Christ and for other people is a lust for money and power. I hope that's not the case. But I'm not willing to bet on it.Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867348547264087086.post-21891503558955015852009-01-21T22:05:00.000-08:002009-03-09T19:22:35.713-07:00What is a Progressive Christian anyway?A growing number of 21st century Christians are seeking an alternative to the brand of faith peddled by televangelists and the religious right. The fall of prominent ministers like Ted Haggard, the failure of the Evangelical/Republican alliance, and the challenge of communicating the message of Jesus to a new generation have convinced many that the church in America is in dire need of reformation.<br /> <br />Like the Israelites in ancient Egypt, God’s people today are on an exodus. They are breaking away from a Christianity strait jacketed by insecure, fundamentalist attitudes and worldly ambition. In its place they are discovering a fresh expression of their faith. They are holding fast to the truth of the Gospel, while at the same time being open to insights from science and scholarship.<br /><br />Many have experienced firsthand the financial misery caused by the unrestrained greed of big business. They’ve seen their nation plunged into a needless war that rooted out no weapons of mass destruction, but has led to the deaths of hundreds of young men and women. They’ve learned that the Republican party and laissez faire Capitalism aren’t the only options available to politically active followers of Christ. They know that military conflict must be morally justified to win their support. It’s not enough to blindly follow our leaders on any course of action they declare is necessary.<br /><br />There are many terms that try to put a label on this growing awareness in the church. But the one that has garnered the most attention is “Progressive Christianity.” Type that term into any search engine and you’ll find thousands of hits.<br /> <br />Numerous best selling books have been written that try to nail down exactly what this phenomena is. However, like many infant movements it defies tidy definitions. Some see it as a liberalized sort of Evangelicalism that combines orthodox theology with left leaning politics.<br />Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and Ronald Sider advocate just such an approach.<br /> <br />Others view it as a renunciation of historic teachings about God, Christ and the church. Biblical scholar Marcus Borg and retired Episcopal Bishop Jonathan Spong are vocal spokesmen for this modernist spin on the faith. They and their allies seek to reformulate Christian teaching to eliminate supposedly irrational notions as the Virgin Birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus. <br /> <br />Yet another faction envisions a post modern approach to theology. This camp rejects the notion of objective truth altogether, while favoring an approach to spirituality that is intensely personal and subjective. Well known author Phyllis Tickle develops and defends this view in her many books.<br /><br />As someone who considers himself a progressive Christian I have my own take on what the term means. My ideas will resonate with some readers and clash with others; all well and good. Like any fallible person I am capable of error. So I am counting on my readers for feedback and, if necessary, correction. Sound proposals can only be made stronger by honest inquiry and civil debate. So the truth has nothing to fear from a fair investigation into its claims.<br /><br />This is how I define Progressive Christianity:<br />1.) As an approach to faith which is open to cordial discussion with people outside the church. Progressive Christians are willing to engage in dialogue with persons who hold different viewpoints from their own. They believe in the scriptural admonition to “test all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).<br /> <br />That doesn’t mean they believe all belief systems are equally valid. But it does mean that progressives are secure enough in their faith to permit it to be tested and even critiqued by people from varying religious traditions, as well as by those who reject spirituality altogether.<br /><br />At the same time they are willing to examine beliefs and traditions other than their own, taking from those what they find to be true and beneficial, and rejecting what seems to them to be contrary to Christian scripture, tradition and Reason.<br /><br />2.) As an approach to Christianity that affirms that God’s primary attribute is love. Because of this Progressive Christians reject notions such as double predestination that teach that God arbitrarily chooses some persons to go to Heaven and consigns the rest to an eternity of horrific torture.<br /> <br />They also see God as willing to step away from the reins, so to speak, and permit His children to think for themselves, act for themselves and respond as they choose to His offer of salvation. Some, such as pastor and theologian Gregory Boyd, view the Almighty as a fellow journeyer with us into the future, which is, in its details at least, as unknown to Him as it is to us. Others believe that God possesses foreknowledge in a way that does not interfere with human free will. All are united, though, in their rejection of the obsessively controlling, dictatorial divine puppet master deity posited by John Calvin and others. <br /> <br />A corollary of this is that Progressive Christianity rejects the idea that non-Christians are automatically consigned to Hell after their physical death. Progressive Christians rightly acknowledge that any Being that would do such a thing is worthy only of our abhorrence. They see God as working in the hearts of all people to draw them to Himself, even those who have never seen a Bible, listened to a Gospel sermon or even heard the name of Jesus. Those who strive to live according to the measure of divine light they have been given, however dim it may be, will receive a gracious welcome into the kingdom of God and of Christ.<br /><br />Rejected also is the idea of unending torment for any of God’s creatures. Progressives accept that either all souls will ultimately be redeemed, or that those who continue to resist the Spirit’s most ardent and tender pleas will be mercifully put to sleep, after having destroyed the image of God in themselves by willful and unrepentant sin.<br /> <br />There is no room in an enlightened faith for the cruel, capricious deity that fundamentalists peddle. Hell, if it exists at all, is a place of correction and rehabilitation., not infinite torture for a finite amount of sin. God is not a monster.<br /><br />3.) As a belief system that celebrates the joyous fact that all truth is God’s truth. Because of this, Progressive Christians welcome the role Science plays in expanding the borders of our knowledge. The Big Bang, the extreme ages of the heavens and the earth, and even the facts that have been revealed through the fossil record - none of these are seen as a threat to religious faith. Rather they are heralded as testaments to the glory and grandeur of the Creator.<br /> <br />This doesn’t mean that progressives blindly accept whatever the scientific community proclaims, for history has shown that scientists are as capable of error as the rest of us. But absent in Progressive Christianity is a fear of learning about the physical world. Whether truth comes from the Bible, from a great work of art or from a laboratory does not diminish its importance, for all of it aids us in our quest to know the mind of God.<br /> <br />Progressive Christianity likewise rejoices in the ways that scholarship has given a greater understanding of the Bible’s message. Insights gleaned from literary analysis, form criticism and archaeology assist the believer in discerning the truths that biblical passages are trying to convey. They also give us an appreciation and understanding of the mindset of the human authors and the world in which they lived. All of this works to clear our minds of misunderstandings about what God is trying to tell us through His Word.<br /> <br />As with Science, thoughtful progressives do not simply accept claims made by prominent academics about the Bible or church history. On more than one occasion attacks on the integrity of Scripture have been shown to be grounded more in personal vendettas than careful scholarship. As a whole, though, Progressive Christians see modern biblical studies as an ally, not an adversary. They welcome its insights while giving its pronouncements careful consideration.<br /> <br />A faith that engages the world, stimulates the mind, and is consistent with Reason and truth - that is my understanding of what Progressive Christianity is. In posts to come I will be developing these ideas further, exploring what I believe to be true to the best of my very limited abilities. Your thoughtful remarks and civil replies are always welcome. All of us are on a search for truth. Should we not seek it together?Just call me Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12412692603929128787noreply@blogger.com4