Why is it that we have such a problem with the truth?
You may scratch your head at that statement, but hear me out. I believe that we as humans have a love-hate relationship with the truth. We love to think that we are diligently seeking it out or that we have found it, but, in reality, we don’t actually want to find it. We’d rather think that truth does not exist or is so completely subjective and relative that it doesn’t apply to us. Why would I say such a thing?
Well, I want us to think about it for a minute as we apply the truth to some very real world situations. Let’s take the issue of hunger in the world. We all know there are people in this world who face hunger every day. We also know that people die from hunger every day. And we also know that we produce enough food in the world to feed everyone with no problem. No one should go hungry, so why do they? I have said before that the truth of the matter is: we don’t have a hunger problem; we have a distribution problem. Food is not distributed to those who are in need. That’s the truth. We may all nod in agreement this morning with that statement, but here is where the truth hurts. If you are like me, you have a pantry full of food. You have a refrigerator full of food, and you have a freezer with plenty of food in it. Most of us have enough food stored up in our house to last for months. We have much more than we need, so we are actually part of the problem. When the truth confronts us, we don’t like it.
Or, let’s turn our attention to politics for a little bit. I know we have both Republicans and Democrats sitting here this morning. Some of you are passionate about supporting your political party, and I understand that. Some of you are more quiet than others given that this area leans very strong Republican. We are in the midst of a presidential election year, and the newspapers, radio waves, and internet feeds are going nuts talking about how the end of the world–or at least the end of the U.S. will be at hand if either Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders is elected. So, what is the truth of the matter. Well, if history is any judge, it’s not going to matter who is going to get elected. Really. Think about it. Has the election of anyone really made a difference for any one of you here today? Has your life improved substantially by the election of any particular person to office? The reality is that elections are more about which corporate entities get richer. You and I almost never benefit, and yet we fight amongst each other as if these elections were life and death. And the truth hurts because we become so emotionally involved in these things. When the truth confronts us, we don’t like it.
And God forbid that anyone asks us what we really believe is the truth about a particular issue. I’ve stepped in it a bit with my first two illustrations. Perhaps I’ve gotten myself into a little bit of hot water, but that’s going to be nothing compared to this next topic. I’m going to talk about altar flowers. Some of you may laugh at this. Others are already gearing up for a battle. If you are not a Christian or are new to the Christian church, you may not realize that there are actually conflicts in churches about whether or not you can use artificial flowers on the altar. And we pastors are oftentimes thrust right into the midst of the battle. “Pastor, can we use artificial flowers on the altar?” “Pastor, tell them that only live flowers are allowed on the altar.” Believe me, you don’t want to be caught here. It’s not pleasant.
What is the truth of the matter here? My honest answer to folks on this one is: God doesn’t care what kind of flowers you put up there, but people do. Before anyone throws anything, hear me out. Do you really think God in heaven looks at a congregation and says, “Whoa there! They put artificial flowers on the altar down there. That’s a huge no, no. Gonna have to move them to the going to hell list until they repent and use real flowers.” I mean, it’s just as plausible as God looking down from heaven and saying, “Wait a minute! I gave these people the ability to produce very realistic flowers so they wouldn’t have to destroy the beauty of my creation just to add color to their worship services. Why do they persist in taking the wondrous beauty I produce outside and move it inside when they don’t have to anymore? I’m going to put them on the going to hell list until they repent and change their ways.” Do either of these things make any sense what-so-ever? But, this truth confronts us in our own traditions–traditions that are very important to some of us. And if our traditions are shown to be not as important as we once thought, we are not happy about it. The truth hurts.
In each of the examples above, when truth is brought to the matter, we don’t like it. It makes us dig deep down within ourselves to confront our biases and our behaviors. The truth reveals that we are not as holy, as good, or as worthy as we think that we are; so even though we like to think that we strive for the truth (because that makes us look good), when confronted with the truth, we generally shy away from it or refuse to admit it. It is too painful.
I believe this is why the Jewish authorities were trying so hard to get rid of Jesus. This is why they paid Judas to betray Him. This is why they put Him on trial. They could not stand that He, as the way, the Truth, and the life, revealed their shortcomings and showed how they had corrupted the Jewish faith. Unable to handle the Truth, they chose to get rid of it.
After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gesthemane, they brought Him to the high priest. This move was highly unusual. The Jews had developed a system of jurisprudence that followed the Torah. They prided themselves on being a just people, but all of that was thrown to the wind because of their hatred of Jesus. Ordinarily, they would meet in the daytime so that all proceedings could be public. Not so now. Ordinarily, they met “in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, north of the temple sanctuary, adjacent to the Court of Israel.” (Edwards) Not so now. They met in the high priest’s house to expedite the process and keep out public influence. Ordinarily, they gave the accused time to prepare a defense. Not so now. All of their jurisprudence, they threw out the window because of their hatred of Jesus.
And they certainly didn’t have any ideas of innocent until proven guilty. Mark says they were seeking evidence so that they could put Jesus to death. They didn’t have any evidence!! But they desperately wanted some, so they tried their hardest to produce such evidence. They failed repeatedly. You see, according to Jewish law at the time, two witnesses were necessary to provide evidence for a death penalty, and those two witnesses had to agree on every detail–every single detail. The Jews knew how unreliable eye-witness testimony could be. They knew that oftentimes people saw what they wanted to see and heard what they wanted to hear. They wanted to insure this did not happen to an accused person. They wanted to make sure people weren’t lying just to get rid of someone. They questioned witnesses individually to safeguard fraud. And their own system was failing them. The false witnesses who came to testify against Jesus could not agree on details. Not surprising since they were making stuff up as they went.
Mark records then, a very interesting note. Witnesses came forth to say that Jesus had said, “I will tear down this temple made with hands and build one not made with hands.” Nowhere in Mark did Jesus say this. There is a reference to this in the book of John. It’s an interesting accusation because of what it connotes. According to Craig Evans, “Referring to the temple as... “made with hands” in itself would have been offensive to the ruling priests, for in addition to denying the divine status of the temple such a statement would even hint at its idolatrous status. In the LXX, ...“made with hands” appears several times in reference to idols. Such a connotation would only intensify the prophetic indictment of Jesus’ saying” The temple establishment is likened to something human, perhaps even idolatrous, that will be destroyed when the “son of man” comes and a temple...”not made with hands” is erected.” The accusation here against Jesus is that He is claiming that the temple is an idol. That would have infuriated the Sanhedrin, and could have carried a death sentence. However, we know from the book of John that Jesus was not referring to the temple proper but His body. This is most probably why, “on even this point they could not agree.”
The trial at this point is not going well for the Sanhedrin. The false witnesses cannot come up with a proper accusation. Jesus is not cooperating with His silence. Ordinarily, an accused person would speak up and defend himself, but Jesus does not. If He opens His mouth, it is very likely, the Sanhedrin will find something to accuse Him of, so Jesus lets things play out. He will not answer falsehood. There is no need. It will always undermine itself. Therefore, since the witnesses cannot agree, and Jesus remains silent, Caiaphas, the high priest takes matters into his own hands. With the thought of this trial slipping away and the distasteful prospect of having to release Jesus, Caiaphas speaks, “ 60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?’ 61But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
Let me read to you Walter Liefield’s comment here, “The silence of Jesus to the first questions prompted the high priest to ask him another. The question “Are you the Christ the son of the Blessed One?” indicates that by this time the religious authorities either knew or suspected that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah. “The Blessed” is a reverential circumlocution to avoid the pronunciation of the name of God and stands in apposition to the title “Christ” or “messiah.” “Son of God” was understood by the Jews of Jesus time solely in a messianic sense; and since the Messiah in Jewish expectations was to be a man, the question of the high priest was about Jesus’ claim to messiahship and had nothing to do with deity. The question proved to be a stroke of genius. Blasphemy was a capital crime. If the religious authorities could not effect an accusation by the testimony of others, Jesus’ own testimony about himself would do. Had Jesus refused to answer this question, the Sanhedrin would have had to devise some other plan.”
If Jesus would have remained silent, some other plan would have needed to been devised. If Jesus would just have remained silent. But He did not. At this crucial junction, Jesus spoke. And He didn’t pull any punches. “I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”, and “coming with the clouds of heaven.” Now, if Jesus would have simply admitted that He claimed to be the Messiah, there would not have been much of an uproar. There were people who claimed to be the Messiah all the time, and the Sanhedrin didn’t accuse them of blasphemy. There is something more to Jesus’ statement here. There something that truly sets Him apart form these other wanna be Messsiahs. Let’s start with the first two words of Jesus’ answer. “I AM.” Some scholars debate this particular response as to whether Jesus is simply self identifying or if there is more going on because the Greek words here: ego eime are the exact words used for God’s name in the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible. If Jesus is using the name of God right here, it is no wonder He is accused of blasphemy! He is telling the Sanhedrin He is God!!!
And Jesus does not quit there, He continues by quoting Psalm 110 and Daniel 13. N.T. Wright says this, “...these two biblical texts, taken together, answer all the questions simultaneously, and add to them the assertion that Jesus will be vindicated, exalted to a place at God’s right hand. The answer says, in a tight-packed phrase: yes, I am a true prophet; yes, I am the Messiah; you will see me vindicated; and my vindication will mean that I share the very throne of Israel’s God. At last the masks are off, the secrets are out, the cryptic sayings and parables are left behind. The son of man stands before the official ruler of Israel, declaring that God will prove him right, and the court in the wrong.”
Throughout the book of Mark, there has been a Messianic secret. Jesus has commanded the disciples to silence about His identity. Jesus has commanded the demons to silence regarding His identity. Jesus has commanded those whom He healed to silence regarding His identity, but here, in front of His accusers; in front of those who are waiting to put Him to death, He reveals Himself. “I AM!”
And the high priest tore his robes. This is a sign of deep distress. This is a sign of anger and grievous wound. This Jesus has placed Himself in a position only reserved for God. Jesus has elevated Himself far too high. Indeed this is blasphemy!! All the rest of those gathered agreed and condemned Jesus to death. They couldn’t handle the truth! And so convinced of their rightness; so convinced are they of their position, they begin to slap Jesus and hit him. Jewish law required that if a man is condemned of death, those who have accused that man are made to cast the first stones. The members of the Sanhedrin are following through on this. They are unabashedly killing the truth.
They cannot stand in its presence.
It’s not surprising, because when we are confronted with the truth, we don’t like it either, and now I am going much deeper than those opening illustrations I used at the beginning of this sermon. I am going straight to the source of all truth. I am going straight to Jesus, and I am telling you this morning that if you stand in the presence of Jesus, you will find it a very painful experience. You will find yourself cut to the core. You will find yourself revealed in all of your weakness. The truth hurts, and being in front of Jesus is no different.
But...
But...
But... Jesus is love. Standing in front of Him won’t hurt. He simply loves us; unquestioningly; without reservation. Yes. Indeed He does love us without reservation, but He loves us not because of who we are but in spite of who we are. Let me say that again, Jesus loves us not because of who we are but in spite of who we are. It is this that hurts most deeply when we come before Jesus because we are truly revealed.
We are revealed as those who have murdered others simply by being angry with them.–Matthew chapter 5.
We are revealed as those who have failed to give up our possessions and follow Him.–Luke chapter 14.
We are revealed as those who did not love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. We are revealed as those who chase after false Gods.
We are revealed as those who have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves.
We are revealed as those who have failed to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us.
We are revealed as those who talk the talk but fail miserably to walk the walk.
We are revealed as those who want to justify our actions and make excuses instead of accepting our faults.
We are revealed as those who would seek to escape the truth or have it silenced.
If you ever stand in front of Jesus, these things cut you to the core, and you know deep down your failure. You know deep down your own darkness. You know deep down your sin.
And it is at this point, where the great I AM stretches out His arms and dies for you. It is at this point where you know you are not worthy of the truth, that the truth sets you free by saying, “I will take your sin upon myself. I will offer you forgiveness. I will clothe you with my righteousness that you may be blameless; you may be flawless.”
The truth will go to the cross to right all your wrongs. He loves you that much. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved by Him.”
Ah, and once you experience these two things: once you are condemned by the truth and then embrace by it with its great love: no longer will you run from it. No longer will you avoid it. You will stand in it and upon it. And you will unabashedly point to it–not as something you own or claim, but as the person who was unafraid to announce it; die and then rise as it. You will point to the truth. You will point to Jesus. Amen.
Showing posts with label Absolute Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Absolute Truth. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
The Conundrum of Our Day
For the past few weeks, I have thoroughly enjoyed teaching a class on Martin Luther and his vast influence upon Western history. There have been more than a few moments of fantastic discussion which have triggered some deep contemplations on my part including the following:
This past Sunday, one of the folks attending class asked, "How was it that the popes of that time were able to get away with all the extravagance and abuse?"
The answers were quite simple:
1. Folks were biblically illiterate. They had no access to the Scriptures in their own languages and had no way of seeing that such abuses were contrary to the commands of Jesus.
2. The Church at the time controlled most of the means of communication and could shut things down pretty quickly. If someone started raising complaints of abuse, the Church could and would put folks to death to silence them. There was no such thing as paparazzi to record everything that was going on and let the masses know.
3. There was a particular theology at play which said that such wealth and extravagance was a blessing of God. If I have arisen to such a position, then I am entitled to such luxury. Couple this theology with the fact that most Church positions were not given to those who exhibited great faithfulness or were steadfast in study and discipline but were rather awarded to the highest bidder, and you had a recipe for abuse.
Of course, this prompted comparisons to today where some "pastors" revel in such gross interpretations of theology. I mean, what pastor in his right mind says that they need a $60 million dollar jet?
However, this also points to a much larger problem in our society--one that I pointed out in class.
In Luther's day, people were highly, biblically illiterate because they did not have access to the Bible in their own language. They couldn't call out such behavior because they were ignorant. Today, people are highly, biblically illiterate even though they have unfettered access to the Bible, and even though there are those willing to call out such behavior, such calls fall upon deaf ears and make little difference.
Why?
This brings us to the conundrum:
In our technological age, everyone has a voice. Everyone has the opportunity to expound upon and interpret whatever text they choose. From Tolkein to Plato to the Bible, anyone can expound and give input to what is written and said.
Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It is good to have free interchange of ideas. We certainly do not want to return to the days when you could be killed for offering up an interpretation outside the mainstream. Orthodoxy needs heresy to keep it on the right path, but heresy does not need to be met with destruction.
But neither does it need to be met with acceptance. And we are far too accepting of heresy today.
How so?
In this manner:
Someone decides they would like to learn more about Christianity and the person of Jesus. They pick up a Bible and begin reading. Before long, they stumble upon Jesus' teachings:
If you are angry with a brother, you are committing murder.
If you look at a woman with lust, you are committing adultery.
If you divorce and get remarried, you are committing adultery.
If you want to be a disciple, you have to hate family and life itself.
If you want to be a disciple, you must give up all possessions.
Many might quit right here. They might see the impossibility of such actions and throw in the towel, but others might just want some clarification. Others might want to understand why such teachings are given. They seek out advice from a pastor or a learned individual. They ask, "Did Jesus really mean what He said here?"
Of course, most pastors will try to soften Jesus' teachings. "No, you don't have to give up your possessions or hate your family or life itself. Jesus means, you must love Him more than you love your possessions and family and life. You can have possessions and be a disciple. No, you are not committing adultery if you look at a woman--that's a natural human instinct. God created you that way, so it isn't sinful. Getting angry is just a part of life. As long as you don't act on it, you are fine."
Do you see how in each of these cases there is an actual departure from the teachings' of Jesus? Do you see how in each of these cases, Jesus' actual words are disregarded and replaced with a different teaching?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book The Cost of Discipleship, would have said, and it's a great quote, we are trying to justify the sin instead of proclaim the justification of the sinner.
And yet, Bonhoeffer, (and I) are simply regarded as one more voice out there; one more interpretation to consider; one more option to think about that may or may not work out for whoever is striving to understand.
With so many voices speaking and interpreting, it is nearly impossible to make any headway in discovering the Truth. With the ability to go and find someone who gives me comfort and lets me continue on in my merry way with no change or transformation; with so many interpretations at the click of a mouse; I can weed out anything that challenges me or calls me to reevaluate my own worldview.
How can the Gospel be proclaimed without sounding like simply "one more voice in a cacophony of voices?" How can someone stand and say, "This is the Truth," when the prevailing view is "what is true for you is true for you, but it's not true for me."? How can any true form of debate take place if that trump card is played? There cannot be any striving for truth if truth is that relative.
Hence the conundrum. Hence the struggle of the Christian Church.
Is it possible for the Church to proclaim to others, "Listen for God's voice" when we are drowning in a cacophony of voices?
This past Sunday, one of the folks attending class asked, "How was it that the popes of that time were able to get away with all the extravagance and abuse?"
The answers were quite simple:
1. Folks were biblically illiterate. They had no access to the Scriptures in their own languages and had no way of seeing that such abuses were contrary to the commands of Jesus.
2. The Church at the time controlled most of the means of communication and could shut things down pretty quickly. If someone started raising complaints of abuse, the Church could and would put folks to death to silence them. There was no such thing as paparazzi to record everything that was going on and let the masses know.
3. There was a particular theology at play which said that such wealth and extravagance was a blessing of God. If I have arisen to such a position, then I am entitled to such luxury. Couple this theology with the fact that most Church positions were not given to those who exhibited great faithfulness or were steadfast in study and discipline but were rather awarded to the highest bidder, and you had a recipe for abuse.
Of course, this prompted comparisons to today where some "pastors" revel in such gross interpretations of theology. I mean, what pastor in his right mind says that they need a $60 million dollar jet?
However, this also points to a much larger problem in our society--one that I pointed out in class.
In Luther's day, people were highly, biblically illiterate because they did not have access to the Bible in their own language. They couldn't call out such behavior because they were ignorant. Today, people are highly, biblically illiterate even though they have unfettered access to the Bible, and even though there are those willing to call out such behavior, such calls fall upon deaf ears and make little difference.
Why?
This brings us to the conundrum:
In our technological age, everyone has a voice. Everyone has the opportunity to expound upon and interpret whatever text they choose. From Tolkein to Plato to the Bible, anyone can expound and give input to what is written and said.
Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It is good to have free interchange of ideas. We certainly do not want to return to the days when you could be killed for offering up an interpretation outside the mainstream. Orthodoxy needs heresy to keep it on the right path, but heresy does not need to be met with destruction.
But neither does it need to be met with acceptance. And we are far too accepting of heresy today.
How so?
In this manner:
Someone decides they would like to learn more about Christianity and the person of Jesus. They pick up a Bible and begin reading. Before long, they stumble upon Jesus' teachings:
If you are angry with a brother, you are committing murder.
If you look at a woman with lust, you are committing adultery.
If you divorce and get remarried, you are committing adultery.
If you want to be a disciple, you have to hate family and life itself.
If you want to be a disciple, you must give up all possessions.
Many might quit right here. They might see the impossibility of such actions and throw in the towel, but others might just want some clarification. Others might want to understand why such teachings are given. They seek out advice from a pastor or a learned individual. They ask, "Did Jesus really mean what He said here?"
Of course, most pastors will try to soften Jesus' teachings. "No, you don't have to give up your possessions or hate your family or life itself. Jesus means, you must love Him more than you love your possessions and family and life. You can have possessions and be a disciple. No, you are not committing adultery if you look at a woman--that's a natural human instinct. God created you that way, so it isn't sinful. Getting angry is just a part of life. As long as you don't act on it, you are fine."
Do you see how in each of these cases there is an actual departure from the teachings' of Jesus? Do you see how in each of these cases, Jesus' actual words are disregarded and replaced with a different teaching?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book The Cost of Discipleship, would have said, and it's a great quote, we are trying to justify the sin instead of proclaim the justification of the sinner.
And yet, Bonhoeffer, (and I) are simply regarded as one more voice out there; one more interpretation to consider; one more option to think about that may or may not work out for whoever is striving to understand.
With so many voices speaking and interpreting, it is nearly impossible to make any headway in discovering the Truth. With the ability to go and find someone who gives me comfort and lets me continue on in my merry way with no change or transformation; with so many interpretations at the click of a mouse; I can weed out anything that challenges me or calls me to reevaluate my own worldview.
How can the Gospel be proclaimed without sounding like simply "one more voice in a cacophony of voices?" How can someone stand and say, "This is the Truth," when the prevailing view is "what is true for you is true for you, but it's not true for me."? How can any true form of debate take place if that trump card is played? There cannot be any striving for truth if truth is that relative.
Hence the conundrum. Hence the struggle of the Christian Church.
Is it possible for the Church to proclaim to others, "Listen for God's voice" when we are drowning in a cacophony of voices?
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Speaking Truth to Power
I remember vividly conversations held time and again while I was in college, seminary, and then amongst colleagues. Well, perhaps I shouldn't sound like my memory is infallible for I do not remember vividly the details of said conversations, but I do remember a theme which has been prevalent--especially with those who believe Christians should work to influence the political process and seek laws which are in accord with biblical theology:
We must speak truth to power!
In my particular denomination, this phrase connotes a strong prophetic theme. Just as the prophets confronted the rulers of Israel and Judah for their injustices, we too must be prophetic. We too must convince our rulers to seek justice: to care for the widow, the orphan, and the needy.
My schooling was heavily influenced by liberation theologians of one flavor or another, and this theme ran prevalent in all of them as well. Those in power must be confronted. We must speak truth to power!
The Church indeed must wrestle with a very important question: how are we to live together? Many argue that this is the nature of politics. How do we live and move and work with one another. This is a question that the Church must enter into regularly as we engage Christians, non-Christians, religious and secular. We are not isolated from our surrounding communities, and ethics always plays a role in the midst of our daily lives.
Yet, how do we engage the powers of our day? How do we engage the leaders in our respective cities, states, and nations? (Obvious American bias right there.)
One of the most interesting things, at least to me, regarding Christianity is how it has managed to thrive under just about every type of government imposed by humanity. It has survived monarchies, democracy, communism, socialism, and everything in between. No government has been able to squash it fully--although some have managed to repress it severely.
Sometimes, Christians have the privilege of engaging governmental powers without fear of reprisal. Sometimes engaging governmental powers is a life or death matter. It depends upon which type of government you engage.
Which leads us to the point where we must ask: how should we engage our government? How should we seek to influence the political process? How should we "speak truth to power?"
For I think the phrase is well worth using, but perhaps in a not so conventional way.
Len Sweet at the Theological Conference I attended a few weeks ago nailed the group with a question. It was a question yours truly has wrestled with previously and made an argument for. "When you hear the word Truth, what picture do you get in your head?" Sweet asked.
In my head, I saw Jesus. "I am the way and the truth and the life," He said.
Sweet followed up, "For we believe truth is not a concept but a person."
A definite point of agreement here.
Truth indeed, for the Christian, is not a concept but a person. I think we tend to forget this when we seek to influence the writing of legislation. We tend to focus on getting certain laws passed thinking that in so doing we are proclaiming the truth. We are not. Laws do not proclaim Jesus.
Interestingly enough, Scripture provides a fascinating look into the early Church and its engagement with the powers that be. I encourage readers to take a look at Acts 24 and following.
Notice how Paul handles himself as he comes before the powers that be of his day. See what he is trying to accomplish. Pay particular attention to Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:
Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?’
Paul replied, ‘Whether quickly or not, I pray to God that not only you but also all who are listening to me today might become such as I am—except for these chains.’
Speaking the Truth to power.
Speaking Jesus to power.
That all may become as we are.
I have to wonder about my denomination's "advocacy" office in Washington, D.C. Are they operating like St. Paul or like the prophets? Are they speaking the truth to power or speaking The Truth to power?
One of these things is not like the other.
We must speak truth to power!
In my particular denomination, this phrase connotes a strong prophetic theme. Just as the prophets confronted the rulers of Israel and Judah for their injustices, we too must be prophetic. We too must convince our rulers to seek justice: to care for the widow, the orphan, and the needy.
My schooling was heavily influenced by liberation theologians of one flavor or another, and this theme ran prevalent in all of them as well. Those in power must be confronted. We must speak truth to power!
The Church indeed must wrestle with a very important question: how are we to live together? Many argue that this is the nature of politics. How do we live and move and work with one another. This is a question that the Church must enter into regularly as we engage Christians, non-Christians, religious and secular. We are not isolated from our surrounding communities, and ethics always plays a role in the midst of our daily lives.
Yet, how do we engage the powers of our day? How do we engage the leaders in our respective cities, states, and nations? (Obvious American bias right there.)
One of the most interesting things, at least to me, regarding Christianity is how it has managed to thrive under just about every type of government imposed by humanity. It has survived monarchies, democracy, communism, socialism, and everything in between. No government has been able to squash it fully--although some have managed to repress it severely.
Sometimes, Christians have the privilege of engaging governmental powers without fear of reprisal. Sometimes engaging governmental powers is a life or death matter. It depends upon which type of government you engage.
Which leads us to the point where we must ask: how should we engage our government? How should we seek to influence the political process? How should we "speak truth to power?"
For I think the phrase is well worth using, but perhaps in a not so conventional way.
Len Sweet at the Theological Conference I attended a few weeks ago nailed the group with a question. It was a question yours truly has wrestled with previously and made an argument for. "When you hear the word Truth, what picture do you get in your head?" Sweet asked.
In my head, I saw Jesus. "I am the way and the truth and the life," He said.
Sweet followed up, "For we believe truth is not a concept but a person."
A definite point of agreement here.
Truth indeed, for the Christian, is not a concept but a person. I think we tend to forget this when we seek to influence the writing of legislation. We tend to focus on getting certain laws passed thinking that in so doing we are proclaiming the truth. We are not. Laws do not proclaim Jesus.
Interestingly enough, Scripture provides a fascinating look into the early Church and its engagement with the powers that be. I encourage readers to take a look at Acts 24 and following.
Notice how Paul handles himself as he comes before the powers that be of his day. See what he is trying to accomplish. Pay particular attention to Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:
Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?’
Paul replied, ‘Whether quickly or not, I pray to God that not only you but also all who are listening to me today might become such as I am—except for these chains.’
Speaking the Truth to power.
Speaking Jesus to power.
That all may become as we are.
I have to wonder about my denomination's "advocacy" office in Washington, D.C. Are they operating like St. Paul or like the prophets? Are they speaking the truth to power or speaking The Truth to power?
One of these things is not like the other.
Monday, March 3, 2014
How Do You Know Christianity is True?
A brilliant magician was performing on an ocean liner. But every time he did a trick, the Captain's parrot would yell, "It's a trick. He's a phony. That's not magic." Then one evening during a storm, the ship sank while the magician was performing. The parrot and the magician ended up in the same lifeboat. For several days they just glared at each other, neither saying a word to the other. Finally the parrot said, "OK, I give up. What did you do with the ship?"
Funny enough, the parrot had a problem. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was real and what was fantasy. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was truly an act and the tragedy that had befallen the ship. Sometimes, I wonder if we don’t have the same problem. Why do I say that?
How do you know Christianity is true?
Perhaps you have never thought about that question. Perhaps you have simply assumed its truth as something taught to you by your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors, or other such authority figures. Perhaps you have simply been raised as a Christian and so the question has never bothered you. Perhaps you simply haven’t taken or haven’t had the time to deeply reflect upon this faith you have come to participate in this morning. Perhaps you are one of those sitting out there who has had such doubts as you have run into more and more people who have become a part of the fastest growing religious group in our nation: the nones–but you have been afraid to voice your doubts for fear that someone will be disappointed in you or that someone will automatically condemn you to hell. The reasons may be many and varied, but this morning I want to put it front and center in our conversation.
How do you know Christianity is true?
On the one hand, you may simply answer: I know it is true because I have felt a deep, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I know it’s true because it helps me order my life; it makes everything fit; or as C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” For some of us, the answer is as plain as this. Yet, in our world today, this point of view is often rebutted by someone saying, “Well, that’s fine for you. What is truth for you isn’t necessarily truth for me. What works for you doesn’t necessarily work for me. Truth is relative.”
And their rebuttal works...IF, if mind you, truth is simply something that works. If truth is simply a way of making sense of the world, then there are myriads of ways of making sense out of life. Who is to say which one is right and which one is wrong? But what if truth isn’t simply something that works? What if truth isn’t just something that gives a person a frame of reference? I mean, we do know that certain frames of reference are better than others, do we not? We know that Mother Teresa’s way of looking at the world is better than those who flew their planes into the world trade centers, do we not? We know the liberties we experience in this nation are better than the brutality experienced by people in dictatorships, do we not? If we begin making such claims, then we are appealing to a higher truth.
And how do we come to know that higher truth? How do we know we simply haven’t created it on our own? Let’s try to work our way through this just a little bit this morning. Mind you, I don’t quite to pin everything down in 15 minutes or so, but I want to begin making a case for the truth of Christianity–a truth you can understand and begin to share with those who offer their doubts.
We will begin with the opening statement of our second lesson this morning from 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Stop right here a moment and process this statement. The author of this book, who Christian tradition attributes to St. Peter is blunt. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Apparently, there were those who were spreading this thought regarding Christianity. There were those who believed that the whole shebang was completely and totally made up. There are those who adamantly say this about Christianity today, so really, as the Church, we are not facing anything we haven’t faced before. Peter doesn’t mince words, he draws a line in the sand and says, “Nope. This isn’t some kind of cleverly devised myth.” What does he appeal to next?
Again, listen to this carefully, “we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ 18We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
We were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ majesty. We heard the voice on the mountaintop. We were there watching this all transpire.
Now, we need to deviate for just a moment. Some scholars have often said that the way the Bible developed is that over a span of decades, people started telling stories. Those stories became embellished as folks told of Jesus’ words and deeds. As time passed, it was thought it would be a good idea to write the stories down and what got written down was the embellished tales and not any sort of historical truth. The myth was written; the truth was lost. This train of thought assumes a couple of things: it assumes that the stories about Jesus were written long after his original followers had died off, and it assumes there were no checks and balances going on in the early Christian movement. It assumes that the eyewitness testimony of the disciples was less important than the embellishment. I think their assumptions are wrong. I’m not the only one. Why is this important?
As people we are geared to accept and trust the eyewitness accounts of people–unless we have a good reason to distrust those accounts. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s say you are having dinner one evening with your significant other. You arrive at a restaurant and are making pleasant conversation. Your significant other begins telling you about her day. She says, “I had a very productive day. I went to work and managed to handle several important cases in a matter of hours. I counseled a couple of junior employees and they are better equipped to handle their jobs. After work, I enjoyed a brisk work out at the gym and am feeling fantastic.”
Would you then look at your significant other and say, “Sounds interesting, but do you have any evidence to back your assertions up?”
How do you think the rest of your evening is going to go?
We are programmed to accept eyewitness testimony unless we have a good reason to distrust it–the person who tells us is found to be a liar; we discover evidence to the contrary; we find others who testify a different set of events.
2 Peter 1:16 is an intriguing piece of scripture as it claims to be eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration. Peter claims to have been there, seen that, and now we have to decide whether or not to trust the account. “We did not follow any cleverly devised myths.”
Let me take just a moment to say a word about this before trying to bring everything together. We know how many world religions got their start. We know what most of them teach. Islam started when the Muhammed wrote down the Koran. Buddhism started when Siddartha Guatama wrote down the eight fold path. Mormonism started with Joseph Smith wrote down some intranslatable tablets. In every one of these religions, the founders wrote down what it means to get into God’s good graces. In every one of these religions, it’s about what I have to do to attain salvation. In every one of the world’s major religions, it is up to us as humans to appease God by our actions and our beliefs. In every one of the world’s other major religions, God asks for obedience before showing mercy. Each of the religions is cleverly devised to show this axiom. Only Christianity is different. Only Christianity begins with God coming down and bestowing grace and then asking us for obedience. Only Christianity has God dying for the sake of humanity, offering us His love, and then asking for obedience. One could call this clever, but one could also say this represents a radical departure from human understanding. One could say this represents a tectonic shift in an understanding about God and God’s love. And it all centers around Jesus.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but so that the world may be saved through Him.
How do we know this to be true? First off, it’s based on eyewitness testimony, and I do not think we have had anything which has shown this testimony to be absolutely untrustworthy. Second, Christianity presents such a radical departure from the norm, that it could not have been devised by human thought, but it had to come from outside of ourselves. It is the only faith that does not have humankind work its way to God, but has God work His way to humankind. “We do not follow cleverly devised myths.” We follow Christ, and we seek to Live His Word Daily. Amen.
Funny enough, the parrot had a problem. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was real and what was fantasy. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was truly an act and the tragedy that had befallen the ship. Sometimes, I wonder if we don’t have the same problem. Why do I say that?
How do you know Christianity is true?
Perhaps you have never thought about that question. Perhaps you have simply assumed its truth as something taught to you by your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors, or other such authority figures. Perhaps you have simply been raised as a Christian and so the question has never bothered you. Perhaps you simply haven’t taken or haven’t had the time to deeply reflect upon this faith you have come to participate in this morning. Perhaps you are one of those sitting out there who has had such doubts as you have run into more and more people who have become a part of the fastest growing religious group in our nation: the nones–but you have been afraid to voice your doubts for fear that someone will be disappointed in you or that someone will automatically condemn you to hell. The reasons may be many and varied, but this morning I want to put it front and center in our conversation.
How do you know Christianity is true?
On the one hand, you may simply answer: I know it is true because I have felt a deep, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I know it’s true because it helps me order my life; it makes everything fit; or as C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” For some of us, the answer is as plain as this. Yet, in our world today, this point of view is often rebutted by someone saying, “Well, that’s fine for you. What is truth for you isn’t necessarily truth for me. What works for you doesn’t necessarily work for me. Truth is relative.”
And their rebuttal works...IF, if mind you, truth is simply something that works. If truth is simply a way of making sense of the world, then there are myriads of ways of making sense out of life. Who is to say which one is right and which one is wrong? But what if truth isn’t simply something that works? What if truth isn’t just something that gives a person a frame of reference? I mean, we do know that certain frames of reference are better than others, do we not? We know that Mother Teresa’s way of looking at the world is better than those who flew their planes into the world trade centers, do we not? We know the liberties we experience in this nation are better than the brutality experienced by people in dictatorships, do we not? If we begin making such claims, then we are appealing to a higher truth.
And how do we come to know that higher truth? How do we know we simply haven’t created it on our own? Let’s try to work our way through this just a little bit this morning. Mind you, I don’t quite to pin everything down in 15 minutes or so, but I want to begin making a case for the truth of Christianity–a truth you can understand and begin to share with those who offer their doubts.
We will begin with the opening statement of our second lesson this morning from 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Stop right here a moment and process this statement. The author of this book, who Christian tradition attributes to St. Peter is blunt. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Apparently, there were those who were spreading this thought regarding Christianity. There were those who believed that the whole shebang was completely and totally made up. There are those who adamantly say this about Christianity today, so really, as the Church, we are not facing anything we haven’t faced before. Peter doesn’t mince words, he draws a line in the sand and says, “Nope. This isn’t some kind of cleverly devised myth.” What does he appeal to next?
Again, listen to this carefully, “we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ 18We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
We were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ majesty. We heard the voice on the mountaintop. We were there watching this all transpire.
Now, we need to deviate for just a moment. Some scholars have often said that the way the Bible developed is that over a span of decades, people started telling stories. Those stories became embellished as folks told of Jesus’ words and deeds. As time passed, it was thought it would be a good idea to write the stories down and what got written down was the embellished tales and not any sort of historical truth. The myth was written; the truth was lost. This train of thought assumes a couple of things: it assumes that the stories about Jesus were written long after his original followers had died off, and it assumes there were no checks and balances going on in the early Christian movement. It assumes that the eyewitness testimony of the disciples was less important than the embellishment. I think their assumptions are wrong. I’m not the only one. Why is this important?
As people we are geared to accept and trust the eyewitness accounts of people–unless we have a good reason to distrust those accounts. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s say you are having dinner one evening with your significant other. You arrive at a restaurant and are making pleasant conversation. Your significant other begins telling you about her day. She says, “I had a very productive day. I went to work and managed to handle several important cases in a matter of hours. I counseled a couple of junior employees and they are better equipped to handle their jobs. After work, I enjoyed a brisk work out at the gym and am feeling fantastic.”
Would you then look at your significant other and say, “Sounds interesting, but do you have any evidence to back your assertions up?”
How do you think the rest of your evening is going to go?
We are programmed to accept eyewitness testimony unless we have a good reason to distrust it–the person who tells us is found to be a liar; we discover evidence to the contrary; we find others who testify a different set of events.
2 Peter 1:16 is an intriguing piece of scripture as it claims to be eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration. Peter claims to have been there, seen that, and now we have to decide whether or not to trust the account. “We did not follow any cleverly devised myths.”
Let me take just a moment to say a word about this before trying to bring everything together. We know how many world religions got their start. We know what most of them teach. Islam started when the Muhammed wrote down the Koran. Buddhism started when Siddartha Guatama wrote down the eight fold path. Mormonism started with Joseph Smith wrote down some intranslatable tablets. In every one of these religions, the founders wrote down what it means to get into God’s good graces. In every one of these religions, it’s about what I have to do to attain salvation. In every one of the world’s major religions, it is up to us as humans to appease God by our actions and our beliefs. In every one of the world’s other major religions, God asks for obedience before showing mercy. Each of the religions is cleverly devised to show this axiom. Only Christianity is different. Only Christianity begins with God coming down and bestowing grace and then asking us for obedience. Only Christianity has God dying for the sake of humanity, offering us His love, and then asking for obedience. One could call this clever, but one could also say this represents a radical departure from human understanding. One could say this represents a tectonic shift in an understanding about God and God’s love. And it all centers around Jesus.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but so that the world may be saved through Him.
How do we know this to be true? First off, it’s based on eyewitness testimony, and I do not think we have had anything which has shown this testimony to be absolutely untrustworthy. Second, Christianity presents such a radical departure from the norm, that it could not have been devised by human thought, but it had to come from outside of ourselves. It is the only faith that does not have humankind work its way to God, but has God work His way to humankind. “We do not follow cleverly devised myths.” We follow Christ, and we seek to Live His Word Daily. Amen.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
You're So Open Minded...
Every once in a while I see a zinger that makes me literally roll on the floor. While reading a particular news story, I hit the floor when I read the following:
"You're so open minded, your brain leaked out."
Here's why I laughed:
When I arrived at college, I began hearing the exhortation, "Be open minded. Think about everything you've ever been taught. Question everything.*"
Suddenly, the worst thing a person could be was closed minded. If you were a Biblical Fundamentalist, you were considered anti-intellectual and non-thinking. If you held certain views about the appropriate place for sex, you were considered Puritanical, impractical, and goody-two-shoes. If you believed it was O.K. to appropriate wealth, you were considered greedy and uncaring toward the poor, etc., etc.
The quite covert and sometimes overt message was, "Do not hold any firm beliefs. Do not believe you have anything resembling the absolute Truth. Keep your mind open, and you will be free."
Not so fast.
You see, I follow Jesus, and He is the one who famously said, "The truth will make you free." However, it wasn't just that little snippet. Let me give you the entirety of Jesus' words as He is teaching the Pharisees in the Gospel of John:
31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’ John 8:31-32
You see, freedom isn't tied to keeping a purely open mind. In fact, there is no such thing as an open mind. It is an impossibility to question anything and everything. There are some truths which are self-evident i.e. if you take one penny and put it next to another penny, you have two pennies. And there are some truths which are facts which are beyond question, i.e. a water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. You simply cannot keep an open mind about such things. If you indeed say that your mind is open to such things, then your brain has indeed leaked out. Either that, or you never really had one in the first place.
The next question is, "What about truth that isn't self-evident or cannot be measured scientifically?"
That is a much different question, a question which is worthy of examination. Yet, again, I believe that there is no such thing as a completely open mind in regards to such types of truth because all of us approach such questions with basic assumptions.
For if you say, "Such truth is relative," then your basic assumption is that the statement "truth is relative" is the truth. That's a bit of a pickle, is it not.
If you say, "Absolute Truth exists, and I know it," well, then you assume the Absolute Truth can be known and that you have the intellect and capacity to know it and understand it.
If you say, "Absolute Truth exists, but I'm not sure anyone can know it fully," then you assume the Truth is seen but dimly.
And if any of these three types of people get together to argue, nothing will ever be accomplished because none will generally question the very assumptions they bring to the table.
If you would approach yours truly and try to get him to have an open mind, you would be wasting your time. There are more than a few things that I refuse to compromise on, give up, or question. These things stem from my assumptions which are based in faith--not reason. In order to get me to have such an open mind, you would have to get me to convert to different assumptions. How good of an evangelist are you?
*That little caveat was oftentimes used by professors and others who wanted you to change your particular beliefs; however, said professors and others usually meant, "Question everything you've ever been taught, but don't question what I'm teaching you now."
"You're so open minded, your brain leaked out."
Here's why I laughed:
When I arrived at college, I began hearing the exhortation, "Be open minded. Think about everything you've ever been taught. Question everything.*"
Suddenly, the worst thing a person could be was closed minded. If you were a Biblical Fundamentalist, you were considered anti-intellectual and non-thinking. If you held certain views about the appropriate place for sex, you were considered Puritanical, impractical, and goody-two-shoes. If you believed it was O.K. to appropriate wealth, you were considered greedy and uncaring toward the poor, etc., etc.
The quite covert and sometimes overt message was, "Do not hold any firm beliefs. Do not believe you have anything resembling the absolute Truth. Keep your mind open, and you will be free."
Not so fast.
You see, I follow Jesus, and He is the one who famously said, "The truth will make you free." However, it wasn't just that little snippet. Let me give you the entirety of Jesus' words as He is teaching the Pharisees in the Gospel of John:
31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.’ John 8:31-32
You see, freedom isn't tied to keeping a purely open mind. In fact, there is no such thing as an open mind. It is an impossibility to question anything and everything. There are some truths which are self-evident i.e. if you take one penny and put it next to another penny, you have two pennies. And there are some truths which are facts which are beyond question, i.e. a water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. You simply cannot keep an open mind about such things. If you indeed say that your mind is open to such things, then your brain has indeed leaked out. Either that, or you never really had one in the first place.
The next question is, "What about truth that isn't self-evident or cannot be measured scientifically?"
That is a much different question, a question which is worthy of examination. Yet, again, I believe that there is no such thing as a completely open mind in regards to such types of truth because all of us approach such questions with basic assumptions.
For if you say, "Such truth is relative," then your basic assumption is that the statement "truth is relative" is the truth. That's a bit of a pickle, is it not.
If you say, "Absolute Truth exists, and I know it," well, then you assume the Absolute Truth can be known and that you have the intellect and capacity to know it and understand it.
If you say, "Absolute Truth exists, but I'm not sure anyone can know it fully," then you assume the Truth is seen but dimly.
And if any of these three types of people get together to argue, nothing will ever be accomplished because none will generally question the very assumptions they bring to the table.
If you would approach yours truly and try to get him to have an open mind, you would be wasting your time. There are more than a few things that I refuse to compromise on, give up, or question. These things stem from my assumptions which are based in faith--not reason. In order to get me to have such an open mind, you would have to get me to convert to different assumptions. How good of an evangelist are you?
*That little caveat was oftentimes used by professors and others who wanted you to change your particular beliefs; however, said professors and others usually meant, "Question everything you've ever been taught, but don't question what I'm teaching you now."
Monday, April 15, 2013
Another "Ask the Pastor" Response
A few months back, I addressed an "Ask the Pastor" question from the ELCA Living Lutheran Website where I believed the responses given were a bit inadequate. Today, I sense the urge to do so once again.
Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:
It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?
The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion. Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature." Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot.
A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering. He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist. He and I have written the following response. Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :
An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit. Which laws of nature are you referring to? The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity? I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works. Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects. They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible. You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa. This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord. It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be. Why?
One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel. He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic. Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well. Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited. It cannot cover all of the bases. Exceptions will always arise. Let that sink in a moment. (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)
It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished. (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances. Again, take a moment to let that sink in.
When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability. There is high probability and low probability. There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead. It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science. In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.
This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed. However, the confusion is understandable and common.
First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.
Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.
Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.
The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken. In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.
And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork. Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder. We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life. We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge. Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God. It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God. Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.
Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:
It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?
The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion. Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature." Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot.
A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering. He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist. He and I have written the following response. Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :
An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit. Which laws of nature are you referring to? The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity? I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works. Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects. They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible. You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa. This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord. It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be. Why?
One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel. He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic. Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well. Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited. It cannot cover all of the bases. Exceptions will always arise. Let that sink in a moment. (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)
It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished. (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances. Again, take a moment to let that sink in.
When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability. There is high probability and low probability. There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead. It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science. In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.
This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed. However, the confusion is understandable and common.
First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.
Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.
Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.
The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken. In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.
And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork. Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder. We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life. We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge. Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God. It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God. Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)