I can see why Richard Dawkins has won over many disciples in his writing of The God Delusion. He writes with a certainty usually reserved for religious fanatics, and one thing I have come to know about homo sapiens: we generally crave certainty (unless that certainty clashes against our particular worldview).
Dawkins admits his main argument against the existence of God rests on his Ultimate Boeing 747 argument. He claims not a single theologian has been able to answer his argument, and they try to skirt around it.
The argument is as follows:
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. (Kindle Location 1763)
Dawkins' phrasing of the argument is very important here, because he offers a sleight of hand which throws many theologians and others off. The sleight of hand becomes apparent in the paragraph immediately following the above quote. Dawkins writes:
The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. But many people define 'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the absence of deliberate design.' Not surprisingly, therefore, they think improbability is evidence for design. (Kindle location1763)
Read those two statements by Dawkins carefully. Really carefully.
The argument proposed by those of us who look at the universe and its fine tuning; the knowledge that universe came out of nothing; the location of our place in the universe; the location of our solar system within our galaxy, the location of our planet in the solar system; the fact that we have a moon which ran into our planet causing a molten, magnetic core and plate tectonics; the fact that non-living materials produced something living; and thinking entities emerged from non-thinking materials say that such matters could not have arisen by chance or luck.
Here, however, is the problem. Dawkin's isn't dealing with the theist's argument. He's dealing with an argument of his own making.
Dawkins' argument basically follows this line of reasoning:
If A=the universe is improbably complex,
And if B=you ascribe the complexity to a designer
Then C=the designer must be more complex than the design. (That's not necessarily true, but for the sake of argument, let's say Dawkins is correct.)
If C, then, based upon A, the designer is more improbable than A.
In principle, the argument is correct. But it falls far short of offering a defeater for the theist's argument because it does not contradict the theist's argument at all. For the theists argument does not rest upon the complexity of the designer. It rests upon whether or not chance or luck is a viable alternative to a designer, no matter how improbable that designer may seem.
The theists argument follows the following line of reasoning:
If A=the universe is finely tuned for the existence of intelligent life
Then B=there is a reason for this fine tuning.
The question is: what is the reason for this fine tuning?
Is it pure chance or luck?
Is it a given based upon an absurdly large number of alternate universes, and we just happen to be the right one?
Is there a designer who put the thing together?
Theists are willing to explore all of those options and ask, "Which is most reasonable?"
Dawkins actually jumps into two of these options. At one point, he ascribes such things to luck (Kindle
location 2190) --particularly the origin of life. Yet, when it comes to the origin of the
universe and the origin of thinking entities emerging from non-thinking
entities, he indulges in the multiverse hypothesis--Kindle location 2263 (It isn't a theory folks. A theory is testable by observation and measurement. The multiverse hypothesis is neither and is actually a fanciful, imaginative exercise based solely on statements of belief.)
So, let's actually deal with the probability of the three options presented above. What is the probability of this, so called, multiverse? Well, unless we get anything more than the fanciful imagination of some theoretical physicists, the evidence for such a thing is actually zero. We can't observe such an entity. We can't measure such and entity. We can't do experiments to explore and see if such an entity exists. I think we can rank the multiverse hypothesis right up there with C.S. Lewis' no-see-ums.
What about chance or luck? Well, this is indeed a possibility. If so, we are extremely, extremely lucky. Evidence abounds for the fine tuning of our universe. Evidence abounds for things which are scientifically impossible--something coming out of nothing (the universe); living entities emerging from non-living materials (the existence of life); and the emergence of thinking beings out of non-thinking materials. Dawkins estimates that there is a one in a billion chance of life emerging on a given planet. I am very curious to see where he gets this estimate because given that the building block of life: DNA depends upon certain chemicals lining up in just the right sequence to produce a molecule which is capable of producing life--and those chemicals--according to Dawkins did so on their own--the probability simply has to be much, much lower than one in a billion. Which leads to a very different conclusion--a conclusion we can actually use Dawkins' own words to find.
To suggest that the original prime mover was complicated enough to indulge in intelligent design, to say nothing of mindreading millions of humans simultaneously, is tantamount to dealing yourself a perfect hand at bridge. Look around at the world of life, at the Amazon rainforest with its rich interlacement of lianas, bromeliads, roots and flying buttresses; its army of ants and its jaguars, its tapirs and peccaries, treefrogs and parrots. What you are looking at is the statistical equivalent of a perfect hand of cards (think of all the other ways you could permute the parts, none of which would work)--except that we know how it came about: by the gradualistic crane of natural selection. (Kindle location 2431)
Dawkins is absolutely correct that as we look at the biological systems, we are seeing a perfect hand of cards, but I would argue, we aren't just seeing one deck. I would argue, given the entirety of the universe and its components which are geared for life, we are looking at a table in which four perfect hands of bridge are dealt.
if such a thing were to happen to a group of players, they would have to believe one of two things:
1. They were all the luckiest card players to ever exist.
or
2. Someone stacked the deck.
One of these is more probable than the other--despite the complexity of the one who most probably stacked the deck.
Dawkins' argument fails and miserably.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Getting Profiled
Yesterday morning, I was profiled.
Yes, believe it or not, in Cat Spring, TX; population 75; after having lived here for nine years, I was still profiled.
I was in the midst of my morning workout, about half-way through my cool down, walking around the block. A grey, Lexus SUV was driving through the neighborhood. I recognized the vehicle. I had seen it numerous times driving by my home. I nearly always wave at whoever is driving. Apparently, the driver didn't recognize me.
He slowed down to a crawl as he observed me and my behavior.
I processed what was going on. I knew exactly what was going on.
Our paths actually would intersect in just a few moments. He continued driving very, very slowly toward me. I kept walking.
I noticed the driver roll down his window--perhaps to get a better look? As we passed one another, I raised my hand in that friendly gesture called a wave. I said, "Good morning."
Recognition came to his face then. He knew who I was. He returned the greeting, and proceeded merrily on his way.
What would cause him to profile me in such a manner--especially when he had seen me numerous times before?
Well, I wasn't exactly dressed like I normally dress.
You see, when I work out in the morning, I have some general workout attire: shorts, sleeveless shirt, socks and tennis shoes. However, there are a couple of accessories as well. I wear a bandanna around my head to stave off the copious amounts of sweat which begin pouring off my forehead. I also wear a set of black workout gloves as I incorporate push ups into my routine (it's on asphalt which is murder on the bare hands). I am sure the sight of me walking around in Cat Spring in such a manner is a bit outside the norm.
It obviously was for the driver in the grey SUV, and I don't blame him for profiling me. He's being neighborly. He's helping to make sure his community is safe. He recognizes when things seem a bit out of the ordinary.
And why do you think I reacted in a friendly manner? Would have it been appropriate for me to address him and say, "What's the deal slowing down and looking at me like that? You got a problem?" I surely could have, but what would that have accomplished?
Cordiality, civility, friendliness, neighborliness. Important attributes when living in a community together and seeking the greater good.
Just sayin'.
Yes, believe it or not, in Cat Spring, TX; population 75; after having lived here for nine years, I was still profiled.
I was in the midst of my morning workout, about half-way through my cool down, walking around the block. A grey, Lexus SUV was driving through the neighborhood. I recognized the vehicle. I had seen it numerous times driving by my home. I nearly always wave at whoever is driving. Apparently, the driver didn't recognize me.
He slowed down to a crawl as he observed me and my behavior.
I processed what was going on. I knew exactly what was going on.
Our paths actually would intersect in just a few moments. He continued driving very, very slowly toward me. I kept walking.
I noticed the driver roll down his window--perhaps to get a better look? As we passed one another, I raised my hand in that friendly gesture called a wave. I said, "Good morning."
Recognition came to his face then. He knew who I was. He returned the greeting, and proceeded merrily on his way.
What would cause him to profile me in such a manner--especially when he had seen me numerous times before?
Well, I wasn't exactly dressed like I normally dress.
You see, when I work out in the morning, I have some general workout attire: shorts, sleeveless shirt, socks and tennis shoes. However, there are a couple of accessories as well. I wear a bandanna around my head to stave off the copious amounts of sweat which begin pouring off my forehead. I also wear a set of black workout gloves as I incorporate push ups into my routine (it's on asphalt which is murder on the bare hands). I am sure the sight of me walking around in Cat Spring in such a manner is a bit outside the norm.
It obviously was for the driver in the grey SUV, and I don't blame him for profiling me. He's being neighborly. He's helping to make sure his community is safe. He recognizes when things seem a bit out of the ordinary.
And why do you think I reacted in a friendly manner? Would have it been appropriate for me to address him and say, "What's the deal slowing down and looking at me like that? You got a problem?" I surely could have, but what would that have accomplished?
Cordiality, civility, friendliness, neighborliness. Important attributes when living in a community together and seeking the greater good.
Just sayin'.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Go Ahead, Laugh
This morning as I read our Old Testament lesson from the book of Genesis, I was reminded of the following story I once heard:
Nine-year-old Joey was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday School. 'Well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a rescue mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt . When he got to the Red Sea, he had his army engineers build a pontoon bridge while the rear guard held off the approaching Egyptian army. Once the bridge was assembled, all the people walked across safely. When the Egyptian army started crossing the bridge, Moses radioed headquarters for reinforcements. They sent bombers to blow up the bridge. All the Israelites were saved, and the Egyptian army was completely routed!'
'Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?' his Mother asked.
'Well, no, Mom. But, if I told it the way the teacher did, you'd never believe it!'
Go ahead and laugh, it’s quite alright to do so. Many studies have shown that laughter relives stress and helps with the body’s healing process. It also releases endorphins which make you feel good. Humor is quite a good thing. I mean, why do you think Joel Osteen begins every sermon he preaches with a joke? It gets people feeling good as endorphins surge through their bodies. Maybe that’s why Otto Reichardt brings me a stack full of jokes every time we have senior service. We need to laugh.
Which brings me to the next story. As a pastor, I’ve been privileged to offer prayers at many, many community functions. One of the recurring functions I go to is the Austin County Soil and Water Conservation Banquet of Champions. Philip Shackleford usually emcees the event, and twice, he’s used the podium to pull one on me. He’s used the same bit twice, but I still think it’s funny.
Phil began, “One day Pastor Haug was visiting in the homes of his parishioners.
At one house it seemed obvious that someone was at home, but no answer came to his repeated knocks at the door. Therefore, he took out his card and wrote "Revelation 3:20" on the back of it and stuck it in the door. Revelation 3:20 begins "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.."
When the offering was processed the following Sunday, Pastor Haug found that his card had been returned. The Revelation passage had been scratched out and replaced with "Genesis 3:10", which reads, "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." The room cracked up!
Unbeknownst to Phil, I had a come-back. I went up to the podium to pray, but before the prayer, I turned to the audience and said, “My turn.”
I then proceeded to tell the following story: You know, when I start working in a community, I go around a visit quite a bit, and on another one of those visits, I just so happened to be driving past Phil’s house. Now, there at his gate was a dead mule, so wanting to be neighborly, I drove up to his house, got out of my car, and knocked on the door. Phil answered, and I introduced myself. Then, I said, “I just wanted to tell you there’s a dead mule down by your gate.”
Phil looked at me and said, “Well, Reverend, I thought it was your job to bury the dead.”
Without missing a beat, I responded, “Yes sir, it is, but it is also my job to notify the next of kin.” Pandemonium ensued.
Go ahead. Laugh some more. Laughter is good for the soul. In fact, I would argue we need much more laughter in our society today. We need to allow ourselves to have a few deep, resonant belly laughs. Our society is way, way too serious. We take things so bloody seriously that our practical jokes are seen as dangerous. We need humor–it is vital.
Now, those of you who were listening carefully to our Old Testament lesson might be wondering why I am spending so much time telling you it is o.k. to laugh when laughter seems to be frowned upon in this text about Abraham and Sarah. I mean, let’s take another moment to look at this passage from Genesis.
The Lord comes to Abraham to visit, and Abraham busies himself preparing a feast for his guest. As was custom, they ate and held conversation. At the appropriate time, the Lord spoke these words to Abraham, “I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.” Sarah overheard, and she laughed. Now, let’s take a moment to understand why.
Scripture tells us that Sarah had ceased to be after the matter of women because she was of advanced age. Now, I know there are children here this morning, so I won’t go into the exact detail, but let me say this: Sarah was ninety. Her body had ceased its natural functions which make it possible to have children. Is the picture clear? I hope so. Now, you know why she laughed. This had to be a joke. It was impossible for a woman of that age to conceive and have a child. The body no longer functioned in that manner. Laughter is possibly the only appropriate response.
Now, before I go any further, let’s take a moment to examine some of the more humorous things about this faith that we Christians share. I mean, the idea that a 90 year old woman could conceive and bear a child isn’t the most outlandish things we proclaim–not in the least.
I mean, stop a moment and think about some of the following claims from scripture and tell me if they aren’t worthy of a good chuckle:
● God appeared in a bush that was burning, but the fire did not consume the bush. Ever seen such a thing?
● God made the city walls of Jericho fall down because people shouted and trumpets were blown. Ever seen that happen?
● God made bread appear in the desert on the bare ground. Have you ever seen food appear out of thin air?
● Elijah called down fire from heaven which ignited a sacrifice which had been drowned in water–and the resulting fire was so hot, it melted the rock. Has anyone seen a fire like that?
O.K. let’s turn to the New Testament. Here are some more whoppers!
● We proclaim that the virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no earthly father. That’s not exactly how children get conceived is it?
● We say that Jesus walked on water. Have you done that?
● We say Jesus fed about 17,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. Ever tried to do
something like that when unexpected guests show up? Been that successful?
● We say that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried; but that He came back to life. Ever seen a dead person rise?
● We say that God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three persons; one God. One God; three persons. Does that even make sense? Didn’t think so.
In fact, all of these things are quite laughable. If we try to understand them from a rational, scientific perspective, we would quite scoff at them and laugh a hearty, belly laugh.
But what if...
What if...
What if all those things were true. Just as it came to pass that Sarah indeed conceived and bore a son named Isaac.
Perhaps it is important to realize laughter is important–as long as we laugh at the right things. But the promises of God–those are no laughing matter. Those are real. Amen.
Nine-year-old Joey was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday School. 'Well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a rescue mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt . When he got to the Red Sea, he had his army engineers build a pontoon bridge while the rear guard held off the approaching Egyptian army. Once the bridge was assembled, all the people walked across safely. When the Egyptian army started crossing the bridge, Moses radioed headquarters for reinforcements. They sent bombers to blow up the bridge. All the Israelites were saved, and the Egyptian army was completely routed!'
'Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?' his Mother asked.
'Well, no, Mom. But, if I told it the way the teacher did, you'd never believe it!'
Go ahead and laugh, it’s quite alright to do so. Many studies have shown that laughter relives stress and helps with the body’s healing process. It also releases endorphins which make you feel good. Humor is quite a good thing. I mean, why do you think Joel Osteen begins every sermon he preaches with a joke? It gets people feeling good as endorphins surge through their bodies. Maybe that’s why Otto Reichardt brings me a stack full of jokes every time we have senior service. We need to laugh.
Which brings me to the next story. As a pastor, I’ve been privileged to offer prayers at many, many community functions. One of the recurring functions I go to is the Austin County Soil and Water Conservation Banquet of Champions. Philip Shackleford usually emcees the event, and twice, he’s used the podium to pull one on me. He’s used the same bit twice, but I still think it’s funny.
Phil began, “One day Pastor Haug was visiting in the homes of his parishioners.
At one house it seemed obvious that someone was at home, but no answer came to his repeated knocks at the door. Therefore, he took out his card and wrote "Revelation 3:20" on the back of it and stuck it in the door. Revelation 3:20 begins "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.."
When the offering was processed the following Sunday, Pastor Haug found that his card had been returned. The Revelation passage had been scratched out and replaced with "Genesis 3:10", which reads, "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." The room cracked up!
Unbeknownst to Phil, I had a come-back. I went up to the podium to pray, but before the prayer, I turned to the audience and said, “My turn.”
I then proceeded to tell the following story: You know, when I start working in a community, I go around a visit quite a bit, and on another one of those visits, I just so happened to be driving past Phil’s house. Now, there at his gate was a dead mule, so wanting to be neighborly, I drove up to his house, got out of my car, and knocked on the door. Phil answered, and I introduced myself. Then, I said, “I just wanted to tell you there’s a dead mule down by your gate.”
Phil looked at me and said, “Well, Reverend, I thought it was your job to bury the dead.”
Without missing a beat, I responded, “Yes sir, it is, but it is also my job to notify the next of kin.” Pandemonium ensued.
Go ahead. Laugh some more. Laughter is good for the soul. In fact, I would argue we need much more laughter in our society today. We need to allow ourselves to have a few deep, resonant belly laughs. Our society is way, way too serious. We take things so bloody seriously that our practical jokes are seen as dangerous. We need humor–it is vital.
Now, those of you who were listening carefully to our Old Testament lesson might be wondering why I am spending so much time telling you it is o.k. to laugh when laughter seems to be frowned upon in this text about Abraham and Sarah. I mean, let’s take another moment to look at this passage from Genesis.
The Lord comes to Abraham to visit, and Abraham busies himself preparing a feast for his guest. As was custom, they ate and held conversation. At the appropriate time, the Lord spoke these words to Abraham, “I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.” Sarah overheard, and she laughed. Now, let’s take a moment to understand why.
Scripture tells us that Sarah had ceased to be after the matter of women because she was of advanced age. Now, I know there are children here this morning, so I won’t go into the exact detail, but let me say this: Sarah was ninety. Her body had ceased its natural functions which make it possible to have children. Is the picture clear? I hope so. Now, you know why she laughed. This had to be a joke. It was impossible for a woman of that age to conceive and have a child. The body no longer functioned in that manner. Laughter is possibly the only appropriate response.
Now, before I go any further, let’s take a moment to examine some of the more humorous things about this faith that we Christians share. I mean, the idea that a 90 year old woman could conceive and bear a child isn’t the most outlandish things we proclaim–not in the least.
I mean, stop a moment and think about some of the following claims from scripture and tell me if they aren’t worthy of a good chuckle:
● God appeared in a bush that was burning, but the fire did not consume the bush. Ever seen such a thing?
● God made the city walls of Jericho fall down because people shouted and trumpets were blown. Ever seen that happen?
● God made bread appear in the desert on the bare ground. Have you ever seen food appear out of thin air?
● Elijah called down fire from heaven which ignited a sacrifice which had been drowned in water–and the resulting fire was so hot, it melted the rock. Has anyone seen a fire like that?
O.K. let’s turn to the New Testament. Here are some more whoppers!
● We proclaim that the virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no earthly father. That’s not exactly how children get conceived is it?
● We say that Jesus walked on water. Have you done that?
● We say Jesus fed about 17,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. Ever tried to do
something like that when unexpected guests show up? Been that successful?
● We say that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried; but that He came back to life. Ever seen a dead person rise?
● We say that God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three persons; one God. One God; three persons. Does that even make sense? Didn’t think so.
In fact, all of these things are quite laughable. If we try to understand them from a rational, scientific perspective, we would quite scoff at them and laugh a hearty, belly laugh.
But what if...
What if...
What if all those things were true. Just as it came to pass that Sarah indeed conceived and bore a son named Isaac.
Perhaps it is important to realize laughter is important–as long as we laugh at the right things. But the promises of God–those are no laughing matter. Those are real. Amen.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Sick of Racist, Prejudiced, Identity Politics and Theology
This is a follow up on the Justice for Trayvon post from earlier this week.
I listen to a lot of rhetoric--from politics and from theology.
I listen to a lot of the talk about race, racism, and prejudice.
I hear the voices out there talking loudly and clearly about systems which promote racism.
I hear the voices tell me that racism is about prejudice combined with power therefore, minorities who (according to the people arguing) are incapable of racism. I remember a college professor who spoke these words passionately to proclaim the impossibility of him being racist. Under my breath I muttered, "No power, huh? What the hell does he think his grade book represents?"
I hear the voices clamoring and claiming and counter-claiming. I find it interesting how each particular ethnic "group" finds people to speak for and represent that particular group.
But do you know what "group" I see missing? (Well, aside from the fact that in the George Zimmerman trial, I heard very little--at least in the national media--from Hispanic groups.) I don't see much commentary from truly integrated groups. Groups like my family.
As I said earlier this week, my family is truly integrated. My two daughters have different skin color than my own. They are adopted. My son actually has a skin tone which is a few shades lighter than my own. He entered our family naturally. These points will be revisited in a moment.
The systems of which I am a part loves to make distinctions based upon skin color. When it came to filling out the U.S. Census there were boxes for me to check regarding the ethnicity of my children. Technically, I should fill out African-American for two and Caucasian for one.
The church denomination of which I am a part wants me to fill out forms at the end of the year designating what race/ethnicity members of my congregation are. Based on skin color, I am supposed to designate my two girls as African-American and my son as white.
The nation I am a part of panders in politics to racial groups. There is talk about winning the "Black vote, the women's vote, the Hispanic vote, the homosexual vote, the male vote, etc. etc."
The church of which I am a part embraces identity theology coached in Liberation theology--Black Theology, Latin American Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, GLBT Theology, and so on.
The church of which I am a part seeks diversity by starting ethnic congregations: A black church here, a Hispanic church there, an Asian church over there, etc.
I find all of this sickening. Really. It actually nauseates me, and then I get angry because I don't want to be nauseous.
You see, being a part of such systems which focus on these distinctions actually causes me quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. This dissonance comes from the reality of my family versus the reality that the national system and the church system tries to force upon my family.
Let me make this as plain and simple as I possibly can:
Whenever my family and I go out and we meet someone and it comes to introductions, I do not say the following:
This is my black oldest daughter. This is my black middle daughter. This is my white son.
Neither do I say this:
This is my adopted oldest daughter. This is my adopted middle daughter. This is my natural son.
Honestly, this would be a dumb a$$ way to introduce my family. Neither is it the way deep down I understand my family to be. Whenever I introduce people to my family, I say without hesitation, simply:
This is my oldest daughter, Kiera. This is my middle daughter, Kaylee. This is my son, Kevin, Jr.
Sorry to yell, but dammit, this is important I DO NOT MAKE ANY SORT OF DISTINCTION WITHIN MY FAMILY BASED UPON THEIR SKIN COLOR OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ADOPTED OR NATURAL. I love my children without any sort of distinction or attention given to their obvious differences. Families do that, you know.
I mean, do you honestly believe that if God were introducing His children around, He would say, "This are my black children. These are my white children. These are my brown children." Do you think God makes distinctions like this? (Read Galatians 3:27-28, and you will find the answer.)
And then I run into a society and church culture which wants me to begin making those distinctions.
No.
I refuse.
Go play your identity games.
Go try to make distinctions and divide based upon your fabricated notions of race, prejudice and identity politics and theology.
But don't try to make me play along. You see, I don't just talk about integration. I don't just talk theoretically about race being a non-issue. I live it. Every day of my life--I live it and love it. And I will uncompromisingly fight to protect my family from divisive politics and theology whether it is in society or even in the church.
As I have written before, so I write again. I remember vividly when asked by a congregation member who has now passed on, "I don't understand why you didn't adopt within your own culture."
Without hesitation, I said, "God doesn't care about such matters. Neither do I."
I listen to a lot of rhetoric--from politics and from theology.
I listen to a lot of the talk about race, racism, and prejudice.
I hear the voices out there talking loudly and clearly about systems which promote racism.
I hear the voices tell me that racism is about prejudice combined with power therefore, minorities who (according to the people arguing) are incapable of racism. I remember a college professor who spoke these words passionately to proclaim the impossibility of him being racist. Under my breath I muttered, "No power, huh? What the hell does he think his grade book represents?"
I hear the voices clamoring and claiming and counter-claiming. I find it interesting how each particular ethnic "group" finds people to speak for and represent that particular group.
But do you know what "group" I see missing? (Well, aside from the fact that in the George Zimmerman trial, I heard very little--at least in the national media--from Hispanic groups.) I don't see much commentary from truly integrated groups. Groups like my family.
As I said earlier this week, my family is truly integrated. My two daughters have different skin color than my own. They are adopted. My son actually has a skin tone which is a few shades lighter than my own. He entered our family naturally. These points will be revisited in a moment.
The systems of which I am a part loves to make distinctions based upon skin color. When it came to filling out the U.S. Census there were boxes for me to check regarding the ethnicity of my children. Technically, I should fill out African-American for two and Caucasian for one.
The church denomination of which I am a part wants me to fill out forms at the end of the year designating what race/ethnicity members of my congregation are. Based on skin color, I am supposed to designate my two girls as African-American and my son as white.
The nation I am a part of panders in politics to racial groups. There is talk about winning the "Black vote, the women's vote, the Hispanic vote, the homosexual vote, the male vote, etc. etc."
The church of which I am a part embraces identity theology coached in Liberation theology--Black Theology, Latin American Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, GLBT Theology, and so on.
The church of which I am a part seeks diversity by starting ethnic congregations: A black church here, a Hispanic church there, an Asian church over there, etc.
I find all of this sickening. Really. It actually nauseates me, and then I get angry because I don't want to be nauseous.
You see, being a part of such systems which focus on these distinctions actually causes me quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. This dissonance comes from the reality of my family versus the reality that the national system and the church system tries to force upon my family.
Let me make this as plain and simple as I possibly can:
Whenever my family and I go out and we meet someone and it comes to introductions, I do not say the following:
This is my black oldest daughter. This is my black middle daughter. This is my white son.
Neither do I say this:
This is my adopted oldest daughter. This is my adopted middle daughter. This is my natural son.
Honestly, this would be a dumb a$$ way to introduce my family. Neither is it the way deep down I understand my family to be. Whenever I introduce people to my family, I say without hesitation, simply:
This is my oldest daughter, Kiera. This is my middle daughter, Kaylee. This is my son, Kevin, Jr.
Sorry to yell, but dammit, this is important I DO NOT MAKE ANY SORT OF DISTINCTION WITHIN MY FAMILY BASED UPON THEIR SKIN COLOR OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ADOPTED OR NATURAL. I love my children without any sort of distinction or attention given to their obvious differences. Families do that, you know.
I mean, do you honestly believe that if God were introducing His children around, He would say, "This are my black children. These are my white children. These are my brown children." Do you think God makes distinctions like this? (Read Galatians 3:27-28, and you will find the answer.)
And then I run into a society and church culture which wants me to begin making those distinctions.
No.
I refuse.
Go play your identity games.
Go try to make distinctions and divide based upon your fabricated notions of race, prejudice and identity politics and theology.
But don't try to make me play along. You see, I don't just talk about integration. I don't just talk theoretically about race being a non-issue. I live it. Every day of my life--I live it and love it. And I will uncompromisingly fight to protect my family from divisive politics and theology whether it is in society or even in the church.
As I have written before, so I write again. I remember vividly when asked by a congregation member who has now passed on, "I don't understand why you didn't adopt within your own culture."
Without hesitation, I said, "God doesn't care about such matters. Neither do I."
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
The Hardest Sermon: Published
Luke 6: 32-38
32 ‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.’
I think perhaps, this is one of the most difficult sermons I have ever had to deliver. You may wonder why.
This may come as a shock to some. Those closest to Chris know this; most of you probably do not. Heather was raised as a Christian, but as time went on, she eventually renounced her Christian faith and became an atheist. I hate to be the one who breaks this news to many of you today, but it is true. This puts me in a rather difficult position considering the world we live in today–and considering the love and respect that you all had for Heather. Because what we have happening here this evening is a collision of worldviews. We have the Christian worldview which many of us embrace, and we have the atheistic worldview which Heather and her husband embraced. Each have very different understandings about what happens after death–understandings which are seemingly incompatible. So, how do we reconcile such things? Is it even possible?
To begin, please allow me to quote Christian author and speaker Ravi Zacharias who said the following in his Veritas Lecture on the campus of U.C.L.A. in January of this year. He says, “Whatever our worldview...whatever our convictions, because a conviction is different to an opinion–an opinion is something you have a preference for sort of a hierarchy of options and you make a choice this way somebody else makes a choice another way. But a conviction is that which is then in many ways rooted in your very soul; it is in your conscience. And to change a conviction will involve a changing of who you are as a person...And so, when two worldviews collide, when two convictions collide, the best thing that one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement.”
The cordiality to disagree and the civility to interact in the midst of that disagreement. Is such a thing possible? Is it possible for a Christian worldview and an atheistic worldview to cordially disagree and civilly interact? Historically, I believe those of us who are Christians have not done such a good job of handling such things. There are usually two avenues which are chosen by most Christians, and one comes across as very self-righteous and the other comes across as both self-righteous and wishy-washy.
On the one hand, you have those who almost gleefully proclaim that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are eternally damned. Usually, they are quick to quote all of those Bible verses and quotations of Jesus and Paul and others which paint the eternal destination of those who do not believe in a none too positive light. They use these verses as fearful motivation–trying to convince others to avoid the same fate, repent and believe in Jesus Christ. They use those verses to fearfully get those gathered to “get our stuff together” so that we don’t end up in such a horrid place. I honestly believe the folks who preach in this manner are trying to promote the Kingdom of God. I believe they are trying to win souls for that Kingdom. However, whether they know it or not, they usually come across as self-righteous and sanctimonious and do more harm to Christianity than good. I do not want to go down that road this evening.
Then, on the other hand, there are those who quite willingly and quickly pronounce that it doesn’t matter what one believes or does not believe–all enjoy a trip to heaven to be with God. In their desire to promote comfort and to ease peoples' consciences, they will ignore the words of Jesus; the words of Paul; and other such comments in scripture. They do not honor the closest witnesses to Jesus as reported in the Bible and so water down what is revealed in Scripture. Convictions get thrown out the window. But that is not the least of it. For in proclaiming this particular worldview, such folks fail to honor or respect the beliefs, convictions, and worldviews of those who believe differently. In effect, they say, “I don’t care that you believe you will just cease to exist when you die. It doesn’t matter what you say, what I say about God is more important than your beliefs and understandings.” As I look at such things, it seems rather disingenuous, and I do not want to travel down that road tonight either.
And so, what does one do? How does one handle such situations? There is no doubt that Scripture reveals to us some very troubling words about those who do not believe in Christ. There is no doubt that Scripture reveals to us some very disturbing words about those who renounce their faith. I am not going to sugar coat those this evening, but I am also not going to gleefully proclaim them. Instead, I am going to hold up the dynamic tension Jesus asks us to hold.
For, you see, the same Jesus who spoke words of exclusivity announcing that He is the way and the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him also said, “Do not judge and you will not be judged for with the measure you give, the same measure you will receive.”
Jesus makes it quite clear to you and to me how we are to act toward anyone who does not share our particular beliefs. He makes it quite clear how we are to proceed with those who have a different worldview. “Do not judge for with the judgment you give, you will receive.” In my estimation, this call is a call to humility as we interact with those who do not believe as we believe. How?
Well, it goes back to the core convictions and beliefs at the foundation of Christianity. It goes back to the fact that we all deserve judgment. We all deserve God’s anger at us for we do not live according to His commands. Take a read of Matthew chapter 5 through 7 and see how well you do at following Christ’s commands. Be honest as we look at our own lives and realize how we do not live as though we depend only on God for our sustenance and livelihood–we work and slave to store up wealth and property for our future instead of depending on God for our daily bread. In doing so, we break a basic command of Christ. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; we cannot earn any sort of salvation through our own actions. It is only by His grace that we are saved through faith.
And that is not the half of it. We cannot even believe in God without His help. You may shake your head at that one, but if you do, take a moment to read 1 Corinthians chapter 12 and see that wonderful little snippet by St. Paul who says, “No one says Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit.” You cannot even come to believe in Jesus on your own! You can walk away on your own, but you certainly cannot believe in God through your own reason or strength. You and I are totally dependent upon God not only for our salvation but for our very belief in Jesus Christ.
So what does that mean? I don’t know exactly what it means to you, but for me, it means that I am humbled. I am totally dependent upon God, and I honor Him by following Him and the teachings of His Son who died for me. And that Son was absolutely clear in His teachings: “Those who want to be first in the Kingdom of God must be last of all and servant of all.” All, mind you. Not just those who share the same belief, but we are called to love and serve all no matter what they believe–even if it is vastly different than what we believe. We are to love others as God loved us. Now, how is this possible?
This was the exact same question Chris and I talked about as Heather’s life was coming to a close. She and I had several conversations about this as she struggled with the question, “What should I do?” The answer: love her. Plain and simple. Of course, Chris also witnessed to Heather. Of course, she wanted her daughter to believe, but it was not her job to arm twist. It was not her job to use her love or the revocation of her love as a tool of manipulation. This is not what a parent does. A parent never stops loving his or her children. A parent never withdraws that kind of support. But a parent also respects a child enough to allow that child to go his or her own way.
I’ve got three kids, 8, 7, and 5. Do you think they do everything I tell them to do? Of course not. Does that mean I stop loving them? Never. You see at a certain point and time, a good parent realizes his or her children are independent. They make their own decisions. They blaze their own paths. They choose to go their own ways. Those ways may be very different than our own, but a good parent respects his or her children enough to allow them to go their own way. And even though there may be disagreement, a parent loves and supports his or her child until death claims one or the other. Chris showed that kind of love to Heather until the very end. It’s what good parents do.
It is what God does as well. He loves us so much that He respects our choices–even if those choices take us away from Him; even if those choices lead us to cease believing in Him. But that doesn’t mean He stops seeking us out. That doesn’t mean He ever stops loving us. He loves us to the very end. Period.
And now, we arrive at that crucial moment–that time where you may wish for me to announce Heather’s eternal resting place. I must apologize for I am afraid I must disappoint you. I am afraid the best answer I can tell you is that such a proclamation does not rest on me or in my hands. It rests in the hands of One and One alone. Such matters are now in God’s hands. And thankfully, those are very good hands to rest such matters in. Amen.
32 ‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.’
I think perhaps, this is one of the most difficult sermons I have ever had to deliver. You may wonder why.
This may come as a shock to some. Those closest to Chris know this; most of you probably do not. Heather was raised as a Christian, but as time went on, she eventually renounced her Christian faith and became an atheist. I hate to be the one who breaks this news to many of you today, but it is true. This puts me in a rather difficult position considering the world we live in today–and considering the love and respect that you all had for Heather. Because what we have happening here this evening is a collision of worldviews. We have the Christian worldview which many of us embrace, and we have the atheistic worldview which Heather and her husband embraced. Each have very different understandings about what happens after death–understandings which are seemingly incompatible. So, how do we reconcile such things? Is it even possible?
To begin, please allow me to quote Christian author and speaker Ravi Zacharias who said the following in his Veritas Lecture on the campus of U.C.L.A. in January of this year. He says, “Whatever our worldview...whatever our convictions, because a conviction is different to an opinion–an opinion is something you have a preference for sort of a hierarchy of options and you make a choice this way somebody else makes a choice another way. But a conviction is that which is then in many ways rooted in your very soul; it is in your conscience. And to change a conviction will involve a changing of who you are as a person...And so, when two worldviews collide, when two convictions collide, the best thing that one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement.”
The cordiality to disagree and the civility to interact in the midst of that disagreement. Is such a thing possible? Is it possible for a Christian worldview and an atheistic worldview to cordially disagree and civilly interact? Historically, I believe those of us who are Christians have not done such a good job of handling such things. There are usually two avenues which are chosen by most Christians, and one comes across as very self-righteous and the other comes across as both self-righteous and wishy-washy.
On the one hand, you have those who almost gleefully proclaim that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are eternally damned. Usually, they are quick to quote all of those Bible verses and quotations of Jesus and Paul and others which paint the eternal destination of those who do not believe in a none too positive light. They use these verses as fearful motivation–trying to convince others to avoid the same fate, repent and believe in Jesus Christ. They use those verses to fearfully get those gathered to “get our stuff together” so that we don’t end up in such a horrid place. I honestly believe the folks who preach in this manner are trying to promote the Kingdom of God. I believe they are trying to win souls for that Kingdom. However, whether they know it or not, they usually come across as self-righteous and sanctimonious and do more harm to Christianity than good. I do not want to go down that road this evening.
Then, on the other hand, there are those who quite willingly and quickly pronounce that it doesn’t matter what one believes or does not believe–all enjoy a trip to heaven to be with God. In their desire to promote comfort and to ease peoples' consciences, they will ignore the words of Jesus; the words of Paul; and other such comments in scripture. They do not honor the closest witnesses to Jesus as reported in the Bible and so water down what is revealed in Scripture. Convictions get thrown out the window. But that is not the least of it. For in proclaiming this particular worldview, such folks fail to honor or respect the beliefs, convictions, and worldviews of those who believe differently. In effect, they say, “I don’t care that you believe you will just cease to exist when you die. It doesn’t matter what you say, what I say about God is more important than your beliefs and understandings.” As I look at such things, it seems rather disingenuous, and I do not want to travel down that road tonight either.
And so, what does one do? How does one handle such situations? There is no doubt that Scripture reveals to us some very troubling words about those who do not believe in Christ. There is no doubt that Scripture reveals to us some very disturbing words about those who renounce their faith. I am not going to sugar coat those this evening, but I am also not going to gleefully proclaim them. Instead, I am going to hold up the dynamic tension Jesus asks us to hold.
For, you see, the same Jesus who spoke words of exclusivity announcing that He is the way and the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him also said, “Do not judge and you will not be judged for with the measure you give, the same measure you will receive.”
Jesus makes it quite clear to you and to me how we are to act toward anyone who does not share our particular beliefs. He makes it quite clear how we are to proceed with those who have a different worldview. “Do not judge for with the judgment you give, you will receive.” In my estimation, this call is a call to humility as we interact with those who do not believe as we believe. How?
Well, it goes back to the core convictions and beliefs at the foundation of Christianity. It goes back to the fact that we all deserve judgment. We all deserve God’s anger at us for we do not live according to His commands. Take a read of Matthew chapter 5 through 7 and see how well you do at following Christ’s commands. Be honest as we look at our own lives and realize how we do not live as though we depend only on God for our sustenance and livelihood–we work and slave to store up wealth and property for our future instead of depending on God for our daily bread. In doing so, we break a basic command of Christ. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; we cannot earn any sort of salvation through our own actions. It is only by His grace that we are saved through faith.
And that is not the half of it. We cannot even believe in God without His help. You may shake your head at that one, but if you do, take a moment to read 1 Corinthians chapter 12 and see that wonderful little snippet by St. Paul who says, “No one says Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit.” You cannot even come to believe in Jesus on your own! You can walk away on your own, but you certainly cannot believe in God through your own reason or strength. You and I are totally dependent upon God not only for our salvation but for our very belief in Jesus Christ.
So what does that mean? I don’t know exactly what it means to you, but for me, it means that I am humbled. I am totally dependent upon God, and I honor Him by following Him and the teachings of His Son who died for me. And that Son was absolutely clear in His teachings: “Those who want to be first in the Kingdom of God must be last of all and servant of all.” All, mind you. Not just those who share the same belief, but we are called to love and serve all no matter what they believe–even if it is vastly different than what we believe. We are to love others as God loved us. Now, how is this possible?
This was the exact same question Chris and I talked about as Heather’s life was coming to a close. She and I had several conversations about this as she struggled with the question, “What should I do?” The answer: love her. Plain and simple. Of course, Chris also witnessed to Heather. Of course, she wanted her daughter to believe, but it was not her job to arm twist. It was not her job to use her love or the revocation of her love as a tool of manipulation. This is not what a parent does. A parent never stops loving his or her children. A parent never withdraws that kind of support. But a parent also respects a child enough to allow that child to go his or her own way.
I’ve got three kids, 8, 7, and 5. Do you think they do everything I tell them to do? Of course not. Does that mean I stop loving them? Never. You see at a certain point and time, a good parent realizes his or her children are independent. They make their own decisions. They blaze their own paths. They choose to go their own ways. Those ways may be very different than our own, but a good parent respects his or her children enough to allow them to go their own way. And even though there may be disagreement, a parent loves and supports his or her child until death claims one or the other. Chris showed that kind of love to Heather until the very end. It’s what good parents do.
It is what God does as well. He loves us so much that He respects our choices–even if those choices take us away from Him; even if those choices lead us to cease believing in Him. But that doesn’t mean He stops seeking us out. That doesn’t mean He ever stops loving us. He loves us to the very end. Period.
And now, we arrive at that crucial moment–that time where you may wish for me to announce Heather’s eternal resting place. I must apologize for I am afraid I must disappoint you. I am afraid the best answer I can tell you is that such a proclamation does not rest on me or in my hands. It rests in the hands of One and One alone. Such matters are now in God’s hands. And thankfully, those are very good hands to rest such matters in. Amen.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Justice for Tryavon
The criminal trial has been conducted. Justice, theoretically, has been served.
So, why now the protests? Why three nights of people gathering--thankfully, for the most part, peacefully?
When the first round of "Justice for Trayvon" marches and gatherings took place, the call was for the arrest of George Zimmerman and the need for a trial. At a minimum, this was needed. Justice demanded it.
Well, the trial was held. The evidence was presented. The jury returned the verdict: Not guilty. Certainly not of second degree murder. And then, it was concluded, not of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
But this was not enough. Protests erupt again. Why?
Well, it's certainly not because there was a trial. It's certainly not because the evidence was presented. In my estimation, it's because the "correct" verdict was not brought forward.
I was intrigued by the comments of the anonymous juror who came forward and was interviewed by Andersen Cooper. She reported that Zimmerman was guilty of bad judgment, but was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of.
I concur.
As the juror said, it then became a matter of whether or not Zimmerman feared for his life. That's a call which cannot be made by an outsider for different people experience fear differently. The juror believe there was no doubt Zimmerman feared for his life--five others agreed. Acquittal.
In our legal system, you cannot convict someone on bad judgment. You can only convict if they have broken the law or shown malicious intent to harm someone. Neither of these things were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution had a very, very weak case. They knew it. Those who have followed this trial with reason and thought instead of emotion knew it. But in our society, emotion normally overrules reason. Hence the protests.
No doubt, someone will point to my station as a white person who is writing from a position of white privilege. It is one's estimation of such things, but don't let your emotion carry you too far on this charge. Remember, I have a vested interest in what happens to and in the black community. I have a vested interest in challenging racism. I have two black daughters. (Actually, they are bi-racial, but no one really wants to listen to me when I decry these dumb a$$ distinctions and simply want to call my own children human. Some people always want to make distinctions and point to skin color. Forgive me for wishing to change such matters, not by words, but by actual deeds in having a family of mixed skin color where we make no distinction but love one another despite differences.) I work diligently toward a society where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And their actions prove their character.
In this trail, two very flawed characters came into conflict. Tragedy ensued. Even more tragedy is occurring now. If I am fortunate, lessons will be learned. But I am afraid the same sort of mentalities will continue to pervade our culture. Worldviews will not change. People will see only what they want to see. Assumptions will remain unexamined.
But I will be d@mned if it causes me to change course in what I am working toward--to paraphrase St. Paul--a place where there is no distinction. Where all are recognized as children of God where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, black or white, brown or red, for all are one in Christ.
So, why now the protests? Why three nights of people gathering--thankfully, for the most part, peacefully?
When the first round of "Justice for Trayvon" marches and gatherings took place, the call was for the arrest of George Zimmerman and the need for a trial. At a minimum, this was needed. Justice demanded it.
Well, the trial was held. The evidence was presented. The jury returned the verdict: Not guilty. Certainly not of second degree murder. And then, it was concluded, not of the lesser charge of manslaughter.
But this was not enough. Protests erupt again. Why?
Well, it's certainly not because there was a trial. It's certainly not because the evidence was presented. In my estimation, it's because the "correct" verdict was not brought forward.
I was intrigued by the comments of the anonymous juror who came forward and was interviewed by Andersen Cooper. She reported that Zimmerman was guilty of bad judgment, but was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of.
I concur.
- Zimmerman used very poor judgment by getting out of his car. But this was not illegal.
- He used poor judgment by not listening to the police dispatcher when she told him, "We don't need you to do that." But this was not illegal.
- If--we don't have proof of this, but for the sake of argument, let's say Zimmerman did this--he approached Trayvon and verbally confronted him, Zimmerman used bad judgment. But this too is not illegal.
As the juror said, it then became a matter of whether or not Zimmerman feared for his life. That's a call which cannot be made by an outsider for different people experience fear differently. The juror believe there was no doubt Zimmerman feared for his life--five others agreed. Acquittal.
In our legal system, you cannot convict someone on bad judgment. You can only convict if they have broken the law or shown malicious intent to harm someone. Neither of these things were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution had a very, very weak case. They knew it. Those who have followed this trial with reason and thought instead of emotion knew it. But in our society, emotion normally overrules reason. Hence the protests.
No doubt, someone will point to my station as a white person who is writing from a position of white privilege. It is one's estimation of such things, but don't let your emotion carry you too far on this charge. Remember, I have a vested interest in what happens to and in the black community. I have a vested interest in challenging racism. I have two black daughters. (Actually, they are bi-racial, but no one really wants to listen to me when I decry these dumb a$$ distinctions and simply want to call my own children human. Some people always want to make distinctions and point to skin color. Forgive me for wishing to change such matters, not by words, but by actual deeds in having a family of mixed skin color where we make no distinction but love one another despite differences.) I work diligently toward a society where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And their actions prove their character.
In this trail, two very flawed characters came into conflict. Tragedy ensued. Even more tragedy is occurring now. If I am fortunate, lessons will be learned. But I am afraid the same sort of mentalities will continue to pervade our culture. Worldviews will not change. People will see only what they want to see. Assumptions will remain unexamined.
But I will be d@mned if it causes me to change course in what I am working toward--to paraphrase St. Paul--a place where there is no distinction. Where all are recognized as children of God where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, black or white, brown or red, for all are one in Christ.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Is One Law More Important than Another
While I was on vacation, I took the time to read a book I was very interested in. It was titled: Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, and it was written by Scottish scholar Richard Bauckham. I have begun to have a very high respect for Dr. Bauckham’s work, and it just so happened that he dealt with the parable presented in our Gospel lesson for this Sunday.
Luke places Jesus’ parable immediately after a lawyer asks Jesus an important question, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
In all actuality, the lawyer knew the answer to this question. I mean, let’s be real. Lawyers don’t ask questions they don’t already know the answers to. As an expert in the law of Israel, this lawyer knew the 600+ commands of God listed in the first five books of the Bible backwards and forwards. He knew what it took to inherit eternal life. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is probably why he asked Jesus the question–he indeed wanted to see if Jesus knew what it took to inherit eternal life.
Jesus doesn’t bite. You see, Jesus knew the situation in Israel. He knew there were several different religious groups, and they all had their understandings about eternal life. They each had a particular slant on what it would take to enter God’s Kingdom. The Pharisees believed it was keeping the purity of the people. This is why they emphasized all the rituals of cleanliness listed in the Law: washing hands appropriately, wearing the right kinds of clothing, associating with the right kinds of people, etc. The Sadducees didn’t believe in any sort of afterlife, so their understanding of the Kingdom of God was a bit different, and the question would have been irrelevant to them. The Zealots believed in a very present reality of the Kingdom, a reality brought about by armed revolution. The priestly class emphasized temple worship and sacrifice. All of these groups formed a conglomeration of thought when it came to what was needed to be in God’s good graces. Each group emphasized a different part of the law. If Jesus were to answer straight out, He would make enemies and fast. So, instead of answering straight-forward, Jesus turns the question around.
“Well,” Jesus asks, “what is it that the Law says? How do you read it?”
Now, what lawyer isn’t going to take the time to show off how well he knows the law? I’ve known a few lawyers, and they always seem happy to jump in and tell you how much they know about their given area of expertise, and this guy is no exception. Before he realizes what Jesus has done to him, he blurts out, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. And you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
Jesus replies that the lawyer has answered well.
The lawyer then realizes what Jesus has done. He realizes Jesus has escaped the little snare, so he wants to save face in some form or fashion. “And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus tells a story–again, not a direct answer, but something which makes people think. Now, I am going to begin sharing some of Bauckham’s insights into this story most of us know by heart.
Jesus begins by garnering our sympathy. A man is traveling down to Jericho. He’s minding his own business; doing his own thing like any such traveler. However, this guy is waylaid by bandits. He is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half-dead. No one ever wants to be in this position. The crowd gathered to hear this story has immediate sympathy.
It’s important to realize here that the man was half-dead. He’s not exactly in a state of prime health. In fact, according to Bauckham, this meant that from a distance one couldn’t tell if he were dead or alive. This is an important detail as we shall see in a moment.
Jesus continues the story by telling us that first a priest and then a Levi walk by. They notice the man lying there, but then they hurry on their way. Oftentimes, we think these two guys just couldn’t be bothered. They feared for their life, or they were so occupied with their own thoughts and importance that they just went on their merry way. Bauckham believes differently. You see, there is a Jewish law concerning dealing with those who are dead. If one even comes near a dead body, then that person is considered unclean. The priest and the Levi work in the temple, and if they come near this man–who looks half-dead–possibly is dead, then they would be unclean. They would be breaking a command of God to remain pure. They would have to go through the rituals of cleanliness and they would not be able to fulfill their duties in the temple. Therefore, rather than become unclean and break this law, they went on their way.
But the next person who came a long did not go on. The next person who came along decided to break the purity law and see if the beaten man were indeed alive. But there was a catch to this one–the next person in line was a Samaritan. The Samaritan’s were cousins of the Jews, but they were reviled. They essentially followed much of the Jewish Law, but the Jews felt they had warped it and were outside the true faith. Despite this, Jesus reveals the Samaritan to be the hero. The Samaritan is willing to break the purity code to show compassion.
There is a double whammy in this parable. The first whammy, of course, is the Samaritan being the hero. Good Jews wouldn’t like that, but it is an attention getter. The second whammy is Jesus’ clear articulation that some of God’s laws have a higher priority than others.
Think about that for just a moment. I mean, perhaps you were raised just as I was raised. Perhaps you were told and still believe that a sin is a sin is a sin–one sin is not greater than another. Many of us were brought up believing just this very thing, and so there is an implication in that understanding. If a sin is a sin is a sin and no sin is greater than another, then all of God’s laws must be equal as well, correct? It doesn’t matter which law you break, all are of equal importance since God views all sin the same. Am I off base in this understanding of how many of us think?
Unfortunately, Jesus’ teaching is different from what many of us have come to believe. Jesus believes there are some laws which are more important than others. If you don’t believe the parable of the Good Samaritan, then take a read at the other two times Jesus is asked about the most important or greatest commandments in the books of Mark and Matthew. In Mark 12 and Matthew 22, Jesus is asked, “Which commandment is first? Or Which commandment is greatest?” This implies a hierarchy of commandments. It implies that there are some which are more important. Does Jesus ever say, “All of the commandments carry equal weight.”? No. Not a chance. Jesus prioritizes. Love God. Love your neighbor. These are most important, and everything else follows after these two.
The implications are important–very important. We live in a very litigious society. We really, really like making laws. We try to cover each and every situation known to man with a law. We try to write laws governing every type of situation including telling kids they cannot make pretend guns with their hands lest they get suspended from school! It’s almost enough to make one pull out your hair.
But the fact of the matter is, laws will eventually come into conflict with one another. Laws cannot cover all the basis. For instance, in the U.S. we believe we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We pass all kinds of laws interpreting these rights, but they easily come into conflict. For instance, my pursuit of happiness may be that I like telling everyone what to do and how they should do it. This directly impinges upon others’ right to liberty. The two come into conflict–which one wins?
Or, how about another scenario. Let’s say you’ve fallen on hard times. You have a family to feed, and you have been unable to obtain food for them. Would you steal in order to feed your family? Would you take bread or meat or other such food from someone in order to make sure your family did not starve? I personally would if I had run out of options.
Is such a thing wrong? Yes. But which is more important–making sure children don’t starve or keeping one’s record clean? Neither is right, but life wins out.
Jesus makes the same point. The purity code is less important than showing compassion to one who is injured and in need of assistance. It is better to be defiled and check to see if one is injured than to pass by just so one can fulfill one’s temple duties.
There are circumstances in life when we come across such choices as well. There are times when we must choose which laws to follow and which laws to break. Jesus offers us our guide. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This is our measuring stick as to importance when faced with conflicting situations. May we practice them without fear. Amen.
Writer's Note: Following the sermon, one of my congregation members who studied some theology in Europe commented about this sermon, "I am surprised this was the first time you'd run into that interpretation of the Good Samaritan. I thought it was common knowledge."
I replied, "Hey, I was schooled in the Crossan and Borg school of theology."
She said, "We need to talk."
I agree. It might give me a chance to vent over the rather poor biblical scholarship I received.
Luke places Jesus’ parable immediately after a lawyer asks Jesus an important question, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
In all actuality, the lawyer knew the answer to this question. I mean, let’s be real. Lawyers don’t ask questions they don’t already know the answers to. As an expert in the law of Israel, this lawyer knew the 600+ commands of God listed in the first five books of the Bible backwards and forwards. He knew what it took to inherit eternal life. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is probably why he asked Jesus the question–he indeed wanted to see if Jesus knew what it took to inherit eternal life.
Jesus doesn’t bite. You see, Jesus knew the situation in Israel. He knew there were several different religious groups, and they all had their understandings about eternal life. They each had a particular slant on what it would take to enter God’s Kingdom. The Pharisees believed it was keeping the purity of the people. This is why they emphasized all the rituals of cleanliness listed in the Law: washing hands appropriately, wearing the right kinds of clothing, associating with the right kinds of people, etc. The Sadducees didn’t believe in any sort of afterlife, so their understanding of the Kingdom of God was a bit different, and the question would have been irrelevant to them. The Zealots believed in a very present reality of the Kingdom, a reality brought about by armed revolution. The priestly class emphasized temple worship and sacrifice. All of these groups formed a conglomeration of thought when it came to what was needed to be in God’s good graces. Each group emphasized a different part of the law. If Jesus were to answer straight out, He would make enemies and fast. So, instead of answering straight-forward, Jesus turns the question around.
“Well,” Jesus asks, “what is it that the Law says? How do you read it?”
Now, what lawyer isn’t going to take the time to show off how well he knows the law? I’ve known a few lawyers, and they always seem happy to jump in and tell you how much they know about their given area of expertise, and this guy is no exception. Before he realizes what Jesus has done to him, he blurts out, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. And you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
Jesus replies that the lawyer has answered well.
The lawyer then realizes what Jesus has done. He realizes Jesus has escaped the little snare, so he wants to save face in some form or fashion. “And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus tells a story–again, not a direct answer, but something which makes people think. Now, I am going to begin sharing some of Bauckham’s insights into this story most of us know by heart.
Jesus begins by garnering our sympathy. A man is traveling down to Jericho. He’s minding his own business; doing his own thing like any such traveler. However, this guy is waylaid by bandits. He is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half-dead. No one ever wants to be in this position. The crowd gathered to hear this story has immediate sympathy.
It’s important to realize here that the man was half-dead. He’s not exactly in a state of prime health. In fact, according to Bauckham, this meant that from a distance one couldn’t tell if he were dead or alive. This is an important detail as we shall see in a moment.
Jesus continues the story by telling us that first a priest and then a Levi walk by. They notice the man lying there, but then they hurry on their way. Oftentimes, we think these two guys just couldn’t be bothered. They feared for their life, or they were so occupied with their own thoughts and importance that they just went on their merry way. Bauckham believes differently. You see, there is a Jewish law concerning dealing with those who are dead. If one even comes near a dead body, then that person is considered unclean. The priest and the Levi work in the temple, and if they come near this man–who looks half-dead–possibly is dead, then they would be unclean. They would be breaking a command of God to remain pure. They would have to go through the rituals of cleanliness and they would not be able to fulfill their duties in the temple. Therefore, rather than become unclean and break this law, they went on their way.
But the next person who came a long did not go on. The next person who came along decided to break the purity law and see if the beaten man were indeed alive. But there was a catch to this one–the next person in line was a Samaritan. The Samaritan’s were cousins of the Jews, but they were reviled. They essentially followed much of the Jewish Law, but the Jews felt they had warped it and were outside the true faith. Despite this, Jesus reveals the Samaritan to be the hero. The Samaritan is willing to break the purity code to show compassion.
There is a double whammy in this parable. The first whammy, of course, is the Samaritan being the hero. Good Jews wouldn’t like that, but it is an attention getter. The second whammy is Jesus’ clear articulation that some of God’s laws have a higher priority than others.
Think about that for just a moment. I mean, perhaps you were raised just as I was raised. Perhaps you were told and still believe that a sin is a sin is a sin–one sin is not greater than another. Many of us were brought up believing just this very thing, and so there is an implication in that understanding. If a sin is a sin is a sin and no sin is greater than another, then all of God’s laws must be equal as well, correct? It doesn’t matter which law you break, all are of equal importance since God views all sin the same. Am I off base in this understanding of how many of us think?
Unfortunately, Jesus’ teaching is different from what many of us have come to believe. Jesus believes there are some laws which are more important than others. If you don’t believe the parable of the Good Samaritan, then take a read at the other two times Jesus is asked about the most important or greatest commandments in the books of Mark and Matthew. In Mark 12 and Matthew 22, Jesus is asked, “Which commandment is first? Or Which commandment is greatest?” This implies a hierarchy of commandments. It implies that there are some which are more important. Does Jesus ever say, “All of the commandments carry equal weight.”? No. Not a chance. Jesus prioritizes. Love God. Love your neighbor. These are most important, and everything else follows after these two.
The implications are important–very important. We live in a very litigious society. We really, really like making laws. We try to cover each and every situation known to man with a law. We try to write laws governing every type of situation including telling kids they cannot make pretend guns with their hands lest they get suspended from school! It’s almost enough to make one pull out your hair.
But the fact of the matter is, laws will eventually come into conflict with one another. Laws cannot cover all the basis. For instance, in the U.S. we believe we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We pass all kinds of laws interpreting these rights, but they easily come into conflict. For instance, my pursuit of happiness may be that I like telling everyone what to do and how they should do it. This directly impinges upon others’ right to liberty. The two come into conflict–which one wins?
Or, how about another scenario. Let’s say you’ve fallen on hard times. You have a family to feed, and you have been unable to obtain food for them. Would you steal in order to feed your family? Would you take bread or meat or other such food from someone in order to make sure your family did not starve? I personally would if I had run out of options.
Is such a thing wrong? Yes. But which is more important–making sure children don’t starve or keeping one’s record clean? Neither is right, but life wins out.
Jesus makes the same point. The purity code is less important than showing compassion to one who is injured and in need of assistance. It is better to be defiled and check to see if one is injured than to pass by just so one can fulfill one’s temple duties.
There are circumstances in life when we come across such choices as well. There are times when we must choose which laws to follow and which laws to break. Jesus offers us our guide. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This is our measuring stick as to importance when faced with conflicting situations. May we practice them without fear. Amen.
Writer's Note: Following the sermon, one of my congregation members who studied some theology in Europe commented about this sermon, "I am surprised this was the first time you'd run into that interpretation of the Good Samaritan. I thought it was common knowledge."
I replied, "Hey, I was schooled in the Crossan and Borg school of theology."
She said, "We need to talk."
I agree. It might give me a chance to vent over the rather poor biblical scholarship I received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)