Why Secular Reasons for Marriage Fail

Why get married?  What are the reasons for marriage?

These questions are important in light of the recent debate surrounding homosexual marriage.  Of course, the issue for many revolves around individual rights, but what are those rights based upon?   In the U.S., of course, those rights are the U.S. Constitution, especially the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  So where does marriage fall?  What is the purpose of marriage?

Secular reasoning in this area falls far short.

First, there is, what I call, the biological, evolutionary, social construct model.   Marriage evolved as an institution to provide a safer environment for the care of children.  For the survival of our species, especially since our young take much longer to develop to the point where they can take care of ourselves, a stable environment was needed to ensure this could happen.  Since it took a male and a female to produce offspring, emotional attachments evolved between the two so they would be better able to care for their children long term. 

In our day and age, this raises some problematic issues: what happens if a couple cannot or chooses not to have children?  What happens when children are raised and are on their own?  Is the purpose of marriage then relegated to the trash bin?  In our time and place, this model falls short.

Second, there is, what I call, the emotional satisfaction/fulfillment model.  I define this as individuals entering into a social agreement for mutual companionship which fulfills emotional needs.  As people we need both our individualism AND relationship.  Marriage gives us an avenue to fulfill those relational needs with another person who we enjoy being with and receive a sense of wholeness with.

The problematic issues arise in a couple of areas: 1. What happens when individuals no longer sense fulfillment with the person they are currently married to?  The answer for couples who believe marriage falls within this category is divorce.  We know divorce has devastating effects on people.  More than a few times I have heard people comment, "Divorce is like death, but worse."  The emotional toll is terrible often leading to resentment of another person, resentment of the opposite sex, and emotional barriers which prevent deep friendships/relationships.  And this is if children are not involved.  If there are children, a whole 'nother can of worms is opened. 

Of course, there are amenable divorces, and people are often free, and they do pursue more relationships and marriages.  In fact, a statistic often cited--50% of all marriages end in divorce--is somewhat misleading because quite a few of those divorces are committed by people who have married, divorced, remarried, and divorced again.  Why?  The basis of their marriages is self-fulfillment, and once the sense of this is gone with one individual, it's time to move on to another.

2. What are the limits on such self-fulfillment and emotional satisfaction?  If marriage is simply about self-fulfillment and the need for emotional companionship, why limit such fulfillment to two individuals?  Is there then an argument against polygamy?  Further, is there an argument against an incestuous marriage?  If a two individuals are not going to have children, and a they get a great sense of self-fulfillment in their relationship even though they are closely related, what does it matter?  Prohibitions against polygamy and incest vanish.

Third, there is the economic benefit model to marriage.  When people get married, they enjoy certain legal benefits.  This is all well and good, but again, what are the limits on who and how many persons an individual marries?  If economics drives the reasons to get married, we run into the same issues as number 2 above.  There is no reasonable basis to deny polygamous or incestuous relationships.

Now, if a person is comfortable with polygamy, incest, and higher divorce rates, then the personal/self-fulfillment model and the economic models could be considered decent secular reasons for marriage.  However, if such things are abhorrent--in the case of polygamy and incest or something to be lessened because of the emotional toll it exacts on people and children, then there are no good secular reasons for marriage.

In fact, for people of faith, the reason for marriage runs much deeper, and I have discussed this before here.  Yet, such commentary is often left out of the public debate over marriage.  It is unfortunate, in my estimation, because relegating this debate to only secular arguments leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Stay Rooted

    There is a wonderful little joke I tell myself if I ever get a sudden itch to pursue a doctorate degree.  I also tell the joke whenever someone tells me I should pursue such a venture.  It goes like this:

    The president of a rural congregation decided to call upon several of the members who had stopped attending.  On one of these visits, he met Farmer Joe while Joe was working out in the field.

    “Joe,” the congregation president began, “we’ve missed you in church. You should really come back.”

    “Well,” Joe replied in his slow drawl, “why exactly should I come back to church?”

    The congregation president responded, “Why, Joe, we’ve got a new preacher, and he’s great.”

    “What makes him so great?” Joe asked.

    “Joe, you wouldn’t believe it, but he’s got a B.S., and M.S. and a PhD!” the congregation president said enthusiastically.

    Joe spit onto the ground with disgust, “That settles it.  I ain’t a goin’ to church as long as that guy is there!”

    The congregation president was aghast!  “Why would you say such a thing, Joe?”

    “Well,” came the response, “we all know what B.S. is.  M.S. is just more of the same, and P.H.D. is piled high and deep!”

    Remember what I said last Sunday about laughter.  Believe me, it’s o.k. to laugh, but that’s not really the point, at least this week.  I have a different point, but one that is quite related to this little joke as well as to our second lesson this morning from the book of Colossians.

    For you see, the joke I told has a biting criticism of higher education buried within it–a criticism that goes a bit too far, I admit, because one could think that based upon that joke, I don’t agree with people getting a good, robust education.  Nothing could be further than the truth.  In order to be a pastor, I had to get a master’s degree.  During my educational tenure both at college and in seminary, I learned many, many valuable things–things that I have used throughout my calling to serve as a pastor.

    However, I was also exposed to many, many other ideas and trains of thought.  I was exposed to many, many philosophies and human traditions that were not rooted in Christ–as our second lesson would say.  Some of those philosophies and human traditions were blatantly anti-Christian; anti-Christ; anti-God, and what have you, and exposure to such things does indeed challenge one’s faith.

    Now, on the one hand, there is something very wholesome about having one’s faith challenged.  Whenever your mind is stretched, you are forced to dig down deep and truly reflect upon why you believe what you believe.  You are forced to deal with the very core of yourself and your being.  You are forced to understand yourself and your beliefs by these challenges, and oftentimes, we don’t take the time to allow ourselves to really and truly understand why we believe as we believe.  This is the good part about such education.

    But there is a part which is not as wholesome.  There is a part which causes no small amount of trouble both in the academic setting and in society in general.  We see evidence of this all over the place in our nation today–the seeming need of one group to force its philosophies and beliefs upon another.  And much of this forcing is done within the academic realm.  Unfortunately, many Christians are not well equipped to deal with this.

    I mean, let’s take the example of a teenager who is heading off to college for the first time.  I am going to deal with the reality of teenagers these days, and not the ideal.  For many teens these days do not have a strong understanding of faith.  Most teens these days are not raised to attend Sunday School and church on a regular basis.  Many teens do not understand even the basics of Christian doctrine or the basic Bible stories.  Now, we can pose all sorts of blame for this, but now is not the time.  The problem is a complex one and not likely to be solved by a 10 to 15 minute diatribe given by a country preacher in Cat Spring, TX.  But it is the reality, I can assure you.

    This teenager, who does not have a very strong background in the Christian faith heads off to college.  He decides to take several science classes.  It’s no secret that there are many science professors who are atheistic in their beliefs and practices, and many of them are not afraid to share that perspective in the midst of teaching their classes.  You and I both know the prominence science holds in our society.  You and I know how many times science and reason is hoisted as the pinnacle of knowledge and truth.  Our kids pick up on this quickly–they aren’t dumb at all.  And when a respected professor of science begins articulating the non-existence of God based upon the principles of science and reason, this has a tremendous influence on our teenager–sometimes so influential, he or she drops the faith because it no longer makes sense–or at least makes as much sense as a scientific worldview.

    Now, what happens to our teenager?  Does he ever return to church?  Does he ever give a second thought to the weak Christian faith he once held?  No.  Not a chance.  In fact, there are many voice which will fill his head with the thought that his  faith was actually a limitation upon him and that now he is truly free without his faith!  That’s quite an assertion considering Jesus told us, his followers that if we continue in His Word we are truly His disciples and we will know the Truth and the Truth will set us free!

    The interesting thing of note is that there is an intriguing correlation regarding higher education and belief in God or belief in Christianity.  As one’s education increases, the likelihood of one’s belief decreases.  That’s an important thing for the church to wrestle with since we tend to put a very, very high value on education.  It seems that the church may be defeating itself by encouraging education!  “We all know what B.S. is M.S. is more of the same and P.H.D...”

    Now, once again, with this background in mind, please listen to the words of our second lesson from the book of Colossians, “ 6As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”

    The important part of this piece is not necessarily the warning against philosophy and human traditions.  The important part is the emphasis on having one’s life rooted and built up in Christ.  For, you see, there is something quite unspoken in the academic world–that world we generally hope to send our children into.  The unspoken truth about the academic world, the scientific world, the rational world is that this world rests all of its assertions about truth on faith.

    Oh, I know they might quite deny it, but I can assure you, it is true.  There are numerous philosophers who know this quite well.  Even science rests it’s assertions in faith.  For instance, many assume reason is the best method to ascertain the truth.  In fact, they will make the assertion: reason is the best method to ascertain the truth.  Now, I challenge those who make that assertion to prove that assertion by reason.  For those not acquainted with logic, that’s an impossibility due to circular reasoning.  And if one looks at any academic discipline, one finds such unprovable statements.

    What does that mean?  Well, quite simply, it means faith reigns supreme.  It means we have no shame in stating that the very basis of our understanding–the very basis of the way we view the world is the assertion that Jesus is Lord.  At the very root of every human philosophy and tradition is a leap of faith!   The only question is: which one do you want to be rooted in?  I’d argue the one that makes the most sense and forms the best, coherent picture is the one rooted and grounded in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  There is no need to be ashamed of this assertion.  Embrace it with joy. Amen. 

Richard Dawkins' Sleight of Hand

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.

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'.

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.

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."

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.