Blog Against Theocracy

This Easter Sunday I'm planning to spend my time in prayer and meditation. And one of the things about which I think is that my Savior went to the cross because the religious leaders of his day worked with the government to send him there. If that's not a reason to oppose the government getting together with religion, I don't know how to explain it to those of the Christian faith. But I've also lived in areas where my faith is not the dominant religion. And that separation of church and state protected me and my worship. Then there's the plain and simple truth that if my religion needs the government for support it is not much of a religion. I have faith that God can work within or without the government. God just doesn't need the government to support religion if God is really God.

So for all those reasons I'm against making a government based on religion, even if the religion is my own.

Oh yes, other people blogging are here and here and a hat tip to Pam's House Blend for pointing this out

The Case for Faith

I recently read a book called ‘The Case for Faith’ but there really is no case for faith. Making a case for faith misconstrues the whole nature of faith. Faith is a gift from God. Some people have faith and some people do not. No case made to help a Christian who is struggling with his or her faith will convince someone who doesn’t have faith in the first place.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t talk about our faith with those who don’t believe. And certainly doesn’t mean that we should avoid talking about our faith with those who are struggling to understand. It does mean that we should identify what we actually can do. We can’t prove God, we can’t prove faith, we can’t prove God doesn’t exist though we can certainly prove that some faith is misguided and in the wrong. We can talk about our beliefs. We can talk about our sense of call from God. We can talk about how our faith helps us personally get through the tough times.

There are times when religion is an opiate of the masses. That’s a statement that Marx made that is true, but on the other hand I find much of Marx faulty and Marxist-Leninist thought even more so. Marx ignored much of the society in which he lived even as he critiqued some of the worst aspects. Yet the tools we’ve been given by Marx are helpful at times in figuring out what is happening in our societies, especially in regard to the plight of the poor.

The faith of people can be seen over time and place. Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Faith’, that I mentioned earlier, begins with talking about someone who has displayed his faith for all to see. Those displays, and those of others, are convincing cases of displaying faith, but they don’t make a case that faith is necessary or something that one should have.

That faith that has been seen to start Crusades, to run airplanes into buildings, drive people to heal the sick in remote places, that has divided a continent among two super-powers in order to convert the heathens, and more has been shown to be good in some instances and evil in others. Faith that there was a way out is one of the few reasons I didn’t commit suicide while I was in depression. Faith has driven people, including myself, into both good and bad. But neither the good or bad aspects of faith make a case for or against faith.

Faith exists. Faith can be refined into beliefs. Faith can be in that there is no God or that there is a God. Most people who say that they’re making a case for faith are wrong. They’re not making a case for faith, but for a particular belief or set of beliefs. History clearly shows that people can have faith in many varieties of God. From the dualism to the polytheism to strict monotheism of Jews to the three-persons-in-one monotheism of the Christians there is a wide variety of God(s) in which to believe, in which people claim faith. The case for people having faith needs not be made. The case for the existence God cannot be made, but, then, neither can the case for having no God.

Faith is a challenge. It is to walk in trust that something exists that we cannot see or touch. Proof and disproof is for philosophy and science. But faith is in the realm of things unseen and voices not heard. And faith can be costly. One of the classic cases to believe is -


If we believe
If we don’t believe
If there is a God
We gain
We lose
If there is no God
We don’t lose or gain
We don’t lose or gain

Thus we should believe because we don’t gain or lose anything if there is no God, but we can lose or gain everything if there is a God. The problem with this is that if there is no God we lose the time we spend in worship, in tithing, or in both time and money. The problem with this is that we gain in certainty in facing tough situations; in acting decisively because we believe what we are doing is worth something and more. Faith is costly and may or may not be worth something.

I suspect by this point some people are thinking that I must be an atheist. Far from it. I actually think atheism is another belief system. It is a faith that God does not exist. My faith is in a God that loves and cares for me. I’m not an agnostic. I consider that the more intellectually honest alternative to belief in God. But I do believe in God, I understand myself to have experienced the presence of God. And though don’t use the terminology of being born again – I believe that I need be born again daily as I take up my cross – I have had an experience (or more than one) that corresponds with what most people who use the term ‘born again’ describe as being born again. Yet none of that proves God. The case for faith is about something different.

The case for faith is not about proof, but about trust. We experience God in ways that cannot be proved. We experience God in ways that change our lives. We experience God and change to do what we understand God to desire for our lives. But what we experience is unrepeatable no matter how many people have similar happenings. What we experience cannot be shown to another though the effects linger for the whole of our lives. What we experience is simply an experience that brings us in touch with what cannot be fully known.

The case for faith is not about proof. The case for faith is about accepting what God has offered. And that offering is salvation instead of easy answers or simple proofs. When we want easy answers whether a simplistic reading of scripture or proof that God exists we display our lack of trust in God and our lack of faith.

Family Worship

Our family has produced ministers, elders, deacons and lots of people who are active in their congregations. After he'd left the area where my mother was raised one of the pastors told me, "I'd been warned about the 'family name' when I came to 'community' - they ran the church. But I never had a problem. They were good about telling me how they felt and if they opposed something everyone knew it, but once the decision was made they supported it." Currently there are two Ministers of Word and Sacrament in the PCUSA, but I have no idea how many there are other places. This photo is of the family worship we have at every reunion.

Evolution Sunday Feb. 11

Evolution Sunday sponsored by a number of religious leaders who see no conflict between their faith and the theory of evolution is coming. Set your calendars to February 11. Thanks to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for the reminder.

How many

I’ve been asked the question of “How many people have you brought to the Lord?” And my answer is none. That confuses the Christians (and some of them are Christianist) who ask the question. But the answer relates to my understanding of the task and purpose of each Christian. I cannot save anyone or bring him or her to Christ. That was done about 2000 years ago by the only human without sin. That is the human who is fully human and fully divine.

When I read passages such as John 3:16 my understanding is that salvation and redemption were done for the world. My task, my purpose is about spreading the good news of that salvation, but bringing someone to the Lord is what God does. I serve and enjoy the one who saves me. But since I cannot and could not save myself, it is the height of arrogance to believe that I can bring another to salvation.

And the numbers game, however played, is not what faith in Jesus – the one who is fully human and fully divine – is about. The Jesus I worship came to save the world. And that salvation was God’s gracious gift rather than anything I could do by myself for myself or for anyone else.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King day has come and gone for another year. But I hope the message he brought has not disappeared. For if what we have is just a holiday, then we've missed the point. And if all the phrases that we've come to remember such as "I have a dream" and "injustice for one is injustice for all" become quotes that we recite, then the work of King is in vain. The dream of justice should still live in our hearts and be expressed as we walk with those who suffer and hold hands with those who are oppressed. The message of King is not for one day out of the year, but for every day in the year.

Religion Gone Bad

Mel White's recent book Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Religious Right arrived as a Christmas present. And while reading it I was in good Presbyterian form (where two Presbyterians gather there are three opinions) finding it thought-provoking. Much of it is things with which I agree. Our call is not to demonize those who oppress us, but to out-love them. We are to look at how Jesus summarized the law (love God, love neighbor) rather than try to get the particulars with which one needs to be saved (only pre millinialists will go to heaven).

I've pulled out several quotes for reflection and suspect others can do the same. Buy it, read it, borrow it, read it. It's worth having in your library.

How science works

Cold fusion, reparative therapy, Intelligent Design, plate tectonics. There are a number of explanations of how facts fit together. Some of them are accepted as science theory some are not. What makes the difference? Does the proposal provide ways to test whether or not it works? Do the facts support the theory? Is it falsifiable? (Please note that falsifiable in science is the ability to be proved wrong and is used rather than truth)

Cold fusion was a very popular idea. One experiment seemed to show that it happened, but then it couldn't be repeated. Science isn't about miracles or one time happenings. Science is about what can be repeated, show to happen again and again.

Reparative therapy still remains popular in some circles, but the problem is the people who espouse it don't do any clear testing of whether it works. And the other major scientific and psychological organizations look at study after study that shows that it doesn't work. Science is about peer review and repeated study. If something brings more psychological problems than benefits then it can't become a scientific theory, if you change the meaning of words to make your study work, then it's not science. Reparative therapy had a wonderful time when it was cutting edge and was presumed to work. Changes in behavior happened. But, though it took longer than cold fusion time after time it was shown not to work and not to help.

Intelligent Design is the latest attempt of creationism to mix religion and science to the detriment of both. The biggest problem that it posits an outside creator. There is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, oh it could be an alien, but everyone who supports Intelligent Design believes that it is a Creator God. But science isn't about the supernatural. Science isn't about God. Science works with facts and replicability and falsifiability. Science limits itself to the natural world. And while as a religious person I believe that God is in the natural and supernatural, God is also subtle enough that we don't necessarily see the work that God is doing.

Plate tectonics is one of those theories (now it is a theory in the scientific sense) that was dismissed when it first came up as an idea. But the scientists used their idea to figure out tests for falsifiability. And when those tests didn't prove the idea wrong they wrote papers that were peer-reviewed. And then they went and figured out more wast to test for falsifiability and published the results of those tests in peer-reviewed journals. They didn't start with popularizing their point of view. They didn't send preachers and teachers to teach the controversy. They did the hard work of testing and verifying and asking if this is so what facts should we be able to find.

Intelligent Design proponents and reparative therapy supporters aren't willing to do that hard work. While some of them publish in peer reviewed journals, they don't publish on the ideas of Intelligent Design and Reparative Therapies. While some of them cite works that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, they seem to get called by the researchers they quote for misusing and misstating the evidence. They fail for the same reason cold fusion failed, what they suggest isn't replicable or falsifiable. They just have some supporters who don't listen to the evidence and keep parroting tired old myths as if repetition proves their point.

Science is about looking at the evidence and changing the theory to fit the evidence. Proponents of Intelligent Design and reparative therapies are about twisting the evidence to fit their beliefs. For them I quote from Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis.

even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. Â… If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

It's for the church

I've been discussing with some friends recently the idea we've come across that 'if it's for the church, then it's o.k.' This idea comes from some who attend church regularly, are active, who tithe and seem to be model parisioners. And then we find out that they've been making a few copies at work for their class or spending some time at work preparing the presenttion for Sunday or something else and they've never talked about it with their employer.

Where does being a good Christian involve stealing from one's employer?

But they don't see it like that. The good Lord needs them to do it and their employer has all of these supplies sitting around or they have time during their work hours or .... and since it is for the Lord they should just get it done.

I wish I could say this was an unusual intepretation of what it means to be a good Christian, but I can't. And so we have those for whom Christianity becomes something they will never do, becasue of the actions of so-called Christians which deny the very one they claim to worship.

Or as Karl Rahner says -

The number one cause of atheism is Christians. Those who proclaim God with their mouths and deny Him with their lifestyles is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable.

Karl Rahner, quoted in _The Wittenburg Door_, June/July, 1988

Mischevious errors

"I am a Christian. My mind is closed to falsehood. A falsehood is anything
that contridicts my belief. If you show me where in the Bible it says evolution
occured I will become an evolutionist. That is the only way I will ever become
one."

1SuprJesusFreak, Kyle Givler Teens' Board

I read this and immediately flashed to something from Augustine - a passage I think of often in these cases.

In his work on The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine writes that: even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses ofthe sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

History and Maps

A map that shows the spread of several religions over time. Cool. I found it through scienceblogs. com at A Blog Around the Clock. At Maps of War there are several like this and more.

Preparing sermons

I've never been able to re-use a sermon of mine, let alone one written by someone else. They can help in the sermon process and there are some that I think are wonderful, but they aren't in my voice, even the ones that I've written are no longer in my voice. I've changed, the congregation has changed.

I once served a three point parish. The sermons ended up differently in all three congregations even though they were preached in a four hour period on the same text and on the same day. Even when I used a manuscript, the sermons were different.

There are certainly weeks when my preparation time was shortened considerably, but if I didn't take the regular time to study scripture, to study commentaries, to pray and reflect, to look at like and unlike passages, then my sermons and worship presence suffered. It may not have suffered for a month or two, but eventually the lack of both prayer and study that goes into a sermon became clear to me.

There's a pianisst who once said if he didn't practice one day, then he heard, two days and the critics heard it, three days and everyone knew.

With whom I disagree

WorldNetDaily consistently decries how religion is excluded from schools. But by religion they mean their version. One school was forced to allow mention of Christian activities. A few years later another group wanted their festivities celebrated and their flyer was included. And guess who is up in arms about pagan religious views being imposed on their children. What is that old saying about sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. Evidently that doesn't apply - religious freedoms are only for groups with which the Worldnetdaily

see also Dispatches from the Culture Wars for a great article.

Soy and sexual orientation

Soy is a danger. It causes homosexuality according to Jim Rutz.

And this explains a great deal. I'm an identical twin. My twin brother ate a lot more soy growing up. It was a good substitute with all of his food allergies. I ate a more normal diet, but my twin was allergic to wheat, corn, milk and more. One of us is straight and the other is gay. His eating all that soy must explain it.

Oh wait... I'm the one that's gay and he's the one that ate all the soy products.

Lists of Sins from the Nicene Creed

Our culture seems to focus on sin, but what really is sinful?

I'm quoting from a study done a few years back on the documents of my church and will be doing so for the next several days.


I. The Nicene Creed
No practice is called 'sin'

Left Behind

There's now a video game based on the Left Behind series (and I'm not going to link to the site) that has the player killing anyone who doesn't espouse their religious values. Yes, you do became weaker as you kill, but you can become stronger through prayer. A more ludicrous understanding of the end times and what Christ would have us do is hard to find. If there is a war against Christmas, then this sort of gift item certainly is one of the main offenses against what Christ came to do

Armor of God - reposted

Any of you remember what Ephesians 4:16ff talks about? You and your children can now put on the whole armor of God. Doesn't that sound nice? PJ's ? I'm all for putting on the whole armor of God, but I didn't think the purpose was to make children feel safe. I thought it was so that we would go forth into battle for the truth, for Christ, to proclaim the good news. to face trials and persecutions. To feel safe at night seems an insipid use of the passage. The sort of lukewarm response that is going to be spit out because it is neither hot nor cold.

Being rejected

I always wonder at the purveyors of the idea that Christians will be successful. If we are servants of the living God, then a story like the following from Luke 20 seems to indicate that we’ll be beaten, beaten and insulted, or even beaten, insulted and killed. That’s a very different expectation than that when we become Christian we will be healed or our money problems solved or our family problems be resolved.

Certainly we are promised joy and wholeness and peace that passes understanding. And those things are more than just the simple getting enough money, being healed or any other desire that’s trapped in the world of time. We are to be about our daily tasks rather than trying to get some reward or another just because we professed Christianity or gave some great sum.

In Colossians Paul continues this idea that we aren’t going to have a great life by the standards of this world. In Colossians, Paul rejoices in his sufferings (1:24) and affirms that he is struggling (2:1). The victory is in Jesus Christ, but we are still in this old world and the birth pans of the new world are in process.

To talk of the miracles and other signs of the new realm as if they will come to every Christian is meretricious nonsense. The life of a Christian is rather more likely to be filled with derision, rejection, and sorrow. The Roman Catholic classic hymn “Faith of our Fathers” has it right when it talks of faith living still in spite of fire, prison and sword. That is what we Christians have to look forward to in this life. Christianity is just not wealth, health, family togetherness or any such temporal items.

Luke 20:9-18

[9] He began to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, and leased it to tenants, and went to another country for a long time. [10] When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants in order that they might give him his share of the produce of the vineyard; but the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. [11] Next he sent another slave; that one also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed. [12] And he sent still a third; this one also they wounded and threw out. [13] Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.' [14] But when the tenants saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, 'This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours.' [15] So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? [16] He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When they heard this, they said, "Heaven forbid!" [17] But he looked at them and said, "What then does this text mean: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? [18] Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."

Biblical Illiteracy

It seems that the evangelical/conservative wing of the church - which sometimes claims to be more biblically knowledgeable or at least more faithful in following biblical principles - is not so biblically literate. My own perception is that most agnostics and atheists know more about the Bible than most people who claim to be Christian.

The question to ask ourselves (that is for those of us who claim the title Christian) is not whether we have a Bible around, but whether we read and study it daily and whether we work to put it into place in our lives.

My experience as a gay man is that many people will tell me that the scriptures are against homosexuality but then when I ask them where it says such they are unable to answer, and being able to defend their interpretation of some of the passages usually cited on the rare ocassions that the people can actually mention a biblical is something that I rarely see. So I guess I go along with the study.

It is a shame. If you believe the Bible is important or inerrant or the rule for faith and life (all descriptions from various Christian traditions) then it should be a regular part of your life. Otherwise all you have is sounds without meaning.

Running the church

I once talked to a pastor who had served the congregation where many of my mother's family worship. He said that when he went to that congregation he was warned that the N... family ran the church. So he was a bit cautious. Then he figured out that they spoke their minds, argued their positions and once a decision was made shut up and supported that decision even when they disagreed. They ran the church because they volunteered and worked where needed, but not because they wanted the power or prestige. Somehow I took that as the compliment it was meant to be.