CODEX

The Grand Design, or, The Murky Metaphysics of Stephen Hawking

2011-05-30T14:27:00.002-05:00

“Philosophy is dead.”

So declares physicist Stephen Hawking in the early pages of his new bestseller, “The Grand Design.”

He continues: “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

It’s a grand statement to open “The Grand Design,” except that for many, it doesn’t ring true. In fact, one of the fastest growing areas in academics is the discipline of philosophy of science, and it seems that the vast majority of best-selling “science” books are not, as they claim, really about science, but instead about what the science may be telling us. In other words, they’re essentially philosophy books. “The Grand Design,” as it turns out, falls into this category, and is a metaphysical treatise from a great thinker who happens to be a world-renowned theoretical physicist.

“The Grand Design” is a very well-written book, and largely enjoyable to read, but for anyone seeking concrete answers to the questions posed by Dr. Hawking, it ends in disappointment. While the book is filled with explanations and examples of quantum experiments and their highly successful track record (which is the most enjoyable section of the book), the conclusions drawn by Hawking (and co-author Leonard Mlodinow) at the end ignore his own instructions at the beginning of the book. In fact, the book creates more new questions than it answers. This is due in part to the fact that the authors build their argument around M-theory, which is unverifiable by measurement and is considered by many to be little more than mathematical metaphysics. Scientists in any field should first and foremost concern themselves with evidence verified by test-based results. The fact that Hawking is trading on his credentials as a scientist to put forth a philosophical treatise has raised some eyebrows in the scientific community.

And before someone cries foul and points out that I’m not a physicist, I’d point out that quite a few physicists have claimed that once one has a basic understanding of what quantum physics entails, the layman is every bit as capable as the physicist in offering explanations for what it might actually mean. When it comes to quantum physics, non-physicists with a general understanding of the experimental facts of quantum physics—facts about which there is no dispute—can offer opinions about what it might mean with a validity matching that of physicists.

Dr. Hawking and Mlodinow open the argument by explaining that since we don’t really know what existed prior to the Big Bang, and because the physical laws that govern the Universe didn’t come into play until some time during the first second after the singularity, we really aren’t in a position to accurately predict anything about what existed before that. To this point, Hawking has remained true to his scientific background, and true to statements he’s made earlier in his career, such as “I don’t demand that a theory corresponds to reality, because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with a litmus paper. All I’m concerned about is that the theory should predict the results of measurement.”¹ So far, so good.

He then notes that his own theory—the very one which forms the basis for this book—is currently untestable and unlikely to ever yield a model that could be tested. And then, without a moment’s hesitation, he proceeds to launch into a book that proposes a theory for the creation of the Universe based upon the law of gravity, a law which Hawking and Mlodinow have just finished telling us came into existence after the singularity. If readers are paying attention, they should find themselves saying, “Hey! Didn’t he just claim that those very same physical laws wouldn’t be of any use in building a testable model?”

It’s important to point out that Hawking and Mlodinow propose to use this theory—one based upon mathematical metaphysics—to answer some huge questions that have puzzled mankind since he acquired the ability and need to contemplate his own existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist?

Before attempting to answer these questions, Hawking first provides us with some background information to help the reader better understand quantum theory. Since the earliest “knowable” state of the Universe consisted of tightly-packed elementary particles, the Big Bang itself must have been a quantum event, as the classical laws did not appear until after the singularity. Once the reader has this background information firmly in hand, Hawking then presents his own model for what might have happened. It’s at this point that one should question Dr. Hawking’s motives, even if one is a loyal fan of the great scientist, because it’s here that Hawking begins to write about his theory as though it were demonstrable fact.

From this point forward, Hawking’s language and word choice clearly suggests that he firmly believes it to be a demonstrable fact, and once he begins writing in this mode, his earlier, carefully-worded caveats are completely ignored. M-Theory is no longer an untestable model of a unified theory. It appears to become the firm belief of Dr. Hawking that this is indeed how the Universe began, and he lays it out with authority. If this was not what he meant to imply, then it was a gross oversight not to say so. Hawking’s mind and his grandly-realized ideas draw tremendous respect from the general public, and for him to so strongly argue for something for which he cannot provide any evidence is, to put it lightly, a bit irresponsible. His words carry weight, and when he speaks, people listen. Anyone who has followed the controversy since the release of this book knows exactly what I’m talking about. Hawking not only lays out a metaphysical argument against a creative intelligence, but has recently gone on record with anti-faith comments not supportable with any facts or science. If one is going to use science to make a point, one should provide scientific evidence to make that point. Hawking simply counters one metaphysical idea with an opposing metaphysical idea, and counts on his considerable reputation as a physicist to add weight to his argument.

From a scientific point of view, the primary problem with Hawking’s argument for a universe “from nothing” is that he builds his case with quantum physics. Hawking and Mlodinow have chosen a single interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen interpretation, although this is only one of many possible interpretations. Hawking’s idea isn’t entirely without merit, however, but it does take huge leaps of logic. While quantum theory is one of the most successful theories known to science, its success resides in the study of small elemental systems, not large objects, and not entire universes.

It’s been noted that if we were to try to test quantum theory on large objects, such as objects the size of golf balls, we’d be dealing with distances and speeds such as a millionth of an inch over the course of a century. Hardly the sort of situation that lends itself to a testable model. Most of the criticism of Hawking’s theory is that it attempts to use a theory that works on small systems such as one composed of protons and electrons, and apply it to something the size of a universe. It’s akin to suggesting that since a basketball can be bounced, Jupiter could also be bounced providing you could find a surface large enough from which to bounce it. What is possible in the quantum world doesn’t automatically extrapolate to the classical world.

Additionally, Hawking largely ignores another aspect of quantum physics, one championed and explored by fellow physicist Roger Penrose. Penrose has gone on record claiming that no unified theory of the Universe will ever be complete without accounting for consciousness. Penrose even takes this idea a step farther, and to Hawking, perhaps a step too far. Penrose believes that the only thing linking the quantum world with the classical world is consciousness…human consciousness. This is a startling statement, but then we must remember that quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our observation of it.

Some physicists like to soften this idea by suggesting that the reality of the physical world appears to depend upon our observation of it, but others insist that the first statement was entirely accurate, and completely supported by empirical evidence. Quantum experiments have demonstrated with 100% accuracy that our observation of what is to be measured actually produces the physical reality of what is to be measured. It’s a startling reality that is referred to as “the skeleton in the closet” of modern physics.² This idea, when really explored, suggests some mind-blowing conclusions pointing toward teleology, which is why most physicists like to steer clear of it, Hawking among them.

In fact, while Hawking does briefly mention the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, he mostly sweeps the issue under the rug. If you were to look at the index of the book, you’d find no references to “mind” or “consciousness,” although this issue is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics. While mentioning John Wheeler’s work with delayed-choice experiments, the writers do not mention that Wheeler’s original conjecture suggested that his successful experiments implied an observer-dependent universe.

Perhaps one of the most profound questions ever asked in a science book can be found in John Polkinghorne’s book, “Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction.” As he cautiously leads up to the issue of the conscious mind and its uneasy marriage with the quantum world, he asks: “At most times and in most places, the Universe has been devoid of consciousness. Are we to suppose that throughout these vast tracts of cosmic space and time, no quantum processes resulted in a determinate consequence?”³

If the importance of that question didn’t grab your attention, you weren’t paying attention, and I’ll ask you to read it again before proceeding. If you knew the answer to that question, you’d know the very answers to the questions asked by Hawking earlier.

If it’s true that the physical realities of the classical world depend upon our observation of them—and keeping in mind that quantum experiments prove this to be absolutely true 100% of the time—then the most logical conclusion drawn from this evidence suggests that mind is the originator of matter, and not the other way around, as the materialist view claims. If one wished to argue in favor of this idea, one would have the most successful scientific theory ever on their side. Therefore it’s no surprise that Hawking, who no doubt is completely aware of this fact, chose to ignore its implications in his book, while pushing ahead with a metaphysical theory about how a universe can spring into existence “from nothing.”

The fatal flaw in Hawking’s theory has been pointed out again and again by his critics, who come from all belief systems. The flaw in his theory goes beyond the theist/non-theist argument, and runs head-on into a brick wall grounded on simple logic. Hawking’s entire argument for a universe that springs into existence from nothing is flawed because it presupposes an already-existing, information-rich system that includes gravity. Keep in mind that Hawking has already warned us that we cannot speculate about what existed before the singularity using physical laws that appeared after it.

Hawking’s “nothing,” as it turns out, isn’t really nothing after all. Nothing is total non-being, total blankness. On this fact alone, Hawking’s theory falls flat, as it requires the preexistence of an eternal system that he fails to explain. This doesn’t prevent him from making a very grand claim by stating that a universe can appear out of “nothing.” If the reader has been paying attention and is aware of this fact while reading the conclusions made in the book, then Hawking’s conclusion is groundless, and is reduced to metaphysical musings built upon a house of cards. One needn’t be a physicist to figure out that Dr. Hawking leaves many contingencies unexplored. Simply paying attention to what Hawking said earlier in this book and others is sufficient. His argument for a “universe from nothing” fails on logical grounds, as it contradicts his earlier statements (which are supported by scientific data). Hawking already realizes the issues and has previously stated as much: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”⁴

Why, indeed.

In the end, the existence of the Universe and its original cause doesn’t lend itself to a testable model, and remains hidden by layers upon layers of contingencies. It’s at this point that the philosophers step in, scientific or otherwise, and it’s here that the battle rages, perhaps endlessly. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, Hawking’s idea isn’t without merit, and it’s a fascinating glimpse into a brilliant mind at work. His contributions to the scientific world are immeasurable and have helped cosmologists move forward in leaps and bounds. But for reasons known only to Stephen Hawking, simply trying to explain the Universe and the physical processes that keep it going aren’t enough for him. He also feels the need to disprove a concept that clearly vexes him, and it’s nowhere more apparent than in “The Grand Design.” For now, anyway, God appears safe from Stephen Hawking.

Quantum physics has opened an entirely new world that only now is becoming known to the general public. Some of the questions raised by this fascinating world seem best addressed by philosophy. Science can tell us how it works, but science appears confounded by why it works the way it does. Yet for many, the findings of science are enough to sustain them. Scientific discovery provides a sense of wonderment that makes them feel they’re a part of something truly amazing, part of a beautiful and mysteriously connected system capable of producing their own intelligence and ability to wonder. For others, we comprehend the same scientific facts, feel the same sense of wonder, and beyond it, through the mist of our earthly senses, see the hand of God.

Endnotes:

¹ “The Nature of Time and Space,” by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, p. 121, Princeton University Press.

² “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness,” by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, p. 13, Oxford University Press.

³ “Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction,” by John C. Polkinghorne, p. 51, Oxford University Press, USA.

⁴ “A Brief History of Time,” by Stephen Hawking, p. 190, Bantam Books.

I AM NUJOOD, Age 10 and Divorced

2010-01-28T08:02:00.007-05:00

This short book, which I read in a single sitting, astounded me with its narrative and left me feeling a mix of anger and incredulity upon completing it. Before reading this book, I'd read about Nujood Ali, who has been described as possessing a "precocious self-assurance." After reading the book, it's clearly an accurate description of a young girl who refuses to accept a situation that she knows is wrong. In doing so, it turns out, she opens the door for long-overdue change.

Nujood doesn't live an easy life as a young girl in Yemen, but she still finds time to enjoy her childhood. Her father, who has two wives, seems incapable of supporting them on his meager salary, and the rest of the family must find ways to make ends meet. Her father, in an effort to ease his own burden, agrees to an arranged marriage with a man three times Nujood's age, with the condition that he not consummate the marriage until one year after her first period. The new husband breaks that promise on the very night of their wedding, and from that point forward continues to beat her and rape her nightly. This is not consensual sex, but child rape, pure and simple.

The story that unfolds from that point forward is nothing short of amazing. It's also heartening to learn that right from the beginning of her ordeal, several Yemenese men stepped forward to stand up for her rights, even while knowing that Sharia law and local customs would be working against them. It is also important to realize that educated, empowered women in these countries are also willing to step forward and challenge such destructive customs and laws, and one of them, Shada Nasser, becomes her lawyer and champion.

I firmly believe this book, and the fall-out from the divorce trial, will continue to help change the lives of women living within this type of culture, although perhaps not quickly enough. No matter how many times I read about situations like this, I still find it astounding that a man can rape a woman, as was the case with Nujood's older sister Mona, and it somehow becomes the fault of the woman that shame comes to the family name. How can this possibly be? How can a young woman be raped in her own home, and somehow it becomes her fault, and the males must protect their own honor by condemning the females? This horribly twisted logic (or the complete lack of it, truth be told) boggles the mind, and books such as this one help break down barriers by exposing dark secrets.

Nujood's father continually justified marrying off his ten-year-old daughter by pointing to the example of Muhammad, who married Aisha when she was but six, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. Some apologists insist that Muhammad didn't marry her until she was nine, but Aisha's own words, found in Bint al-Shati's The Wives of Prophet Muhammad, tell a different story.

"The Prophet married me when I was six years old and the marriage was consummated when I was nine. The Prophet of God came to our home in company with men and women who were among his followers. My mother came [to me] while I was in a swing between the branches of a tree and made me come down. She smoothed my hair, wiped my face with a little water then came forward and led me to the door. She stopped me while I calmed myself a little. Then she took me in. The Prophet of God was sitting on a bed in our home, and she sat me in his lap. Everyone jumped up and went out, and the Prophet consummated his marriage with me at our house."

It is time people stop defending this as a religious custom, and call it what it is: a crime against children that continues today, 1400 years after it was given credence by a man who claimed to be godly. It may have been a custom in times past, but it remains no less of a crime. Books like this are important because they expose this heinous crime to the rest of the world.

GOD SLEEPS IN RWANDA: A Journey of Transformation

2010-01-20T05:58:00.003-05:00

From time to time I come across books like this one, and once again I'm amazed to realize that there are still new voices in the world, as well as fresh perspectives about subjects that have been in the news for years. Joseph Sebarenzi's memoir about his life growing up in the killing fields of Rwanda is just such a book. It's an absolute jewel, providing profound insights while touching me deeply.

While I've grown familiar with the story of the Hutu and Tutsi clashes and the genocide that followed, I've never been exposed to this story in such an intimate and unflinching manner. During the bloody years of trouble in Rwanda, a huge part of Sebarenzi's family was slaughtered in the carnage. In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that he could have stayed away, he felt the urge to return with his wife in the years following the genocide and attempt to play a role in the rebuilding and reconciliation of his beloved country.

What he encountered upon entering politics was a system that put on a unified face for the world at large, but inside was still rife with corruption and hidden agendas. After assuming a leadership role as Speaker of the Rwandan Parliament in 1997, he set out to do the most good that he could without compromising his principles. What he encountered at every turn was a leadership that pretended to support him, but secretly started to view him as a threat that might eventually seek to overthrow it.

Throughout his ordeal, Sebarenzi's deep faith kept him centered on bringing his countrymen together and working toward reconciliation and forgiveness. In the end, his drive and motivation weren't enough, and he was warned that in spite of his claims to have no interest in becoming the country's leader, the current leadership viewed him as a threat and set out to assassinate him. He was forced to leave the country by escaping into Uganda, and from there he made his way to the United States, where he now devotes his life to conflict resolution and reconciliation.

This is a deeply-touching story, beautifully told, and I highly recommend it.

RENDER UNTO CAESAR: Weighing in on the Gay Marriage Debate

2009-05-06T19:05:00.006-05:00

I personally don’t understand all the fuss about gay marriage, and I really don’t buy into the argument that gay marriage somehow undermines heterosexual marriage. The biggest threat to regular marriage isn’t gays wanting to get married, it’s straight people who don’t take marriage seriously enough. In this country, we have literally millions of Americans living together and having children out of wedlock. One in three marriages ends in divorce. There are currently about one million abortions performed every year, and the overwhelming number of them are performed on young, unmarried women, with nearly half of them low-income minority women. If these situations aren’t threats to the sanctity of marriage, how is a gay American who wants to be in a stable union a threat to the sanctity of marriage?

My personal feelings are that marriage should be a sacred union between a man and a woman, a union that provides a safe and stable environment for procreation. The church recognizes it as such, and as a Christian, I feel the church shouldn’t budge on the issue. But with regards to the law of the land, I feel all Americans should have the same rights. Telling two gay Americans that they can’t share their lives together with the legal protections afforded by marriage is no different than telling two black Americans that they have to move to the back of the bus, or go eat in a different restaurant, or that they can't vote because of the color of their skin. All Americans should enjoy the same legal rights. I don’t see any wiggle room on the subject.

I have always found it interesting that Christ spoke strongly about divorce and adultery as sinful, but never once mentioned same-sex unions. I think it’s hypocritical of Christians to rail about homosexuality but ignore the issue of divorce and adultery, which in Biblical terms is any sex outside of a marriage. Would any mainstream Christian church refuse communion to a divorced person, or a single person who wasn’t a virgin? Would any mainstream church refuse to perform a burial service for a divorced person, or a single person who'd had sex outside of marriage? I seriously doubt it, yet they have refused these same ceremonies to homosexuals, a practice I find terribly hypocritical.

Here's another thing to consider. According to a recent Barna poll, evangelical Christians have one of the highest divorce rates in the country, currently standing at around 25%. Where’s the outrage from the evangelicals? If they want to preserve and protect traditional marriage, why aren’t they protesting divorce, or working to pass laws that forbid heterosexuals from living together outside the bounds of marriage? If they want to protect the sanctity of marriage and think taking legal action is the right route, then why not start there?

These aren’t absurd comments when viewed within the context of the argument. It’s only by refusing to acknowledge all the issues as a whole do we delve into absurdist theater. When we look at the issue in this manner, fighting only for laws against gay marriage seem silly and terribly selective. If fighting for laws against gay marriage is your way of defending traditional marriage, then why not be consistent, and also demand that singles stop living together, stop having sex outside of marriage, and that divorce be outlawed. Only then will you be consistent and hypocrisy-free. Are you willing to go that far?

I suspect most people would back away once they consider the larger issues, and what defending marriage actually means when they look at the big picture. If you're going to insist that homosexuality is a sin, then you need to also acknowledge that divorce is a sin, and sex outside of marriage is a sin as well. Be consistent, and then ask yourself if you're without sin before casting the first stone.

In the end, it comes down to this: gay marriage is a civil rights issue. I don’t think it’s right to deny legal rights to some citizens and allow them for others. Christians seem to forget that Christ calls us to live and prosper within any governmental system or culture, be it democratic, communistic, fascist or socialistic. Christians thrive and prosper under all types of governments, all over the world, and live under all types of laws. It’s not our job to force our beliefs on others through rote of law. We are to exist within whatever culture we find ourselves in, be it corrupt or honest, sinful or pious. We are part of a larger kingdom, but we have a obligation to our earthly kingdoms as well, and it’s not a sin to honor that connection. In fact, Christ instructs us to honor it without complaint.

Christ solved the issue for us, and did it very simply. Whenever I think of His comments to the Pharisees about paying taxes, I imagine His reply to the gay marriage issue, a civil rights issue if there ever was one, sounding much the same. “ Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.”

Let the church stand strong on upholding the sanctity of marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. And let the state provide equal protection under the law to all its citizens.

BALANCING ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS: The shifting foundation of natural law

2009-03-26T09:20:00.003-05:00

Is your worldview based upon naturalism? Do you believe that everything within the Universe is simply matter and energy, operating in accordance with mathematical and physical laws? If you believe this, then by default you must believe that everything that takes place within it, including our very thoughts, and nothing more than functions of matter and energy. The brain may be highly-complex matter, to be sure, but our thoughts cannot be anything more than a fractal express of matter and energy. If you believe in naturalism, then the Universe cannot be anything more than this. There is no wiggle room on the subject. If you claim there’s something more, then you’re disagreeing with the bedrock foundations of your worldview, which insists that there isn't. Ideas like morality are nothing more than subjective abstractions. They may serve a valuable purpose, but they cannot be found in the foundation of naturalism.

Here's a small thinking exercise to conduct from within the framework of a naturalist viewpoint. It may at first strike you as absurd, but if you think it through, it will accurately explain the inherent problems with the naturalist worldview. A rock breaks loose from a cliff and falls onto a trail below, striking a hiker on the head and killing him. Has the rock done anything wrong? Of course not. Concepts such as right and wrong don't even apply here, and it would be absurd to even consider them. Every single action that took place within the chain of events leading to the rock falling and striking the hiker was simply matter acting in ways that are in accordance with the physical and mathematical laws that govern the Universe. Now consider this next scenario. A person holds a knife in his hand and stabs another person to death. If you believe that matter is all there is, then the actions of the murderer are nothing more than matter acting in accordance with physical and mathematical laws, but nothing more. The actions taken by the aforementioned matter leading up to the murder may be far more complex than the rock falling off the cliff, but they're still nothing more than fractal expressions of matter. If matter is all there is, then the murderous act absolutely cannot be anything more than this.

If you insist that this act of murder is more than matter acting in accordance with physical laws, then you're stepping beyond the bounds of hard science and the physical and mathematical laws that all matter and energy must follow. When a naturalist insists that the Universe is nothing more than matter and energy behaving in accordance with physical and mathematical laws, then any action that takes place within it cannot be more than a fractal expression of actions taken by matter and energy. But when they insist that a piece of matter such as the brain has a responsibility to behave in a particular way, I have to insist that the naturalist explain why, and also insist that the explanation be scientifically testable. If the naturalist points out that the brain has emergent properties beyond mere functions of matter, and that this piece of matter they call a brain is capable of overriding and manipulating the physical laws that govern it, then they're admitting that there's far more to it than just matter. Yet getting a naturalist thinker to concede this point is nearly impossible.

If there is no God who provides absolutes, then all acts of matter can be viewed as irrational. All thoughts must be irrational as well. Logic and reason become borderless abstractions. If the naturalist insists upon placing values on those actions and thoughts, then they’re not only subjective values, but also irrational ones. When viewed from this perspective, “naturalism cuts its own throat,” as C.S. Lewis once commented. So when a naturalist insists that a particular collection of matter such as a brain, no matter how complex, possesses an inherent responsibility to assess and manipulate its own actions, I must insist otherwise. Naturalism, from its very foundation, makes no such call, and every value or thought considered by a piece of matter such as the brain is ultimately random, irrational, and completely subjective. If the naturalist claims that an act of brutal murder is evil, they violate the foundational structure of their own worldview, which has no use for moral classifications. If you’re a naturalist who has a problem with this concept, please read on. I’ll discuss it more in a moment, and you’ll get to meet a naturalist thinker who’s deconstructed and reduced his worldview down to this same morality-free foundation.

The answer to this question is directly tied into the God versus Naturalism debate. What’s at stake is much, much more than competing theories about our origins. What’s ultimately at stake is the very paradigm for how we should live. One paradigm says that since life is nothing more than a chance assembly of molecules, there is no ultimate purpose, no ultimate authority, and we should be able to live in any manner that suits us. The only “truths” are those that we create as subjective, ever-changing guidelines. These “truths” are never absolute, and can be altered or discarded when we decide something else is more relevant to our current situation. The other paradigm insists that we were created for a purpose by an omnipotent Creator, a super-intelligence that has not only provided us with a moral code stamped upon our consciences, but provided us with permanent, absolute truths by which to live, incontrovertible truths that provide a solid foundation upon which to build civilizations and develop relationships between each other as well as our Creator. As you can see, there’s no wiggle room in either paradigm. There’s no way to blend them. At its foundation, true natural law has no use for God, or anything remotely associated with theism.

If naturalism is true and there is no God, then the points I’ve made here about naturalism are completely valid. Naturalism, by its very nature, makes no demand that we behave in a moral way. Any moral behavior is adopted, subjective, and not grounded in any absolute value system. In spite of this, many atheists hold personal worldviews that conflict with the foundational elements of their own belief system. They insist upon a code of conduct that closely parallels one found within all theistic cultures, rather than one that parallels the “natural order” we find within nature. If we’re nothing but a complex arrangement of matter, if we’re nothing more than another step in a purely natural evolutionary process, then why do we insist on elevating ourselves above the rest of the animal kingdom? What’s wrong with behaving exactly the way animals behave?

If we’re simply a link in an unbroken chain of primates, then there’s nothing remotely logical about the atheists’ insistence that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, or that we behave in a way that’s different from animals. Let natural selection run its course. Let the strong prosper at the expense of the weak. What should we do about those huge populations of starving people, or populations of people subject to oppression, genocide, rape and torture? Absolutely nothing. It’s natural selection at work. If you’re a naturalist thinker striving to be intellectually honest, you should admit that there’s absolutely nothing in the foundation of your worldview that demands you take any action, or even have any passionate feelings on the matter. If you insist otherwise, then you’re succumbing to unnatural theistic influences that have crept into our culture within the past three or four thousand years. You have yet to cast an unflinching eye on the implications of what you believe, and I will suggest that you haven’t yet worked out the principles upon which a purely secular society should be founded.

I spent several years running this argument through my head, always trying to find another way to deconstruct it, but no matter how I approached it, the end result was always the same. I was therefore surprised to finally discover someone else who’d apparently been through exactly the same thought process and arrived at the same conclusions. Even more surprising was the fact that this person was an atheist, and not a theist like me. Peter Singer, a bio-ethicist at Princeton University, has emerged as a lightning rod of controversy in the culture of what’s become known as The New Atheism. Singer is one of those extremely rare naturalist thinkers who fully and completely understands the implications of his worldview. When you strip away all the theistic cultural influences that have ground their way into naturalist thinking over the past two millennia, you arrive at a worldview like Singer’s. His grasp of the implications of naturalistic thought is the most articulate and well-resolved I have ever encountered. He simply sees mankind as another primate evolved from purely natural forces, and therefore suggests we divest ourselves of any influences born from faith and culture, and instead adopt a “natural” set of ethics consistent with behavior we see in other animals. Singer doesn’t stop there, however. Because he believes in a purely natural world without a God, he rejects the idea that human life is sacred, or that all men are created equal, and suggests that women should be able to get abortions at any point in a pregnancy, including the moment of delivery. He goes on to suggest that newborn babies aren’t viable human beings for some time after birth, and believes that it should be legal to kill those babies during the first twenty-eight days of their lives. He also believes that mentally handicapped humans and the aged could also be legally euthanized. They serve no purpose and don’t add anything of value to the gene pool, so why keep them around? Nature wouldn’t tolerate them or protect them, so why should we?

If you’re an atheist and you take offense at Singer’s value system, I will ask you the same questions that Singer might ask you. Why are you offended? From what value system does your offense emerge? If Singer’s premise is true, then the conclusions based upon it are accurate, and they’re a true reflection of an intellectually-honest worldview based upon naturalism. As shocking as I find Singer’s views, I also must admit that I have real respect for the fact that he doesn’t shy away from embracing his well-examined beliefs. He has clearly deconstructed his worldview and cast an unflinching eye on the basic foundation of his beliefs. At no point does he hide behind borrowed values, nor does he waste his time making subjective moral judgments about what’s right and wrong. He sees the world as the result of purely natural forces, and suggests we dispense with subjective moral values and simply live according to the natural order found in the rest of the animal kingdom. If you’re a committed believer in naturalism, then Singer provides the most lucid and honest assessment of that worldview to be found anywhere. Whether or not atheists are willing to embrace it is another matter entirely.

THE DEVIL'S DELUSION: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

2009-03-25T07:57:00.005-05:00

It's rare that I can find the time to read a book from cover to cover, but that's exactly what I did with this book. I picked it about noon one day and couldn't put it down until I was finished. The subject, in case it's not clear from the title, deals with the rise of militant atheism and its claim that science supports the notion of a God-free universe.

Regardless of your viewpoint, if you appreciate good writing, you'll love Berlinski (or at least be able to acknowledge his deft writing skills). I've been following this entire argument for several years now, and even if you're looking at it as a neutral observer, I would have to give points to Berlinski. Hitchens, Stenger, Dawkins, Harris et. al. have yet to produce an argument that doesn't end by asking us to accept a subjective conclusion. They believe in naturalism simply because they reject the idea that a Creator could exist. I'll be the first to admit that the concept of a super-intelligent agent existing outside of space and time (at least within our four-dimensional world) is difficult to wrap your mind around, but if you put it on the table with naturalism, and simply look for the most logical explanation for the "first cause" behind everything, God makes more sense.

Naturalism can't prove itself in a scientific argument that begins with the Big Bang. Scientific cause cannot be established, and science itself, which can only analyze a universe that operates in accordance with physical and mathematical laws, is of no use in predicting what resides beyond the boundaries of those physical and mathematical laws, or what force gave rise to the Universe in the first place. To do so is to engage in speculation, and any position taken on those speculations is a faith position (and a rather dogmatic one at that).

Using this as the root of his case, Berlinski proceeds to pick apart, with swift cuts, the opposition that has become known as The New Atheism. He does so with a brilliant grasp of the issues, and a deft and witty style that always entertains.

One of the arguments emerging from this new brand of atheists is their defense (yes, I would call it that) of atheistic mass murderers by claiming that although Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and others were bad men, they certainly never committed their atrocities under the banner of atheism. True enough, says Berlinksi, but they did commit these atrocities because they felt confident that God was not watching and therefore they had no one to answer to. They may not have murdered under the banner of atheism, but their atheism was clearly a major factor in their decision to butcher their fellow human beings without remorse. Berlinski also points out that as the world has grown more secular, it has become a far more violent place, and he supports it with a list of atrocities from the past century. The Inquisition and the Middle Ages are certainly horrible stains upon the mantle of Christianity, but they don't represent the actions of true Christians, who believe and act on the notion that the nature of God is best manifested in our treating others with unconditional love, and treating them as we wish to be treated. Additionally, the sum total of deaths from these events, which covered hundreds of years, still pales in comparison to the 100 million people butchered by the thugs mentioned above.

This is an excellent book, and if you've been following the rise of militant atheism and its clash with faith, this is a book you shouldn't miss. Berlinski, who claims to be a secular Jew, offers a refreshing new outlook on the subject.

THE REAL MEANING OF "PRO-LIFE" POLITICS: More thoughts on the election and the sanctity of life issue

2008-11-09T15:32:00.007-05:00

I've always had a problem with the so-called pro-life agenda of the Republican party, as I've always found it very hypocritical. If someone wants to imply that they're pro-life, then I would assume they mean that they place a value on the sanctity of human life...all human life, not just the unborn. Unfortunately, this same political party seems to care little about death by war, genocide and starvation. If conservative Christians want to vote for a candidate who treats all life as precious, then they're going to have to quit supporting an expeditionary war in Iraq, start demanding that we get involved in the Sudan and Tanzania, and stop spending 12 billion a month on war and start spending it on feeding the 28,000 people who die every day from lack of food. A candidate who did all these things, as well as protected the rights of the unborn, would be a true pro-life candidate. Neither candidate in the 2008 Presidential elections fit the bill on this point.

And if you're a conservative Christian who is about to reply in anger to me, please hold off for a second...I'm not finished. Liberal Christians who support abortion need to examine their own motives as well. Once again, we see hypocrisy in their political agenda as well. Many support banning the death penalty and nearly all insist that we get out of Iraq, and most wail about the number of civilian deaths caused by the war in Iraq. I happen to agree with these points as they are definitely "pro-life" issues, but can't agree that killing a living fetus is somehow not included in the equation.

So why the inconsistency between the two ideologies? I'm not sure, but I can only assume it's because they haven't really thought it over. I'm not trying to wag my finger or pass judgment, only offer an observation. I'm a relatively conservative Christian in most respects, but as I grow in my faith, the glaring contradictions that I see in both political platforms just jumps out at me.

Perhaps that's the answer right there. I think as we each move closer and closer to following the example of Christ, we see that no worldly state government is going to reflect the true values of Christ. In fact, to really be a follower of Christ requires us to reject much of the rhetoric coming from both parties.

In the end, I supported Obama simply because I thought he'd be the best fit overall for these pro-life issues (war, starvation and genocide), even though he supports a woman's right to choose. As Obama pointed out, nobody is "pro-abortion," so instead of arguing, we should be looking for a way to reduce them drastically. I do believe that even if abortion was outlawed, people would still get them (they always did before Roe v. Wade, so there's no reason to believe it would stop if it was overturned). In the end, the only way to reduce abortions is to change the way people think, and the change of thought must be by choice, not by rote of law. Christ is the answer, and until we can share the Good News without being judgmental or hypocritical, we're probably not going to make much progress.

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE: A Consistent Ethic of Life from the Unborn to Baghdad

2008-11-04T22:28:00.011-05:00

I have struggled at times to express my feelings about the sanctity of life issue, and why all of us, believers or not, should strive to find establish a universal, consistent ethic for life. I think I just found a piece that describes the issue in words both beautiful and bittersweet.

I've always enjoyed the approach of Sojourners and the guest writers who frequent the magazine and website, and in this piece by Rev. Omar Al-Rikabi, a Methodist minister, I've discovered (for myself, anyway) another powerful voice on the value of life, and I just wanted to share it. Al-Rikabi, the son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother, chose the way of Christ, and has much to share. It's my hope that anyone reading this will take the time to read his post on the God's Politics blog on the Sojourner website, as well as visit his own fascinating blog, First Born Son. I like it so much that I'm adding it to my own links list.

While on the subject of other's blogs, I would also like to recommend Bold Grace, which I have also started following and enjoy very much. In simple, broad terms, the five writers on this site drive home the point that God's love is so beyond our comprehension that we do God a great disservice by trying to force Him into a concept that we can grasp more easily. Read Bold Grace, and embrace the immense power of a God without limits. (Note to Bruce and Geo: if I've misinterpreted your goal, please correct me!)

PHARISEES AMONG US: Why we must always be vigilant about our "holier than thou" attitudes

2008-11-03T11:51:00.009-05:00

It's with some trepidation that I write this, as I don't want to be accused of judging anyone unfairly. But I also feel the need to speak up when I see someone using the platform of Christianity to launch attacks that are not very Christ-like in nature. What follows is a perfect example, and I feel it should be exposed.

Much has been made of the hateful “Letter from 2012 in Obama's America" recently posted on the “Focus on the Family” website of Dr. James Dobson. The thrust of this fictional letter, aside from its mean-spirited attack against a Christian by a man who claims to be a Christian, is the notion that Christianity itself is under attack. But is it really Christianity that's under attack, or is it a warped and twisted version of it that's suffering the slings and arrows of an angry public that's simply fed up with glaring hypocrisy?

One of the most worrisome things I see in modern America is the trend by some evangelical groups (such as Focus on the Family) to constantly complain about "attacks on Christianity."

I'm a Christian who happens to disagree with the claim of Christianity being under attack. The only thing I see under attack is cultural Christianity (institutionalized, compromised Christianity), but nowhere have I seen the real message of Christ coming under attack.

And that's the problem...so much of what passes as "mainstream Christianity" in this country barely resembles the true message of Christ. One of the reasons non-believers (and quite a few Christians) are so adamantly opposed to people like Dobson is that the thrust of his message bears little resemblance to a message that preaches "loving one another as God loves us, treating your neighbor as you wish to be treated, forgiving so that you may be forgiven, and showing mercy so that you may be shown mercy." Please show me in Dobson's message where this message of Christ is in play. It's nowhere to be found. So it's not really Christianity that's under attack, it's a horribly twisted corruption of it that's under attack....and well it should be.

One thing that's always surprised me is that even non-believers tend to know what Christ stood for and what He preached...and when they don't see so-called Christians living up to those standards themselves, they have every right to cry foul. One of the most instructive passages in the New Testament is Christ's admonition to not point out someone else's sin while ignoring your own. To wag our fingers while ignoring our own transgressions is a demonstration of spiritual blindness, not enlightenment.

I do agree with the point of Dobson's work, but disagree with how he attacks the issue. There is a definite collapse of the family and its function, and it's something we should all work to preserve, believers of otherwise. But Dobson ignores the real issue of the collapse of marriage and family values. According to a recent Barna Group poll, evangelical Christians have one of the highest divorce rates in the country (25%), and that's a sin that Christ actually spoke about in detail, while never mentioning homosexuality. Yet Dobson and his gang quietly downplay this glaring "sin" of divorce since it applies to millions of heterosexual couples, and instead attack homosexuals as a prime reason for the breakdown of traditional marriage and family values. What hypocrisy! This hypocrisy becomes even more evident when you consider that his own son recently divorced. Where was the outrage from Focus on the Family? This anger with Dobson and his tactics has led many local Colorado residents (FOTF is located in Colorado) to place bumper stickers on their cars that read: "Focus on your own Family!"

Until so-called Christians start living like Christians and actually following Christ's commandments delivered in the New Testament, I think we'll continue to see these groups complain about "attacks on Christianity." But as long as they cling to Old Testament legalism to compare themselves to others (something Christ condemned the Pharisees for), I doubt anything will change. I think some people find it much more convenient to see themselves as suffering martyrs, while burying their heads in the sand and refusing to see the extent of their own hypocrisy. Christ's message was one of gathering us all to Him through endless, unconditional Love, a love that never quits. I see quite the opposite happening within many so-called Christian groups. These groups should be in our prayers, as we pray that the Lord will expose our own hypocrisies to us as well.

THE CASE FOR CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM: Is God’s Love Conditional or Unconditional?

2008-10-19T19:19:00.030-05:00

I didn’t choose the Christian faith for its promise of salvation. At the very moment I came to God, it wasn’t even on my mind, nor had it been at any point in the days (and years) leading up to that moment. I chose it simply because I needed a better way to live, and I wasn’t finding it on my own. When I hit my knees in the middle of the night six years ago and begged God to fix my life, the only motivation for my action was that I had completely given up hope, and so I put my life in His hands and asked Him to fix it. It was that simple. I was a desperate man, but I’d known all my life that God was real. Up until that point, I still insisted on living my life on my own terms while claiming belief in God, and He’d stepped aside and allowed me to do exactly what I wanted, although I must confess I always felt His presence during that time. I failed at doing things my way, and out of a sense of pride, I refused to ask for help until I’d exhausted any hope of fixing things myself. I had pushed God aside for 46 years, but He accepted me into His fold in an instant, no questions asked. That’s grace, and quite amazing grace at that.

But right from the very beginning of my Christian walk, I found myself troubled by the notion of God’s so-called unconditional love having conditions attached to it. I kept trying to buy into the idea that only God’s select would enjoy an eternal life with Him, while the unbelievers roasted in Hell—by their own choice, I was led to understand, since they had refused to accept Christ. I understood that God was under no obligation to explain Himself or His ways, but on a basic level, beginning with the notion that the true nature of God is Love, I found the idea of conditional love to be in direct conflict with the notion of unconditional love. I also found myself taking issue with Christians who insisted that only Christians would go to heaven, as I could see the flaws in that argument without even trying to. I wrote about this salvation issue in a previous post, which I hope you'll read as well since it provides a clear view of how I felt about the subject well before learning about Christian Universalism. The whole concept of conditional love made no sense and continued to trouble me, and over the past year I began to develop an interest in learning more about the doctrine of Christian Universalism, which deals with the concept of ultimate salvation for all, and that the opportunity to find salvation extends beyond our physical deaths.

The first time I because aware of the idea was when reading about a favorite author of mine, Madeleine L’Engle, who’d written a wonderful book that millions of children had grown to love over the past forty years, named “A Wrinkle In Time.” I read hundreds of books in my youth, but with the exception of Dr. Seuss’s canon of work (which I still love and read regularly to this day), Ms. Engle’s book was the only other one that I could remember. It made such an impression on me that I even remember which grade I read it in—fifth grade. While reading a bit about her death about a year ago, I read that she was an Episcopalian (as am I), and that she was also a believer in Christian Universalism. The article went on to explain the concept of Christian Universalism. I was instantly intrigued by the idea of a limited "hell" and the ultimate reconciliation of all, and wanted to learn more.

The biggest surprise came when I learned that the early church, right up until the time of the Emperor Constantine’s Council at Nicea in 325 AD, had largely operated on the idea that God’s love was truly unconditional, and that Christ had died a substitutionary death for all people, not just those who accepted Him in their physical lifetimes. I was also surprised to learn that the apostolic tradition and general focus of major church leaders up through the third century had been well-grounded in the concept of universal salvation, and that it wasn’t a heresy at all, but heavily supported by an overwhelming amount of Scripture.

So what had happened since the 3rd century, and how had Universalism drifted from being a core doctrine to becoming a heresy, as some modern-day fundamentalists believe? Belief in this idea explains why the Eastern Orthodox church, the modern-day continuation of the apostolic teachings that guided the church through it first three centuries, has refused to join the Catholic Church of Rome, which preaches eternal damnation and limited access to heaven. The Eastern Orthodox church makes exclusive use of the Greek New Testament (the language in which it was originally written), for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the translation of the world "eternal," which in the original Greek "aionos" is a word that doesn’t specifically mean never-ending, but relates to a finite period of time. The word “eternal” that’s used in every modern English Bible we read is an incorrect translation, as the original Greek word referred to something that was specific to an age or era, but not eternal. This isn’t a small point. In fact, it’s a huge point. Think about it. The entire western world of Christianity, which encompasses the Catholic and Protestant churches, has passed down a tradition and doctrinal point that is quite possibly false, and has been at the root of most people’s rejection of the faith for it’s claim of eternal damnation for anyone not calling upon Christ by name in this mortal lifetime.

It’s important to note that Christian Universalism (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism) doesn’t deny any of the major doctrinal points of the faith, with one exception: Hell is real, but no one goes there forever. Any “punishment” is remedial and corrective, but not eternal. God doesn’t punish for the sake of punishment, but acts as “a refiner’s fire or launderer’s soap” (Malachi 3:2). In other words, the fire of Hell is a purifying fire, not a destructive one. The consequences of sin are real, but only for as long as it takes to purify the sinner and restore him or her into God’s image. As I read verse after verse from both the Old and New Testaments about God restoring and reconciling all people to Him, it opened my eyes and allowed me to view my faith in a wonderful new light, one that has filled me with more hope than ever before. God’s love, when viewed in this light, is truly unconditional, and our opportunity to accept it extends beyond this mortal lifetime, when unbelievers are subjected to a refining process in the afterlife.

This reconciliation works in two ways: some chose to accept and follow Christ in their lifetimes (thereby escaping punishment), while unrepentant non-believers of every rank are reconciled to Him after going through a "refiner's fire" that is directly proportionate to their sins. Christian Universalism completely agrees that "none come to the Father" except by Christ, as He is the judge of us all. And if Christian Universalism is true, it shouldn't change one thing about the way we practice our Christian faith. We must still spread the Good News and do everything possible to spare others the pains of punishment in Hell. As for the counter-claim that it weakens the Christian claim of exclusivity through Christ, it's simply false. At no point does Universalism deny the exclusive role of final judgment through Christ. The only place where Universalism breaks from traditional doctrine is with the notion of punishment actually lasting forever. Nobody can claim that universal reconciliation is unbiblical...it's abundantly supported by Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments.

The verses supporting Universalism are too numerous to list here, but can be quickly resourced and researched on the Internet by doing a search for Christian Universalism, or by purchasing a few definitive books on the subject. I’ll list a few verses here to provide a start for anyone interested in learning more about the truly good news of Christ’s redemptive mission. This is simply a sampling of New Testament verses dealing with the subject of God's universal reconciliation. Keep in mind that the Old Testament, particularly the Book of Isaiah, is filled with references to all the people of the world coming to know God.

“And for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.”
1 Timothy 4:10

“All flesh shall see the salvation of God.”
Luke 3:6

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
John 12:32

And in the parallel passage below, how can one claim all has two different meanings? We know from previous Scripture that all mankind suffered the effects of the Fall, not some, but all, which creates a contextual precedent that makes it impossible for the second all to mean something else.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive..."
1 Corinthians 15:22

Here's one last passage that very powerfully supports the notion that on the Last Day, all will be reconciled to God, and that the opportunities for salvation extend beyond our physical lives on this earth.

"Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Philippians 2:9-11

It seems pretty clear, doesn't it? According to the original Greek, all translates as exactly what it implies: all. Salvation is not just for those who chose to follow Christ during their earthly walk, but ultimately, and in due time, all who have lived, past, present and future, although some will clearly suffer the pains of an afterlife punishment of some sort. While reading a book on this subject, I was relieved to discover that my own denomination has addressed this doctrinal issue in a very positive manner, both in its catechism and doctrinal papers. I was also surprised to learn that many other major denominations are beginning to explore the scriptural basis for it—although not fully addressing it, I suspect, for fear of being branded heretics by the more doctrinally-conservatives branches of the faith. I would also guess that there's strong opposition to this concept coming from the more prominent televangelists, who have a huge financial stake in the idea of fire, brimstone and eternal damnation for the wicked.

I fully understand that most Christians won't agree with the concept discussed here, but I still feel that we must all be willing to consider the possibility that it's true. For anyone interested in reading about this subject, I’d highly recommend two books that approach the concept from two angles: one as a simple, straightforward introduction to the concept, and the other at a seminary study level. The real appeal of this concept is that it was a doctrine taught by the early church from the time of Christ until the 3rd century, then kept alive as a doctrinal remnant up through the present day, constantly discussed within the church, but rarely brought into the light.

Personally, I will admit that I don't know all the answers, nor do I understand the original meaning of all Scripture dealing with the subject. But I do trust my heart and the guidance of the Spirit, and I find peace as I strive to better understand the fullness of God's plan. As you read these books, you might begin to consider that perhaps God’s love is truly unconditional and will someday reconcile the whole world to Himself, no matter how long it takes, and even though many will literally go through Hell before being drawn to Him on that "last day." But this shouldn't surprise you. What else should we expect from a Father who loves all His children equally and desires to bring them all back into the fullness of His glory?

OBSESSION: Radical Islam's War Against the West

2008-09-23T10:05:00.008-05:00

I just finished viewing a DVD of the film OBSESSION: Radical Islam's War Against the Wes t. I received it free in my mail yesterday, although I'm not yet sure why. I assume it's because I was on a mailing list of some sort, and they felt I was qualified to receive it. I'm glad I did, and I'm glad I watched it.

To be honest, I was a bit cautious before viewing it, as I immediately assumed it was from some ultra-right organization. I am always skeptical of partisan hatchet jobs by either the Right or the Left against any subject they disagree with, but I was surprised to find a very fair and honest approach to the subject, primarily because the makers of the film didn't do any editorializing of their own...they simply let the news clips and the radical clerics speak for themselves. The group behind it, I learned, is a non-partisan foundation that distributed 28 million DVD disks across the country last week. The group is called The Clarion Fund, and it appears they have some cash to play with if they can afford to distribute 28 million free DVDs across the nation.

The movie was frightening, to say the least. It's also the first time I've seen such a collection of footage all together, most of it gathered from mainstream Muslim television and jihadi websites. The film warns us against taking the threat of radical Islam too lightly, as radical clerics and Islamic political leaders openly declare again and again that their objective is the downfall of the West, and nothing less will do.

The makers of the film also warn the West about being too politically-correct to speak out on the subject, but were careful themselves to point out that their film was not aimed at the millions of peaceful Muslims, but only the radical branch which many claimed has hijacked the faith.

The ending was especially powerful, as moderate Muslims plead for other moderate Muslims to speak out against terrorism. In the end, this may be the most effective way to fight radical Islam. Anyone speaking out from the West and the Judeo-Christian countries will find their pleas falling on deaf ears, but if anyone can get the attention of the Muslim world, it will have to be other Muslims. As one Muslim notes in the film, he hopes that the current silence from the moderate community is only from fear of reprisal, and not because they are sympathetic to the cause.

I realize that some people will continue to insist that radical Islam is no threat to the West. Others will continue to see terrorists behind every tree. Regardless of how you view the threat of radical Islam, this is a powerful film worth watching. The evidence speaks for itself, and we know that the hatred expressed in this film is growing around the world. How we deal with the issue will decide the final landscape of the 21st Century.

THE ISSUE OF ABORTION: Why Both Political Parties Take the Wrong Approach

2008-08-30T12:36:00.011-05:00

I've found it a shame that the major political parties have both chosen to make abortion (as well as gay marriage) such hot-button issues in major political races, such as this year's race for the Presidency. Both sides have adopted very simplistic views on the issue, each drawing a line in the sand and refusing to budge beyond it.

My own experience with abortion came in 1988, when my girlfriend at the time informed me that she was pregnant. There was very little discussion on the subject, and before we even took the time to talk it over, she insisted that she had to abort it. She was a 21 year old college student whose father was a prestigious professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Once she knew, she made up her mind immediately. I had drifted away from my faith many years earlier, and I behaved rather poorly. I was stunned by the whole thing, and every time we were together in the days immediately following her announcement, I sat like a deer in the headlights, frozen in my tracks. In a single moment, the consequences of my actions had come crashing down on me, and I had no foundation of experience on which to draw. Rather than step up like a man, I withdrew from her. I thought I was being supportive, but in retrospect I was emotionally missing-in-action. A week or so later she had the abortion, I paid for half of it, and she told me she never wanted to see me again. I can't say I blame her. I didn't particularly like myself either at the time.

But in the years past, and since my return to my faith, I have revisited that situation again and again, and realized the importance of faith. If we truly follow God's laws, those sorts of things don't happen at all. God defines adultery as any sexual relationship outside of marriage, and tells us not to do it. He doesn't go into a lot of detail explaining why, but if you think about the fallout that can result, the reasons are obvious. Had I listened, I never would have gotten my girlfriend pregnant. Had we continued in our relationship to the point of marriage, in all likelihood the pregnancy would have been welcomed, and at the very least, provided a secure environment in which to handle an unplanned pregnancy. When I look at the Decalogue, I can't help but believe that if all of us, faithful believers to secular agnostics, took even the last six of the Commandments to heart, a huge part of the world's social ills would fade away like mist. Take a look at them sometime, and give it some thought. If we all behaved in accordance with them, wouldn't the world be a much better place?

Like many Christians, I believe that physical life begins at the moment of conception, and our spiritual lives began quite a bit earlier. I have come to love the beautiful verses of the 139th Psalm. Verses 13 through 16 in particular speak to our individual spirits and bodies, and how they are a part of God's plan long before we arrive on the planet.

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

I really don't understand how any person who claims to be a Christian could read this verse and still think that abortion is somehow okay. The problem is that both Presidential candidates support abortion-on-demand, and both candidates claim to be Christians (McCain changed his "official" stance for the election, but has stated on record that he supports a woman's right to choice). I realize that as potential leaders of a pluralistic society, they must make concessions toward universal values, but as they claim to be Christians, I still struggle to understand why they personally endorse the right to an abortion.

I think the problem is simple. Somehow, somewhere along the line, the people of this nation (including many Christians) have moved away from accepting personal responsibility for many of their actions, and started creating loopholes to deal with the consequences of those actions. We've also continued to change the definitions of certain words, allowing us to push the boundaries of our behavior to the limits. Unplanned pregnancies and the use of abortion to deal with the consequences provide a perfect case in point.

As a man who has impregnated a woman who aborted a fetus, I have come to realize that both my girlfriend and I were careless and irresponsible. We were both adults, and we both knew that unprotected sex can and will cause pregnancy. When we did take precautions, we were casual about it at times, and downright careless at others. As a result of both of our actions, an unplanned pregnancy occurred. Our careless actions had dire consequences. What should be an joyous occasion was in fact a sordid and destructive one, and event that not only took the life of an unborn child, but also destroyed something within me and my girlfriend.

Now we get to the critical part, the part about changing definitions and boundaries, and why I don't think abortion should be viewed as a "reproductive option," as many like to call it. I think that once my girlfriend got pregnant, the time for choosing "reproductive options" had passed. Prior to her getting pregnant, my girlfriend and I had many, many options before us, and all those choices involved things that could have been done to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. We were casual and careless to a fault, and as a result of not being responsible by taking advantage of the myriad opportunities available to us, she got pregnant. The fault was with both of us. Any unwanted pregnancy of this type is the fault of both the man and the woman, and this is where men need to step up to the plate.

When my girlfriend got pregnant, it was a direct result of the two of us not taking enough responsibility for our actions, or considering the consequences of them. Period. Once pregnant, we looked for a fast and easy way to deal with the consequences of our actions, and we took the easy way out...again, it was both of us, and not just her, not just me. At that point in my life, I viewed the abortion as just another option, rather than treating it as a consequence of ignoring my options.

And now I'll get to the reason why both political parties are getting it wrong. I think the Democrats are queasy about asking people to take personal responsibility for their actions, and instead want to create more and more options (some of which are quite boneheaded) for people who are suffering the consequences of being irresponsible. They do so, I'm sure, in the interest of not appearing intolerant to personal choices, but I believe that tolerance becomes a negative factor when it begins to tolerate bad things.

The Republicans, who claim to place so much value on the sanctity of life (but have no problem with the death penalty and unjust wars), demand we protect these unborn children at all costs. That would be nice, except that the majority of American women who get abortions are poor single minority mothers, whose children are often born into poverty and strife, many continuing the process through generations. Assuming those women carried these pregnancies to term, it's the Republican party that wouldn't want anything to do with helping them once out of the womb. I think it's wrong to demand that we preserve life in the womb, and then desert the mother and child once the fetus is born. One important point to keep in mind here is that I'm speaking of the majority of abortions, which are the result of consensual sex between a man and woman, and not dealing with situations like incest and rape.

The real problem, of course, boils down to this: our society simply must find a way to return to a time when we accepted personal responsibility for our actions, and took the necessary precautions to insure that our behavior wouldn't put us in situations that require us to take the life of an unborn fetus. Where both political parties fail is at this point. Neither wants to address the issue in real terms for fear of alienating voters and losing the election. The Democrats want all options to be on the table, rather than asking people to accept personal responsibility. The Republicans make the mistake of asking the government to enforce a law with moral implications, rather than simply asking people to accept personal responsibility.

The solution is simple, but implementing it is much harder because it requires individuals, and a nation of people, to change their hearts. That can only happen when Christians begin to live like followers of Christ, spreading the Good News through works, and not asking a worldly state power to enforce their beliefs on unbelievers by rote of law. It's time for Christians to lead by example, living by God's laws. If we do this, and our light shines brightly enough, others will seek it out and discover the source for themselves. We shouldn't need the compromised powers of state to make our case for us.

OBAMA-NATION: How liars and misguided zealots try to shape an election

2008-08-23T14:00:00.007-05:00

For the record, I'm a fiscal conservative who happens to be a registered Democrat. I don't see a problem with that. Being a Democrat doesn't automatically make one a liberal, although some of today's right-wing pundits still love to cram us into convenient categories so that it's easier to lob stones at us. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh come to mind.

Additionally, being a Democrat doesn't automatically make me a supporter of Barack Obama, but that doesn't mean I'll stand idly by while radical right-wingers grossly distort Obama's words, or worse, make them up to fit their needs. I've always believed that if you have to lie about someone to make a case, you really don't have much of a case to begin with.

The rash of Obama-hating emails circulating around the Internet is appalling, especially since so many of them are outright lies, and a number of them are apparently from people who refer to themselves as Christians. Many of these Christians, I notice, also think the Iraq war is a just war and that we're fighting international terrorism there. It's not, and we're not. I won't go farther into that arena again except to say that you can read more about my stance on that subject here and here and here.

At first, I actually took the time to respond to some of these emails and go through them point by point, showing how each one was either an outright lie or a grossly distorted truth, and then presented the evidence to counter it. That really got a few people PO'd at me. I think they wanted to hang onto their unfounded biases, and I was asking them to consider that they've been buying into a batch of lies. How insensitive, unpatriotic and un-Christian of me for defending a black man with an Arab-sounding name who had a Muslim father. What was I thinking?

I think I hit the breaking point this morning when I opened an email from an older woman for whom I have a lot of respect, but question why she has also bought into the campaign against Obama. I suspect, sadly, that it's because he's black and she's a Southerner and I've heard her talk about the issue of race before. She considers herself a God-fearing Christian, but harbors an intense dislike of black people, a fault for which I forgive her, but worry about anyway as she seems to see no conflict between her perceived values and her actual ones.

The email in question was a video clip pulled from a speech Obama gave a few years back about faith in the public arena. It was an excellent speech, and I read the content in its entirety. In it, he asks that if we're going to have a Christian nation, whose version of Christianity are we going to follow? Right-winger Jim Dobson's, or left-wing Al Sharpton? He pointed out how people often take scripture out of context to slam others who don't agree with them. Obama then went on to point out that Scripture also calls for us not to eat shellfish, or talk back to our parents...just a sample of the commandments that we all break all the time. So which part of Scripture do we get to ignore, and which part do we hold others accountable for? Keep in mind that the Bible is very specific about what's known as "The Law," stating that if you break any part of it, you break all of it. Christ also tells us that not one single bit of the Law is considered invalid, and that it all stands until God's purpose is accomplished. So how is Obama taking Scripture out of context, as the narrator alleges? Actually, he's not...just read the speech in its entirety if you're so inclined.

I won't go on, as it simply gets me too riled up. I'll just post the link to the video and let you decide for yourself. I agree with everything Obama says in the video, and having read the entire speech, I know the context he's using. The maker of this film obviously had an axe to grind, and pretends to be a breathlessly indignant Christian as he spouts his obvious hate message. He claims that Obama has grossly distorted the context. I think Obama nailed it on the head, and wasn't mocking the Bible at all, as the narrator claims. It sounds more as though Obama's chiding people like the maker of this video, urging them to be better Christians.

In the end, the narrator convicts himself of breaking a number of commandments, including bearing false witness and failing to love others as Christ loves him, This is a perfect example of why Christians need to stop worrying about building a so-called Christian nation, and spend more time building the true church for Christ, which is for all people of all nations, regardless of color, creed or political affiliation.

CUT FROM A DIFFERENT CLOTH: Father Bill French, and why the Episcopal Church could use more like him

2008-07-28T09:36:00.002-05:00

I like Father Bill French tremendously. As a student at Brookville High School in the early 1970s, I had him as a history teacher, and was always impressed with his passion for what he did. He seemed to awake to the world every morning with the desire to share his passionate beliefs, and as I recall, his history classes did contain a lot of history, but also a lot of teaching that would benefit me in other ways, and was often not related to anything in our course material.

Upon returning to church in 2005 after a 35-year drought, I learned that my former teacher had retired from teaching and become an Episcopalian priest. I was surprised, but shouldn’t have been. He simply continued doing what he did best...teaching.

I vividly recall a recent sermon of his in which he pulled an acorn from his pocket, tossed it in the air, and caught it. He turned it, looked at it, and started his sermon. He spoke of the dwindling congregations within the Anglican & Episcopalian churches, and then told us exactly why it was happening. Episcopalians, he said, weren’t taking part in the Great Commission. We, as members of that Church, had ceased to share the Good News. Our faith was not only personal, but had now become private as well. And that, he said, just wouldn’t do.

Our lives, he said, should be like an acorn. As we grow in Christ, we must touch the lives of others, who must then also touch the lives of others. The effect would be like the growth of a mighty oak tree from a single acorn. The acorn contains the potential, but to be realized it must be planted in fertile ground, and the Episcopal Church as a whole wasn’t providing fertile ground...and so its congregations continue to dwindle.

Just yesterday, he preached a simple homily. He wasn’t scheduled to be at our church that day, but just happened to stop by and saw that we had a morning prayer service planned. He popped in, and was immediately pressed into duty for a Eucharist service. He spoke once again about how the Episcopal Church as an organization seems not to be focused on what really matters, which is looking to Christ as our example of how to live. He commented that the Lambeth Convention, currently taking place in England, seemed to be heavily politicized, and not focused on leading people to Christ. But that, he said, should be the driving force behind every decision they make.

Bill French seems to be a bit of a rebel, and I like that. His rebellion against the status quo is consistent with the example he lives by, that of a particular Nazarene who lived over two thousand years ago, and still lives today.

He also hasn’t lost his sense of humor. My sister Katy—who also had William French as a teacher—was attending church with me yesterday, and I was the lay minister. Part of my responsibilities were to assist in the administering of the communion sacraments. I was holding the wine, and Father French was placing wafers in people’s mouths. My sister Katy came to the altar, and after Father French gave her the wafer, whispered, “I’ll bet you never thought you’d be taking communion from me.”

My sister Katy, who’d watched over the years as I transformed from a self-absorbed, hard-drinking, drug-using wild man into a lay Eucharistic minister, pointed at me and said, “Or him, either!” I didn’t hear any of this exchange, but looked over to see both Father French and Katy laughing during communion, which struck me as odd. It was only afterward, when Katy related the story, that I enjoyed the laugh as well.

I realize all leaders within a religious organization must deal with politics and logistics. But unlike many, Father Bill French refuses to let those things cloud his single-minded mission to share the love of Christ. I wish we had more like him.

IN THE LION'S DEN: Defending the Creator in a Scientific Debate

2008-07-14T08:07:00.008-05:00

The previous post, in which I asked readers to offer proof that the natural worldview was the correct one, garnered some very interesting responses when I posted it on the religion forum at Amazon.com. As I expected, a few people simply couldn’t deal with it, and rather than answer my questions, simply attacked me personally and made mocking comments about my belief in magic dwarves and such. I didn’t pay much attention to those ones, but was surprised by the honesty and fairness of several others.

The line of questioning evolved over a few days. I started by asking how people could claim that naturalism was true if they could not establish “first cause” in the pre-Big Bang conditions. As noted in the piece, there is no science available to us to study those conditions, as the physical laws of science that we use to study the “natural” world didn’t come into play until after the event itself.

A few of the more angry respondents simply stated that the world can be studied and quantified as unfolding through “natural” means, and that was enough evidence for them. I pointed out that being able to study and quantify the natural world didn’t provide the slightest shred of evidence supporting the claim that it arose by natural means. Being able to study and explain natural processes doesn't establish how the highly-deterministic physical laws arose. This really made some folks angry, perhaps because it was such a valid point. Nobody likes having their worldview challenged.

I went on to point out that if they can insist that their observation and study of the natural world somehow proves naturalism, then they must know what a supernaturally-created world would look like. This really made them angry, and drew the response about my appeal to magic dwarves. None, however, provided any scientific proof to challenge my question.

If we don’t know the cause of the Universe, how can anyone claim that the naturalist worldview is correct? Do we know what a Universe created by a super-intellect would look like? Based upon the same scientific evidence used to "prove" naturalism, I happen to think that a supernaturally-created world would look like the one we live in. I accept the scientific discovery that the Universe came about from a blast of invisible sub-atomic particles that slowly formed into the visible matter we see today. Why? Because the Apostle Paul said so, stating “…we understand by faith that what is seen was made from what was invisible.” (Hebrews 11:3) He wasn’t a physicist, but he perfectly described what science has only discovered in the past century.

In the end, a few of the more intellectually-honest respondents conceded that naturalism cannot prove itself, as it cannot establish what gave rise to our Universe in the first place. It is a mystery that remains locked in secrecy on the other side of that singularity we call the Big Bang. As one wise respondent noted, the cause of our Universe is “an indefinable element in an undefined space,” and therefore not knowable. This person clearly grasped the issue, and didn't feel threatened by it.

I tried to be fair in my responses, noting that simply because the naturalist worldview could not provide proof of first cause, it didn’t somehow prove the existence of God. It simply left the door open for the possibility. As another respondent conceded, “It leaves room for God as a write-in candidate.” I liked that. It was nice to see someone with a sense of humor.

I have always subscribed to the notion that if you’re going to convince someone of something, you must do so using their worldview as a starting point. Simply arguing that “God did it” is pointless. To argue with a person whose worldview is grounded in the naturalist viewpoint, you must argue with logic based upon that viewpoint. In doing so, I learned a lot, and perhaps started some wheels turning in the heads of a few agnostics.

In the end, I learned that my belief in a supernaturally-created world is a defensible position in a scientific argument, but only because naturalism cannot prove itself in a scientific argument. I believe in a Creator who created a Universe that dances to physical and mathematical laws, and that He used those laws to create and maintain all that we see. I see evidence of this in the order and perfection of those laws, and the arising of such things as the startlingly complex code contained within the DNA molecule.

And ultimately, that’s the beauty of learning about science, and not avoiding it. It’s discovery such as this that makes the whole thing so rewarding. You may believe in a world that arose by unknown means and unfolded through "natural" processes. I choose a Creator who has revealed Himself to us through both Scripture and the revelation of His Creation. Either way you cut it, the science remains the same.

THE NATURALIST WORLDVIEW: Can anyone offer proof of the driving force that started everything in motion?

2008-07-06T17:47:00.008-05:00

I've been a huge fan of science since grade school, and have read science books all my life. A few things that keeps jumping out off all this scholarly literature is the fact that cosmologists cannot predict what caused the Big Bang...it's a singularity that isn't knowable in scientific terms. The scientific laws that we use to study our physical world simply break down as we back up in time, and are useless at predicting anything about the cause, or what existed, prior to the Big Bang event that brought our Universe into existence.

I also have read a ton of books on biology and evolution, such as Christian De Duve's "Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative" and Simon Conway Morris's "Life's Solutions: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe." Morris's book was wonderful, by the way, and I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in the appearance of life on this planet. But the one thing I noticed in both these books is that they openly deal with the problems of the origin of life and speciation. Both authors admit to the apparently overwhelming odds against life arising by chance, but tell us that there's no reason to believe it arose by anything other than natural causes. In the end, I simply see circular reasoning at work. They're agnostics, and because they only believe in natural origins, then no matter how difficult the problems appear, there simply must be a "natural" solution. Case closed.

I question why I should accept naturalism purely on the say-so of scientists who admit they don't know what started the Universe, or what gave rise to the very deterministic laws that govern it, or how life arose, or can show through scientific study how new species arise. After 35 years of reading books on the subject, I have yet to read anything other than suggestions about how these things may have happened.

For full disclosure, I am a Christian who believes in a 14 billion year old Universe, common descent by biological processes, and speciation through biological processes (in other words, I believe in some form of common descent, but not purely naturalistic neo-Darwinian processes, which are problematic when explaining speciation). I think the evidence for this old-Earth worldview is overwhelming, and I don't see current scientific discovery as incompatible with my faith, or incompatible with a fair reading of Genesis that allows for interpretation and doesn't demand strict literalism.

When I read about the kabbalist Nahmanides and his description of the birth of the cosmos from a speck the size of a mustard seed, and its subsequent expansion, it's pretty startling because he wrote it about a thousand years ago and had not an inkling about modern cosmology. The intellectuals of the day all insisted the Cosmos was eternal, although the Torah claimed otherwise. A thousand years later, science develops the Big Bang model for the creation of the Universe, and it matches the Judeo-Christian model that Nahmanides used as his starting point.

Over an over again, we see highly-ordered and finely-tuned laws that are balanced on a razor's edge. How did these laws come to be? What determined the initial conditions of the Universe, and why did it arrive in such an ordered "package?" Instead of randomness, why do we see non-random, convergent evolution, which, by the rules of neo-Darwinian theory, shouldn't be happening? No matter who I read, I can't help but come to the conclusion that the deck was stacked.

Even the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, an athiest, noted that the Universe appeared to be a "set-up job," as he called it, and said "A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

So here's my question: If you can't prove naturalism is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, how can scientists insist that it's a purely natural Universe? If the Universe is created, then by default all the processes have some form of intent and purpose behind them. Understanding every little step may be possible, but how does that disprove God? After years of reading, that's the one single point that comes through all this scientific literature...scientists don't have proof of origins, but we should all accept the consensus view that it's natural anyway.

I'd be curious to see if anyone can offer solid scientific proof of naturalism, when all I see is a created Universe with intent and purpose behind it. I should point out that I'm not looking to change that worldview, but simply hoping to get a fair and intellectually-honest response from anyone holding a naturalist worldview. To some extent, it was the lack of answers in naturalism that helped me to embrace my faith-based worldview, and I'm curious to read why people choose naturalism when I think the evidence points the other way, and quite convincingly so.

In closing, I'll leave you with this wonderful quote from C.S. Lewis: "If naturalism were true, then all thoughts whatsoever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."

THE FINGERPRINT OF GOD: Why complex life requires information, and why all life is complex

2008-04-30T16:08:00.012-05:00

On a personal level, one of the most startling single facts about our origins is that life arose so quickly on the new planet Earth. As soon as the Earth’s surface cooled about 3.8 billion years ago, single-celled life was there. This fact was quite a shocker to modern evolutionary theorists, who, up until that point, had figured that Life had several billion years to create itself. Given that amount of time, they assumed it was only inevitable that molecules would arrange themselves into something resembling a living cell.

Suddenly the theorists found themselves with a problem. How do you account for something as complex as a living cell, given that you have virtually no workable timeframe to account for time and chance to play a role? For all appearances, life seems to have arisen by “cosmic imperative” of some sort. I use that term because Nobel Laureate Christian De Duve, a cell biologist, used it as the subtitle of a book. In other words, life arose because it had to… it was built into the equation, it was chemically "pre-destined."

De Duve, of course, attacked the problem from an agnostic viewpoint, but clearly understood the scope of the problem. For those who have read his books, you know that he typically addressed the metaphysical aspects of biology with a fairness rarely found in scientific writings.

The appearance of life is the original version of the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” conundrum. We know that to build a living cell, we need DNA, which carries the blueprint of life. DNA quite literally provides the instructions needed for molecules to arrange themselves into all the amazing things that make up a living cell. Without DNA, you simply have a mess of chemicals and proteins. But DNA only exists within a living cell. And a living cell only exists because of DNA. So which came first?

I’ve read the works of many scientists who propose how the cell arose through purely natural forces. For the most part, no one can really agree on a logical path that’s supported by science. The position that it happened naturally is based upon circular reasoning, as noted in the previous post. Essentially, the scientist says: The cell came to be, and we don’t believe it had any supernatural assistance, so therefore it had to have somehow happened through natural causes.

But that doesn’t get very far when we consider the scope of the problem. DNA contains a vast amount of complex information in a code that far exceeds anything dreamed up by Mankind. And that’s the million-dollar question. Where did the information come from? How does such complex information imprint itself upon the very particles that make up all matter?

From a purely logical point of view, the answer is simple. The information had to come first. Unfortunately for science, this creates an insurmountable problem. Information capable of building a living cell just doesn’t create itself by chance, no matter how much Science insists that it must have. But it’s important to keep in mind that just because a single cell is small, it isn’t simple. It’s a hugely complex piece of work, and even at its most basic, functional size, it still requires vast amounts of information to build.

I’m a huge fan of Gerald Schroeder and his three books on the subject of God, Science and the harmony between them. In the last of the three, The Hidden Face of God, he talks about life and how it far exceeds the simple properties of its building blocks, and how it also exceeds the physical laws which govern the matter that it’s made of.

I wrote to Dr. Schroeder recently and was delighted to get a personal reply from him. I posed the question of how the information for life could have been built into the equation, and his reply blew me away. I’d never thought of it before, but it suddenly all made perfect sense.

"My guess is that the information [for complex life] was somehow contained within the first forms of life, but it did mutate and give rise to variations. But the basic information with which complex life developed was already there. Gilbert Goller notes that the initial energy of the Big Bang was highly related to electro-magnetic radiation. Vast amounts of information can be imprinted on electro-magnetic radiation, as we know from what we humans do with it. Hence a super-intelligence could put all the information ever needed onto that initial burst and somehow imprint the ability to have it read out and implemented."

In a nutshell, he confirmed what I already suspected. The difference was that he explained how it could have happened. DNA is a code, and the code was there from the beginning, imprinted upon the very particles that would form the matter that would someday become life. The information was there from the beginning, and imprinted upon the electro-magnetic radiation released in the Big Bang. As he noted, we do the same thing today with electro-magnetic radiation; we send information through space to cell phones, radios, televisions, and even imprint this information upon matter, such as hard drives and mag-strips on credit cards. Information can be stored and transferred so easily. Why couldn’t a super-intelligence do the same?

And then, in what can only be described as an “Aha!” moment, it all sunk in. I remembered seeing a photo back in 2006 of a newly-discovered nebula in our own Milky Way galaxy (the photo is shown at left in both infra-red and regular imagery). It was twisted into a double-helix, just like the strands of a DNA molecule. Only this double-helix was about 100 light years long. It blew my mind, especially when I read that scientist were baffled by the amazing amount of order that must be present for something like this to take place. I was surprised, but I wasn’t baffled. And it all made sense.

The information and order needed to hold this Universe together was present from the first moment of Creation. In the DNA nebula was simple confirmation that whatever creates the tiniest bits of substance also creates the largest. All is One, and we are part of It.

In the most beautiful five words I’ve ever read—and the five words most loaded with meaning— we find the answer to why everything is as it is: “In the beginning, God created...”

And we are the privileged witnesses to His handiwork.

EGGS, FLOUR AND MOZART: A short course on how the ingredients of Life became more than the sum of their parts

2008-04-27T17:37:00.020-05:00

Did life arise by chance, or by design? To describe it problem in very simple terms, lets use a very simple analogy. While it may seem laughable to some, it's nonetheless accurate and demonstrates the problem in a very real way.

Let's assume you're going to bake a cake. You assemble the ingredients, knowing that flour, eggs, baking soda, sugar, water and a few other ingredients will produce a thick mess that when heated will be a cake. All this is predictable. You know that adding these ingredients together will produce cake batter, and taken to its conclusion, a cake. Nothing about this concoction exceeds the limits of the ingredients.

Let's take it a step farther, for the sake of explaining the position of the naturalist camp, or those who believe Life happened without cause or intent. Let's assume that the ingredients are all assembled on the counter, sitting uncovered, side-by-side under ideal conditions, and you get a call that takes you from your home. While you're gone, an earthquake hits. All the ingredients are mixed together in the quake, which tears at your electrical wiring and starts a fire which burns your kitchen counter (and bakes your cake in the process). You return home to the mess of charred cabinets, to find a bowl containing something that resembles a cake. It was simply a case of everything being in the right place at the right time.

A highly unlikely chain of events, but it happened nonetheless. And what happened was predictable. Not likely, but given the right set of conditions, it still falls within the realm of predictable. Ingredients, mixed properly, with heat added, produce something resembling a cake. While improbable, the end result was predictable because it didn't exceed the abilities of the ingredients. No matter how long it sits there, it can never become more than what it is... the total sum of its parts.

But now imagine this...

You receive a call that takes you from your home. The same events takes place: the earthquake hits, the ingredients get mixed, the fire starts and the cake gets baked. You return home to find this baked cake. But something's very different this time. It's not a charred accidental mess (as you'd expect from such random events), but it's already decorated and sitting at the piano playing Mozart (with its new appendages and opposed thumbs), and on the counter is a picture it has painted...of you, no less! And dinner simmers away on the stove. All in all, it's quite an impressive cake.

This scenario, needless to say, does not fall into the realm of the predictable. What has taken place falls outside the bounds of probable events. Eggs, sugar, flour, water and baking soda (and by extension, all the elements of which they're composed) do not, on their own or mixed together, contain the ability to walk to the piano and play Mozart. No matter how many different ways we arrange them, we cannot produce anything other than a thick batter under normal temperatures, or a cake when heated. This holds true whether we give it an hour, a year, or 15 billion years. The outcome simply cannot exceed the inherent properties of the ingredients. So what we're witnessing in this impressive cake is an emergent property of matter that cannot be explained through process or scientific law. Yet there it sits, a living, breathing piece of matter that can play and appreciate music (and paint pictures of you!).

When we take this simple analogy and apply it to the natural world and the creation of complex life, we have to ask ourselves this question: Everything physical thing we encounter is composed of particles which formed into atoms, which formed into molecules, which formed into the very matter that we're made of. How do we get from tiny electro-magnetic pulses to living, breathing, thinking matter without some help and direction? One thing we know for sure... whatever took place within the initial burst of energy that created the Universe, the driving force behind the emergent properties of matter was present at that very moment... and imprinted itself upon those particles. The very deterministic information that gave rise to matter in all its forms appears to have been present before the Creation event itself.

Even when we reduce this to the lowest common denominator of life, the individual cell, the problem remains just as unfathomable. Why, when we take all the necessary ingredients of a cell and place them together in the most optimal possible position, do we still come up with nothing? Without the deterministic information contained in DNA to run the show, no amount of cajoling or manipulating can push these ingredients into anything even remotely resembling a living, functioning cell. In fact, to most biologists, the emergence of the first cell still seems somewhat miraculous (their own words, by the way). Which leads to the questions: If we're just matter, then why do we appear to be so much more than just the sum of our parts? And since DNA only exists within a cell, and a cell can only exist because of its DNA, which came first?

Science has no term for these emergent properties, other than to note that in addition to the ingredients, it also requires a tremendous input of information (found in DNA). Believers call the source of that information by a name: God.

Life was no accident, and no amount of circular reasoning on the part of the naturalist can overcome this fact. Naturalist thinkers often accuse the faithful of circular reasoning, and think of our position something like this: "We're here and we're pretty amazing creatures, so God must have done it." The truth is, the naturalist thinker is the one engaging in circular reasoning, and does it by being intellectually dishonest, essentially saying: "We're here, and because I refuse to consider the option of a Creator, it MUST have happened naturally." The naturalist thinker eliminates a valid option before starting the thought process, and therefore must accept the default position on faith, that of natural origins. Yet when we consider the problem posed above, it's very easy to take a side based purely on logic.

In the end, I look at my own position and feel that my decision, although based upon faith, is ultimately the more logical one. We're not here by chance. The great Catholic thinker G.K. Chesterton stated the scope of the issue quite succinctly in this famous quote: "To an atheist, the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody."

Amen, brother. You said a mouthful. Cake, anyone?

FALLING DOWN: The continuing collapse of Mankind's relationship with God

2008-04-27T13:42:00.018-05:00

One of the most powerful (and hotly debated) stories in the Bible is the account of the Fall, where Adam and Eve are tempted, sample the forbidden fruit, and are banished from the Garden of Eden and their perfect relationship with the Almighty. Is this a literal story, with real characters, or simply an allegory to explain the corruptness that lurks in the heart of mankind? Personally, I believe it is both, and here's why...

Francis Schaeffer, in his book “Genesis is Space and Time,” notes that above all, many of the Bible’s truths are communicative truths; stories that may be difficult to read literally, but that are used to communicate a larger, more universal truth about God’s will. The Creation story told in Genesis might be one example. In describing the days of Creation, the emphasis isn’t on the timeline or the manner in which God created, but on the fact that God was there before the Universe began, and was responsible for it coming into being. When we fight over the literalness of the words, we lose sight of the communicative truth it delivers...that God is transcendent and above all, the Creator of all that is.

We see many of the same battles over the literalness of Genesis 2 and 3. We learn that the last of God’s creations, Man & Woman, were created in His image. Many members of the monotheistic faiths take this to mean that the first humans were created in the fairly recent past. The Bible never tells us whether or not hominids existed before Adam, but we can be fairly certain from paleontology that they did. If we read Genesis carefully, we discover that Biblical Man was created in God’s image, and God is a spiritual being. While Adam and Eve were most certainly homo sapiens, the Bible never explicitly states that they were the first homo sapiens. They were simply the first (and only) creatures in which God’s spirit was an integral element of the final product. Insisting on a more definitive interpretation requires us to twist the words of Scripture to suit our purpose. While science and Scripture can both describe the creation of a Universe, the language used to do so doesn't give us a neat apples-to-apples comparison—and because we so often insist on trying to match up the literalness of scientific discovery with very literal interpretations of Genesis, our belief in God often becomes weakened in the process, often to the point of abandoning any real faith in God.

All this brings me to a recent comment I came across while reading about the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a huge particle collider, set to start operation sometime this summer in Europe. This incredible piece of machinery is designed to answer some of Science's biggest and most important questions about our origins. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas at Austin, says, “The goal is to find signs of an elusive particle called the Higgs boson—also known as the "God particle"—because it might ultimately lead to a grand theory of the universe.” In other words, a Universe that has no need of God as an explanatory mechanism.

What’s particularly interesting about this project is its focus on searching for the Higgs boson, and how its anticipated discovery might impact religion. Weinberg clearly feels that religious faith is simply an invented thing used to explain the unexplainable, and as science explains how things work, there’s increasingly little use for religion. Weinberg also feels, as evidenced in his answers to questions asked by a Newsweek reporter, that the discovery of the Higgs boson would finally allow a unified theory of everything, and once and for all put to rest any doubts that science is lord of all when it comes to explaining the world and why everything works the way it does.

For those who have already bought into Weinberg’s worldview, everything he says makes sense. But for those of us who happen to believe in a Creator, his comments ring with scientific hubris, and intellectually dishonesty at that. Explaining how the Universe works the way it does is what science does very well, but explaining why things are the way they are is quite possibly beyond the reach of science. Carl Sagan was famous for assuming that the limits of science are the limits of reality, but we know from studying the Big Bang that this simply isn’t true. And even if we do discover this elusive “God particle” that seems to hold the Universe together, have we really eliminated any need for God as an explanation? Or simply pushed Him out of the picture and placed ourselves on His throne?

The fact remains that the Universe is an incredible piece of work that defies logical explanations for why it's the way it is, such as why the laws of science, all seemingly balanced on a razor’s edge, provided us with such a perfectly-tuned Universe. If the Universe really came about by pure chance, why are the laws of science so deterministic, and what gave particles the ability to gather together into increasingly complex bits of matter, some of which eventually became living, breathing, thinking creatures capable of pondering the very origins from which they arose?

What I find so contradictory about the position of Science toward religion is this: Scientists claim that their scientific discoveries replace the need for God as an explanatory mechanism. But their discoveries only serve to show us how incredible the workings of this Universe truly are...the formerly mysterious, with light shed on them, become the truly fantastic. As an example, men of science once assumed the cell was simply a blob of organic goo. But then we learn that the cell contains molecular machines nearly identical to those we build ourselves, and that everything in this cell was built according to the informational blueprint found in the DNA molecule.

As an example, just compare the propulsion system of the bacterial flagellum (shown at left), a molecular "machine" found within a cell, to any rotary engine built by man. It contains a motor, a drive shaft, bearings, a universal joint and a propeller. According to scientists, it built itself through natural selection (which apparently now works on molecules, too, and not just living creatures). Yet now that we know how a cell works, even more questions are raised. An incredible amount of information is necessary for a cell to create an amazing mechanism such as this. Where did this incredible amount of information come from? Did it just emerge by sheer dumb chance, without any direction? Yes, more or less... according to the responses of scientists. To imply that there was any sort of direction or intent is to admit to design, a no-no in the biological world.

The Biblical Fall described in Genesis was an act of turning away from God, of thinking that we are equal to God, and therefore capable of discovering all the answers for ourselves. God becomes a cast-off as He's no longer needed. In this Fall, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and from that point forward Man developed a very strong inclination to set himself above everything else. Worldly knowledge replaced Godly Wisdom. Science has become the New Religion. Man is lord and ruler of the planet, and doing a terrible job of it (yet loves to blame religion as a cause of it). In the need to find an “ultimate answer” to why things are the way they are, we look for ways to explain away a God that was presumably invented by Man. This isn't a diatribe against scientific discovery, which I feel is an incredible endeavor as it provides us with glimpses into the mind of God. It's simply to point out that we increasingly use scientific discoveries as an excuse to push God from our lives, rather than welcome Him in as the originator of everything that is.

In the final analysis, we discover that the Fall is an ongoing process, that Adam and Eve are us. We are them. Mankind continues to take bigger and bigger bites of the apple daily, and turns farther from God in the process.

UNDER THE INFLUENCE: The narcotic of war and why so many Christians are addicted to it

2008-04-13T09:44:00.022-05:00

One of the most annoying things about email and the Internet is the apparently endless stream of obnoxious, unsolicited socio-political commentary that finds its way into my mailbox every day. From friends, no less. But from a psychological point of view, however, few things reveal so much about a person’s leanings as the email they forward to me.

One such vein of thought is the Christian stance on the war in Iraq, and why it varies so wildly from Christian to Christian. Almost daily, I receive emails from Christian friends—some born-again, some merely cultural, but all professing to believe—who are adamantly supportive of the war in Iraq, and still see it as the major front in the war on terror. Never mind that violence and retribution are strongly rebuked by the Christ they claim to believe in. This attitude is reflected in the patriotic (but often militant and jingoistic) emails that circulate endlessly, speaking of God and country, sacrifice and honor. War is painted in a dangerously noble and romantic light, and some of these emails compare the deaths of our soldiers to the substitutionary death of Christ. We're always good, and the enemy is always evil, and God is on our side. Problem is, no matter where I look in the email, once God is mentioned, He just seems to disappear from view and the rest of the email worships the idols of nationalism and military might. God, it appears, was simply used as a prop to support their ideology, and His call to follow Him is ignored.

Compounding this problem is that so few of these emails have their facts straight. The basis for my friends' strong beliefs about the Iraq war rely—quite unfortunately—on the marketing and sales pitches that come from the current administration, those sound bytes and blurbs about noble sacrifice for a greater cause, about good (us)-versus-bad (them), and how we must stop the terrorists at any cost.

That would all be fine if it were true. But it’s not. In fact, most of it is a terrible lie. Terrorism is an ideology carried out by small cells of extremists from all over the globe, not the act of a sitting government using its standing army. The war on terrorism is best fought through covert international police actions. Iraq wasn't behind 9/11... that's a fact. All the terrorist attacks in the past twenty years have been carried out by non-Iraqis. In fact, not a single terrorist from the 9/11 attack was Iraqi. Fifteen of them, however, were from Saudi Arabia, a country we call our friend. Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia? The remainder were from other countries with which we have strong diplomatic ties: United Arab Emirates (2), Lebanon (1) and Egypt (1). Again, why didn't we invade those countries? We weren't attacked by the state-supported army of any country. Why did we use ours to invade a country that wasn't even involved?

The press also fell victim to this deceit by accepting the military's offer to travel "embedded" with combat units in Iraq. Once the media said "Yes," truthful reporting of the facts became a casualty of war. If a reporter covered anything that cast a negative light on the invasion, they were pulled from their embedded position. As a reporter, you either toed the party line, or you lost your ticket to the big dance. In the competitive world of broadcast journalism, you dare not lose your ticket to the big dance, or it could mean the end of your job.

Attacking Iraq to stop terrorism was an absurd proposition from the start. Justifying the invasion of Iraq as a means to confront terrorism was akin to burning down a barn to kill a few mice—there was nothing logical about it. The excuse for invading was built on lies, all well documented by now, but we charged in anyway. After no weapons of mass destruction were found, the administration changed it’s tune: Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed to go. The focus changed to “regime change,” a political marketing term if there ever was one.

If that was the case, then why did we prop him up during the 1980s, giving him money and weapons? He was a brutal dictator then as well. The US (and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then a special envoy under the elder Bush, seen shaking hands here with Saddam in 1984) knew then that he was killing his own people, and yet we turned a blind eye. But our hypocrisy didn’t stop there. Just listen to our current vice president, Dick Cheney, speak about Iraq in 1994 and what a disaster it would be to invade...prophetic words, proudly ignored just nine years later. It’s true: in time of war, the first casualty is the truth. Hubris is king, and a selectively blind one at that.

The sad fact is this: Iraq was invaded for purely political and financial reasons, to advance the causes of the neo-conservative movement. As Alan Greenspan, the highly-respected former Chairman of the Federal Reserve noted in his autobiography: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

In the final analysis, the citizenry was sold an idea that was false, and most bought into it, including many Christians. Our dedicated soldiers, trusting the motives of politicians, are being misused, their lives put needlessly at risk. Over 4,000 have becomes victims of the violence. Over one hundred thousand Iraqi citizens have died violent deaths because of the madness set off by our invasion. We have essentially helped focus the hatred of the Arab Muslim world against us, and it’s only a matter of time before the extremists among them attempt something big again. Trillions of dollars have been spent fighting a conventional war against an ideology, and now, when directly pressed for an answer about what constitutes “success” in Iraq, our generals have no answer.

In the end, all Christians who support the war must ask themselves these simple questions: Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus invade? Who would Jesus torture? Even more pressing, what dictator would Jesus have propped up, fully aware that he was killing his own people? And which government would Jesus have supported, knowing that it was selling a false idea to the masses to advance the political ideology of the few?

God came to earth incarnate in Christ. In the person of Jesus, God said, “Here’s how the world would operate if everyone was to do it My way. Listen carefully to me. Then watch me and remember. Then go transform the world in My name by acting like Me.”

If we claim to be Christians, then we claim to be followers of Christ. But as the apostle John tells us, if we say we’re followers of Christ, but don’t walk as He walked, then we’re liars and the truth is not in us. That’s the harsh litmus test of a true Christian, and the test we most often fail.

AMAZING CONVERSION: Anne Rice's return to her faith, ten years past

2008-03-24T08:49:00.008-05:00

A number of years ago I was startled to read that best-selling author Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles, The Lives of the Mayfair Witches) had returned to Christianity—having apparently abandon it much earlier—and refocused her enormous creative energies on writing for the Lord. My first thought after reading it was, "Wow. I wonder what her fan base is going to do?" Here was a woman who'd inspired a very devoted multitude of occult and supernatural-obsessed fans, and now turned her back on the very subject that had made her famous...and quite wealthy.

But when I thought more about it, I realized she hadn't abandoned the supernatural at all...she'd simply discovered that there was only one supernatural force worth giving her all for, and that force was God.

I don't know what has happened to her fan base as a whole since 1998. Has she made believers out of some? Have many abandon her? Has she inspired an entirely new group of fans? I'm curious enough to start doing to research to find out.

In the meantime, it's worth reading this Easter editorial she wrote for The Washington Post. It's inspiring and beautiful and shows the full extent of her commitment. For a woman who made her name and built her career exploring the darker side of the supernatural world, it's hugely inspiring to read how thoroughly she's turned from it to now embrace the light of Christ.

THE POWER OF REFLECTION: Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves

2008-03-22T20:51:00.008-05:00

I went through a crisis of faith recently, and now that it’s over, I can look back at it and see God’s firm but gentle hands at work in my life. Once again, I prayed for guidance and God replied with something I didn’t necessarily want to consider, but that I knew was the truth. Once again, as I prayed for help, God forced me to look at myself and reconsider what I was asking for. Once again, I felt shamed and petty for my actions, yet God has allowed me to learn and grow from the experience.

God’s way is always perfect, and that’s why I’ll always listen, even if I’m slow about it and even if I struggle against it in the beginning. I know He’s right, and the only thing that’s keeping me from doing the right thing are the vestiges of my worldliness. I don’t think I’ll ever be completely free of them, and maybe that’s a blessing as well. Stumbling blocks make great teachers if we’re paying attention.

The issue was one dealing with service, and how best to serve God. In an effort to become more involved in my church, I joined the vestry in my first year, and more recently asked to become a lay eucharistic minister. Over the past year, while attending vestry meetings, I felt out of place and out of my league. Other vestry members seemed like solid decision makers and good administrators, while I felt like a spectator. I’m also embarrassed to admit that I had a hard time staying focused. The work is important, but my mind just doesn’t follow fixed agendas very well, and so I struggled in the role of an administrator.

As for being a lay eucharistic minister, I also felt that I was moving in the wrong direction. I wanted to serve, but I felt pulled very strongly in another direction, and simply couldn’t get myself excited about being a lay minister. Over the past year I’ve literally had a hard time sleeping because of another issue pressing on my mind and heart. The issue that kept me awake was oppressive poverty and starvation around the world. I often wonder how anyone else can find peace knowing that just over 28,000 people are dying every 24 hours from starvation...a rate of roughly one every three seconds. It’s a horrifying thought, and not an easy one to grasp. And I must be careful here...before I judge any else’s lack of compassion, I first need to remind myself that I spent most of my adult life blissfully unaware of the problem.

But after becoming aware of it, a fire has burned inside me ever since. I cannot get through a single day without thinking about it. The sheer scope of the problem is almost overwhelming, especially when we begin to look for ways to combat it as individuals. I very much wanted my church to get involved, to meet the goals set for it by the Episcopal Church, which set specific goals for itself and its members. I was frustrated that there seemed to be little effort to act on this commitment to combating oppressive hunger and poverty, to doing what God so strongly calls us to do on His behalf.

What I failed to notice was that the movers and shakers within the church already had their hands full as leaders and administrators, and were looking for people to step forward in other areas. I, on the other hand, was wondering why they didn’t seem too concerned about the issue. Rather than sit down and voice my concerns, I allowed myself to grow frustrated and eventually stopped attending in January of this year. I started thinking about joining a new church that already had these programs in place, but something continued to weigh heavily on my heart. I began to realize that the problem wasn’t the church or anyone in it. The problem was with me, and the problem needed to be fixed. What I thought was righteousness was exposed as self-righteousness, and I needed to come to terms with my failing. Changing churches would only move the problem to another location, not solve it.

In my entire churchgoing life—and I didn’t even attend church at all for almost 35 years—I distinctly recall the messages of only a few sermons, but those messages have stuck with me for some reason and I've never forgotten them. One of those special sermons was delivered at the First United Methodist Church in 1974 in Lubbock, Texas, where I was attending college. It was a simple message about getting to work wherever you are, and not waiting for the perfect situation, or for the right job, or for the right people to be around you. Just get to work doing God’s work wherever you are. To do any less is to duck responsibility by blaming external problems. The title of the sermon was “Bloom Where You’re Planted.” It struck a chord with me and stuck with me for all these years, and I finally learned why just recently, when the message itself took finally bloom within me.

In my immaturity as a Christian, I looked outward for the answers and didn’t find them. I felt that moving on was something I had to do to grow in my faith. I was very, very wrong. If we really pay attention to our hearts and conscience, we discover that God won’t allow us the guilty pleasure of pointing the finger elsewhere or running from our problems. He always asks us to look at our problems, and first consider our role in creating them. Because we don’t like to see ourselves in a negative light, we often continue to turn away, hoping to postpone the inevitable. But if you truly love God, you’ll keep listening and follow His lead. One thing that surprised me when I finally started wrestling with this problem is that when I prayed for guidance and leadership, God kept holding up a mirror and saying, “Take a good hard look. Recognize him? He’s the guy who's going do it. Now please stop whining, trust Me, and get back to work.”

Ouch! But thank you, Lord. You’ve shown me that although I was the problem, I can also become the solution to it, and that’s the beauty of Your amazing grace.

SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM: Why the faithless continue to test God, and why it fails

2008-03-16T10:25:00.028-05:00

My father—shown in this recent photograph in his beloved 4-wheeler—is a real character and a great storyteller. Throughout our young lives, my brother and sisters and I always enjoyed hearing his stories about growing up. He only seemed to remember the funniest and the most entertaining, rarely the bad things and the hard times, even though I know he had many. He was born roughly in the middle of a family of 13 children, and the son of a coal miner who somehow managed to raise his brood on a few dollars a day in the midst of the Great Depression.

One of his favorite stories about his father, my “Grandpa Buff,” was the one he told about a cousin of his who suddenly decided he didn’t want to work anymore, and would put God's promises to the test. He quit his job and started showing up at the homes of relatives right about mealtime. Very early in his new endeavor, this cousin arrived at Dad’s house for supper. He knocked on the door right around dinner time, was welcomed in, and when it was time for the family to sit down for supper, he headed for the table as well.

Now it’s important to understand that my grandfather (shown in the photo with my grandmother) was a fairly devout man, and married to an extremely devout wife. Both fully appreciated and understood the message of the Gospels. But my grandfather was also a very hardworking man who had little time for foolishness, and wasted no time in pointing it out whenever he encountered it. They also knew what this cousin had been up to...using his laziness as an excuse to bend Scripture and essentially blackmail his devout Christian relatives into feeding him. His shenanigans were about to come to an end.

As his cousin was helping himself to a seat at the table, my grandfather asked him what he was doing.

The cousin replied, “The Lord said He would provide for my needs, and He sent me here. You believe the words of the Lord, don’t you?”

“I sure do,” said my grandfather. “But you might want to pray a bit harder for better directions. I believe the Lord just sent you to the wrong house.” And he showed his cousin to the door. The other relatives caught wind of my grandfather's actions and soon followed suit.

On a pure laugh-out-loud level, this wasn’t the funniest story my father ever told us, but it did strike a chord with us and left us with a lesson to ponder. We understood that while God is faithful in His promises, we must never foolishly test Him. God does promise to take care of a believer’s daily needs, but it comes with the caveat “Seek first His Kingdom and righteousness,” and only then would those daily needs “...be added to you.”

I had other intentions for this post when I first decided to write it, but as I thought about it, I realized that it was simply a follow-up to the post below, the one dealing with cheap grace. The example of my grandfather’s cousin makes the point very clear, and is yet another example of cheap grace, and a most dangerous one at that. We often claim to believe in God, but without faith...just a simple claim of belief...and then expect God to “prove” Himself to us. Nowhere is this more evident than in some of the skewed ministries we see on television, shows that tell us that God is bound by spiritual laws to deliver on these promises, no matter who the person is, believer or not.

This isn’t an exaggeration, by the way. There are many very prominent and financially-successful TV ministries that operate on this very principle, and they state it regularly in their programs—TV minister Kenneth Copeland being a prime example. The core message of Copeland's show says that we can essentially control God’s power by calling upon these spiritual laws—laws that are higher than God, and therefore He’s bound to honor them, regardless of who’s making the request. This is outrageous, of course, and is nothing short of blasphemous and heretical. And it fails because God will not be mocked or tested.

In the final analysis, there’s only one way to ensure that we don’t fall victim to flawed interpretations and false teachers. Only by studying and knowing the Scriptures, and studying with good, sound teachers, can we come to fully understand and grasp the true will of God. Once we begin moving in the right direction, under the guidance of the Spirit, we free ourselves from the destructive and selfish motives of the flesh, those warped and dangerous ideas that drive us to foolishly test God.

CHEAP GRACE: Disengaging from the Church of Personal Peace and Prosperity

2008-03-09T16:07:00.019-05:00

A sad fact about modern day Christian faith is the general lack of interest in those disciples throughout modern history who gave so much of themselves and yet remain so little known. A perfect example is the Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who defied the Nazi regime during World War II and paid for it with his life. Yet even on the day of his hanging, he was comforting other prisoners with little or no faith, providing faithful witness to the very end. He had opportunities to escape from Germany, and was often urged by friends and family to do so, yet he remained, fully aware of the possible fate that awaited him. There was nothing weak or uncertain about his faith or how he practiced it.

On a very personal level, Bonhoeffer is a hero of mine, and I’m a person with very, very few heroes. Bonhoeffer understood and took to heart the words of the Apostle James (1:22–25, 2:14–26) who spoke of faith without works being dead faith, a useless faith. Without action, without striving to be followers of Christ, without attempting to walk as He did, we show no faith at all. Our faith cannot be made complete without works. We can speak of Godly things and claim that our faith is strong, but if we do not follow Christ and engage in the work God so clearly calls us to do, our words are hollow and empty. We’ve accepted the gift of salvation and eternal life, yet rejected the call to put our trust in Him by doing the work He calls us to do.

I should note here that this lack of action doesn’t negate our gift of salvation, but it certainly cheapens it. This problem is never more evident than in American Christianity today, where so much of what passes for Christianity appears, at least on the surface, to be inward-looking and self-seeking. I have made it a point in my life to read and reread the Gospels and the Epistles several times a year, and I learn more and more with each reading. What concerns me is that so many Christians I know are becoming increasingly enamored with the new prosperity gospel, a gospel that is so at odds with the Gospel I’ve come to know.

Turn on any Christian TV channel these days and you’ll find a good deal of their programming devoted to preachers who tell us about giving as a means to get back, telling us to invest money in God and He’ll return it to us a hundredfold, telling us that we need to sow more money into their ministries so that God can bless us in return with material rewards. And if it doesn’t happen that way? Well, your faith just isn’t strong enough...so keep praying, and keep sending that money.

And that’s the biggest catch of all. Not a single one of these shows ever suggest that you just sow that money anywhere, to any worthy cause. No, it must come to them, so that they can bless it, pray over it, and ensure a good return on your godly cash investment. Furthermore, if what these people say is true, how can they account for devout Christians throughout the world who suffer oppression, hunger, poverty, rape and genocide? Do they suffer these things because of weak faith? Or because they don't have enough money to sow into false ministries? Apparently, people who take this self-centered approach don't consider anything outside of their own field of view.

This particularly warped view of Christian faith (among many) is what Bonhoeffer calls “cheap grace,” or grace without discipleship. The whole point of this warped faith is simply to confess your belief in Jesus and give as much money as you can to these online ministries, and in return God will provide you with perfect health and perfect wealth. This isn’t remotely true, of course, and isn’t to be found anywhere in Scripture without taking it wildly out of context. In fact, when we read the Gospels and the Epistles as a cohesive body of work, we're repeatedly told that we may have to endure great hardships and undergo tremendous suffering, no matter how devout our faith. Furthermore, Christ calls us to serve others first, not to seek for ourselves, and we'll find our just rewards in Heaven.

As Bonhoeffer writes in his classic The Cost of Discipleship, cheap grace “is the deadly enemy of the Church. The essence of this grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow upon ourselves; cheap grace is grace without discipleship.”

It is costly grace we must seek, Bonhoeffer tells us. “Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. Costly grace is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him. It is costly grace because it costs a man his worldly life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. And above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son, because "we were bought at a price," and what has cost God cannot be cheap for us. This grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ; yet it is still grace because Jesus tells us "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

I recently picked up Jim Wallis’s new book The Great Awakening, and read a short dust-jacket review on the back by Bono, lead singer of U2. He coined a phrase that struck a chord with me, and perfectly described a trend I see growing ever more prevalent in our American Christian society...the tendency to confess our belief in God as a means to attain personal peace and prosperity while largely turning our backs on the needs of the poor and oppressed of the world, those who Jesus calls "the least of these." That won't cut it, says Bono. His exact quote reads as follows: "I had always been a skeptic of the church of personal peace and prosperity...of righteous people standing in a holy huddle while the world rages outside the stained glass. But I’ve learned that there are many people of the cloth who are also in the world—from debt cancellation to the fight against AIDS, to human rights, they are on the march."

These people Bono speaks of (Wallis and others) take the key phrase of the Lord’s Prayer very seriously. Our salvation, our admittance to the Kingdom of God, is only part of God’s will, a will that must be done on earth as well as in Heaven. How easy it is to overlook that part. As members of the Kingdom, we’re God’s hands here on earth. We are here on this planet as flesh-and-blood human beings to do His will.

And there it is. It’s really that simple. We were bought at a price, and although the gift of salvation is free, God calls us to follow Him through the example of Christ, calls us to walk into the world and transform it, and not walk away from it and just hang around for our salvation when it's over. In Isaiah 58, God tells us to do away with the yoke of oppression, and to spend ourselves on behalf of the hungry, the naked and the poor, and He will raise us up and cover our backs. Christ repeats these commands again in the New Testament, in Matthew 25 (as noted above).

In thanking God for our salvation, we should also ask Him to best show us how to serve. I’ve heard so many Christian friends lament to me that they don’t know what God wants them to do, and they look surprised (and possibly annoyed) when I tell them that I know exactly what He wants them to do. God has a personal plan for all of us, but He also has a "group plan," and it’s spelled out very clearly. We’re called to discipleship, called to serve, and how we answer the call to do God’s will on earth as in Heaven, will determine how well we realize our faith through Godly works. We can start by stepping away from our "holy huddles" and refusing to settle for cheap grace.

EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope

2008-02-18T08:22:00.004-05:00

Do you remember how you felt the first time you read a book that coherently captured and explained some deeply-felt desire of yours? And if you're religious, or spiritual, or whatever you want to call yourself, also spoke directly to an unfulfilled need within your soul? Brian McLaren's latest book does exactly that for me. It stirred me and moved me. I found myself saying "Yes!" repeatedly, especially as I progressed through the book and he began to bring his arguments to fruition.

McLaren's book takes precise aim at our flawed social and economic systems and blows them apart using the words of Jesus, words that are as revolutionary today as they were two thousand years ago. It's a staggering irony that so many people who call themselves Christians in today's world (particularly American Christians) are completely comfortable with our free-market system and how it affects the rest of the world, oblivious to the inequity and oppression it causes in other parts of the world. McLaren asks us to consider what’s free about it. Is it free from any constraints? Free from accountability and responsibility? Free from restrictions that would make it more equitable for all involved? If so, what then is the cost of this freedom?

To change the way we think we must first change the way we view the world. Our "framing stories," as McLaren calls them, must all change. The stories we tell ourselves, or allow others to tell us, shape the way we deal with the world. Until people of conscience act to revise and rewrite these framing stories, and get people thinking in a new light, nothing will change. Christ's "framing stories," His parables and teachings that we find in the Gospels, are at complete odds with the status quo of the worldly hierarchy of His time...mainly the pagan Romans and the spiritually-compromised Pharisees.

McLaren points out correctly that Christ's message of rejecting the status quo—in His time, the world of the Roman Empire—and living life in a new way that treated all with respect was in essence turning the world upside down. Those who wish to exalt themselves would be humbled, and those who humbled themselves would be exalted. Those who wish to be the greatest must first be the servants of others. This radical worldview, so at odds with the worldview of the Roman Empire, is also at complete odds with the worldview of so many modern-day Christians, those who are willing participants and supporters of systems that corrupt and oppress those at the serving end. It also takes to task those people of faith who support wars that trade violence for more violence, combating aggressive terror with retaliatory terror, all the while helping large corporations grow rich through the manufacture and sales of arms and weaponry. It's no small irony that the largest seller and exporter of arms and weapons is the United States, and that those sold weapons often end up being used against us at some point. God will not be mocked: we reap what we sow.

Without giving away the point of the book (I think everyone should buy it and read it themselves), I will say that McLaren presents the radical message of Jesus in such a way that will either leave you squirming in your seat as you realize your own complicity in the machinery of injustice, or find you looking for a way to get involved at a personal level. It's a very powerful and well-considered book with a radical message that we hear over and over yet rarely heed: You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem. This wonderful book will help you find which side you're on, and then regardless of which side, will provide you with the next step in the right direction.

ARTICLE OF FAITH: A Universe by chance, or design?

2008-02-06T11:08:00.000-05:00

Just about anywhere you look these days in Science vs. Creationist debates, you’ll find someone stating "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process" and that's a true statement if you're referring to Darwin’s Special Theory, also known as Natural Selection. No one questions natural selection as it is observable and testable. The problem arises from insisting that natural selection within a species can account for speciation, and even ardent evolutionists from Gould to Margulis admit the big problems there. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory was an attempt to account for the startling gaps in the fossil record, but unfortunately there's increasingly little science to support his theories.

That common descent has taken place is obvious. What drives large-scale leaps between species (and creates the gaps in the fossil record) is not. The few apparent transitional cases, such as Eohippus to Equus, appear as anomalies and not the norm. Farther confounding the issue is that the "transitional" horse species overlap at various levels.

As a whole, however, beneficial mutations happen far too slowly to account for the magnificent range of diversity and specialization we see in the world...and again, a number of prominent evolutionists are sounding the horn on that issue as well and have clearly stated the problems, some even calling for a post-Darwinian theory (Margulis).

On the surface, anyone can say that evolution is tried and tested when they're referring to the Special Theory...because it most certainly is a tried and tested process that takes place within a species. We can replicate it ourselves to some extent with the creation of different breeds of domesticated animals. But does it account for speciation and large-scale leaps? The jury is still out, as any intellectually honest person would admit.

In the end, I have to look at the Big Bang as the beginning of the issue. What was the cause of everything? Science can't answer that question because as we back up in time, science hits "Planck time" and breaks down right before we hit the singularity of the Big Bang. Science cannot give the cause of the Universe...that's an incontrovertible fact we must live with. To insist that the Universe had a purely natural beginning is purely a faith position, something some cosmologists have finally come to accept. I will openly acknowledge that my belief in a created Universe is a faith position. Will a “naturalist” admit the same? I doubt it.

We can continue to argue about whether or not evolution is a purely natural process, or one with intent and purpose behind it, but we won't get far because of the issue addressed above. To some degree, Darwin's personal philosophy was far more advanced than some of his modern colleagues today. He did understand a very important fact that seems lost on them. Even though Darwin wasn't familiar with the Big Bang theory, he did understand that the physical laws of science governed everything, and that nothing took place that didn't fall in line with those laws. Therefore, mutations of any sort, particularly large-scale ones that became new species, had to obey the laws of science. When they exceed those laws, or exceed a fractal expression of them, we must consider that something else is driving the process.

Scientists are reluctant to call in God, but Darwin himself wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. To Darwin, something else was at work. Darwin revealed this in his second most popular work, one which few people read or quote (The Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication). He sensed correctly that beneficial large-scale mutations simply couldn't happen rapidly enough to account for the diversity of species we see in the world, given any amount of time. Because of this fact, Darwin, like his contemporary Asa Gray, believed that his own theory could not be an ultimate theory, a point he states quite clearly in the book.

That common descent from single cell to complex life took place is obvious. That variation within a species takes place is obvious. What drove (and still drives) speciation is far from obvious, and in fact presents several huge problems that scientists still struggle with. To claim that the issue is solved is false triumphalism built on consensus. The fact remains that unless you can determine the cause of the Universe, you cannot determine whether or not the pattern of common descent is "natural" or intended, whether it's chance or design. Any conclusions based upon an unknowable premise cannot be considered true...only hypothetical.

Scientists, because they must use the laws of science to validate an idea, cannot give a scientific cause for the Universe and the driving force behind the subsequent spread of life on this planet. As a Christian, however, I do have an explanation...one that is made even more valid by the fact that it was written down 3,500 years ago and has only just been shown to be completely consistent with the known scientific record. Genesis and several other passages of the Bible state the progression of events in the same order as the discoveries of Science in the past 150 years. A universe that sprang from nothing, followed by invisible sub-atomic particles slowly forming into visible matter, and eventually living, thinking, breathing life. Genesis described it accurately (but as a deliberate act of God) , and science has confirmed it in the same order. Based upon the fact that the “natural origins” crowd must accept the cause of the Universe as a faith position, I find it infinitely more satisfying to choose God as the cause because it’s also much easier to accept on faith (with a dash of reason tossed in for flavor).

IDLE WORSHIP: Confusing the idol of nationalism with true faith in God

2008-02-04T11:46:00.000-05:00

Like many American Christians, I grow more worried by the day at the displays of national pride that are tinged with images of God, as though belief in God is the equivalent of righteous military might. If there are two things that don't go well together, it's jingoistic patriotism and true faith in Christ. No matter how I view it, I can't see past the clear contradiction between Christ's calling and the demands of fervent patriotism. When I read articles such as this one, I can't help but feel that something’s gone terribly wrong. For a country that considers itself largely Christian, there’s little Christian about these public displays of faith, or what passes for it.

To call oneself a Christian is to be a follower of Christ, the Word of God made incarnate as Man, but so many of the public displays of faith I see have little to do with true discipleship, which requires surrender and forgiveness. Since 9/11, a large number of Christians have bought into the notion that actions against our country require swift, vengeful retribution, which couldn’t more of a polar opposite to the message of Christ. Imagine for a moment if a nation that’s largely Christian responded to 9/11 by forgiving our enemies for the attack, and then reaching our for reconciliation by attempting to find out what their problem with us entailed, and then collectively searching our souls for a solution. The thought alone is so radical that it probably never crossed anyone’s mind, yet that’s exactly what Christ would have called us to do. Yet try telling that to anyone and you get met with a blank stare, as if you were crazy.

I recently took an Internet tour of a number of websites with pro-Christian music videos, and left feeling very unsettled. Over and over again I saw the same thing...images of American might, largely military, being associated with God’s blessing America. And that’s the problem in a nutshell. Do people really believe that an all-loving God, watching over a world filled with His creations, favors soldiers from one country and not those from another? Stop for a moment and look at the big picture from God’s perspective. Wouldn’t you imagine that He’s terribly saddened by the manner in which we all treat each other, and how we all attempt to justify our actions by claiming that God’s on our side, or that Americans are somehow more righteous and deserving than people of other countries? Or that the deaths of 3,000 American civilians on 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but the deaths of nearly 4,000 Afghan civilians caused by our bombs was somehow acceptable and okay?

Back in the mid-1960s, Senator William Fulbright once commented that great nations often confuse great might with God’s favor, and once a country starts to feel that way, anything goes. America is in this position right now, and it’s a dangerous position to be in. The problem with this train of thought is that once we start thinking God is behind us, we will take any sort of action without bothering to examine our motives too closely. I hear so many Americans speak of how our soldiers are defending our freedoms by fighting abroad right now, but I would ask them this question: What freedoms specifically are they defending? Our “right” to a steady supply of foreign oil? Our right to keep our consumer economy rolling by exploiting the resources of other countries? No matter how you cut it, I don’t see how they’re defending my personal liberties.

Please understand that I’m in no way attacking the character of our young people who make up most of our fighting forces. They, for the most part, are dedicated and loyal people who believe they’re doing the right thing. My problem is with the powers-that-be who are misusing them terribly. As a conservative relative of mine recently commented, “Our all-volunteer army has become little more than a mercenary force for big business.” Sadly, I believe it’s true. Even worse, many conservative Christians continue to promote our wars as “us against them, good against evil,” and the madness continues.

In the end, we’re left with a choice many Christians don’t want to make. Either re-examine our faith and get it in line with the commands of Christ, or sink deeper into a corrupted, cultural faith that claims God as its leader, but instead worships the idols of nationalism and patriotism.

ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS: Searching for loopholes to ignore God's will

2007-10-27T18:26:00.001-05:00

The first time I saw this photo I was devastated to the point of tears. I was shocked by its simplicity. It was not an artful piece of photojournalism by any stretch of the imagination. It was stark and shocking and its message hit me with tremendous force. I was browsing through an article about the photographer, Kevin Carter, and discovered that he’d committed suicide in despair after winning the Pulitzer Prize for photojournalism. It’s easy to understand his despair, even if I don’t fully understand his response. His award was for his work in Africa, work that drained him emotionally as he struggled to answer the question of why such atrocities as starvation and genocide are allowed to exist. It’s a fair question, and the answer has always been with us...but usually ignored because few want to own up to the responsibility that comes with it.

Why would a loving God allow such a thing to happen? Only in our Christian faith can we find a satisfactory answer, an answer that has been provided to us in the second chapter of Genesis. And it’s in the answer that we learn that we’ve been asking the wrong question all along.

The right question, the proper question, should be, “Why do we allow it to happen?”

How quickly we forget that God has made us stewards of the Creation. We are our brothers’ keepers in every sense of the term. It’s a job that’s been entrusted to us since the moment God first breathed His spirit into Mankind. Yet it appears that so few of us are truly up to the task. When I think of all the wasted time and energy that some Christians put into attacking others, for wagging their fingers and pointing out how everyone else seems to be getting it wrong, I can’t help but think how much better our world would be if those same Christians put their time, money and energies into making the world a better place for the less fortunate, for “the least of these,” as Christ calls them. I can sympathize with the secular world for feeling hopelessly ineffective, but I cannot understand why so many Christians seem to think that death by starvation and disease is someone else’s problem. I find it terribly sad that even some of my own Christian friends feel this way. They simply shrug it off and say, in some form or another, “That’s the way it goes sometimes.” They’re saddened by it, but feel any singular effort on their part would go unnoticed anyway. I know this because I’m often one of those people, and it pains me to admit it. I do donate my time and money when I can, but I mostly feel ineffective, as though I am working alone and trying to fill up the ocean one drop of water at a time.

Yet the solution is simple, and these are the facts...

There is no excuse for any child dying in the manner of the child shown in this photo. Period. In this world today we absolutely have the resources, the money and the means to ensure that every single person on this planet is properly fed, clothed and sheltered. Every single one, without exception. The problem is that those of us in a position to help—the wealthy countries, and all the individuals who live in them, such as you and I—lack the collective will to fix the problem. We’re often too wrapped up in our own lives to look this sort of death and evil in the eye and commit to fighting it in a collective effort. We’re content to let it have it’s way elsewhere in the world, just as long as it stays out of our backyard, just as long as it stays out of sight in some country that’s too far away to worry about.

As Christians, what price will we pay for turning our backs? We'll be judged for ignoring these types of problems, you know. Christ tells us this in no uncertain terms in Matthew 25:37-40: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me… Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

When will people stop blaming God for allowing so many atrocities and start accepting the responsibility not only for fixing them, but for allowing them to develop in the first place? Surely we cannot fix all the world’s problems, but we cannot throw up our hands in despair, either. We often pray for God to help these people, and we forget that as God’s ambassadors on Earth, we are His hands...we are the answer to our own prayers!

When do we start asking the rights questions? When do we start accepting responsibility and start taking action?

We’ll have to answer these questions someday. What will your answer be?

I'll close with these verses from Isaiah 58:6–11. Please keep them in mind as you decide your course of action.

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: “Here am I.
If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
And if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.”
The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.

Africa is a continent on fire, and we are the waters that must put out the flames.

ANN COULTER'S GOD: The Hypocrisy of Militant Christianity

2007-10-27T05:08:00.000-05:00

This past spring I watched with troubled fascination an appearance by Ann Coulter on The 700 Club. Her segment was hosted by Pat Robertson’s son, Gordon, who basically gave her a soapbox to espouse her views without being challenged in any way. Based upon some of her very un-Christian utterances over the years, I was hoping that Robertson would bring up a few of her comments and ask her how she could reconcile her Christian faith with some of the nastier comments she’d made. Unfortunately, this moment never materialized.

Ms. Coulter, as many know, is famous for such controversial comments as:

"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet—it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars—that's the Biblical view."

This next comment, made on September 12, 2001 and referring to the terrorists' act of the previous day, sounds like something an Islamic extremist would say, simply by changing 'Christianity' to 'Islam':

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."

And here’s an odd thing for her to say, since she doesn’t seem to operate by this "incidental tenet":

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity—as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'."

And of course, as an Episcopalian, my personal favorite:

“The Episcopals don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages—it's much like The New York Times editorial board. They acknowledge the Ten Commandments—or "Moses' talking points"—but hasten to add that they're not exactly "carved in stone."

I can only suppose that Robertson’s reluctance to question her inflammatory comments stems from the fact that his own father once made a similar comment about Episcopalians, stating: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." (Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991).

So why is Ann Coulter, who claims to be a Christian, so militant in her beliefs? And yes, militant is the right word here. The dictionary defines the adjective militant as "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause." This description clearly fits Ms. Coulter’s modus operandi. Before I go much farther, I should point out that on the whole, Ann Coulter is very bright, well-educated and articulate. When you read what she has to say, quite a bit of it is based upon a sound core idea. It’s just that she feels compelled to surround these good ideas with cheap shots and nastiness that go far beyond the point she’s trying to make. Does she just do it to sell books? I’m sure that’s a huge part of it, but she’s also stated for the record that she firmly believes everything she says, and that’s what should concern people who call themselves Christian yet enjoy the commentary of Ann Coulter.

Let’s look at her comment about being nice to people, which she calls "one of the incidental tenets of Christianity." Incidental? Last time I checked, that was the primary message, and it entails much more than just "being nice." In fact, Christ calls it part of the two most important commandments in Matthew 22:37-40, when He tells the Pharisees: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Nowhere in that statement can I find anything that suggests Christ’s words are to be regarded as an "incidental" tenet of the faith. In fact, what He has done is to take the Old Testament Law of Moses, and refined it into two commandments that, if followed truthfully, can help us to live up to the commandments and laws of the Old Testament, laws that only He is capable of fulfilling. To say that being nice to people is an "incidental tenet” of Christianity is to ignore the importance of Christ’s statement, which makes it crystal clear that all the Old Testament laws are refined and superseded by these two new commandments. And that brings me to her derogatory and untrue comments about Episcopalians.

I happen to be an Episcopalian, and I know firsthand from practicing my faith that it’s very Christ-centered and focuses heavily on the Gospels for a very important reason: the Gospels, which quote Christ extensively, are the Word of God made flesh in the person of Christ. Here we have God walking among us, assuming our nature, and telling us that the Mosaic Laws can only be fulfilled in Him, and that when we measure ourselves by these laws, we’re often prone to judging others for not getting them right. Therefore, we receive salvation through grace alone, and not through works or any attempts to strictly follow the O.T. Laws.

Has Ms. Coulter lived up to all 613 of the Old Testament Laws, or “Moses’s talking points,” as she sarcastically calls them? I’m certain she hasn’t. I doubt that she’s even been able to keep many of the Ten Commandments. Has she ever worked on a Sunday? If she has, she’s broken a major commandment. Has she ever borne false witness? Just read her comments above, and decide for yourself. Has she always treated her parents with utmost respect? If she hasn’t, she’s broken another major commandment. Has she ever just had to have something, like a new pair of shoes, a car, a dress...and then went out and bought it even though she didn’t need it? If she has, she’s coveted, and she’s broken another major commandment. Has she ever been involved in a physical relationship outside of marriage? If she has, then she’s broken another major commandment, because any physical relationship outside of the bonds of marriage is considered adultery. Has she ever enjoyed lobster or shrimp? If she has, she’s committed an “abomination” in the eyes of God, and broken another Old Testament law.

I could go on, but you get the point. And that’s the problem with so much of some Christians’ militant mixing of faith and politics. It’s hypocritical to adopt a political stance against anything on the basis of religious laws while ignoring your own infractions of them. In essence, quite a few prominent and public Christians have become somewhat like the Pharisees. Remember them? They received Christ’s scorn for holding themselves up as righteous examples while looking down their noses at those who didn't live up to the Law, those who couldn't seem to "get it right." The fact of the matter is that we all get it wrong (myself included), so much of the time. It doesn’t matter whether you’re liberal or conservative, we’re all sinners and we need to humbly concede this critical point. Because of it, we're denied the right to judge others. Ms. Coulter seems to believe she’s above this distinction, and lives a very public and professional life that strongly conflicts with her personal claim to be a devout follower of Christ.

And as for her comments about Episcopalians, they certainly don’t apply to the large majority of Episcopalians, who are devout and take their faith quite seriously. In fact, I doubt she could site any sources for her comments as I've never heard of any prominent Episcopalian commenting that the Ten Commandments were merely suggestions. It’s uninformed and unfounded comments like these, tinged with a very real nastiness, that have turned off many Christians to her books. I find it sad, however, that many are still so supportive of someone who publicly attacks others, treats them in a very un-Christlike manner while claiming to believe everything she says, and therefore feels not the slightest need to humble herself or ask forgiveness for her many public transgressions against other children of God, be they liberal, conservative...or heaven forbid, of a different faith than her own.

THE NATURE OF WAR: The heart is deceitful above all things

2007-06-06T17:41:00.000-05:00

One of my very favorite Bible verses is found in Jeremiah 17:9, which reads: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" I think the reason I find it so compelling is because it addresses a core issue that always hits a sore spot with most Christians; the fact that we are so certain of the evil intent of others, but rarely question our own actions or the actions of those on our side of an issue. As the old saying goes, "The easiest person to fool is always yourself." The war in Iraq, one of the fronts for the so-called “War on Terror,” illustrates this point perfectly.

I’m often accused by a few friends as being too liberal, and it catches me off guard every time. I certainly don’t consider myself a liberal, yet neither do I consider myself a conservative. My primary interest on every governmental action or policy boils down to what I feel makes the most sense to the greatest number of people, and my secondary interest is to ask whom these policies will hurt. I have never voted a straight party ticket in my life, and doubt I ever will. I simply don’t see any consistent ethics with either political party, and therefore vote for the candidates who most closely adhere to my spiritual, social and political beliefs.

More than anything else, I try hard to follow a consistent set of ethics in my support for any action or policy. In a nutshell, I believe that we must treat others as we wish to be treated, and not repay evil with evil. I believe that even though I may not agree with others, I have to allow them the freedom to make their own choices on personal matters—even if I feel that they’ll make a blunder, and even while knowing that their choices will very often conflict with my own. But I also believe that to participate in a fair and effective democracy, we all must be willing to take off our blinders, step back a few feet, and examine an issue honestly and fairly.

And that brings us to the problem of Iraq. I’m often amazed at the number of Christians who profess an unbending support for the war in Iraq, and see it as a classic case of “us against them, good versus evil,” all the while choosing to ignore the United States’ complicity in unsettling the region, igniting more Arab hatred against us, and radicalizing a vast Muslim population which previously may have been apprehensive about the US, but now hates us without reserve. We must also be willing to admit that not a single terrorist action anywhere in the world before or after 9/11 has originated in Iraq or been carried out by Iraqis. In short, the United States hosted a trillion dollar war and any Muslim extremist with an axe to grind showed up to crash the party. They weren’t there to begin with...we drew them there with our presence, and now we’re mired in a mess of our own making, and many tens of thousands have died because of it. When you adopt a true Christian perspective of the war, when you step back, take off the blinders of “God and Country,” and just look at the conflict in terms of lives lost and damage done, how can any sane person still point to the different sides and claim one is good and one is evil? The line of demarcation is now far too muddy to make that distinction.

Consider this frightening fact: The so-called “War Against Terror”—supposedly launched to prevent a repeat of an event like 9/11, in which 3,000 innocent lives were violently snuffed out—has now violently snuffed out hundreds of thousands of innocent lives abroad, and the United States in directly complicit in this escalation of violence. We haven’t combated terror...we’ve created more, and yet our current administration continues to claim that our motives are pure while acknowledging no culpability for the death and destruction that’s followed in our wake.

The attacks of 9/11, which left 3,000 dead, were justified by Osama bin Laden as acceptable casualties of war, and yet as a nation we were horrified by his callousness and evil intent. Yet when we invaded Afghanistan in an effort to capture bin Laden and overthrow the repressive Taliban, the United States killed over 3,700 innocent Afghani civilians in the first several weeks of bombing alone...and yes, we called them acceptable casualties of war, or “collateral damage,” as the Pentagon so delicately refers to these deaths. Are the violent deaths of 3,000 people on American soil somehow more important in God’s eyes than the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands more in other parts of the world, deaths that came about as a direct result of our "retaliation" for 9/11? How can we possibly justify this body count? Are the attacks of 9/11 an act of pure evil, while the subsequent deaths of thousands more Iraqi and Afghani civilians somehow acceptable and noble because they died at our hands? Where’s the logic here? In our effort to prevent more deaths at the hands of terrorists, we've accepted the deaths of countless thousands as an acceptable price to pay. There's a word for this lack of logic: madness.

This madness is compounded by the problem that we have an administration—and its loyal supporters—who think that any disagreement with its "noble" mission is somehow horribly disloyal, unAmerican and somewhat heretical, and it attacks any dissenters by calling them clueless liberals who don't understand what's going on. I reject that label, and so should anyone who finds themself on the recieving end of it. I love my country and want to see it move in the right direction, and therefore I reserve the right as an American to cry foul when I see just cause to do so. I think former US President Teddy Roosevelt said it best in this famous quote:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

It's at this point that we need to ask ourselves as Christians: Are we to believe that Christ—who doesn’t merely suggest, but commands—that we never repay evil with evil, somehow got it all wrong, that He didn't know what he was talking about? Or that God doesn’t really understand how things work in the “real" world—you know, the one that He created?

The fact of the matter is that we’re blinded by our own deceitful hearts, and in all my years of pondering this subject, I’ve never read a better secular comment on the subject than a short passage contained in David Hume’s A Treatise on Human Nature, written in 1740 (and also posted at the beginning of this piece). This ageless passage, with the changing of a few names, could easily describe our current administration and military leaders, as well as those of any generation or political affiliation.

It serves to remind me yet again that my first and only allegiance is to my Creator. Yes, I love my country and work to abide by its laws, but I can never support a policy or action (or war) that is so much in conflict with the basic tenets of my faith. The war in Iraq is a deadly and misguided venture that has killed thousands of times the number of people killed in 9/11. Americans, as a nation, have supported the repaying of evil with evil, and we must be willing—particularly those who claim to be followers of Christ—to look the beast in the eye and see our complicity in it. To do any less is to deny the very basis of our Christian faith.

GOD BLESS YOU, MR. VONNEGUT: God, Kurt Vonnegut and the hereafter

2007-04-18T14:02:00.000-05:00

I knew he was getting older, and I knew he wasn’t long for this earth. The last time I saw a photo of Kurt Vonnegut—I think it was just last year—I was shocked. He looked old and worn out, like he was ready and willing to go. I saw the face of a tired and resigned old man, and the photo didn’t do him justice. But then it occurred to me that maybe he wanted it to look that way because that’s the way he felt.

I’d been reading KV ever since the early 1970s, when my cousin Cary first handed me a copy of “God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater,” and I quickly became a fan for life. I’ve never been entirely sure what it was about his writing that so captured my attention, but I sensed a kindred spirit with a skewed perception of the crazy world we live in, and knew I’d found a writer that I would follow almost anywhere, even to places where other writers wouldn’t think, much less dare, to go. I felt a sense of whimsy when I read his books, yet there was something about his whimsical prose that allowed you to realize that he viewed life as a deadly serious affair, although one that you couldn’t take too seriously if you were going to survive for long. Did that statement even make sense? It did in Vonnegut’s world. He viewed the business of life as a conundrum we all have to deal with while we’re here, so we might as well make the best of it. But what touches my heart the most, at a point in my life now thirty-some odd years removed from my first introduction to KV, is the fact that this whimsical, self-described religious skeptic had a sweet spot for Christ and what he stood for, describing Him as "...that greatest and most humane of human beings."

The most powerful recurring theme in the bulk of Vonnegut’s writing is his constant asking of the question, “Why can’t we all just treat each other with a little common decency?” He never said it had to be love, and even once wrote that he cringed when someone said they loved him because he felt like they’d put a gun to his head and demanded the same response in return. He simply wished, with all his heart, that we’d treat each other better, even if it was only just a little bit better.

Quite a bit was written about him in the week following his death, but one thing that really caught my attention was this piece of writing that originally appeared online in 2004 under the rather broad title “Addicted to Oil and Violence.” In this sprawling piece, Vonnegut is at his cranky, compassionate best, and not at all like the writer who penned his later novels, where he appeared to be writing entirely for his own entertainment, or perhaps to fulfill a book contract. The broad scope of the piece was, of course, about oil and violence, but in typical KV fashion, he took us on a ride through his own thoughts first, entertaining us, teaching us and getting us greased up for the important stuff to follow. In this lead-up, he spoke of Americans and the state of denial we live in, how we claim to be one thing while living something else entirely. When speaking of Christ, he noted that most Christians seem to pay little attention to the teachings of Christ, teachings that are largely inconsistent with what it means to live the American lifestyle. Once again, while addressing the need for more compassion, for the need to just treat each other with a bit more common decency, he says:

"Doesn’t anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools or health insurance for all? How about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes? "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

And so on. Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney stuff.

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!"

But he doesn’t stop there. Upping the ante, he goes after the current administration and its ill-advised nation-building adventure into Iraq to tie up what oil is left while America continues to cap and save its own reserves so it can be the last country standing with access to oil.

"We’re spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call “Native Americans?” How ungrateful they were! How ungrateful are the people of Baghdad today. So let’s give another big tax cut to the super-rich. That’ll teach bin Laden a lesson he won’t soon forget. Hail to the Chief.

That chief and his cohorts have as little to do with Democracy as the Europeans had to do with Christianity. We the people have absolutely no say in whatever they choose to do next. In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve already cleaned out the treasury, passing it out to pals in the war and national security rackets, leaving your generation and the next one with a perfectly enormous debt that you’ll be asked to repay.

Nobody let out a peep when they did that to you, because they have disconnected every burglar alarm in the Constitution: The House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the free press (which, having been embedded, has forsaken the First Amendment) and We the People.

When you arrived in this world, even when I arrived in this world, the industrialized world was already hopelessly hooked on fossil fuels, and very soon now there won’t be any more of those. Cold turkey. Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn’t like TV news, is it?

Here’s what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on."

Mr. Vonnegut is gone now, and I’ll miss him. He brought a unique voice to my generation and although he couldn’t bring himself to see Christ’s divinity—choosing instead to merely see Him as the most humble and most wise human being who ever lived—I pray that Mr. Vonnegut will meet his maker with humility and grace. And I trust that Mr. Vonnegut’s maker will treat this fine human being lovingly and fairly.

And so it goes...

SHOW ME THE MONEY: Capitalizing on the growth industry of Biblical revisionism

2007-02-25T14:05:00.000-05:00

Director James Cameron, of "Terminator" and "Titanic" fame, has put his name back in the news for the first time in many years. Will his new Discovery Channel video venture — launched along with a book by Simcha Jacobovici — make him as much money and bring as much fame as his last hit, "Titanic," which grossed over a billion dollars worldwide? Well, at the very least he's created a new controversy. His claim? That he has DNA evidence to prove that a bunch of "bone boxes" found in Jerusalem twenty seven years ago came from the tomb of Jesus, his mother Mary, his "wife" Mary Magdelene, and a number of his siblings. Oh, yes...and lets not forget the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdelene's "son" Judah, who was also uncovered in the archeological dig. This, of course, would be the grandson of God if Cameron is correct. Take that, Dan Brown. James Cameron just one-upped you in a big way.

And the best part of this sensational story? It has real sects appeal!

Never mind that Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jewish archeologist who actually oversaw the dig and has done most of the work on the project in the years since, calls Cameron's claim sheer "nonsense." Kloner has stated that the names on the ossuaries only resemble some of the names of people in Jesus' family, and as Jesus was a Galilean, there's virtually no chance whatsoever that he or any members of his family would have been buried in a middle-class family's tomb in Jerusalem.

As for the DNA evidence, what can Cameron possibly be talking about? Unless someone has some of Christ's DNA (they don't) or that of a member of his family (again, none available) how can he make such a claim? At the very least, he might be able to show that some of the people buried in the crypt are related in some way, but that's the best he could hope for under the circumstances. To make any claims beyond that is sheer speculation. For a media outlet like the Discovery Channel to start stooping to such sensationalism creates even more speculation. Have they just given up on the notion of journalistic integrity? Or are they just more interested in ratings at any cost?

In the end, money and controversy seem to be motiviating factors. It appears that Cameron and Jacobovici are simply trying to make a buck and rake some muck by playing Biblical Crypt Keepers to a gullible public that will cough up any amount of money to have their ears tickled by some slick hucksters with a sensationalistic story. Remember, this is the same pair of dudes who brought us "The Exodus Decoded" a few years back, another Discovery Channel film that claimed to explain away every major feature of the Exodus story. In light of this latest release, it appears that their previous effort at Biblical revisionism was designed to soften up their theologically-challenged audience for the big sucker punch to follow.

JESUS LOVES PORN STARS: The controversy continues for the XXX Church

2007-02-21T17:51:00.000-05:00

Just a few weeks ago I watched a short segment on ABC's Nightline in which correspondent Martin Bashir visited a pornography convention in Las Vegas. His intent was to interview Craig Gross and J.R. Mahon, two very controversial young men who founded the XXX Church as a means to combat pornography and offer hope to any lost souls foundering within the industry. I'd read about these two men on several occasions and was shocked to learn that their ministry has been attacked repeatedly in the press, and most often by other Christians who think they've gone too far in trying to take the Gospel to the fringes of society.

Their approach is unorthodox, to be sure, and the bulk of the criticism they receive is aimed at the New Testament they distribute. They print the book's cover in bright yellow and magenta, and the cover illustration is a graphic of what appears to be a 1970s-era portrait of a male porn star, with the title emblazoned beneath: "Jesus Loves Porn Stars," which plays off the notion that Christ hates sin, but loves the sinner. But that's about as extreme as it gets, and their approach to dealing with the pornography industry, as well as trying to get people to stop viewing online porn, is simply to confront them with some practical facts. Pornography, they say, doesn't deal with real relationships. It degrades women and represents all the worst things about male fantasies in that it doesn't require a man to have a real relationship with a real woman. Without a real relationship, they say, you won't learn to respect one another and that will prevent you from creating a true and loving relationship, as God intended.

They don't spend a lot of time preaching to anyone, and their approach is very non-confrontational. They simply hand out their colorful Bibles at their events (which are extremely popular everywhere they go), talk briefly about their mission, and let people know that Christ is ready for a relationship with them whenever they're ready. From what I gathered after watching the Nightline piece, they're two very intelligent and committed young men who love God and want to share the Good News. Their doctrine is surprisingly sound, even more so than some of our so-called "Religious Leaders," men who so frequently can't seem to open their mouths on television without letting slip some terribly judgmental comment about those they don't agree with.

What's particularly interesting is that Craig Gross frequently get booked at colleges and other venues to debate the dangers of pornography with porn star Ron Jeremy, who's filmed over 1,800 porn films in his long career. Gross and Mahon haven't managed to sway Ron from his career choice, but their friendship with him is genuine, and Jeremy appears to truly respect them even though he clearly doesn't agree with their worldview. However, the simple fact that he respects their earnest approach seems to indicate that they've had an effect on him. The most telling moment in the Nightline piece came when Bashir, who had Gross and Jeremy together at the porn convention, asked Gross if he thought Ron Jeremy was going to hell for making those 1,800 porn films. It was just the sort of loaded question that media types usually ask, and yet it's a fair test of a Christian's understanding of Christ's message.

Jeremy laughed, folded his arms, and waited for a response. Gross's answer, however, surprised both Jeremy and Bashir. After a short and thoughtful pause, Gross basically replied, "Well, for starters you can disregard those 1,800 porn films, because they certainly won't keep him out of heaven. In the end, I don't know where Ron will end up because he still has choices to make down the road, choices that could lead him toward God."

It was a simple but impressive response, and a beautiful moment as well. Gross clearly understands the concept of Grace, and he also clearly understands that he has no right to judge Ron Jeremy. Why? Because he has no idea where Ron Jeremy's heart will be at his life's end. Gross understands that we're all on spiritual journeys and our futures are filled with many choices. Based upon his response, it seems pretty clear that Gross is praying for Ron Jeremy's soul and hopes that the porn star eventually makes the right choice. For that he should have the support of fellow Christians, not their scorn.

A WING AND A PRAYER: A review of our Presiding Bishop's new book

2007-02-06T11:44:00.000-05:00

Before you're even halfway through this trim volume (a collection of homilies on a wide variety of subjects) you'll realize that the author has a firm grasp of orthodox theology as well as a broad and compassionate sense of mission for all believers. She tells of positive encounters with people of other faiths, and she comes away from the experiences with a clear sense that anyone seeking God, no matter what their path, is moving in the same direction as she is. What's particularly amazing is that she treats these people as her equals and relates these encounters without resorting to Christian triumphalism. She possesses a very clear vision of Christ's mission and works daily to live it by example.

I was particularly impressed by the way she tries to deal with anyone she doesn't understand, doesn't get along with, or doesn't agree with, no matter whether they're family, or someone of a different faith or belief system that she encounters half a world away. She reminds herself that no matter who they are, they're still a child of God, even if it's not easy for her to see that. She prays, "Oh God, let me see your image in this person, and may they see your image in me as well." It's a simple yet powerful prayer, and one that we should all take to heart.

As an Episcopalian, I'm well aware—from a number of comments made in the press over the years—that some prominent Christians have judged the Episcopal church as being too welcoming, too ecunemical and sometimes too tolerant, but that's an oversimplification of the situation, and something Schori attempts to address through the passages in this book. The Episcopal Church has broad shoulders, and she appears to believe it operates in part on the notion that it would rather be judged for being too compassionate than be judged for being too judgmental and divisive through legalistic interpretations of Scripture, such as using some of the 613 Old Testament laws to condemn others while overlooking our own inablility to follow them all. I was very pleased that at no time in this book did she ever let her message get dragged down in strict legalism, doctrinal disputes or political issues, instead choosing to focus nearly all her energies on teaching us how to become living examples of the greatest commandment, that we strive to love one another.

The new presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church reminds us that God came in the flesh for everyone, and responds to anyone who truly seeks Him. She points out that in the Book of Isaiah, God makes it abundantly clear that when the Kingdom arrives, people will come from all the world and all the nations, and the most important thing we can do on our watch is to be good ambassadors for our faith. In this wonderful little book, she lays out her vision and introduces herself to a world that's certainly in need of more like her. This book will allow you to get to know her on a personal level, and I hope and pray that she has a impactful and fruitful term as our new Presiding Bishop.

CAN A ROCK STAR CHANGE THE WORLD?: He just might, if his name is Bono

2007-01-27T10:53:00.000-05:00

I was surprised last fall to read that when asked which public figure they saw as the best example of Christian witness, an overwhelming majority of Christian college students (both conservative and liberal) put Bono, the lead singer of the rock band U2, at the top of their list. Yet when I gave it some thought, I had to agree. In fact, over the space of the last several years, I’d come to the same conclusion on my own. He seems to be everywhere that it counts, and his approach comes closer to following Christ’s example than many so-called Christian leaders who seem too caught up in politics and inter-denominational bickering to focus on doing God’s work. I’m also not surprised that many find fault with Bono’s approach, deriding it as too ecumenical, too commercial and too secular to be considered a “true” Christian witness. I would have to disagree with this, since Christ has always used some very unlikely types to achieve great things. True, he hardly lives a blemish-free life, and by his own admission lives pretty well above the norm, yet he puts his energy behind his words, and gets a lot done in the process. But if you still have your doubts about Bono's faith, and if you'd like a better idea of where his head is about Christ and grace, read this short piece that appeared in The Nation in 2005. There's nothing watered-down about this man's faith.

I recall reading the transcript from a keynote address he gave at a National Prayer Breakfast last year. In it, he jokingly admitted to having a messianic complex and wanting to save the world. He also acknowledged he had grown up with a real aversion to organized and institutionalized religion, something he witnessed firsthand growing up in Ireland with one Catholic parent and one Protestant parent. He said he felt that religion often gets in the way of doing God’s work, and once again I have to agree with him. He spoke of how he grew up asking for God’s blessing in following his own dreams, and then learned to simply do God’s will because it was already blessed. Just look what’s happened since he figured that out. He’s now one of the most recognized figures in the world, and for many, the face they associate with leadership in the fight against disease, starvation and crushing poverty among the least fortunate of the world.

The most recent of his endeavors, and probably the most loudly criticized by some of his detractors, is his founding of the Product Red project. I’ve heard it criticized as too commercial, too crass and too entwined with the downside problems associated with free markets and globalization. Yet the money from this project, which goes into The Global Fund to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, has totalled many millions of dollars and helped many millions of people around the world. Rather than rail against the system, Bono simply decided to take the system, with all it’s faults, and turn it back on itself. Rather then sit on the sidelines and criticize, he stepped into the fray, took the bull by the horns, and used the considerable power and economic wealth of the free-market system to do a tremendous amount of good for those who can't participate in it. As he noted, people are going to shop anyway, so why not use a system that’s already in place to do some good?

Bono provides us all with a wonderful example of what you can do if you just get busy and do God’s work. It doesn’t have to be pretty and perfect, and you won’t always be able to create a “clean” and untarnished sequence of events to get the work done. But if you get to work with whatever system there is, and do God’s work, He’ll be there to see that it bears spiritual fruits.

REASON IN THE BALANCE: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education

2007-01-25T16:10:00.000-05:00

It's nice to read the work of someone who really thinks through their position before putting it down on paper, as Philip Johnson has done with this fine book, the purpose of which is to show that basing law, education and science purely on naturalism produces very questionable results. Johnson notes that it produces societies of people who lose all notion of acting in the common good and instead turn inward and focus on creating their own personal space and prosperity to the detriment of society as a whole. Naturalism rejects the notion of any concrete moral guideposts, and therefore people who subscribe to it feel no obligation to act on anything except their own subjective and ever-changing beliefs. It's a good and fair point he makes, and even a number of atheists over the centuries have noted that mankind would probably lose all moral sense of direction without some sort of faith in their lives.

This isn't to assume that the faith community is without flaws...it certainly has its share of skeletons in the closet. But overall, naturalism and its focus on subjective laws has brought us such horrors as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung (all fervent believers in "natural" law). These men were responsible for nearly 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone and acted that way because they had no moral absolutes to follow, only their own subjective guidelines. If anyone wants to attack the injection of faith into the public psyche, they do so at the risk of ignoring the overall track record of the naturalistic world-view and its fallout, which overall is quite a bit worse off than any faith-based system in history. In the end, Mr. Johnson simply shows that the naturalistic world-view that's largely accepted by an increasingly secular world provides us with a flawed foundation for building a healthy society. Simply pointing out all the flaws with faith isn't a very convincing argument for naturalism, especially when we look at the shape our society is in today because of the increasingly secular influence of naturalism in all facets of our lives. It's important to note that this book isn't pushing for a theocratic society by any means; it's not a religious tract. It simply lays out the flaws inherent in basing an entire societal system on purely natural law, while leaving room for broad but consistent "universal" values that might benefit the common good.

Of particular interest is the section dealing with the effects of naturalism within the law and how it affects our morality. In one of the most telling and powerful passages in the entire book, Johnson states: "We are arriving at an absurd condition that might be called libertarian socialism. Everyone has a right to live exactly as he or she pleases, but if something goes wrong, some abstraction called "society" is to blame and must pay the bill for the damages. Everyone must be free to make risky choices, and everyone must be protected from unpleasant consequences by social insurance that is ultimately provided by 'the government,' which is to say nobody. In consequence, there is a moral deficit of huge and growing proportions."

And in a nutshell, that's the whole point of the book, although it also deals with naturalism in science and education. In effect, by refusing to consider the idea of God, or the existence of objective moral values, societies will instead follow subjective laws that shift and change with the times. Secular types like to point out that this is necessary to deal with changing values, but I'd submit that it's no different than confusing motion with progress. What seems to be a minor distinction is actually a category mistake of monumental proportions. Moral absolutes keep us grounded and provide the basis for a stable society. Naturalism does not allow for this, and as a result societies steeped in natural law are built on unstable foundations and it's only a matter of time before they collapse. Based upon Mr. Johnson's analysis of the situation, this country appears to be headed in that direction.

HUBRIS: A Book Review

2007-01-18T08:34:00.000-05:00

I bought this book for my father, a staunch Republican and Bush man, and was floored to hear his response after reading it. He was in complete agreement with the authors' assessment that the Bush administration and other neo-cons took us to war on some very flimsy premises simply to extend their questionable political vision to an angry and unstable Middle East that is ill-equipped to deal with free-market democracy and Western influence. My father was a lifelong and high-ranking member of military intelligence and has followed Middle Eastern issues through military publications, books and journals since the mid-1960s. He has no illusions about what took place, and this book only confirmed it for him.

Bush and the hawks in his administration used 9/11 and the fear of terrorist attacks as a tool to justify an invasion that they'd had on their agenda since their first days in office. This isn’t conjecture, by the way... it’s a well-known fact by now. The problem arose in trying to tie Iraq and Saddam Hussein to bin Laden and his terrorist organization. The evidence was flimsy, and they knew it. In spite of the glaring lack of evidence, they forged ahead anyway, scrutinizing mounds of raw intelligence in the hope that something would rear its head and provide them with enough “scare” value to garner support for the war. They found three questionable leads, and rode them (as well as a few other notable ones) all the way into battle: the claim that Saddam was trying to import yellow-cake uranium from Niger, the purchase of aluminum tubes that were said to be used in making a nuclear reactor, and the claim that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, had at one point made contact with an Iraqi intelligence official. All three claims turned out to be false leads, and this was known well before going to war. But the Bush administration pushed on anyway because, as noted, they’d already made up their minds. What has happened since is history, and I suspect it won’t be kind to President Bush, particularly when he seems to view the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children as “a comma” in the history of the Middle East.

The war in Iraq is a very "modern" war, at least for America...a war where the military is being used to some degree as a tool of the super-rich and super-powerful (and possibly super-arrogant, although I hate to believe that) to effect economic, political and ideological change in a region of the world where the neo-cons felt it necessary to preserve American access to resources and supply chains beneficial to American interests. It was also done as a means to establish a strong foothold in the heart of the Arab world (one conveniently located next door to Iran). To achieve these ends, they had to sell the American people on an unnecessary war by appealing to our deepest fears, rather than simply being honest with us. In their rush to arms, they overlooked sound but contrary intelligence, built their case on shaky and unsubstantiated intelligence, and saw terrorists behind every palm tree where others saw nothing at all.

What's most interesting about this book is that it's not a partisan hachet-job. A large number of the sources cited within the book were members of the administration, or friendly to it. Their current view of the war is offered in hindsight and reflection; it's honest, but a bit too late to make any difference. The book is aptly titled. If you only read a handful of books on the buildup and fallout of the Iraq war, make sure this is one of them.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE: The true goal of the Founding Fathers

2007-01-17T10:05:00.000-05:00

Over the past several years, I’ve noticed an alarming number of endlessly-circulating emails that I essentially see as a form of “hate mail.“ They’re intolerant, belligerent and highly-judgmental, and to make matters worse, they’re very short on real facts. Those facts that the senders do manage to get right are often taken entirely out of context and twisted around to serve their purposes. But the most alarming thing of all is that they’re circulated by people who consider themselves Christians.

I’m talking about the emails dealing with removal of prayer from school, removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, and a number of other things these senders see as an affront to their faith. These emails tend to blend a rather militant patriotism and nationalism with Christianity, and in the end it’s their Christian faith that ends up being corrupted. While I think we should all defend our faith, we should never compromise the basic tenets of our faith to do so. Christ’s commandments to us to love one another, not to judge, to show mercy, to forgive and to consider the needs of others at all times is clearly lost on the originators of these emails as well as the people who proudly forward them to all their friends. It’s hard to refrain from getting annoyed when I read these emails because they're based upon uninformed worldviews and twisted truths, not fairly-considered or concrete ones. As a Christian, I lament the decline of our faith and its ability to publicly guide the lives of the American people and their leaders. But these emails do nothing to further the message of Christ, and often serve to alienate the very people we, as Christians, should be reaching out to. The best way to defend your faith is with solid witness, by living as Christ told us to, not by proudly throwing a misguided roundhouse punch into cyberspace, as many of these emails do.

I happen to think the 10 Commandments provide us with excellent and objective guidelines for living and I personally honor them as the moral guideposts in my life, but I still don't feel anyone has a right to force Judeo-Christian values on people of other faiths simply because Christianity is the majority religion in this country. That was never the intention of the Founding Fathers in spite of the fact that they were overwhelmingly Christian. We're not a theocracy, never have been one, and I sure don't want to become one because nothing in this world is more volatile and corrupting than mixing politics with religion. Show me one single example of where it has ever worked and not been an oppressive force.

Every past theocracy, even Christian ones, have been horribly oppressive and violent towards those who don't adhere to their views. Remember the Middle Ages and the Inquisitions? Remember the Crusades, when Christians marched toward the Holy Land, murdering Jews and even other Christians along the way, and did so in the name of God? Remember the churches of Europe hanging, burning and beheading "heretics," Christians whose doctrinal views were far less varied than some that exist today within this very country? That's what happens with theocracies. Once a governing body starts believing that God supports their actions, anything goes.

You say that can't happen here? Then just take a look at some statements made by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two men who have made it quite clear that they want to establish a specifically "Christian" government in spite of the fact that the Founding Fathers created a constitution that clearly would not allow it. Normally I'd take their comments with a grain of salt, but then I read Robertson's quote stating "I'm supposed to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." If Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity is the basis for governing this country, then how am I supposed to feel when my church is attacked as being the "spirit of the Antichrist?" Who gets to decide whose "version" of Christianity holds sway over the others? With all due respect, I sure don't want Pat Robertson making that decision. And what about people of other faiths? It appears as though they'd be looking at far worse treatment.

If for some reason the notion of a Christian theocracy is okay with you, think about this reverse scenario: If somehow Islam became the majority religion in the next twenty years, would you want Sharia law forced upon you by our governing bodies? Would you want to see your kids kneeling toward Mecca three times a day in school, even though your kids are Christian (or worse, ostracized and punished for choosing not to)? Would you want to see Christian symbolism banned from the public square in favor of Islamic symbols? Of course not, and you'd have every right to fight it based upon the Constitution's 1st Amendment. It's vitally important to understand that the amendment doesn't say that we can't bring religion into the public square, it simply says that the government is bound not to favor one over another, a caveat that should effectively prevent our government from getting in bed with one particular religion at the expense of others. That's the most critical point, the most misunderstood part of it.

Here's what you need to consider... the very Amendment that protects you from ever being subject to Sharia law also protects other citizens from being subject to any specific Christian interpretations of the law. It's a double-edged sword because it protects everyone, and favors no one, a point that many ultra-right-wing American Christians don't seem to understand (or want to understand). By demanding more government support for their faith at the expense of others, they’re violating one of the founding principles of this great nation... that any person from any land could come here and find opportunity, freedom, and the right to practice their faith of choice without government interference. I would like to add that they should also be able to do so without being denied that right by American Christians, many whose faith has been corrupted by blending it with fervent nationalism, an incompatible mix at best.

That the Founding Fathers were largely Christian is beyond dispute, and while the United States was a nation comprised largely of Christians, the founders did not set out to build a "Christian nation" specifically, and in fact went out of their way to avoid a theocracy by creating a constitution that would allow religious freedom for anyone of any belief, even if they chose to be a heathen. Because of persecution in theocratic England and other parts of Europe, where Christians in power held sway over other Christians and often persecuted them to the point of death, the Founding Fathers wanted to create a government that allowed all to follow their beliefs without any opposition created by government, without a government that favored one faith over another. It was a grand and noble idea, but for it to work, it had to treat all religions with the same respect. It had to be universal.

As Thomas Jefferson (a deist, but definitely not a Christian) noted in his autobiography:

“The bill for establishing religious freedom was finally passed...and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal...and was meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” In other words, a country that accepted anyone of any faith, or no faith at all, a country that would never create laws favoring one faith over another.

As Christians who believed every person had the right to choose their faith, the founders did, in fact, create a "wall of separation" (Jefferson's exact words, by the way) that prohibited the Government from favoring any one religion over another. All were free to worship any way they pleased, and should never be prohibited from doing so. A lot of the conflict surrounding this issue today comes from secular groups like the ACLU, which targets Christianity while appearing to protect the rights of non-Christian faith traditions. The ACLU has mangled the spirit of the Constitution, which promises "freedom of religion." The ACLU seems to think it said "freedom from religion, especially Christianity" and appears determined to "protect" everyone from being exposed to Christianity in the public square. If you have a problem with prayer being removed from school for those who wish to participate, then by all means stand up for it, and while you're at it, fight to allow anyone of any faith to pray in school as well. Are you willing to do that? I would hope so, because that's exactly what the Constitution calls for. If you're not willing to do that, then all this griping about removing school prayer and the 10 Commandments from the public arena starts looking like so much hot air. Now you're starting to see the problems that arise when we stir up our American nationalism with Christ's calling. Overall, the two positions are not very compatible. Either you fight for everyone's freedom of religion, or you're part of the reason the ACLU got involved in this issue. One of the reasons the ACLU got involved was precisely because many Christians wanted their faith to remain in schools at the exclusion of others.

I personally feel that the ACLU’s demand that we remove all prayer from the school is overstepping their bounds, but only wrong as long as we honor the Constitution by allowing any one of any faith to pray according to their faith. What does it hurt, as long as everyone has the same rights and anyone can opt out? I think the ACLU is going overboard to prevent people from having any exposure to faith, which is clearly not what the Constitution calls for. But to demand that we allow Christian prayer in school at the exclusion of other faiths is also wrong, and clearly violates the expressed purpose of the 1st Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The 1st Amendment is truly a double-edged sword, which most people don't want to deal with. While we should have the right to exercise our religious freedom anywhere at any time, we must also respect the rights of others to do the same even if it's a faith we don' t agree with, since the Amendment so clearly states that Congress can make no law that favors one religion over another. Sadly, many people who call themselves Christians don't seem willing to accept that...it's "Christianity only" for them, a very clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and a very un-Christian act as well. Christ never, ever, demanded that anyone accept Him. All were free to choose. Our job as His followers is simply to share the Good News, and share it with unconditional love. That's the power of our witness. Christianity was never meant as a means to hold "worldly" power over anyone or anything. We are told to humbly exist within whatever power structure is in place, "to be in the world, but not of it." We are to build a spiritual kingdom within our hearts, not try to control and reshape worldly ones (which, by nature, will inevitably lead to our corruption).

It should be noted that at the time it was established, the USA was largely a nation of Christians, and other religions fell into a very small minority. Christian prayer in schools was a no-brainer then, but it's far more complicated now in our pluralistic society. Things have changed considerably and while I personally see no problem with school prayer, I don't think we have a right to insist that it be "Christian prayer only" in spite of the fact that I'm a Christian. If you're going to honor the specific demands of the Constitution, then what's wrong with allowing personal prayers in school for anyone of any faith, and show no favoritism for any particular one, even if Christianity is the majority faith? And if some don't wish to participate, then that should be honored and respected as well. It should be noted that all "Christian specific" language was intentionally removed from the Constitution after much consideration, and that the God they mentioned was meant in a more universal sense, an acknowledged Creator, but not necessarily the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I do believe in the broader concept of "one nation, under God," even if that means accepting that my neighbor's God isn't the same as my own. I also believe that if people wish to get school prayer back into the schools, and insist that Judeo-Christian symbolisim such as the Ten Commandments be placed upon government property, then they must be willing to allow any other faith tradition to exist alongside ours and do exactly the same. If we're not willing to allow that, then we're suppressing minority faiths and we're not honoring the Constitution. See what I mean about the conflicts between faith and nationalism? The truth is, my commitment to God is an absolute that far exceeds my commitment to my country because there are so few areas where I find any true compatibility. In the end, I think all the arguments about school prayer and removing religious symbolism from the public square are just much ado about nothing, and here's why...

Ultimately, this is the real truth, and it's all I need to know.... I live in a free country that respects all faiths, even those I don't agree with. The laws of this country allow any of us to personally worship Christ—or Allah, or Buddha, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster—anywhere we please, in any public place, at any time, without anyone telling us not to. We can do this personally without restriction of any kind. We may not be able use these public places to lead others in organized group prayer, but no one can infringe upon our right to personally pray and honor our God at any time, anywhere, and in any manner we choose. This is the freedom we should value, because I am completely free to do this, and so are you.

Furthermore, I often wonder why American Christians even feel such an overwhelming need to put their faith on public display. Christ never exhorts us to make public displays of piety, and in fact discourages us from doing so in Matthew 6:5-6. "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."

When someone from the government starts telling me I can’t pray anymore, or have to worship some god not of my choosing, then they’ll have a real battle on their hands. As long as I still have that right, and as long as my neighbor, be they Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or whatever, has the same right, then all is well in these United States, at least with regards to the practice of faith. When we deny them that right while promoting our own, we not only deny a basic right granted by the Constitution, but we behave in a manner that shames our faith in Christ as well.

THE QUESTION OF SALVATION: Written in stone, or in need of better interpretation?

2007-01-04T23:43:00.009-05:00

There’s probably no more divisive subject in comparative religious debates than the question of salvation. Christian triumphalists like to think that they hold the trump card, but does a closer inspection of the Scriptures prove them wrong? Some would argue that it’s not as crystal clear as some literalists would like us to believe, and after a careful reading of several key scriptures on the subject, I’d have to agree. The triumphalists always point to John 14:6, when Christ announces, “I am the way, the truth and the life. None come to the Father except through me.” I don’t have the slightest doubt that this is absolutely true...I believe that Christ was God incarnate, and because He came in the flesh and lived as a man, only He is uniquely qualified to judge the hearts of mankind. But is Christ merely declaring that He’s the intercessor and judge, or that we must specifically know Him by name, and confess in His name within our physical lifetime, to find salvation?

I've always loved the story about the missionary who meets a native in the jungle, and shares the Gospel with him.

The native listens carefully, and then asks, "So if I know this, and don't act on it, I'll burn in a fiery Hell?"

"Um, uhh... yes," says the missionary.

"Then why'd you tell me?" wailed the distraught native.

This little story illustrates the oft-quoted (and quite clichéd) case of natives living far from civilization who have no contact with the outside world. “What of them?” the critics ask. “What sort of God would condemn them to a life of separation from Him simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?” And what about all mankind who lived before the life of Christ? Is the entire population of the ancient world going to Hell except for a tiny handful mentioned in the Old Testament whom God found to be “righteous?” If Christ died a substitutionary death for all mankind, past, present and future, how do we reconcile this with some people’s insistence that they must call on Christ by name? To insist on this point is to deny salvation to anyone who came before Christ, including the entire Hebrew and Ishmaelite nations.

These are legitimate questions that any believer or non-believer has a right to ask. Unfortunately, most Christians don’t know how to answer this question, and those who think they do often pull out that tired old trump card by stating that if you don’t call upon Christ by name, you’re going to Hell...period. Rather than reaching out with an understanding hand as a Christian should, they immediately build a fence ... a very un-Christlike act. But the truth of the matter isn’t quite as clear as some would like to think.

Let’s start by reading Paul in Romans 2:1–16, and pay particular notice to verses 13 through 16. Here we find Paul addressing issues that appear to be in conflict with the generally-accepted literal meaning of John 14:6. Paul, speaking about non-Jews, states “...for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

It’s important to note the line “...but the doers of the Law will be justified...” and then in the very next sentence we read that when Gentiles without the Law instinctively follow the Law which God has written in their hearts, they are “justified.” This statement appears to address the issue of those who don’t know Christ, but who instinctively follow the moral code impressed upon their hearts. But is being “justified” the same as our current understanding of being “saved?” I don’t claim to have an absolute answer to that, but as we continue, it might appear to be so. We also know that prior to the arrival of Christ, men could find their salvation through faith without specifically knowing Christ. Noah and Abraham are prime examples. God found Abraham righteous because Abraham believed in Him, humbled himself and committed his life to serving his God. Yet if you accept a tight literal reading of John 14:6 as some insist, Abraham is in for a big surprise come Judgement Day. Noah, too, unless God made some special concession for the two of them, which is highly unlikely since the Bible explicitly states that God is impartial and doesn't play favorites.

So how do we reconcile this issue of salvation through Christ alone? Remember, Jesus clearly states that He's the gatekeeper, the final judge of a man's heart, and I believe this to be absolutely true. However, I also believe we might be trying to force this idea into a very tight definition, and here's why...

First, we must understand that God forgave sin and iniquity for all those ancients (pre-Christ mankind) who called upon Him in a manner consistent with the purpose of Christ’s atoning death on the Cross. Remember, in addition to their repentance and confession, an atoning sacrifice was also required. Christ tells us that all who seek Him in faith, repent of their sins and put their lives in His hands are saved. Christ is part of the eternal triune God, and therefore His judgment extends to all, not just those who lived after His earthly life two thousand years ago. His intercession on behalf of mankind truly does extend to all—past, present and future—who seek Him in a manner consistent with His will for us (a very critical point).

The clearest example of this is found in Psalm 32:1–5. David laments how keeping his sin to himself causes his separation from God, but through confession and repentance he is restored and his sin is wiped away. “How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit! When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer. Selah. I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD"; and You forgave the guilt of my sin.”

Sin is what separates us from God. Our salvation from sin, the restoring of our communion with God, is a gift delivered to us through repentance and confession, with an eternal Christ as our intercessor. It’s no coincidence that Jesus’ name in Hebrew—Yeshua—literally means “Salvation,“ a salvation which David receives through acknowledgment and confession of his sin. But here's the kicker that most people never think about: Jesus was his intercessor. David was justified by Jesus. David came to the Father through Jesus, part of the triune God, although not yet born in the flesh. The same was obviously true for Noah and Abraham. When Christ tells us in the New Testament that "...none come to the Father except by Me," it's a sweeping statment that covers all mankind, not something that starts from that point forward. He's the intercessor for all of us, even those who who lived long before the Incarnation. It's a startling thought for many people, yet the truth is borne out by Scripture, which speaks very clearly about people in the Old Testament being justified by faith alone.

Which brings us back to the question I posed earlier in this piece: Can a person find salvation and eternal life in Christ without specifically knowing about the Christian faith, or by calling on Christ by name? Based upon a clear reading of Scripture, without adding or taking anything from it, the answer appears to be "yes." According to Paul, mankind’s conscience has God’s will—here referred to as the ”law“—impressed upon it in such a way that a person without specific knowledge of Christ can still choose to follow it faithfully and be justified in God’s eyes. This law, of course, requires repentance and acknowledgment of a sinful nature, as well as this person humbly submitting themselves to God’s will, the same as Noah and Abraham did. When God accepted their repentance and confessions, they emptied themselves out to receive His salvation and do His will, and in receiving salvation, they came into communion with the complete triune God, which included Christ and the Holy Spirit.

If this thought troubles you, I would suggest you carefully read the noted passages again. By any honest reading, they appear to address the issue quite clearly without forcing any skewed interpretation onto them. Simple logic tells us that if ordinary men such as Noah and Abraham, who existed long before the Jewish nation came into existence, can find their way to God and receive salvation by following the ”law“ stamped upon their hearts and approaching Him in a particular manner, then this method must be equally valid for others who have no specific knowledge of Christ. To insist otherwise is to force God into a very small box by insisting that we know the limits of His mercy.

Additionally, we must consider the true meaning of the Scripture in the Gospel of John that speaks of Christ “descending to the dead” after His crucifixion. In the Anglican catechism, this is explained as the point when Christ offers salvation to all the souls who’ve lived and died before His time. In other words, all of God's children, past, present and future, can receive salvation through Christ, who died for all, not just those born after His earthly life. Some denominations claim this verse describes Jesus in Hell, but keep in mind that the Jews didn't believe in Hell, only a place called Sheol, which was an underworld for all the dead awaiting the final judgement, a judgment that's described throughout the Old Testament as restorative, not destructive. It's logical to assume that if Christ died for all mankind, then at some point He must offer salvation to all, regardless of when they lived.

Another point that must be raised is salvation for the Jewish nation. Many Christian denominations adhere to the notion that the Jews are lost for rejecting Christ. The apostle Paul, using the entire 11th chapter of Romans, assures us that this is not true, that God has only hardened their hearts to allow the rest of the world to comprehend the fullness of Christ, and then all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25-27). God is faithful, Paul says, and will keep His promise to the Jews, because “the gifts and the callings of God are irrevocable.” I’ve always felt that from a doctrinal standpoint, The Letter of Paul to the Romans covers all the major points about Christianity pretty thoroughly. If you’re a reader with doubts about salvation and who’s eligible, I’d highly advise you to read Romans from front to back, as well as the Old Testament book of Isaiah, which speaks often of God’s servant gathering the flocks from all parts of the world.

It’s important to note that for all of us who have been exposed to the Gospel of Christ, we are bound to recognize Jesus as the Incarnate God. There’s simply no ducking this issue. But for the righteous who lived prior to the birth of Christ, and for those anywhere who have never been exposed to the Gospel yet acknowledge a single sovereign Creator, trust the ”law“ written upon their hearts, and confess their sinful nature while putting themselves at His service, I have to believe that the loving Christ I believe in will provide for their salvation in much the same manner that He’s provided for mine, particularly since they’ve come to understand His purpose without actually knowing His name. When Christ tells us that none come to the Father except through Him, I believe it completely. He’s the judge, and only He knows the secrets in the hearts of Man, which is why I trust Him to judge them lovingly and fairly.

In a discussion I had with a cousin of mine on this very subject, he made a point with which I strongly agree. He pointed out that throughout the Old Testament scriptures, particularly in the Book of Isaiah, we read of a God with a very grand plan for all of mankind. It will include the Gentiles and descendants of Ishmael, as well as people from all the nations of the earth. In other words, my cousin said, God has something very big in store, and it far exceeds our understanding of the issue, an issue that we always tend to oversimplify. When you read the Bible in its entirety and pay attention to the issue of salvation for the world, it becomes very clear that something quite astonishing appears to be in the works, something far beyond our abilities to imagine it. This subject is revisited in the Gospel of John, when, in a subtle echo of the verses from Isaiah that speak of gathering the flocks, Jesus states:

“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.”
John 10:14,16

Let’s look at the key lines here. “I have other sheep which are not of this fold, I must bring them also...and they will become one flock, with one shepherd.” It’s a powerful statement, and carries a lot of hidden meaning. It hints of something quite big, some grand unifying act, to come in the future, and this statement alone should give us pause before we start insisting with certainty that anyone who doesn’t call on Christ by name is on the road to damnation.

Please read again carefully what Christ says: “I know my own and my own know me. I have other sheep which are not of this fold. I must bring them also.” What’s going on here? The only thing we know for certain is that He’s speaking of people outside of His current group of followers. Is Jesus referring to non-Christians, but people of faith who truly understand Grace and follow the distinct nature of the one true God? We can’t tell from this statement alone, but it hints at something beyond our comprehension. It is statements like this that should prompt Christians to refrain from making any final, triumphal announcements about who finds salvation and who doesn’t. We simply aren’t provided with enough information to make that final of a statement. Remember, we’re not called to be judges, but to serve, and the reason we’re not called to be judges is because we’re not even remotely qualified.

To wrap up my thoughts on this subject of salvation, here’s a very short and succinct point made by C.S. Lewis in his classic Mere Christianity. In the end, when all our secrets are stripped away and we are exposed for judgment, he says: "There will be surprises."

Of that, I have no doubt...

DARK HEARTS AND BODY COUNTS: Defining the true enemy in the War on Terror

2006-10-09T20:39:00.000-05:00

The numbers are staggering.

By conservative government estimates, around 1,500 innocent civilians were killed in the initial bombing attacks on Afghanistan that commenced in October of 2001. Most independent sources place the count much higher, somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000. “Collateral damage,” was the response from the Department of Defense, which recently released a report that placed the number of our U.S. Military casualties in Afghanistan at 278. Now let’s move to Iraq. The US Military body count in Iraq has now surpassed 3,000 and continues to rise. The Iraqi civilian body count, even by the most conservative estimates, is around 40,000 men, women and children. This “War on Terror,” the Bush administration’s response to the tragedy of 9/11 which killed just under 3,000 innocent Americans, has now claimed—by extremely conservative estimates—just under 45,000 more innocent lives (I’m intentionally excluding the combatant deaths on both sides).

This “War on Terror,” which ostensibly was launched to prevent the taking of more innocent lives by terrorists, is now directly complicit in the violent deaths of fifteen times more innocent people than the number of innocent people who died on 9/11 at the hands of the terrorists. And the end is not in sight.

Go ahead. Do the math, and then explain to me why you think the war is still logical. Explain to me on what planet, in which universe, this war makes good sense and should be continued at all costs.

The truth is that we’re looking at a situation that contains not one ounce of logic or common sense. It’s a situation that’s so flawed from the start that any attempt to explain the war in rational terms only leads deeper into the madness that drives it. What we’re looking at is a world gone mad, a world that believes that striking back with devastating, murderous force is the best way to achieve its means (and this description applies to the folly that drives both the terrorist organizations and our own US government).

But let’s get back to the number of deaths. Measured purely in the number of innocent people currently being killed in an effort to prevent the future killing of innocent people, the math alone shows the colossal failure of using force to achieve such a questionable victory. If you do the math, it’s immediately obvious that the “War on Terror” is not winnable, and was in fact lost from the very moment it was conceived. But that’s just scratching the surface. The most horrifying fact of all is that so many American Christians are still in full support of this madness, and view it as the forces of Good striking a mighty blow against the forces of Evil, an Evil that must be suppressed at any cost, no matter how ridiculous that cost may be. That Christians can allow themselves to feel this way is only a sign of good marketing and good PR, but not good sense or sound faith.

And it’s right here that we start getting into the really thorny issues.

To effectively combat an enemy, it must first be clearly defined. More than any single element of the broad “War on Terror,” there’s been a failure of massive proportions in the area of defining the enemy. From a secular perspective, the United States government has suffered from a lack of clarity in defining its terror enemies abroad, tending to lump them all together and selling them to the public in one neat package. From a Christian perspective, which should focus on the spiritual side of the equation, many Christians suffer from the same problem as the United States Government. Both camps tend to view the situation as “us against them, good versus evil,” and therefore a necessary battle that must be fought at all costs, which in this case means accepting the violent deaths of nearly 50,000 innocent people abroad (with many more deaths on the way) as a means to ensure that more Americans aren’t killed by terrorists on our home soil.

And that, my friends, is a cold, hard fact. That is exactly what the U.S. government is telling you, only not in those crystal clear terms.

The government, with its focus on the ever-present need to spin the situation to its own advantage, wants us to see it as a simple issue of good versus evil, and if anyone dissents, they’re shouted down as “morally and intellectually confused,” as Donald Rumsfeld recently stated. But Christians who are supportive of the war and the current administration’s policies are in dire need of a wake-up call. They need to realize that what’s taking place is completely unacceptable, not only because of the deaths to date, but because we’re fighting a war that isn’t winnable, a war that will only perpetuate the evil that’s taking place. We’re contributing to a greater body of death and destruction than was present in the original act for which we’re now retaliating… and worse, many who call themselves Christians seem to be okay with that. How did they grow so blind?

As a Christian, I already know that my personal response must be a non-violent one. I cannot repay violence with violence. I cannot repay evil with evil. Any action I take must be consistent with Christ’s message to turn the other cheek. The only way to expose true evil is to turn your back to it, to avoid engagement. When you repay evil with evil, you join forces with it. This is a bitter pill to swallow for many people of faith largely because they’ve allowed their faith to become secularized and blended into their patriotic love of country. It feels so good to talk about God and country, but so many of the demands of patriotism are at complete odds with Christ’s calling. You cannot call yourself a follower of Christ and then disobey what He’s called you to do as a follower. If you’re a Christian, please read this passage (1 John 2:4-6) and try to justify repaying evil with evil, which Christ very clearly commands us not to do.

The man who says, "I know Him," but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.

Whoever claims to be a Christian must walk as Jesus did… or be a liar.

Now let’s take another shot at defining the true enemy, and this time from a spiritual perspective. The true enemy we’re fighting here isn’t another person or another culture.

The enemy is within all of us, within the darkness of our own hearts, even the hearts of those who claim to be followers of Christ. If we don’t walk in His footsteps, we’re liars. We’ve surrendered to the evil that drives the need for revenge, the evil that allows us to justify killing, the evil that allows us to demonize a person as a way to harden our hearts so that we might kill him without feeling guilt. We’ve surrendered to the evil that allows us to justify the violent deaths of 50,000 innocent people as a fair price to pay for making sure 3,000 more Americans don’t die. We’ve surrendered to a callous, pedestrian evil that says it’s okay for any number of innocent people to die violent, bloody deaths just as long as they don't do it in our back yard.

It’s time we recognize the fact that the enemy resides within us all, and start to deal with it. Until our politicians (and the Christians who support them) change their approach to fighting evil, the body count will continue to climb.

And we will all be diminished by it.

MONKEY BUSINESS: Thoughts on the Neo-Darwinists vs. Creationists Debate

2006-10-08T12:34:00.000-05:00

I love science. I've loved it since I was a little kid. I was fascinated to learn how the natural world worked, and never once doubted the theory of common descent. As a kid who also believed in God, I never had a problem believing that God was completely responsible for the physical world around me. It never occurred to me that the two concepts could be viewed as incompatible.

So after following the Intelligent Design versus Hard Science debate over the past several years, I’m left feeling rather ambivalent about the whole dust-up. I’d like to just say it’s silly, but it’s more than that… it’s also damaging to the practice of our faith as it’s become such a divisive issue among Christians. As a person of faith, I’d obviously like to see more of the secular world consider the possibility that God is responsible for the creation of the Universe and all that’s in it. As someone who loves scientific discovery, I have no problem with the theory of common descent…by all accounts, it does a solid (although quite incomplete) job of explaining how some of the pieces fit together. In fact, to be intellectually honest, the term uncommon descent appears to be a much more accurate term to describe what appears to have taken place.

So where’s the common ground?

As clearly as I can see it, the only real problem arises when ardent neo-Darwinists insist that there’s no room for God in the equation, that life arose through the chance assembly of atoms, and all complex life developed through a rather fantastic series of events that have never been repeated nor witnessed. But there’s more to the problem than the ardent neo-Darwinists. The other half of the problem is with people of faith who insist that origins science is all wrong, that scientists are largely atheists with an anti-God agenda, and that the only acceptable view is their own simplistic and literal reading of Genesis.

The facts of the issue are pretty clear. It’s virtually impossible to dispute the notion that life arose first as single cells and then progressed toward multi-cellular complexity. It's also impossible to ignore the striking gaps in the fossil record, the anomalies that suggest there's something else going on that's well outside the material constraints of neo-Darwinian evolution. Geological, biological and paleontological studies have painted an accurate picture of the progression of life from simple to complex. What these studies haven’t done, however, is explain with anything approaching certainty how single-celled life first arose, or how such a fantastic array of complex, conscious life forms could arise so quickly during the Cambrian period when there’s simply no evidence of earlier complex life forms to show the transition from single-celled life to complex life. In other words, if life arose gradually, where is the fossil evidence? These two issues—the arrival of the first living cells and the subsequent speciation of the planet—are the two hurdles that neo-Darwinism can’t explain through empirical studies. These are the two big holes in the theory, and if they cannot be explained through empirical studies, then any purely naturalistic theory is going to be built upon at least a few assumptions. “Not to worry,” says Science. “It’s pretty obvious that purely natural processes are all we have to work with. We just need more time to discover them.”

Enter Michael Denton, whose 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” rattled more than a few cages. What made Denton’s book so explosive was that he was a scientist himself, a biochemist of note at the University of Otago in New Zealand. In his book, Denton simply pointed out the flaws in current Darwinist theory. His approach was not that of a Creationist. He simply pointed out the flaws and the gaps and then committed the unthinkable… he offered nothing to replace them with!

The world of evolutionary science flew into a tizzy and it hasn’t stopped since, even though the major flaws in the theory are no closer to being answered. It should be noted that Denton never attacked the broader theory of common descent. He simply pointed out that existing neo-Darwinist theories that attempt to explain the two problems noted above fall short of their goal. Twenty odd years later, Science is no closer to answering these questions. We still don’t know how the first single-celled life formed, nor do we know how to explain the huge gaps in the fossil record. These issues continue to stare back at us across the eons as vast, unsolved mysteries lurking in the shadows of our past.

Since its publication, Denton's book has continued to inspire the wrath of ardent Darwinists who possess a selective grasp of the facts. Any fair-minded follower of Darwinist thought would have to admit that Denton points out the major failings of the theory with grace and aplomb. Far from laying out a Creationist argument, Denton simply uses science to refute a theory that still lacks the "smoking gun" evidence to support two major tenets. For an evolutionist to state that "evolution is a fact, so get used to it" is to engage in some fact-fudging by omitting the truth that all known evolutionary mechanisms fall far short of explaining the origins of life and subsequent speciation by complex life. Evolution does quite well at explaining small-scale change within the confines of a species, but not how life first arose or later diversified into entirely new life forms. Yes, small-scale “evolution” by natural selection is a fact, but anyone making a broader statement needs to qualify it better. Using the certainty of small-scale evolutionary change to justify making a broader, all-encompassing statement about the "truth" of neo-Darwinist theory as a whole is intellectually dishonest.

Many evolutionists feel that since Natural Selection (micro-evolution) is a fairly well established fact, then it can only follow that the General Theory (macro-evolution) is as well, in spite of the troubling evidence that disputes it. The fact is that Denton, using hard science (most notably the fossil record and molecular biology), has demonstrated how evolutionists are forced to fill in the blanks with conjecture, some intelligent and thoughtful, some outlandish and fanciful. This observation doesn’t sit well with some scientists.

The bottom line is simple... there is far more contradictory evidence against existing theories of macro-evolution than there is supportive evidence for these theories. Any truthful person will examine the evidence and go where it leads them. Anyone who has already bought into "neo-Darwinism at all costs" will never accept it, even if the evidence does not support their point of view that large-scale change can be explained by purely natural mechanisms. For this camp, the idea of rejecting pure Darwinian evolution would mean accepting a belief system that they've already condemned as bunk. Yet Denton doesn't approach this as a Creationist—as I've mentioned, he uses only science to refute theory. Any steps taken beyond that—steps toward a Creationist point of view, for example—are up to the reader.

This book is over twenty years old, and still holds the power to stir the mind. Looking beyond pure science, Denton speaks to our reason and asks us not to be afraid of considering other avenues of thought. This book asks us to stretch our minds, open them to other possibilities. Regardless of your leanings, if you read this book with an open mind, you'll have to admit the validity of Denton's arguments even if you don’t follow or understand biochemistry. Little has been published since to refute him... yet more has been discovered since to support him. Most of the people who dismiss this book like to point to its publication date and write it off as out-of-date or inconsequential. It’s a very flawed argument. Common sense never goes out of date.

So as Christians, how can we resolve this issue? Should we even care? The truth is that it shouldn’t matter one whit because how we choose to understand the unfolding of God's Creation is not a salvation issue. But can we compare God’s topical account with mankind’s temporal account? The answer might surprise you, and I’ll save it for a later post.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this great quote about the dogma of neo-Darwinist theory from Lynn Margulis, a brilliant and outspoken biologist who is famous for stating what most evolutionary scientists already know (but won’t say in public): "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong.”

Does this mean Ms. Margulis is anti-evolution? Absolutely not. She simply knows that as it stands, neo-Darwinian theory cannot identify a biological mechanism to explain the emergence of early life—and later, highly complex life—in purely natural terms. Darwinists like to think there’s no room for a supernatural Creator in their theory. As a believer in that same supernatural Creator, I’ve come to realize, through studies of both scripture and science, that God has left plenty of room within the Genesis account to believe in "uncommon" descent as long as we continue to recognize Him as the causal agent behind it all.

THE GROUND TRUTH: A film review

2006-10-07T00:56:00.001-05:00

In the opening scenes of Patricia Foulkrod's powerful documentary about our questionable military venture in Iraq and its effect on the psyches of the soldiers who fight in it, we’re introduced to a number of young soldiers who speak candidly and powerfully about the motivations that led them to join the military. As their stories unfold, we hear their surprised reactions to boot camp and combat training as they were taught to dehumanize their enemy, to “kill hadjis and ragheads.” Each soldier describes in tight, careful detail their transformation from idealistic civilian to highly-trained killing machine. One soldier states quite bluntly and without sentiment how he watched his own resistance to killing grow weaker and finally fade away as the indoctrination took place. Even more chilling is his later description of looking forward to taking his first human life. “I’d been trained for it,” he said, “and I wanted to do it.”

For most of the soldiers in this movie, their turning points and epiphanies arrive in the shocking moments when their worldview is shattered, when the solid black line between right and wrong suddenly turns to muddy, indistinct gray. In nearly every story, we hear of their complicity in the deaths of innocent men, women and children, people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. One soldier describes having an old woman in the sights of his rifle and being forced to make a split-second decision as she approached an armored US military vehicle. After firing two rounds himself, he watched in horror as the occupants of the armored vehicle opened fire as well, tearing her to pieces. As she fell to the ground, the soldier saw the white flag in her hand. He tells us that he threw his gun to the ground and broke down into tears. As another soldier notes, "It's one thing to replace your worldview with a new one, but another thing entirely to have your worldview shattered and have nothing to replace it with."

What I found so amazing about this movie was the lack of obvious editorializing. It’s a spare, lean movie without obtrusive direction. The soldiers simply tell their powerful stories to the camera. There are virtually no distractions or breaks save for a few brief “intermissions” that feature photo montages overlaid with music, and then it’s right back to the soldiers. I’ve read other reviews that complain about the one-sidedness of the film, but what documentary isn’t? That’s what documentaries do... they present a biased (yet hopefully intelligent) point of view. They’re made with bias and the hope that viewers come to embrace, or at least take into account, the point of view presented by the film.

Any good war documentary is made with a clear agenda, and this film’s purpose is to show the madness of a war that lacks a clear objective, a notion that seems to have filtered down to the soldiers as well. One soldiers states that most of the soldiers he speaks with have no clear idea of the war’s stated mission. “Something to do with 9/11” is a common response. Without a clear stated goal, the soldiers adopt the only one that makes any sense to them... kill or be killed. Kill so that you can eventually go home to the ones you love. Kill because if you don’t, you’re not a good soldier. It’s little wonder that they return home with little or no idea how to readjust to civilian life.

And yet one of the most powerful things about this film is passion of the soldiers themselves. Even before we hear each soldier’s entire story, we can tell that they aren’t a bunch of whiners. Each was a patriotic young person who stepped forward to do his or her duty. Most went to boot camp with a sense of purpose and pride, and returned home disillusioned with what they learned. In the end, each made a very personal decision how to deal with what they discovered, a decision to either suck it up and put a cap on it, hoping it wouldn’t blow, or confront it and be willing to speak the truth, no matter the consequences. The Ground Truth is the story of soldiers coming to terms with the reality of a misguided war, and dealing with their discovery with grace and courage.

WITNESS: Searching for God's Purpose in the Amish Schoolhouse Murders

2006-10-06T19:23:00.000-05:00

The breaking news headlines were horrific. Another school massacre, this time in a quiet Amish community supposedly removed from the secular world. Like everyone, I was stunned by the news as it unfolded on television and the Internet. And like most people, I found the usual questions spinning out and demanding to be answered yet again. How could God allow this to happen to them, of all people?

Like many Christians, my commitment to my faith goes far deeper than those who know me might suspect. I say this because I’ve discovered that in today’s religious climate, my words may be ignored while my actions have far more impact, even though it often takes longer for my actions to have an effect. My belief is so complete that, like the Amish, I believe we must forgive anyone who commits evil acts against anyone, no matter how distant or how close they are to us, regardless of nationality, faith or culture, no matter how atrocious the offense. The forgiveness must be total, without reserve or conditions, and I believe that there can be no exceptions to this rule, a rule that commands us to repay evil with good at all times. It’s an absolute that Christ has given us to follow because He did the same, offering Himself as an example. But here’s the rub… as long as horrors such as the school massacre do not touch those I love, or those within my own community, it’s easy to give lip service to this creed. But what direct action would I take if something like it happened to those I knew and loved?

I pray that I would act in exactly the same manner as the Amish community that, whether they fully realize it or not, has provided us with a perfect witness to the true message of Christ. “Forgive and you will be forgiven. Be merciful and you will be shown mercy. Judge not, and you will not be judged. Love one another as your Father has loved you.” In the perfect wisdom of these words, the Amish found the ability to love the killer of their children, to forgive him completely and without reserve, and to bind the wounds of the survivors—all the survivors, including the killer’s family, which must have been as devastated as the families of the victims. To the amazement of many, the killer’s wife was invited to the funeral of one girl, and when it was announced that donations were pouring into the Amish community to help cover medical bills, Amish leaders asked that a fund be set up for the killer’s family as well. As the world watched, it was privileged to witness the unfolding of amazing—and quite uncommon—grace.

Over the past few years our nation has witnessed the aftermath of high-profile murders of children by sex offenders, and the horrible emotional toll it exacts on the survivors. It’s devastating to watch family members speaking on television about their children “going to be with God,” and then in the next breath let their bitterness spill out as they voice their hopes for a brutal punishment for the killer. It’s heartbreaking to watch because the evil that poisoned the killer has been passed to them…they’re infected with it and until they learn to let it go, it will continue to devastate their lives as well. Even more heart-wrenching is to hear them proclaim their faith in Christ while still demanding swift, retaliatory punishment, as though their belief in Christ demands it. Yet Christ clearly eliminates this option in Chapter 5 of Matthew, when He states: “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also… You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be the sons of your Father in heaven… Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

The Amish community in Pennsylvania, with its unblinking faith in the literalness of Christ’s command that we forgive one another and love those who persecute us, has demonstrated the absolute truth of this all-important commandment. Only by repaying evil with good, by forgiving the perpetrator of a vicious and heinous act, could the Amish conquer the very evil that spawned the act. They demonstrated this truth not only to the secular world, but to an often divided and distracted nation of Christians as well, a nation that claims a Christian faith majority, yet as a whole struggles mightily to abide by the simple teachings of that faith on a consistent basis.

In a nation where a surprising number of Christians are still supportive of the invasion of Iraq, supportive of capital punishment, supportive of tax cuts for the wealthy and supportive of an invasive, soul-numbing consumer culture that grows more unsustainable by the year, we see a version of Christianity that bears little resemblance to the message preached by Christ two thousand years ago. This message, the last time I checked, instructs its followers to reject violence in all forms, avoid the accumulation of worldly riches, love one another regardless of nationality, culture or faith, open our hearts to travelers and aliens from other lands, turn the other cheek to evil, help the poor at every opportunity, avoid judging others, and extend the same love to others that Christ extends to us. It’s not just a list of philosophical ideals to talk about, by the way… we’re instructed to live by these rules if we’re to claim ourselves among His followers.

So how did we get so off track? And how can we find our way back?

The recent witness of the Amish community’s Christian faith stands in stark contrast to the much of the self-centered, graceless, finger-wagging stuff that tries to dress itself in the robes of righteousness these days. We live in an increasingly secularized nation that’s drifting into “cultural Christianity,” a largely soulless blend of watered-down faith that requires little more of its members than a simple claim of belief. Once this claim is made, its members often allow themselves to feel positively virtuous about any number of actions that are in complete contradiction to the teachings of Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran minister who was hung by the Nazis for refusing to compromise or deny his faith, had a term for this sort of secularized faith-without-discipleship. He called it “cheap grace.” In a nation where many Christians settle for this cheap grace, it was incredibly moving to watch the Amish take Christ’s words to heart and forgive what might be considered unforgivable by many of this nation’s “cultural” Christians. Cheap grace in the Amish community? Not a chance...

In the weeks since the murders, a community has stood together and provided witness to an unshakable principle that holds the power to conquer evil. Whether you believe in Christ or not, you must consider the incredible, transcendent power of forgiveness. As we search for God’s purpose in these senseless murders, we must look at the whole picture that has unfolded since they took place. Evil was repaid with Good, and Evil was conquered, rendered toothless and impotent in the lives of the Amish community. Their witness is all the more powerful because we live in an age of technology that has allowed the entire world to watch their response. It’s no small irony that this technology, largely rejected by the Amish as too worldly, has been made a vehicle by which they’ve spread this witness to every corner of the planet.

Were those violent deaths part of God’s will? Clearly not. But when we look at the grace and beauty of the response, we find His fingerprints everywhere. Five innocent girls were murdered, and yet the killer was forgiven without hesitation. The murders were senseless and brutal, yet the aftermath was infused with a love and compassion that defies worldly logic. Somewhere in this process, wretched and horrifying Evil was transformed into perfect, redeeming Love right before our very eyes.