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

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?

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

I just finished viewing a DVD of the film OBSESSION: Radical Islam's War Against the West. 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

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

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

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

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?

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."