Regarding the upcoming observance of Independence Day, I thought it appropriate to share the thoughts of this Sunday's sermon:
Confessions of a Pastor on Independence Day
There is a yard sign on the east side of Willmar--I know that’s pretty far away; Kim and I joke that when we go further than Hwy. 71 in Willmar, we know we’re really out of town--but there is a sign right on Hwy. 12 there that reads in bold letters, “America--love it or leave it.”
That sign always makes me cringe. Sometimes, I try to think of something clever to yell at the sign as we drive by, but somehow, yelling at inanimate objects doesn’t seem very sophisticated. I find the sign offensive, because I believe it intends to claim that any criticism of the United States is unpatriotic, disloyal, or treasonous. I could stand up here and try to explain how the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is designed to allow for governmental criticism, because our country’s founders wisely understood that political power without criticism becomes power unchecked, and furthermore that if one were to take the Bill of Rights as a whole, the natural conclusion would be that it is meant to encourage dissent as patriotic obligation. Moreover, I could even tack on the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin--often called the “First American”--that “the first duty of every citizen is to question authority.”
But, despite my pretensions otherwise, I am no constitutional scholar. I am a Christian pastor. My vocation requires me not to look at the practices of our government and society through the lens of the Constitution or the principles of the Revolution (principles, by the way, that apparently allowed one in every five people across the colonies--that’s north and south--to be legally owned as property), but to proceed with commitment to discerning the will of God as revealed in the Gospel, even if that leads to criticism that is heard as disloyal, unpatriotic, and treasonous. I wish I could say that a view from that angle makes things more clear, bringing into sharp focus the difference between righteousness and sin, between right and wrong. But it doesn’t. It actually makes such discernment more difficult.
Scripture’s attitude toward earthly power is varied at best. The birth of the Hebrew nation takes place when slaves put their trust in the sovereignty of God instead of the Egyptian pharaoh. But after the Exodus and the time in which the Twelve Tribes were ruled by the Judges, the Hebrew Scriptures appear to become quite comfortable with a king being chosen to rule on behalf of God, and in God’s name. However, when the monarchy strayed from God’s commandments--as it so often did--the prophets arose to criticize their government in bombastic and inflammatory ways. Eventually, the Hebrew kingdoms were conquered, and the New Testament opens with an oppressive, authoritarian Roman Empire ruling the Mediterranean world and on its way to rising to even more power. This situation, in turn, fuels 1st century hopes for a Jewish Messiah, who--like Moses--will again deliver the people from bondage. It would seem that the Christian New Testament might be more unified in its approach to earthly authority, but we read in Paul’s Letter to the Romans the admonition, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (13:1-2). And yet, we find in the Book of Revelation, the Roman Empire imagined as the Beast that ruthlessly consumes the righteous. The fact of the matter is that rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and rendering unto God what is God’s is not a compromise for a people who believe that the “earth is the LORD’s and all that is in it” (Ps. 24:1).
The truth is that Christian pastors--and other people of faith--all over the land find it a challenge (to say the least) to integrate their vocation of faith with their American citizenship. If my ultimate loyalty is to the God revealed in Jesus Christ, then I have trouble pledging allegiance to a flag, or to the republic for which it stands, regardless of how good it may or may not be. You might not realize it, but it is a common struggle among mainline pastors how to address civic national holidays like the Fourth of July.
I feel like this internal conflict is further intensified within our own faith tradition--a tradition in which stands Zion Reformed Church (now Zion Reformed United Church of Christ) of Allentown, Pennsylvania where the Liberty Bell was hidden in 1777 to protect it from British plans to melt it down. A tradition in which Old South Congregational Church (also now known as Old South Congregational United Church of Christ) of Boston, Massachusetts stands, where the Boston Tea Party was planned in 1773. It is a tradition in which stands the Battle of Lexington-Concord in 1775, the opening battle of the American Revolution that was sparked by the British manhunt for two Congregationalists by the names of Sam Adams (who had taken the lead in planning and executing the Boston Tea Party) and John Hancock (who would serve as President of the Continental Congress when American independence was declared and therefore had the honor of being the first to sign the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776).
Ours is also the same faith tradition that joined with others in speaking out against the official legality of racial segregation and American imperial policy in Vietnam. It is the same tradition whose leader was arrested last year in front of the White House for protesting similar policies in Iraq and who has endorsed the Campaign Against Torture that condemns the immorality behind our government’s treatment of its enemies. (This leader has noted with both humor and seriousness that he is the first President of the UCC not to be invited to the White House.) And this faith tradition is the only religious denomination in U.S. history to be investigated by the Internal Revenue Service. What we may not realize is that all of these actions, whether from colonial days or periods within our own memory, violated the strictest sense of the words we find in the 13th chapter of the Letter to the Romans and have all been called disloyal, unpatriotic, and treasonous. Of course, so it was with Moses and the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as any New Testament Christian who refused to acknowledge the Emperor as Lord, Savior, and God.
To speak in terms of ultimate loyalty is both bold and dangerous. It is to reject any notion of “both-and” and opt decisively for “either/or.” The dilemma of the Christian gospel is its demand for ministry to the “both-and,” while at the same time showing that loyalty can be to only one. We cannot serve two masters as Jesus reminds us in Matthew’s gospel; we cannot serve both God and mammon, and neither can we proclaim both Christ and Emperor as Lord. This is true regardless of which candidate or what party is in office. Some of you may know the name Jim Wallis, a minister who heads up the group Call for Renewal and its journal Sojourners. A few years ago, he became better known for writing a popular book entitled God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. But in an earlier work, The Soul of Politics, he warns of the danger of misplacing ultimate loyalty. He writes, “Both conservative and liberal religion have become culturally captive forces that merely cheer on the ideological camps with which each has identified. And religion as political cheerleader is invariably false religion.”
We’ve probably been taught the secular value of religious freedom--many of our ancestors came to North America to escape conflict fueled by religious differences. What we may not have heard is that there are theological reasons why the church should resist becoming one with the state. People of faith, as well as people of no faith, must always be free to criticize the government, to lift up a prophetic voice, to speak truth to power. I believe we are called always to live out our ultimate loyalty (apart from the state) and yet to engage the political process and forces of society in the name of the God of peace, justice, and love. I believe Christians are called to be “permanent dissenters,” never confusing our earthly citizenship with our loyalty to the Gospel; to be in the world, but not of the world. Another pastor writes, “Someone has said that the best citizen is not the one who says, ‘My country, right or wrong,’ but the one who strives always to direct his or her country to the right.” And I believe that holds true no matter what flag happens to be flying over our heads. Thanks be to God. Amen.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Religious Freedom
We got a late start to our radio show on Monday, but those who waited patiently enough heard our discussion about commitment to religious freedom. The question I posed went something like "Should we (whatever 'we' means) care about religious freedom in other countries, even when it's not our religion?"
To sum up, for me the answer is a resounding yes. Not only do I think such a commitment falls under Jesus and Paul's reminder to love our neighbors as ourselves, but I went so far as to claim that to care only about persecution of one's own religion is hypocrisy.
If you tuned in this week, you may have heard the flurry of phone calls we received in the last few minutes. All the calls were quality, but one particular caller really piqued my interest in having another discussion. To paraphrase, this caller said that religion--and I think he meant all religion--breeds intolerance.
I lightly remarked that I thought intolerance by religious institutions was certainly a widespread phenomenon, but, naturally, I was reluctant to admit that the original teachings of religious figures (Jesus, for example) spurred intolerance. But as with all things on the show and on this blog, disagreement is welcome.
The truth is that religion--like any other institution--can be used for good or for ill. Any serious glance at history shows how religious institutions, including Christianity, fosters intolerance. It's easy to see how much popular religion, especially fundamentalism, leads to intolerance. But a more in-depth look may also bring the other side to light: for many years, the church was the center of learning; in the American experience, many Northern churches were at the center of the abolition movement (I would be remiss not to mention the Congregationalists' wide participation in that movement); and during the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and '60's, black churches were often the base of operations for assaults on Jim Crow, discrimination, and inequality. To make the claim that religion always breeds intolerance, one has to explain the work of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
All in all, I think this week's topic really brought out some good discussion; I'd love to keep it up!
Next week will be our season finale, and I think the caller's comments about religion begs the question for our topic on 5-19: what is the point of Christianity?
Always looking forward to some spirited conversation, this is Pastor Chris signing off.
To sum up, for me the answer is a resounding yes. Not only do I think such a commitment falls under Jesus and Paul's reminder to love our neighbors as ourselves, but I went so far as to claim that to care only about persecution of one's own religion is hypocrisy.
If you tuned in this week, you may have heard the flurry of phone calls we received in the last few minutes. All the calls were quality, but one particular caller really piqued my interest in having another discussion. To paraphrase, this caller said that religion--and I think he meant all religion--breeds intolerance.
I lightly remarked that I thought intolerance by religious institutions was certainly a widespread phenomenon, but, naturally, I was reluctant to admit that the original teachings of religious figures (Jesus, for example) spurred intolerance. But as with all things on the show and on this blog, disagreement is welcome.
The truth is that religion--like any other institution--can be used for good or for ill. Any serious glance at history shows how religious institutions, including Christianity, fosters intolerance. It's easy to see how much popular religion, especially fundamentalism, leads to intolerance. But a more in-depth look may also bring the other side to light: for many years, the church was the center of learning; in the American experience, many Northern churches were at the center of the abolition movement (I would be remiss not to mention the Congregationalists' wide participation in that movement); and during the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and '60's, black churches were often the base of operations for assaults on Jim Crow, discrimination, and inequality. To make the claim that religion always breeds intolerance, one has to explain the work of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
All in all, I think this week's topic really brought out some good discussion; I'd love to keep it up!
Next week will be our season finale, and I think the caller's comments about religion begs the question for our topic on 5-19: what is the point of Christianity?
Always looking forward to some spirited conversation, this is Pastor Chris signing off.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Christianity's Biggest Threat
We tried to go after a pretty big topic on the radio show this past Monday--"What is the biggest threat to Christianity?" A few interesting answers were thrown on the table, including disillusionment with religion and religion continuing to come to terms with modern ways of thinking.
I never really explained what I think is the biggest threat to Christianity: fundamentalism. One former Southern Baptist had this to say: "The inclination to conserve the creativities of the past can become such a compelling obsession that nothing new can ever pop into our heads. One of the tragedies of fundamentalism, religious or political or social, is that it is a joyless, argumentative, dogmatic, quarrelsome, fighting neurosis that squelches freedom and quenches creativity. The Devil of fundamentalism scowls and frowns and complains and opposes and bickers and moans and maneuvers and manipulates and schemes and plots but seems incapable of achieving the freedom to enjoy a hearty laugh. Revealed religion, we bear in mind, calls for creativity as well as conservation" (quoted in The Christian Century).
Fundamentalism claims that every word of scripture is inerrant and comes from God. In my view, this approach to the Bible raises its words to the role of divinity themselves. I believe that scripture springs from humanity's struggle to search for God and the expression of an understanding of God. To speak of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is nothing else than idolatry--an idolatry of the Bible, in which the words of scripture take the place of God.
Our denomination (the United Church of Christ) has put on an entire evangelism campaign based on the slogan "God is still speaking." To make this claim means that God's words are more than just what scripture records. It means that God did not stop speaking sometime in the century after Jesus' crucifixion, but continues to seek us out now, just as the Spirit of God's voice sought out the biblical authors in ancient times. Sometimes we get it wrong today, and sometimes they got it wrong back then, too. Our God is a living God; to limit the message of God to words written down by ancient writers turns God into a dead deity, speaking words conditioned by a culture that no longer makes sense to most of us.
It is no news that fundamentalism leads to intolerance, extremism, hatred, fear, and even war. For me, there is simply no way of reconciling this way of reading scripture with the message of the God we find in Jesus Christ who reminded us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
-Pastor Chris
I never really explained what I think is the biggest threat to Christianity: fundamentalism. One former Southern Baptist had this to say: "The inclination to conserve the creativities of the past can become such a compelling obsession that nothing new can ever pop into our heads. One of the tragedies of fundamentalism, religious or political or social, is that it is a joyless, argumentative, dogmatic, quarrelsome, fighting neurosis that squelches freedom and quenches creativity. The Devil of fundamentalism scowls and frowns and complains and opposes and bickers and moans and maneuvers and manipulates and schemes and plots but seems incapable of achieving the freedom to enjoy a hearty laugh. Revealed religion, we bear in mind, calls for creativity as well as conservation" (quoted in The Christian Century).
Fundamentalism claims that every word of scripture is inerrant and comes from God. In my view, this approach to the Bible raises its words to the role of divinity themselves. I believe that scripture springs from humanity's struggle to search for God and the expression of an understanding of God. To speak of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is nothing else than idolatry--an idolatry of the Bible, in which the words of scripture take the place of God.
Our denomination (the United Church of Christ) has put on an entire evangelism campaign based on the slogan "God is still speaking." To make this claim means that God's words are more than just what scripture records. It means that God did not stop speaking sometime in the century after Jesus' crucifixion, but continues to seek us out now, just as the Spirit of God's voice sought out the biblical authors in ancient times. Sometimes we get it wrong today, and sometimes they got it wrong back then, too. Our God is a living God; to limit the message of God to words written down by ancient writers turns God into a dead deity, speaking words conditioned by a culture that no longer makes sense to most of us.
It is no news that fundamentalism leads to intolerance, extremism, hatred, fear, and even war. For me, there is simply no way of reconciling this way of reading scripture with the message of the God we find in Jesus Christ who reminded us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
-Pastor Chris
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright
As long as I tried to put off talking about another political news story, on the April 6 radio show I discussed the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of my denomination's largest congregation--Trinity United Church of Christ.
Here are some random thoughts I e-mailed to a friend after the Rev. Dr. Wright's comments hit the airwaves:
"The fact that single lines are taken out of context
and run on air over and over again is, of course,
terrible. But I was more disappointed with the public's
response--why can't we Americans accept the
possibility that the rest of the world may have
legitimate reasons to dislike us? Why do so many of
us insist on the fantasy that America does no wrong?
It's unfortunate that the debate in the media has been
over Senator Obama's acceptance/rejection of Wright, and not
over the accuracy of Wright's comments.
"One more rant--too many Christians think the point of
religion is ONLY to comfort, and that's simply not
borne out by scripture. If God is a God of love, then
God is also a God of justice (which is merely love
applied in a societal context), which means that those
who sincerely try to speak God's message will
necessarily have to confront those in power, at one
time or another. The prophets of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) were full of challenge to
society and those in power when they spoke on behalf
of the God of love, and Jesus didn't exactly avoid
ticking people off either..."
So, there you have it. That's all I have to say on the subject. For more information on the denomination's response, you can visit the website of the United Church of Christ at http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html
The news section also contains many other related stories.
Lamenting that this political campaign season is way too long,
Pastor Chris
Here are some random thoughts I e-mailed to a friend after the Rev. Dr. Wright's comments hit the airwaves:
"The fact that single lines are taken out of context
and run on air over and over again is, of course,
terrible. But I was more disappointed with the public's
response--why can't we Americans accept the
possibility that the rest of the world may have
legitimate reasons to dislike us? Why do so many of
us insist on the fantasy that America does no wrong?
It's unfortunate that the debate in the media has been
over Senator Obama's acceptance/rejection of Wright, and not
over the accuracy of Wright's comments.
"One more rant--too many Christians think the point of
religion is ONLY to comfort, and that's simply not
borne out by scripture. If God is a God of love, then
God is also a God of justice (which is merely love
applied in a societal context), which means that those
who sincerely try to speak God's message will
necessarily have to confront those in power, at one
time or another. The prophets of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) were full of challenge to
society and those in power when they spoke on behalf
of the God of love, and Jesus didn't exactly avoid
ticking people off either..."
So, there you have it. That's all I have to say on the subject. For more information on the denomination's response, you can visit the website of the United Church of Christ at http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html
The news section also contains many other related stories.
Lamenting that this political campaign season is way too long,
Pastor Chris
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Church & State
Well, we delved into the world of politics yet again on this past Monday's show. I reported a recent news item concerning the Internal Revenue Service's investigation of the United Church of Christ (the denomination in which I serve). The UCC's tax-exempt status has been called into question due to Senator Barack Obama's speech at the 50th Anniversary General Synod, held in June of last year in Hartford, Connecticut.
If you'd like to read the original story reported by United Church News, here's the link: http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-speech-in-2007-prompts-1.html
(One item of historical trivia--according to what I've seen, this appears to be the first time in American history that an entire religious body's tax-exempt status has been called into question.)
Of course a debate has begun over whether Senator Obama's speech constituted political activity for the UCC. Since I was present at this event (and actually sat directly behind the President and General Minister of the UCC, the Rev. John Thomas), I wanted simply to reiterate a couple points made in the news article. First, Senator Obama has been a member of the UCC for twenty years. Secondly, he was invited to speak on how his faith informs his public service well before he had declared himself to be a presidential candidate. Thirdly, he was one of 60 presenters at General Synod to speak on how faith intersects with vocation.
(On one interesting note that I saw from my unique seat--at one point, when Senator Obama made a statement that included some promise that began "When I'm President," both the Rev. John Thomas [president of the UCC] and Edith Guffey [Associate General Minister of the UCC and administrator of General Synod] looked at each other and rolled their eyes. I got the sense that they wished Senator Obama hadn't said that.)
Now, having given you all this information, I'm more interested in the bigger question posed by the situation. What is the appropriate relationship between religious bodies and government? I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion--including separation of church and state. But I also believe that the church should be free to speak from their values on issues relevant to social and political policy.
So, in simpler terms, where is the balance? Is it currently too far in one direction or another? Should tax-exempt status be dependent on status of political activity?
There are two extremes I abhor in this debate, and these two poles highly inform my thinking on these issues. First, theocracy is unacceptable. There are those on the religious right who explicitly claim this should be a Christian nation. For example, Randall Terry has been quoted by the Indiana News Sentinel as saying, "Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." That's scary. The fact of the matter is that theocracy and democracy do not mix. Period.
The other extreme is to internalize religion as relevant only for personal or individual spirituality and salvation. This may be true for some, but I believe that Christian faith calls for much more. Much of what Jesus taught was grounded in images of the "Kingdom of God." Now, many choose to interpret this as a heavenly afterlife, but that's a misreading. When Jesus points to God's reign, he contrasts it with the current regime (in his case the Roman Empire), in which violence makes peace, victory comes from conquest, enemies are to be scorned and executed, and the poor are to be exploited in business as usual. I believe that Christians are called to work for Christian values actually based on Christ's teachings (which appears to be a novel concept for some): love enemies, honor the poor, love your neighbor, challenge the powers that maintain the status quo.
I believe it was Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia who once said that religion and politics come from the same wellspring: the difference between what is and what should be. It's a great sentiment, but one that fails to lay to rest all the questions we've raised. This debate is far from going away, and in a democracy, that's a good thing.
Out of hot wind for today,
Pastor Chris
If you'd like to read the original story reported by United Church News, here's the link: http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-speech-in-2007-prompts-1.html
(One item of historical trivia--according to what I've seen, this appears to be the first time in American history that an entire religious body's tax-exempt status has been called into question.)
Of course a debate has begun over whether Senator Obama's speech constituted political activity for the UCC. Since I was present at this event (and actually sat directly behind the President and General Minister of the UCC, the Rev. John Thomas), I wanted simply to reiterate a couple points made in the news article. First, Senator Obama has been a member of the UCC for twenty years. Secondly, he was invited to speak on how his faith informs his public service well before he had declared himself to be a presidential candidate. Thirdly, he was one of 60 presenters at General Synod to speak on how faith intersects with vocation.
(On one interesting note that I saw from my unique seat--at one point, when Senator Obama made a statement that included some promise that began "When I'm President," both the Rev. John Thomas [president of the UCC] and Edith Guffey [Associate General Minister of the UCC and administrator of General Synod] looked at each other and rolled their eyes. I got the sense that they wished Senator Obama hadn't said that.)
Now, having given you all this information, I'm more interested in the bigger question posed by the situation. What is the appropriate relationship between religious bodies and government? I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion--including separation of church and state. But I also believe that the church should be free to speak from their values on issues relevant to social and political policy.
So, in simpler terms, where is the balance? Is it currently too far in one direction or another? Should tax-exempt status be dependent on status of political activity?
There are two extremes I abhor in this debate, and these two poles highly inform my thinking on these issues. First, theocracy is unacceptable. There are those on the religious right who explicitly claim this should be a Christian nation. For example, Randall Terry has been quoted by the Indiana News Sentinel as saying, "Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." That's scary. The fact of the matter is that theocracy and democracy do not mix. Period.
The other extreme is to internalize religion as relevant only for personal or individual spirituality and salvation. This may be true for some, but I believe that Christian faith calls for much more. Much of what Jesus taught was grounded in images of the "Kingdom of God." Now, many choose to interpret this as a heavenly afterlife, but that's a misreading. When Jesus points to God's reign, he contrasts it with the current regime (in his case the Roman Empire), in which violence makes peace, victory comes from conquest, enemies are to be scorned and executed, and the poor are to be exploited in business as usual. I believe that Christians are called to work for Christian values actually based on Christ's teachings (which appears to be a novel concept for some): love enemies, honor the poor, love your neighbor, challenge the powers that maintain the status quo.
I believe it was Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia who once said that religion and politics come from the same wellspring: the difference between what is and what should be. It's a great sentiment, but one that fails to lay to rest all the questions we've raised. This debate is far from going away, and in a democracy, that's a good thing.
Out of hot wind for today,
Pastor Chris
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lenten Temptations
On last Monday's show, we talked a little about the tradition of giving something up for Lent. Customarily, this practice of self-sacrifice is thought to bring one closer to God. I suggest, however, that this gets at only half of the Great Commandment to love God with heart, soul, mind, and might and to love your neighbor as yourself. Seeking to draw closer to God without including your neighbor in the equation simply misses half the boat.
Instead, I mentioned on the show, I believe that a better Lenten discipline of self-sacrifice should lead to some benefit for neighbor or for creation. In other words, just giving up chocolate for Lent is at one level, but cutting down on travel by gasoline is a form of self-sacrifice that helps the greater good (in this case, by helping to preserve God's creation). Another example might be giving up (non-fair trade) coffee; the self-sacrifice is still achieved, and yet love for neighbor (this time exploited farmers) is also expressed.
So, as I like to ask on the show, what do you think? Do the practices of self-sacrifice help you grow closer to God? Is simple individual spiritual growth enough for a Lenten journey? Should scripture's command to love neighbor along with loving God be taken just as seriously during Lent?
Instead, I mentioned on the show, I believe that a better Lenten discipline of self-sacrifice should lead to some benefit for neighbor or for creation. In other words, just giving up chocolate for Lent is at one level, but cutting down on travel by gasoline is a form of self-sacrifice that helps the greater good (in this case, by helping to preserve God's creation). Another example might be giving up (non-fair trade) coffee; the self-sacrifice is still achieved, and yet love for neighbor (this time exploited farmers) is also expressed.
So, as I like to ask on the show, what do you think? Do the practices of self-sacrifice help you grow closer to God? Is simple individual spiritual growth enough for a Lenten journey? Should scripture's command to love neighbor along with loving God be taken just as seriously during Lent?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Religion, Superstition, and Science
On this morning's show, we talked again about the relationship between religion and science, with a particular view toward the contentions raised by evolution--natural selection, creationism, intelligent design, etc.
I've shared my views on this issue with the Benson community a couple times through letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Essentially, I believe that the Bible--including the stories we find in Genesis--were never intended to serve as a science text. As I've pointed out, the first two chapters in Genesis don't even agree with each other concerning the process and order of creation. That's because they are two different stories, written at two different periods of time, by (at least) two different authors.
In the last few centuries, our culture has increasingly made the mistake of confusing truth with fact. Facts are measurable, observable, and provable. Truth goes beyond facts. Truth is about meaning. It can be found in facts, but also in metaphors, symbols, and myths.
You will not find facts regarding the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. When the stories were composed, scientific evidence was neither extant nor important. Now we do have evidence, and we have theories--developed through scientific method--based on that evidence. However, you may find in the Book of Genesis a truth that God brings order out of chaos, that God sustatins the world, and that we are created in God's image.
There is little more that I can add to this very old discussion. It is a misunderstanding to caricature science as in the business of myth-busting religious truths; religion and science are about two different ways of attempting to explain the world. They can and should be compatible, but they are different and also should be.
What makes the current debate so alarming is that for too many Christians, science is seen as an enemy. As a result, our country's current administration has adopted anti-science views as part of policy. Official tours of the Grand Canyon, for example, no longer address the amount of time it would take for such a geological feature to form. And global warming--a proven phenomenon--remains to be taken seriously by our current leaders.
This is extremely dangerous. There are facts and evidence-derived understandings that hold consensus in the scientific community that religion must come to terms with. The earth is much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Genetically, we have more than 98% in common with our nearest evolutionary relatives. Humankind is having a massive negative impact on the planet, and if we don't change our collective behavior drastically, then we will destroy God's creation. These are all things we should accept, regardless of whatever our interpretation of sacred texts may be.
On the radio show last week, Pastor Steve Rheingans and I talked a little about supersition and folklore. We never really arrived at a defintion of supersition, and where superstition differs from religion.
However, I believe that when religion denies solid science, it ceases to be religion and slides into superstition. Many Christians, including our government, have fallen into this trap.
I've shared my views on this issue with the Benson community a couple times through letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Essentially, I believe that the Bible--including the stories we find in Genesis--were never intended to serve as a science text. As I've pointed out, the first two chapters in Genesis don't even agree with each other concerning the process and order of creation. That's because they are two different stories, written at two different periods of time, by (at least) two different authors.
In the last few centuries, our culture has increasingly made the mistake of confusing truth with fact. Facts are measurable, observable, and provable. Truth goes beyond facts. Truth is about meaning. It can be found in facts, but also in metaphors, symbols, and myths.
You will not find facts regarding the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis. When the stories were composed, scientific evidence was neither extant nor important. Now we do have evidence, and we have theories--developed through scientific method--based on that evidence. However, you may find in the Book of Genesis a truth that God brings order out of chaos, that God sustatins the world, and that we are created in God's image.
There is little more that I can add to this very old discussion. It is a misunderstanding to caricature science as in the business of myth-busting religious truths; religion and science are about two different ways of attempting to explain the world. They can and should be compatible, but they are different and also should be.
What makes the current debate so alarming is that for too many Christians, science is seen as an enemy. As a result, our country's current administration has adopted anti-science views as part of policy. Official tours of the Grand Canyon, for example, no longer address the amount of time it would take for such a geological feature to form. And global warming--a proven phenomenon--remains to be taken seriously by our current leaders.
This is extremely dangerous. There are facts and evidence-derived understandings that hold consensus in the scientific community that religion must come to terms with. The earth is much older than 6,000-10,000 years. Genetically, we have more than 98% in common with our nearest evolutionary relatives. Humankind is having a massive negative impact on the planet, and if we don't change our collective behavior drastically, then we will destroy God's creation. These are all things we should accept, regardless of whatever our interpretation of sacred texts may be.
On the radio show last week, Pastor Steve Rheingans and I talked a little about supersition and folklore. We never really arrived at a defintion of supersition, and where superstition differs from religion.
However, I believe that when religion denies solid science, it ceases to be religion and slides into superstition. Many Christians, including our government, have fallen into this trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)