« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 28, 2005
Liberal Orthodoxy & Intelligent Design
An excellent article by Colorado University Law Professor Paul Campos in Rocky Mountain News
Orthodoxy of a liberal sortA sure sign that a belief system has triumphed over its opponents is that it stops thinking of itself as a belief system at all. Instead it becomes "what every rational person knows to be the case," or "simple common sense," or, more concisely still, "the truth." In other words, the truly orthodox never think of themselves as orthodox. This allows them to crush all dissent to their orthodoxy with a good conscience, since what reasonable objection could there be to sincere attempts to stamp out self-evident falsehoods? Thus we have just been treated to the remarkable spectacle of liberals shouting hosannas to the heavens in praise of a federal court ruling that makes it illegal to even mention the existence of a dissenting point of view in a public school classroom. The court held that a Dover, Pa., school board violated the Constitution when it mandated that a short statement be read at the beginning of the school year to ninth-grade science classes.
The statement noted that students are required to learn Darwin's theory of evolution; that there are gaps in the evidence for this theory; that an alternative theory called intelligent design exists; that the school library contains a book that students may consult if they wish to learn about this dissenting point of view; and that they are encouraged to keep an open mind about theories in general.
Judge John E. Jones ruled that reading this statement violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because doing so advances "a particular version of Christianity." Let's be clear about what this ruling means. According to Jones, it's against the law for a public school science teacher to mention that intelligent design theory exists, except, one supposes, for the purpose of immediately declaring it to be "not science, but religion."
Another interesting feature of orthodoxy is that it tends to cause a species of mental retardation in otherwise intelligent people. Consider some of the justifications put forward for the proposition that it's a great day for truth, justice and the American way when a federal court makes it illegal for teachers to mention the existence of a dissenting point of view to their students:
• Science has refuted theories such as intelligent design, because science is based on the postulate that theories such as intelligent design cannot be true. It says a great deal about the power of orthodox thought that many people of normal intelligence are apparently incapable of seeing what's wrong with this argument. To quote the philosopher Bertrand Russell: "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages. They are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil."
• Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be refuted. This claim is true only in the trivial sense that no scientific theory can be refuted from within the theory itself. Consider the theory of naturalism, which undergirds the argument in the previous paragraph. Naturalism assumes that all events have natural causes. Is there any evidence that could refute this theory in the eyes of someone who adheres to it? Obviously not, since any evidence such a person examines will always and already be interpreted within a framework that excludes the possibility of a supernatural cause.
• Metaphysical orthodoxies about the origins of life, the universe, and everything become something other than a form of religious belief when you use the word "science" instead of the word "God." Even more preposterously, it's asserted that requiring one particular form of metaphysical orthodoxy to be presented in public schools as The Truth allows the government to maintain "neutrality" toward religion.
But, as has been noted in another context, no one ever expects the Spanish Inquistion
Posted by sdf at 01:40 AM | Comments (3)
December 25, 2005
A reason to celebrate?
It has long been a contentious issue, the question of this day, this Christmas. Should we celebrate? Should we ignore it? Is it pagan? The questions will likely not cease until the return of the One about whose birth we argue.
It is certain that Jesus was not born on December 25. Arguments are made for different dates, but the truth is, no writer of scripture thought it important to note when He was born, only that He was born and how and why.
But what of the argument that, since nothing like “Christmas” is found in scripture, we ought not to celebrate this day? Would not the Father have told us if He wanted us to celebrate?
This, it seems to me, grossly misunderstands our Father. How is it that the One who loves us deeply and delights in us would be offended that we wish to celebrate his Son and our Savior? How is it that God would disapprove of our desire to honor the Son?
And then there are those who say this is an adaptation of a pagan holiday, and therefore should be shunned, lest we inadvertently honor a pagan god. But this claim is nonsense. It is impossible to “accidentally” or “inadvertently” worship anyone. Worship is by definition an act of our choosing.
So should we celebrate this day? Yes! A thousand times yes! Let me tell you why.
This day celebrates the greatest event in the history of humanity. Never before and never since has anything like this occurred, where God, the one true and living God, the creator and sustainer of all that is, became a man. He became a man, just like me. This simple statement -- God became man -- is simply beyond us. It is far past anything I can understand.
But this I do understand: When He came, He changed the course of history. When He came, the world changed from a place without hope to a place of light and hope. It became a place where there was a reason to live.
Before this day – whenever it was, it doesn’t matter – before this day there was darkness. God was silent, and had not spoken for four hundred years! Those few who worshipped him groaned to see their redemption.
And then, in one day, in one seemingly insignificant birth, history changed! Hope entered the world! We are no longer in darkness! We are no longer in a world where God is silent. The Word of God came and dwelt among us! God has spoken, and the Light has come!
Hallelujah! Celebrate! Celebrate! We have hope!
Posted by at 11:59 AM | Comments (3)
December 20, 2005
How do we know? How do they know?
How can the world know the church is the people of God? In fact, how can we – those in the church – know we are the people of God? Surely there is a better way than to simply assume it. “Well, of course that’s who we are. After all, we are Christians, aren’t we?”
But the question is a good one: How can we know and how can the world know we are the people of God? This is too important to simply assume.
In Exodus 33, God told Moses that He would no longer go with the people, because they were so stubborn that if He came among them again, He would kill them. This was very bad news for Israel. Moses’ response to God is very interesting (v.15f): “Then he said to Him, ‘If your presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here. For how can is be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not by your going up with us, so that we, I and your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?’”
When God was present with Israel, there were evident manifestations of his presence and his power. Nobody missed them, because they were obvious and evident to all.
In Matthew 11, the disciples of John come to Jesus, sent by the imprisoned John, wanting to know if He is the one they have been looking for. Jesus replied, “Go and tell John what you see and hear.” What was that? What they saw and heard was the lame walking, the sick healed, and more. They saw, as did Moses, evident manifestations of the power of God. There was no question that something supernatural was going on.
How do we know? Do we just assume?
Jesus said in John 13 that the world would know we are his followers by the love we have for each other. That we would love each other the way He loved us.
So it seems that there are two things that characterize God’s people: A deep love for each other, and the evident presence of the transforming power of God in the lives of people.
To presume God’s presence and approval is unthinkable and beyond arrogant. But we continue to do so. I wonder if that's the reason most of the world has no interest in us.
Posted by at 08:36 AM | Comments (14)
December 15, 2005
And For His Grand Finale...
From the Sioux City Journal
Illusionist puts wine-from-water and other biblical accounts to the test
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Nashville illusionist Brock Gill never figured Jesus for a master magician.
As an evangelical Christian, Gill always accepted the biblical accounts of Jesus' miracles as just that -- miracles.
But when the BBC asked him to travel to the Holy Land to investigate whether Jesus could have used magic, hypnotism or some other trick to create the illusion of miracles, Gill couldn't refuse.
"I've always been fascinated by miracles, ever since I was a kid reading the Bible stories," says Gill, host of the three-hour special, "Miracles of Jesus," which will be shown on the Discovery Channel on Christmas Eve.
At the outset, the show makes clear he's a Christian. But Gill says he had to set aside his personal beliefs and approach such stories as the raising of the dead and walking on water with an open mind.
"Before I got into really doing the investigation, I did research on some of the skeptics' views and there were some quite convincing ideas. It rattled me a little bit," says Gill, a 30-year-old with a religion degree from East Texas Baptist University. "I thought, 'I really want to find the truth here."'
Producer Jean-Claude Bragard says Gill, who could be mistaken for a surfer with his soul patch beard and long blond hair, was a natural choice for host. Gill's act includes levitation, escaping from a sealed coffin filled with water and making coins multiply.
"We realized we didn't need an academic to lead the program, but we needed somebody who was interested and knowledgeable about Scripture and particularly interested in the miracles," Bragard says.
The show uses interviews with scholars and dramatizations of Bible stories to examine seven miracles, including the multiplication of bread and fish, the conversion of water into wine, the raising of the dead and walking on water.
One segment questions whether Jesus could have hypnotized a large crowd to convince them he had multiplied bread and fish to feed everyone. In another, Gill sloshes across sandbars in the Sea of Galilee to see if Jesus could have appeared to walk on water by staying in the shallows.
In each case, the conclusion is that Jesus probably couldn't have tricked people into believing they had witnessed a miracle.
"Is it possible? Yes, it's possible that there was some type of trick because I was able to do it," says Gill, who turned water into wine during the show. "But most of those things used technology that he wouldn't have had. We re-created walking on water, but it took three 18-wheelers full of equipment to pull it off."
Bragard says the subject of miracles has "embarrassed" modern scholars of Jesus, adding: "The fact is, he was famous because of his miracles. The people then believed he was a miracle-worker, even his enemies."
For Gill, who mostly performs for churches and other religious groups, delving into Jesus' miracles only strengthened his faith.
"Before this year my beliefs were based just on the Bible and what my parents and pastors had told me," he says. "Now, I'm really convinced that what I'm believing is the truth."
Kudos to Gill for accepting this interesting project. We just hope they don't ask him to attempt to recreate Jesus' most climactic miracle -- at least not without a major life insurance policy.
Posted by sdf at 10:32 PM | Comments (2)
December 14, 2005
Vacuum-packed Christianity
It seems that American Christianity is lived in a vacuum. BY that, I mean that there are few opportunities to build truly deep relationship, few opportunities for genuine discipleship. This is especially true for men, it seems.
How do we live and be the people of God without each other? How can we reflect Jesus to the world if we don’t even know each other? Jesus said the world would know we were his followers by the love we have for each other.
How do we overcome the American “rugged individualist” model and genuinely enter into a life together?
Jesus said the world would know we are his disciples by our love for each other, and He further instructed us to love each other the way He loved us. How do we do that? What does it look like?
Posted by at 04:27 PM | Comments (0)
December 07, 2005
Early Christian Church Unearthed In Israeli Prison
This story has certainly impressed the archaeological world. Although originally appearing in Reuters, it has not quite made an impact in the mainstream media. (Go figure.) Here's the summary by Christian Today.
Archeaologists are excited over a find in an Israeli maximum-security prison of what they believe to be the earliest Christian church to ever be discovered in the Holy Land
A maximum-security jail just down the road from the site of the biblical Battle of Armageddon is the unlikely site of what archaeologists believe to be the oldest Christian churches discovered in the Holy Land.
The site was discovered by prisoners who were digging for possible artifacts in preparation for the construction of a new security wing.
The ruins include mosaic floors with inscriptions in ancient Greek referring to “The God Jesus Christ” and one featuring the early Christian image of two fish, with archaeologists estimating the date of the site to be somewhere in the mid-third to fourth century.
This is one of the most important finds of early Christianity,” archaeologist Yardena Alexandre of the Israel Antiquities told journalists on a tour of the excavation on Sunday, reports Reuters.
Yotam Tepper, who heads the excavation, told journalists: “This is, in Israel for sure, the earliest church.”
Mr Tepper told Israel’s Channel Two television that the discovery could help shed new light on an important period of Christianity, which was banned by the Romans until the fourth century, reports the BBC.
“Normally we have from this period in our region historical evidence from literature, not archaeological evidence,” he said. “There is no structure you can compare it to; it is a very unique find.”
One inscription on the floor makes reference to a Roman soldier who helped to pay for the mosaics, while another dedicates a table to Jesus Christ. Archaeologists suspect the Megiddo church was built to serve a local Christian community during a quiet period in the persecution often meted out to Christians in the Roman Empire.
"What is important about this find (at Megiddo) is it is in a transitional period. It is the very beginning of churches. There was not standard plan of a church,” said Yardena Alexandre.
According to Reuters, no decision has been made by the prison on what to do with the site.
Posted by sdf at 07:57 PM | Comments (1)
December 06, 2005
U.S. Jewish Leaders Agree: Christian Evangelical Right Is Dangerous
Here we go! The tide turneth on every front.
I guess the name of this game is simply: He who yells the most outrageous claim gets the most recognition.
NEW YORK, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- U.S. Jewish leaders met in New York Monday to develop a strategy for coping with the Christian conservative movement, which they see as a threat.
Led by Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the men will assess what Foxman claims is Christians' goal to "Christianize America," The Washington Times reported.
In a Nov. 3 speech at an ADL function in New York, Foxman said the biggest enemies to civil liberties were the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family; the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund; the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association; and the Family Research Council, based in Washington.
"It's absolutely an issue," said Rabbi Arthur Waskow, director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
"They aren't using outright violence themselves," he said of the religious right. "But they are one step down from people who are ready to use the coercive powers of the state to impose their own religious outlook."
For more of Rabbi Eric Yoffie's offensive propoganda just look here
Posted by sdf at 08:45 PM | Comments (0)
Forgiveness: A Key to Life
Forgiveness according to Jesus
Luke 23:33-43
When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."
And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One." The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him, offering Him sour wine, and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!"
Now there was also an inscription above Him, "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
Matthew 18:21-35
Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
“So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
"But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.'
"So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
"But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
"So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
"My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."
Peter thought he was going to be a really bighearted guy. He would be willing to forgive someone even seven times! Jesus takes his magnanimous gesture and “super sizes” it to ten times that amount. So does that mean that you can quit when you reach seventy seven? No. Jesus was speaking in hyperbole and basically saying that you never stop forgiving. And as a matter of fact, if you know when you hit 77, one might wonder about the quality of the “forgiving,” right?
Forgiveness: The puzzle wrapped in an enigma
Few things are as misunderstood as forgiveness. Our understanding of it is usually confused and confusing, and much of what we are told is simply wrong. And reading what the Bible says about is – as in the two passages above – sometimes raises even more questions.
In the first passage, about Jesus on the cross, we are simply amazed at the generosity and graciousness of the forgiveness he extended to others. Even the criminal hanging from the cross beside him received a loving and forgiving response. We are in awe at this, and struggle to really grab the sort of grace that Jesus demonstrated.
Then we come to the second passage, which actually took place earlier. Wow. What’s this “handed over to the torturers” and “do the same to you” stuff about?
It seems that the first passage tells us – perhaps among many other things – that God’s forgiveness and grace come to us with no preconditions of performance or action on our part. The thief simply asked Jesus to remember him. Implied in that is a recognition that Jesus was who He claimed, but his only direct words to Jesus were the request to “remember me.” God offers us the same grace: As we simply say, “Lord, remember me,” it opens the gates of his grace and forgiveness toward us.
The second is a parable, of course, and like many parables, it has figures of speech and wordplays that are lost to modern English readers. However, the point is clear: We are to forgive as we have been forgiven. This is not the only place where Jesus says this, nor is it the only place where He says that when we refuse to forgive, we risk not being forgiven ourselves. “Forgive as your have been forgiven.”
Let’s look further at this puzzle.
Forgive and forget? No.
There are perhaps two aspects of a Christian life that are most troublesome for most of us: self-control and forgiving. Since we are, by coincidence, talking about forgiving, let’s take a closer look at forgiveness.
Now, those who remember Paul’s “fruit list” may be confused at this point, so we should assure you that you are correct: Forgiveness is not listed in Galatians 5. However, in the similar list in Colossians 3, forgiveness is emphasized, especially with the command in verse 13: “Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” This echoes Jesus’ words after giving a model prayer to his first followers (Matthew 6:14-15), telling them if they forgive those who sin against them, God will also forgive their own sins. But if they do not forgive others their sins, God will not forgive them their own sins. Because of this, I am including forgiveness in our list of the patterns of the Spirit’s fruit. I believe forgiveness is foundational.
“Salvation” as presented by Paul is above all relational: It is about being reconciled in our relationship with God and equally reconciled with each other. Lack of forgiveness prevents growth in relationship. It hinders us both vertically and horizontally: with God and with brothers and sisters. If we do not deal with the issue of forgiveness, the relationship is crippled, and the work of the Spirit is hindered. There is not true community, but only an appearance of community. It is a sort of pseudo-community that really means little. Unforgiveness causes aloneness to continue, even while people are together.
Putting it simply: We cannot come into a mature, fruitful Christian life if we have not addressed this area. We either learn to forgive – both others and ourselves – or we stagnate. Forgiving is the only way to be fair to ourselves. Getting even is a loser’s game. Those who want someone who has hurt them to pay – to suffer a fine or prison time – find that they still have the pain and resentment even after the person has been found guilty and is serving the sentence. Why? Only forgiveness stops the reruns of sin. Freedom comes not from the sentence the offender receives, but from what we do about the hurt in us.
People are pretty resistant to this, however, and our hesitancy is not hard to understand, when we consider that forgiveness involves giving up our right to demand justice from one who has hurt us.
Everything in us cries out against this. We are hurt – and rightfully outraged – and we are asked to tell the offending person, “I forgive you for causing the pain I feel. I will not hold it against you.”
Even when the offender does nothing to acknowledge our pain. Even when the offender acts in a way that aggravates the pain! I gotta be kidding, right? This really is tough stuff to hear.
Part of the reason we have so much trouble with forgiveness is that we misunderstand it. Forgiveness is not saying, “Oh, that’s okay. It wasn’t important.” The fact is that we have been hurt, and it’s not okay! Forgiveness is never about fluffing over the offense, acting as if it never happened. “Forgive” is biblical; “forgive and pretend” is not. The “path of least resistance” is not God’s way. On the contrary, forgiveness – true forgiveness – requires that we acknowledge the reality of the pain. We need to emphasize this: We hurt, and it’s not okay!
Forgiveness is when, in our pain, we tell the offending person that we willingly give up our right to justice. When we forgive, we are not saying that the hurtful action is without significance, and we are certainly not saying that we have not been hurt. Nor are we saying we respect or even necessarily like the other person. The offense is significant, and our pain is real, and the offender might callously hurt us and others over and over. We have a right to expect justice. Nevertheless, we renounce our right.
Why in the world…
But why would we want to do that? Why would we want to end the possibility of justice when everything in us cries out for it? Why forgive, especially when the offender is unrepentant, and perhaps even continues the offense? The answer is simple: We forgive because we must. We must because God commands it (Matthew 6:12, 14-15). We must because we cannot expect God to forgive us when we do not forgive others. And closest to home, we must because if we choose to not forgive, we let the hurt and the wrong actions of another become controlling factors in our life. Not a good idea, right? We don’t need or want that. Forgiveness is a first and necessary step to freedom and healing.
So, we forgive primarily because God requires it of us. It is an act of obedience. But following as a close second – and this may be at least part of God’s motivation – we forgive so that we may be set free. That’s a pretty good start. And a possible side result might be the beginning of freedom for the other person, also.
Okay, a good point, but still…
Even with great logic, it’s still emotionally difficult for us to really want to forgive one who has deeply hurt us. There is something in us – something good – that cries out for justice. Someone should make things right, and whoever’s job it is, he or she needs to get at it, now! Our desire for justice is a deep-rooted part of us, and an essential factor in living in a civilized society.
Where does this desire for justice come from? It seems nearly all of us have it. Could it be that it’s a part of the deep longing in us for significance, the desire that someone recognize that our life and the hurt done to us really matter? For someone to suggest that we easily forgive someone who has done us great harm is to say that our pain – and therefore our self – is insignificant. It devalues us, saying that we don’t matter.
But that’s not what God thinks about it, and not what He expects from us. It’s not what He models for us, nor is it what we should do. Let’s take a look at where God is coming from in his own experience of being deeply hurt:
He created a man and a woman to live in a wonderful place of intimate love with each other and with him. Such a deal, right? We should all have it so good (Genesis 2, 3).
They rejected him.
Then, after many years of not showing much promise while living on their own, they had fallen into a slavery that was cruel beyond our imagination. So He rescued them and told them they were his special chosen people. He also made an agreement with them, and said that if they lived up to it, they would be blessed beyond imagination (Exodus-Deuteronomy).
And again they rejected him.
For hundreds of years, He came after them, wooing them, encouraging them, cajoling them, seeking their return to the relationship (Prophets).
Still they rejected him.
The prophet Hosea graphically illustrated the deep burning passion of God for his people who, like Hosea’s wife Gomer, were whores, running after this harlotry and that depravity. Hosea took Gomer back, on one occasion even buying her – redeeming her – out of slavery. And God took his people back – pursuing them, redeeming them, rescuing them out of their bondage. And He did it again and again, each time they wandered off (Hosea).
And yet they continued to reject him.
Finally, God took the ultimate, unthinkable step: He became a man – something utterly beyond our understanding – condemning himself to death, all to redeem a people – who largely did not care. (Gospels)
And we rejected him.
We rejected him then and we reject him now. Yet He forgives us.
Only when you are forgiven by God, free from the guilt of your own acts of rejection, can you live with a life filled with unretaliated wrongs, knowing they are God’s to take care of. When we are forgiven and forgive, we begin to experience true freedom, not caring what the score is, and who offended whom.
It’s an important point to remember: God is the one who settles the issue of justice – for the offenses of others against us, and for our offenses against others.
No small thing
When God asks us to forgive another who has sinned against us, He well understands that He is making no small request of us. He understands all too well the pain and injustice of it all. He understands – though it’s hard to conceive – our sense of insignificance. After all, we are the focus of his love, and yet we are masters at ignoring him and pretending He doesn’t exist. We have thousands of years of practice at it (Genesis 3:2-6; Judges 2:10-13 (this theme is reported over and over in the book of Judges). Hosea 4:6; Romans 1:18-32; Hebrews 2:1-3).
God understands all too well, and still tells us to forgive others as He forgives us. Why? Because without forgiveness, there is only bondage, there is only unceasing pain, there is no place for healing (Matthew 6:15). Forgiveness is the first step to freedom (Revelation 1:5). Forgiveness is also a necessary step toward eternal life, which is not an unending continuation of this painful and difficult life (Revelation 21:1-7). Who wants a forever of this? No, eternal life is in intimately knowing God, and living in the glory of his presence (John 17:3).
Simply saying “I have forgiven you” doesn’t make it so…
When is forgiving not forgiving? Have you ever been approached by someone who has deeply offended you and who now lightly asks for forgiveness, and you hesitantly say, “Yeah. It’s okay.” And you blow it off, like it’s no big deal? Most of us have been there at least once, right? We are trying to avoid a painful situation and to be polite in the whole situation, and so we lie.
In truth we have not forgiven, because forgiveness means release, and just tightly smiling and saying it’s okay or it’s nothing means the hurt has been neither recognized nor released. It’s not forgiveness, it’s avoidance, trying not to deal with the real problem.
We have all done it, but when we do, we are being both unwise and unfair to ourselves and to others involved. By acting in this way, we guarantee that the relationship cannot be healed, and neither can we. What they say is not true: Time does not heal all wounds.
Yet, it may be that we have good reason to avoid the incident. It may be that, at the time, we are simply unable to go where we need to in order to work through the process. That’s understandable and entirely okay for the time being, though this is a time when a wise counselor may be helpful. It’s not okay as a regular practice or an avoidance tactic. Someone else in our life who is mature, trustworthy, and biblically grounded can help us to walk through some hard places where we can’t go alone (Galatians 6:2).
When forgiveness must be my private step
When I have been offended, forgiveness necessarily involves more than just me. But sometimes it is unwise and unfruitful – perhaps even dangerous – to go physically to the offending person. And sometimes, going might even be impossible: The offender may be long gone.
Paul writes of the fruit of the Spirit – like most of what he writes – in the context of the community of believers. We do not grow in isolation. Farmers tell us that when they plant corn, putting the plants close to each other in a sort of cluster gives a much better crop. The plants need each other for pollination. Like corn stalks, we need each other for a kind of “cross pollination.” This is especially true as we consider forgiveness. We need each other to work through the problems and challenges we face in both giving and receiving forgiveness. This cannot be over-emphasized: There are no Lone Rangers in the Kingdom of God, and those who try to make it so only condemn themselves to a small and circumscribed life.
So what do we do in those cases where we have been grievously harmed by another, but we cannot go to that person to grant forgiveness? It’s important that we truly forgive, but for any one of many reasons, we sometimes can’t do it face to face.
This is where the “each other” comes in, a place where a wise counselor is invaluable. When we cannot deal with the offender directly, it is still important that we deal with the offense, for the sake of our own freedom and wholeness. So a wise, trusted counselor or friend can stand in the place of the offender. We can explain as much as we think wise of the background, and then speak forgiveness of the offending person, but to the third party. A trusted friend can often help us by being a “proxy” for the offender.
Forgiving is a process
Forgiveness is easy in the many little slights that happen in every life as a matter of living. However, in many cases – the “biggies” where we have suffered serious trauma – forgiveness is not at all a quick, easy, event. It is, rather, a process. Not all issues of forgiveness fit into a neat, black and white, either-you’ve-forgiven-or-not kind of a picture. Some of the deep-seated pains, especially those that have gone for years unaddressed, need to be forgiven in stages. You may intentionally and sincerely forgive, and then later when the same person hurts you again, all the former pain wells up and you realize you have not fully forgiven. Or you are in another situation that has some similarities and the intensity of your emotional response to that makes you realize that you have not fully worked through letting go of your first pain. When you discover that, you need to recognize and address the pain again, acting in order to forgive at a deeper level.
There will come a moment at some point when you are in a similar situation, and you will realize that you no longer carry the strong emotion from that time you were hurt. It is at that time that you can give thanks to God for having gotten you fully past the pain. Meanwhile, He sustains you through the process.
Sometimes the layers of hurt are many and stubborn, but it is certain that their number is limited, even in the hardest of problems. The layers do not continue forever. And it is certain, too, that God walks with us through them all. Especially in the cases of huge pain, forgiving is a process that may take a lengthy amount of time before realizing full freedom. But in the end there is indeed freedom, and the end is worth the trouble.
Forgiveness is a process, and sometimes it’s one that must be undertaken slowly. If we encounter a situation in which we feel the hurt flare up from a pervious injury, we have likely gone too rapidly through the process, and have not really gotten the benefit we need. We should not be afraid of time: Forgiveness is often a struggle, and some days are better than others. One saying captures it: “Some days I whup the bear, and other days the bear whups me.”
Knowing you have fully forgiven
When you have completed the process of forgiving, you will often notice three changes in yourself (Based on Charles Stanley, The Gift of Forgiveness, p. 132-133.):
1. Your anger toward that person will disappear. Feelings of anger and resentment will be replaced by feelings of concern or empathy.
2. You will find it easier to accept offending people as they are, without needing to change them. You will have a new appreciation for the situations of others that may have caused them to act in hurtful ways.
3. Your concerns about the needs of an offending person will outweigh your concerns about self-protection. You will be able to better concentrate on him or her, rather than on your own needs.
Sometimes it takes a lot of effort over a long time to get to this place, but it is indeed a sweet place to be.
Deep forgiving in Germany
from Christian Schwartz, The 3 Colors of Love, p. 100-101.)
In 1989, The Wall came tumbling down. It had separated the two Berlins – East and West – since 1961. For decades, East Berliners seeking freedom were unable to cross to the free western part of the city. In the early days a few found ingenious ways to escape, but with each new escape – some brutally thwarted – the communist authorities strengthened the wall, eliminating the weak spots. With the fall of the communist regime, East German dictator Eric Honecker – the man responsible for building the wall 28 years earlier – was deposed. Since the state had owned all their property, Honecker and his wife were left destitute and homeless.
An East Berlin pastor, Uwe Holmer, took the Honeckers into his home and offered them hospitality. At the time when public hatred of this personification of brutality was most intense, the Holmers set an example of forgiveness.
The Holmer family had themselves been victims of communist oppression. Under the regime, children of families with church affiliations were often refused admission to the upper grades of high school, making it impossible for them to qualify for a college education. Eight of the Holmers’ ten children had been treated this way. Despite superb grades, all were refused opportunities to continue their education. Amazingly, Pastor Holmer said “yet we hold no bitterness in our hearts, because we are followers of our Lord and have forgiven.”
Was Pastor Holmer always so able to forgive? No. There was a time when he held grudges. “For years it has been the forgiveness of my Lord that has sustained me. I know that my Lord wants me to forgive others. When you’ve lived under forgiveness for a long time, it’s not so terribly hard to forgive others.” In fact his ability to forgive surprised even himself. When the Honeckers stood before him at the entrance of his house, any past grudges had vanished.
Others were not so forgiving. Pastor Holmer was severely criticized for his decision. One prominent American church leader said of the Holmer’s action, “I just don’t understand it. All Honecker deserved was to be executed.” During the two months the Honeckers lived with the Holmer family, the pastor’s home was almost constantly surrounded by angry citizens, waiting – some with great anger – to get their hands on the deposed dictator.
Despite the siege of his home, Pastor Holmer could understand these people as well. “I especially remember one man who said to me, ‘I spent 15 years in prison, I was condemned to death.’ His wife stood next to him and said, ‘You cannot imagine what I’ve been through under this regime. You should not forgive so easily.’” Holmer responded, “What you say really strikes a chord in my heart. You have suffered much more than I have, and I have not forgiven Honecker in your place. But still I ask you: Do you have any alternative to forgiving Mr. Honecker? If you don’t, the poison of bitterness…will remain in your heart and will never leave you in peace.’” The man then admitted, “You’re right, there is no other way. I want to forgive, too.’” Ulmer noted, “In the first place, my forgiveness for Mr. Honecker has nothing to do with Mr. Honecker, but with me. If I do not forgive their sins, how can I expect my Father to forgive my sins.”
Those two months helped Pastor Holmer understand Eric Honecker, less as an evil man and more a man affected by the circumstances of his life. Holmer said, “I see him as a communist who came from a working class family that had been through very hard times. For him, Christianity was identical to exploitation…so becoming a communist was a logical step… Later he was arrested by the Nazis and spent ten years in prison. Finally, he was freed by the Red Army. From his perspective, it was his comrades who had freed him.”
Yet understanding the man is not the same as sympathizing with his actions. Holmer made it clear that forgiving Honecker did not come from sympathy with the old political system. Nor did it include excusing injustices. Forgiveness is not pretending, by excusing it, that evil is harmless. Nor is it accepting what is absolutely unacceptable: being indifferent to evil.
This kind of forgiveness witnesses to the power of the Spirit. The communist party replaced Eric Honecker with Egon Krenz as the head of the state. He stated, “Once again, it is the church that teaches us a tolerance that we as Communists are not capable of.”
Be easily forgivable
I have written primarily about our need to forgive others, and that is, indeed, our focus. However, all coins have two sides, and the back side of this one is that we all, sooner or later, need to be forgiven as well as to forgive. I have touched on that earlier, and want to address it more now.
When our actions cause pain, and we go to the other person seeking forgiveness and reconciliation, we want a positive response. Everyone does. We want the freedom and reconciliation that forgiveness can bring. But that doesn’t always happen: Sometimes forgiveness is withheld.
One reason may be that the offended person simply will not let go and forgive, no matter what we do. If we come seeking forgiveness and encounter that response, there is little we can do but manifest a loving, gracious manner, and pray that God would soften the heart of the other person. And the fact is, God doesn’t hold us accountable for the actions of others. I am accountable only for myself.
But what about when I am the “other person” and I have not gone seeking forgiveness, but in fact have been confronted? What about when I am the one who has caused offense, and when the person I have hurt comes to me. What to I do? I am in no position for offer forgiveness, right? I “did the deed” in the first place. So, in fact, what I need is not to forgive but to be forgiven.
There is more than one way things can proceed from this point. What actually happens now depends on my response to the other person’s expressed hurt. What do I say, and how do I say it?
Looking at it from a little distance, we can see that when we have been hurt and muster the courage to confront someone else, telling that person of our hurt, we may get one of several responses. One is humiliation: “Give me a break. That little thing bothered you?” Another is the tit-for-tat response: ”Well, that’s nothing compared to what you did to me.” Most common is the defensive response – hurting was not my motive: “I didn’t mean to hurt you, I was just trying to…”
These responses are painful and hard to accept. They devalue our pain, and it is tempting to react with anger. They personally diminish us.
But there is a better way, of course, and it is especially important to consider this when I am the one confronted for insensitivity or even outright hurtful behavior. Rather than a response of defensiveness or denial of my actions or motives, I can accept responsibility for my actions and seek grace and forgiveness. I can make myself “easy to forgive.” This is part of a good approach for followers of Jesus: “Quick to repent and easy to forgive.” This is also part of being a mature person.
I could write much more about this subject, which is one of the most important in the life of a Jesus follower. However, my purpose here is to address forgiveness only as it pertains to living a fruitful life. And so I will look at only one more aspect of forgiveness – but a very difficult one: the hard cases.
Forgiving the one who is hardest to forgive
Think carefully about your life for a moment. Who is the one person most difficult to forgive? Spend some time on it; don’t jump to quick conclusions.
Got it? Well, let’s open the envelope then, and see who the big winner is!
It’s…oh, no! It’s…me! No, that can’t be right! I’m not like some of those other people I know! I’m not one of those who rip and tear and wound others!
But yes, it really is true: Of all the people in our life that we may need to forgive, we have the most trouble forgiving ourselves. And part of the reason we sometimes find it so very difficult to forgive others is that we have not dealt with the issue of our own forgiveness.
Here’s Christianity 101: God loves us, and He forgives us of all our sins. We acknowledge that. But do we really believe it? If we truly believe that God has forgiven us of our sins, why do we find it so difficult to forgive ourselves of those same sins?
Ray Anderson, in his book The Gospel According to Judas imagines a “what if” situation where Judas did not kill himself right after his betrayal of Jesus. In Anderson’s scenario, there was a post-resurrection encounter between Jesus and Judas. Judas, the ultimate betrayer, the one whose name has become synonymous with treachery, meets the One whose Name stands for everything opposed to what Judas did and stood for. If they met, what would Jesus say?
“Judas, come home; all is forgiven,” says Anderson.
Anderson says that what killed Judas was not that God would not forgive him. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Judas’ betrayal was somehow inherently terminal, a sin unforgivable by God. It was…how can I say it without making it less than it was…it was “just” a sin. What killed Judas was not that God would not forgive him, but that he would not forgive himself. What killed Judas was not his guilt before God, but his shame before himself.
In consequence of any betrayal, says Anderson, there are two factors to deal with: guilt and shame. Guilt is a “legal” concept that concerns one’s transgression against another. It is simply a fact. A wrong has been committed. It can be addressed by forgiveness on the part of the offended one. As the offended party offers forgiveness, and the offending party accepts forgiveness, the way is opened for reconciliation.
Shame is different. Where guilt is primarily other-directed, shame is self-directed. The shame we hold in us cannot be resolved by forgiveness from another. Shame we hold in us can be resolved only with forgiveness of ourselves by ourselves. And this is of great importance, because unresolved shame leads to death. It is immensely destructive, perhaps more than anything else we can do to ourselves.
Anderson says:
"Removal of the penalty of sin through death upon the cross is only too often experienced as a partial atonement. Our atonement is not complete until we experience restoration of our being, and the removal of shame as well as guilt" (p. 24).
We need the full benefit of what Jesus did on the cross. We don’t need a partial atonement, one that does nothing for the most destructive part of our selves. We need to be forgiven, and to forgive: both others and ourselves. But talking about self-forgiveness and doing it are two far different matters, right? Especially in this case.
But what of times when we are ashamed of ourselves because of the accusations of others, or even because of our own self-perception? Do we forgive ourselves for shame felt because of the actions of another? Well, no. First, when we feel ashamed of ourselves – truly ashamed, not simply embarrassed – from the actions of another, we are buying someone else’s lies.
It is certainly possible for someone else to embarrass us. But the only reason we will be ashamed is if we believe the accusation made about us. Someone saying something that we believe is not true may embarrass us, it may anger us, but it will not shame us.
The difference lies in what we believe. If we believe the accusations, we will be shamed. If we do not, we will not be shamed. An here is an important principle: We will not believe about ourselves what we don’t already think is true. If someone says something about us that we believe inside to be untrue, there will be no shame. If we are genuinely experiencing shame, the only remedy is to experience the truth: the profound, amazing and passionate love of God for us. It is to see ourselves as God sees us. But that’s not always so easy, right?
It happens most readily in community. It is in the fellowship of mature, wise, like-minded followers of Jesus that issues of both guilt and shame can be addressed, and that forgiveness of others and forgiveness of ourselves can begin. And if we hope to have a life of fruitfulness, a life enjoying the work of the Holy Spirit in and through us, the issue of forgiveness must be addressed. We can there address our forgiveness of others who have hurt us, and of ourselves, who have hurt us.
Forgiveness and injustice
The question is sure to arise that as we are encouraging forgiveness of wrongdoers, are we not are at the same time encouraging acceptance of injustice? The answer is that we are not. We are indeed renouncing our own right to seek justice, but we are not saying that the injustice is okay. Rather, we are deferring to God, the ultimate judge, and releasing the matter in the knowledge that – in the end – nobody walks away from committing unjust and oppressive acts without consequences. God is still on the throne, and there is still justice. Always.
Posted by at 01:44 PM | Comments (1)
December 02, 2005
Don’t Fear the Designer: Competing philosophies and beliefs.
(By Tom Bethell)
PLEASE read this in full. This is an excellent analysis of the Intelligent Design versus Evolution argument. From National Review Online (NRO):
My new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, addresses many topics, ranging from endangered species to the alleged warfare of religion and science. But two in particular have repeatedly come up in radio interviews: global warming and intelligent design (I have chapters on both).
Most on the Right are agreed on global warming: It's mostly politics dressed up as science. But what about intelligent design?
On this, conservatives are divided. Many — dare I call them the rank and file? — are skeptical about evolution and, I sense, are willing to throw it overboard. Others — I'll call them the chattering class — think things have gone too far, and that when it comes to evolution we should show Harvard and Yale a little more respect.
George Will recently said that the Kansas Board of Education (which on Election Day voted to amend science standards in favor of intelligent design) is controlled "by the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people." Charles Krauthammer, too, wants to read evolution skeptics out of polite society.
But more than snobbish disdain will be needed to deal with the facts and arguments put forward by the proponents of intelligent design.
George Will tells us that evolution is a fact. Is it? It depends on what you mean by evolution. Add an antibiotic to a dish of bacteria, so that some die and some survive, and bacterial resistance may be seen. This is said to illustrate natural selection — Charles Darwin's great discovery and claim to fame — and, therefore, evolution in action. Charles Krauthammer is pleased to tell us that the advocates of intelligent design "admit" that natural selection "explains such things as the development of drug resistance."
Petri Politics
But what actually happens in the Petri dish? Some of the bacteria are naturally equipped with enzymes that give them immunity to the antibiotic. So they survive, while most of the bacteria die. Nutrients remain in the dish, and the resistant strain now has an ample food supply and multiplies. Before, it could hardly compete with the far more abundant strain, now wiped out. So the (pre-existing) resistant strain becomes more numerous. There is a multiplication of something that already existed. But as the famous geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan said about 100 years ago — he spent years studying fruit flies at Columbia University and was rewarded with the Nobel Prize — evolution means making new things, not more of what already exists.Nonetheless, if you define evolution as a change of gene ratios, well, yes, there has been such a change of ratios in the population of bacteria. So, if your definition of evolution is sufficiently modest, then you can call evolution a fact. Others define evolution as "change over time." That's a fact, too.
But we know perfectly well that, to its devotees, evolution means something much more than that.
We are expected to believe — and I do mean believe — that evolution answers the important question: How did life, in all its abundance, appear on Earth? By the slow, successive modification of pre-existing forms, Darwin said. Go back far enough, to one of those warm little ponds Darwinians assume must have existed, and we would find that life started of its own accord from nothing in particular. Over the eons, atoms and molecules whirled themselves into ever more complicated structures. Eventually the best and brightest acquired consciousness, and started to ask: "How did we get here?" The usual answer was: "We seem to have been intelligently designed." Then others replied: "Oh, no, no, no, we all started in a warm little pond, way back."
Just the Facts
Whom to believe? Or maybe we should approach it more scientifically: What are the facts?If we discount trivial examples like bacterial resistance or "change over time" or small changes in beak size among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, we don't know very much about evolution at all. We don't see it happening around us, or in the rocks.
In my book, I quote Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, telling a professional audience at the American Museum in New York that there was "not one thing" he knew about evolution. He had asked the evolutionary-morphology seminar at the University of Chicago if there was anything they knew about it, and, he said: "The only answer I got was silence."
Patterson, who died a few years ago, was an atheist and once told me that he regarded the Bible as "a pack of lies." There was no way he could be accused of Biblical primitivism. People would ask him, with a note of alarm, "Well, you do believe in evolution, don't you?" He would respond that science wasn't supposed to be a system of belief.
So let's look at the evidence adduced for evolution. The fossil record is sparse. Bats, for example — the only mammals capable of powered flight — appear suddenly in the fossil record, with their sonar systems already fully developed. "There are no half bats," as a world expert on bats once said. The experts have no idea what animal gave rise to the first bat.
The creatures that evolution purports to explain are fantastically complex. The cell, thought at the time of Darwin to be a "simple little lump of protoplasm," is as complicated as a high-tech factory. We have no actual evidence that it evolved — and yet we are asked, indeed obliged, to believe that it did.
In the human body, there are 300 trillion cells, and each "knows" what part it must play in the growing organism. To this day, embryologists have no idea how this happens — even though they have been trying to figure it out for 150 years.
Imagine an automobile company that came out with a new model that could do the remarkable things that living creatures do. How amazed we would be! The car would be able to repair itself, if not damaged too badly. Dent it and, in a few days, the dent is gone. It needs to rest for a few hours every day but it can keep going for 80 years on bread and water, with perhaps vegetables thrown in. And it can hook up with another version of the same automobile, and produce in a few months' time new, tiny versions of itself, which will then grow up to full-size autos with the ability to reproduce in turn.
We have been unable to do anything remotely like this in the lab. Yet we are surrounded by lowly creatures that do these things every day — and we express no amazement. We have been trained to be blasé about the marvels of creation. "Oh, evolution did that," we say. "It was just a matter of random mutation; nothing surprising there." "These things arose by accident and were selected for."
That phrase — "it was selected for" — is regarded as a sufficient explanation for . . . everything. The same mundane phrase is given as the explanation for everything under the sun. How did the bats get sonar? "It arose by an accidental mutation of the genes and was selected for. Next question?" How did the eye develop? "Piecemeal. There was a random mutation and it conferred an advantage so it was selected for. Then the same thing happened over and over again. Next question?" How did the camel get its hump? "Random mutations conferred some advantage and so they were selected for. Next question?"
This is the science before which all knees must bend? These explanations are no better than "Just-So stories" (as one or two Harvard professors have rightly said). No actual digging in the dirt is needed: The theorist merely contemplates the trait in question and makes up a plausible story as to how it might have been advantageous.
We fear questioning the evolutionist dogma. Someone might call us fanatical. "Intemperate" was the word George Will used. So we go along with the dogmas of materialism, lest we be considered ignorant or uneducated or driven by a religious agenda.
Charles Krauthammer tells us that Isaac Newton was religious and if he saw no conflict between science and religion, why can't we take our thin gruel of evolutionary science like good children and be satisfied, without dragging a Designer into the picture?
Because it isn't real science, Charles. Newton, in fact, thought that the "most beautiful system" of sun, planets, and comets could "only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." But the laws of physics that govern these motions are simplicity itself compared with the immense complexity of the biological machinery that governs the development, proliferation, growth, and aging of millions of reproductive species. These mechanisms have yet to be discovered or described. To believe that the feeble tautology of natural selection — laissez-faire political economy from the 1830s imported into biology — constitutes a sufficient explanation of the marvels of nature is to display a credulity that makes our fundamentalists seem sagacious by comparison.
George Will has made one accurate criticism of the idea he so dislikes: "The problem with intelligent design is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis." This is true; but he should have added that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not falsifiable either. Darwin's claim to fame was his discovery of a mechanism of evolution; he accepted "survival of the fittest" as a good summary of his natural-selection theory. But which ones are the fittest? The ones that survive. There is no criterion of fitness that is independent of survival. Whatever happens, it is the "fittest" that survive — by definition. This, just like intelligent design, is not a testable hypothesis. As the eminent philosopher of science Karl Popper said, after discussing this problem that natural selection cannot escape: "There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this." Popper was the first to propose falsification as the line of demarcation between theories that are scientific and those that are not; both intelligent design and natural selection fall by this standard.
The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism. Living creatures, including human beings, are here on Earth, and we got here somehow. If atoms and molecules in motion are all that exist, then their random interactions must account for everything that exists, including us. That is the true underpinning of Darwinism. What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.
But that is a sermon for another day.
Posted by sdf at 10:16 PM | Comments (4)
Theologians to ask Pope to suspend limbo
Holy Purgatory!!
Here's Reuters:
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Limbo -- the place where the Catholic Church teaches that babies go if they die before being baptized -- may have its days numbered.
According to Italian media reports on Tuesday, an international theological commission will advise Pope Benedict to eliminate the teaching about limbo from the Catholic catechism.
The Catholic Church teaches that babies who die before they can be baptized go to limbo, whose name comes from the Latin for "border" or "edge," because they deserve neither heaven nor hell.
Last October, seven months before he died, Pope John Paul asked the commission to come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocents.
It was then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected Pope in April. It is now headed by his successor at the Vatican's doctrinal department, Archbishop William Levada, an American from San Francisco.
The commission, which has been meeting behind closed doors, may make its recommendation soon.
In his Divine Comedy, Dante passes limbo on his way into hell and writes: "Great grief seized on my own heart when this I heard, because some people of much worthiness I knew, who in limbo were suspended."
Posted by sdf at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)
