|
Sid Oakley |
Posted May 19, 2006For T Recently I had a conversation
with someone who seemed to be searching for a foundation on which to base his
personal theology. More specifically, my friend had little problem accepting
the existence of a god as the architect of the universe. As a person of
science, he possessed an almost presupposition that this god was author of
all things knowable both scientific and intuitive. This god although the
creator of life stopped short of a personal relationship with human beings,
as we stop short of a relationship with a colony of ants. My friend might say
if God is our father he paid his child support by placing around us all we
need then taking a business trip to eternity. He especially has a problem
accepting the concept and person of Jesus. That is an understandable position
for me since until a few years ago he and I were of a similar mind. It seems
valid to point out that is exactly the problem most of the first century Jews
had, and the huge majority of them refuse to accept the person of Jesus
today. It also seems valid to point out this is the majority opinion of the
world. Why would God decide to
manifest Himself in human form? Why would God stoop to experience true
humanity with its suffering, frailties, and ever impending death? I suppose
there are answers to that question that are beyond the understanding of
mortals, but I believe there is one basic reason available for our
understanding. God had no other choice. God out of options, how
can that be? Picture the One God inhabiting
eternity. From a sense of love, God wishes to share existence with creatures
that share a degree of his nature. He spawns creatures with self-aware minds,
inclined toward reason, and capable of love. Now suppose he grants them an
inalienable freewill. A result of this freewill is God’s creatures now must
choose to turn toward him and love what they find or turn inward and love
what they find there. Next he lifts this self-aware
creature with the inalienable freewill out of eternity and immerses it in
time much like a fish is immersed in water (per Derwent Suthers). So now we
have God inhabiting eternity where yesterday is the same as tomorrow or
today. His creature, man is treading in time and in this physical universe
that is uniquely created to foster man’s existence. God put on earth this creature
with the ability to turn toward him and a natural yearning for him, but he
left the choice up to us. For an omnipotent creator to design a being who had
no choice but to turn and love her would have been possible, but hardly
satisfying. God wishes her children to love her of their own freewill. Now man and God are in two
separate dimensions or phases. The only way God’s creatures know anything of
his nature is by this desire left inside us that makes us hunger for a god or
through divine revelation. From a biblical standpoint, please see Abram,
burning bush, Joseph, Ten Commandments, Elijah, the Baptist, etc. Through
these and other outlets the Word of God conveyed a sense of his nature. In
fact the entire Old Testament might be understood as God’s attempts to reveal
his nature to man despite our very willful and persistent inability to
understand. Finally the Word was made flesh and earth became the visited
planet. The year became one. Again, why does God become one
of us? Possibly the answer is twofold: Jesus came to an unreconciled world
awash in sin and error both to reconcile
(I like the term rescue) the world and to give witness to the nature of God. RECONCILIATION Jesus claimed to have come into a world unreconciled to God for the purpose of reconciliation. What is meant by an unreconciled world? A world that operates apart from the principles of God or a world out of harmony with God is in need of a course correction. What are these principles? If God is the designer and creator of the universe, then he authored the laws that govern it as well. These principles operate on two levels: the physical or those principles that science attempts to address and the spiritual or those principles that religion attempts to address. Suppose that we are in Bermuda
and we plan to sail to Europe. If our boat has a significant
hole below the waterline, we would hardly expect to make it out of the
harbor. Europe would be beyond consideration because the physical laws of
flotation would be violated as our boat filled with water. If on the other hand we had a
sound craft and we exited the harbor and took up a course due south, success
would still elude us. Even though we were operating within the laws that
govern floatation we would never reach Europe without a course correction. It
is of no consequence that the wind might be blowing us in that direction or
that this is an easier course to steer, or that it seems right. We are still
sailing in the wrong direction. This is an error that will not sink us, but
will just as effectively prevent our success. We are on the wrong course; the
spirit of our voyage is misdirected. We are in desperate need of a compass to
show us the way. Consider now the physical
principles that govern the universe. So that conditions for life might exist
on earth the principles of centrifugal and centripetal force were required to
hold our planet in its position relative to the sun. So that life might have
an atmosphere or water in which to live the principle of gravity is
necessary. This list of governing principles can be continued far past our
ability to comprehend them. However, they all have one thing in common: they
are each required for life to be as we know it. In other words, as God
conceived it, life cannot exist apart from the governing principles he set
forth. Since the earth has not
crashed into the sun, or lost its atmosphere, the laws discussed above must
be operating. What other principles are
inviolate? What if there were more
subtle, spiritual principles that govern the success and wellbeing of God’s
creature. If God has imposed these principles on the universe, he would
naturally impose them on himself with respect to the universe, its life
forms, and his creature, mankind. God respects our freewill, yet we have a
natural yearning for a god to complete us. For us to be at harmony with God
and our very nature then we must have God at the center of us. Any other
course requires a correction. However without a compass we will never find
our way. To the extent we make God’s
will the will of our lives we are reconciled to him. To be reconciled we must
supplant our will with God’s will. We must learn the lesson of Job: that we
are Job and God is God. It is simple to say and
impossible for us to accomplish. Enter then Jesus so that he might reconcile
the world to God in our stead. Enter Jesus our spiritual example, our compass. In his fine book What Jesus Meant, Gary Wills uses
Chesterton’s play The Surprise as a
wonderful illustration of this idea of reconciliation or rescue. The play
opens in the Middle Ages with a friar wondering through the woods. He sees a
caravan complete with an open platform stage and with life-size puppets lying
about with their strings loose. After some discussion the puppet master
offers to give the friar a free performance. A romantic tale is spun
wherein two swashbuckling heroes vow to rescue a damsel in distress. They
carry it off with great success and the puppet show ends to the grateful
applause of the friar. The puppet master, however,
wishes to go to confession. He confesses that he is unhappy because he loves
his characters, yet they do not breathe and reciprocate his love. As the man
turns away, the friar falls to his knees and prays that it may be as the
puppet master wishes. The curtain falls on the first act of Chesterton’s
play. The second act begins with the
puppets again lying amidst their loose strings. Soon they begin to stir then
rise on their own, and they begin to reenact the puppet show. However this
time little things go wrong, each aggravating the next. The pace of mishaps
quickens. The heroes drink too much and quarrel. They show jealousy over
their heroine and arrive too late to rescue her so that her captor is about
to rape her. At this point the puppet
master stands up on the roof of the caravan and shouts, “Stop! Enough! I am
coming down.” Now that his puppets have life
and freewill the puppet master can no longer manipulate them from above. He
must come down to be with them, to fight for them, to rescue them from the
error of their ways. Notice that this is far from
an angry God that must be appeased for the iniquities of the world. This is a
champion God, a father, who is willing to suffer himself in order to rescue
his children. He comes down to rescue us from all the accumulated sin and
error that that cripple human freedom. He comes down to do battle with all
the forces at work against God. In New Testament times this legacy of evil is
personified as Satan. God comes down as Jesus armed with obedience to be
champion for his children. We are rescued from ourselves. WITNESS Much has been written about
the differences between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the loving
God of the New Testament. I doubt that God did much changing over that time.
After all it was only about 1500 – 2000 years, which is the blink of an eye
to one living in eternity. I suspect two things are in play here. First, the
revelation of God is coming to the human race at the rate we choose, or are
able to accept it. Second, Jesus
was a much better witness to the nature of his Father than we were exposed to
before. Indeed Jesus gives witness to the nature of God, and he does it in a
most radical way. It is not easy to deal with
exactly who Jesus is. Most of us grew up on a Sunday school, storybook Jesus
who healed the lame, loved the little children, and spent the rest of his
time patting lambs on the head. As we get older this picture of Jesus is no
longer sufficient for us. It is a true picture, but it
is not complete. It hardly describes the Jesus we see striding through the
Gospels with purpose and confidence. He walks through social taboos and norms
as if the were mere cobwebs. He scoffed at the religious traditions of the
day. He worked on the Sabbath. He reviled the collection of wealth. He never
once suffered a hypocrite. He was an absolute egalitarian, the first
emancipator of women, and constant companion to the unclean. He claimed to be
God. He commanded that we love one
another ‘even as I have loved you’. Jesus demands that we treat everyone high
and low as if it were he standing before us. This is not a sentimental, feel
good, warm and fuzzy kind of love. It is radical love, searing and
terrifying. Jesus was asked, “. . . Lord
when did we see you hungry and we fed you, or thirsty and we gave you drink,
or in prison and we went to you?” His reply was, “In truth I tell
you, whenever you did these things to the lowest of my brothers, you were
doing it to me.” Later Jesus was asked, “. . .
Lord when did we see you hungry and we fed you not, or thirsty and did not
give you drink, or naked or ill or in prison and we did not care for you?” His reply was, “In truth I
tell you, whenever you failed to do these things to the lowest of my
brothers, you were failing to do it to me.” What exactly does this mean? It means that priests who
sexually molest boys are molesting Jesus. Televangelists who cheat old women
out of their money are cheating Jesus. When we despise the poor we despise
Jesus. When we step over the homeless we are shunning Jesus. When church
officials misappropriate funds they are cheating Jesus. When we make racial
slurs we are slurring Jesus. When we persecute gays we are persecuting Jesus.
When we kill in the name of religion, be it Jihad or Crusade, we are killing
Jesus. When we lie to a friend, or neglect a child, or execute a criminal we
do this to Jesus. When we love our neighbor as
ourselves, we are loving Jesus. Each time we look away or turn our back we
have strayed from the path Jesus set for us. If this seems a difficult
calling to follow, the point has not been made well enough. It is impossible.
Consider one more item. Not only are these
transgressions offenses against Jesus, but when we find someone guilty of the
most horrific of these, Jesus commands us to forgive them, not only of their
first offense, but seven times seven. This is a terrifying love
because, like Jesus, it is hard to conceive and impossible to follow. We cannot perfectly follow Jesus; we
cannot love with his perfection. In order to understand this, we need to
fully realize who Jesus is. He claimed to be God. Not one
sent from God, although he was. Not a prophet of God, though he did prophesy.
He claimed to be the Son of God, Son of Man. I and my Father are one. Before
Moses, I am. He claimed to be the living water for the deepest thirst of our
souls. He claimed to be the way to the Father. He claimed to be God. If this
is true then, as John tells us, “. . . the Word became flesh and dwelt among
us . . .” This makes earth the visited
planet and every event in human or natural history pales to
insignificance when placed beside this visit. The discovery of fire, the
invention of the wheel, the tragedy of World War II become insignificant when
compared to the visit of I am. Is there any wonder Jesus
becomes hard to accept? It is much easier to think of him as a metaphor for
love and sacrifice. It is much easier to think of him as a great teacher /
philosopher in the rabbinical model. It is much easier to think of Jesus a
prophet in the mold of Elijah. Most of us are familiar with
the three choices C.S. Lewis so aptly points out that Jesus left us regarding
who he is. Most pointedly neither metaphor, great teacher nor prophet is not
among them:
So our choices become what
Jesus must have intended all along. He was either: a liar and fraud, mentally
ill, or what he claimed to be, God. If Jesus was our witness to
the nature of our unfathomable God, and our impossible example of love, did
he leave us anything we can understand, anything we can follow? The answer is
yes. Two thousand years ago God
clothed himself in flesh and walked the dusty roads of Palestine just as did
everyone else. He was a heretic according to the learned men of his day. He
was an outcast from the cream of society. In other words he not only had a
human experience, but also one filled with challenges all of which he met
head on. He lived his life under the will of the One God free from the bonds
of the one sin. Jesus never supplanted his will for the Father’s. Jesus did
not need an example; he is the example. He went to Gethsemane and
prayed for deliverance from his fate or the strength to finish the task. He
received silence. Armed only with faith he went to his death in absolute
obedience. He went to the cross in faith, faced his death in faith, with hope
as his only companion. His resurrection was proof that his battle was won and
accepted as ransom for the whole world. He rescued the entire world. He saved his family. He saved his followers. He
saved me, and he rescued you. All required is that we not reject his victory One last thought remains, and
it is a confession. I realize that a statement such as this one falls short
of being absolutely convincing to the doubting person. About that I would
offer that just as God is not an entity that can be found at the conclusion
of a logical or philosophical argument no matter how well structured, the
authenticity of Jesus is not assessable by that means either. We must have
the presence of God to have any understanding of God. Fortunately the Holy
Spirit will again and again teach the lesson: We are Job, and God is God. We
are made in his image not he in ours. Children of Abraham Posted Nov. 21, 2005 “And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made –”
Sometime between 2100 BCE and 1500 BCE scholars
tell us that Abram was born in the land of Ur of the Chaldeans. Sometime
later this same individual changed the world forever with the radical concept
that that there is only one god. Somewhere between his birthplace southeast
of present day Baghdad and what is now eastern Turkey the One God spoke to
Abram. “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house To a land I will show you. I will make of you a great nation
And I will bless you. I will make your name great, And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those that
bless you
And I will curse him who curses you And all the families of the earth Shall bless themselves through you.” At the age of seventy-five, Abram took his
childless wife into the desert. From this first act of obedience, God raised
up what today are three nations of faith. Tradition tells us that Islam rose
from Hagar’s child Ishmael, while Judaism and Christianity sprung from
Sarah’s child Isaac. In this way Abraham becomes father of many, indeed
father of nations. Through each of these lineages it seems clear that God was
trying to bless all people. Today these nations are at war. We make war
over the earth’s resources; we war over a small land on the eastern
Mediterranean shore. We pit culture against culture and dogma against dogma.
Words that once expressed ideas have become rhetoric. Slogans have replaced
contemplation. All sides are certain of what God hates and are quick to join
in that hate. Truth has been diluted with bitterness and all but obliterated
by hate. Abraham’s blessing has become a curse spoken
by all whom God would have blessed those millennia ago. Much as God hid his face from the Old
Testament Jews, he seems to have retreated into silence as a refuge from our modern
idolatry. In a world having a plethora of words and noise, but little truth,
Silence may be God’s only alternative to abandonment. The creatures created in the image of God
would now fashion a god from their own reflection. We look through our prism
of secularism, fundamentalism, fanaticism, racism, politicalism, or
whateverism and declare our model god to be the One God. Too seldom do we
notice that all of our idols are constructed from our own limitations and are
therefore broken. They lack any power to bless. These are the idols that have us go
crusading, fly airplanes into buildings, explode ourselves and as many others
as possible just in time for the six o’clock news. These are the idols that
have us launch hi-tech bombs from a safe and sterile distance, or send
soldiers to war, or curse them when they return. These are our neon gods that
promise truth, but deliver graffiti “wisdom.” These idols blind us to the possibilities
that flourish only in the absence of Jihad or Crusade. These idols blind us
to the fact that we are all, crescent, star, and cross alike, the children of
Abraham and that God would bless us if we would just get out of the way. Where do we turn in a world of noise to find
a source of hope? We stop gazing with awe at our own reflection. We turn to
silence and pray that God is there. By God’s grace we will be able to listen
to the sounds of silence. Silence Posted Nov. 14, 2005 In the beginning God spoke to man with a clear and certain voice. Genesis tells us God conversed with Adam in the Garden. Later he sentenced Cain. He persuaded Noah to build an ark far from any water that might float it. God certainly spoke with
Abraham. He gave Abram strict instructions for his future relocation. God
made promises to him, and even dickered with Abraham over the destruction of
Sodom. He spoke to Moses from a burning bush, parted the Red Sea, and rained
manna on the hungry tribes, all of this while leading his people through the
desert in the form of giant cloud. God continued to speak with
clear meaning when he helped his prophet defeat the priests of Baal by
burning a bullock to ashes even though it had been thoroughly soaked with
water. God’s voice boomed from the
heavens with approval for his most perfect Word in the person of Jesus. Again
at the Transfiguration God spoke to Jesus proclaiming his favor. He spoke to us again in the
passion of his son and raised his voice in triumph with Christ’s
resurrection. God reconfirmed the truth of his Word in the acts of Christ’s
apostles. Since the close of the New
Testament, what truth has God spoken in those clear and certain Words? It was about that time, give
or take a century or two, that the Church began to speak for God. But did it
listen? We can hardly hear the voice of God in the decrees of the
inquisition, or in the screams of those burned for heresy, or the death of
those who failed to doff their cap to the pope. Today the church speaks with
many voices: from the pulpit, on the television, over the radio, and in
print. Some of these voices tell us what to believe and what to think. Some
of them tell us to tell our family and neighbors. A few implore us to listen;
a few ask us to think. Do these
voices speak for God? Some might, some likely, others hardly, but one thing
each has in common is a distinct human accent We all hear of miraculous
recoveries of hopelessly ill people. Many of us watched as men landed on the
moon. Some of us see penicillin, heart surgery, or the birth of our children as
miracles. Some of us believe that God has in some way spoken to us. Who among
us can successfully argue against these things as true? Likely the answer is no one, but it seems
clear that if this is truly the voice of God it has a human accent as well. Most of us wait and pray for a
clear word from God, but how many actually hear his voice. Most of us have to
be satisfied with the Silence. Many will say that we are not listening and
that surely is true. But can it be true always? This Silence is not without
divine precedence. According to Barbara Brown
Taylor, after returning from his Transfiguration, Jesus waited in Silence. On
the night he was betrayed he prayed long and ardently for a word from God.
Jesus received Silence. He asked for bread and was given a stone. Who among
us believes it was because Jesus failed to listen? During his trial he found
Silence and accordingly was much silent himself. During his passion he begged
for a word of assurance, but received Silence. Finally the Word of God
surrendered in faith and died in Silence with only hope as a comforter. Each day since we and the
world must rightfully live in thanksgiving that death was not God’s last
Word. According to Emo Posted Aug. 8, 2005 Whatever
happened to the Tip O’Neil type politicians that at one time populated both
of our national political parties? Tip’s days were marked by vigorous debate
and witty comments on either side of the Washington aisle. Each side tried
with varying degrees of success to make the other look foolish, but by six
o’clock news time I felt assured that each side’s political affiliation was
American first and foremost and Democrat or Republican came in a distant
second. Now
we have two parties who have demonstrably more disdain for each other than
love for their country. I no longer find it possible to believe either party
is affiliated America first / party second. When Bill Clinton was in office,
Republicans placed the security of our country second to lynching the
president. Today the Democrats seem ready to kick dirt on anything as long as
there is a chance that some of the grit will soil Bush. For
several decades, both national parties seem to offer a value choice more
similar to what we might expect from the Cripps and Bloods than from our
dominant political associations. The strange point is, despite the huge
differences in what they say, there seems little difference in what they do.
The temptation here to illustrate and pontificate ad nauseam is strong,
but, perhaps the following bit by comedian Emo Phillips better illustrates my
point. According
to Emo: I was walking across a bridge
one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran
over and said "Stop! Don’t do it!" "Why shouldn't I?"
he said. I said, "Well, there's so
much to live for!" He said, "Like
what?" I said, "Well...are you
religious or atheist?" He said,
"Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you
Christian or Buddhist?" He said,
"Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you
Catholic or Protestant?" He said,
"Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you
Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are
you Baptist church of God or Baptist church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist church
of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you
original Baptist church of God, or are you reformed Baptist church of
God?" He said, "Reformed
Baptist church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you
reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist
church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed
Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic
scum", and pushed him off. -
Emo Phillips It is not difficult to picture
Uncle Sam perched on that bridge, and our two parties mud-wrestling for the
privilege to give him a push. I can remember not always
being certain that Tip O’Neil was right, but I am certain of this: Tip would have gotten our Uncle off that
bridge. Blasting the doors off the past Posted July 11, 2005 A few days ago a car that I could have shoe-horned into
the trunk of my Aurora announced its presence with the insufferable thump of
the base woofers designed to be heard at least a mile away. When the light
changed, I was intentionally slow getting started so that the rap vibrations
emanating from the boom box on wheels might have a chance to distance itself
from my sensitive hearing. As the car passed, I recognized the driver as a kid from
my neighborhood. We can call him Matt. Though I don’t know him well, if
asked, I would say that Matt is a good kid evidently cursed with an
unfortunate affliction that compels him to play bad music at ridiculously
loud volumes. However, as the tunes faded, I was reminded of a 1967 Plymouth Fury complete with an eight track stereo and what passed for boom box speakers back in my college days. Then the music was the Doors, and “come on baby light my fire,” played loud enough to turn heads and encourage international hand signals as I drove by. It has been a long time since I thought about that car
or the eight track, and like other things from those days I am not certain if
I remember them as they were or as I now think they must or should have been.
One thing I am certain of is that I never imagined a future
half as rich as my present. I never dreamed I would sail alone to Bermuda and
back. I never dreamed a near perfect woman would actually want to marry me. I
never dreamed that participation in a community of faith like Saint Martin’s
would so enrich my life. This is a future I never planned while the Doors
were nearly blasting the doors off my Plymouth, or while, in more responsible
days, I worked toward a brighter financial future. I suppose we can influence our future to a large degree.
We can plan. We can save. We can make enlightened choices. But I have to
admit that when I look at the people and things that enrich my now, they seem
more like nuggets placed in my path than the products of my past
preparations. So maybe Matt’s future is brighter than it seemed to me
at the moment his woofers rattled the windows in my car. In fact I am certain
of it. Under any circumstance, I owe him a thank you for helping me with one
thought. The past
is irretrievable The
future is unknowable Life
happens in the now. That is a reasonable premise for further consideration. Thoughts on Revelation of GodPosted June 16, 2005A convincing, but by no means new, argument can be made
that God is a revealed entity. This argument can be put forth through a
number of channels for it seems that our revelation into the nature of God is
a millenniums old process rather than an instantaneous event. God is made
known to us in the manner of a light shining through a prism dividing into
visible colors rather than a blinding bolt. Certainly the Bible is clear that Abram was shown at
least a glimpse of God, as were Moses, and Elijah. Each of these Old
Testament figures (among many others) was allowed a view of God through their
own particular lens. Abram was given a promise. Moses was given the law.
Elijah was given a vision and a voice. Centuries before the birth of Jesus,
God revealed himself, color and bit, to an ancient people chosen from
obscurity. It was a long time between Yahweh calling Abram to leave
home and begin a new people to I Am speaking to Moses from the burning bush.
From the Exodus to the prophets, God revealed his truth through both
individuals and historical events. At last, in the person of Jesus Christ,
God lifted the veil from truth and we were given a kaleidoscopic view of the
creator’s true nature. I have come to the opinion that had our God who inhabits
eternity, who spoke the universe into being, and who breathed life into us
not chosen to reveal himself to us we would know absolutely nothing about
her. The author of the laws of physics, the initiator of biochemistry, and
creator of matter and energy is not an entity that we can box up and define
as if we were dealing with a breakfast cereal. Our God is not an entity that can be the conclusion of any
philosophical or theological discussion no matter how logical or learned.
This should not be surprising. What object or system can understand its
creator? The computer many of us use in our daily lives is capable of
performing thousands of calculations faster than we can ask it to do so, but
it is incapable of even the most basic understanding of any human mind. It
cannot comprehend its creator. Does this mean that we can have no knowledge of a God
beyond our understanding, or we have nothing of value to offer? I believe the
answer to both these questions is a definite no. Perhaps the most convincing argument for God’s existence
is our capacity to put forth the question at all. We are able to contemplate this
not simply because we are conscious, but because of our level of
consciousness. Our ability to reason and understand far exceeds that which is
necessary for our survival as a species. We are not only capable of
determining if we can do a thing, but also of contemplating should we do it.
We can not only recognize the motion of the heavens, but we can understand
and describe them. Albert Einstein thought that the most amazing thing in
the universe was that the universe is so understandable. While not all of us
are blessed with Einstein’s insight, we are able to understand much of the
universe. A certain amount of understanding is necessary for our survival.
Without a rudimentary grasp of gravity, we would see no problem with stepping
off a high ledge. However, our understanding of gravity extends to explaining
how the earth stays in orbit around the sun, and why the moon circles the
earth. Not only do we have a base understanding of this, we can employ
mathematics to define, describe, and quantify it all. So another point of view is to consider how amazing it
is that we can understand facets of the universe beyond anything necessary
for our survival. Where do we get this ability, and why have it at all? I
believe it is somehow related to our being made in God’s image – not as male
or female, dark or light skinned, tall or short, but in God’s intellectual
image. We each have the ability to know a small sliver of the
mind of God because we are his creatures. God wants from us the same thing
that we want from our children that, of our own will, we turn to him with
love and reverence. To the extent we are able to do this we become whole and
have something of value to offer our creator. In its search for knowledge of God, the Episcopal Church
uses as its cornerstone the principles of scripture, tradition, and reason.
Science uses almost an identical set of principles as its cornerstone. As its
scripture, science studies the writings and theories that precede current
work. When traditional scientific theory is challenged, the old school
patrons cling to their traditions with a tenacity that would make any
Pharisee proud. NOTE: This is actually
a good thing in both respects. Jesus was a better witness to the truth
because of the Pharisees, and new scientific theory should stand up to the
scrutiny of disbelief before it is given credence. Finally, without the
application of reason science looses all meaning. In this sense at least,
there is a degree of merger between science and religion. Today a growing number of physicists are challenging the tradition of science and society that describes a vast gulf between science and religion. These scientists who see beauty in mathematical equations and heretofore unimaginable elegance in the universe those equations describe do not see themselves in opposition to the existence of a Creator. On the contrary, they are growing to believe that what they are discovering is a faint echo of the voice of God that spoke us into being when time began with a bang. So is it possible, now that we have more tools such as
telescopes, microscopes, mathematics, and computers, God is revealing a facet
of himself that we were previously unable to see because we lacked the proper
lens? Is it possible that God’s prophets of our new millennium will come from
a set of theoretical physicists? If that seems hard to accept, consider how readily God’s
prophets have been accepted since our faith began with the descendants of
Abraham and Sarah. It is doubtful that King David was pleased to hear from Nathan
on the subject of Bathsheba. Later, God himself was crucified for blasphemy.
More recently, the dream of Martin Luther King has the ring of prophesy
today, but I can testify that it was an unwelcome message to many when it was
first spoken. Could it be then that God is still offering us
revelations? I believe that to be a distinct possibility. On the other hand,
if God inhabits eternity where yesterday is the same as tomorrow, might not
these revelations always have been there awaiting the time when his creatures
developed sufficiently to see more of the colors emerging from his prism? God
only knows, but for now I plan to take a soft cloth and polish my lens. Science and ReligionFact or Opinion? Posted May 9, 2005 Little argument can be raised
that there exists a notable contrast between science and religion. One has
but to turn the radio to hear the latest conflict in Cobb County or members
of our federal government pontificating about the proper place of religion. Every day we enjoy the new
things that are brought about by scientific success. Science enlightens our
mind and expands our imagination. All of us have loved ones or acquaintances
who have remained with us only because of scientific advancements. Science
deals with pure fact and leads to real knowledge with tangible results. On
this one point the enlightened world seems in much agreement. But what of religion? All in
the world cannot agree on the most fundamental question of all: ‘Is there a
God?’ Is each individual human experience significant and of value beyond
estimation as Jews and Christians would tell us? Is it possible that the
individual experience is but an illusion as the Buddhists say, or could it be
recycled through reincarnation as Hinduism teaches? Are life’s trials and sufferings
to be welcomed, simply endured, or avoided at all costs? It is easy to find
huge diversity in the truth regarding each of these. Is religion based on opinion?
A concept may be true to me, or true for you, but it is not just plain
true. Religion may help us get through our lives, but it is hardly a path
toward the truth. On this point also the world seems in much agreement. For most of my adult life I
have been in agreement with the world believing that science deals with facts
and religion deals with mere opinion. It is an easy assumption to make, but,
after considerable inspection, I believe that conclusion to be a most
disastrous mistake. If I thought that were true, I could not be a religious
person. I would not be involved in our church or any other. What use is there
in life for what would amount to a personal illusion? Only the truth can be
of value in living our lives or facing death. John Polkinghorne, an
accomplished quantum physicist and Anglican priest, puts it this way: Two mistakes lead to the false conclusion
that science and religion involve the encounter of fact with mere opinion.
One is a mistake about science. The other is a mistake about religion. In science, most of us believe
that science progresses by making a prediction then running an experiment
that confirms or denies the prediction. If confirmation is received, eureka!
A great new discovery is made. In practice, things are great deal more
confounding than this. In virtually every science experiment we cannot see what
is actually happening. It may be that light moves too fast for us to capture
its exact motion, or the molecules are too small for us to see their
interaction, or the sun is too far away (thankfully) for us to directly
measure its temperature. We can only see the results of
our experiment and interpret them
based in large part on interpreted scientific
knowledge we already possess. We are required to infer what is actually
happening in our experiment based on what we can see by using theoretical
interpretation. Knowledge of physics is a prerequisite to determining the
nature of light. One must know a little about chemistry to understand the
results of a chemical experiment. Even then two individuals schooled in these
disciplines will not necessarily reach the same conclusion from the result of
a particular experiment. Based on this concept, is it
now possible for us to make an inference
concerning the nature of the mistake about science? Does this mean there can
be no concrete universal truth in science? I sincerely hope not since I am
scheduled to take a jet airplane back to Atlanta this afternoon. There are a number of reasons
to believe in science. First of all it deals with our physical world, a place
where we can kick tires, read thermometers, type on computers, and fly on
jets. It is easy to believe that science deals with things as they really are
because of its successes. Consider electrons, one of the
smallest units of matter orbiting around the nucleus of an atom. Their
movement can be measured by the flow of electricity that powers our hair
dryer. Electrons can be used to explain the chemistry of our bodies or the
chemistry of the battery that generates the electricity that operates our
flashlights. How would all this knowledge and all these devices be possible
if there were no electrons that behaved as science has theorized? In this
incidence, at least, the interpretations of science seem to have produced an
acceptable working version of the truth. Most of us will find this an obvious
conclusion. Another reason to believe in
science is that it tells us about how the universe really is – even when the
description is far different from what we expected. One of the enigmas that
troubled scientists from the beginning was the nature of light. Newton cautiously put forward
that light could consist of tiny bullet particles. His contemporaries thought
that light was a wave motion similar to sound or what we see in the ocean.
That is, energy moving through a medium in the manner of a sine curve. Many
experiments were conducted that confirmed that light was defined by wave
motion. Later, Maxwell in a brilliant series of experiments identified light
as waves of electromagnetic energy. The question at last seemed settled, and
the scientific world settled on this as the answer. Imagine everyone’s surprise
and angst when Albert Einstein and others demonstrated that in a number of
circumstances light behaved as and could be defined as bullet particles. It
seemed that light, if asked a wave type question, gave a wave defined answer.
However, when an experiment asks a bullet particle question, light responds
with answers that define it as a particle. Could it be that an experiment can
be unintentionally designed with a degree of bias? That I would submit is the
wrong question. A better question might be: Is it possible to design a
scientific experiment without a bias? All of us might agree that
religion involves faith. For many this translates into the gritting of teeth,
clenching our eyes, covering our ears and reciting a dogma of all things
unlikely to impossible because the Pope, Bible, or some other infallible
source of unquestionable authority tells us so. If this can all be
accomplished before the next meal, all is the better. Perhaps those of us
might consider the suggestion that faith be adopted in exactly the opposite
manner. Faith may indeed involve a leap, but let it be a leap into light
rather than darkness. For much of my early life I
whistled in the dark, a school kid stepping past a graveyard. Faith to me was
something the preacher told me it was, and I believed it because I had
nothing else to consider. Once my mantra was interrupted and my faith
challenged it slipped away into the darkness. Today I have no use for a
faith that is only a mechanism to help me cope. I stand steadfast in my
resolve that self-deception be reserved for bad personal habits. Faith, just
as with science, must deal with truth to be of any real value. * *
* Is it possible that science
and religion are intellectual kissing cousins rather that being two clans
engaged in a blood feud? Both science and religion are seeking a motivated
belief. Neither can claim absolute knowledge because each must base its
conclusions on interpreted observations, experience, and the interplay between
the two. In the Episcopal Church this surfaces in our dependence of
scripture, tradition, and reason. If we are to approach any
understanding we need both science and religion to address two fundamental
questions. Science is essentially asking and working out the answer to the
question: How? What is really going on here? Religion addresses the question:
Why? Are there reasons and a purpose for what is going on here? Example: Is
the automobile engine running because it is burning gasoline, or is the automobile
engine running because I want to take a drive in the country? How or why,
each is fundamental to truth. Understanding of our world
requires both forms of inquiry. Science alone would lead to a sterile and
impoverished world. Music would be simply vibrations in the air. The statue
of David would be a chiseled piece of stone, and Monet would have produced
collected specks of paint of known chemical composition. Science tends to
ignore questions of value, but this hardly means value does not exist. What is
of value in our lives? Is it the proper education of our children, or the SUV
in the garage? Are our values determined by societal convention, or is
something more basic at work? The apostle Paul tells us that we are no longer defined by a law written on tablets of stone, but that God has written the law on our hearts. I believe this extends far beyond a simple memorization of the Decalogue, or a rigorous adherence to the Leviticus regulations. Each of us has tattooed on our souls fundamental truths that go far beyond the conventions of our society. I know as certainly as I am
able to know anything that abuse and torture of children is wrong, that truth
is better than a lie, that a world void of beauty would be impoverished, and
that love is better than hate. This knowledge is not a legacy of cultural
choices handed to me by whatever society in which I happen to live. We know
these things because they are basic to our nature. We know these things because we are aware. We are conscious. The universe is aware of itself because we are in it as conscious beings. How are we conscious? Science has yet to answer that, but we can expect that it will. Why are we conscious? We are conscious because of our encounter with God who created us in her image. It is our consciousness that is our best proof of his existence. + + + |