Correcting Dan Brown's Confusion About Faith Part II

This gets at the heart of perhaps the most fundamental challenge in modern Christianity—the need to recover for ourselves as Christians, and to commend to our world, a biblical and accurate definition of faith.  Is faith a leap into the dark for no reason?  Or has there been a costly perversion of a term that betrays instead a fundamental confusion about faith, both inside and outside Christianity?

The contemporary attack on Christianity by critics from outside in fact has less to do with the lobbing of embarrassing facts into our yard than it does with relegating faith to the realm of mere feelings and the irrational.  Note, for example, Stephen J. Gould’s Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. (Ballantine, 1999), p.22; and also Joseph Campbell’s conversation with a Catholic priest, in The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers.  (Anchor, 1991), p.266; to name just a few.  Yet non-Christians are only part of the problem!  In my twenty plus years as a pastor I have often been confronted by Christians (and non-Christians as well) who were offended at my attempts to “defend” our faith.  And two personal friends of mine were recently asked to leave their positions as pastors of a large Christian congregation because they sought to equip their church with the skills for defending Christianity in our secular climate.  It seems that the challenge of proclaiming the Gospel in our day demands not merely the defending of the Gospel, but also defending its defense!

We must recover a sense of faith that includes the rational because the Bible itself points us in that direction.  While we are not called to understand God’s ways in an exhaustive way (Job, Isaiah 55:9), and while it is true that we often “see in a mirror dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:12), the Bible does lead us to believe it is reasonable to trust Him.  Nowhere in Scripture (Matthew 18:3 notwithstanding) is it ever hinted that we must deny our intelligence in order to trust in Him.  To the contrary readers are commanded to love the Lord your God with “all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).  Indeed, the prophets urged their hearers to rethink the folly of idolatry (Isaiah 44:9).  Paul writes that our refusal to think will be one of the standards of judgment against sinners (Romans 1:18).  The Psalm writer urges us to consider (a rational act) the reality of God (Psalm 8:3).

 Quite apart from the Bible, the word “faith” is consistent with a reasonable act.  When you say, “I have faith in you, John,” do you mumble under your breath, “so I’ll throw my caution to the wind.”?  Of course not!  Rather, you are effectively saying, “Your track record of the past gives me confidence in you for the future!”  The denial of rationality in the act of faith demeans the person we say we are trusting.  Faith is rationally-based confidence, on the other hand, that alone crowns its object with dignity. 

 
And the message of Christianity is indeed worthy of your faith in the sense in which we have been describing faith.  It is not within the scope of this essay to lay out the broad range of supporting evidence for the truth of the God of the Bible.  Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) offers a host of articles and books to that end.  You may also download my essay, “Hoax? Myth? or Literally True?” at www.christianityontheoffense.com  My point here, however, is to invite you to consider the truth of the God of the Bible with your mind.  Discover for yourself that trusting Him is not nonsense, but the smartest choice among alternatives.

Correcting Dan Brown's Confusion About Faith

As I was reading through an article recently titled "Who Was Jesus?" by Bart Ehrmann in Newsweek magazine(December 17, 2012), I noticed that he referred to Dan Brown (author of The DaVinci Code) as "that inestimable authority."  His estimation of Dan Brown is precisely the reason why I likewise have so little respect for Ehrmann.  The bottom line behind today's posting, however, is to challenge Brown himself.  Why either of these individuals is received by the secular press with so little critical analysis is for me beyond rational explanation.  The following is an article I wrote for a nationally circulated newsletter from the Seattle chapter of "Reasons to Believe:"

FACT, FAITH, and CONFUSION

Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code (Doubleday, 2003) has been a hot item for almost two years.  It has for months found a home at the top of the New York Times “Best Sellers List.”  Reviewers hail the work as “brilliant” and “riveting.”  Critics, on the other hand, have labored to expose its flaws.  I side with the critics.  The DaVinci Code is riddled with errors, not only in its details, but also in its premises.  That it is written as fiction does not negate the damage spread by its anti-Catholic (incidentally, this writer is not Catholic) and anti-Christian agenda.  Yet, again, his attempt is not successful.  The very notion, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church reeled in all the Scriptures already in circulation, deleted their embarrassing “feminine” attributes, and got contemporary believers to swallow a newly-invented, masculinized god-head, is utter rubbish.  Such a scheme was both sociologically impossible to pull off at the time, and it is unsupportable by any reputable evidence.  Apologist Hank Hannagraaff and historian Dr. Paul Maier have responded with their book, The DaVinci Code: Fact or Fiction? (Tyndale, 2004) in order to set the record straight on Brown’s long list of mistaken assertions. 

For all the attention this book has already received, however, there is one aspect that is not adequately covered.  In addition to his explicit attacks, Dan Brown also distorts the very definition of faith in the biblical sense of the term.  In a conversation between the two main characters, for example, Robert Langdon says to Sophie:

“Every faith in the world is based on fabrication.  That is the definition of faith—acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.”   [Proceeding, as Langdon does, to allege contradictory documents of all the world religions, including Christianity, Langdon continues,] “Those who truly understand their faiths, understand the stories are metaphorical” (p.341,2).

To ensure a tight critique here it is important to throw Brown a few bones.  In truth, some aspects of Christianity are metaphorical.  This is not news.  The open teaching of Christianity from the beginning is that the God of the Bible is not a literal “Father,” in the sense of having a physical body, and Jesus is not a literal “Son of the Father” in the sense of being born from a goddess!  Language by its nature falls short in expressing these matters, which elementary wisdom understands.  Secondly, Christians also concede that by strict definition Christianity is not absolutely provable (this situation is in fact parallel with scientific and historical inquiry in general).  Notice, however, that atheism, agnosticism, humanism, scientism, and post-modernism aren’t provable as faith positions either.  One must rather do the work of actually weighing the case for each position and choose the strongest position.

Beyond these two points Brown utterly confuses his readers just as he appears confused himself.  What we find in the above quotation are a series of non-sequiturs, half-truths, and the confusion of terminology.  Readers may rightly wonder whether Brown knows in his own mind what he is talking about.  His basic intention, however, is hard to miss.  The author wishes to convey to his readers that faith is an irrational act.

 

To be continued...

Is it All Bad to Be a Moving Target?"

“You are the light of the world”  (Matthew 5:14-16)

When I sat down next to a young man at a medical clinic recently I struck up a conversation about the coat he was wearing.  It was a football letterman’s jacket from a local high school.  I asked him if he played this past season.  He told me he had graduated the year before.  So I asked him, “What position did you play on your team?”  When he replied that he played both linebacker and fullback, I then asked him which position he liked best.  His answer surprised me at first, though it was not hard for me to understand his preference after all.  His favorite position was linebacker because, as he said, “When you’re fullback you have eleven players singling you out and coming after you to tackle you.  But when you’re a linebacker you get to be one of the eleven who single out that one opposing player carrying the ball.”  I had to admit to him, “You know, I’ve never seen it quite that way before!”

The linebacker is a defensive position.  A fullback is in the back field (behind the line) and on the offense.  Along with just a handful of other players, the fullback is often in contact with the football.  There are satisfactions that accompany playing each of these positions.  And both are absolutely vital for winning games.  Yet as I noted in my very first blog, in order to win games it is most necessary to advance the ball and get it across the goal line.  That is where the greatest thrill lies.  Although it comes with a price, it is these players whose names are best known.

Now as Christians it is not the point that we make our own names known.  The entire New Testament urges to the contrary that the Christian role is one of service for the sake of others.  The Apostle Paul urges us to count others as more important than ourselves (Philippians 2:1-11).  Yet there is one person who is to be lifted up day in and day out, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Whatever our specific calling in life, we are placed in our world to bear witness for His name.  At times that does not make us popular.  And the calling is not always easy.  Living for Jesus can be accompanied by a cost, sometimes a heavy one.  Yet it is as we faithfully live out our roles that the kingdom of God is advanced through us.  And this is the high privilege He has assigned to every person who knows His redemption. 

Revelation is Rational. Stopping at Nature is Not.

“However, as it is written, ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’ — but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:9,10).

I have been married to my one and only wife for over 32 wonderful years.  With the ongoing passage of time I am learning more and more things about her that I love.  One thing, however, I’ve discovered that “pushes her buttons” (which is not a good thing for me to do!), is my attempt to be silly by recounting a list of obscure things I admire about her while she is simply trying to get my attention by talking to me.  There is of course no question that she appreciates my compliments about her outward beauty.  But the bottom line is, when my wife is speaking to me, I ought to listen!  When it comes to the most important realities of life, that is personal relationships, empirical analysis is not enough.  “Empiricism” is the belief that all knowledge is derived by our five senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch) and can be measured.  Such analysis plays a very important role in understanding my (our) material world.  But it isn’t enough.  I must open my ears, and paying attention, actually listen to what my beloved says about her perceptions, feelings, and wishes.  This insight, of course, is hardly a revolutionary revelation.  Yet a deeper appreciation of revelation within relationships does have the power to revolutionize the latter!

The deservedly famous philosopher Immanuel Kant argued for the existence of God on the basis of the “Categorical [moral] Imperative,” stating that the concept of God follows logically from human moral obligation.  At the same time, Kant (ironically, “Immanuel” means literally, “God with us”) rejected the concept of revelation.  By that term he was specifically rejecting revealed religion.  Kant argued that the legitimate insights about God must be limited to observations from the natural world.  Revelation plays no legitimate role in these questions.  From his time onward the concept of revelation has been held under suspicion.  Yet in reality, there is no legitimate argument against the concept of revelation.  There is nothing that science proper has to say with respect to this possibility.  And indeed, the rejection of this possibility, leads to the impoverishment of all thinking, not just “religious” thinking. 

In my previous blog I cited an atheist who, in a recent debate, argued from the demonstrated falsity of Mormonism and Islam, to the conclusion that Christianity also is illegitimate.  In that attempt he committed the logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent.”  The suggestion that all revelation is false because not all religions are right is as absurd as suggesting that no one ever tells the truth because today’s newspaper stated that someone lied in court.  Sifting out falsehood from the truth demands moving beyond prejudice by doing the hard work of investigating the facts of the case.

That God exists at all is important, but it doesn’t to tell the whole story.  I embrace the Bible’s claim to be the revealed Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, John 1:1-3, 14, and Hebrews 1:1-3).  As the Gospel of John further fleshes out, the Creator of the heavens and the earth came into our world in Jesus Christ.  It is from this revelation that we learn the character of this God, namely that the One who stretched out the heavens at the beginning of time, in Christ came in love for the entire world to stretch out His arms on a cross in the fullness of time.  And in the present time He extends His arms to receive all who will come to Him (Matthew 11:28,29).  This truth is the most important one of all if true.  The concept of such a revelation is not inconsistent with the revelation between human beings that happens as we reveal our thoughts to each another in daily conversation.  The assertion that God cannot reveal Himself to us effectively relegates Him to a stature that is lower than us.  And that suggestion is worst than irrational.  It leads to the impoverishment of all of life.     

Why Casting Alternative Jesuses is a Very Silly Venture

"But who do you say that I am?"  (Matthew 16:15)

The cast from “Saturday Night Live” is lobbing Christianity a slow, underhand pitch with their recent (February 16) vignette about Jesus breaking out of the tomb only to avenge Roman soldiers with an automatic rifle.  Should Christians respond?  By all means!  Well, not by all means.  The last thing we should do is react with a sense of horror and an expression of personal hurt.  Jesus said, “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).  We need to remember the obvious, namely that Jesus is not hurt by such caricatures.  And our egos rest on the approval of our Master, not on secular popularity polls.  The real vulnerable in this entire scenario include both the proponents of the vignette who are damning themselves by their willfull ignorance (Romans 1:18) of factual matters, and the naïve “sheeple” who measure “truth” merely by following the latest fads.  The relevant facts about Jesus of Nazareth are neither private nor secret, but a matter of public knowledge that can be researched by every person who approaches questions of truth with an open mind.  We Christians are being given a huge opportunity to advance the extraordinary case for Jesus Christ, if only we will accept this privilege.

I just yesterday observed an extensive debate on the existence of the God of the Bible between Christian apologist, and Biola University professor, Dr. William Lane Craig, and atheist philosopher and Purdue University professor, Alex Rosenberg.  I was astonished to hear Rosenberg’s objections to the Christian claims about Jesus of Nazareth that Dr. Craig laid out. 

Rosenberg dismissed Christianity firstly on the grounds that Mormonism and Islam both rest on extremely flimsy support, so by his “logic” the Christian message must therefore be equally suspect.  Yet this “argument” in fact represents an utter lack of basic inquiry of the actual facts of the case.  It also commits the genetic fallacy. 

Secondly, Rosenberg dismissed Christianity on the grounds that since its supporting documentary evidence was written only by people who embraced the faith, then, “Why then should we believe them?”  Interestingly, later in the debate he described, with much pain, that almost every family member of his parent’s generation except his own parents were killed in the holocaust.  Now we must all surely be horrified at such evil.  But I, for one, do not deny the first-hand descriptions from the holocaust survivors because they were written by the victims.  To the contrary, I trust them far more than I do the literature produced by the wicked proponents of that murderous regime.  Not only is truth not necessarily dispassionate.  The proclamation of the truth at times absolutely demands passion.

Rosenberg thirdly cast doubt on the New Testament documents because they were penned at least three decades after the fact.  Yet in fact that time frame is utterly small compared to the accounts of other famous people from ancient history that people universally deem trustworthy.  For the present I will limit my examples to just two:  Everything we know first-hand of the life of Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar, who reigned at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, is found in only four ancient primary sources.  Jesus of Nazareth, by contrast, is referenced in 27 separate works by 10 authors in the New Testament.  In addition, almost everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from the book, “Plutarch's Lives,” who lived almost four hundred years the time of that personality.  (see Greg Boyd. Jesus Under Siege. (Victor, 1995), p.75.  See also Will Durant. “Alexander the Great.” The Story of Civilization. v.II (Simon and Schuster, 1939), p.538f. Excepting one reference to Vetruvius, the oldest ancient author cited (often) is Plutarch (1^st Cent. A.D.)).

Today’s blog is not founded on the determination that the playwrights from “Saturday Night Live” actually believe the vignette they created.  Their production is rather a springboard into the larger question: “Is it wise to misrepresent the story of Jesus in such a careless manner?”  I am not by any means a humorless blogger!  I am not above finding humor in the context of my own faith tradition.  But there are some matters that are of absolutely foundational importance.  As I referenced earlier, the Apostle Paul writes that God will not hold people guiltless who persistently and casually dismiss the claims of the One who came to be the Savior of the world (Romans 1:18f).  I will not prejudice your exploration of that question by demanding that you come to the same conclusions about Him as I do.  I can assure you that I for my part will continue to unfold the case for the New Testament claims about Jesus of Nazareth in the weeks that lie ahead.  But what I do urge is that you do your own exploration with an open mind, as Plato wrote, "follow[ing] the evidence where it leads."  The consequences of the outcome to this question are far too great to be casually dismissed before a thorough investigation.

I encourage you to consider my article, “Hoax? Myth? Or Literally True?” which can be downloaded from my website at www.christianityontheoffense.com.   

What if There Were No Earthquakes These Days? Part III

The existence of earthquake and volcanic activity contributes to the habitability of planet Earth for advanced life for an additional reason.  Besides producing dry continents through the raising of land masses above ocean level (see prev. blog), plate tectonics also ensures the recycling of elements and minerals that are vital for the existence of life to return again and again to the surface of the earth.  In the same way that the hydrological (water) cycle, together with wind, wears away at dry land mountainous surfaces through the process of erosion, and carries the particles into rivers that flow back down into the sea, so vital ingredients for life are also destined to be emptied into the oceans.  It is required for life to exist that a mechanism be in place that will return such ingredients back to the surface of the Earth.  While earthquakes and volcanos can certainly be harmful to humans, they also replenish the earth with these necessary ingredients.  That list includes oxygen which over time combines with other elements, and carbon which is digested by bacteria.  By their return to the Earth’s interior they are recycled to be used again and again on the Earth’s surface.  

Plate tectonic activity is also connected to the Earth’s electromagnetic field which not only produces the beautiful display of the northern and southern lights (“auroras”).  It also produces a field which prevents harmful radiation of the solar winds from penetrating Earth’s atmosphere at dangerous, indeed fatal levels.

Plate tectonics is further evidence that the existence of life, including advanced life such as ours, cannot be the result of mindless chance.  It must be deliberately intentioned by the Maker of heaven and earth.

For further reading I encourage you to turn to Hugh Ross’ book, Why the Universe is the Way it Is. (Reasons to Believe, 2008), and also the Reasons to Believe website at www.reasons .org.  And consider further  www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3039/plate-tectonics-could-be-essential-for-life.

“Thou didst set the earth on its foundations,

so that it should not be shaken.

Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment;

the waters stood above the mountains…

The mountains rose, the valleys sank down

to the place which thou didst appoint for them.”  (Psalm 104:5,6,8)

What If There Were No Earthquakes These Days? Part II

Arguably one of the most beautiful sights in the entire universe is planet Earth seen from space.  Against the jet black “sky” dotted by a myriad of lights from the stars, the deep blue color of the oceans that cover almost three-fourths of the Earth’s surface is both spectacular and compelling.  The contrasting color of the dry-land continents adds further beauty to that amazing setting.  These continents, however, add more than just an additional color to the picture.  Quite frankly we humans need a place on which to stand!  Now if you are a fish and you are reading this, you’re not “off the hook” either.  There would likewise be no fish swimming in the sea if the ocean water didn’t have the dry continents to interact with.  So all creatures are in the same boat together when it comes to the existence of dry land-masses.

But let’s back up just a bit.  We all agree that all creatures (including dry-landers) need water in order to live.  Just how fundamental this reality is, is so major as to call for another blog down the road.  Given the abundant existence of water on Earth, and the accompanying hydrologic cycle, which includes evaporation from the ocean, the on-going existence of vapor in the atmosphere, the dropping of water to the earth in the form of snow and rain, and its subsequent return to the oceans……this cycles makes it absolutely vital to the existence of life on Earth that our surface be constantly rearranged by plate tectonics.  The constancy of erosion from both rain and snow  that makes its way back to the sea, continues to transfer land along with it  so that it too will be dumped back into the oceans.  Left alone and given enough time, all continents are destined to level themselves out. 

Were there not another cycle to counteract the hydrologic one, we would be a water planet only (by the way I did not happen to enjoy the movie, “Water World,” which featured Kevin Costner).  There would be no dry land masses at all.  All solid mass would everywhere be below sea level, that is, under water!  Plate tectonic counteracts this tendency by clashing land masses together (these events are variously called “earthquakes”) to push land higher and higher so that firstly it raises solid matter above the ocean surface (hence dry land).  And secondly, at the risk of oversimplification, it creates mountains in two ways.  By sheer force it folds sedimentary land in on itself to form some of the most spectacular mountains in the world, including the Andes and the Himalayas and, on our continent, the Rockies.  Plate tectonics also create land masses by volcanic processes.  Wherever the plates rub together (and other places as well) liquid magma pushes up from the intensely hot mantle below in order to create land as well.  The Columbia Plateau which covers significant parts of the Pacific Northwest of the United States is composed of volcanic basalt up to six thousand feet deep.  The tallest mountain in the world (from bottom to top) is not Mount Everest, but Mauna Kea, which is a part of the volcano Mauna Loa on the “Big Island” of Hawaii.  As Mauna Loa is still erupting it is continuing to add square miles of land on out into the Pacific Ocean.

So, were it not for plate tectonics, we earthlings would have no standing at all because there would be nothing dry to stand on.  Yet that is not the only reason for its necessity.  Scientists have stated that any planet lacking plate tectonics must be a “dead planet” that is devoid of life.  In my final blog of this series I will add further reasons that tectonics is a requirement for the existence and on-goingness of life on earth…and I hasten to add, that includes for water-loving fish!  Stay tuned.

One more matter.  As I write this blog today, the TV news stations are announcing a multi-ton asteroid crashing into a city near the Ural Mountains of Russia.  Just a few minutes ago we escaped contact with another asteroid which passed us 17,000 miles above the Earth’s surface.  These are potentially very destructive events.   But they are also very rare.  That is because of the existence of one of our neighboring planets.  I would encourage you to take a look at a blog relevant to this matter, titled, “Who Can’t Use a Good Vacuum?” dated 11-27-2012.  

"God is our refuge and strength,

a very present help in trouble.

Therefore we will not fear though the earth should change,

though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea."

Psalm 46:1,2  

 

 

What If There Were No Earthquakes These Days? Part I

During the closing pageant at the Polynesian Cultural Center on our last full day in Hawaii this past October, a lady stepped onto the stage to interrupt the program with an urgent announcement.  There had been a major (6.3) earthquake in the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia, and the Hawaiian Islands were in the direct path of its expected tsunami.  The announcer urged the audience to return to our vehicles and flee.  Due to heavy traffic, it took considerable time before we even left the parking lot.  For the same reason, our bus crawled along the entire 30 mile journey right at ocean level just a few feet away, before we gained elevation to cross over the mountain spine.  News from peoples’ “Smart” cell phones announced that the expected time of arrival was 10:28 pm.  Once we dropped down the mountain pass and approached Honolulu we overheard the radio dispatcher warn all busses not to go down to the waterfront at Waikiki.  Nevertheless, our driver entered the “evacuation zone” (over a hundred thousand people had been evacuated, we later learned) and proceeded to drop off passengers at the first hotel.   By the time we reached the 2^nd hotel (we were to be the 5^th stop) the time was 10:25pm.  I said to Ann, “We’re getting out right now!”  The streets were completely abandoned and we were found ourselves all alone.  But we managed to find a parking garage where we rushed our way up to the top (8^th) floor.  There, with a handful of other people, we listened to a hand-crank emergency radio while waiting for the approaching waves expected to flood the streets directly below us.

The dreaded waves, however, never arrived.  We actually spent our last night in bed sleeping soundly.  In Waikiki the following morning the streets were again filled with people, going about their lives as though nothing had happened the night before.  What we had feared hours before (recalling the carnage from tsunamis in Thailand and Japan) did not come true for us.  Our dreaded experience of a tsunami was entirely a matter of anticipation, nothing more.  Yet as I begin my blog this morning I hear on the news of a significant earthquake in the Solomon Islands that resulted in a damaging tsunami.  And I see videos from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia of four separate volcanoes within a span of a hundred miles that were explosively erupting massive amounts of lava.  

Tsunamis turn my stomach.  They’re nothing I ever want to see.  Volcanos, on the other hand, are another matter.  I love to see flowing lava.  If a mountain explodes lava into the sky, it is all the more exciting to watch.  I have had the privilege standing on top of Mount St. Helens which, just a few years earlier, had been reduced in height 1,500 feet because of such an event.  While the movement of the earth can be scary, such as when I saw our backyard lawn ripple from a damaging earthquake a number of years ago, it does fill my heart with reverential awe.  Yet does the benefit of powerful natural events end with the visual display?  Is there a redemptive point to volcanos and earthquakes?

To be continued…

Why Science Can Never Be Enough...a letter

The following is my letter of response to an article today in the Everett Herald newspaper.  It is not a developed as I would have liked.  But I limited myself to 250 words, which are the rules of the editor.

Re: "Healing Traumatized Children: Study Says Answers are Lacking"

February 11, 2013

 

The article, “Healing Traumatized Children,” expresses dismay that science has no effective answer to matters of evil, grief, and loss.  Yet science, by definition, is the study of cause and effect interactions within the physical realm only.  The sooner our culture acknowledges these limitations, the better.  Exactly why human beings do what we do cannot be understood with electronic instruments, test tubes, or rulers.  This is not an attack science, but an insistence that there is another, spiritual, aspect to reality.

Our culture is committing the serious intellectual error called reductionism every time we insist on treating humans in solely scientific categories.  We have souls and therefore are more than material entities.  The current persistent neglect of this reality is inhibiting our receptivity, indeed our very access to, the insights on ultimate purpose, dignity, morality, sin and accountability, forgiveness, and redemption that only God can provide.  To these matters empirical analysis has nothing to say.

Doubtless, those who insist on naturalism will scoff at my letter.  But I challenge such objections on the grounds that their position is logically absurd.  Naturalism isn’t working, and it cannot, because it is fundamentally self-contradictory.  “What is good for the goose is good for the sauce.”  If it were actually true that humans are simply electro-chemical machines, then the same must be true for every single “person” who espouses that nonsense.  Why, then, using their own words, should we believe them?  For the sake of rationality we must open the door to the larger reality.

Sincerely,

Gary Jensen, Pastor

Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church

Snohomish, Washington

    

The Lack of Scientific Method and Analysis in the Pro Gay Agenda

In the present debate on homosexuality, the traditional, conservative position is typically derided as “religious” so as to pit it against the more tolerant and scientific point of view.  In my letter to the editor below I argue, using the maximum number of words I am allowed, that the homosexual agenda is utterly resistant to the constraints of the scientific method and analysis.

The Everett Herald,  (written November 3, 2012 and published a few days later) 

Dear Editor,       

As I write this letter I am hearing news of a highway project being halted because of the discovery of an insect!  Examples of caution abound in the construction world whenever projects are proposed, all with the question whether they might disrupt the natural order.  That is as it should be.  But when it comes to redefining marriage no such caution exists at all.  The pro-homosexual marriage column on the front page of the Opinion section of Sunday’s Herald failed to address even one potential damaging consequence of redefining marriage.  Tragically this same failure to address consequences is repeated across the entire movement, including editorialists and politicians.  Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose.  Accommodating visitation privileges for loved ones is a reasonable request that society can work to achieve.  But the utter lack of reflection, and the judgment of politicians that the overthrow of traditional marriage is the only way to achieve that goal, must all be judged as gross incompetence.

Drop the nonsensical straw-man assertion that redefining marriage has no impact on existing married couples.  No straight person argues otherwise.   The harm goes to children and young people in need of a time-tested vision of what it means to one day marry and have a family.  The harm also extends to parents who struggle to instill this vision.  Government must not stand in their way, most especially with the kinds of leaders that are intent on blindly pushing their agenda ahead with no foresight at all.

Sincerely,

Rev. Gary Jensen (Zion Lutheran Church, Snohomish, WA)

Refuse Their Double Standard, And Don't Forget to "Use" It! Part II

Now back to my original challenge.  Adherents of the pro position (for definitions of “pro” and “con” see my previous blog) need to come to terms with the logical obligations of toleration.  If they insist on tolerance on the part of the cons, (a challenge which I accept according to the correct definition of the term) then by their own standards it is required that they endeavor, in turn, to tolerate our position.  It is high time every party, not just the cons but also the pros, publically agree to abide by the very same standard of tolerance.  That they should settle for less than a tolerant stance themselves betrays insincerity about a central tenet of their professed agenda.  Of course the consistent practice of tolerance is not an easy challenge for anyone.  But the attempt will significantly improve understanding across the board, even as it raises the level of discussion on this very challenging matter.

The second matter poses a far more substantial challenge to the pro position since it cannot be resolved merely by working “to play more fair.”  The pro-position is entangled in a fundamental self-contradiction.  The driving force behind the pro position is not the affirmation of another, higher, morality, but instead the denial of morality in any traditional sense.  The primary objection posed by the pros is not specifically that the con vision of sexuality is immoral, but to the contrary, that the con position is grounded on a moral vision that has no transcendent reality at all.  So the pro homosexual movement seeks to have its cake and eat it too.  It is usurping the emotional weight of moral indignation to advance an agenda which dismisses morality as mere illusion.  The logical dilemma for the con position is as follows.  If it is true that no one is obligated to obey the moral vision of sexuality, then it follows that no one is morally obligated to embrace the a-moral (or immoral) view of sexuality either.  This means that the expressions of “moral” outrage by the pros are worse than wrong.  They are founded on a house of cards that can only be maintained by suppressing the voice of logic.

As I have urged from the beginning of my blog, Christians are obligated by the Gospel, and under the authority of our Lord, to treat others (including homosexuals) with dignity, and to love others with the same love God has exercised in His receiving all sinners (including ourselves) into His gracious kingdom.  The Apostle John declared in his first letter, “Beloved, if [since] God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11).  Indeed, God’s gracious love extends to homosexuals to come into His kingdom by grace alone through faith alone in the same way He calls all sinners (including ourselves).

This however, does not mean that the methods of the pro-homosexual propaganda must be received without criticism.  To the contrary, their central strategies ought to be challenged, and wherever appropriate, resisted.  It also requires taking the opportunities that are handed to us under the reality of logic and truth.  Their attempted imposition of a double standard in the debate at hand is extremely vulnerable to collapse in the face of exposure and challenge.  That this should happen, however, depends on Christians who embrace God’s vision of sexuality, holding up the standard of truth with a Godly boldness.

Refuse Their Double Standard, And Don’t Forget to “Use” It - Part I

“Therefore you have no excuse o man, whoever you are, when you judge another, for in passing judgment on him you condemn yourself because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing” – Romans 2:1

In the on-going debate over homosexual acceptance, adherents of the pro-gay agenda (henceforth referred to as the “pros”) habitually impose on those who oppose such an agenda (the “cons”), a standard which the former refuse for themselves.  Furthermore, it is highly significant that the pros vigorously advance their agenda with a kind of “moral” outrage that their undergirding philosophy directly repudiates.  My charge at bottom is that the pros are thereby committing two serious rational errors.  They are first of all insisting on one standard of conduct for their opponents which they make no attempt to keep themselves.  And they are effectively claiming a “moral” superiority for their own position which itself depends on the non-existence of binding moral standards.  Both involve the imposition of a double standard onto those who disagree with the present pro-homosexual agenda.

Though I have my convictions about the matter, it is not the intention of this blog to discuss the merits, per se, of either position in this debate.  For the sake of full disclosure I oppose the pro-gay agenda.  At the same time, I hold no personal animosity toward homosexuals.  I have no interest in interfering with their private lives.  I often enjoy associating with them as people.  I do not use the standard of sexual orientation in order to determine my level of acceptance of another person.  The charges so often laid against adherents of my position, that we are “hate-mongers” are so utterly absurd as to be unworthy of serious comment.  Such insults reflect the kind of reaction expected of immature children, not clear-thinking adults.  The fact that bigotry can be found in the “con” camp is actually comparable to the kind of bigotry that I often find in the “pro” camp.  Indeed, the fact that bigotry exists as a whole in this world is not a “sexual” matter.  Neither is it a “religious,” or “fundamentalist Christian” matter.  It is a matter of human nature in general whenever individuals refuse to regard others, who happen to be “different,” as having innate value.  Tolerance, properly understood is a calling that is to be urged on every human being.  Not one person on either side of the issue at hand is exempted.

Before I return to the fundamental concern of this blog, there is one other matter that simply must be addressed.  The very word “tolerance” absolutely demands to be defined with clarity, so as to be practiced with consistency.  Tolerance does not call for setting aside of our moral convictions.  Therefore it cannot demand our obliteration of moral judgments about certain practices in general.  An “a-moral” culture (can we even imagine such an existence?) cannot technically be a tolerant culture for the very reason that tolerance involves the deliberate acceptance of another person in spite of the existence of consequential moral and spiritual differences.  I for one do not ask others to deny who they are or what they believe to satisfy my personal convenience.  For that matter I personally distrust people who change positions just to gain influence or please others.  I believe the higher and more difficult calling laid upon us is to endeavor to live and work together in spite of our differences.

To be continued...