Atheists and their Fathers: Who really needs Sky Daddy?

There is a common complaint, that is at least a hundred years old, the Christians like myself believe in Sky Daddy. Specifically, the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and –above all- all-loving God is a projection of childish desires for protection from the scary world. “God” is just an exalted projection of an earthly father. While there is some truth to this, I think it is an argument that can just as well easily be leveled against an atheism. Paul Vitz, a psychologist, summed it up in his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.

Now, there is some qualified truth to the Sky Daddy idea. I think that many Christians use God as a security blanket even into adulthood. There is a tendency to dump every decision in life to what God is telling you. Thing is, there comes a point when God wants you to do things on your own a bit. But this does not mean that this is all Christianity and theism are motivated by.

Many atheists assert that people’s belief in God is a subconscious result of their good fathers. Why not instead assert that people subconsciously reject God because of their lousy, abusive, or absent fathers? This is called “the defective father” hypothesis. Vitz, in his book, lists many famous atheists from history –such as Sartre, Voltaire, and Netizche and shows that all of these men had either dead fathers, weak fathers, or abusive fathers. For instance, H.G. Wells’ father spent time playing cricket, drinking, and gambling instead of looking after his family’s businesses.

In contrast, Christians like Pascal, Wilberforce, and G.K. Chesterton, all had positive fathers or surrogate fathers. Pascal was “home-schooled” and accompanied his father to the philosophical lectures of his day. Wilberforce’s father died at a young age, but was looked after by his uncle, who introduced his nephew to Methodism.

Now, there is of course not a “proof” of God here anymore than there is a “proof” against God in the Sky Daddy case. It does however show a connection between our fathers and our beliefs about God. More importantly, it shows that atheism can be just as ‘pathological’ as they sometimes claim theists are.

So maybe next time you talk to an atheist, who thinks he has the finest intellectual reasons to reject Christianity, you should forget about your personal testimony or apologetics or whatever. Instead, just ask, “So how’s your relationship with your Dad?”

My, what a day! My voice has pretty much gone...! Good 10am service today... well attended and some people becoming regular faces... Roll on half term... tired and need a break! Good to see Pat Kibble there too though...

Here is a version of this morning's sermon, but I have to say that it came out slightly differently to this... often do!

As I write this, I have two songs in conflict in my head. One is “All you need is love’ by the Beatles and the other is ‘WHat’s love gotta do with it?’ Musically, if you know them you will know, they are very different, and their sentiment is also different - one is the hippy era’s all encompassing mantra and the other is about someone who has been hurt by someone they have loved finding love again. If pop songs, films or soap operas are to be believed then love is just a random emotion, something that you can neither create nor control. A bit like the wind, it comes or goes...

When the scriptures speak of love, they don’t do so as a command. The scriptures speak of love either directly or indirectly of the love of God and as an action - something God does and we are called to do. As someone once said, the whole of the Bible is effectively a love story - God loving people over many years, sometimes that love is accepted, sometimes rejected - God passionately loving men and women.

Yet in a way, the Beatles were right. We hear this morning of Jesus being asked which of he 10 Commandments was the greatest, and he replied, all you need is love. Unlike the Beatles, Jesus went on to clarify what he meant. There are over 613 laws that the Jews are to observe, but Jesus chose to sum them up using the Shema - Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. This verse from Deuteronomy lies at the heart of Jewish daily prayer still. To the Shema, Jesus adds ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself.’ Love is not a feeling, but an action towards God and others.

This is easily said. But many of us are not much good at loving God. We are not sure how to go about it. Indeed, we are not entirely clear what the idea of loving God means.

Loving God is not such a simple thing when we consider that to Love God is to love others. It means being a loving person. If we are to fulfill the Law of Christ, we need to become a loving person.
This can only happen when God's loved poured out on us is received, fills us up and poured out on others. How do we know we are becoming loving people?

Learning how to drive in the beginning was difficult. There was so much to remember like looking at mirrors, speed limits, watching out for pedestrians, etc. As he practiced, he started putting it all together. He could focus more on where he was going rather than how to get there. Driving had become second nature to him.

Jesus teaches us to love our neighbor as we love our self. How many of us love ourselves? I don't mean that we look in the mirror and somehow convince our selves that we are lovely. But none of us would normally let ourselves grow hungry. We clothe ourselves. We try to better ourselves through education or other means. We don't think too much about taking care of ourselves. It too is our nature to love ourselves.

And so it should be with love for others. We know we are becoming loving people when we love like we drive or take care of ourselves. We should learn and practice love in a way that it becomes second nature to us.

Have you ever looked at a baby and said, "That is a face only a mother could love?" In a way that is a funny statement. But it also reflects a bit of reality. There are certain people in our lives who are more lovable than others for whatever reason.

A loving person does not put condition on their love. It does not first check out the beloved, the object of love, then determine if one will love him or not. A Godly love does not place conditions on the beloved. We will love whomever. We are called to love.

This is still an impossible task. Perhaps we need the help of those who have fallen in love - and who have stayed in love - with God, to guide us. St Bernard of Clairvaux was one such. Bernard taught that loving God, like everything else we try to do that is difficult, is a step-by-step process. According to Bernard, there are "four steps of love". The first step, he says, is to love ourselves for ourselves. Then we must learn to love God.
We love God - this is the second step - initially for what he gives us. But, if we are true to this path, we shall come to love God for himself, the third step. Finally, we love ourselves for God's sake. For some, that last step is the hardest of all.

These four steps are not rungs of a ladder that I set up inside my head, shutting out the rest of the world. For those who are single-minded in their search for God, other people are not a distraction - far from it. The journey from self-love to the love of God never by-passes my neighbour.

To love God and to love one's neighbour in God is the only way to break free from the hamster-wheel character of the lives so many of us lead. Such lives - however frenetically busy they are - are ultimately futile.

Friends, our loving needs to be not just a thought, but also an action. Jesus demonstrated his love for his disciples in many ways. But before his Crucifixion there was an act of love recorded in John 13 of washing the disciples feet.

God could have told us he loved us, without ever sending his Son. Jesus could have said that He loved us without dying on the Cross. But God did send His Son, and Jesus did die on the Cross for us. What will we do for our brothers and sisters? For our Neighbors and Enemies?

John 13:34-35 - A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Amen

Soulforce Epilogue: Why I Love to Hate Prop 8

Much of Mel White’s article talks of civil liberties. Prop 8, the prop to ban Gay marriage (again) in California, is on the next ballot here in California. I can kill two birds with one blog, as well as hammer the Gay-issue done for now, at least for purposes of this blog. When I go vote, I am not voting “no” on prop 8. I am not voting “yes” either. If I do anything with that section of the ballot, it will be to take a black pen and scrawl “category confusion” across it. The best thing I can do is abstain on Prop 8.

Let me frame it in some context and background. There are two competing groups with two competing, but not necessarily mutually exclusively agendas. On one side of the ring, we have the homosexual couples that would like all relevant economic, medical visitation, and other legal benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples. On the other side, are religious conservatives who believe that their definition of marriage should protected against secular encroachment. What I think, along with a few others, is that both groups should be reconciled according to a certain principle of liberty –“one group may believe, speak, and practice whatever it wants to, as long as it does not intrude on what another group wishes to believe, speak, or practice.”

Additionally, I also think that definition of marriage is the proper domain of religion, not government. I have never like this scenario: when at a wedding the pastor is obligated to say “by the authority of the State of California” in the same breath as he says “by the authority of God.” Am I really the only Christian who thinks this is strange? Whenever I get married, I don’t really care for the “authority of the State of California” since I think marriage is a sacrament from God, administered to Christians, for the life of the Church. It is not a driver’s license or passport. The state has no authority in this matter anymore than it does to legally define a Baptism.

This is part of the reason why I refuse to vote on 8. Either way I choose, I imply that I believe the government has the right to do something it doesn’t. When people ask the government whether or not gays should marry, (or whether or not only heterosexuals should marry), the government should scratch its head and reply, “Why are you asking us? Go to a church.” This places the religious sacrament where it belongs. Churches/Denominations can then decide the gay-marriage issue according to their own polity, ecclesiology, and leadership.

Now of course, there are several legal aspects attached to marriage as it understood right now. If a couple is married, they file their taxes differently. They also have hospital visitation rights. There are plenty of other aspects that need not be expressed here. For all these, I support the parallel concept of a civil union. I believe that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should have to get these civil unions for whatever legal benefits need be. I think that the rights in question should be the same for both. There is no reason to deny a homosexuals hospital visitation rights or force them to still file as “single.”

In the end, this model is simple. Do you wish to be married? Find a church for your wedding. Do you need legal benefits? Go to the courthouse for your civil union. This reflects the principle of liberty I mentioned earlier in this blog. Both groups do as they please so long as they do not intrude on other’s toes.
Some may object to this because it still reflects anti-gay bigotry. After all, I have not allowed gays to get married. This is a misunderstanding, as I want gays to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. Yes, I think they should be legally barred from marriage, but that is because I think that marriage is not legal concept. If homosexuals want to be married, there are plenty of churches that will do it. But even if homosexuals can’t find one, they will have to accept that they are not accepted. Legislation cannot change the beliefs of religion. But I think that most of the homosexual lobby is concerned with getting the legal rights. I don’t think they really want to “change marriage” or trespass on someone’s religious beliefs.

Others may say that even though I don’t like it, I should still vote “yes” on Prop 8 to “protect marriage.” There are many reasons for this: the proper rearing of children is a common argument. Another is that marriage will simply lose its meaning if homosexuals get married.

To this I reply that I don’t think gays getting married could harm marriage any worse than heterosexuals already have -especially evangelical heterosexuals. Even though there are plenty of great Christian marriages out there, the divorce rate among evangelicals is actually higher than it is in the general populace. I have not even hit thirty yet, and I have had to see half a dozen divorces in between Christian couples younger than me. Furthermore, simply because a marriage gets the genders right, doesn’t mean it is everything a marriage ought to be. Does anyone out there doubt the occasional sham of a Christian marriage does less harm than two gay people? I think not. Maybe instead of blaming the judicial branch or the “gay others”, Christians should look at their own community and figure out what it is that we are doing so wrong that it causes these problems.

So there is my explanation. Neither a “yes” nor a “no” vote on prop 8 truly reflect my views. Both of them imply something I disagree with. I believe that people should have the legal rights conferred to them regardless of their orientation. Above all, I think the definition and defense or marriage is the role of the church.

---

With this blog, I mark the end of the homosexuality discussion. Feel I’m completely wrong? Totally full of it? A bigoted religious blowhard? A spineless liberal Christian? Then feel free to email me at uberbeanmail@gmail.com I plan to post responses in a later blog.

Soulforce Part III: Science

In this third blog I must deal with a seemingly straight foreward appeal that Dr. White makes – the appeal to science. His claims are twofold: the Holy Spirit can use science to correct Christian viewpoints on sexuality, and that science, those it does not yet know why, shows that homosexuals do not have a choice in their orientation. I must confine my response to the first claim. I believe that Dr. White’s appeal to science makes the serious mistake of oversimplifying it, and in the end it gets Soul Force no traction.

White is clear on the role of science. He writes, “Often, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient words no longer apply to our modern times.” After that, he cites a psychological study that concludes homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Instead, it something caused by yet unknown pre-natal and post-natal conditions. He also appeals to a 19th century social scientist, Karl Ulrichs, who showed that homosexuals “are a whole class of people whose drive to same-sex intimacy is at the very core of our being.” He even further explains that science, not scripture, is the proper tool for judging homosexuality and sexuality in general.

There is good reason why White appeals to science. Science, in our context, is enshrined as objective, unbiased, and unquestionable. As Rorty said, Science is the religion on the Enlightenment. It is pursued with the same zeal. It claims to have the same scope of explanation (everything). Some have even described scientists as the priests of our society. Most importantly, science is free from religious (and more broadly philosophical value) concerns. Science must be all this things for Soul Force’s argument to work. If White can make a good appeal to science, then we (good citizens of western civilization) must concede.

The problem is science is not so simple. Science (following Thomas Kuhn), is never done as objectively as we thought it was. Science is always done from a specific paradigm: a set of rules, assumptions, and questions. These paradigms come before the conclusions of science. They influence what it looks at. They decide what science will talk about. They set the parameters for what counts as a “proof.” They exclude data that does not fit the paradigm. Something other than the (high school textbook version of) the Scientific Method decides what makes up these paradigms. Most importantly, paradigms may not be neutral in the sense that Mel White needs them to be. This understood, how should Christians approach psychology? What will show us what “ancient words” no longer apply?

Consider the following examples. The famous psychologist Jean Piaget concludes that it is natural for children to believe that everything has purpose and/or is guided by God, but as we grow into maturity we learn to forego these notions and think scientifically. A more recent scientist, Herbert Simon, argued that altruism (helping others instead of reproducing yourself), is best understood through survival traits: our survival ability to learn from others (in this case, altruism) accidentally overrides the more rational need to reproduce our own damn genes.

These are appeals to science. It is a similar discipline that White appeals to. Now, what Christian sees these conclusions and says to them self, “I see! It is good to know that the Bible passages about altruistic behavior no longer apply, since science has shown it does not really come from God. In fact, the idea that religion is for grown-ups seems wrong now too. Christianity should now be properly restricted to children. I am glad I am an up-to-date Christian who knows that science corrects ancient words.” I do not think many people would. But why are we justified in doing so?

To be clear, I do not believe that science cannot inform faith. What I believe (and credit Alvin Plantinga for) is that science, especially the social sciences, are not wholly neutral and free from philosophical value judgments as Mel White may believe. Many “conclusions” about science may demand a philosophical commitment to atheism. Plantinga argues that science often makes its allegedly neutral conclusions (such as Piaget’s and Herbert Simon’s), from the perspective of certain philosophical values (what makes a person “mature”) that are in conflict with faith. When science does influence faith, it must be done from the perspective of faith.

This is why the appeals to psychology and such cannot help Mel White’s case. Value judgments about homosexuality precede the conclusions of science. They make up part of the paradigm. Many more value judgments –free will, the mind, human origins, etc- also make up the paradigm. These hidden assumptions need to be dealt with before we jump on board with Ulrich. For Christians, these values are informed and influenced by the Bible and Christian tradition. Using science to tell Christians what Bible verses don’t apply puts the cart before the horse.

Far more could be said here. It is short for sake of brevity. What I am showing here is that Mel White needs an objective, value-free, and neutral basis (“science”) in order to make his appeals here on homosexuality strong. The problem, he doesn’t have that, because science [i]isn’t[/i] that. If Mel White wishes to invoke Ulrich and expect us to follow, why would he not also follow Simon and Piaget? Certainly, there are ways to bring science into the debate, but not simply on the “science says this ‘is,’ therefore, this ‘ought’” type of argument.

Mel White makes one last appeal to Science. It is mixed in with the emotive appeals that are run throughout the article. He of course, references the familiar story of the Copernican revolution. I intended this to be a fourth blog, but it feels superfluous. Besides, I am growing tired of dealing with this subject. My final blog will contain a very timely (thanks facebook!) explanation of how I feel about Prop 8. You know, that proposition that I want to abstain from voting on.

Thanks for reading. Now go read Kuhn. :D

Soulforce Part II: Scripture

Having dealt with the rhetorical appeals, I cautiously move onto Mel White’s talk about scripture. I will write mostly on his fourth through sixth premises. I had lousy adjuncts as my Bible professors, so this section will be short. This section might be entitled “What Mel White shows, and doesn’t show, about homosexuality.”

Mel White’s first premise is this:

The Bible is a book about God–not a book about human sexuality. The Bible is a story about God’s love for the world. It tells the history of God’s love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering mankind. It was never intended to be a book about human sexuality. Certainly, you will agree.

Certainly this is questionable? Obviously, all people think the Bible is a book about God’s relationship with humanity, but why on earth should we believe that this excludes a discussion about our sexuality? A wise Bible professor (who is on the other side of the debate) once said that sex is not bad, sex is powerful. Since the Bible is about “God’s love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering mankind,” wouldn’t we expect it to deal with something as powerful as sex? Is White’s first premise not as strange as “The Bible is a book about God –not economics and money” or “The Bible is a book about God –not governments and rulers”?

To support this claim, White proceeds to list off a series of obscure, agreeably out-dated, passages from the Old Testament. White wants to remind us that much of what the Bible says about sex we do not follow. Yet in this assertion, he defeats his first claim: the Bible is not a book about human sexuality. Perhaps he means “The Bible is not a book primarily about human sexuality.” Yet this still doesn’t mean that we should simply be dismissive when we find in the Bible discussing it. It is true that much of the old laws that White cites are obscure and strange –and we should not follow them literally, but this does not mean that God no longer uses scripture to inform our sexuality.

From here, Mel examines several verses from the Bible. I think he does a good job with most of them, however, I must take issue with interpretation of Genesis creation story. Mel uses his first premise (The Bible is about God, not sexuality) to completely dismiss a priori any discussion the creation story might say on sexually. I do not think that this is fair. Maybe the creation story does not condemn homosexuality, but I think it affirms heterosexuality.

The reason I believe this is because of the work of Catholic philosophers like Peter Kreeft. In short, human heterosexual romance and sexuality is a reflection of God’s self-contained love within the Trinity. This extends to his love for creating. Heterosexual romance points us towards a “sharing” in the creation of the pinnacle of God’s creation through reproduction. This is a type aesthetic beauty that cannot be found in homosexual relationships. What makes this point even stronger is that there was no logical need for God to create two different genders in order to reproduce. For some reason, God saw fit to create male and female.

Mel White does not address this well. His counter arguments of older couples or sterile couples still ignore a connection between heterosexual romantic feelings and our joining with God in the creation of new life. His treatment of the creation story is simply far to reductionist. It is Mel White that misses hearing something here, not the conservatives.

Mel White’s treatment of Sodom is much better. You do not have to be liberal to think that this passage is not a condemnation of homosexuality itself. One general rule of interpreting scripture is that “scripture best interprets scripture.” So if Ezekiel tells us that Sodom was destroyed for pride, greed, and arrogance, then the conservatives ought to concede that point. Now of course, this may not be an either/or issue. God had plenty of problems with sexual sin that went on there too. But violent rape is not an essential element of homosexuality. Therefore, I do not think that Christians should appeal to Genesis 19 to condemn homosexuality.

The remaining passages that Mel White cites I do not feel competent to comment on (like I said, two lousy adjuncts), so I will be silent on them. From here, let us temporarily concede all of Soul Force’s remaining points about scripture. Let us also ignore the Genesis issue. I’ll even feign agreement to White’s point that the Bible authors knew nothing about homosexuality, since it wasn’t “discovered” until the 19th century.* How far has White taken us?

What White has done, and what I think is the best that liberal wing can do with scripture, is show that scripture does not explicitly condemn homosexuality. What he has failed to do is show how scripture affirms homosexuality. This may not seem like a problem for some, but it ignores Christian tradition. Throughout history, when Christians have broken with tradition (say, the debate about woman in church) they usually point out to how scripture affirms their (newer) viewpoint (Jesus, a radical Rabbi, spoke to women). Why is Soul Force, in this huge pamphlet, not pointing out the affirmation? Is this silence the real reason behind premise four? I, for one, would love it if the liberals could produce an affirmation of homosexuality.

The liberal wing has a lot against them. They have, thus far, an unanimous agreement of all Christian Doctrine so far –even post reformation. They also have much of Christianity outside Europe and North America in disagreement with them. Until they can produce a very compelling affirmation for homosexuality, the lack of a “yes” from scripture remains their Achilles’ Heal.

Throughout the article, Mel White used science to affirm homosexuality. It will be this subject I deal with in the third blog.
Thanks for reading.

---

*Although I find this view absurd. Google “homosexuality in history” to see why.

Vvvvv tired.

Ron Kibble's funeral today, and I'm dreading it... should be big, so I hope that Pat and the family take some comfort from that. I have a staff meeting before that, but it just feels like one of those days where I am not sure how I will do everything that needs to be done.

Herewith a draft of what I will say at 12noon:

You might think that this afternoon’s reading, Jesus promising rest to those who come to him, seems a strange choice when thinking about and remembering Ron. Ron the footballer and referee of some 50 plus years. Or even Ron, who worked in housing In Aylesbury, Hemel and Chilterns Districts, organising the first private sales of council owned housing. Or even Ron the passionate gardener, fuscia grower and lawn mower. Yet today we also remember Ron, who bravely and sometimes stubournly grappled with illness over the last couple of years. Also Ron the man of quiet and yet sure faith in God through Jesus Christ.

Ron didn’t do rest. When I first met him and Pat he was heading up to London twice a week, gardening, activiely involved in the lives of others Retirement was still busy and fruitful. And yet today God offers Ron rest.

I suspect that latterly, Ron has been looking forward to the rest that God offers him today. Throughout the Bible, God promises rest to people who acknowledge his pressence and who live the way asked of them. In other words, those who come to God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus says that the rest on offer can only happen when we agree to take on a yoke. Yokes focus the animals wearing them in a particular directions, on a particular task. I struggle to see Ron as someone who would easily be yoked, that said his focus on a task was sometimes almost single minded.
Throughout his life, Ron has worn Jesus’ yoke of love. Faith in Jesus Christ has been such a quiet and reassuring pressence in Ron’s life, and through that faith, Jesus has walked alongside Ron, worked alongside him, played alongside him. Where Ron was, Jesus was too. When life became hard to deal with, especially due to illness, Ron was often confident that he would get through - Jesus’ reassuring pressence carried them both forward.

Ron’s faith in God was not some sort of insurance policy that he could cash in at a later date. Neither was it a sort of moral compass for him. As we stood at the door each week after the 8am service we would talk about the normal stuff of life, and a shared passion for football (conversations that I miss hugely I hasten to add), Ron was always thankful - even in the face of adversity and uncertainty. Ron was thankful - even when he had been fouled badly like he had been over the last couple of years and was taken off the pitch - Ron was thankful for the way that God had guided his life, watching, loving, protecting. Ron’s faith was about now, about life and how to live it, and certainly not the great hereafter.

Today, following Ron’s example, must be about thankfulness to God for all that he has and will continue to be to all of us, and for everything that we have in life - however difficult our own situations might be from time to time. Today must also being aware that God offers Ron, real and lasting rest from the burden he has carried. He struggled stoicly with illness at the end, today he suffers no more and God offers him what contemporary society so badly needs - real and lasting peace - where peace is freedom from worry, freedom from illness, freedom from frustration, freedom from fear - and in their place God offers the living and beating heart of Christian faith - a knowledge that with Him - all will be well.

Today must also be about God, for today even in our sadness, God offers us his yoke of love, which as Ron will tell you, was not a burden to wear, but light and easy. God will walk, work and play with us - enabling us to find His direction in our lives however hard they may be fro time to time.

When we do take on that yoke and find faith in God for ourselves, we will each find a simple thankfulness in life, a thankfulness that Ron knew. We will also be able to receive God’s greatest of gifts - the lasting and fulfilling peace we all long for. Amen.

Alex's birthday today and we have both been feeling a little fragile after a fantastic night out with friends involving too much alcohol and too little sleep...

In laws have been here today - we took them out to a very slowly served lunch at the Papermill, but the food was great.

An interesting service service this morning... I hadn't marked that Tim was down to preach, so I prepared, only to discover that Tim was raring to go... which was fine....

Anyway, just in case toy are interested, here is what I would have preached...

Governments this week have plough more and more money into the banking sector. both here and abroad, to try to keep both the national and global economies afloat.

More and more of us are finding, with this climate of financial uncertainty that our money does not go as far as it used to - because of increased food and energy prices.

And yet, religious communities find it sometimes hard to talk about money and it’s place in life for fear of offending, especially when we are asking for it! This morning’s Gospel alludes to the fact that conversation about money even back in Jesus day could be controversial. Yet here, Jesus sidesteps the controversy and clearly teaches from God’s perspective the place money should have in our lives, the control we should or should not allow it to have, and in that sense, speaks in a very contemporary way into our 21 century lives.

The Pharisees are confident that they have found the perfect question to ask Jesus. Whichever way he answers this, he will alienate some of his followers, and that is exactly what the Pharisees want: they want to erode Jesus’s power base, without dirtying their own hands. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the Emperor or not?

So, they calculate, if Jesus replies that taxes should be paid to the illegal Roman usurper, he will anger those of his followers who hope and believe that he is the Messiah, the one who will reassert God’s direct rule over his people, and get rid of the Romans. But, if he tries to please that group by saying that taxes should be withheld, he will be liable for arrest by the civil powers, and he will frighten off the ordinary people, who want no trouble with the authorities, but who just come to Jesus to hear about God and to find consolation and healing. “Got him!” the Pharisees chortle.

However, if they think they will lull Jesus into a false sense of security, they are quickly proved very wrong. Within seconds, they are the ones scrabbling for an answer, their careful strategy completely destroyed. Once again, as in all their dealings with Jesus, they are made to look like fools, who do not know their own business.

They are supposed to be the religious leaders, but they never thought to introduce the question of God’s rights into the debate. It is Jesus who does that, as though he knows more about God than they do.

Since that has always been the heart of their hatred for him, they go away with the situation completely unchanged, but their own anger growing to the point where it will not be contained for much longer.

Apparently, it does not occur to them that Jesus’ answer is a real one, perhaps because their question was not real, and they didn’t want an actual answer. But Matthew, through his careful placing of this story, and through the build-up of the question and answer, makes us pause. What does the answer mean?

People often dwell on the “render to Caesar” part of the story, to abstract some of kind of Christian response to a state authority or the place of money in our lives. But it is not Caesar whom Jesus introduces into the conversation — he was put there by the Pharisees. The Pharisees are pretending to want guidance about our duty to “Caesar”, but they are patently refusing guidance from Jesus about our duty to God and that is teh heart of what Jesus teaches us this morning. Jesus’ point is that it is God who determines what is Caesar’s and what is not, and it is God who is Sovereign over the state, tax, money itself and indeed everything. Ultimately no one can serve 2 masters and all that matters therefore is our duty and obdeience to God.

In Matthew’s Gospel, this confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees comes after a series of parables about people who refuse to give God his due, and who will not recognise and rejoice with his Son. So, when the Son stands, now, in front of this group of religious leaders, and says: “What do you think your duty to God might be?”, the answer is plain. Their duty is to use all their supposed knowledge of God to recognise the Son, and allow others to do the same. But this is the one thing they are absolutely determined not to do.

Why, why, why do they hate him so? What is it about Jesus that so challenges them? It is not enough to say that they thought he was a mad impostor. Jerusalem was full of mad religious impostors, but they did not require large conspiracies on the part of the Pharisees to remove them. No, the trouble with Jesus was precisely that they could not be sure that he was an impostor.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they really did not want God to get that close. And they were right to fear. It would certainly be much easier if God were like Caesar, so that we knew for sure when we had paid our taxes. But, if God is actually like Jesus, then we might need, painfully and humiliatingly, to recognise him over and over again, and give him everything not just what we consider to be his share. This is where the rubber hits the road - we so off try to fob God off with his bit on Sunday, our £1 in the collection plate, best suit and tie on. God, it seems to me from what Jesus clearly says here, does not care a jot about any of that. What actually matters is what’s in here (pat chest). Caesar wants his temple tax and that’s all that he cares about, a small part of our financial lives - but God wants us to have a relationship with him through Jesus, and relationships if they are really to work, require the investment of our whole selves. Amen.

Soul-force Part I: The Rhetoric

As promised, I have will now be dealing Soul Force’s article on Christianity and Homosexuality. Dr. Mel White is no fool, and I respect him and think what he is doing important, as I implied previously. I hope to be as fair as possible to him in these next few blogs, but let the reader be the judge. In this blog, I will deal with his first three premises.

White’s first premise is very well put: “As you know, Biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States.” He goes on to say that his relates to homosexuality in particular. On this, I am in complete agreement. Biblical ignorance is an epidemic in American Christianity. This ignorance does show its head quite well in the homosexuality debate.

I offer your average Christian retail store as evidence. Like any businesses, a Christian bookstore sells what the public is buying. The books that sell the most are something like a “Christian Self-help” or devotional books for prayer life. You may also find books that target people by their strata in life: college student, parent, teacher, man/woman, businesses professional etc. However, commentaries, hermeneutics books, etc are almost always in a small section in the back –if indeed at all. Bottom line, if you look at the simple volume of what a Christian book store presents, it’s evident that most Christians are more likely to buy “Power of a praying wife/husband/child etc” than they are “Social World of Ancient Israel.”

No one is saying the former “popular literature” is wrong. No one is saying that all Christians need to become great exegetes. What I am saying is that I am doubtful whether most Christians are even aware of the complexities of interpretation. Thus they are not in a position to discern what is written in the more popular books. Much more could be said on this point alone. For purposes of this blog, it is enough for me to reiterate that I think that Mel White is correct in this assessment.

White’s second premise is “Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.” He then goes on to cite the various tragic examples from church history. He believes that the tragic hate-crimes against homosexuals are also an extension of this same trend.
This is a highly emotional appeal that must be dealt with carefully. Clearly, I am not in doubt that these things have happened, nor do I think that they good. Hate crimes against homosexuals are not right, on any grounds. They are not justified, no matter what scripture says or does not say about sexuality. This goes the same for racism and such. These emotive appeals give the hetero-sexual Christian community insight into how the homosexual community sees the issue.

The problem is this: it takes a lot more than an interpretation of scripture (right or wrong) for someone to commit acts of hatred or even to endorse them. Does White really believe that anytime someone disagrees with homosexuality that he also wants to go out and shoot homosexuals? No, in fact he says so. Therefore, I think this premise is mostly a rhetorical fear appeal that adds little to the real weight of his argument. Truthful though it may be, it serves only to grab the reader’s attention through sympathy.

Finally, there is White’s third premise: that we must be open to new interpretations of scripture. To this premise, I think all Christians can give a qualified yes. More importantly, we should be humble enough to be corrected. The conservative wing should be careful about their own viewpoints, bias, and prejudices and not simply recourse to “the Bible clearly says…” But this should go both ways, correct? The “liberal wing” should also be aware of their own viewpoints, bias, and prejudices. Appealing to the Holy Spirit “leading us to all truth” will not erase these things, and neither will the few fear appeals that White sprinkles in here, as he did with the previous premise.

I think White’s first few premises were more rhetorical than logical. The purpose of these things is to get the reader’s attention and subtly move the reader towards agreement with soul-force. He does this largely through appeals to fear and sympathy. While I do not think these things are wrong, I think it is very important to point them out. While we certainly should all recoil in aversion to the hate crimes other things, we should not automatically recoil in aversion to the conservative position. Sympathy and understanding are important, but they are not the sole arbiters.

Of course, I think the author knows this. His further points show this. They are specific views about scripture and about science. I will deal with both, but I will deal more strongly with the latter.

“Cur Custodes Legatis” or “You Should Read Watchmen”

I have a strange relationship with comics. On one hand, I am sometimes annoyed with people who think it is really important to argue whether Superman is faster than The Flash or whether Iron Man could win in a fight with the Rust-Monster Queen or some other nonsense. Yet, I authored a comic for about three years and I never deny that comic books can be good genre to tell a story. Back on the other hand, I still think many comics are cheesy and adolescent.

So maybe my problem with comics is their fans, or maybe that so few comics have great stories. Or perhaps I am a judgmental hypocrite.

Anyway, on to my recent reading of Watchmen

Watchmen is good. Watchmen is very good. I by no means claim to be a comic book expert, but I really enjoyed what I read. This is rare for comic books and me. This book was not only a “page-turner,” but a “page-put-downer,” in the sense that it was so dark that I had to leave it be for a few days.

Let’s start with the overall plot. The story starts in an alternate history in the mid-80s. It is during the cold war –an era the few today appreciate. Super heroes where once part of everyday life, but since 1977, they have been outlawed as “vigilantes.” Most of the super heroes have since retired to a quiet, humdrum, existence. One retired hero is murdered, and the plot takes off from there.

I won’t ruin the story for you. Instead, I will concentrate on its existential themes. These are only two among many. The first is the negative existential theme. In the chapter “The Abyss Also Gazes,” a psychologist interviews the particularly violent and uncompromising super hero, Rorschach. At the end of the chapter, Rorschach explains that existence is random, there is no moral rudder, and we devise reasons for it later. This hero, at some point in his past, found himself “free to scrawl [his] own design on this morally blank world.” The visual symbolism, an ink blotch, could not be more artfully placed than if it was done by that ugly, google-eyed, Frenchman himself.

There is also a happier existential theme. In another chapter Dr. Manhattan (the glowing blue guy you’ve seen in the trailers), realizes that he is losing his emotional link to the human world. He takes his former girlfriend (Silk Spectre), via teleportation, to Mars. As he gives her the grand tour, he asks a serious question: why is earth better than Mars? What is so important about human life? Why should I, Dr. Manhattan, bother with it anymore? After a series of flashbacks into the life of the Silk Spectre, Dr. Manhattan gets his answer. The chapter closes with a famous quote from Jung: “As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being.”

My favorite part of the comic was the aforementioned Rorschach. This is the character who is quoted in the movie trailers: “All the whores and politicians will look up and shout ‘Save us!’ … and I’ll look down and whisper ‘no.’” This is a character who does not call his disguise a “mask” but rather his “face.” This is a character so damaged on the inside that he makes Batman look well adjusted. This is the one character who kept going out into the urban filth to fight crime even after super heroes were banned.

Rorschach is a complicated and believable character. He uses brutality to get information when he needs it. He had no problem burning someone alive, which is harsh even when they deserve it. His other actions that make you wonder how much of a hero he really is. But at other times, he demonstrates gentler things, such as his friendship and commitment his fellow masked crusader.

So there are my thoughts on Watchmen. I’m sure we can’t wait for the movie. Of course, it is in the mires of legal trouble. Even Watchmen author, Alan Moore, hates it. This could turn into another Starcraft: Ghost. It might be better for people simply buy the book instead.

Some first thoughts on Homosexuality

I didn’t want to do it, but I have to do. Homosexuality is too much of a hot button issue to avoid. I need to make a few blogs about homosexuality and Christianity. With prop 8 on California’s ballot next month, I have to say not just something, but several things. The first of these, will be some ground work on the subject.

First, I am primarily concerned with homosexuality debate within the Christian church. This eventually spills out into politics, but what these blogs will be mostly about is homosexuality and a Christian conscience and from Christian symbols, traditions, and other authorities. To this end, I’ll be responding to Soul-force article I recently read.

Secondly, within this context, I believe the burden of proof is on the “liberal” or “pro-homosexual” group. Both sides of the debate believe in the authority of Holy Spirit, traditions of the church, and Scripture and the complex interplay between them all. The “liberal” side of the argument has not only the majority of history against them, but the majority of the Christians world-wide against them. This debate takes place primarily in America and Europe. It is not taking place in Africa. As far as I know, the liberal side is not willing to deny that the Holy Spirit moves in both of those sources. Note, neither of these reasons mean the “liberals” are wrong, only that they have the burden of proof.

Third, I do not hate homosexuals. Is it is understandable that many people believe that if you disagree with homosexuality that you are hateful to homosexuals. After all, there have been highly publicized hate crimes on the subject. I am sure many people reading this have perhaps experienced hatred or anger. Despite these highly emotional and tragic experiences, it is still unfair to generalize the hatred to all Christians, or to assume that the conservative position must lead to such hatred. I do not generalize that all homosexuals started off as psychologically troubled teenagers (perhaps “troubled teenager” is redundant), even though I’ve meet plenty who were. All conservative Christians should be afforded the same courtesy.

Furthermore, members of the “liberal” group should not be derided or falsely caricatured. Accepting gay marriage does not make someone un-Christian. It does not someone make stupid, sinful, or brainwashed by the sexual revolution. The liberal group is trying to live out the Gospel as best as they can in relation to one of the most difficult issues the Church faces. The debate about homosexuality is one that is needed and should be handled charitably.

Fourthly, I am going to avoid the use of the word “tolerance.” I am going to avoid this term because I am never sure of what it actually means. Some say it is “accepting people who practice a life style you do not affirm.” But is it possible for me to “accept” someone in the sense they desire without also “affirming” their lifestyle? I do not know. Rather than wrangling over this definition, I will instead use one of my own: liberty. I will use this is the classical, John Stuart Mill sense. Liberty means that “One can speak, believe, or do whatever one wishes to do so long as it does not interfere or prohibit what someone else wishes to speak, believe, or do.” Notice that this is a two-way street. The logical implication of this principle is that we all have to put up with people whose opinions we find frustrating and perhaps abhorrent. Our commitment to such values goes only as far as we extend them to those we do not agree with.

Finally, I need everyone to understand that this will not be the entire content of this blog. My blog is for personal reflection on Christian spirituality, philosophy and theology. The gay marriage issue is only one subject. God forbid it should be otherwise.

So that’s my ground work: I will discuss the homosexuality issue within Christianity, but with some secular political principles. I will write at least three articles in response the article from soul force. Of course, my next update will be a review of "Watchmen." You know, I really don't want my blog get bogged down...

Thanks for reading!

Feeling spiritually on top of things, but physically feeling really ground down. Been sick since Sunday and I have been playing it low key since then.

One of the sadnesses was that I had to cancel the follow up meeting for the L!VE iT weekend which should have happened on Sunday night - will have to reschedule.

Anyway, aside from that, Ron Kibble sadly but mercifully died last the week before last. I was able to pray Last Rites with him which was fantastic. Now he is reaping the rewards of faithfully following Jesus - his funeral will be in Church on 20th October at 12noon.

Anyway, here's the sermon...

When it’s meal time in your house, what do you do? Does the person doing the cooking give everyone a five minute warning? If there are guests do you invite them to come and sit up at the table? If the family is scattered in different rooms in the house do you stand at the bottom of the stairs and yell, ‘Come and get it!’ However the invitation is given, you anticipate that everyone will respond and make their way to the table. The meal in the king’s house that we heard about in this morning’s Gospel, was ready, and the invitation to come and eat was given but those who were invited did not come. Now at this point, we begin to realise that this a story that is a little larger than life, as eventually some of the servants who carried the invite were attacked and killed. The king gathers an army, and military operations were carried out, a city was destroyed, and after that the meal was still ready and waiting to be served.

The other thing that is odd about this parable is the chap who turns up improperly dressed, he was thrown out and the Jesus’ comment is - many are called but few are chosen.

Despite the confusing nature of this parable, overblown as it may be in places, I believe that the message is really quite clear. God is the king giving the feast. He does the preparation and provides the messengers. The kingdom of heaven with which the parable is concerned is any place where God is recognised and his will is done. The preparations for the coming kingdom are done by the prophets and the ministry of John the Baptist.

With the preparations done, the invitations are given and almost instantly they are interwoven with rejections. First come invitations to those who are expected to accept. When they don’t, more servants are sent to push the invitation with greater insistence, but still without success.

The servants are sent out a third time, but this time to invite those who had not expected an invite. The response is good and all the seats are filled, but with a mixture of people both bad and good. This leads to that chap being thrown out. The king who had made the invitation came to see the crowd gathered in his honour, and noticed someone not suitably prepared.

The call goes out from the host, ‘Come, for all is ready!’ It is the same call as the invitation which Jesus gave at the beginning of his ministry, ‘The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel.’ Both calls lead to division between those who accept and those who reject.

The bottom line friends is, are we ready to enter God’s kingdom? Only you can decide to accept or reject the invitation. The question is, does an eternal


relationship with God, healing for past hurts, and knowledge that despite what might be thrown at us in life, we are loved without limit, really feature for you...

What is Jesus trying to teach... the kingdom of God is a place where those eternal longings are a reality. It is the time and place where God’s goodness is celebrated, felt and seen. Every single person is invited to this celebration - no one is turned away, no-one is not good enough, no-one is unworthy. What’s more - the invitation costs us nothing and all we have to do is accept, but no excuses are acceptable. Nothing else is of greater value than this invite...

Oh but then there are some conditions it seems. That poor chap is put outside for not wearing a wedding robe - for many are called and few are chosen... It seems that there is a little more to it than just turning up to the party.

Elsewhere in the scriptures Paul writing to the Galatian christians, talks about ‘clothing yourself with Christ.’ In the book of Revelation it says that ‘the fine clothes are the good deeds of God’s people.’ The wedding garment needed here could also be a ‘putting on of Christ’ through Baptism. These passages and ideas remind me that the invitation to celebrate in God’s kingdom comes free to all, but we also need to be ready to respond. Being ready is not just willing to come to discover more, to enjoy the company, to eat the food and drink the wine,

but it is about living lives that reflect those kingdom values of divine justice, mercy, peace and love. This is about intent of the heart and how we live out our lifestyle. It is about our baptisms not just being a distant memory and long invisible sign of the cross, but rather obvious in the way we think, speak, live, shop and so on.

Recently, at the L!VE iT weekend we recalled God’s eternal hospitality and love - welcoming us to sit and eat bread and drink wine with him round this table. We recalled that this meal is about thanksgiving for all that God has given us, especially in Christ, but also about renewed resources of faith that affect not just the way we worship or build friendships on Sunday, but also about how we live that out Monday through Saturday too wherever we are.

For as we gather in church this morning, we re-clothe ourselves with Christ; here through bread and wine Christ not only goes with us, but dwells inside each of us afresh.

This morning God invites you to the wedding reception of his Son. The invitation is free - all you need to do is respond to it by clothing yourself with Christ, living out your baptism, empowered with Christ himself in you - put simply, by living lives that show how important it is that we have ben invited to that wedding celebration. Amen.

When Grandfather's Pass On

A close friend recently lost her grandfather. The grief I felt for her and her family made me think back to when my grandfather passed on several years ago. The process I went through taught me a few things that I am sure all Christians share.
My Grandfather died in May of 2004 after several years of mental and physical deterioration. He was well into his 80s and had never really recovered from a stroke. As he began to forget things (like our names), he never became angry or irritable as some of the elderly do. He still remembered that we were his family and that he loved us. He was still thrilled when he saw small children come into his room. He even saw his first two great-grandchildren scant months before he passed on.

His funeral came at a strange time in my life. I had just decided that I was going to pursue education further than most. I learned I loved learning, thinking, and the honor that comes with it. This wasn’t simply me growing into arrogance, it was in fact what had kept my faith afloat at the time. Besides, many people saw my intellectual tendencies long before I did.

The sum of my grandfather’s life was so different than my goals of honorific academia. Due to circumstances outside of his control, he never made it past an eighth grade education. He made his living from a humble plumbing business. He never read anything deeper than Billy Graham. Yet, throughout the funeral, I realized that my Grandfather was exceptional in life. His faithfulness to his spouse, his kindness towards strangers, the honesty of his business, his devotion to Christ among other things made him a paragon. It made me re-evaluate myself then and still does now.

But that is not even the end of it. During the funeral –somewhere in between the rifle salute and the old hymn – the closing line of the Nicene Creed came into my mind:

We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I cannot remember a time when I did know the Nicene Creed. I recited Sunday after Sunday as a child. Furthermore, in my time of crisis, I had spent some time reading on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection.

The Creed and historical Jesus are of great importance, but at that funeral was the first time I ever really took emotional ownership of this last line and the idea of Christ coming before his disciples after dying. Because of Christ’s resurrection, we can look foreward to a world not full of angelic ghosts playing harps, but glorified and repaired resurrected bodies that are immune to decay and corruption of this world.

For this reason, the early Christians buried –not cremated –their dead. As Christians today, when we bury our dead, we remember that we don’t have to think of them in their last moments here. Instead, we look forward to what they will be, when God raises all from the dead and frees us from corruption and death.

"Quomodo te Invocem?" or "Who's Afraid of Recited Prayer?"

I had an epiphany recently while I was translating Augustine’s Confessions. Recited prayer is great for devotional life, and people should not be afraid of it.

Recited prayer, is after all, something many evangelicals have a lot of trepidation about. They may see a Catholic mass or traditional Lutheran service and think that the prayers are insincere. I remember years ago, a Calvary Chapel pastor preached that recited prayers were the equivalent of believing we would be heard for our many words. Prayer, as it is often said, should “come from the heart” and not in rote recitation of what someone else wrote down.

Strange thing is, Evangelicals recite prayers all the time –they usually do it to music. Every worship song or praise piece is (hopefully) something that is directed towards God. Is this not the same as reciting someone else’s prayer? Why is this not considered just as rote as speaking “Our Father, who art in heaven…” inside a church? It seems that if singing song we didn’t write is “from the heart” then why shouldn’t recited prayer be the same?

This brings me to Augustine’s Confessions. I am not going to attempt to give you my translation from Latin, but here it is from some PhD online:

And how shall I call upon my God--my God and my Lord? For when I call on him I ask him to come into me. And what place is there in me into which my God can come? How could God, the God who made both heaven and earth, come into me? Is there anything in me, O Lord my God, that can contain thee?

St. Augustine is on to something in this prayer. He has a clear sense of God’s omnipresence that shines throughout the passage. I felt that same sense as I was translating it and recited some of in my own devotional times. This was far from rote, meaningless, prayer.

C.S. Lewis once remarked that theology is based on people who were really in touch with God, and that’s why we should pay attention to it. When we pray the prayer of a saint like this, we are able to get a sense of what they felt about God as they wrote their prayers, the same as worship songs.

I think for this reason nobody should be afraid of reciting prayers, especially the prayers of the big saints and heroes throughout history.

Thanks for reading.

Loyola Marymount so Far

Loyola Marymount so Far
It should be known to all by now that I live in West Los Angeles and I attend Loyola Marymount University for graduate work.
I am still doing graduate school, despite all the second guessing I’ve had about the subject. I had to turn down two good job offers in order to take out more loans to get a degree that won’t pay for itself. I am also forgoing the opportunity to travel abroad, which is something I still wish to do. I am not in a position to save as much money as I would like to, which is very bad for the time being.
Still, I like LMU. I enjoy academic life enough that I can stick with it. I remember when I attended a class last year (before I decided to go through with it), I felt that I was “home.” I feel utterly comfortable and in the right place when I sit in classes here. Even when the reading gets boring, I enjoy the overall process. I still love studying Latin and brainstorming paper ideas.
I also like the other students I am around. Philosophy students know how to party. We had a party a few nights ago, and we sat around talking. I had two beers! Isn’t it crazy?! Seriously though, it’s great to be around people and talk about literature, the problem of evil, traveling to Germany, etc.
Of course, when Philosophy students do get boring, I have many of my film students. They play beer pong. I also performed a guitar piece for them. I even got to help out in one of the movies. It’s a great serious drama about a student who chases down the tooth-fairy for her money.
Yeah, so that’s Grad school so far. Now will the powers that be PLEASE post this so they know this is not a spam blog?