A Battle of Two Drunks

Share:

One night decades ago I looked out my study window to see two very drunken men swinging wildly at each other, neither coming even close to landing a punch but both staggering after each roundhouse swing and nearly falling to the pavement. I find in that memory an analogy for the present conflict over the Bible.

The rise of scientific method and its impressive successes at making sense of our world set off a furor that unleashed the backlash of biblical fundamentalism. The more scientists suggested alternatives to Medieval assumptions and verities, the more adamantly fundamentalists hunkered down on supposedly absolute truths lifted uncritically from the Bible in ways that were not faithful to the Bible itself. As fundamentalism fought to justify itself, it became increasingly authoritarian and cruel. That combination of absolutism in its truths and cruelty in its unyielding judgments upon people caused a double backlash from the other side: (1) the increasing absurdity of fundamentalism’s insistence upon “facts” which were not facts but literalistic misreadings of the Bible set up fundamentalism as an easily discredited straw man some modernists attacked as though discrediting Christianity as a whole, and (2) the cruel judgments upon people in which the Bible was used to bludgeon the “sinners” drove from the churches people who were at least learning tolerance if not full-blown respect and compassion.

Yes, the paragraph above offers a very rough sketch of the series of backlashes by which we have been buffeted into our present situation with regard to the Bible, the former “Good Book” which is now alternately weaponized and demonized into either a collection of absolutized truisms (with scarcely any message left except divine authority not to be questioned) or a compilation of silly superstitions and petty prejudices. Ironically, modern critical (meaning analytical, not unfavorable) study has opened the Bible for us in ways that can enable us to understand it better than ever and to hear its truth for leading us to God and each other, to healing, reconciliation, freedom, wholeness, and life lived with hope not only for ourselves but for our endangered earth with all its people and its non-human creatures as well. Sadly, the opportunity to hear the biblical witnesses more clearly has been largely ignored by the Bible’s opponents and rejected vehemently as satanic by its fundamentalist defenders. So, now we have biblical ignorance on both sides of the battle, one side erecting absurd facts which must be accepted “on faith” and the other side knocking them down with scientific facts which are irrelevant to the actual meanings of the biblical witnesses the two sides are disputing. Hence I am reminded of the two drunken men swinging wildly at each other in the night.

So it is that people who favor science and people who favor faith continue to battle over Adam and Eve, Noah and the Great Flood, miracles, and harsh regulations in the Holiness Code within the book of Leviticus as well as some of the opinions and foibles of the apostle Paul and his successors. Meanwhile, the biblical stories of Adam and Eve, of the Great Flood, and of the Tower of Babel (to name some examples) continue to offer profound insights into our human condition in our broken relationship with God, our often denied and violated relatedness to each other, and our anxiety about ourselves, but who is listening?

More to come. I’m especially concerned about current abuses of the Bible in the service of power.

Systems and People

Share:

As modern human beings, we have developed great faith in systems. The scientific method of investigation has empowered us to exercise control previously unimaginable over outcomes in our endeavors, greatly reducing the role of chance and the folly of superstition. By following science’s systematic approach to information gathering and problem solving, we deal with conditions as they actually exist and apply knowledge rather than superstition to our efforts. As a minister and a believer in the redemptive truth of God come to us and for us in Jesus of Nazareth, I do not speak against the scientific method of investigating our world and seeking to solve problems; I do not call for a return to haphazard approaches to getting things done or to superstition and prejudice which empower fear over reason. Even if I could, I would not turn back the calendar to the pre-scientific days of untested methods and magical prescriptions for security or success.

But as a society, we who have been modern are now called postmodern because our faith in the systems we have developed has not only faltered as we have witnessed their limitations but turned cynical as we have suffered under their corruptions. We have seen truly scientific thinking replaced by checklist management where the motive has been, not to solve problems through open inquiry, but to silence questions and enforce top-down control. We now know that our best-made systems remain always imperfect, and we know further that we can develop no system that people cannot game for their own advantage over others, often to the detriment of the very people the system is supposed to help, for whom it is meant to make life better.

“one size fits all” is a falsehood that invariably hurts many people

Slowly and with great resistance, we are learning that “one size fits all” is a falsehood that invariably hurts many people. While systematic thinking has helped us all in many ways, absolutizing any system that governs people’s lives and manages their opportunities harms more and more people until finally the system must be broken because it has become a tyrant. In theological terms, absolutizing a system and requiring everyone to fit into it, whether it fits them or not, is a modern form of idolatry. Absolutizing anything in our world is idolatrous, and when we do it, we soon find ourselves pressed into the service of the very system that was supposed to serve us. The truth about people is that one size fits rather few because we are very complex creatures, and God has created us with an individuality, a uniqueness of each person, that frustrates the systematizers who try to force control by demanding conformity and ignoring people’s differences. Then the dictum of those who would manage and control our lives becomes, “Be normal or perish.” Meet the standards we set or be left behind.

And what is normal?

And what is normal? Here’s how it works much of the time. We describe an ideal, then call it the norm. The one size, one type, one way we choose to regard as right we make the standard. . . .

There’s an oxymoron for us or, perhaps, a paradox. We human beings are very much alike in many ways, which is good because otherwise we would not understand each other at all or be able to empathize with each other’s feelings. But though each of us is typical in many ways, each is uniquely so. God has made us very much alike but each distinct and irreplaceable, because God loves each as a person. . . .

What the churches do best is offer the human touch.

What the churches do best is offer the human touch. We all live under systems that tend to humiliate and dehumanize us in various ways and to different degrees. Some seem tolerable, others not so. Here in the community of faith, we are not given norms by which to label people “acceptable” or “unacceptable”; we are not given standards for judgment to impose control and demand conformity. We are called to be more family than system, more community than institution. We do not weed out the less efficient for some program. Here attitude matters more than ability. Here the two copper coins given for God by the poor widow are greater than the large sums given by the wealthy from their excess. Here those who fail the test of the norm are respected as persons of equal worth.

Note: This post is excerpted from “Human Touch,” a sermon I preached in January of 2010 on the day of our Annual Meeting as a congregation. I have pared down the sermon to refit it as a blog post I hope might be of interest to people bewildered or just bored by some Christian antipathy toward scientific method but, maybe, also troubled by dehumanization of our world. This post is no longer a sermon. Anyone wishing to read it as a sermon may do so by clicking here.

Attempts to Measure the Effectiveness of Prayer

Share:

The other day a friend sent me the link to an article reviewing an attempt to quantify and thereby verify or debunk the effectiveness of prayers offered by others for the healing of the sick. Personally, I find such experiments annoying, but aside from that personal reaction, I want to look at the situation.

The scientist needs to clarify what s/he is examining, and the experiment should not include reference to activity on the part of God, because God cannot be controlled. If the scientist confuses science with theology and asks the theological question, “Can God be controlled by prayer?” the theological answer is a resounding, “No!” So, let it be clear from the outset that if the experiment is set up to test the hypothesis that God can be controlled by prayer, the default answer of biblical theology is negative. The expectation, if such an experiment could be devised (the theological default answer is that it cannot), is that the experimentation would fail to show a correlation between prayers and results.

Continue reading →