Through The Wilderness

CHAPTER 8 WHY SHOULD WE WELCOME HOMOSEXUALS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS?

2010-08-11T14:12:00.003-04:00

· · · for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26 - 29

Homosexuality has been a minor feature of human life since ancient times, although the furor in some parts of current American society testifies to how this trait produces strongly opposing opinions and beliefs, and has become a ‘hot button” or “third rail” political issue. No generally accepted scientific explanation exists that fully accounts for why 5 to 10% of the human population can be classified as homosexual, especially because the trait probably does not convey any evolutionary advantage. Despite some claims for identifying a “homosexual gene,” homosexuality does not appear to be a primary hereditary trait: Heterosexual unions can produce homosexual, or at least homosexually oriented, children; unions between heterosexuals and homosexuals do not always produce homosexual offspring. The best explanation, based upon available data, may rest upon atypically elevated male or female hormones during prenatal development.

Strong evidence does not exist showing that homosexuality arises as a “learned” behavior or that the trait can be “unlearned,” the furor of such claims from many fundamentalist Judeo-Christians notwithstanding. Much of the reasoning against homosexuality as a learned behavior parallels the non-heritable argument: Children raised in a heterosexual environment can be homosexuals; children raised by homosexual parents exhibit no higher frequency of homosexuality than the general population. I am privileged to have several close homosexual friends and highly valued colleagues. All of these individuals, admittedly a small sample of the population, testify that they were homosexually oriented as children and that they did not “learn” to be homosexual.

Most Judeo-Christians believe God ordained and sanctified marriage between two adult heterosexuals, a man and a woman. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of heterosexual marriage exemplifying God’s relationship to the people of Israel. The New Testament likens heterosexual marriage to the union between Christ and the Church he established. Civil and religious laws based upon these beliefs attempt to prohibit homosexuality and often generate extreme social alienation between heterosexuals and homosexuals. At times this alienation produces violence, including murder, chiefly perpetrated by heterosexuals against homosexuals and sometimes against heterosexuals who welcome homosexuals as friends and fellow congregants.

Much of the hostility some heterosexual Judeo-Christians exhibit against homosexuals derives from a mistaken view of Biblical Inerrancy that condemns homosexuality as a sin. Eminent Biblical scholars disagree on this point. A discussion of this scholarly disagreement lies outsides the scope of this chapter. I take a more straightforward approach: The epistles of St. Paul and those attributed to him, especially Hebrews, thoroughly explain that the so-called Biblical Laws (Ten Commandments, Leviticus codes) no longer apply to Judeo-Christians, either as a means to salvation or as directions for behavior. The sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection negated these former rules. The so-called Eleventh Commandment specifies our theological obligation to God and our behavior towards our brothers and sisters, including homosexuals: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. The New Testament meaning of neighbor includes homosexuals, as well as prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners.

Many Judeo-Christians attempt to circumvent this imperative by quoting, love the sinner but hate the sin. Consequences contrary to the Gospel message occur when hate of the sin devolves into presumptive Biblically based condemnation of homosexuals erroneously presumed to be sinners solely because of their sexual orientation. This condemnation of homosexuals arises from a shallow approach to Holy Scripture involving selective choice of which parts of Holy Scripture to accept or reject. These “pickers and choosers” face a conundrum in justifying theological and legal opposition to homosexuality while simultaneously ignoring other Biblical mandates concerning behavior and sexual practices.

For instance, the same books of Holy Scripture that condemn homosexuality also contain prohibitions and extreme, even deadly, sanctions against behaviors we now deem acceptable, deserving of only mild punishment, or downright silly: Disobedient children, Sunday work, wives wearing coats made with two different types of threads, farmers planting more than one type of crop in a single field, women attending church services with uncovered heads, women speaking out or taking leadership roles in church, interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or naming a sexual organ, seeing our parents naked, and treatment of women as property. Further, Holy Scripture not only allows but insists upon sexual practices and societal mores outside the perception of normalcy and legality in the Judeo-Christian West: Execution of non-virgin brides, adulterers, and married couples who have sex during the wives’ menstrual periods; a widow of a childless husband must have sequential intercourse with the husband’s brothers until she bears a male child who can inherit the husband’s estate; sex with a prostitute for husbands but not for wives; many concubines for Israelite kings; slavery, as well as sex, with slaves; polygamy for husbands but not wives; marriage of 11 - 13 year old girls; and cutting off the hands of a woman who attempts to aid her husband in a fight by grabbing the opponent’s genitals.

Neither the Hebrew Prophets nor Jesus left any recorded words condemning homosexuality. Some persons might argue that the purported sin of homosexuality for Biblical Israel was so obvious that the condition required no comment. Obviousness did not restrain the Prophets and Jesus from heavily inveighing against other sins, and we are left with an intriguing question: If homosexuality merits the extreme condemnation received today in some circles, why did not the Prophets and Jesus rail against it?

The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages do not contain a word for homosexuality in the present context of that sexual orientation. Homosexuality appeared for the first time in a 1958 translation of an English language version of Holy Scripture. Many persons confuse the sin of Sodom, that is sodomy, with homosexuality. When Hebrew prophets and Jesus spoke about the destruction of Sodom, homosexuality was not part of the discussion. Rather, the prophet Ezekiel best defined the sin of Sodom: This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes. Homosexuality according to our present day notions, therefore, does not appear to be related to the original meaning of the sin in which the Sodomites engaged to their destruction.

Many people might be willing to ignore Hebraic prohibitions against homosexuality while maintaining that St. Paul specifically preached against the condition in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. St. Paul admonished First Century Judeo-Christians to abstain from a list of sins encompassing murder, adultery and fornication, idolatry, lying, cheating, stealing, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. St. Paul also listed two other unacceptable behaviors, malokois and arsenokoitai in the original Greek of his writings. These two sins, when taken out of this context, mistakenly stigmatize homosexuality as sinful.

The New Revised Standard Version uses male prostitutes for malaokois, which most likely meant effeminate call boys in First Century Greek. Some scholars suggest Paul likely used arsenokoitai, or dirty old men in our language today, to refer to the customers of malaokois. This dirty old men usage conforms to the prohibitions in Hebrew Scriptures against shrine prostitution in the context of worshiping the fertility goddess Ceres or Cybele. St. Paul, as a highly educated Jew would have been familiar with this usage and reasonably applied arsenokoitai to refer to the widespread shrine prostitution of his time that involved male on male sexual acts. Arsenokoitai also has been translated as sodomites without any explanation of what the term means, although it neither supports the admonition of Ezekiel nor our present day understanding of homosexuality. Accordingly, Paul’s writings do not justify definitive attribution of sinful behavior to homosexuality between willing adult partners, particularly if we consider the totality of his message about Jesus’ inclusive love for all segments of humanity.

Revelation from God to humans through the Holy Spirit did not end with the Book of Revelation. Since completion of this foundational work, the Holy Spirit has taught us that many verses in Holy Scripture no longer represent God’s law for all subsequent centuries. Some verses that include the prohibitions and sanctioned behaviors listed above have no theological relevance beyond the times and cultures for which they were written. For instance, no perceptive Judeo-Christian today can apply Paul’s writing to allow slavery, segregation, or subjugation of women. The selectivity of which portions of Holy Scripture to accept or reject coupled with the failure to recognize that so-called Biblical codes other than the supreme commandment no longer apply to Judeo-Christians propel some segments of the Community of Believers into weird positions that intelligent prayerful examination of Holy Scripture cannot support. Logically, if some Judeo-Christians believe homosexuality constitutes an abomination according their interpretation of Holy Scripture, they must also eschew all the sins and adhere to all the sanctioned behaviors previously listed. St. Paul testifies to this impossibility.

Federal and state Defense of Marriage Acts and Constitutional amendments defining marriage only as a union between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female derive from well-intentioned desires to preserve the sacrament of marriage and to maintain a so-called traditional understanding of morality in our public lives. The fact remains: Judeo-Christian proponents of these laws want to impose their view of morality through civil legislation. Chapter 3 discusses the counter productivity of such tactics. Examination of the US divorce rate and parental abuse toward children show how heterosexuals themselves have done much to negate the sanctity of marriage. Again, civil laws designed to outlaw homosexual marriage, or even civil unions, will not change morality for persons who do not believe homosexuality itself or homosexual marriage to be sins.

American Judeo-Christians exist in a society and culture governed according to civil laws under the US Constitution and religious laws derived from Holy Scripture. Some well-intentioned Judeo-Christians attempt to modify our civil laws so they are identical with perceived religious laws. This focus comes, in its best form, from a sincere desire for this country to become completely Judeo-Christian. The mission, while laudable, fails to recognize the religious neutrality of the US Constitution and the rights guaranteed to all citizens of this country, regardless of sexual orientation and religious persuasion.

Homosexual citizens of the US should enjoy all Constitutional rights and perform all Constitutionally mandated duties. The Constitution rightfully remains silent on sexual orientation, neither advocating nor promoting homosexuality or heterosexuality among willing adults. Homosexuals pay Federal, state, and local taxes, and therefore should receive the full benefits funded through these revenues. Additionally, civil laws define the legality of marriage in the US. Governmental authorities will not recognize a marriage ceremony performed in a religious setting without the prior issuance of a civil marriage license or a subsequent ceremony before a civil authority.

The Founders designed the US Constitution so that the laws of this democratic republic will reflect majority opinion with one great exception: Preservation of some minority rights so that tyranny of the majority can be prevented. Majority votes cannot deprive minorities of rights enshrined in the Constitution. Homosexuals are a definite minority in our population but they do, as pointed out above, pay taxes. Prohibitions against homosexuality arrive primarily from religious convictions. The Constitution remains neutral on religious convictions other than to preclude state-sanctioned religious institutions. Freedom of Worship under the Constitution means that we can participate in the religious institution of our choice but we cannot be forced to worship. The constitution also has no clauses about the nature of our society other than the idea of a democratic republic. That is, the Constitution has the flexibility to adjust to changes in society while preserving the democratic republic.

At the time I wrote this chapter, US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 that restricted marriage to one man and one woman. For the sake of argument, let us expect the US Supreme Court to concur with this rule so that homosexual marriage becomes legal in all US territories. What then? My heterosexual brothers and sisters who believe homosexuality is a sin and homosexual marriage abhorrent should keep two important facts in mind: (1) Civil legalization of homosexual marriage under the Constitution will not force heterosexuals into homosexual relationships and (2) The best way to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage requires the partners to live out their faith in witness to their ideas about the Gospel message.

From our beginning, the Community of Believers has welcomed all who profess belief in God as Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who commit to living as best they can according to Christ’s great commandment. All of us have sinned, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike; all are eligible for incorporation into the Community of Believers. No sin justifies exclusion or expulsion from the Community. Homosexuals, therefore, shold be fully welcomed into our churches as our brothers and sisters in good standing in the fellowship and love of Jesus Christ.

I am not so naive to believe that all heterosexual Judeo-Christians will be comfortable with admitting homosexuals into the Community, much less into the ministry and other ecclesiastical positions. Perhaps, the situation will evolve analogously to the civil rights struggle in which some churches, despite their preference for Caucasian congregations, ultimately incorporated our black brothers and sisters into active fellowship. Other churches have remained staunchly racially segregated. Individual Judeo-Christians have the right to choose the church of their choice based upon racial make up and sexual orientation of the congregants, among other factors. While I regret the current fractional nature of the Body of Christ, heterosexuals who object to the presence and ministry of homosexuals within a particular segment of the Community can form their own denominations. The passage of time will reveal which model, inclusion or exclusion, thrives and leads to unification of the faith and the full arrival of the Kingdom of God.

CHAPTER 7: HOW CAN WE BEST WELCOME CHILDREN INTO THE COMMUNITY OF BELEIVERS?

2010-06-22T19:02:00.005-04:00

Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them; but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” And he laid his hands on them and went on his way. Matt. 19:13-15

The hot button issue of abortion dramatically polarizes the Community of Believers and generates great antagonism because of an inappropriately framed question: “Is abortion the legitimate expression of women controlling their own bodies and reproductive freedom or is abortion equivalent to murder?” Our media frequently reduce the subject to “Freedom of choice versus right to life”. Many people on the opposing sides view abortion with a single focus that determines how and to what extent they engage in political activities. Thus, a politician’s stand on abortion can constitute the sole rational for electoral support or opposition.

Well-meaning Judeo-Christians honestly reach different and firm opinions about abortion because Holy Scripture, science, tradition, and human experience provide support for each view derived from the preceding question. The battle lines have formed and hardened. At this stage, significant numbers of people in either camp cannot be intellectually swayed to cross over to the “enemy” side. Accordingly, this chapter will not present a summary of the theological and intellectual basis for “freedom of choice versus right to life”. Instead, let us consider how the following question might produce useful answers that will decrease the degree of polarization, if not totally eliminate, the dissension surrounding how we should deal with abortion: “How can we best welcome children into the Community of Believers?”

The early Judeo-Christian Community in Rome illustrates one effective approach to welcoming children. Pagan Romans dumped unwanted newborn infants, primarily females, into in the city sewers. Today, archeologists frequently uncover the skeletons of these abandoned babies, who had little economic value because they were unproductive for many years. Female babies represented an especially severe economic burden because they could not work as productively as males and the families would be expected to furnish a wedding dowry. Members of the Community of Believers often went out at night to “rescue” the abandoned infants, who then were given to Judeo-Christian families to raise as their own. The size of the Community increased through incorporation of these new family members. Importantly, young male members of the Community had less trouble finding wives than did young pagan males due to the diminished supply of young pagan women. As the historical record shows, the Roman Community of Believers thrived and grew, even during times of severe persecution.

The early Christian experience in Rome testifies to a great truth: We do not enter the Community of Believers as a direct consequence of our genetic heritage. Having Judeo-Christian parents and grandparents does not automatically qualify a person for incorporation into the Community. As in my case, these familial circumstances may set the stage for a subsequent profession of faith grown from individual commitment to the risen Lord; however, genetics do not comprise a guaranteed admission ticket to the Community. I understand why many men and women desperately want biological children, an expression of the evolutionary drive to procreate. Despite this legitimate desire, the Community of Believers should do a better job of teaching potential parents that adoption of children following the Roman Christian model sometimes offers a more viable approach than expenditure of great effort and monies required for procedures such as in vitro fertilization. Does God really care about the genetic origin of children brought into the Community? If not, why should we?

How might present day Judeo-Christians follow the example of the early Roman Judeo-Christians? First, we should concentrate our efforts on the Community of Believers rather than attempting to implement a vision of morality through national legislation. The situation resembles the story of the man walking along a beach after a fierce ocean storm. Whenever the man came upon a starfish helpless on its back, he would gently place the starfish upright in the water. Another person on the beach sarcastically asked, “What do you think you’re doing? You can’t possibly make a difference to the hundreds of overturned starfish along this section of beach.” The man replied, “What I’m doing matters a lot to the starfish I can save.” Better to save a few within the Community rather than to abandon all.

We need to keep a pertinent fact in mind: Our legal system, as illustrated by the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, does not compel any woman to undergo an abortion. Rather, within some restrictions that vary from state to state, Roe v. Wade is permissive but not mandatory for women considering abortion. Roe v. Wade, therefore, constitutes a non-issue for pregnant women within the Community of Believers who believe abortion is a sin. Even if Roe v. Wade were legally overturned, abortions would continue, as they did before this Supreme Court ruling. Yes, fewer abortions might occur but there would be a subsequent effort to reinstate legal abortions when the political climate inevitably changes. I believe the Community of Believers should put its efforts where significant results can be achieved in the near term. We should lead by example, that is, through our witness and service.

Second, we need to be realistic about sex. No matter how favorably we may look back at presumptively simpler past times, people have engaged in pre-marital sex throughout human history, strong religious prohibitions and legal sanctions not withstanding. The fervor of many social conservatives cannot obscure the data clearly showing that advocating total abstinence prior to marriage while simultaneously failing to provide adequate sex education, including relevant access to contraception services, does not decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancies among our young people. Such an approach, often coupled with the abandonment of unmarried pregnant young women to “suffer the consequences of their immorality” reflects badly on the Community.

I do not believe premarital sex between willing partners, both of whom have reached an age of reason, falls into the category of sinful behavior. Often this behavior complicates the participants’ lives, even when pregnancy does not occur. On the hand, what might be the greater complication, pregnancy with untoward or even devastating effects for a young mother and her unwanted child or effective sex education with access to contraception?

The often-heard lament that our media and culture in general promote premarital sex among increasingly younger children falls on deaf ears in my case. Judeo-Christians have always existed in cultures inimical to the Gospel. St. Paul , followed most eloquently by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, emphatically points out that Judeo-Christians by definition are resident aliens in pagan lands. So what’s new and how has the Judeo-Christian mission changed? Nothing and not at all. Rather than complain about the negative effects of our modern culture, Judeo-Christians should use the weapons of the culture against the culture. In recent years, some TV programs have done a good job of presenting Judeo-Christianity in a positive light. Why can’t we Judeo-Christians produce our own movies, TV programs, and popular music to show young people how to live in accordance with the Gospel? One highly effective approach might involve recruiting Judeo-Christian actors, popular musicians, and other performers to promote teenage abstinence and self-control.

The Community of Believers can testify to, and warn against, the negative effects of premarital sex for young persons and the desirability of waiting for loving adult sexual relationships. Similarly, the Community can help married couples understand the consequences of unprotected sex in the face of immaturity and economic conditions that pose risks to raising children. The Community can furnish sex education and contraception services within a Judeo-Christian framework, keeping in mind the necessity of walking a thin line between advocating abstinence without at the same time seeming to promote premarital sex through sex education and contraceptive services. Nevertheless, I have never been convinced that sex education and contraceptive services inevitably lead to promiscuity as much as do hormones and the desire for instant gratification.

Third, we cannot preach abstinence and right to life within the Community of Believers without providing financial and communal support for children that might have been aborted and, as well, to the parents. In some instances, families within the Community must be willing to take in young unmarried pregnant women in order to raise them and their babies as incorporated family members. Many variations on this theme can be envisioned. For instance, a young unmarried professional woman within the Community might face the difficult choice of abortion and maintaining her career versus continuing the pregnancy to term at the risk of her career. The Community could organize members to help the woman before and after the birth when childcare becomes a paramount issue for working single mothers.

Fourth, we can expand our orphanages. The United Methodist Church has for many years nurtured and raised previously unwanted and abandoned children in its orphanages and group homes. Such components of the Community of Believers belie the Dickensian image of horrible Victorian era institutions. I have spoken over the years with several persons who resided in United Methodist orphanages and group homes, sometimes from infancy to young adulthood. All these persons reported positive experiences in these facilities with excellent preparation for subsequently productive adult lives.

Yes, many legal obstacles can be raised to the above approach, including the problem of birth mothers at some point wanting to regain their parental rights after legal adoptions of their initially unwanted infants. We could work to bring such mothers into the Community of Believers. Additionally, talented lawyers are members of Community of Believers and their services can be utilized. Very little in our lives can be taken as certain except for the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I would rather save the children even at the risk in some instances of their being returned to their birth mothers at a later date.

Fundamentally, what must the Community of Believers do to implement a program similar to the one outlined above? We should exercise our desire and will to expand our service and ministry, especially to the most vulnerable future and present members of our Community. We should quit talking and get to work to provide the implementation and operational funding, probably with little help from governmental organizations other than for us to take advantage of the tax deductions for charitable donations. Like the early Roman Judeo-Christians, we should put our treasure to work for the Gospel and expansion of the Community. The Gospel imperative remains true: Our hearts will be found with our treasure.

After all, history does show that children raised as Judeo-Christians usually remain in the Community of Believers as adults, a fact thoroughly in keeping with our primary objective: · · · at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father.

CHAPTER 6

2010-05-30T19:05:00.002-04:00

GENESIS AND EVOLUTION: COMPLEMENTARY OR ANTAGONISTIC?

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Gen. 1:26-28

The unfortunate controversy between proponents of creationism(1) or so-called creation science versus evolutionary science demonstrates the difficulties Judeo-Christians face when we fail to ask pertinent questions that generate useful answers. We must recognize an important fact: The argument primarily takes place among Judeo-Christians, not between Judeo-Christians and atheists (or agnostics).(2) Even if further rigorous scientific investigations completely disproved the current model of evolutionary science, atheists would not automatically accept the Genesis accounts of creation as valid. Persons with the atheistic mindset would simply search for another scientific account of how the universe was formed and how life began on Earth without any divine influence or causality. Why? Because rejection of scientific theories and even laws through the scientific method always generates additional scientific hypothesis, followed by new or modified theories that lead to new scientific laws. From a purely scientific perspective, this process does not require including God in any explanation of the origins and operations of the universe, much less how life began.(3)

Cosmological Science or Cosmology

Cosmological science, a branch of Physics, explores the origin, structure, and development of the universe in an attempt to elucidate some of the most basic questions about our existence. Cosmology, like any science, utilizes the scientific method.(4) Astronomical observations from various sources (e.g., optical, infrared, and radio telescopes) furnished most of our cosmological data until recently. The advent of powerful particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider located near Geneva, Switzerland, allows direct experimental investigations into conditions that existed within the first few microseconds after God brought this universe into being and into other fundamental aspects of creation.

Although popularly regarded as a gigantic explosion or Big Bang, cosmologists tend to think of the initial act of creation as an expansion from an infinitesimally small, hot, and dense point termed a singularity. Inflating a balloon serves as an analogous illustration of the expansion. No simply analogy can be offered for the concept of a singularity, a point where space and time do not exist as we know them. Importantly, our space and time began with the initial moment of this expansion. The first several minutes of creation after the initial expansion were characterized by light so intense that it had mass. Cosmology gives us no explanation of what existed before this singularity or its origin; but, the obvious parallel with Genesis (Let there be light) may explain why some Judeo-Christians can more readily accept the Big Bang or expansion theory than evolutionary science.
The Big Bang included all of the components and parameters necessary for the universe to form and stabilize, and for biological evolution to proceed. Many authors have written easy to read explanations of how our universe began, descriptions that do not require a pre-requisite scientific background to understand.(5,6,7)

Evolutionary Science or Evolution

The term, evolution, refers to the process of change over time. In biology, evolution means changes in life forms with the passage of time, from the simplest unicellular organisms to the complexity of species existing today.
I markedly prefer the term evolutionary science rather than the theory of biological evolution used in the public arena.(8) Evolutionary science has the following components: (a) all forms of life on earth originated through common descent, (b) parent organisms pass on inheritable traits to offspring from one generation to another, (c) some changes, such as mutations, naturally arise when organisms have offspring, and (d) over time these changes resulted in the variety of life forms, including humans, we see on earth today. Although the concept of evolutionary science arose in many forms before Charles Darwin, he most often receives credit for the first enunciation of the idea based upon empirical data.(9)

Importantly, evolutionary science primarily deals with the development of subsequent life forms from predecessor life forms but does not postulate how life originated. Models, some of which come from laboratory experiments, have been developed to explain how the first living organism could have arisen from non-living materials. The present hypothesis postulates that all life began on earth when certain molecules self-assembled into a single replicating cell. This cell, through evolutionary processes that incorporated a high degree of randomness (trial and error), ultimately produced human life.(10)

The scope of Through The Wilderness does not encompass a detailed explanation of evolutionary science or a counterpoint to arguments Creationists and various religious fundamentalists have raised against the concept of biological evolution. Many excellent summaries, primarily written for non-scientific audiences, describe the major findings of evolutionary science.(6,11,12,13) As Richard Dawkins lucidly explains, all objections Creationists and others have promulgated to disprove or cast doubt on biological evolution have themselves been scientifically countered.(14) No gaps or so-called missing links exist in the fossil record. All contrary statistical objections, such as the supposed mathematical impossibility of the formation of eyes and other optical structures through random processes, have been thoroughly discounted.

Randomness In The Design

A major, albeit misunderstood, point of contention about evolutionary science revolves around the idea of “randomness” inherent in biological evolution: Random but inheritable changes (mutations) in the genetic material (DNA) of a parent organism produce offspring that may or may not be better equipped to survive (natural selection). If better equipped to thrive and survive through the heritable changes, new species ultimately will be produced, and older species will die out due to competition for food and habitat. For some Judeo-Christians, this randomness appears to contradict God’s providential design of, and care for, creation: How could a loving God allow creation to proceed through random processes?

An obvious answer resolves the apparent, but not actual, contradiction: Randomness constitutes an integral component of God’s design for the creation of living organisms. Two elegant books, each written by a faithful Judeo-Christian scientist, thoroughly illuminate this point.(6,7) Following the lead of these two authors, I envision God’s creative activity establishing non-random boundaries within which degrees of randomness can occur. While this internal randomness takes place with many varied results, the non-random boundaries cannot be crossed. The speed of light might be considered a non-random boundary (with a few exceptions according to Einstein). The Laws of Thermodynamics could serve as non-random or limiting boundaries: Numerous energy interactions can occur as long as they do not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. We might say, therefore, God specified the speed of light and Laws of Thermodynamics as boundary components of creation.

Perhaps a more mundane analogy will illustrate the idea of non-random boundaries constraining or limiting internal randomness, keeping in mind that all analogies suffer some lack of precision. From 1998 to 2009, Andrea (my beloved wife) and I lived in Franklin County near Lavonia, a small town in Northeast Georgia. A railroad, originally named the Elberton Air-Line Railroad, runs through Lavonia to connect Elberton to the east with Toccoa to the west. Construction of the 51-mile railroad was completed in 1878 with the express purpose of joining the Seaboard (now CSX) Railroad at Elberton with the Atlanta to Charlotte to Richmond Railroad (now the Southern) at Toccoa, thereby affording an easier transit of goods and people into and out of Northeast Georgia.
Several routes were proposed for the new railroad. A flat depiction of the area, such as an ordinary roadmap, indicates no obvious choice for the rail bed. The selection of any route seems entirely random. For instance, the railroad could have been constructed along the Broad River to the south of the present location. An examination of the area with a topographical map, however, clearly shows the rail bed running along the ridgeline between Elberton and Toccoa. Even in the later part of the 19th century, engineers knew that construction and subsequent maintenance of the railroad along this ridgeline required less energy (i.e., was more efficient) than any other route in that section of Northeast Georgia. The historical record of the Elberton Air-Line Railroad reveals the engineers understood construction along the southern route would have necessitated two bridges over the Board River and that drainage of water from the rail bed would be difficult. The parameters of the topography (non-random limiting boundaries) dictated one choice, among several, for the route. What, therefore, appeared to be the result of randomness was in fact a non-random selection.

If another group of investors had decided to invest and build a railroad along the southern route, which had some appealing characteristics due to the location of population centers, competition or “survival of the fittest” would have taken place with the Elberton Air-Line Railroad. Overtime, the expense and energy required to build, operate, and maintain the southern-routed railroad would have resulted in its demise. The Elberton Air-Line Railroad was more energy efficient and thereby able to win the competition.

This analogy illustrates what happens with biological evolution. Many pathways can be envisioned and actually embarked upon (random) but the energy constraints (non-random) will ultimately dictate the pathway of development and generation of new species from old. The enormous time scale over which biological evolution has taken place facilitated the development of human life through what may appear to be, but is not wholly, a random process.

Reconciliation

I believe the best way to reconcile Genesis and evolutionary science requires us to ask and answer appropriate questions. To this end, we may return to our Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How questions concerning creation.
Genesis gives us answers to Who, What, and Where, along with some information or reasonable speculation about Why:

Who God, of course, is the primary actor.

What Creation of all that exists, seen and unseen.

Where This universe, the site of our physical reality.

Why Based upon God’s statement about creation, And God saw that it was good(15), we can make a logical inference that God enjoyed the creative effort or that the outcome pleased God.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism, which I studied in my youth within the Presbyterian tradition, makes the following profound, if mechanistically vague and temporally imprecise, summary: What is the work of creation? The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

We must turn to science, especially cosmology and evolution, for answers to the When and How questions.

When Genesis gives us no precise information about the When, other than the cryptic In the beginning(16) but, when did the beginning take place in real time? According to the latest cosmological estimates, the initial act of creation occurred some 13.73 billion years in our past.(17)

How Cosmological and evolutionary sciences provide the best available information on the mechanisms God employed to create our physical universe and to produce the various life forms, including humans, that have appeared on Earth.

A Personal Summary

My scientific background convinces me that cosmological and evolutionary principles comprise integral components of creation. My Judeo-Christian convictions compel me to believe that God designed and created all that exists. I am, therefore, a creationist who believes in an intelligent designer whose actions in our physical universe can be discovered through the scientific method and utilized. No conflict between religion and science should distract us as long as we remain clear headed about the questions we ask from each source of complementary knowledge.

The viewpoints expressed above trouble some Judeo-Christians. The concept that the initial act of creation incorporated all components and parameters necessary for the physical universe to develop into its present form and for biological evolution to proceed contains elements of Deism. This school of philosophy, to which some people grant religious status, grew from the intellectual ferment of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Many founders of our democratic republic were Deists.(18) The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution may be viewed as prime expressions of Deist political philosophy.

Deists believe this universe operates according to laws of nature that a Creator put in place with the initial act of creation.(19) This Creator then withdrew to leave the universe and humans to exist without divine supervision or intervention. Deists neither equate the Creator to the traditional Judeo-Christian God nor do they accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, although they agree he existed historically. Thus, Deism excludes divine revelations and miracles. A core principle of Deism specifies that humans can know this Creator only through reason and observations of nature. I depart from Deism on the following fundamental points: (a) I believe in the Judeo-Christian God, although I am reluctant to accept some of the characteristics traditionally attributed to God; (b) I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, although I cannot postulate an intellectually rigorous explanation for this foundational principle of Judeo-Christianity; and (c) I accept that knowledge of God through non-rational revelation can, and frequently does, take place.

Despite these reservations, a strong affinity with some aspects of Deism exists within my religious beliefs, a factor that resonates with my scientific approach to exploring the mysteries of creation. If God directly intervenes to change the outcome of natural laws God put in place at the time of creation, the universe and God become irrational and untrustworthy. Divine manipulation of the course of natural events on a case-by-case basis more than implies God can undergo a change of mind or intent. Such changeability or capriciousness would reflect imperfection in God’s original actions. An old philosophical but important question relates to divine changeability: Can our perfect God act imperfectly? I think not. Thus, what God brought into being must be perfect without the necessity of divine change.(20)

I realize many people in effect pray to alter the outcome of natural events, that is, to change God’s mind. A pertinent example occurs with prayers for healing. People get sick and recover, often with the help of modern medicine, as a result of natural laws. Even so-called miraculous cures seemingly outside the scope of current medical knowledge will ultimately be explained through scientific principles. Additionally, a random “healing” due to the probabilistic nature of disease and recovery cannot be excluded. A presumed correlation between prayer and a healing does not prove causality, that the prayers of the faithful resulted in recovery.

I previously stated my belief in prayer; however, I try to pray according to the insight C.S. Lewis put forth, Our prayers are not meant to change God but to change ourselves.(21) God would be subject to human emotions and transitory whims if our prayers could convince God to violate natural laws. What about purported Biblical examples of God apparently exhibiting a change of mind? I think these episodes illustrate humans aligning themselves with the will of God.

I issue the following challenge: Listen to the prayers of other persons and ourselves. How often do these prayers, implicitly or explicitly, ask for God to violate a natural law, in other words to manipulate God? Inclusion of the phrase, Your (God’s) will be done) does not alter the situation: If the universe and all within, including human activities operate according to God’s will, why should we pray for a change of God’s mind and intent?

The very idea, for instance, of a religious leader claiming to have prevented a hurricane from making landfall on the US coast(22) strikes me not only as idiotic but blasphemous, a total disregard of prayerful purpose and God’s perfection. In my best moments when I am under the influence of my better angels, I refrain from insisting that God must or must not act in specific ways. Nevertheless, while I can accept that God has the power to violate a divinely instituted natural law, I see no evidence that God has exercised this prerogative.

When I have broached these ideas, a typical response from non-scientifically oriented Judeo-Christians has been, “Therefore you must feel extraordinarily alone, separated from God.” I usually counter in two-parts. First, by stating I would feel even more distanced from God if I believed our prayers could alter the outcome of events and circumstances dictated by God’s natural laws, laws our perfect God put in place to maintain creation. Simply put, what about two persons or two groups of people praying for opposite outcomes? Does God have some way to assess the fervor of opposing prayers in order to choose outcomes? If so, how can we rely upon God to be consistent? Secondly, I profess my reliance upon the great promise St. Paul enunciated, No circumstances can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ.(23) This reliance allows me to make sense of my place in the universe regardless of how the outcome of God’s natural laws may affect me. My task then becomes to align my will with my understanding of God’s will, including scientific laws by which the universe operates.

References

1 Creationism indicates a belief or doctrine that the Genesis accounts provide complete and accurate (i.e., inerrant) accounts of the creation of the cosmos and origin of life on earth. Creation Science refers to attempts to disprove Evolutionary Science through presumptive scientific arguments, all of which have been debunked.

2 Chapter 5

3 Chapter 4

4 Chapter 4.

5 Greene, Brian. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 2004.

6 LaRocco, Chris and Rothstein, Blair. The Big Bang. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm.

7 Big Bang Theory – An Overview. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

8 Chapter 4, differences between scientific and non-scientific use of the term, theory.

9 Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Complete first edition available on-line at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

10 Colling, Richard G. Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator. Browning Press, Bourbonnais, IL. 2004.

11 Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. 2006.

12 Kung, Hans. The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K. 2007.

13 Ruse, Michael. Can A Darwinian Be A Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY. 2001.

14 Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. 2009.

15 Genesis 1:25

16 Genesis 1:1.

17 The on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe), gives an accessible summary, Age of the Universe, of how the most recent estimate of the universe’s age was determined.

18 George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin to cite some of the most prominent.

19 Deism in Wikipedia

20 Although not within the scope of this chapter, we must understand that evil, which results from our God-given free will, also represents a component of God’s perfect design for creation, if God cannot act imperfectly. I am not sure about the actual existence of the Devil, as opposed to evil; but, if God created all that exists, God also created the Devil (or what the Devil represents) and allows evil to occur.

21 C.S. Lewis. Find reference.

22 Robertson, Pat in reference to Hurricane Gloria. 700 Club on Christian Broadcasting Network, 1985. Honesty does compel me to point out that Rev. Robertson subsequently state, “I don’t think He (God) reverses laws of nature,” on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on American Broadcast Company, 01 May 2005.

23 Romans 8:38 – 39.

CHAPTER 5

2010-05-30T18:04:00.002-04:00

HOW CAN JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HOLY SCRIPTURE AND ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE?

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? Job 38:4-8

First and foremost, Judeo-Christians should neither attempt to demonstrate the existence of God with science nor participate in futile efforts to impose legal constraints on basic scientific research. Using science to prove or, for that matter, to disprove God as the creator and sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, distorts both science and religion because the methodologies intrinsic to each discipline differ in many respects. Numerous volumes have been written about this distinction but the crucial point relates to the collection and interpretation of data. Scientists utilize the scientific method(1) whereas for religion, non-rational (but not irrational) data serve as the initial foundation for the transition from unbelief to belief.

Despite the methodological differences, analogous “leaps of faith”(2) undergird Judeo-Christianity and science; hence, from first principles, both persuasive descriptions of reality can speak to each other without negative confrontations. The issue does not concern superiority but how Judeo-Christianity and science support and complement each other to give a more expansive and integrated explanation of God’s creation and continuing involvement in human affairs. Considerations of the comparative leaps of faith in the scientific and religious spheres apply only to Judeo-Christians. Atheists give no credence to Holy Scripture as an authoritative source. Absence this authority, conflicts between Judeo-Christianity and science obviously have no relevance, if for no other reason than issues of Biblical inerrancy need not be addressed.(3) I do not mean to imply that Judeo-Christians should refrain from witnessing to non-Judeo-Christians. Rather, the witness should first take place on grounds other than a discussion justifying both religion and science.

Uncertainty in Science

Two thought experiments may serve as an introduction to the leap of faith at the core of science. First, let us imagine we are about to toss a coin into the air and we ask, “What is the probability, or odds, that the coin will come to rest with the Heads side up?” If we discount the vanishingly small chance that the coin will land and stay on its edge, the probability of Heads showing at rest is 0.5 (i.e., 50%, 1:1, or even odds). We next visualize eight more legitimate tosses, each of which shows Heads at rest. After these nine consecutive Heads, we ask, “What is the probability that the tenth toss will show Heads?” The answer is still 0.5. Statistics instructs us that the random nature of results from a sufficiently large and even number of legitimate tosses ultimately will produce an equal number of Heads and Tails. Emphatically, no force operates in nature to pre-determine that the tenth toss is more likely to be Tails rather than Heads, despite the successive run of Heads. People who do not grasp this point gamble at their peril.

The second thought experiment addresses tossing a ball into the air. We ask, before the toss, “What will happen to the ball?” The answer is that the ball will rise to a height dependent upon the strength of the toss and then return to ground level. We have great confidence in this expectation. We have never observed anything different throughout human history: Objects projected into the air with accelerations insufficient to escape the Earth’s gravitational field or to go into a stable orbit have always returned to ground level.

What is the linkage between the first and second thought experiments? The former teaches us that nothing from the extensive previous observations of objects (e.g., our ball in the second experiment) propelled into the air predetermines that those objects will fall back to ground level. Some persons will immediately respond, “Gravity brings these objects back to earth.” More accurately, all these observations allowed the formulation of the Law of Gravity in its basic expression. Nevertheless, the best we can do is to expect, with a high probability approaching, but always less than 1.0, that the objects will come back down.

Scientific laws, therefore, do not rest upon absolute certainty but on events of extremely high statistical probability. Scientists make their leaps of faith across this inherent uncertainty because experience shows the universe operates with predictable reproducibility according to scientific laws we can discover and elucidate. Without this consistency, our lives would be intolerably chaotic with an untrustworthy creator. All the subsets of science (e.g., Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) can be built upon the framework laid down by the leap of faith from irrationality or chaos to high probability and reliable reproducibility but not to certainty.

From Unbelief (Doubt) to Belief (Faith) in God

Modern usage confuses belief and faith.(4) The New Testament meaning of belief indicated binding loyalty to a person (i.e., Christ) through promise or duty. The Greek word translated as faith in the New Testament meant trust, loyalty, engagement, commitment to Christ through practically living out the Gospel message (e.g., feeding Christ’s sheep). Faith for Judeo-Christians should not be considered equivalent to belief in human-made opinions. We moderns probably would benefit from thinking trust or commitment when we read or hear belief and faith in the context of Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture compels us, in the words of St. Augustine, to first believe and then to know.(5) We come into the Community of Believers through belief in God as the supreme power in the universe. We cannot know as opposed to know about God unless we first believe in God. If scientific experiments were able to demonstrate that God created and rules, belief would be irrelevant. Jesus always called his disciples and others who heard him to enter the Kingdom of God through belief or, more properly, trust and commitment.

We may use our rational and non-rational prowess to establish a basis for believing in the existence of God; but, regardless of the fervor and astuteness of our struggles, each of us must first cross from unbelief to belief without irrefutable scientific or rational proof. Some individuals, such as those born into and raised in the Community of Believers, will find a relatively narrow and shallow gap they must traverse. Other persons will come up against a wide and deep chasm, an abyss. Regardless of the distance and depth we face, the transit must be made by a leap of faith.

A devotional reading of Holy Scripture assists many persons in moving to belief. Individuals who hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura(6) may not worry about any perceived differences between scientific findings and Holy Scripture but will find belief by trusting that God will one day reconcile all such distinctions. Other Judeo-Christians with a more scientific orientation may negotiate the crossing with the realization that Holy Scripture was never intended to be a scientific textbook. The basis for the transit aside, once we cross from unbelief to belief, the entire edifice of Judeo-Christianity can be constructed. Theological arguments have led to somewhat modified structures, e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant, Baptist vs. Methodist, but the same pillar supports all variations of Judeo-Christianity: Belief in God manifest through the Holy Trinity,(7) and the witness and service of believers.

I have long struggled with the idea of how to convince persons outside a religious community about the concept of first believing in God as a prerequisite for knowing God exists and remains involved in human lives: My upbringing in the Community of Believers established the first basis for my belief years before I applied the full force of my intellect to the proposition of God’s existence. Once this application progressed through my fascination with science, I found no reason to disbelieve: I benefited from the witness of astute individuals who opened my mind to the fact that no actual conflict exists between the fundamental precepts of Judeo-Christianity and science. What, however, about persons outside Judeo-Christianity, how can they best be brought into this Community? I believe the way we Judeo-Christians live our lives, as exemplified by our profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service(8) reveals the appropriate answer.

Evaluation of Religious Truths

I dispute the claim that the Judeo-Christian religion, in contrast to science, necessitates abandonment of rationality in favor of irrationality. As a Judeo-Christian scientist, I can attest that equivalent mental acuity should be applied to both religion and science. Our God-given minds allow us to test and verify the “revelations” of religion and science.

How do we evaluate the truth and relevance of religious revelations in the absence of the objective data available to science? A common non-rational but real phenomenon, falling in love, furnishes an approach. Although science has made great strides in unmasking the biochemistry and physiology of why and how two humans fall in love with each other, no completely rational explanation of the process has been put forth. Genuine falling in love may transcend objectivity but our intellects must come into play once the full bloom of emotion or infatuation subside, in order to evaluate the possibility that we have succumbed to the spell of a powerful but transitory state of enchantment.

A “Damascus Road Experience” like the one that brought St. Paul to belief in Jesus Christ becomes a non-rational highlight of some peoples’ lives. Holy Scripture informs us about the power of St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. St. Paul himself testifies that he was a Jewish scholar, and the epistles he authored show a fine mind at work. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with his training and character for St. Paul to have applied his intellect to differentiate between a nightmarish irrational occurrence and a non-rational but real event, even one outside the realm of objective rationality. Unless St. Paul was a lunatic, a supposition highly unlikely from the content and characteristics of his writings, we can be confident that his non-rational encounter withstood the test of his rational mind. I suspect the time St. Paul spent blinded allowed him an opportunity to assess what had happened. Additionally, St. Paul could not have undertaken his mission to the Gentiles if other Judeo-Christians had not quizzed him in detail about, and then agreed with, the truth of his “Damascus Road Experience”.

Once we make the initial leap of faith, all our religious convictions must withstand rigorous tests, as in science. We should apply our minds to even the fundamental aspects of our religious convictions. For example, we must disregard such bumper sticker concepts as, “God said it and that means it’s true.” Why? Holy Scripture contains many internal contradictions and does not always accord with what we have learned about the ancient and modern worlds.(9) We need to comprehend what Holy Scripture actually says before embracing the bumper sticker proclamation. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest Judeo-Christian theologians, spoke pertinently to the point: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic (i.e., Judeo-Christian) not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.(10)

As discussed above, science rests upon statistical design and control. Similarly, a type of statistical verification pertains to religion. Observations, a form of data, collected over the centuries show predictably favorable and often dramatic changes in lives after people transition from unbelief to belief, including genuine love for brothers and sisters, ministry to the poor and disenfranchised, and other aspects of feeding Christ’s sheep. Critics of this proposition may counter, “Yes, but often accompanied by, or even supplanted with, anticipated unfavorable changes such as intolerance and persecution of non-believers.” St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, among many others, equip us with the proper response to this criticism: People who advocate and follow these negative outcomes from the religious leap of faith do not understand what Holy Scripture actually means.(11,12)

The Critical Interaction

Science and religion may reason together about how to use scientific knowledge. The following equation, a summarization of one of Albert Einstein’s major contributions to our knowledge about God’s creation, presents a pertinent example:
E = mC2

Thus, a massive amount of energy (E) can be obtained from a small amount (mass or m) of a substance (e.g., Uranium 235 or Plutonium) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (where C = 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second).
This theoretical relationship first found a pragmatic utility in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. The awesome destructive power that can be unleashed from nuclear weapons and, as well, the tremendous potential benefits available from controlled nuclear power illustrate why science and religion must speak to each other to protect creation and enhance human life. We would be well served, therefore, by adhering to Albert Einstein’s cogent summarization: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.(13)

The great majority of scientists consider the unfettered right to follow all lines of scientific inquiry with the same passionate commitment as Judeo-Christians regard freedom to worship. All attempts to apply legislative or theological restrictions to research through coercion will ultimately fail. How, then, can Judeo-Christianity and science properly interact? By observing the following guideline: Judeo-Christianity legitimately provides a moral input for, and self-control of, scientists within the Judeo-Christianity community.(14) For example, Judeo-Christian scientists might of their own volition forego research on thermonuclear and biological weapons or into manipulation of the human genome for any purpose other than therapy to cure or prevent disease.

Admittedly, some Judeo-Christian scientists and many non-Judeo-Christian scientists will not ascribe any degree whatsoever of immorality to these and other areas of research but such potentially contentious topics mandate rational discussion from the viewpoints of science and religion. Application of scientific findings frequently generates more serious controversies than the original research topics. Judeo-Christianity, with its moral and ethical values, can serve at least to make us think about how we should utilize the fruits of scientific research. Judeo-Christians must engage in our prophetic mission, not to predict the future but to point out consequences.

When properly conducted, science expands our knowledge about God’s creation and constitutes a form of worship. Accordingly, the conversation between Judeo-Christianity and science ought to take place with mutual respect because Judeo-Christianity teaches us how to go to heaven and science teaches us how the heavens go.

References

1 Chapter 4

2 The term, leap of faith, is commonly attributed to Søren Kierkegaard, although he used leap to faith in his book, The Concept of Anxiety.

3 Chapter 1

4 Karen Armstrong, The Case for God.

5 Give reference.

6 Sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, refers to the doctrine that Holy Scripture provides the only authority, and contains all knowledge necessary for belief in God. Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

7 For the purposes of this discussion, the Judeo-Christian “religion” refers to the belief in God, revealed through the Holy Trinity, whereas Judeo-Christian “theology” applies to the many doctrines that have grown from this basic understanding, e.g., Predestination, Free Will, Transubstantiation within Holy Communion, and Papal Infallibility to name only a few. These differing theological interpretations contributed to the formation of our various Judeo-Christian denominations.

8 Chapter 3

9 Pertinent examples among many are: Which of the two contradictory Genesis creation stories is more correct; on what day did Jesus die; did Jesus go to his death calmly or in agony; did or did not Jesus himself claim to be the only Son of God; is the Holy Trinity explicitly defined in Holy Scripture or is this doctrine the result of tradition?

10 Give reference.

11 Give reference.

12 Give reference

13 Reference.

14 Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941.

CHAPTER 4: HOW DOES SCIENCE REVEAL THE MECHANICS OF GOD’S CREATION?

2010-05-29T17:22:00.002-04:00

Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. Job 22:23

My experience shows that Judeo-Christian scientists generally express markedly less reluctance to accept religious truths compared with some Judeo-Christian non-scientists who experience great difficulty acknowledging scientific truths. Much of the unnecessary confusion about, and even overt hostility between, religious and scientific truths stems from misconceptions about Biblical inerrancy(1) and a failure to recognize that Holy Scripture does not function as a scientific textbook. Holy Scripture gives us information about the who, what, where, and why rather than the when(2) and how of creation, two subjects within the purview of science.

USEFUL DEFINITIONS

The following definitions intrinsic to science may help clarify how scientists go about revealing the mechanism (i.e., the when and how) of God’s original and continuing creation.

Science

The term, science, refers to comprehensive or extensive information on any subject but particularly in reference to the physical universe, including biological processes. To be considered a science (e.g., Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Physics), a body of knowledge must be based upon careful observations, controlled experiments, precise measurements, mathematics to the greatest extent possible, and replication by independent observers. Accordingly, science seeks reproducible and predictable explanations for natural events.

Scientific Method

Modern science rests upon the scientific method, which proceeds through observations of natural events and/or experimentation designed to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. That is, the scientific method incorporates an objective process to find solutions to problems in numerous scientific and technological fields, as opposed to religious subjects. I firmly believe the scientific method constitutes an example of Holy Spirit-inspired revelation. The scientific method comprises the following steps: observation, hypothesis, theory, and law.

Scientific Hypothesis

The first step in the scientific method occurs with collection of empirical(3) data from careful observations of natural phenomena (e.g., astronomical observations) or from controlled experiments typically, but not always, conducted in a laboratory setting. Based upon these initial data, a model may be formulated in order to describe, in a logical fashion, what has been observed. As more data become available, a scientific hypothesis can be formulated. This hypothesis allows predictions to be made that can be tested by further experiments or observations. Importantly, scientific hypotheses must exhibit two fundamental characteristics: (a) generation of valid predictions and (b) capability of falsification, that is, additional data might show the hypothesis to be false. An hypothesis that does not allow valid predictions or that is shown to be false must be discarded or, at least, modified.

The falsification requirement eliminates the scientific validity of many truths within Holy Scripture. For example, God created all that exists, seen and unseen, precludes scientific verification because the hypothesis cannot be tested and shown to be false with the tools available to science. This lack of scientific verification, however, does not in and of itself invalidate a belief in God as creator. We may accept the truth of this Biblical statement on grounds outside the scope of science through non-rational(4) but nevertheless valid considerations.

Scientific Theory

A scientific hypothesis that survives extensive testing may be incorporated into the framework of a scientific theory, which generally includes more than one hypothesis to describe a large grouping of phenomena. the term scientific theory carries markedly more weight with scientists than the term, theory, as used in the non-scientific world. A scientific theory comes from the rigorous application of scientific methodology and by no means conveys or derives from a fanciful or “blue sky” suggestion or supposition. Much of the controversy concerning evolutionary science and the Genesis story of creation results from this semantic difference between scientists and some non-scientists concerning the use of theory.

Scientific Law

A scientific law arises from a scientific theory shown to be valid through a large number of predictions and empirical observations. Thus the procession, always based upon empirical data and valid predictions at each stage, sequentially involves:

Observations/Data

Model

Scientific Hypothesis

Scientific Theory

Scientific Law

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE

The following characteristics fundamentally define science and the scientific method.

Iconoclastic

Icons are sacred religious objects or conventional presumptions in secular society such as the death penalty leads to a decrease in the murder rate; “God hates queers”; God favors the Republican Party; the Democratic Party best expresses the Gospel message; the United States was founded as, and remains, a Christian nation; heavier objects fall faster to earth than lighter objects when dropped from the same height. Iconoclasts are persons who break sacred objects. Scientists by temperament and training become iconoclasts because they always ask questions and question answers.

Data-Driven and Hypothesis-Generating

The scientific method discussed above illustrates this characteristic.

Probabilistic

Predictions of high statistical probabilities, but not certainties, establish scientific laws. A detailed discussion of this probabilistic characteristic, which derives from the null hypothesis, lies outside the scope of this book. A simple example, however, may illustrate the point. Suppose a clinical scientist wishes to determine if Drug(5) A is more efficacious (i.e., works better) than Drug B in lowering blood pressure. For the sake of this illustration, we may focus on systolic (i.e., the upper number) pressure. The relevant statement of the Null Hypothesis in this case would be: Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure. The Alternative Hypothesis would be: Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure.

Why proceed on what appears, to non-scientists, an arcane approach to this question of efficacy? The white crow/black crow problem provides the relevant answer. We can make two statements that might appear to be equivalent:

A All crows are black.
B There are no white crows.

For statement A, we need only examine a sufficiently large sample of crows in order to assess the validity of the proposition with a high probability, typically 95%. For statement B, however, we must examine all crows on earth in order to assess the validity of the proposition. Obviously, one could never be sure that all crows on earth had been examined and that, therefore, no white crow had escaped our attention. This foundational principle, which I term statistical “theology”, generated many conversations between my statistical colleagues and me.

With this simplified background in mind, we understand that our clinical scientist will endeavor to test the systolic blood pressures of a large number of persons, randomly assigned to receive either Drug A or Drug B in a double-blind fashion (i.e., neither the scientist nor the test persons know the drug assignments) prior to and at intervals after administration of the test drugs. If the resultant data, within appropriate statistical parameters, show a lower average systolic blood pressure for persons who received Drug A compared with those who received Drug B, we may reject the null hypothesis (Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure) in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure). Critically, the conclusion is probabilistic (again, typically with a 95% confidence level) because (a) while we know the average blood pressures differed between the two groups, we can only attribute, rather than absolutely prove, this effect to Drug A with a high degree of probability and (b) the clinical scientist did not examine all persons on earth in this trial. The confidence level rests upon the number of persons in the trial, the precision of the blood pressure measurements, and the variability of those measurements.

Although this example provides a simplified explanation, the point remains: Predictable events of high statistical probability, not certainty, establish scientific laws.(6)

Temporal

Scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws exist in the present moment and must be changed upon collection of contrary, i.e., falsification, data. Time dependency, therefore, characterizes the findings and conclusions of science. A common example illustrates this point: In the past, tobacco inhalation was not considered harmful to the health of a the majority of smokers; however, based upon current data, we now understand the deleterious effects of tobacco. The temporal nature of scientific conclusions perplexes, even frustrates, many non-scientists who wish for certainty at all times.

Self-correcting

By its very nature, science is remarkably self-correcting. If errors, intentional or unintentional arise in science, the scientific method eventually will reveal and correct them. This self-correcting characteristic explains in part why scientists consider reproducibility a requisite feature in assessing scientific conclusions.

Devoid of ethical, moral, religious, or mystical content

Science deals only with objective data that can be quantified. For example, because reliable scientific data cannot be obtained, science will not deal with what existed prior to the initial act of creation. Similarly, science will not add God, as creator, to any explanation of how life began and changes over time. No reason exists to write divine influence into any equation, hypothesis, theory, or scientific law. We may understand this point by looking at a straightforward example, a physical, chemical, or biochemical process that combines A with B to yield C, written in shorthand as:

A + B = C

Once we add in conditions for temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc., the equation thoroughly defines the process. It would be irrational to say something like, If God isn’t included, the transformation from A and B to C cannot occur because we can identify all the parameters necessary for the reaction to take place without putting God into the equation. Importantly from the perspective of science, unexplained phenomena do not serve as “proofs” of God’s existence and miraculous power but, rather, pose fertile areas for future scientific research.

A PERSONAL ACCOMMODATION

How do Judeo-Christian scientists reconcile the characteristics of science, particularly its refusal to include God, with religious principles? I can only offer my own accommodation. I previously stated that I was born into and have remained within the Community of Believers. I also am a trained scientist, with a doctorate in Biochemistry, who spent twenty years in basic biomedical research in laboratory settings and another twenty years working as a clinical scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. I experienced no great difficulty in reconciling my religious proclivities with my scientific career because, at the expense of repetition, I understood the differences in focus: Who, what, where, and why for Judeo-Christianity versus when and how for science. Thus, separate foci, investigative tools, and evaluative parameters produce separate but complementary answers about creation.

In this context, I am often asked, “Do you believe in prayer, do you pray in the laboratory?” The answers are “yes” and “yes”. I accept that prayer may be our natural status or primary method of communion with God; however, I would never pray for the results of my experiments come out in a specific way. Such a prayer fundamentally violates God’s natural laws, attempts to manipulate God, and denigrates human curiosity and intellect. On the other hand, I often prayed for the inspiration to design my experiments and to interpret the results in a logical fashion that would illuminate some aspect of God’s creation.

REFERENCES

1 Chapter 1

2 The Genesis descriptor, In the beginning, does not specify how long in the past the universe began.

3 Information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to suppositions. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.

4 I employ the following definitions: Rational or empirical - information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment; Non-rational – information deemed to be valid even if outside the realm of rationality (An example would be the phenomenon of falling in love.); and Irrational – propositions that negate logic and reason, which have no place in science or religion (the idea that planets and stars influence our fate, the benevolent powers of crystals, the fallacy that we can communicate with the dead, and that God manipulates the minutia of the universe through violation of natural laws).

5 A legal pharmaceutical agent rather than an illegal substance.

6 The basic uncertainty inherent in science will be addressed again in Chapter

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 3

2009-06-24T14:01:00.004-04:00

POLITICS: WHY AND HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS PARTICIPATE?

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4

Groups of people make decisions and embark upon courses of action through an inherently political process but politics usually refers to the art and, hopefully, the science of government. When applied to a nation, politics pertains to the administration and control of its internal and external affairs to provide peace, prosperity, and protection of the citizenry. We sometimes disparage politicians, especially when their unethical behavior becomes public knowledge, but we should keep in mind that democratic republics such as the United States particularly depend upon effective, even if not efficient, politics.

Two passages from Holy Scripture present a compelling rational for Judeo-Christians to participate in politics at all levels, from the local to the international:

John 21:15-17 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Matt. 22:17-21 “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Three times Jesus commanded Peter to feed Jesus’ sheep. A three-fold pronouncement in Holy Scripture signifies a profoundly serious intent from the Deity. The sheep include persons both within and those currently outside the Christian fellowship; the food in Jesus’ imperative symbolizes physical, spiritual, and emotional nourishment. The Community of Believers follows the teaching of Jesus by furnishing the needed food. Appropriate military protection definitely falls within the context of nourishing Jesus’ sheep in our fallen world. Accordingly, I do not exclude the unfortunate necessity for sometimes taking up arms against unjust ruling authorities that do not care for Jesus’ sheep. (1, footnotes at end)

A superficial reading of Jesus’ response about the propriety of paying taxes to the hated Roman Empire suggests Judeo-Christians have separate duties toward God and earthly powers. Thus, Jesus might be interpreted to have endorsed the medieval demarcation between the profane (secular) and holy (religious) spheres of or lives. I think a deeper meaning holds. Jesus thoroughly understood that everything in creation, seen and unseen, belongs to God; hence, the Roman Emperor owned nothing. Jesus does not tell us to withdraw all support from governments. Instead, he instructs us to remind them that their power, treasure, authority, and responsibilities must be applied to God’s purposes.(2) We must be vigilant to eschew the ultimate danger Holy Scriptures teaches concerning governments:(3) That these earthly institutions can become objects of worship and demand our fidelity through misplaced patriotism and lack of clarity about our primary loyalty. Emphatically, neither the United States nor any other government as presently constituted is equivalent to the Kingdom of God. In fact, all governments, including our democratic republic, at times operate in direct contradiction to the Gospel.

Jesus wants his sheep fed so that the relevant question becomes not Should we be involved in the political process? but How can Judeo-Christians wield political power to ensure compliance with Jesus’ mandate? We empower our representatives through elections to aid the Community of Believers in our task. Governments must fulfill this obligation or be changed, hopefully through non-violent means, although the actual form of a ruling authority (e.g., democratic republic, monarchy) and its economic system (e.g., capitalism, socialism) may be less important to God than the commitment to feeding the sheep.

In answer to the how question, God gives us a powerful action plan incorporating four components - objective, strategy, tactics, and evaluation.

Objective An objective should be concise, unambiguous, and achievable as in Philippians 2:9-11: Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father.

This objective anticipates a worldwide theocracy ordained by God with Jesus Christ as God’s vicar or governor on earth.

Strategy Matthew 28:18-20 expresses the strategy that will take us to our objective: And Jesus came and said to them: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

We recognize this strategic statement as Christ’s Great Commission to his Disciples and, through them, to us.

Tactics The nature and application of tactics represent the most controversial element of the action plan. We need pragmatic tactics to implement the strategy that will lead us to our objective. Profession, proclamation, witnessing to, rejoicing in, and serving the risen Christ through ministry to our brothers and sisters constitute the most potent tactics. We should employ these tactics, which change hearts and minds, rather than wasting time and energy on passing secular (4) laws that seek both to designate the United States as a Judeo-Christian country and to require Biblically-derived beliefs and standards of behavior from all citizens. Jesus was very clear that even strict observance of the law absent an inward change (repentance, being born from above) does not lead to the Kingdom of God. Observance of God’s laws and secular laws consistent with Holy Scripture thus comes about through a desire to love, please and respect God, not through fear of punishment prescribed through the legal system.

The Constitution of the United States does not establish Judeo-Christianity as the official religion of this country.(5) Reading anything else into this seminal secular document corresponds to the same transgression often associated with “liberal activist” judges: Ignoring the plain words to make “laws” not explicitly defined in the Constitution. We slide down this slippery slope at the peril of our democratic republic.

The framers of the Constitution included Judeo-Christians, some of whom we today call evangelicals, and the Constitution invokes God, albeit without an overt reference to Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the primary authors of the Constitution were Deists who produced a religiously neutral document as evidenced by a reading of the plain words and the historical record surrounding the Constitutional Convention. We must be extraordinarily wary about altering the Constitution in such a way as to enfranchise or disenfranchise segments of our citizenry based upon religious affiliations.

The Constitutional Amendment that wreaked the havoc of Prohibition serves as a well-known reminder how virtue cannot be imposed through legislation when large numbers of citizens do not accept the presumptive immorality of the proscribed act. Murder is an even better illustration. The majority of believers and non-believers will affirm the evil of taking innocent lives by premeditated or capital murder. Some jurisdictions exact the harshest penalty, execution, for this crime forbidden by the Sixth Commandment. The State of Texas can be cited as the prime example of how legislation and Draconian punishment have not eliminated this heinous act.

Since the 1976 Supreme Court reinstitution of the death penalty, Texas has had the greatest state total of executions for capital one murder in the United States, 438 out of 1165 through June 2009. A discussion of the deterrent effects of execution on the reduction of murder rates can be confused by arguments about the various statistical methodologies behind the assessments. The fact remains: Murder still takes place in Texas and the rate has not appreciably changed, ranging from 5.9 to 6.8 murders/100,000 people during the 1997 to 2007 timeframe. Why? Because laws do not change hearts and minds.

Do we really expect the legal system to enforce Judeo-Christian morality on all citizens and, thereby, to bring the United States to Christ? Let’s turn the question around with a thought-experiment: Congress passes and the President signs bills outlawing Judeo-Christianity. These statues prohibit Judeo-Christians from practicing their religion in public and in private. Existing churches are demolished or converted to secular structures, and new churches cannot be constructed. Violators of the new laws face extremely harsh penalties equivalent to those perpetrated against Judeo-Christians in the Roman Empire. We can now ask, would these unjust circumstances keep resolute Judeo-Christians from their God-decreed tasks? Of course not. Our work would be more difficult but we would have no excuse for refusing to do God’s will. Again, secular laws do not change hearts and minds.

The history of our faith, especially Judeo-Christianity within the Roman Empire, shows why profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service, but not legislation, are best for the Community of Believers. In the first 3 to 3½ centuries after the death of Christ, Judeo-Christians had no legal protection within the Roman Empire. Roman laws and customs encouraged the torture and killing of Judeo-Christians due to their profession of Jesus Christ, not the Emperor, as Lord and Master. The Judeo-Christian refusal to serve in the Empire’s armed forces further exacerbated the situation. Despite these legal impediments, the number of Judeo-Christians increased from approximately 1000 in 40 C.E. to nearly 34 million (0.001% to 56.5% of the population) by the mid-Fourth Century C.E. This phenomenal growth rate of the Community of Believers has never been replicated, without the benefit of violent subjugation, not even in the supposedly Judeo-Christian United States.(6)

The early success of the Community of Believers contrasted the opposing Roman and Judeo-Christian doctrines for conversion of the world. The Empire assumed first victory, then peace. That is, domination of the world through military and economic supremacy leads to peace. In opposition, Judeo-Christians believed in first peace, then victory. Peace for Judeo-Christians denotes changes in hearts and minds that induce not only the absence of conflict but more significantly a state of reconciliation between God and humans, and among humans. Once this peace or shalom is achieved, victory comes in the form of a one-world government administered by Jesus Christ.

The Judeo-Christian approach convinced the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, to reverse the persecutions of his predecessors and to issue the 313 C.E. Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the Empire. Judeo-Christianity subsequently became the “official” religion of the Empire.(7) This quick summary glosses over Constantine’s political motivations and machinations but the concept holds: Judeo-Christianity flourished and became victorious without enabling legislation.

Some well-meaning believers cannot on principle abandon the idea of attempting to pass laws favoring Judeo-Christianity. This tactic involves enshrining Judeo-Christianity as the “official” religion of the United States through Supreme Court interpretations and amendments to the Constitution. Furthermore, the laws of the United States should directly reflect the religious laws contained in Holy Scripture. For instance, if Holy Scripture declares an activity such as adultery to be a sin, United States law should criminalize the activity. Of course, under the Constitution, these individuals have the right to utilize these tactics, ineffective as they will be.(8)

I prefer to concentrate my efforts on assuring a level playing field for all religions. For that reason I consider myself a strict constructivist who adheres to the Constitutional separation between Church and State. When a level playing field exists, history shows that Judeo-Christianity can more easily perform its mission, and will always triumph. The issue, emphatically, is not separation from but separation between. That is, Judeo-Christians best exert their influence on human affairs, including governments, without adopting or succumbing to the allure of earthly power. Indeed, some Judeo-Christians will find their area of service within, but without primary allegiance to, governments.

Under no circumstances should Judeo-Christians abandon the tactics of proclaiming and witnessing to the risen Christ. We must always speak out against evil while offering life-affirming alternatives. If we believe behaviors such as abortion, murder, thievery, allowing persons to go hungry, child and elder abuse, and failing to provide affordable health care to all persons are sins, we should forthrightly state our position and vigorously teach the Gospel. More importantly, we must live our lives in compliance with the Gospel message so that we witness for Christ to the world by walking the walk with him rather than by simply talking the talk about him.

Evaluation The evaluation component of the action plan is straightforward and can be observed in local congregations every Sunday. Are our tactics bringing more and more people into the Community of Believers? If so, we should continue with what we are doing. If not, we need to change our tactics and/or their application.

(1) Chapter X.

(2) From this perspective, an argument can be made that Judeo-Christians have complementary duties to the Kingdom of God and to earthly governments, but the former must always take precedence over the latter.

(3) Chapter Y.

(4) Secular includes criminal and civil laws.

(5) Gregoary A. Boyd in The Myth of a Christian Nation.

(6) without violent subjugation precludes the manner in which Islam was spread chiefly by military might during the early history of this religion.

(7) Many theologians, however, lament the Constantinian Bargan that arguably aligned Judeo-Christianity with earthly powers whose actions do not comply with the Gospel. This alliance produces misguided patriotism through a worship of governments or by uncritically assuming these institutions carry out the will of God because they are officially Judeo-Christian or ostensibly founded on Biblical principles.

(8) I have long wondered where individuals who follow this line of conversion find the Biblical justification for imposing their view of morality on other people through legal compulsion. Persuations without coercion, of course, is acceptable.

INADEQUACY OF THE SACRIFICIAL PARADIGM FOR SALVATION?

2009-02-21T16:04:00.003-05:00

OPENING COMMENTS

Paradigm = a philosophical or theoretical framework or model.

I’m not sure this material will be incorporated into the final version of Through The Wilderness. I base my hesitation on two factors:

(1) Through The Wilderness focuses on posing appropriate questions to obtain useful answers. I haven’t yet defined a question that will generate an answer within the context of this book. Questions and answers relating to the sacrificial/substitutional paradigm carry great importance to me as a professing and struggling Judeo-Christian, irrespective of inclusion in, or exclusion from, Through The Wilderness.

The situation reminds me of a statement (paraphrased) from one of our notable authors/critics of the 20th Century: I don’t know what I think on that subject because I haven’t written about it. (One of these days I’ll find a reference to identify the lady who made this statement.) Perhaps my writing about the sacrificial paradigm or model will generate a question and answer I can incorporate into Through The Wilderness. As usual, I not only solicit but welcome comments and critiques.

(2) Many potential readers of Through The Wilderness quite likely will have severe reservations about, if not outright hostility to, this material that erroneously could be considered to strike at the traditional core of Judeo-Christianity.

I want people to read Through The Wilderness. Conservative and especially fundamentalist religious reviewers could generate negative reviews based upon this published material, which might scare off potential readers of the book. I’m not averse to participating in, or even starting, controversies based upon differing informed opinions; therefore, I may include this material under appropriate circumstances. I wouldn’t want to refrain from incorporating legitimate material solely to preserve readership.

I must note that reservations about the sacrificial, substitutional, or atonement model for salvation began in the early days of Judeo-Christianity and have continued to this time. Again, we may ask, What’s new under the sun? Nevertheless, I have never heard a sermon preached on any model for salvation other than this one, albeit sometimes with the invocation of God’s love. Perhaps I’ve been in the wrong churches?

THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS

Which of the following expressions most adequately explains how or why God forgives our sins, thereby leading to our salvation?

(1) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ, the exemplification of Jesus Christ’s great love for us and for God?

(2) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the great love Jesus Christ has for us and for God, as exemplified by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial life and death.

To my mind, these two statements offer profoundly different understandings. The first places the weight of forgiveness on the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ whereas the second emphasizes the love Jesus Christ has for us and for God as responsible for the forgiveness of our sins. That is, statement (1) more closely corresponds to the traditional sacrificial model for salvation.

SACRIFICIAL MODEL FOR SALVATION

The epistles of St. Paul (C.E. 3 – 62) and those attributed to him perhaps furnish the most extensive rationale for the sacrificial model of salvation:

Romans 3:25 whom (i.e., Jesus Christ) God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his (i.e., Jesus Christ’s) blood.

Romans 5:8-9 God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.

The sacrificial model can be summarized as follows:

(1) God is both just and merciful.

(2) Our Hebrew ancestors believed animal, including human, life force resides in blood.

(3) The Hebrew Scriptures link the forgiveness of sins with sacrifices to be performed by human sinners.

(4) Although sin offends God’s honor beyond human ability to compensate, God’s justice requires that blood with its life force must be spilled on the altar as compensation for sin. That is, God or God's sense of justice must be appeased in order for humans to escape the consequences of God’s judgment.

(5) Christ’s death (spilling of his blood) on the cross provides a one-time substitution or replacement for blood sacrifices.

(6) The sacrificial and compensatory death of the completely innocent (without sin) Jesus Christ, God’s beloved son, was demanded because only an integrated fully human and fully divine being could repay or atone for the infinite debt of all human sins.

(7) This sacrificial substitution or atonement brings humans and God’s creation back into the perfect unity destroyed by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and reestablishes the mutual loving relationship between God and humans.

RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE SACRIFICIAL MODEL

My first reservations about the sacrificial substitution model probably began in Prof. Franz Joseph Kovar’s Philosophy 101 class during my senior year at LaGrange College. This class was required of all pre-ministerial students at the college. I took the course because of interest and to broaden my horizons beyond a double major in Biology and Chemistry. Although I would have graduated with an additional major in Mathematics had I taken Differential Equations instead of Philosophy 101, the later was, in retrospect, the single most valuable course I studied at LaGrange College.

Prof. Kovar remarked in one class, I do not understand why Christ had to undergo the sacrifice on the cross in order for God to forgive us our sins. Does this cruel sacrifice truly reflect the God of love we are called upon to worship?

Of course this statement infuriated most of the pre-ministerial students. The comment was not a surprise because Prof. Kovar made this declaration each year. Several of the pre-ministerial students, as if on cue, stood up. One announced, We will pray for you, Prof. Kovar, that you might receive the blessing of salvation through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.

Prof. Kovar replied, Pray for yourselves. Praying for others substitutes your arrogance for God’s wisdom.

My next formal discontent with the sacrificial model came when I facilitated an extraordinary Sunday School class at New Horizon United Methodist Church in South Florida. We used the Seasons of the Spirit lectionary-based material for the class. One Easter, the lesson commentary pointed out: Christ had free will and could have refused to die on the cross. If so, God would have continued to forgive sins as God has done throughout human history. Well, that statement was as mind blowing as Prof. Kovar’s declaration.

So, what are my reservations?

(1) My concept of God precludes some grand cosmic plan through which Christ was pre-ordained to come to earth at some future time in order to save us from our sins.

Such a plan would imply that God is both all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient), able to see and control events before they happen. To this point, let us consider a human circumstance or condition that could result in only two outcomes, A or B. If God already knows the outcome will be A, then God cannot choose B and, therefore, God cannot be, or chooses not to be, all-powerful. To expand, if God is all powerful and is free to choose either A or B, he cannot foresee the future or he would loose the power to choose. This idea requires considerable thought but is not new with me because it dates back to some of the early Church fathers.

(2) God forgave sins prior to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with this fact.

(3) Hebrew Scriptures consistently point out that regret, repentance, and the desire henceforth to lead a better, if not sin-free life, must come before any sacrifice: The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm51:17, for instance).

(4) Many Hebrew prophets and Jesus Christ himself inveighed heavily against the Jerusalem Temple, with its Sanhedrin elites, maintaining a monopoly on forgiveness of sins in conjunction with a corrupt sacrificial system.

(5) Once King Solomon completed the Jerusalem Temple, God commanded that it would be the only sanctioned site for Israelites to offer animal sacrifices. Performing sacrifices in any other place was a sin. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE; therefore, Jews to this day offer no more animal sacrifices because to do so would violate God’s prohibition. Accordingly and importantly, Jews believe they receive forgiveness of sins without the requirement of an animal sacrifice and the shedding of innocent blood with its life force. That is, prayer and repentance take the place of sacrifices in Judaism: Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Say to Him, forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the words of our lips instead of calves. (Hosea 14:3, for instance).

As an aside, I wonder if the modern day Jews will reestablish animal sacrifice when the Jerusalem Temple is rebuilt on the reclaimed Temple Mount presently occupied by Muslims?

(6) St. Paul himself offers models for salvation in addition to atonement through sacrificial death, including: (a) Ransoming or taking the place of a slave, debtor, or captive; (b) The Incarnation that unites humans and God; and (c) The entire life of Jesus.

Although I have tried to be a faithful and active member of the United Methodist Church since 1960, many of my theologian friends consider me a closet Presbyterian, the faith tradition in which I was raised. I must point out, therefore, that Anselm of Canterbury, generally recognized for his expansion of St. Paul’s sacrificial model, apparently did not emphasize the idea that Christ substitutes of bears the penalty for human sin. Martin Luther and John Calvin promulgated the penal substitution concept some centuries after Anselm. How such an idea ever caught on and became so widespread in its acceptance flummoxes me, and illustrates that not even agreement by the majority of Christians guarantees the correctness or validity of a theological concept.

(7) The sacrificial model promotes violence as sanctified by God and encourages us to submit to violence and suffering in imitation of Christ. (See Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of the Christ).

(8) How can we defend, much less worship, a just, loving, and merciful God who decreed that human sins could not be forgiven except through the condemnation and suffering of the righteous and innocent Jesus Christ? If God had the power to otherwise forgive sin and did not do so, how can we defend God’s wisdom and justice? To insist upon and hew to the sacrificial model means that a cruel and wicked despot pre-ordained innocent suffering and death to be the entire purpose of the Incarnation.

With the above reservations in mind, I totally reject any pleas or threats that I should abandon my God-given intellect and simply accept the traditional sacrificial model because it involves a divine mystery beyond human comprehension. This type of faith truly would be blind.

I think one of St. Augustine’s great dicta applies here, as suitably rephrased to avoid gender-specific language: If persons believe that Holy Scripture contradicts what they observe with their own eyes (i.e., through rationality and intellect), then those persons do not understand what Holy Scripture actually says.

WHY AND HOW DOES GOD FORGIVE SINS?

The Why appears straightforward: God, out of divine love for his creatures, desires reconciliation between himself and us for the estrangement arising from our inappropriate use of free will, i.e. our sins.

The issue of why God bestowed free will upon us has little relevance to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that we have free will as a result of our human condition. If we do not have free will because God pre-ordained and controls all aspects of human endeavors, then we cannot be guilty of sin and would not need salvation. I cover this point in Through The Wilderness.

Perhaps God organized creation in such a way that we humans have free will and, as a compensation for that blessings/responsibility, God also out of love offers us what we Methodists often term Prevenient Grace - after John Wesley.

The How constitutes a thornier issue, which would not be so difficult if the sacrificial model actually applied. Consideration of the How forces us to face squarely our concept of Jesus Christ and his role in our salvation.

I defy anyone to state an unequivocal explanation of Jesus Christ. Starting with, Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God, won’t work because that statement comes loaded with ambiguity. For instance, how can a divine being give birth to human being? Postulating a construct based upon the Holy Spirit and the idea that Jesus Christ represents a Man-God (fully human and fully divine) contains even more ambiguity.

The fact that we are saved appears clear on the basis of rational faith informed by Holy Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. (OK, as at least a titular Methodist, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to bring in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.) However, the relationship between the suffering and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and our salvation remains imprecise, even elusive.

Despite the imprecision, I offer the following approach for how God forgives our sins, keeping in mind that I am by no means commanding God what to do but commenting only what I think God does:

(1) Our loving God desires harmony and reconciliation with us, as stated above for the Why of forgiveness.

(2) Having given us the blessings and responsibility of free will while knowing full well that we will sin and become mired in estrangement, God lovingly offers us forgiveness in order to reestablish the harmony of creation, something we cannot accomplish through our own efforts.

(3) While God must be considered righteous and just, the absolute sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, has no obligation to demand a blood sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. God, out of love, offers mercy and love to trump harsh justice, punishment, and recompense.

(4) Jesus Christ, through his life and death, shows us how we should live and die in complete obedience to, and in harmony with, God.

(5) Through his life of complete obedience, Jesus Christ inevitably was led to sacrifice in his daily life and on the cross. One aspect of this sacrifice was eschewing the allure of sin available to him by virtue of free will. All of us experience this sacrifice when we do not succumb to temptation and refrain from indulging in desirable evil. Anyone, human or divine-human, who lives in complete obedience to and harmony with God likely will end up on a cross. This end becomes virtually certain when the obedience, like Christ’s, leads to a direct challenge of a major political power and rebellion against the established order.

(6) Sacrifice, even a substitutional or compensatory spilling of blood, does not bring forgiveness of sins. Regret, repentance, and a desire for the alteration of a sin-filled life constitute necessary prerequisites for forgiveness. Sacrifice, therefore, becomes a sign of the sinner’s repentance and forgiveness, not the cause of the forgiveness.

(7) We must comprehend the Incarnation and the suffering life and death of Jesus Christ from two integrated perspectives: (a) God’s mercy and boundless love for creation, and (b) God’s justice as the divine will and power to restore creation and human roles in it.

I do not insist on a complete understanding of how our sins are forgiven, and I will accept some imprecision based upon presently restricted human knowledge. An example from science illustrates my point: For decades we knew through experience that aspirin has many beneficial medicinal properties; however, the mechanism by which this pharmaceutical agent exerted its effect was unknown and only speculated. Not until research in the 1970's led to the Nobel Prize for Sir John Vane did we understand most of the mechanism. Nevertheless, aspirin worked quite well during the period of our ignorance.

The above paradigm for forgiveness and salvation works for me and constitutes a basis for further reflection and exploration. Hey, I’m saved through the grace of God regardless of my paradigm.

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 2

2009-01-04T16:37:00.004-05:00

HUMAN FREE WILL: A GREAT GIFT OR AN ILLUSION?

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future”. Jeremiah 29:11

Holy Scripture presents two apparently contradictory and competing visions about how humans function within God’s created order – as the beneficiaries of free will versus vassals of predetermination (1):

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life---Deuteronomy 30:19

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

Holy Scripture contains many verses that appear to support determinism or predestination, the doctrine that God decided from the beginning about everything that will happen, especially who goes to heaven or hell, and that humans can do nothing to change the course of events. God, through continuously executed prearranged purposes, meticulously controls what will happen to each person and nation. In essence, God must have the characteristics of an infinitely powerful computer capable of coordinating and integrating all events.

In keeping with their implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of predestination, sincere Judeo-Christians often express their faith with affirmations such as “If God closes a door, he will open a window;” “We didn’t pray hard enough, so God didn’t give us what we asked for;” and God has a plan for me.” These types of expressions reflect an underlying trust that our all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) God “sees” time - past, present, and future – as a unified whole or continuum in order to exert control at all levels of creation. We may, therefore, legitimately ask if humans actually possess the ability to act as free and autonomous beings? Put another way, do God’s designs preclude human free will, which at best could be only an illusion?

Reading “between the lines” reveals free will as a constant theme that runs throughout Holy Scripture: God tells us what is expected and says what will happen as consequences of our actions; but, divine edicts do not force us to select obedience or disobedience, good or evil. At our beginning, God permitted Adam and Eve the option, even when tempted by the Serpent, to eat or not to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Similarly, God told the Israelites to choose life or death, blessings or curses, with respect to obeying the Ten Commandments. Later Jesus firmly proclaimed what God wants us to do (Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. And---love our neighbors as ourselves.). Yet, no evidence shows that we are coerced onto this specific pathway. God did not form us as mindless automatons but implanted the capacity for free will within our genetic makeup. I confidently make this last statement with full awareness of the continuing controversy over the relative importance of heredity versus environment (nature versus nurture) and the contention of some scientists that the codes in our DNA predetermine not only who we are but also what we think and how we act.

Many theological treatises and discussions have attempted to reconcile the two concepts of predetermination and free will, including the proposition that human and cosmic realms are separate. That is, we may have free will on some aspects of our existence so that we may, of our own volition, brush or not brush our teeth today whereas we cannot affect cosmic phenomena or God’s original judgment as to which individuals were pre-selected or “elected” to receive salvation.

Judeo-Christians with expertise in physics postulate that the statistical uncertainty embedded in Quantum Mechanics might produce a reconciliation or synthesis between free will and determinism. I prefer a simpler approach, to cut through the discourses that mask the real issue: If we do not have free will, we cannot make choices because all is predetermined; if all is predetermined, we have no accountability; without accountability, we have no guilt for our sins; in the absence of guilt, we do not need the saving grace of Jesus Christ; and, hence, the entire structure of Judeo-Christianity collapses.

To my mind, an additional simplifying consideration argues for human free will: Suppose an individual human being faces a decision about future actions limited to only two choices, A or B. If God has the ability to foresee the future and already knows the individual will choose A, then God cannot be all powerful because God cannot direct the individual to make choice B. The only way God can be all powerful (or, at least extremely powerful) requires that the human must have unrestricted free will to choose A or B. This line of reasoning argues that God cannot be (or, chooses not to be) both all powerful and all knowing with the ability to foresee the future.(2) Accordingly, we can rationally infer that God embedded human free will into creation.

I believe God created and maintains the cosmos and all therein according to principles that, as our knowledge and understanding develop, we define as scientific laws. These laws apply not only to the “hard” or mathematically based sciences such as physics but also to biology, which is becoming increasingly and appropriately mathematical. I can resonate with calling these laws, “God’s Design or Plan”. I firmly reject, however, any notion that God violates the gift of human free will with a “program” that spells out in precise detail how I will react in every situation and, further, specifies my ultimate fate through foreknowledge and predestination.

Some Judeo-Christians experience traumatic insecurity when their belief that God directs all human activities is challenged. I cannot contemplate worshiping a tyrannical, loveless, and merciless deity who fashioned me without free will. At best this deity would be indifferent to human affairs, much like the Creator envisioned by the Deists (3). Rather than anxiety-provoking, I find the preeminence of free will liberating, albeit sobering. In summary, I think free will must be an integral component of God’s plan or predetermined design. That is, God designed and created humans from the beginning with the capacity for free will.

The above comments will neither resolve the differing views on predetermination versus free will nor do they offer an explicit way to reconcile the two perspectives. While I come down squarely in support of free will, reframing the question might possibly yield answers that will enable us to move forward together: Living our lives in accordance with which concept, predetermination or free will, better allows us to be co-creators with God?

If all in the cosmos is preordained, we have no obligation to work or co-create with God because we cannot influence events. We may then logically withdraw and, in effect, tell God: “Hey don’t bother me, everything is your responsibility.” If humans have free will, we can be co-creators with God by our own choosing. What role would the Community of Believers have in our co-creative endeavors? Teaching and helping us to make truly informed choices that will bring the Kingdom of God to fruition here on earth.

The struggle for worldwide domination between Fascism and the Western Democracies illustrates the economic and political implications arising from the contrasting views of free will and determinism. Some people believe this confrontation is, or inevitably will evolve into, a war between civilizations.

Fascism refers to an ideology that rejects ideas such as freedom and individual rights. Fascists advocate the elimination of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Under Fascism, the state or religious authorities direct and attempt to control all human activities through central planning and, if necessary, harsh application of force to implement the government’s dictates. Heretofore, Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler and Italy under Benito Mussolini best exemplified Fascism. Socialism and Communism can be regarded as offshoots of Fascism because of their similar commitment to central planning at the expense of a free market.

Today, Islamofascism represents an extreme manifestation of this repressive anti-modern ideology. Islamofascists come from a perverted branch of Islamic fundamentalism, consider themselves the moral guardians and saviors of their societies, and profoundly mistrust all notions of human progress as contrary to Allah’s divine action and intervention in the world. All nations must fulfill the will of Allah, which only Islamofascists possess the qualifications to interpret. Islamofascists intend to use all means possible, even violence and military conquest, to form a one-world government under Islamic authority.

Democracy and capitalism foundationally incorporate and rest upon principles derived from the doctrine of free will. In these systems, humans have the right to make choices, hopefully informed ones, and must live with the outcomes of those decisions. Neither democracy nor capitalism can exist without freedom of choice. Although some persons contend that many Western Democracies have been “tainted” by socialism, I argue that these societies, especially the democratic republic of the United States of America, provide the best current examples of free will in the political and economic spheres. The US Constitution can be easily viewed as a document producing a political system designed to ensure that the will of the majority is carried out through fair elections (4). As in the moral and theological arenas, participants in democratic and capitalistic societies have the right and responsibility to exert their free will, sometimes with beneficial outcomes and sometimes with less than desirable results. Nevertheless, free will rather than coercion drives the process.

(1) Although theologians and philosophers can sometimes usefully distinguish between determinism, predetermination, predestination, pre-ordination, pre-selection, and pre-election, I will use the terms more or less interchangeably. As a bottom line, these terms relate to the idea that, at the beginning of creation and perhaps before this mighty act, God specified all future events, including who would receive salvation, and the ultimate fate of the cosmos. Thus, God has a macro design for the cosmos and micro plans for each individual. In each case, no matter what humans do, the divine design and plans will be carried out.

(2) Greg Easterbrook in Beside Still Waters, pp. 160 – 187, gives an elegant exposition of this concept, and how God appears to grand and majestic, even infinite but is not all powerful.

(3) Reference to preceding Chapter.

(4) As presented in Chapter X, a major task of the Community of Believers in a democratic republic focuses on bringing the majority of citizens into that Community through proclaiming, professing to, witnessing to, and serving the risen Christ so that the free will of the electoral process produces a government and society completely consistent with the precepts of the Kingdom of God.

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: INTRODUCTION

2008-10-14T14:48:00.007-04:00

The LORD went in front of them in a pillar of cloud by day, to lead them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, so that they might travel by day and by night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people. Exodus13:21-22

For many people, modern society has become much like the wilderness through which the Hebrews traveled during their Exodus journey from Egypt to the Promised Land of Israel. Wilderness in this ancient context referred to a disorderly and dangerous place where demons existed beyond the limits of human settlement and government control. Similarly, the original English meaning of wilderness was a terrifying wasteland where travelers became confused and disoriented. The Hebrews stayed on the correct path by following God-directed pillars of smoke and fire.

The competing interests, differing claims on our religious and political affiliations, and rapid technological advances of our present society often bewilder and perplex us. Our modern wilderness journeys require that we follow valid directional signs, our own symbolic pillars of cloud and fire. We must go forward with the same clear headedness, courage, and trust as the Hebrews, once they understood what God expected of them. In this way, we can exhibit a remarkable Judeo-Christian characteristic: We are at our best when times are at their worst.

I define myself as a Judeo-Christian on the basis of the following profession: (a) God, first known as Yahweh to the ancient Hebrews, created and rules all that exists, seen and unseen; (b) Jesus Christ, Son of God, lived and died sacrificially because of his great love for God and for us, a love through which the forgiveness of our sins is mediated; and (c) The Holy Spirit, the active presence of God in our lives, transmits all truth from God to humans.

I cannot logically profess Jesus Christ as Son of God without a prior belief in God as creator and sovereign of the cosmos, a statement of faith that established the foundation of Judaism. This declaration about the identity and function of God, therefore, makes me a theological Jew and, by extension, a Judeo-Christian (1) in order to acknowledge, honor, and respect the fertile religious ground out of which Christianity grew.

A constant feature of human existence from our beginning relates to the persistence of the questions we have asked coupled with the transitory nature of the answers we have developed. Each generation must work out appropriate and sometimes different answers to the same questions. We should always ask questions and always question answers: God not only tolerates our questions but also expects us to find answers to them so that we may follow pillars of cloud and smoke specific for our generation.

This search for life-affirming and sometimes life-changing answers within our own times resembles climbing a rope. To go up, climbers must hold onto the rope with one hand and both feet while letting go with the other hand as it reaches upward. When climbers pull themselves up with their higher hands, they must momentarily release their other hands and feet from the rope. Maximum danger of falling exists at this moment. Security cannot be reestablished until both hands and both feet again grasp and wrap around the rope. Then, of course, the process must be repeated, if we are to reach the goal. Searching for answers to primary questions means we must hold securely to relevant knowledge from the past while letting go of what does not benefit us in our generation.

Through The Wilderness attempts to provide insights into obtaining answers to fundamental questions dividing and causing animosity within the Community of Believers in Jesus Christ. This division comes about because we frequently frame our questions improperly: The nature of the questions we ask determines the answers we receive. For instance, asking Is abortion equivalent to murder or simply the legitimate outcome of a woman’s reproductive freedom? does not yield pragmatically helpful answers. Focusing exclusively on Who created all that exists, seen and unseen? precludes any profound exploration and understanding of how creation came to be, that is, the mechanism by which God created and maintains the cosmos in all its parts.

Judeo-Christians who are neither professional theologians nor trained scientists, but who have open minds about theology and science, make up the target audience for Through The Wilderness. I hope some theologians and scientists will find this book interesting and useful; however, I have purposefully tried to minimize the “jargon” associated with these disciplines. This book presupposes at least a familiarity with the principles of the Judeo-Christian faith and the concepts embedded within the Community of Believers. Accordingly, I do not flatter myself by assuming any non-Judeo-Christians readers will be converted to the faith.

Through The Wilderness should not be viewed as scholarly work. The text is not extensively footnoted with references to the work of other authors, although the Bibliography contains a list of books I have found helpful in my faith journey. Additionally, any reader wishing more information to support what I have written or who desires to discuss the thoughts expressed in Through The Wilderness may contact me through this blog or at mfrosolono@austin.rr.com

(1) Actually, I would prefer Hebrew-Christian rather than Judeo-Christian but Judeo- occupies a prominent place in our language. I am aware that some commentators attempt to distinguish among Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew, and even believe Jew resulted from an erroneous translation of early New Testament documents. For the purposes of simplicity, I have used Hebrew(s) and Jew(s) essentially interchangeably because the terms probably convey basically the same meaning to most people expected to read this book. Israelite, derived from the descendents of Abraham through the progeny of Israel (Jacob), can be included under both Hebrew and Jew. Israeli applies to a citizen of the State of Israel.

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 1

2008-10-14T14:01:00.002-04:00

HOLY SCRIPTURE: INSPIRED AND ALWAYS FACTUAL?

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NRSV)

Can Holy Scripture be inspired through the Holy Spirit without depicting reality in every respect, including all branches of physical, biological, and social sciences? For instance, what significance should we attribute to the Genesis accounts of creation when cosmological, evolutionary, and geological data argue for a much longer and more detailed picture of how the universe and life originated under God’s direction? The answer to this question of inspiration linked to scientific discoveries and theories (1) determines in large part how we view and apply Holy Scripture within our technologically based society.

Biblical Inerrancy means that Holy Scripture delivers God’s true, infallible, trustworthy, and authoritative revelation to humans. Because our perfect God cannot make mistakes or lie, the revelation of the Holy Spirit, even if filtered through human limitations, can only produce Biblical Inerrancy. Accordingly, Holy Scripture must exist totally without error.

Hebrew (Old Testament) and Christian (New Testament) Scriptures support inerrancy in the hearts and minds of some sincere Judeo-Christians. Interpretation these passages, however, depends upon the translation of Holy Scripture used and the focus of the reference text. Psalm 12:6 from the King James Version (KJV) is often quoted to prove inerrancy: The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. On the other hand, the more modern New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) gives: The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. To my mind, promises has more relevance than words considering that Holy Scripture, which I affirm as God’s revelation, originally was written to a people who lived in a pre-scientific age.

Many people who cling to inerrancy postulate that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 confirms a literal reading of Holy Scripture: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work (NRSV). If science directed to exploring God’s creation and the betterment of humanity is a good work, the context of inspired in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not demand factual accuracy in areas encompassed by modern science. Certainly, for Christians, no area of human endeavor, including modern science, lies outside the authority and teachings of Holy Scripture. Biblical Inerrancy falters and confuses the situation and our understanding with attempts to make Holy Scripture a scientific textbook by using arguments inimical to science. (2)

Interpreting supposed claims in Holy Scripture for its own inerrancy opposes what we learned in grammar school: We aren’t allowed to use a word in the definition of that word. For example, defining the color red by saying it is red or gravity is gravity makes no sense. Similarly, a statement that Holy Scripture has no errors whatsoever because Holy Scripture declares itself inerrant cannot stand the test of our God-given reason.

Proponents of Biblical Inerrancy require themselves and others to accept on faith that all humanly perceived discrepancies in Holy Scripture ultimately will be clarified through the work of the Holy Spirit. In the interim, therefore, we should not waste our time discussing any ambiguities within Holy Scripture. This fallacy falls directly into the category of blind or unenlightened and uninformed faith. I believe in the transcendence of the Holy Spirit but, if we follow Biblical Inerrancy to its logical conclusion, “unholy” lines of investigation would be forbidden with the risk of depriving ourselves of the benefits that modern sciences, like medicine, have brought to us. But, we must face the fact that proclaiming Holy Scripture always inerrant gives great security to people whose limited knowledge leads them to fear scientific advances, especially in evolutionary science.

A second attraction of Biblical Inerrancy can be termed the checklist or proof-text approach. The idea behind this tactic involves searching for various scriptural citations that purportedly address any human situation, as exemplified by murder. In the NRSV, the Sixth Commandment states: You shall not murder. The purpose of this admonition appears unequivocal; hence, Judeo-Christians can check the No box beside Murder in a theological application list and refrain from this heinous act. Further consideration suggests that checking the No box leaves open the possibility of killing other humans under some circumstances. Prime examples would be the use of lethal force in self-defense and just wars, endeavors that are killing but not murder.

The KJV renders the Sixth Commandment as Thou shalt not kill. This rendition starkly prohibits the use of deadly force even in self-defense and we see that the checklist/proof text application of Holy Scripture comes with embedded inconsistencies. Once again we must apply our mental processes to ascertain what a text really says and how it should be applied.

The third allure of Biblical Inerrancy lies in an irrational fear that may be called the Perry Mason Effect. In this old television series, Perry Mason represented defendants in criminal cases. Each episode, no matter how dire the predicament for the defendants, always resolved in their favor when Perry detected a fatal flaw in the District Attorney’s cases. Once these flaws were revealed, the prosecution’s cases collapsed like the proverbial house of cards and the defendants were exonerated. Biblical Inerrancists seem to have the attitude that, if even one aspect of Holy Scripture were shown not to have happened exactly as described, the entirety of Judeo-Christianity would fall apart, even bringing into question the existence of God.

Unquestioning belief in Biblical Inerrancy repudiates one of St. Augustine’s most liberating ideas: Judeo-Christians who believe Holy Scripture contradicts what they observe with their own eyes do not understand what Holy Scripture actually says. Keeping in mind St. Augustine’s pronouncement, Judeo-Christians attuned to our scientific and technical age can effectively deal with Biblical Inerrancy by asking and answering the following two-part question:

(a) Did the event happen as recorded in Holy Scripture?

(b) Is the event true as recorded in Holy Scripture?

Valid two-part answers are:

(a) Yes (b) Yes

and

(a) No (b) Yes

Admittedly, some Judeo-Christians who resonate with Biblical Inerrancy have no problem with (a) yes and (b) yes but experience great difficulty getting their minds around (a) no and (b) yes despite overwhelming non-Biblical but realistic evidence for the latter sequence being applicable to some portions of Holy Scripture. The Genesis Creation stories offer an illustrative example for (a) no and (b) yes. Vast amounts of non-Biblical evidence oppose creation of the cosmos and life as described in Genesis; hence, (a) no seems correct. While the mechanism God used to create and maintain creation should be interesting to Judeo-Christians, the overwhelming and fundamental question about creation can be posed as, Did God create all that exists, seen and unseen, regardless of the mechanism used? We must answer with a resounding Yes; hence, sequence (a) no and (b) yes holds without any denegation of the inspired nature of Holy Scripture.

The current mistaken, profoundly divisive, and counterproductive controversies surrounding creationism versus evolution, policies to impose Judeo-Christian morality through the legal system, and how we are to deal with homosexuality furnish prime examples necessitating the utmost of our intellect, experience, and expanded rather than narrow faith, that is, our wisdom. Accepting the validity of (a) no and (b) yes will facilitate our work in spreading the gospel message so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (3)

(1) As will be discussed in Chapter X, rigorously obtained data lead to testable hypotheses, then to scientific theories, and subsequently to scientific laws. Scientific theories, therefore, differ dramatically from non-scientific theories based upon suppositions and inferences without supporting data. The regrettable controversy that rages between Christian proponents of the elegant theory of evolution and Christian believers in the ill-defined creation science or creationism illustrates the confusion surrounding scientific and non-scientific theories.

(2) As explained in Chapter N, Holy Scripture and science should be regarded as complementary, not antagonistic, components of God’s realm.

(3) Philippians 2:10-11 (NRSV)