People at North Hill text responses to the sermon during the service and I comment on them. The input from the congregation is often rich and provocative. Below are the responses to last Sabbath's sermon and my comments.
TEXT: Does "religion" really "lead" people to do heinous things? Is using religion to justify terrible acts the same as being led to do such things? NO!
My comment: Sometimes religion does lead people to do bad things. Some examples: In some religious circles nowadays, it is common to perform exorcisms on young people who struggle with same sex attraction. This demonization of unchosen sexual desire is driven by deeply sincere religious conviction. This demonization and the practice of exorcism in this setting is also wrong--wicked, evil, harmful.
Martin Luther approved the execution of Sabbath-keepers because of his own deeply held religious convictions.
The Jewish leaders got rid of Jesus because he violated their religious convicitons and threatened the stability of their religious system.
Many Christian parents continue to spank their children because they believe that is what Scripture teaches. However, study after study has shown that spanking, especially when it is frequent and severe, damages children. It does not "protect them from spoiling."
TEXT: How does an atheist describe the origin of conscience? This too is a deficit.
I know there is a lot of work being done to develop an explanation of conscience that is rooted in naturalism. However, I have not done any serious reading in this area.
TEST: Doesn't love of life provide all the "oughts" and "ought nots" you need without needing to believe in god or religion?
Love of life does point us in the direction of what we ought to do. However, without some reference to extra-natural or supra-natural values we have no basis on which to claim that people "ought" to act lovingly. Altruism, affection, mother-love, ambition, love of beauty, love of knowledge, romance all appear to be "natural" to humans. Selfishness, hatred, greed, lust, laziness, gluttony appear to be equally natural. On what basis can we make a strong argument that people "ought" to moderate their desires for sex, things, pleasure, relationships, food and drink? The fact that intemperate pursuit of these desires leads to harm and death is no proof that one ought not do them.
A moral worldview argues that life is precious and ought to be safeguarded. A non-moral, love-of-life worldview does not have a logical basis for valuing responsible, temperate, compassionate living above narcissist dissipation. Both are expressions of appreciation for life.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I think love of life can offer a wise counterbalance to excessive morality and hyper-scrupulosity, especially when connected with the belief that life originated in God. We are biological creatures per God's wish. The enjoyment of sex, food, romance, relationships, sunshine, physical prowess is good--not just permissible. These "ought" to be celebrated and enjoyed with great happiness and delight. In many religious traditions enjoyment of earthy pleasures is suspect. Love of life challenges this suspicion of earthy delights. Understanding life as God's creation and love as the supreme command brings together "high" morality and an earthy "love of life."
TEST: How is the question of origin of the big bang different from the question of the origin of God? God just is? Just as science just is?
My comment: Formally, saying the universe just is and saying God just is are equivalent. However, in naturalism all effects must have a cause. There can be no "first cause" without violating the very essence of naturalism which insists that reality is comprised of effects and their causes.
Theism is just as helpless to comment on the origin of God as naturalism is to comment on reality prior to the Big Bang or exterior to the universe. However, theism includes this helplessness as an expected truth. Theism is, at its most basic level, the declaration that there is an uncaused cause. The question raised by children and college freshmen--who created God--is good science. That is, it is a question that takes reality as we observe it and makes a prediction. Everything we observe has a cause so God must have a cause, an antecedent. However, mature theism embraces as truth, the declaration that God is the absolute end point in the regression of causes.
God as a stopping point of speculation and meaning looking back in time is no more difficult than embracing the concept of infinity looking forward. Both are logical, but don't hurt yourself trying to "get your mind around it."
TEXT: How can we witness to atheists? If our current methods don't meet their needs, what does?
My comment: Atheists are people which means they have the same complex needs and motivations of the rest of us. Some atheists have arrived at their views by what they see as the inescapable conclusions of science others have arrived there because of personal suffering or more generalized human pain. So there is no "one size fits all" except perhaps these points:
1. Respect. Give atheists the respect you wish them to show you and other believers. It's silly to damn, mock and dismiss atheism, then expect atheists to listen to our views.
2. Care and affection. If you hope to have influence in an atheist's mind, you should first win a place in his/her heart and life. Note, I said, "win", not contrive, not force, not chance upon. Winning someone, if it is ethical, is different from manipulation.
3. Give witness to what you believe rather than trying to fix what they believe.
4. Don't insist their theism must look like yours. Don't tell the atheist he/she must believe 6000 years and all the other details of classic conservative Christianity in order to engage with God. Allow the atheist to encounter God directly. Encourage them to explore. Don't order them to believe.
TEXT: I wonder how often the inability to "see" and relate to God has to do with inability--for whatever reason--to "see" and relate to other people.
My comment: Relationships between people and with God are not the same. However, they are obviously related--in fantastically complicated ways. Ideally our human relationships should help us imagine God and our religious relationship should help us participate more joyously and effectively in human relationships. Developing this theme deserves a book or two and knowledge and insight I don't have.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Answering Atheists: The Sermon
In preparation for today's sermon, I was reading a blog by a young atheist named Luke Muehlhauser. Scrolling down through the comments on his “My Story” page, a comment about the Sabbath caught my eye.
Luke was responding to a comment by an long time friend named Kenneth. Kenneth had written that he was still a believer even though he often failed to live up to his ideals and even though he had real questions about some theological matters, like, for instance, whether Sabbath was Saturday or Sunday. Kenneth wrote, “I still love you bro. Always have. Always will no matter what. You guys really left an imprint on my life.” He encouraged Luke to reconsider belief, then signed off by saying he was trying to live like Christ.
Luke, the atheist responded: “If you live like Jesus you will do the world a favor. Don’t let me dissuade you from that! . . .” Luke then restated his conviction that believing in any kind of gods was erroneous. Luke concluded with this postscript: “I’m pretty sure the Sabbath is Saturday. That’s what it was for hundreds of years before Christians moved their Sabbath to Sunday sometime in the 3rd century C.E. :)”
So how would you respond to these words of Luke, the atheist? What can we say besides, “Amen!”
The point of this sermon is to rebut the claims of some atheists. However, I begin with this positive picture of a particular atheist as a reminder that atheists are people. Most of them are smart people. Many of them are highly conscientious people. Our disagreement with their assertions should be coupled with a respect for their personhood and their own commitment to truth as they see it. Not everything they say is wrong. Sometimes, their freedom from the constraints of religious tradition enables them to see and speak truth that is missed or avoided by believers. So respect is in order even while I vigorously dissent from atheism.
Atheists are quite rare in the United States. Polls place the number at less than one percent of the U.S. population. In spite of their rarity, atheists have created a splash recently with several best-selling books. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous or notorious.
These “New Atheists” argue loudly that religion is not just unprovable, it is false. They insist science has conclusively demonstrated the fallacy of believing in God. There is no longer any room for agnosticism—that is a courteous, respectful open-mindedness—when it comes to religion. Honesty demands a forthright renunciation of belief in God.
Why should Adventists enter this debate?
We know God exists. As a denomination we have championed one of the most radical forms of theism, young earth creationism. Not only do we have the Bible on our side, we have our own prophet to validate our belief that God has spoken and we have correctly understood. So why not simply dismiss the New Atheists as arrogant blowhards?
First, atheists are smart, educated and committed to truth. More importantly, they claim to speak for the community of smart, educated people that staff American universities and research facilities. Most importantly, they claim to have arrived at their opinions through a relentless quest for truth. Intellect, education and an obsession with truth have been high values in Adventist history.
Early Adventist evangelism featured long lectures and intense intellectual engagement with the Bible and ancient history. The early evangelists were avid students of history as they worked out their interpretations of prophecy. Adventism did not advance primarily through miracles or colorful worship. The Adventist appeal was not to emotions or “spirituality.” It was to truth, to an elaborate cognitive system of theology and prophetic interpretation, a version of truth that flatly contradicted deeply entrenched traditional Christian beliefs. The evangelists were not highly educated in a formal sense, but they made a great show of their book learning as they argued in favor of Sabbath-keeping and the meaning of Daniel 2, 7-9 and most of the Book of Revelation. As the church gave increasing attention to the healing arts, Adventist colleges across the country and around the world strengthened their science offerings and in general gave attention to the academic quality of their courses.
Both Adventist evangelism and Adventist education have always insisted loudly, emphatically that our supreme interest is truth. Not tradition, not cultural continuity, not creedal purity, but truth.
This regard for intellect and education features prominently in the Bible. When God was looking around for someone to lead his people out of Egypt and give them and the world the Ten Commandments and an entire legal, social code, he chose a man who had received the highest education available in his day.
In the New Testament, when God needed someone to lead the early church toward a truly global mission, he again chose someone who had the equivalent of a Ph.D. Of course, the Bible includes examples of “simple” people who played gigantic roles in God's work. Their creative or spiritual genius is no argument against the value of education and intellectual culture in the life of the church.
Given the history of respect for intellect and education common in both the Bible and the Adventist Church, when a group of men claim that intellect, education and a high regard for truth compel them to speak against God, we cannot simply ignore them. Our respect for the community they claim to represent compels us to speak up.
Second, atheists are people.
Atheists are people. People Jesus died for. People God loves. People with moms and dads, wives and husbands, children and grandkids. Real, live people. Love for these people compels us to respond to their their challenges.
It is highly unlikely that argumentation is going to change the minds of Dawkins and confreres. They have already read all the arguments Christians can think of in favor of belief. However, while change is unlikely, it is not impossible. The change of mind by Anthony Flew is a dramatic example. He was an outspoken atheist for decades, then recently wrote a book titled, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Because atheists are people, there is always the possibility they may change their minds.
Third, atheists often voice questions that lurk in our own hearts and in the hearts of our children. When we thoughtfully and respectfully examine the claims of these famous atheists, we may find ourselves addressing questions that gnaw at our own faith or the faith of our children.
We encourage our children to go to college, to get all the education they can, to develop their minds to the highest possible level. Our children who become scientists and artists and scholars and writers will live in a world where the ideas of these atheists are given a lot of credibility. We owe our children an intelligent response.
So what is our answer to atheists?
1. Religion is as old as humanity. This is a no-brainer statement within the context of conservative Adventism. God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and instructed them in spirituality. Curiously, this statement is equally affirmed by most secular anthropologists. The oldest human sites include indications that the people who lived there had some sort of religious awareness. This does not, of course, prove religion is true or good. However, it offers strong support for the claim that being fully human includes being religious or spiritually aware. There are people who are tone deaf. Some people are color-blind. Some are born insensitive to pain. Some are born with cognitive deficits. However, while these deficits are “natural” we recognize them as deficits. The lack of spiritual or religious sensibility common among atheists is just as readily explained as a deficit as it is an indication that the atheist has “transcended” superstition. To be fully human means to be religious or spiritual.
2.There is no “mounting evidence” for any satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origin of life or the universe. In his book, The Blind Watch Maker and more recently in the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues every which way he can that the apparent design we see in nature is illusory. We think we see the handiwork of an intelligent designer, when in reality all we are seeing is the natural outworking of natural law.
Even if we granted all the “facts” claimed by Dawkins, that is if we agreed that natural law could completely explain the development of the universe post-Big Bang and the the fossil record of changing life, we would still face two huge questions: 1. Whence the Big Bang? 2. Whence life? 3. Whence the natural laws?
Whence the Big Bang?
A frequent refrain in atheistic writing is that we should believe nothing without adequate evidence. Since the Big Bang is posited as the beginning of all evidence, naturalism cannot say anything at all about the nature of reality prior to the Big Bang. There is no “natural” evidence for that reality, so naturalists ought not say anything positive or negative about reality prior to the Big Bang. That includes saying anything about God prior to the Big Bang. Maybe God existed before the Big Bang, maybe not. In the absence of all “natural” evidence, naturalists, including Dawkins, ought to remain silent. Or if they are going to speak, they ought to be clear that they are no longer speaking as naturalists. Rather they are speaking spiritually or philosophically in the service of their own preferred myth.
Whence Natural Law?
Just as atheism (naturalism) cannot logically say anything about reality prior to the Big Bang neither can it speak meaningfully about the origin of natural laws. Within naturalism there is no “reason” for things to be the way they are. They just are. While some scientists lack the human instinct to ask “why?” others more philosophically and spiritually inclined cannot help themselves. (Note: the failure to ask why is evidence of a deficit not evidence of higher development.) If “natural law” explains the origin of everything, it is “natural” to ask where the law came from? To claim the laws are eternal means making claims about reality prior to the Big Bang. To claim the laws were inherent in the universe generated by the Big Bang leads right back to question, why were they inherent? What (or who) made them inherent?
Dawkins attempts to turn this line of reasoning against believers. He writes in The God Delusion, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” That is you can't claim God is the designer because that immediately raises the question who designed God.
This is a problem for Dawkins but not for believers. Unlike Dawkins naturalistic system which requires every effect to have a cause (because if you find an effect without a cause you have found something that is not natural), religion squarely faces the fact that there is an end point in the regression of causes. Who designed God? No one and nothing. This is not a problem for religion. It is one of the grand rational arguments in its favor. The question, where did God come from? may be interesting, however, the very essence of mature religion is the recognition that we cannot get behind God to some other ultimate reality.
Dawkins and others are optimistic that naturalism will be saved from the embarrassment of this failure to account for the origin of the universe by recent work in theoretical physics. I remember reading not long ago a glowing account in Scientific American about multiple dimensions and universes. Supposedly, in these other universes and dimensions things that cannot be true in our universe must be true there. These “other truths” include different and contradictory natural laws. Of course, this runs squarely into the problem that the theories about these other universes are extrapolations from mathematics and natural laws that work in our universe. So if one attempts to make a strong argument in favor of the “reality” of these other universes, you end up making an argument that sounds like: the natural law and mathematics of our universe prove that natural law and mathematics are variable outside our universe. But if they are variable outside our universe how can we trust what they say about that “other reality.” If they are variable, there is no reason to trust them in the slightest when they speak about stuff “out there.”
Whence Life?
Dawkins claims there is mounting evidence for the ineluctable development of life out prebiotic chemicals. I don't know what counts as evidence. While there is a steadily augmenting body of evidence for a long history of development of life over time, there has been abject failure to find any evidence for the spontaneous origin of life from prebiotic chemicals.
The recent headlines, “Scientists Create First Synthetic Life” provide one more bit of evidence against spontaneous generation. The work involved replacing the DNA in a cell nucleus with an artificially created copy of DNA. This does not suggest that information rich DNA could happen to assemble itself. To the contrary. Highly intelligent beings with a DNA model to work from can create a copy if they work hard enough, have enough technology and information behind them and an unlimited budget. None of this applies to the primordial world.
The more we know about life, even the simplest forms, the more complex we understand it to be. Cells contain information and machinery. Neither information nor machines arise spontaneously. If “natural selection” is truly responsible for the origin and development of life, then for fully intact humans (that is people with spiritual and philosophical curiosity) “natural selection” rather than being a satisfying explanation, becomes one of the strongest occasions for asking, where did that come from? Who designed that? Natural selection demands an explanation of its own origin.
The Big Bang and natural selection do not even begin to answer the question of origins. Both of these theories, in fact, highlight the limits of naturalism. They point directly at their own beginnings, utterly unfit to go beyond those beginnings to the reality that existed before.
Nothing in nature proves that God is the reality beyond the Big Bang and natural selection. However, religion does have this going for it: it lines up with instincts of wonder, awe and conscience that apparently have characterized humans for however long humans have existed. In short, religion lines up with being human.
3. We can make sense of morals and aesthetics only by appealing to “something above.”
One of the grand failures of atheism is its inability to offer any intellectually satisfying account of morality or aesthetics. Rationally speaking, if there is no God, there is no ought. Science persuasively, powerfully describes what is. (And believers sometimes make fools of themselves by discounting what science sees.) Science cannot speak about what ought to be.
The various attempts to account for morality based on evolutionary models might be more persuasive if their authors could live in the world they construct. They can't. If someone plagiarizes their work or sells pirate copies of their DVDs, these authors would protest saying this was wrong, immoral, unfair, unjust. But these words are meaningless apart from a moral system that stands outside humanity. Even the “quest for truth” which is one of the clarion calls of the New Atheists makes no sense outside a framework of meaning that depends on a residue of theism. Why should anyone be concerned for truth? Why not settle for that which advantages me, true or not? Apart from appeals to something “higher” there is nothing to say that truth is better than advantageous fiction. There is nothing in the neutrinos, electrons and protons of the universe to support a naturalistic explanation of moral judgments. In fact, the more elementary you get, the more utterly disconnected “reality” is from morality. To make sense of the special characteristics of humanity, things like language, art and morality, instead of probing more and more deeply into the elemental particles, fields and processes of nature, we have to go the opposite direction and invoke something above.
Historically, the common name for that something above is God.
4. What about all the evil done in the name of religion?
It is easy to find examples of evil done in the name of religion. Back in the days of Joshua, the Jews tried to exterminate the Canaanites because they believed that was God's will. And most Christian and Jewish commentators since then have agreed that this was, in fact, God's will. In our day, Muslim extremists cite the Quran in support of indiscriminate killing of “infidels.” The Quran says it. They believe it. That settles it. David Koresh who operated on the periphery of Adventism based his weird and dangerous ideas on his understanding of the Bible. Mormon extremists who abuse and misuse women justify their behavior by citing their religious books.
So when an atheist says religion is dangerous because it is used to justify harming others, we as believers must humbly acknowledge the truth of their charge. However, this argument cuts both ways. In the twentieth century atheism prompted far more slaughter than religion.
National Socialism (Nazism) and Marxism (communism) were emphatically atheistic and “scientistic.” They claimed their system was scientific. Hitler, Stalin and Mao sacrificed millions of people to their “scientific” beliefs. Then late in the century, Pol Pot of Cambodia tried again to set up a scientific political system. His experiment resulted in the death of nearly twenty-five percent of the population of Cambodia.
If the genocide of the Canaanites and the immoral predations of Muslim fanatics prove that religion is not good, the regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao are even more compelling evidence of the evil of “scientific” or atheistic social policy and political philosophy.
So how shall we respond to the charge that religion is evil because evil is done in the name of religion?
First, make sure we are not doing evil in the name of religion. Quit spanking your children. Every study that has examined the spanking of children shows that children do better without spanking. A swat on the rear of a toddler is not the end of the world for the kid or the parent. But it is time for us to quit arguing in favor of spanking our kids because Proverbs says, Spare the rod and spoil the child. Spanking is not conducive to the best human development. So quit.
Quit supporting “change ministries” for homosexuals. They don't work.
Do support services for women in crisis pregnancies.
Do support quality education for all.
Do good. That is the strongest argument in favor of the goodness of religion.
5. Take responsible, effective action.
I appreciated a comment someone posted on my blog this week. “Belief in God is bad because it results in magical thinking. Believers expect God to help them, protect them, make it better and as a result they often don't do what they should to take care of themselves.”
Unfortunately, I can think of examples where believers have used religion as a substitute for responsible, effective action.
I remember talking with a young man a few years ago. He was out of work. I asked him what he was doing to find work. He said, “God will provide.” I pressed him. “Yes, I know God will provide, but what are you doing to cooperate with God's providing.” Unfortunately, the answer was pretty much, nothing. He was waiting for God to drop a job into his lap. God does that some times. A job you weren't looking, a job you didn't expect just walks up and knocks you on the head. However, this is not the usual way God works.
It is irresponsible for a believer who needs a job to refuse to send out resumes or knock on doors or make phone calls or network with friends because “God will provide,” If you need a job, you ought to actively look for work. In this economy that can be very discouraging. Still God expects you to take action. Praying is not enough. Hoping is not enough. Believing is not enough. All of those things are precious and valuable. Don't dispense with them. Still, having hoped and prayed and believed, it is time to get up and do. If you don't, you're giving atheists ammunition for their war against faith.
This principle is relevant in every area of life.
Do you want to be stronger? Walk. Lift weights. Do you want to be richer. Save. Budget. Don't eat out. Don't buy a car on credit. Don't buy anything on credit. Do you want to be holier. Spend time daily in meditation, prayer, Bible reading, serving. Do you want better children? Shower them with affection and affirmation. Make sure that your own behavior in every area of life is more noble, more pure, more disciplined than you expect from them. Get rid of your TV.
Ultimately answering atheists is not about persuading them but cultivating and purifying our own faith.
The best “answer” to atheists is to obey Jesus command to love God with our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. And to practice the habits of healthy spiritual and family life. If paying attention to the challenges posed by atheists can prod us in this direction, then even they become agents of God. In a sense, we thus participate in their redemption.
Luke was responding to a comment by an long time friend named Kenneth. Kenneth had written that he was still a believer even though he often failed to live up to his ideals and even though he had real questions about some theological matters, like, for instance, whether Sabbath was Saturday or Sunday. Kenneth wrote, “I still love you bro. Always have. Always will no matter what. You guys really left an imprint on my life.” He encouraged Luke to reconsider belief, then signed off by saying he was trying to live like Christ.
Luke, the atheist responded: “If you live like Jesus you will do the world a favor. Don’t let me dissuade you from that! . . .” Luke then restated his conviction that believing in any kind of gods was erroneous. Luke concluded with this postscript: “I’m pretty sure the Sabbath is Saturday. That’s what it was for hundreds of years before Christians moved their Sabbath to Sunday sometime in the 3rd century C.E. :)”
So how would you respond to these words of Luke, the atheist? What can we say besides, “Amen!”
The point of this sermon is to rebut the claims of some atheists. However, I begin with this positive picture of a particular atheist as a reminder that atheists are people. Most of them are smart people. Many of them are highly conscientious people. Our disagreement with their assertions should be coupled with a respect for their personhood and their own commitment to truth as they see it. Not everything they say is wrong. Sometimes, their freedom from the constraints of religious tradition enables them to see and speak truth that is missed or avoided by believers. So respect is in order even while I vigorously dissent from atheism.
Atheists are quite rare in the United States. Polls place the number at less than one percent of the U.S. population. In spite of their rarity, atheists have created a splash recently with several best-selling books. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous or notorious.
These “New Atheists” argue loudly that religion is not just unprovable, it is false. They insist science has conclusively demonstrated the fallacy of believing in God. There is no longer any room for agnosticism—that is a courteous, respectful open-mindedness—when it comes to religion. Honesty demands a forthright renunciation of belief in God.
Why should Adventists enter this debate?
We know God exists. As a denomination we have championed one of the most radical forms of theism, young earth creationism. Not only do we have the Bible on our side, we have our own prophet to validate our belief that God has spoken and we have correctly understood. So why not simply dismiss the New Atheists as arrogant blowhards?
First, atheists are smart, educated and committed to truth. More importantly, they claim to speak for the community of smart, educated people that staff American universities and research facilities. Most importantly, they claim to have arrived at their opinions through a relentless quest for truth. Intellect, education and an obsession with truth have been high values in Adventist history.
Early Adventist evangelism featured long lectures and intense intellectual engagement with the Bible and ancient history. The early evangelists were avid students of history as they worked out their interpretations of prophecy. Adventism did not advance primarily through miracles or colorful worship. The Adventist appeal was not to emotions or “spirituality.” It was to truth, to an elaborate cognitive system of theology and prophetic interpretation, a version of truth that flatly contradicted deeply entrenched traditional Christian beliefs. The evangelists were not highly educated in a formal sense, but they made a great show of their book learning as they argued in favor of Sabbath-keeping and the meaning of Daniel 2, 7-9 and most of the Book of Revelation. As the church gave increasing attention to the healing arts, Adventist colleges across the country and around the world strengthened their science offerings and in general gave attention to the academic quality of their courses.
Both Adventist evangelism and Adventist education have always insisted loudly, emphatically that our supreme interest is truth. Not tradition, not cultural continuity, not creedal purity, but truth.
This regard for intellect and education features prominently in the Bible. When God was looking around for someone to lead his people out of Egypt and give them and the world the Ten Commandments and an entire legal, social code, he chose a man who had received the highest education available in his day.
In the New Testament, when God needed someone to lead the early church toward a truly global mission, he again chose someone who had the equivalent of a Ph.D. Of course, the Bible includes examples of “simple” people who played gigantic roles in God's work. Their creative or spiritual genius is no argument against the value of education and intellectual culture in the life of the church.
Given the history of respect for intellect and education common in both the Bible and the Adventist Church, when a group of men claim that intellect, education and a high regard for truth compel them to speak against God, we cannot simply ignore them. Our respect for the community they claim to represent compels us to speak up.
Second, atheists are people.
Atheists are people. People Jesus died for. People God loves. People with moms and dads, wives and husbands, children and grandkids. Real, live people. Love for these people compels us to respond to their their challenges.
It is highly unlikely that argumentation is going to change the minds of Dawkins and confreres. They have already read all the arguments Christians can think of in favor of belief. However, while change is unlikely, it is not impossible. The change of mind by Anthony Flew is a dramatic example. He was an outspoken atheist for decades, then recently wrote a book titled, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Because atheists are people, there is always the possibility they may change their minds.
Third, atheists often voice questions that lurk in our own hearts and in the hearts of our children. When we thoughtfully and respectfully examine the claims of these famous atheists, we may find ourselves addressing questions that gnaw at our own faith or the faith of our children.
We encourage our children to go to college, to get all the education they can, to develop their minds to the highest possible level. Our children who become scientists and artists and scholars and writers will live in a world where the ideas of these atheists are given a lot of credibility. We owe our children an intelligent response.
So what is our answer to atheists?
1. Religion is as old as humanity. This is a no-brainer statement within the context of conservative Adventism. God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and instructed them in spirituality. Curiously, this statement is equally affirmed by most secular anthropologists. The oldest human sites include indications that the people who lived there had some sort of religious awareness. This does not, of course, prove religion is true or good. However, it offers strong support for the claim that being fully human includes being religious or spiritually aware. There are people who are tone deaf. Some people are color-blind. Some are born insensitive to pain. Some are born with cognitive deficits. However, while these deficits are “natural” we recognize them as deficits. The lack of spiritual or religious sensibility common among atheists is just as readily explained as a deficit as it is an indication that the atheist has “transcended” superstition. To be fully human means to be religious or spiritual.
2.There is no “mounting evidence” for any satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origin of life or the universe. In his book, The Blind Watch Maker and more recently in the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues every which way he can that the apparent design we see in nature is illusory. We think we see the handiwork of an intelligent designer, when in reality all we are seeing is the natural outworking of natural law.
Even if we granted all the “facts” claimed by Dawkins, that is if we agreed that natural law could completely explain the development of the universe post-Big Bang and the the fossil record of changing life, we would still face two huge questions: 1. Whence the Big Bang? 2. Whence life? 3. Whence the natural laws?
Whence the Big Bang?
A frequent refrain in atheistic writing is that we should believe nothing without adequate evidence. Since the Big Bang is posited as the beginning of all evidence, naturalism cannot say anything at all about the nature of reality prior to the Big Bang. There is no “natural” evidence for that reality, so naturalists ought not say anything positive or negative about reality prior to the Big Bang. That includes saying anything about God prior to the Big Bang. Maybe God existed before the Big Bang, maybe not. In the absence of all “natural” evidence, naturalists, including Dawkins, ought to remain silent. Or if they are going to speak, they ought to be clear that they are no longer speaking as naturalists. Rather they are speaking spiritually or philosophically in the service of their own preferred myth.
Whence Natural Law?
Just as atheism (naturalism) cannot logically say anything about reality prior to the Big Bang neither can it speak meaningfully about the origin of natural laws. Within naturalism there is no “reason” for things to be the way they are. They just are. While some scientists lack the human instinct to ask “why?” others more philosophically and spiritually inclined cannot help themselves. (Note: the failure to ask why is evidence of a deficit not evidence of higher development.) If “natural law” explains the origin of everything, it is “natural” to ask where the law came from? To claim the laws are eternal means making claims about reality prior to the Big Bang. To claim the laws were inherent in the universe generated by the Big Bang leads right back to question, why were they inherent? What (or who) made them inherent?
Dawkins attempts to turn this line of reasoning against believers. He writes in The God Delusion, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.” That is you can't claim God is the designer because that immediately raises the question who designed God.
This is a problem for Dawkins but not for believers. Unlike Dawkins naturalistic system which requires every effect to have a cause (because if you find an effect without a cause you have found something that is not natural), religion squarely faces the fact that there is an end point in the regression of causes. Who designed God? No one and nothing. This is not a problem for religion. It is one of the grand rational arguments in its favor. The question, where did God come from? may be interesting, however, the very essence of mature religion is the recognition that we cannot get behind God to some other ultimate reality.
Dawkins and others are optimistic that naturalism will be saved from the embarrassment of this failure to account for the origin of the universe by recent work in theoretical physics. I remember reading not long ago a glowing account in Scientific American about multiple dimensions and universes. Supposedly, in these other universes and dimensions things that cannot be true in our universe must be true there. These “other truths” include different and contradictory natural laws. Of course, this runs squarely into the problem that the theories about these other universes are extrapolations from mathematics and natural laws that work in our universe. So if one attempts to make a strong argument in favor of the “reality” of these other universes, you end up making an argument that sounds like: the natural law and mathematics of our universe prove that natural law and mathematics are variable outside our universe. But if they are variable outside our universe how can we trust what they say about that “other reality.” If they are variable, there is no reason to trust them in the slightest when they speak about stuff “out there.”
Whence Life?
Dawkins claims there is mounting evidence for the ineluctable development of life out prebiotic chemicals. I don't know what counts as evidence. While there is a steadily augmenting body of evidence for a long history of development of life over time, there has been abject failure to find any evidence for the spontaneous origin of life from prebiotic chemicals.
The recent headlines, “Scientists Create First Synthetic Life” provide one more bit of evidence against spontaneous generation. The work involved replacing the DNA in a cell nucleus with an artificially created copy of DNA. This does not suggest that information rich DNA could happen to assemble itself. To the contrary. Highly intelligent beings with a DNA model to work from can create a copy if they work hard enough, have enough technology and information behind them and an unlimited budget. None of this applies to the primordial world.
The more we know about life, even the simplest forms, the more complex we understand it to be. Cells contain information and machinery. Neither information nor machines arise spontaneously. If “natural selection” is truly responsible for the origin and development of life, then for fully intact humans (that is people with spiritual and philosophical curiosity) “natural selection” rather than being a satisfying explanation, becomes one of the strongest occasions for asking, where did that come from? Who designed that? Natural selection demands an explanation of its own origin.
The Big Bang and natural selection do not even begin to answer the question of origins. Both of these theories, in fact, highlight the limits of naturalism. They point directly at their own beginnings, utterly unfit to go beyond those beginnings to the reality that existed before.
Nothing in nature proves that God is the reality beyond the Big Bang and natural selection. However, religion does have this going for it: it lines up with instincts of wonder, awe and conscience that apparently have characterized humans for however long humans have existed. In short, religion lines up with being human.
3. We can make sense of morals and aesthetics only by appealing to “something above.”
One of the grand failures of atheism is its inability to offer any intellectually satisfying account of morality or aesthetics. Rationally speaking, if there is no God, there is no ought. Science persuasively, powerfully describes what is. (And believers sometimes make fools of themselves by discounting what science sees.) Science cannot speak about what ought to be.
The various attempts to account for morality based on evolutionary models might be more persuasive if their authors could live in the world they construct. They can't. If someone plagiarizes their work or sells pirate copies of their DVDs, these authors would protest saying this was wrong, immoral, unfair, unjust. But these words are meaningless apart from a moral system that stands outside humanity. Even the “quest for truth” which is one of the clarion calls of the New Atheists makes no sense outside a framework of meaning that depends on a residue of theism. Why should anyone be concerned for truth? Why not settle for that which advantages me, true or not? Apart from appeals to something “higher” there is nothing to say that truth is better than advantageous fiction. There is nothing in the neutrinos, electrons and protons of the universe to support a naturalistic explanation of moral judgments. In fact, the more elementary you get, the more utterly disconnected “reality” is from morality. To make sense of the special characteristics of humanity, things like language, art and morality, instead of probing more and more deeply into the elemental particles, fields and processes of nature, we have to go the opposite direction and invoke something above.
Historically, the common name for that something above is God.
4. What about all the evil done in the name of religion?
It is easy to find examples of evil done in the name of religion. Back in the days of Joshua, the Jews tried to exterminate the Canaanites because they believed that was God's will. And most Christian and Jewish commentators since then have agreed that this was, in fact, God's will. In our day, Muslim extremists cite the Quran in support of indiscriminate killing of “infidels.” The Quran says it. They believe it. That settles it. David Koresh who operated on the periphery of Adventism based his weird and dangerous ideas on his understanding of the Bible. Mormon extremists who abuse and misuse women justify their behavior by citing their religious books.
So when an atheist says religion is dangerous because it is used to justify harming others, we as believers must humbly acknowledge the truth of their charge. However, this argument cuts both ways. In the twentieth century atheism prompted far more slaughter than religion.
National Socialism (Nazism) and Marxism (communism) were emphatically atheistic and “scientistic.” They claimed their system was scientific. Hitler, Stalin and Mao sacrificed millions of people to their “scientific” beliefs. Then late in the century, Pol Pot of Cambodia tried again to set up a scientific political system. His experiment resulted in the death of nearly twenty-five percent of the population of Cambodia.
If the genocide of the Canaanites and the immoral predations of Muslim fanatics prove that religion is not good, the regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao are even more compelling evidence of the evil of “scientific” or atheistic social policy and political philosophy.
So how shall we respond to the charge that religion is evil because evil is done in the name of religion?
First, make sure we are not doing evil in the name of religion. Quit spanking your children. Every study that has examined the spanking of children shows that children do better without spanking. A swat on the rear of a toddler is not the end of the world for the kid or the parent. But it is time for us to quit arguing in favor of spanking our kids because Proverbs says, Spare the rod and spoil the child. Spanking is not conducive to the best human development. So quit.
Quit supporting “change ministries” for homosexuals. They don't work.
Do support services for women in crisis pregnancies.
Do support quality education for all.
Do good. That is the strongest argument in favor of the goodness of religion.
5. Take responsible, effective action.
I appreciated a comment someone posted on my blog this week. “Belief in God is bad because it results in magical thinking. Believers expect God to help them, protect them, make it better and as a result they often don't do what they should to take care of themselves.”
Unfortunately, I can think of examples where believers have used religion as a substitute for responsible, effective action.
I remember talking with a young man a few years ago. He was out of work. I asked him what he was doing to find work. He said, “God will provide.” I pressed him. “Yes, I know God will provide, but what are you doing to cooperate with God's providing.” Unfortunately, the answer was pretty much, nothing. He was waiting for God to drop a job into his lap. God does that some times. A job you weren't looking, a job you didn't expect just walks up and knocks you on the head. However, this is not the usual way God works.
It is irresponsible for a believer who needs a job to refuse to send out resumes or knock on doors or make phone calls or network with friends because “God will provide,” If you need a job, you ought to actively look for work. In this economy that can be very discouraging. Still God expects you to take action. Praying is not enough. Hoping is not enough. Believing is not enough. All of those things are precious and valuable. Don't dispense with them. Still, having hoped and prayed and believed, it is time to get up and do. If you don't, you're giving atheists ammunition for their war against faith.
This principle is relevant in every area of life.
Do you want to be stronger? Walk. Lift weights. Do you want to be richer. Save. Budget. Don't eat out. Don't buy a car on credit. Don't buy anything on credit. Do you want to be holier. Spend time daily in meditation, prayer, Bible reading, serving. Do you want better children? Shower them with affection and affirmation. Make sure that your own behavior in every area of life is more noble, more pure, more disciplined than you expect from them. Get rid of your TV.
Ultimately answering atheists is not about persuading them but cultivating and purifying our own faith.
The best “answer” to atheists is to obey Jesus command to love God with our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. And to practice the habits of healthy spiritual and family life. If paying attention to the challenges posed by atheists can prod us in this direction, then even they become agents of God. In a sense, we thus participate in their redemption.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Answering Atheists
This coming Sabbath, June 26, I'm going to do something I don't remember trying before. I'm going to reply to the challenges presented by the new atheists--people like Dawkins and Hitchens.
The book, The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski is one of my principle sources.
If you have any favorite arguments in favor of theism or any particular challenges to faith you would like me to address in the next couple of weeks, I'd enjoy reading your thoughts. So post a comment.
Today, I'd working security at the Washington Conference campmeeting.
Grace and peace.
John
The book, The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski is one of my principle sources.
If you have any favorite arguments in favor of theism or any particular challenges to faith you would like me to address in the next couple of weeks, I'd enjoy reading your thoughts. So post a comment.
Today, I'd working security at the Washington Conference campmeeting.
Grace and peace.
John
Friday, June 11, 2010
Landscapes of the Wilderness and Church
Just finished reading a book, Where land & water meet : a Western landscape transformed by Nancy Langston. It is the story of the riparian lands of the Malheur basin in southeast Oregon.
Gigantic conflict between ranchers, homesteaders, Indians, environmentalists, beavers, bucks, carp over the use of water of the Donner und Blitzen and Silvies rivers and the adjacent land.
One lesson: efficiency is not always an admirable goal. When every drop of water is corraled for the use of ranchers, homesteaders starve, native ducks and fish go extinct. If homesteaders get absolute control of the water, the land will be made barren because of the baleful effects of irrigation in the marginal soils of the basin using water with a high mineral content (and the ducks and fish will disappear). If radical environmentalists had their way, there would be no human presence in the basin. Maybe wisdom means compromises that makes room for farmers, ranchers and wildlife--a messy situation that means no single ideological perspective or management approach is allowed unchallenged dominance.
Maybe healthy church life means the messy inclusion of multiple voices, perspectives and temperaments rather than the creation of a "pure church" controlled by a single theological perspective.
Another lesson: best decisions arise when the input of conflicting interest groups is given included in the decision-making process.
Another lesson: What seems so obviously the best and wisest policy today is just as obviously not the wisest policy tomorrow. Time has invalidated "convictions" of both ranchers and environmentalists in the Malheur basin. I think the same is true for the church. It is foolish to insist that "new truth" will never contradict our historic truth. Sometimes, historic truth turns out to be just wrong. This is true in land and wildlife management (i.e. science) and in church management (i.e. theology and spirituality).
Ultimate lesson: wildlife and wild lands managers must remember they do not own and ultimately cannot really control the living world they manage. They affect it, but ultimately control is beyond them. So leaders in the church cannot ultimately control the spiritual life that flows through the church. They certainly affect it, but they cannot be sure what the consequences of their actions will be. Unintended consequences happen not only in the wilderness. They happen in the church as well.
So manage lightly.
Gigantic conflict between ranchers, homesteaders, Indians, environmentalists, beavers, bucks, carp over the use of water of the Donner und Blitzen and Silvies rivers and the adjacent land.
One lesson: efficiency is not always an admirable goal. When every drop of water is corraled for the use of ranchers, homesteaders starve, native ducks and fish go extinct. If homesteaders get absolute control of the water, the land will be made barren because of the baleful effects of irrigation in the marginal soils of the basin using water with a high mineral content (and the ducks and fish will disappear). If radical environmentalists had their way, there would be no human presence in the basin. Maybe wisdom means compromises that makes room for farmers, ranchers and wildlife--a messy situation that means no single ideological perspective or management approach is allowed unchallenged dominance.
Maybe healthy church life means the messy inclusion of multiple voices, perspectives and temperaments rather than the creation of a "pure church" controlled by a single theological perspective.
Another lesson: best decisions arise when the input of conflicting interest groups is given included in the decision-making process.
Another lesson: What seems so obviously the best and wisest policy today is just as obviously not the wisest policy tomorrow. Time has invalidated "convictions" of both ranchers and environmentalists in the Malheur basin. I think the same is true for the church. It is foolish to insist that "new truth" will never contradict our historic truth. Sometimes, historic truth turns out to be just wrong. This is true in land and wildlife management (i.e. science) and in church management (i.e. theology and spirituality).
Ultimate lesson: wildlife and wild lands managers must remember they do not own and ultimately cannot really control the living world they manage. They affect it, but ultimately control is beyond them. So leaders in the church cannot ultimately control the spiritual life that flows through the church. They certainly affect it, but they cannot be sure what the consequences of their actions will be. Unintended consequences happen not only in the wilderness. They happen in the church as well.
So manage lightly.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Sabbath Keeping -- The North Hill Rules
Sermon for June 5, 2010 at North Hill Adventist Fellowship and the topic for conversation at Friends of St Thomas on June 4.
Six hundred years ago no Europeans kept the Sabbath. At least none that we know about. Five hundred years ago there were Sabbath-keepers all over Europe. What happened? A revival of Bible reading. People like Martin Luther, John Calvin Ulrich Zwingli called for a reform in the church based on what they read in the Bible. Their calls for reform lit a fire storm of zeal for pure Bible religion because of something called the printing press.
The preaching of the Reformers spread like a wildfire because lay people all over Europe suddenly had access to the Bible in their native languages. As lay people and less-than-famous preachers began reading the Bible, they discovered the Sabbath. It was right there, in the fourth commandment, in the stories of Jesus, in the practice of the apostles. It was as plain as the nose on your face.
The famous reformers were not amused. They wanted people to read the Bible. They wanted people liberated from the tyranny of Catholic legalism. They wanted the church to reform. But they did not want anybody keeping Sabbath. That was going too far. These famous Reformers, Luther, Calvin and
Zwingli, became fanatical opponents of Sabbath keeping.
Luther called the preachers who taught Sabbath-keeping: “unlearned,” “foolish,” “apes,” and Judaizers.
John Calvin wrote that Sabbath preachers “went thrice as far as Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism.”
Luther and Calvin both used the death penalty to fight “Sabbatizers.” And to a large extent they won. Within a few decades appreciation for the seventh-day Sabbath largely disappeared. In the 1700s the Puritans revived interest in the Sabbath, though, of course, they argued Sabbath had been switched from the seventh day to the first day. But the Puritans got into the same trouble the Reformers did. The Puritans taught people to read the Bible. And when people read the Bible, they run into Sabbath. So in Puritan England, people we now know as Seventh-day Baptists began keeping and teaching the Sabbath. The Puritans used the same weapons against them the Reformers did. Prison and execution.
Finally in the 1860s Baptists introduced Adventists to Sabbath-keeping. There are now over 20 million Adventists around the world who along with many other groups and denominations advocate Sabbath-keeping. So here we are keeping Sabbath as part of a multi-million member community.
One of the curious features of the Bible doctrine of Sabbath is that it is almost entirely negative. The Bible is quite explicit that you are supposed to keep Sabbath. “Keep it holy.” But when you look for Bible passages that spell out what that means, almost all of the information concerns what you are not supposed to do: Don't work. Don't buy and sell. Don't harvest. Don't pick up sticks.
So if you don't do all those things, just what is it that you can do or ought to do.
The Bible doesn't say, so today I'm going to tell you. I'm going to give you seven rules for keeping Sabbath. If you obey these seven rules you will have such a rich Sabbath experience that other people will be jealous of what you have. They may even invite themselves to enjoy it with you.
(Note: These rules are actually rules for keeping “Friday night.” Since I'm a preacher, the day time hours on Sabbath are kind of complicated by church obligations. So our family developed our Sabbath practices by focusing on Friday night. I'll leave day time Sabbath-keeping rules for another time.)
Here's my prescription really good Sabbath-keeping.
1.Stop.
2.Pray.
3.Read a passage from the Bible.
4.Put on some good music.
5.Eat and drink something special.
6.Light candles or sit on the porch and watch the sunset
7.Sit and talk and (if you are married and the kids are asleep) make love.
Stop
Deliberately stop. Just quit. This is the hardest part of Sabbath-keeping for most people. Stop. When there is still some work left to do. If you stop only when you have your work finished, one of two things is true: Either you will never stop or you don't understand the job. Why should a person be legalistic about quitting at sundown (or when 3 stars are visible—this is the classic Jewish definition of the beginning and end of Sabbath—or 6:00 p.m.--this is the time used by the very first Seventh-day Adventists before further study persuaded them that sundown was the proper time to begin and end Sabbath.) The reason for being legalistic, that is, stopping at a predetermined time, is this is the only way to escape the tyranny of the necessary.
Many of us grew up with an expectation that you should have your house clean before Sabbath. This is a good idea. It lines up with our belief that Sabbath is a time of special visitation by God. If you are going to have your mother-in-law over for dinner, you want your apartment to look clean and neat and beautiful and immaculate and . . . well, perfect. So it's natural to want at least as good for God. “Preparing for Sabbath” makes sense, whether that means cleaning the house, buying special food, getting your Sabbath clothes ready. Preparing for Sabbath makes sense, but there is no Bible command for us to prepare for Sabbath. (If you refer to manna, I will point out that it is impossible for most of us to gather extra manna on Fridays since we don't have any manna at all in our yards on Fridays. Our manna is direct deposited.)
If you have the time and energy to turn your house or apartment into a palace on Friday, go for it. Your Sabbath experience will be richer for it. Unfortunately, most Americans, however, discover that achieving this goal of perfection obliges them to work all night. In the process they miss the party. The only way to actually make it to God's Sabbath party on Friday night, is to just stop working. Especially in December when sundown is at 4:30, there's no way most people are going to be able to get home from work and get the house spic and span before sundown. Don't sweat it.
God says, “Let it go. It's good enough. I like a clean house. I like spending time with you even more. So leave it alone. Come, sit with me.”
God's invite is the reason Adventists insist on getting off work early on Fridays in the winter. Sabbath beckons. God beckons. We don't want to miss the beginning of the sacred party.
It's easy to misunderstand the command to stop. Some of us imagine God standing with a stop watch scowling as the clock ticks closer to sundown, ready to explode when the moment comes, “I knew you wouldn't make it! You're never ready! It's like this every week. You talk about getting ready. You tell the kids to get ready. It doesn't happen. I'm outta here!
That is not God.
Here's God: “It's sundown. I'm going to sit down and enjoy a drink. I'd really like it if you came and sat with me.”
The fundamental, essential doorway into Sabbath is this: STOP ALREADY! QUIT!
I think it is best to hear these words as an invitation. But just in case you are too compulsive to lay down your work, God gave it as a divine command. This command is also useful if you need some help pushing back against the demands of other people.
So stop. Quit. That's how Sabbath begins. That's the part of Sabbath-keeping you can actually support by quoting the Bible.
Rule two: Pray
What to say? Prayer is our way of deliberately, consciously opening ourselves to God. So, once you've stopped on Friday night, the next thing to do is to pray. If you are with other people, invite them to pray with you. Lift your eyes to heaven and say something like this, “Lord, thank you for this holy time. Thank you for this refuge from the pressure to earn more, to achieve more, learn more, to work faster. We accept your invitation to spend this evening in the light of your smile.
Sabbath prayer is not a petition for God to make you or the world better. Sabbath prayer is not introspective. It is not a time to examine your heart. It is a time to bask in the affection that flows from God's heart. Sabbath prayer is extrospective, to make up a word. Sabbath prayer is a glad turning toward God, a happy entry into the joy of God's presence.
Rule three: Read the Bible
There would be no Sabbath in our world apart from the Bible. Sabbath-keeping among Christians traces its roots to the rediscovery of the Bible during the Reformation. It was the intense Bible study that came as a result of the Bible being translated into the common languages and being widely distributed that gave birth to Sabbath-keeping among Christians.
Sabbath-keeping came to Adventists because of Bible study. People join us today in keeping Sabbath because of what they read in the Book. The Bible points us to the Sabbath. On Sabbath we return the favor and point our minds toward the Bible.
Sabbath is the primary occasion when we as a community engage with the Bible. We urge people to spend time every day interacting with the Bible. Then when we come together on Sabbath, our time together is enriched by our focus on the Bible in our Sabbath School classes and sermons.
On Friday night, honor the Book by reading a passage either at sundown or over dinner.
Rule Four: Put on Some Good Music
What can I say? My favorite Friday night music is baroque trumpet. You'll find your own favorites, music that speaks to you of beauty and holy love. Prose is inadequate here.
Rule Five: Eat and Drink Something Good
Just in case, you think I'm making all this stuff up, let's consider a few Bible passages.
What event climaxed the first day of Moses' father-in-law's visit? Exodus 18.
What did the elders of Israel do when they saw God? Exodus 24
What did Jesus do after church? Mark 1
What did Jesus REALLY want to do before he died? Luke 22:14-15
What does Jesus want to do with you right now and in the future? Revelation 3:20
Bible religion is not just about words. It is about eating together—with each other and with God.
Your children should be able to tell it's Sabbath by the smell of the kitchen. You should be able to tell it's Sabbath by the flavor in your mouth. Now that it's spring, my favorite Friday night food is strawberry shortcake. I make fantastic sweet biscuits. We whip real cream. (We don't use the stuff that comes in spray cans. And for sure, we don't use Dream Whip.)
Then we pour some Martinellis or some Welches sparkling grape juice. Ahhhhhhh! It's good. It's Sabbath. I'm smiling and I know our heavenly Father is smiling, too. We are partying with God.
Good food is as important for Sabbath-keeping as reading the Bible or praying. It doesn't have to be home made. It does have to taste good. When we eat and drink on Friday night, we are worshiping God with our bodies. We receiving his grace with our mouths.
Sabbath-morning worship in Adventist churches focuses on the Bible. In Sabbath School and in the sermon, we give careful attention to what God has said in his Word. On Friday night, we focus on God's people and God's presence. Like Moses and the elders, like Jesus and his disciples, we eat and drink in the presence of God.
Rule Six: Light a Candle or Sit on the Porch Watching the Glow in the Sky
In the winter, lighting candles turns the early gloom into a backdrop for warm light. In the summer, if the evening is warm and you can see the western sky, why not sit outside for awhile and bask in the magic of the evening? The attention to light reminds us that God smiles at us. The face of God is not a frown, not a scowl, not a stony indifference. It is a smile. Given the ugliness and trouble in the world, it is good on Friday night to push back, to remind ourselves that when God looks our direction he smiles.
Rule Seven: Sit and Talk and Engage in Marital Intimacy (Got to keep this appropriate for an audience that includes children.)
Sabbath-keeping is about relationships. It is about intimacy, about connecting with others. In the rough and tumble of everyday life we connect with people through work and through conflict—both as allies and as enemies. We connect with people through commerce.
Sabbath is about connecting with people through “unproductive” conversation and eating and music and worship. The point of Sabbath is to just be with one another. We do derive benefits from Sabbath-keeping. However, these benefits are not easily quantifiable or measurable. Sabbath-keeping takes us into another world.
Given the Puritan distortions of Sabbath-keeping, it is important to point out that the first Friday night, the first beginning of Sabbath, was a honey-moon night in the most literal sense. Sabbath is supposed to be a weekly renewal of marital intimacy. Sabbath was intended by God to interrupt our drive to secure our place in the world and give attention to cultivating the relationships that make life worth living. So Sabbath-keeping involves the rich sensuality of food and drink. It is an invitation to the even richer sensuality of marital intimacy.
This earthy, concrete approach to Sabbath-keeping can be realized to its fullest only in the concrete world of real food and drink and real people. The internet and 3ABN may be useful substitutes when the real thing is unavailable, but ideal Sabbath-keeping involves face-to-face, person-to-person intimacy. Listening to a sermon on 3ABN is a very meager form of Sabbath-keeping.
When we embrace this kind of Sabbath-keeping, this evening full of prayer, good food and drink, candles and conversation, and sweet touch, we experience Sabbath as the very essence of life. No wonder it is one of the ten commandments. Sabbath-keeping is the very opposite of the woes prohibited in the succeeding commandments: stealing, adultery and murder. In contrast to these life-destroying aberrations, God calls us to the joyous experience of Sabbath.
I recommend it.
Six hundred years ago no Europeans kept the Sabbath. At least none that we know about. Five hundred years ago there were Sabbath-keepers all over Europe. What happened? A revival of Bible reading. People like Martin Luther, John Calvin Ulrich Zwingli called for a reform in the church based on what they read in the Bible. Their calls for reform lit a fire storm of zeal for pure Bible religion because of something called the printing press.
The preaching of the Reformers spread like a wildfire because lay people all over Europe suddenly had access to the Bible in their native languages. As lay people and less-than-famous preachers began reading the Bible, they discovered the Sabbath. It was right there, in the fourth commandment, in the stories of Jesus, in the practice of the apostles. It was as plain as the nose on your face.
The famous reformers were not amused. They wanted people to read the Bible. They wanted people liberated from the tyranny of Catholic legalism. They wanted the church to reform. But they did not want anybody keeping Sabbath. That was going too far. These famous Reformers, Luther, Calvin and
Zwingli, became fanatical opponents of Sabbath keeping.
Luther called the preachers who taught Sabbath-keeping: “unlearned,” “foolish,” “apes,” and Judaizers.
John Calvin wrote that Sabbath preachers “went thrice as far as Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism.”
Luther and Calvin both used the death penalty to fight “Sabbatizers.” And to a large extent they won. Within a few decades appreciation for the seventh-day Sabbath largely disappeared. In the 1700s the Puritans revived interest in the Sabbath, though, of course, they argued Sabbath had been switched from the seventh day to the first day. But the Puritans got into the same trouble the Reformers did. The Puritans taught people to read the Bible. And when people read the Bible, they run into Sabbath. So in Puritan England, people we now know as Seventh-day Baptists began keeping and teaching the Sabbath. The Puritans used the same weapons against them the Reformers did. Prison and execution.
Finally in the 1860s Baptists introduced Adventists to Sabbath-keeping. There are now over 20 million Adventists around the world who along with many other groups and denominations advocate Sabbath-keeping. So here we are keeping Sabbath as part of a multi-million member community.
One of the curious features of the Bible doctrine of Sabbath is that it is almost entirely negative. The Bible is quite explicit that you are supposed to keep Sabbath. “Keep it holy.” But when you look for Bible passages that spell out what that means, almost all of the information concerns what you are not supposed to do: Don't work. Don't buy and sell. Don't harvest. Don't pick up sticks.
So if you don't do all those things, just what is it that you can do or ought to do.
The Bible doesn't say, so today I'm going to tell you. I'm going to give you seven rules for keeping Sabbath. If you obey these seven rules you will have such a rich Sabbath experience that other people will be jealous of what you have. They may even invite themselves to enjoy it with you.
(Note: These rules are actually rules for keeping “Friday night.” Since I'm a preacher, the day time hours on Sabbath are kind of complicated by church obligations. So our family developed our Sabbath practices by focusing on Friday night. I'll leave day time Sabbath-keeping rules for another time.)
Here's my prescription really good Sabbath-keeping.
1.Stop.
2.Pray.
3.Read a passage from the Bible.
4.Put on some good music.
5.Eat and drink something special.
6.Light candles or sit on the porch and watch the sunset
7.Sit and talk and (if you are married and the kids are asleep) make love.
Stop
Deliberately stop. Just quit. This is the hardest part of Sabbath-keeping for most people. Stop. When there is still some work left to do. If you stop only when you have your work finished, one of two things is true: Either you will never stop or you don't understand the job. Why should a person be legalistic about quitting at sundown (or when 3 stars are visible—this is the classic Jewish definition of the beginning and end of Sabbath—or 6:00 p.m.--this is the time used by the very first Seventh-day Adventists before further study persuaded them that sundown was the proper time to begin and end Sabbath.) The reason for being legalistic, that is, stopping at a predetermined time, is this is the only way to escape the tyranny of the necessary.
Many of us grew up with an expectation that you should have your house clean before Sabbath. This is a good idea. It lines up with our belief that Sabbath is a time of special visitation by God. If you are going to have your mother-in-law over for dinner, you want your apartment to look clean and neat and beautiful and immaculate and . . . well, perfect. So it's natural to want at least as good for God. “Preparing for Sabbath” makes sense, whether that means cleaning the house, buying special food, getting your Sabbath clothes ready. Preparing for Sabbath makes sense, but there is no Bible command for us to prepare for Sabbath. (If you refer to manna, I will point out that it is impossible for most of us to gather extra manna on Fridays since we don't have any manna at all in our yards on Fridays. Our manna is direct deposited.)
If you have the time and energy to turn your house or apartment into a palace on Friday, go for it. Your Sabbath experience will be richer for it. Unfortunately, most Americans, however, discover that achieving this goal of perfection obliges them to work all night. In the process they miss the party. The only way to actually make it to God's Sabbath party on Friday night, is to just stop working. Especially in December when sundown is at 4:30, there's no way most people are going to be able to get home from work and get the house spic and span before sundown. Don't sweat it.
God says, “Let it go. It's good enough. I like a clean house. I like spending time with you even more. So leave it alone. Come, sit with me.”
God's invite is the reason Adventists insist on getting off work early on Fridays in the winter. Sabbath beckons. God beckons. We don't want to miss the beginning of the sacred party.
It's easy to misunderstand the command to stop. Some of us imagine God standing with a stop watch scowling as the clock ticks closer to sundown, ready to explode when the moment comes, “I knew you wouldn't make it! You're never ready! It's like this every week. You talk about getting ready. You tell the kids to get ready. It doesn't happen. I'm outta here!
That is not God.
Here's God: “It's sundown. I'm going to sit down and enjoy a drink. I'd really like it if you came and sat with me.”
The fundamental, essential doorway into Sabbath is this: STOP ALREADY! QUIT!
I think it is best to hear these words as an invitation. But just in case you are too compulsive to lay down your work, God gave it as a divine command. This command is also useful if you need some help pushing back against the demands of other people.
So stop. Quit. That's how Sabbath begins. That's the part of Sabbath-keeping you can actually support by quoting the Bible.
Rule two: Pray
What to say? Prayer is our way of deliberately, consciously opening ourselves to God. So, once you've stopped on Friday night, the next thing to do is to pray. If you are with other people, invite them to pray with you. Lift your eyes to heaven and say something like this, “Lord, thank you for this holy time. Thank you for this refuge from the pressure to earn more, to achieve more, learn more, to work faster. We accept your invitation to spend this evening in the light of your smile.
Sabbath prayer is not a petition for God to make you or the world better. Sabbath prayer is not introspective. It is not a time to examine your heart. It is a time to bask in the affection that flows from God's heart. Sabbath prayer is extrospective, to make up a word. Sabbath prayer is a glad turning toward God, a happy entry into the joy of God's presence.
Rule three: Read the Bible
There would be no Sabbath in our world apart from the Bible. Sabbath-keeping among Christians traces its roots to the rediscovery of the Bible during the Reformation. It was the intense Bible study that came as a result of the Bible being translated into the common languages and being widely distributed that gave birth to Sabbath-keeping among Christians.
Sabbath-keeping came to Adventists because of Bible study. People join us today in keeping Sabbath because of what they read in the Book. The Bible points us to the Sabbath. On Sabbath we return the favor and point our minds toward the Bible.
Sabbath is the primary occasion when we as a community engage with the Bible. We urge people to spend time every day interacting with the Bible. Then when we come together on Sabbath, our time together is enriched by our focus on the Bible in our Sabbath School classes and sermons.
On Friday night, honor the Book by reading a passage either at sundown or over dinner.
Rule Four: Put on Some Good Music
What can I say? My favorite Friday night music is baroque trumpet. You'll find your own favorites, music that speaks to you of beauty and holy love. Prose is inadequate here.
Rule Five: Eat and Drink Something Good
Just in case, you think I'm making all this stuff up, let's consider a few Bible passages.
What event climaxed the first day of Moses' father-in-law's visit? Exodus 18.
What did the elders of Israel do when they saw God? Exodus 24
What did Jesus do after church? Mark 1
What did Jesus REALLY want to do before he died? Luke 22:14-15
What does Jesus want to do with you right now and in the future? Revelation 3:20
Bible religion is not just about words. It is about eating together—with each other and with God.
Your children should be able to tell it's Sabbath by the smell of the kitchen. You should be able to tell it's Sabbath by the flavor in your mouth. Now that it's spring, my favorite Friday night food is strawberry shortcake. I make fantastic sweet biscuits. We whip real cream. (We don't use the stuff that comes in spray cans. And for sure, we don't use Dream Whip.)
Then we pour some Martinellis or some Welches sparkling grape juice. Ahhhhhhh! It's good. It's Sabbath. I'm smiling and I know our heavenly Father is smiling, too. We are partying with God.
Good food is as important for Sabbath-keeping as reading the Bible or praying. It doesn't have to be home made. It does have to taste good. When we eat and drink on Friday night, we are worshiping God with our bodies. We receiving his grace with our mouths.
Sabbath-morning worship in Adventist churches focuses on the Bible. In Sabbath School and in the sermon, we give careful attention to what God has said in his Word. On Friday night, we focus on God's people and God's presence. Like Moses and the elders, like Jesus and his disciples, we eat and drink in the presence of God.
Rule Six: Light a Candle or Sit on the Porch Watching the Glow in the Sky
In the winter, lighting candles turns the early gloom into a backdrop for warm light. In the summer, if the evening is warm and you can see the western sky, why not sit outside for awhile and bask in the magic of the evening? The attention to light reminds us that God smiles at us. The face of God is not a frown, not a scowl, not a stony indifference. It is a smile. Given the ugliness and trouble in the world, it is good on Friday night to push back, to remind ourselves that when God looks our direction he smiles.
Rule Seven: Sit and Talk and Engage in Marital Intimacy (Got to keep this appropriate for an audience that includes children.)
Sabbath-keeping is about relationships. It is about intimacy, about connecting with others. In the rough and tumble of everyday life we connect with people through work and through conflict—both as allies and as enemies. We connect with people through commerce.
Sabbath is about connecting with people through “unproductive” conversation and eating and music and worship. The point of Sabbath is to just be with one another. We do derive benefits from Sabbath-keeping. However, these benefits are not easily quantifiable or measurable. Sabbath-keeping takes us into another world.
Given the Puritan distortions of Sabbath-keeping, it is important to point out that the first Friday night, the first beginning of Sabbath, was a honey-moon night in the most literal sense. Sabbath is supposed to be a weekly renewal of marital intimacy. Sabbath was intended by God to interrupt our drive to secure our place in the world and give attention to cultivating the relationships that make life worth living. So Sabbath-keeping involves the rich sensuality of food and drink. It is an invitation to the even richer sensuality of marital intimacy.
This earthy, concrete approach to Sabbath-keeping can be realized to its fullest only in the concrete world of real food and drink and real people. The internet and 3ABN may be useful substitutes when the real thing is unavailable, but ideal Sabbath-keeping involves face-to-face, person-to-person intimacy. Listening to a sermon on 3ABN is a very meager form of Sabbath-keeping.
When we embrace this kind of Sabbath-keeping, this evening full of prayer, good food and drink, candles and conversation, and sweet touch, we experience Sabbath as the very essence of life. No wonder it is one of the ten commandments. Sabbath-keeping is the very opposite of the woes prohibited in the succeeding commandments: stealing, adultery and murder. In contrast to these life-destroying aberrations, God calls us to the joyous experience of Sabbath.
I recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
