Article for Green Lake Church Gazette
August 2014
Occasionally I have the honor of
conversation with people young enough to be my children. I meet these young people inside and outside the church. They ask
hard questions, good questions.
Why would a good God—who knew the
future and was perfectly free—create a world in which most people
would be lost? Did God deliberately decide that the loss of most
humanity was an acceptable price to pay to acquire the kind of world
he wanted for himself?
Did God create rainbows to encourage
our faith and fossils to test our faith?
How can a good God (who is
omnipotent, omniscient, and ubiquitous) be reconciled with suffering
which is visible, palpable and randomly distributed?
Since most religions claim we are
right and all those others are wrong, why should the claims of any
religion be taken seriously? How can we prove the Bible is true? How
can we prove the Bible is the best (or only) source of information
about God?
Would a good God really condemn to
eternal hell fire people whose primary “crime” was an incomplete
or incorrect opinion about Jesus?
Why should I reject science, which
has demonstrably increased longevity, in favor of religion which
promises eternal life (but offers no proof)?
Some of the young
people asking these questions call themselves atheists. Others call
themselves Christian. Whatever label they apply to themselves, the
questions are significant. All these questions evince a deep regard
for justice and truth. Young people ask these questions because of
they care about goodness. Their questions are an expression of their
active moral compasses, their lively sense of conscience. So, they
deserve our respect.
Why would a good God—who knew the
future and was perfectly free—create a world in which most people
would be lost? Did God deliberately decide that the loss of most
humanity was an acceptable price to pay to acquire the kind of world
he wanted for himself?
I grew up hearing
preachers quote three statements by Ellen White, the Adventist
prophet, that implied more than ninety-five percent of humanity would
burn in the lake of fire. Similarly gloomy opinions can be found
across Christianity. When I googled “How many will go to hell?”
The first piece I pulled up was titled, “Billions of People Are
Going to Hell.” The author figured that at least ninety-nine
percent of humanity would be burned in hell. Other sites offered
similarly depressing assessments. This is not the universal
conclusion of Christian preachers, but it is not rare.
As a
teenager, I unhesitatingly believed what I heard about the difficulty
of being saved. Getting into heaven was certainly harder than getting
into Harvard (current acceptance rate >5%). I resolved to be part
of that tiny remnant of good-enough people. I cultivated a devotional
life. I rigorously observed Adventist rules regarding snacking,
movies, caffeine, slang, flesh foods, mustard, fiction, smoking,
alcohol and drugs. I am happy for the discipline and structure of
that childhood religion. However, I emphatically reject its gloomy
picture of God and humanity. Is it really possible that God created a
system which he knew would be a disastrous failure for most of
humanity? No! Not if God is good.
If I knew I carried
a gene for a severe disorder that would doom ninety-five percent of
my progeny, I would not have had children. You would probably make
the same decision. And we are not more tenderhearted than God. When
our children ask, “Would a good God accept the damnation of most of
his children as an acceptable price for acquiring the world he
wanted?” we know the answer is NO! We don't have to do fancy
exegesis. We don't have to know Hebrew and Greek. We don't have to
argue the merits of varying translations. The answer to that question
is NO! When our children ask this question, we should commend them
for seeing clearly.
Did God create rainbows to encourage
our faith and fossils to test our faith?
Nature is not a
book of tricks. Rainbows really are caused by the interplay of
raindrops and sunlight. We can remember the words of Genesis and find
reassurance of God's beneficence in the splendor of the rainbow, but
we don't imagine that rainbows are a magic show. Fossils really the
result of natural processes. They are not a tricky test given by the
great teacher in the sky to see who is willing to ignore the evidence
available to their senses. The God who created rainbows and inspired
the Bible prophets is the same God who was present at the creation of
the fossils. Physics and chemistry may seem to be more accessible to
our understanding, and less controversial than geology, but the rocks
don't lie. We cannot expect our kids to believe in God and God's Book
and disbelieve God's rocks.
How can a good God (who is
omnipotent, omniscient, and ubiquitous) be reconciled with suffering
which is visible, palpable and randomly distributed?
Across the
centuries Christians have offered various explanations of suffering.
Adventists have given special attention to a narrative explanation
called “The Great Controversy.” These explanations can be
helpful, but every explanation asks us to skip lightly over huge
imponderables. How do we calculate the weight of pain? Until we have
lived long in that gray space where praying for the release of death
is easier than asking for healing we ought to speak very humbly and
quietly in our attempts to make good sense of suffering. I think our
children will have greater respect for what we do say if we
acknowledge there are some questions beyond any possibility of answer
in this life.
Since
most religions claim we are right and all those others are wrong, why
should the claims of any religion be taken seriously? How can we
prove the Bible is true? How can we prove the Bible is the best (or
only) source of information about God?
Many Christians
devote a lot of energy to insisting that our way is the only right
way to speak of God. We would do better to invite people to do taste
tests. Come and experience God with us. Experience for yourself the
value of our religion. If someone tries our religion and finds it
useless, why would we keep insisting it is the perfect religion for
them. On the other hand, if we persuaded a person intellectually that
our religion was the best and they never actually lived it, what
would be the value of our persuasive effort? Winning arguments is
difficult. In the realm of spirituality, winning is probably
pointless. Instead, let's invite people into the sweetness of our
life with God. Encourage them to experience God for themselves. Let's
offer our testimony about what we believe and how religion works for
us. If this is not attractive, there is little to be gained from
argument.
The New Testament
offers many anecdotes illustrating the power of direct experience:
Jesus' first disciples (John 1:46), Pentecost (Acts 2), Cornelius'
household (Acts 10), the Blind Man of John 9. When we invite people
to make direct experiments in spirituality we are in line with the
New Testament. Trying to establish a theoretical basis for the
superiority and uniqueness of Christianity is misplaced effort.
Rather, let's exhibit its attractiveness and invite people to test
its effectiveness. If the Bible is the living Word of God, we don't
need to argue the point, we can simply invite people to read it for
themselves. Their experience will be far more persuasive than any
words we can offer.
Would a good God
really condemn to eternal hell fire people whose primary “crime”
was an incomplete or incorrect opinion about Jesus?
No. God is
concerned with justice more than with ritual or linguistic precision.
Certainly there are texts in the Bible that could be cited in support
of a very narrow view. People can be saved only if they meet certain
criteria—faith, works, compassionate care for the needy, keeping
the commandments. Fortunately, there are also passages that speak of
the openness of God to all humanity. There are formulas for salvation
in the Bible. Yes, of course. These Bible formulas are not to be
construed as constraining God—as though God himself could not
operate outside a simple formula he gave for our edification. Rather
these Bible formula are best understood as aids to humans for
cultivating spiritual and moral life.
Why should I
reject science, which has demonstrably increased longevity, in favor
of religion which promises eternal life (but offers no proof)?
This question
offers an open door for exploring the complementary value of both
religion and science. It appropriately presumes the value of life.
But how do we know life is better than non-life? Science cannot even
speak to that question. Scientists are humans, of course. They have
human values and valuing life is a fundamental human value. Science
provides tools for furthering life and for ending life, for easing
pain and causing pain. But science itself offers no language or
taxonomic categories for valuing life over non-life. When we talk of
the value of life we have moved into the realm of religion and
spirituality or at least into esthetics. When we ask how can we
extend life and ease suffering, most of the time we will find our
answers in the tools and insights of science, but when we ask why
should we extend life and ease suffering, our answers will have the
ring of religion. Appreciation of life will lead us to respect both
science and religion. Neither on its own is sufficient for responding
to the wonder of life.
When we give proper
respect to the questions asked by our children, we are likely to gain
for ourselves clearer insights into God. Together with our children
we may discover better ways of speaking of God and better ways of
honoring the incredible gift of life. We will learn to work together
not only to extend life, but to enrich it.