June 19, 2016 The Abundant Life: Love

This morning we complete the brief, three-message series called The Abundant Life.  Taken from John 10:10, where Jesus says I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly (NASV) it forms around what I refer to as the foundational values of the Christian faith – faith, hope, and love.

In this final message we will consider love, and my first thought in considering this topic was to wonder what I could say about love that has not already been said, and probably said better.  As I considered a message on love, it brought to mind an article I read some months ago on The Beatles, where the writer began by asking what is there to say that hasn’t already been said?  That is certainly a legitimate question when coming to the topic of love.  So much has been said and so much has been written that it is difficult to bring anything new or original to the subject.  It is not, however, always necessary to bring a new insight to a topic, as some things simply bear repeating, and a call to love is a theme that is always worth repeating.

In choosing a Scripture text for the message my first thought gravitated to I Corinthians 13, which I read for the Call To Worship.  I Corinthians is rightly deserved as one of the most beloved passages in all of Scripture and has earned its name as the love chapter.  After some reflection, however, I decided upon Matthew 5:38-48, which comes from the Sermon On the Mount. 

Paul, in I Corinthians 13, presents us with a beautiful portrait of love.  It is a passage that is very well suited to occasions such as weddings and other times of beauty.  It is what we might call more of an ivory tower approach to the topic of love, as Paul considers his topic in a more poetic, philosophical manner. The words of Jesus, however, are more street level than they are ivory tower.  Paul writes of a beautiful ideal to which we aspire; Jesus speaks of the messy reality of how our highest ideals can be tossed aside as our various opinions, perspectives, and ways of living clash.

We heard the words of Paul for the Call to Worship.  Now let’s hear the words of Jesus –

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’

39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

41 Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In considering our topic this morning, I want to ask several questions, questions that I hope will get you thinking about these words of Jesus.  The first two questions consider love in the micro context, that is, how we live out love in our own lives.  The third question considers love in the macro context, that is, how we as a collection of individuals live out the call to love.

The first personal question, then, is –

How do I, as an individual, live out these words?

I have said before that I believe Jesus was a pacifist, but I am not.  I believe, however, that if Jesus was a pacifist, then I must ask, why am I not?  I am of a dual nature on this topic.  Intellectually and spiritually, I think I am a pacifist, but emotionally, and probably in the real world of everyday life, I don’t think I am.  If push came to shove, I think I would probably push and shove back.  And if I do, I might find some way to justify my actions but I must remember that those actions will only continue the ageless cycle of violence and retribution that have taken us nowhere for all of history except into more violence and immeasurable heartbreak.

The love that Jesus speaks of is such a tremendous challenge, and is a love that goes so far beyond how we generally define love.  What we call love is often based on the principle of reciprocity – you love me and do something for me and I’ll do something for you and love you back.  But Jesus says that is neither true love nor much of an accomplishment.  In 5:46-47 he says, for if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Real love, Jesus says, is one that is not predicated upon someone doing something for us or even their willingness to love us.  Real love is so deep, so profound, and so challenging that it brings us to the point of loving an enemy. 

But really, who can do that?  Sometimes we struggle to love those who are kind and helpful.  Sometimes we struggle to love those who love us.  Sometimes we struggle to love those who are easy to love.  And Jesus wants us to love our enemies?  Yes, that is exactly what he asks.  As we have such a hard time loving people who are decent and nice people how in the world can we love someone who seeks to do us harm?

So having said that, there is a second, personal, question for us to consider –

Are their any exceptions to these words of Jesus?

I once heard a story about a boxer who left the sport to become a minister.  One day he was setting up a tent for a revival he was sponsoring when a couple of local troublemakers stopped by to harass him.  One of them said, we hear you used to be a boxer.  How about I challenge you to a fight?  The boxer turned minister said, I don’t fight any more.  I now believe in the words of Jesus that I am called to turn the other cheek.  One of the troublemaker said let’s test that, and stepped forward, took a swing at the minister, connected the punch to his jaw, and the minister dropped to his knee.  But then he stood up, shook his head, rubbed his jaw, turned the other side of his face to the troublemaker and he said, I will do as Jesus commanded and turn the other cheek.  The troublemaker took another swing at the minister, connecting that punch to the other side of his jaw, and down the minister went again.  But as he stood up, the minister took off his jacket, rolled up his sleeves, rolled his hands into fists, looked the troublemaker in the eye, and said, and now, as the Lord has given me no further instruction…

But did Jesus make such an exception?

Years ago, in my first youth ministry position, I was asked by one of the kids if I believed Jesus really meant for us to turn the other cheek.  I answered that I believed he did indeed mean that.  Not long after that conversation, the father of the young person came to see me, and he was not happy.  He did not appreciate me telling his child to be a doormat, and he angrily told me so.  I continue to stand by my belief that Jesus meant exactly what he said in this passage.

Sadly, violence seems to be part of the DNA of humanity.  From the beginning, violence has plagued us, as the story of Cain and Abel set the template for all of history that followed.  To love, especially our enemies, seems to go against the grain of humanity.  But love is the foundation of who we are as followers of Jesus, and he is very plain about what that love entails.  After all, he doesn’t bury this command in any fine print.  Most of us are not readers of the fine print.  How often do we read the fine print on a web site before we click on the agree button?  Does anyone ever read all that information in a privacy policy?  Researchers, in fact, have concluded that if a person read all the policies they encountered in a year on web sites it would take them 25 days to read them all (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/)!  There is no fine print when it comes to Jesus and what he says about love.  In this passage, plainly stated in the Sermon On the Mount, one of the most important sections of his teaching, he offers it in plain sight and in plain language.

The question of whether or not there are any exceptions, then, is a moot point, as Jesus tells us that we are to do love our enemies, and he lists no exception to his command (and make no mistake, it is a command and not a request).  We manage, however, to find ways to work around this command, claiming that Jesus is not calling us to be doormats and that he would expect us to stand up for ourselves.  One of the reasons we do this, perhaps, is that we don’t always understand the concept of agape love, the kind of love that finds its fullest expression in God.  Agape love is far deeper than simply acting kindly and nice towards others (not that there is anything wrong with acting kind and nice towards one another).  Agape love strips bare the violence and power that the kingdoms of this world use to both keep and justify their existence.  Agape love is a love that refuses to bow to such methods and, when push literally comes to shove, will not retaliate in a way that only perpetuates the cycle of violence and hatred that has dominated our world throughout history.  Agape love, in its willingness to suffer rather than to impose suffering, reveals that coercive power and force is ultimately an empty vessel that can only accomplish its goals because of the fear and force that it inflicts.  People will react to such force out of fear, and even do its bidding – up to a point – but ultimately will rebel against it and seek to be free from its grasp.  Love, however – agape love – inspires people to such an extent they are willing to lay down their lives rather than inflict violence upon others.  This is exactly what Jesus did, and in doing so demonstrated that his love was greater and far more powerful than all the might of Rome.  Although Rome had the power to nail Jesus to a cross, it could not stop his message, his followers, or, most importantly, the continuation of his love.

The third question, then, moves from the micro to the macro, from the personal to the larger world and it is this –

How do we, as a nation, live out these words?

Monday a week ago was the anniversary of D-Day, the day 71 years ago when the allied troops landed at Normandy.  Two of my mom’s brothers landed in that invasion.  It was a battle that turned the tide of WWII, and it came at the loss of so many lives.  D-Day is a reminder that we live in a dangerous, violent world, a world where our nation has, at times, decided upon the necessity of taking up arms against other nations.

Our world continues to be a very dangerous, violent place and, to be honest, I struggle to reconcile these words of Jesus with much of what happens in our world.  These words of Jesus are, in my opinion, the most difficult in all of Scripture.  It is really possible to love our enemies?  In a world where there are very real enemies, such as ISIS, how is it possible to love them?  Is it even wise to do so? 

The early Christians were not welcome in the Roman army because the Romans did not want soldiers who might love their enemies and to possibly turn the other cheek.  They understood the logical outcome of these words of Jesus, and the Romans did not build their empire on such thinking, that’s for certain.

Many centuries ago, not long after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the great theologian Augustine formulated what we now call the Just War Theory.  The Just War Theory holds there are conditions must be met in order to justify the use of force –

1. There must have a just cause.  To justify the taking up of arms the cause must be one of grave importance.

2. It must have a just intention.  Force cannot be used for the expansion of an empire or for the gain of resources, to cite two examples.

3. It must demonstrate comparative justice; that is, an armed response cannot exceed the harm inflicted by an attack.

4. It must be declared by a legitimate authority, which in almost every case would be a legitimate government.

5. It must demonstrate discrimination, which means that civilians and non-combatants must never be targeted or deliberately put in harms way.

6. It must be used only as a last resort, after every other option has been exhausted. 

But can we ever truly justify war?  I have heard our political leaders refer to the Just War Theory in support of military action, although they have often misconstrued what Augustine sought to clarify.

People often refer to the United States as a Christian nation (because we have not made any official proclamation affirming this – and it is proper that we have not – I have long believed it better to say that we are a nation comprised of many Christians and greatly influenced by Christian principles rather than to say that we are in any formal way a Christian nation).  But if it were true that we are an officially Christian nation, I think it is safe to say we would certainly find evidence of how we have lived out these words of Jesus.  Those words certainly have not formed the cornerstone of our foreign policy.

As individual followers of Jesus we must remind our government about the importance of making peace.  There is a high cost to war, both in money and certainly in lives.  Our nation has spent a great deal of both in the past 14 years alone, and now our government is recommending a $1 trillion upgrade of our nuclear weapon stockpile.  It is insanity to think that the ability to destroy the world a number of times over is insufficient and so must be increased.

 (http://www.topinfopost.com/2014/01/08/us-to-spend-1-trillion-on-nuclear-weapons-over-next-30-years)

War is a political action, not a spiritual action (David learned this, as he wanted to build the Temple, but God said he could not because he was a man of war and had shed much blood – I Chronicles 28:3).  I believe that as people of faith it is incumbent upon us to remind political leaders that all options must be considered before resulting to force, and if force is engaged, that all proper safeguards are exercised, most especially against civilians.

But let us also consider more recent events.  Our nation was rocked last weekend by the violent action in Orlando.  When I awoke last Sunday morning, like everyone else across our nation I was shocked to hear of the news of the killings in Orlando, Florida.

One of the questions that we must grapple with is this – why is our society, and our world, so plauged with violence?  The causes of violence are many, and because they are, I reject the simplistic answers that are so often given.  Orlando was not caused by religion, as some have predictibly stated.  Having said that, however, I believe that all religious communities must think seriously about the words and the language they use when speaking of other groups of people. 

While I believe that it is far too simplistic to state that religion encourages violence, I would say that some religious people sometimes use language about other people that only serves to create an atmosphere in which bigotry not only exists, but also flourishes, and bigotry can lead to hatred and hatred can lead to violence.  Our country is built upon the belief in free speech – and I support free speech – but personally, I will not use langauge that demonizes any individuals or groups, any language that marginalizes them, or any language that contributes to an atmosphere that results in hostility or bigotry and then hide behind the claim that I am simply exercising my free speech.

We must also resist the temptation to return to life as normal.  Our tendency is, after mass killings, to go back to life as it was before.  We weep over Orlando, and rightly so, but the sad reality is that it is not an isolated incident. While it stands out because of the tragic numbers in one violent event, the violence continues, and is often largely unreported, every day in cities and towns across our country.  In 2014, there were 14,249 murders in our country, about 5 times the number that died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.  Over Memorial Day weekend 69 people were shot in Chicago, a city that is reeling from a level of violence that has reached alarming levels.

(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-memorial-day-20160530-story.html). 

Closer to home, in Louisville, from January through April of this year, Louisville experienced 36 murders and 149 shootings, an increase of 44 and 33 percent over the same time period of 2015, which also saw a large increase over the preceding year.  In 2015 Chicago had 468 murders, Baltimore 343, New York 333, Detroit 295, Los Angeles 280, St. Louis 188, and New Orleans 164.  Seven cities, totaling 2,071 victims.  While the large, mass violence grabs our attention, we don’t always hear much about the steady, smaller numbers of everyday violence, but they add up to huge numbers of victims.  The media either overlooks much of this violence or moves on to other stories, and we in turn become preocuppied with other concerns.  After all the pronounciations that things must change, it often seems as though not much actually changes.

On a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, I purchased a rock engraved with the words Never Again.  It’s an important message, but the tragedy of violence is that it does happen again, and again, and again.  Humanity, it seems, is addicted to violence in all its many expressions, and the only alternative, the only answer, is love and not just any love, but the love that is exemplified in the love of God in Christ.

June 17, 2016 From the Shelbyville, KY Sentinel-News, Column Three From the Series on Belief and Unbelief

Note - I write a column for the Shelbyville, Kentucky newspaper, the Sentinel-News, every other Friday.  On June 3rd, the Sentinel began publication of a series of columns about belief and unbelief, written by myself and a member of our community, who is an atheist.  I thought it would be an interesting conversation and I appreciate the Sentinel-News and my co-author for participating.  For the privacy of the other person I am not including their name in the columns as I publish them each week on this site.  Even though the person has publicly agreed to have them published in the Sentinel-News, I am not assuming they want their columns or name published on this site.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances—the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

On October 28, 312, competing Roman emperors Constantine I and Maxentius faced each other in what was to become one of the most significant battles in history, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The night before the battle, Constantine purportedly experienced a vision in which he was told by God:  in this sign conquer. The sign was the Chi Rho symbol, taken from the first two letters of the name Christ, in Greek. Constantine had the symbol inscribed on the shields of his soldiers and, after winning the battle and uniting the divided Empire under his rule, began the process of Christianizing the Roman Empire. In doing so, Constantine set into motion the tangling of church and state in a way that remains powerfully felt throughout Western society.

The history of Europe is replete with historical events that further entangled the relationship of church and state, such as the Peace of Augsburg, in 1555, which instituted the principle of cuius regio, eius religio (in the Prince's land, the Prince's religion), effectively allowing a region’s ruler to determine the religion of the inhabitants. As the United States takes many of its governmental philosophies from Europe, where church and state are so heavily intertwined, it is a rather amazing historical fact that, as a nation, we cultivated a governance that not only allowed for, but encouraged, the separating of church and state.

When speaking of the First Amendment, we should note that the freedom of religion – or from religion – was not a part of the original Constitution but came to us through an amendment. Take note also that the phrase separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution; those words come from a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut, where Jefferson writes, believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

It is easy to imagine that, after completing the phrasing of the First Amendment, the authors sat back and declared that ought to settle it! But as we know, it has done nothing of the sort. While our nation has sought to build into its governance a system that would prevent the difficulties that have plagued Europe, with state churches and the interference of the church in government affairs (and government in church affairs) the history of the United States is one that is inextricably bound to a vibrant history of religious beliefs and practices, many of which spill over into the civic life of our nation.

Americans, historically, are a profoundly religious people, and that sense of religiosity has so pervaded who we are that it is hardly surprising that we developed civil expressions of that faith. It is a uniquely American development that we have what amounts to a civil religion without having a state church. Prayers of invocation and benediction, as well as other religious symbolism, have for years been a routine part of many civil ceremonies, and the acknowledging of our religious heritage, it should be noted, is not the same as a governmental endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court, acknowledging such, upheld the practice of offering invocations at government meetings in a 2014 ruling (which also granted the opportunity for atheists to offer readings, such as the one given by Ms. Allewalt before the Shelbyville City Council meeting on July 17, 2014). While the Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the permissibility of prayer at civic functions, it did not, however, fully answer the question of what amounts to the establishment or prohibition of religion, and that is a vexing question that will never be adequately answered.

We can, however, make a few affirmations with some sense of certainty, I believe. We can say that, in spite of what many would claim to the contrary, America is not a Christian nation, at least not in the sense that our government has made an official declaration to such an end. That does not in any way denigrate or minimize the religious convictions of millions of Americans. It is simply more correct, I believe, to say that we are a nation of many religious people and that both our founding and our subsequent history were profoundly influenced by faith, and to argue against the religious heritage and history of our nation is to ignore some very basic facts and truths about American history. The Christian faith, in particular, has been such a part of the fabric of our nation’s history that it has become the presumptive national religion, leading to the oft-repeated claim that America is a Christian nation.

We can also affirm that religion belongs in the public square, in spite of the mistaken belief of some that the separation of church and state means that religion is to be relegated solely to the realm of one’s private life or confined to the interior of a place of worship. The heart of our democracy is the freedom of every perspective to be represented in the public square, including religion. Nevertheless, people of faith must tread carefully when it comes to the relationship of church and state. It does faith no favors to be state-supported, as it would only rob faith of its self-perpetuating vitality. Religion in America has prospered because it functions as a free-market enterprise:  It either sinks or swims on its own merits and not because any of its expressions enjoy the status of a state church.

June 10, 2016 From the Shelbyville, KY Sentinel-News, Column Two from the Series on Belief and Unbelief

Note - I write a column for the Shelbyville, Kentucky newspaper, the Sentinel-News, every other Friday.  On June 3rd, the Sentinel began publication of a series of columns about belief and unbelief, written by myself and a member of our community, who is an atheist.  I thought it would be an interesting conversation and I appreciate the Sentinel-News and my co-author for participating.  For the privacy of the other person I am not including their name in the columns as I publish them each week on this site.  Even though the person has publicly agreed to have them published in the Sentinel-News, I am not assuming they want their columns or name published on this site.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else – C. S. Lewis

Why do people believe what they believe?  The answer to that question is not as simple as one might think.

I included the quote by C. S. Lewis at the top of this column because his words are more than a declaration of his foundational belief about life; they bear testimony to the fact that every person has a lens through which they view the world and everything that happens in life. That lens is a powerful force that shapes and determines the manner in which we come to understand and perceive the nature of reality itself.

It is the understanding that we all see the world through a particular lens that we must use as a starting point in the conversation about belief. This lens, through which we view all things, comes to us through our environment and our experiences. I understand and view life in a particular way, for instance, because of the time period and part of the country in which I was raised. Coming of age in the 60s and 70s, when there was a greater sense of hope and optimism in our country, was a factor in bringing me to see the world through a more positive and optimistic lens. Those who come of age in our present world context, presumably, might be more likely to have a pessimistic view of life and the world. The point is, all of us have many influences and experiences that shape the lens of our lives and that lens comes to us early in life and generally without our awareness.

As we age, and move into greater self-awareness, we also become more aware of the lens through which we see life, and we sometimes make a more conscious decision to alter that lens, and this is what I would call the action of choosing a narrative by which we live. A narrative is different from a lens. A lens comes to us by our environment, our social and historical context, our experiences, and many other factors, making it more of an unconscious state of being. A narrative, in contrast, is a way of looking at life that is very much a conscious decision. A lens, in contrast to a narrative, would be the faith that we inherit from our family, while a narrative is the choice we make at some point in life about what we will do with that faith, such as whether we continue to accept it as is, adapt it, or reject it.

This leads us to what is, in my opinion, one of the great fallacies of atheism, which is that one becomes somehow – almost magically – more objective and rational when one chooses the narrative of disbelief, as contrasted to the perceived unobjectivity and irrationality of belief. Changing the narrative by which we live, such as from belief to unbelief, does not make one more objective; it simply provides a different lens through which we see the world. Unbelief, however much it might claim, does not necessarily make one more rational; it simply replaces one lens with another, so that one then sees life and the world through a different set of assumptions and suppositions.

It is for this reason that I would reject the idea that anyone is a so-called free thinker, a term often favored by those operating out of the narrative of unbelief. Because we are all shaped by environment and experiences, it is simply not possible that anyone is able to think freely of their influences. The truth is that even when one changes the narrative by which he lives his life it means he is merely trading one intellectual framework for another; there is no inherent guarantee of objectivity or freedom from intellectual bias. Coming to this realization allows us to understand how one particular point of view might seem so perfectly reasonable, obvious, and true to one person and yet totally unreasonable, unclear, and false to someone else. Free-thinking, then, is an oxymoron, as every belief occurs within a context, and our own beliefs are shaped and molded in ways of which we are unaware.  My faith may be an integral part of my life because that was the way I was raised, and the same can be said of unbelief.

Do I believe in God because I made a totally rational choice? Not really. Does an atheist reject belief in God because he makes a totally rational choice? Not really. It is more accurate, I believe, to say that we do not make a rational choice so much as we try to rationalize the choice we have made. If I had been born in another place or time my decision might have been different. Am I a Christian because of my culture and my family? Certainly that has played a role in shaping my beliefs. Would I be a Muslim had I been raised in the Middle East? Would I be an atheist had I been raised in China? There is, of course, no way to know for sure, and most people would protest that they would have made the same set of choices about belief regardless of their place of origin, but I believe it is certain that our choices and our thinking processes do not happen in a vacuum, so let us put aside this irrational idea that we are always dealing in rationality.

We all wear glasses whose lenses are tinted by a particular perspective, and anyone who denies this fact of human existence is either poorly informed or willfully ignorant. It matters not how “rational” one purports to be; the reality is that as human beings we have built-in biases, which are ingrained in us in ways we do not always recognize or understand; and our supposed “rationality” can in no way free us from those biases.  All we do, really, is change one set of lenses – or biases – for another. At least that’s what I believe.

June 3, 2016 From the Shelbyville, KY Sentinel-News, Column One in the Series on Belief and Unbelief

Note - I write a column for the Shelbyville, Kentucky newspaper, the Sentinel-News, every other Friday.  On June 3rd, the Sentinel began publication of a series of columns about belief and unbelief, written by myself and a member of our community, who is an atheist.  I thought it would be an interesting conversation and I appreciate the Sentinel-News and my co-author for participating.  For the privacy of the other person I am not including their name in the columns as I publish them each week on this site.  Even though the person has publicly agreed to have them published in the Sentinel-News, I am not assuming they want their columns or name published on this site.

It would be quite the understatement to say that we live in a time of great division. As a society, we live along clearly demarcated lines of politics, race, income, education, and other differentiating features. In recent years we have witnessed the rise of another area of division, one that touches on some of the most fundamental questions of our humanity – the division between belief and unbelief.

This column marks the first in a series of joint columns presented on the topic of belief and unbelief, and the growing division between these two perspectives. About a year ago, I queried Todd Martin, editor of the Sentinel-News, about the possibility of a series of columns on this topic, by two writers, each of whom would come at the topic from very different perspectives. I appreciate very much that Mr. Martin was both accepting and accommodating of the idea and was generous in offering space in the paper. With his approval, I then approached...and asked that...serve as the author of the columns to be written from the side of unbelief. ...is well-known to the readers of the Sentinel-News, both for ... letters to the editor and My Word columns that appear from time to time in the newspaper. My reason for asking ... to take part in this endeavor originates from an association we shared in 2006, when we were both selected as Forum Fellows with the Courier-Journal newspaper. As part of a group of about two dozen, ... and I were also placed in a smaller group of three people, and it was in that capacity that we began to share conversations about our very different beliefs, and in the years since then we have continued the conversation about our respective beliefs.

After publication of this introductory column, ... and I will follow with columns, published simultaneously, on four topics – 1. The nature of belief. 2. The relationship between church and state. 3. Common objections to both belief and unbelief, and 4. The relationship between science and faith. Neither ... nor I will see the other’s columns until they are published in the paper and, after the appearance of these four columns, we will each write a final one, offering a response to what the other has written. This type of approach, it seemed to me, would make our writing more of a discussion than a debate. Our society could use, I believe, more discussions and fewer debates.

My hope, through the weeks these columns are presented, is to bridge the wide gap that often exists between believers and unbelievers. Though we are all aware that discussing religion – or the lack thereof – can be a contentious topic, it is becoming ever more critical that we learn to speak across this divide and endeavor to understand one another’s perspectives. In doing so, my hope is that we can transcend the common, and sometimes offensive, stereotypes, which far too often dictate the conversations.

Both sides of this discussion remind me, at times, of an old joke about a politician who had written in the margin of his speech:  weak point; be sure to pound podium hard and speak loudly. From both sides of the belief/unbelief continuum we hear a good deal of pompous pontifications – which might play well to their respective choirs – but offer little in terms of careful consideration and thoughtful insight. Too often, there is an abundance of arrogance careening back and forth in the debate about God’s existence, religion, and the attendant topics. I do not like the ridicule and dismissiveness that too often come from both sides, as neither of these attitudes constitutes a real or persuasive argument but serves merely as proof that a meaningful argument is lacking. Comparing, for instance, the belief in God with a belief in Santa Claus seems, I’m sure, like a powerful statement to rebut belief, but strikes me as shallow and uninformed about the true nature of belief and faith. Likewise, slogans such as I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist ignores the fact that there are some points that ought to be carefully considered from the unbelieving end of the spectrum. Honest, genuine critique I can respect, such as it exists.  In its place is, too often, ridicule, as if that is all that can make a point, or because discussion and respectful debate fail to have the desired effect.

As a person of faith, I consider it critical to seek to understand other viewpoints, especially those very different from mine, and atheism is a perspective a long way from my own. As ... and I present our points of view, I believe the entire discussion of belief and unbelief, and all of its related issues, comes down to one primary question – does God exist? That question is not determined by which side has the strongest argument, the best catchphrases, the greatest reasoning, or any other factor. The entire question rests upon whether or not God exists, and his existence is not predicated upon how strongly we believe, or disbelieve; it rests upon whether or not God’s existence is true, and every other question about faith, religion, and belief flows from that one question. It matters not how much I believe – or how much someone else disbelieves; it only matters what is true. God either exists, or He does not.

As the readers, you will agree or disagree or believe we make a valid or invalid point based most likely not on what we write, but upon what you already believe. No one among us is absolutely objective, no matter how much we believe our perspective might make us so. I certainly hope that we hear from you, the readers, over the course of this discussion, and that you are brought to think about what you believe.

May 29, 2016 The Abundant Life: Hope

Last Sunday we began a three-message series called The Abudant Life, taken from John 10:10, where Jesus says I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly (NASV).  The series forms around the foundational values of the Christian faith – faith, hope, and love.

Today we will consider hope, which is a fitting topic for Memorial Day, I believe.  If you have visited Washington, DC, you have most likely visited some of the memorials erected to those we honor on Memorial Day. It was a very moving experience for me to visit the Vietnam War Memorial, and to search for a name of a childhood friend.  To scan across the incredible number of names etched into the granite is very powerful.

It is right to honor those who have passed on and for us, as well, to think about our future resurrection.  To have certainty about resurrection is possible because of the gift of hope.  As we consider hope this mornng, we will turn to a Scripture text that comes from a time early in the history of the church.

Not long after Pentecost, in the earliest pages of the book of Acts, Peter and John were walking to the temple for afternoon prayers when they encountered a man who was crippled from birth.  Each day someone would help the man get to his spot at one of the temple gates in order for him to beg for some assistance from those who entered the temple.

Listen as Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, tells the story –

1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer.

2 And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple.

3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms.

4 But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, “Look at us!”

5 And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them.

6 But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!”

7 And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened.

8 With a leap he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God;

10 and they were taking note of him as being the one who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple to beg alms, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

How many times in the course of a day, a week, a month, or a year do we begin a sentence with the words I hope…?  This morning, I’ll offer a few points that begin with hope.

Hope is foundational to life

At funerals I sometimes offer the quote that we can live about forty days without food, about three days without water, about eight minutes without air, but only for one second without hope.  Hope provides a promise that we have the possibility of overcoming some of the most difficult circumstances and problems that life brings our way, and, at the end of life and all of its struggles, we transition to a new life where God will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old  order of things has passed away (Revelation 21:4).  I love the image of that passage of Scripture, which offers the picture of a parent, kneeling down beside their child to wipe away their tears after suffering an injury.

Peter and John did something that most people do not do when asked for money – most people look away, avoiding eye contact with the person who asks.  It’s easier to refuse a request for help when you aren’t looking at a person, I presume, but Luke (the writer of Acts) makes the point to say that both Peter and John looked straight at him (verse 4).

The man, I imagine, was hopeful that they would give him some money, and was probably disappointed with their initial response.  Peter said I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!  Whatever gift the man was expecting, healing was certainly not it.  Overjoyed, Luke says the man followed Peter and John into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God (verse 8).  Those who were in the temple that day were amazed to see this man healed, and the dramatic moment was one among many that helped to spur the rapid growth of the church.

The man who was healed by Peter had most certainly given up hope that his life could change in any meaningful way.  Living in a time period when health care was very limited, even to those with the financial means to afford it, meant that any medical solution was beyond the boundaries of even the wildest of hopes, so it is easy to understand his joyous reaction.  Never in his wildest dreams could he have conceived that he would walk.

Peter was one who often gave hope to others, not just the man who was healed in this passage.  In I Peter 1:3-9 he writes, 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls. 

As we depend upon hope, we can instill hope in others.

The positioning of the man who receives healing is significant.  He is outside of the temple, and once healed, he is able to walk into the temple on his own.  It’s great that he was healed, and it’s wonderful that he was made whole, but we should not forget that many people walked by him as he sat at that gate every day.  He was literally on the doorstep of the church, begging for a bit of help, which, if it came at all, came a few small coins at a time.

Need comes right to the doorstep of the church.  We don’t have to go looking for need; it is always at our feet and at our doorstep.  It is always in front of us, we are always surrounded by need.

I assume there is also some symbolism in the fact that he only came into the temple once he was healed.  I fear that some people believe they must become whole in some way before coming to church.  There is a misnomer among some people that they are not good enough or that their lives are not together enough.  I have heard many people, throughout my years of ministry, say they will come to church when they get their lives together or when they solve all of their problems.  Nothing could be further from the truth!

But we must also remember that not all beggars appear to be beggars.  Some beggars work in corner offices on the top floor of office buildings.  Some beggars wear $1,000 suits.  Some beggars live in beautiful, expensive subdivisions.  In one way or another, we are all beggars, in need of God’s grace and, certainly, his hope.

The treasure of the gospel is the hope we are offered.  Peter and John might not have had any silver or gold, but they certainly had a great treasure as they offered hope.

There is also a contagious quality to hope.  The people in the temple, seeing that the man had been healed, were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him (verse 10).  There was a sense among the people of the possibility of their own hopes being realized.

Hope is the foundation of faith.

One of the reasons why faith, hope, and love are grouped together is because they are building blocks for each other, and are tied together in inextricable ways.

An interesting aspect of the digital age is the ability to connect to people from around the world.  I recently became linked to someone in Kenya, and he invited me to read some things he had written, and I want to read a portion of one of his writings to you this morning.  It is part of a longer piece, and in the portion I’ll read is some of his description about his upbringing, which was very impoverished –

Poverty is nothing to wish for; it’s vexing, afflicting, desperate and (an) unpleasant state and without great passion, the zeal to succeed and lofty ambitions, it may shatter dreams.

Poverty is an anathema; an oppressive ruler with (an) iron fist: It’s stressful and energy-sapping like drudgery. It’s as difficult as it sounds.

However, I’m grateful for my pain and suffering because there is nothing that has helped me to understand the fleeting beauty of life more than these. They also inspired in me the wonderful zeal for knowledge that I have and the call to uplift others.

I remain devoted and this makes me impregnable to the vicissitudes of life. My faith and firm Belief in GOD will never be shipwrecked.

https://shemhope.wordpress.com/

What a declaration of hope! Praise God for the hope he offers!  Declare hope in your life today!