You May be Tempted

to Give Up on God

Lent 3C  March 7, 2010

It is possible for us to change our minds, to reverse course. An atheist was rowing at the lake, when suddenly the Loch Ness monster attacked and grabbed him from his boat. He panicked and shouted "God help me!", and suddenly, the monster and everything around him just stopped. A voice from the heavens boomed "You say you don't believe in me, but now you are asking for my help?" The atheist looked up and said: "Well, Lord, ten seconds ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster either!"

Today is the third sermon in the series on unusual temptations. The first Sunday, we talked about the temptation of fall in love with our own misery & victimhood. Last Sunday, we discussed the temptation to equate thinking with believing. Today, we will attempt to tackle the temptation to give up on God. This temptation comes in at least two forms: the temptation to give up intellectually on the idea of God's existence and, second, to give up spiritually on one's relationship with God. With respect to the first temptation, we should begin by acknowledging that the debate concerning God's existence has been raging among the most brilliant minds in the West for at least 2500 years. However, the recent popularity of writers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Paul Kurt, all of whom write under the banner of atheism, says something important about our current thinking on this subject. These men offer a long list of criticisms directed at religion and Christianity, many of which are legitimate and serious and many which are not.

I would like to point to one area of discussion that seems to be growing in scope and volume and that is the question of the origin of human consciousness. Debate about this began over 2000 years ago, but it has taken on new vigor with the rise of the neurosciences. The question is increasingly being asked, how does a non-material consciousness arise out of a material universe and is it rational & necessary to suggest that only a non-material (mental, spiritual or transcendent) reality can account for such consciousness? Must God exist to explain human consciousness or, given enough time, will research in neurobiology, neurochemistry and other branches of the physical sciences eventually provide a completely physical explanation of that which currently appears to be non-material? And if the existence of God is unnecessary to explain consciousness, then how is the concept of God necessary? I think the drum-beat in the world heralds a march away from theism, as we have known it, and toward the faith claim that says there is no one or nothing beyond the physical universe.  And so,you may be tempted to give up on the existence of God because it appears that science may be rendering such existence as unnecessary.

Second, you may be tempted to give up on a very personal relationship with God that has been quite real to you up until now because the amount of suffering you have witnessed and/or experienced seems irreconcilable with your expectations and understanding of God.  The question of suffering is one of the greatest challenges to our faith in the living God. When we are watching someone we love dying of cancer; when we are losing our home or life savings - assets which represent a lifetime of work and struggle - because of change in the economy; when we are experiencing some type of painful chronic illness or humiliating failure; when we are suffering it is hard to reconcile our pain and anguish with our understanding of God, with our experience of God as loving. How can God be all-knowing, all powerful and absolutely good and loving and yet stand by while millions are starved, beaten, tortured, shot or gassed to death? And so, we may be tempted to give up on God because God does not do what we think God should do, that is, stop the work of evil, violence and disease in our world.

I believe in God, that is, I have faith, trust, confidence in the existence of God. Why? First, because I have had and continue to have experiences of a love that seems to come to me from somewhere beyond my human relationships and my own making. When I open the Bible and hear words of love, covenant, connection and hope, I sense a kind of loving energy unlike any other experience. When I read the stories about the love and courage of Jesus, something in me says, "Yes, that is the love of God being made real in the world, that is the kind of life and the kind of love I am called to express in my life!" When I enter any sacred space, I sense a holy and loving presence. When I worship with you, I feel an energy, a love, a sacred presence I simply cannot explain other than to say, "Thank You!" So, when I am tempted to give up on God, I recall the times - most very quiet and subtle - when I have experienced the presence of a love, an energy, a life-force, a sacredness I know as God.

Second, I do not give up on my relationship with God in the face of science's progress for two reasons: (1) Einstein wrote that the more he learned about the complexity of the universe, the deeper was his awe and respect for the Creator. For me, the scope and complexity of the universe serve as a witness to the power and majesty of a power, a reality far beyond human comprehension and, certainly, human mastery.  (2) I recognize some of the limits of science. I understand science as a method by which the mechanics of the creation are being mapped and described, but not one capable of answering the fundamental questions of why.  To my atheist friends who seem to want to make science into a religion, I urge the adoption of the same humility that I would commend to any religious person claiming to have the corner on truth and wisdom. Science is wonderful, powerful and, when used humanely, a blessing and, it is equally true to say, science is based upon a set of presuppositions about reality and assumptions about truth that are, in essence, expressions of faith. Therefore, scientism and naturalism are both faith systems.

Finally, when I am tempted to give up on God because of suffering, I remember something Robert Capon once wrote; that Jesus is the kind of savior who comes to you as your boat is sinking in the middle of a vast ocean, sits down and drowns with you. Our God does not seem interested in rescuing us from pain, but instead meets us where we are, sits with us, and experiences the agony with us while holding us in his arms. I choose to believe in God because my experience of the Sacred is one of healing presence and reunion in a world of brokenness and separation. I choose to believe in God because science without heart brings us such things as the atomic bomb and the destruction of our environment. I choose to believe because believing in the God who lives in you, me and our home, the Earth, is essential for our health, happiness and hope.  AMEN.  

Let Us Agree to Differentiate Between Thinking & Believing

Lent 2C  Feb. 28, 2010

A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, "Religion?" The man says, "Hindu." St. Peter looks down his list, and says, "Go to room 24, but be very quiet as you pass room 8." Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. "Religion?" "Buddhist." "Go to room 18, but be very quiet as you pass room 8."A third man arrives at the gates. "Religion?" "Jewish." "Go to room 11, but be very quiet as you pass room 8." The man says, "I can understand there being different rooms for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass room 8?" St. Peter tells him, "Well the Baptists are in room 8, and they think they're the only ones here."

You may recall that last week, in response to the Gospel story of the temptations of Jesus, we began a 5 week series on temptations that most North American Christians face, but seldom acknowledge & discuss. Last week we talked about the temptation to fall in love with our own woundedness, our own victimhood. Today we are going to tackle the temptation to equate thinking & believing. Next Sunday, we are going to look at the temptation to give up on God.  I have one sister, Brenda and she has been, for the last 30 years, one of my best friends. We love each other, talk regularly, and more often than not, share vacations together. But we have taken very different paths religiously. Ed & Brenda are very devoted, active members of Calvary Chapel just outside of Raleigh, N.C. Calvary Chapel is a fundamentalist Christian community that, to its credit, has become successfully racially integrated. Brenda reads and studies her Bible everyday and takes it all quite literally.

Five & a half years ago, my sister and I were walking down main street in Park City.  We had been talking about a wide range of subjects, but none had much to do with religion or theology. I do not remember how, but we started talking about what the Bible says about sexuality, in general, and homosexuality, in particular. I launched in with my usual bit about context, the need to understand ancient tribal attitudes, the inconsistencies in some of the arguments made against the acceptance of gay people and the importance being open to reexamining embedded assumptions. Then, at some point during my rambling, I noticed that my sister was no longer by my side. I turned around to look for her. She was standing about 15 feet behind me sobbing.  I approached her and asked what was wrong. She said, with tears running down her cheeks, "Charlie, if what you are telling me is true, then what I have believed my whole life has been a lie......don't ever talk to me about this again!!"

Tuesday morning, quite by accident, I caught the last few minutes of a Q & A session taking place at Princeton University between Andrew Sullivan, noted conservative and currently Editor of "Atlantic Monthly" and his audience. In answer to a question about the progress being made in neuroscience and the potential for that progress to positively impact prejudice and bigotry, Mr. Sullivan spoke at length of the spread of fundamentalism throughout the globe, religious and political, in the face of just such progress. He suggested that questioning, exploration and change seem to evoke enormous fear in many and this fear breeds mistrust, polarization and violence. This is why, as Jesus in today's Gospel makes plain, Jerusalem had a habit of killing its prophets.

What lies at the root of religious divisiveness, religious demonization of those who are different, and religious violence? I would like to suggest that a principle reason there are, according to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), 33,820 different Christian denominations, 33,000 separate Christian groups who see themselves as having the correct form of Christianity and, in many cases, think they cannot be in communion with the others lest they be contaminated in some way is because Christianity has failed to differentiate thinking from believing. And because we have not developed a clear boundary between our use of "to think" vs "to believe," the concept of faith or "the faith" gets confusing as well. This began to occur to me after reading a chapter in Marcus Borg's book, The Heart of Christianity. In his chapter entitled, "Faith: the Way of the Heart," he makes the following point: the latin word "credo," translated "I believe" historically meant "I give my heart to" and not "I hereby agree with the literal-factual truth of the following statement." In other words, at the core to the idea of believing is the notion of a heart-felt relationship. Now, notice the following definitions from Dictionary.com: (1) think: to have a conscious mind capable of reasoning, remembering experiences and making rational choices; to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation; to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.; (2) believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so; to have confidence in the assertions of another; to have a conviction; to suppose or assume; to be persuaded of the truth or existence of.

Notice that, while "think" and "believe" are closely related, there is an important difference between them. Thinking seems to be understood to be an analytical, logical, reason-oriented process in which there need not be any kind of personal relationship between the thinker and the object under consideration. To think about something implies no personal connection, conviction or commitment. Believing, however, seems to have a personal dimension. Believing seems to contain the seed of relationship, of participating in such activities as trusting, being committed to, seeing the other as reliable and having confidence in the other. Here is my question: what would become of religious wars and conflicts, of the splits currently taking place in our own Anglican Communion if the Christian community worldwide would simply agree to differentiate between believing in, that is, having a personal relationship with, having deep trust and faith in God AND thinking critically about the history, language, concepts and assumptions ABOUT God? What would happen if we stopped mixing thinking with believing, critical analysis with love and devotion, debate of the concepts with trust and commitment to the person? What would happen if we all recognized that we cannot have a personal relationship with statements and doctrines, but only with the living God? Therefore, to refuse "to give one's heart to" doctrines and dogma, theologies and descriptive statements about God is very different from refusing to give one's heart, refusing to fall in love with the object of all those descriptive statements, that is, with God. Have we killed any prophets lately?  Been tempted to equate thinking with believing?  AMEN.