My decision to support ordination for gays and lesbians came over a period of years with a variety of conversations and experiences, conjoined with study, thought and prayer.
I am a committed follower of Jesus Christ and a faithful student of the Bible – that is not in question, nor should it ever be questioned; nor will I ever question the faith or faithfulness of those who see this matter differently than I do.
All theology is autobiographical – more so, I think, then we prefer to admit, because we want to believe that our take on things is somehow closer to the truth, more faithful to Christ, and more purely founded – the proverbial game of one upsmanship – my Bible verse is bigger and better than your Bible verse – my theology is more faithful to the traditions than your theology, or my theology is more relevant than yours – we all like to trump one another.
I was ordained in January, 1970, and I read my first GA study on the question before us in 1976, and from that moment to now, we have engaged in a pretty thoughtful process – sometimes marred by rancor and the typical ad hominem arguments wherein we discredit the person rather than dealing with their convictions. Accusation and condemnation have sometimes been hurled thoughtlessly; the threat of leaving, of course, has been used by everyone. In our worst moments, we all believe that the eye can say to the hand, I have no need of you.
Western Christianity tends to think in either/or categories, which mean there has to be victors and the vanquished, or the orthodox and the heretical, the faithful and the apostate. It’s difficult for us to think and live in both/and categories, which is likely closer to the reality and wonder of God than our typical linear thinking.
Our own history has been less than sterling … since 1893, when C. Augusus Briggs was suspended from the ministry and Union Theological Seminary subsequently severed its ties with the Presbyterian Church, and then in 1929, when J. Gresham Machen founded Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, and who was later suspended in 1935, we’ve been locked in a see-saw battle for the church. Machen went on to form the “Orthodox” Presbyterian Church, which, of course, means that the remaining body wasn’t orthodox. We’ve seen the formation of the “Evangelical” Presbyterian Church, which also implies that the remaining body isn’t evangelical. I’ve always been grateful for the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America – they’ve never used their name to trump other Presbyterians.
But this only reflects what I call a near-fatal flaw in Reformed thought – we believe we can nail the truth down in our confessions and our rulings, and if only we can quote the right verses of Scripture, and do the needed exegesis, and then shout them loudly enough to one another, and failing that, to cite statistics and the latest findings of sociology and psychology. From the heady days of the Reformation in Geneva through Old School and New School, New Light and Old Light, it’s been a running gun battle, and I wonder about the long-term implications – the casualties have been high on both sides, and I believe our witness to the world has been compromised.
I give thanks for so many who have conducted this debate with respect and humility … no one here can out-Christian the other … no one can claim the high moral ground or hurl one more Scripture grenade – since the mid-70s, we’ve said it all, we’ve done it all, we’ve hurt and been hurt by one another – meanwhile the casualty list continues to grow and the world questions our integrity and value all the more.
I am not a reprobate, though some have said so.
Nor am I a heretic, though some have labeled me as such.
Nor am I apostate, those some have called me so.
I love the LORD Jesus – he is my Savior.
God has been with all my life, and some of my earliest childhood recollections are of God’s presence, in whom I have always found comfort and safety.
I was reared in a Christian family and enjoyed the influence of faithful pastors and strong congregations.
To Christ I belong in faith and practice, in body and soul, in life and in death.
He is my only comfort.
I am faithful to the Bible and it’s chorus of voices.
I am a sinner saved by grace.
I am a pastor of the Presbyterian Church, and I have sought throughout the years to honor the church of my ordination with the best I can give.
I have sought to honor my colleagues … to engage in debate and restrain my worst impulses … I have sought to understand myself and how my life has unfolded, and how the values I hold and the faith that holds me has emerged over the years.
So where do we go from here?
It’s not likely that I’ll forgo my commitment to opening the door of ordination for my friends in the GLBT community … and I will continue to strive for an open door policy in our state and our nation.
Some of my sisters and brothers will continue their stance, too – to honor ordination as they see it – that practicing gays and lesbians cannot be ordained, but only those who practice celibacy.
So where do we go from here?
The only course left to us, the only thing we have beyond what the world might offer, is love – agape – the highest ethical commitment to one another, above and beyond specific loyalties and faith-stances.
Without love, we’re just another bunch of ideologues … no different than a squabbling PTA or a condo association.
We may have all kinds of faith and knowledge, but without love, they are nothing.
For knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
I don’t know how it’ll go …
What does grace mean here and now for us?
What does it mean to walk humbly with our God and to think of others as better than ourselves?
I don’t know …
May God have mercy upon us … upon our beloved Presbyterian Church and the Presbytery of the Pacific, and may the Holy Spirit give us good eyes – eyes to see one another in a kindly light – that we are all sisters and brothers of one another through our LORD Jesus Christ, saved by grace, and not of works, lest anyone should boast, all for the glory of God and the wellbeing of God’s world.
So help me God – here I stand … I can do no other.
Thomas P. Eggebeen
May 12, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Homosexuality, Christians and Some Thoughts
The following was written May 1 for a Facebook discussion.
Fascinating discussion on all fronts … It’s always helpful when Christians recognize one another in their self-affirmation. If I say “I’m an advocate for the GLBT community” and “I’m a Christian, “no one else can judge that, because that is precisely the kind of judging against which Jesus warns us.
Thus, the conversation is shifted from any effort to discredit one another at the faith-level of life; rather, we have to admit the complexity of the Christian family – people of good faith read the Text differently, and given the wide latitude of the last 2000 years of interpretation and living, we have to back off a bit and give each other the benefit of the doubt, while refusing to claim the high moral ground for our own views. It’s a matter of humility.
As for sexual surgery, why not? Should we then not fix cleft palettes? Or remove an infected appendix? A case can be made that cleft palettes are God’s will, for they were determined in the womb, maybe even genetically. And why remove the appendix; it may just be God’s will.
Lots of laws in the Bible – in the Jewish Bible, 613 of them – commandments, including prohibitions on eating shellfish and wearing garments made of two types of cloth.
In addition, unruly children should be stoned, along with all sorts of guidelines for sacrifice and incense.
In the NT, the specific intent of Paul’s few passages are not entirely clear. And one has to note, with some degree of appreciation, homosexual practice is never mentioned by Jesus. Fortunately, there’s been some great work done by a very respectable theologian, the Rev. Dr. Jack Rogers (see his book, now in a brand new edition, “Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality). Jack comes from an evangelical background and through careful studies and prayer, he came to his present position of advocacy.
The few Bible passages under consideration are not a clear-cut case by any stretch. Overall, it’s very difficult to build an ethic of exclusion on such a limited number of passages that are genuinely open to varying interpretations. On the other hand, the overwhelming numbers of passages that speak of welcome and mercy, kindness and love, must surely have the greater voice.
Marriage is not the be-all and the end-all of life. In heaven, there will be no marriage. Paul wasn’t married and actively encouraged others to forgo it, unless, of course, they couldn’t contain their desires. Neither was Jesus married, and he went so far as to redefine his own family as those who hear and do the will of God.
As for Sodom and Gomorrah, it’s all about their lack of hospitality, and their desire to use sexual humiliation for the strangers in their midst – think of prison and how sex is used as domination. And nowhere else in the Bible is Sodom used as illustration of sexual perversity.
All the fuss that was made about those who couldn’t be priests – physical imperfections and sexual damage – Isaiah and Jesus both say, “enough of this!”
Surely to be a Christian is believe in Jesus Christ and follow his commandments – and what is that, but to love God deeply and with the same kind of love, to love their neighbor. It’s love that stands at the heart of Jesus’ vision for the new community, and vast is the number of those who seek and live his love, albeit imperfectly, and in a thousand different ways.
It’s so hard to admit our commonality in Christ; it is the human instinct, it is sin, that compels us to draw boundaries and divide one from the other, claiming the high moral ground – “My Bible verse is bigger and better than yours.” “My love of Jesus is bigger and better than yours.” “My sense of social justice is bigger and better than yours.” When will this madness stop?
It’s easy to divide and love those of our own kind, but Jesus questions that kind of love – anyone can do that. Rather, real love is to love “the enemy” – real or perceived – the one who doesn’t belong to our circle.
I’ve written way too much … this and $4 gets me a cup of coffee at Starbucks!
Blessing and Joy, and let us be kind and welcoming to one another, and unlike the folks of Sodom, let’s not humiliate the stranger in our midst.
Enough of our fixation on sexual orientation. There’s a real place for everyone at the Table of the LORD.
Fascinating discussion on all fronts … It’s always helpful when Christians recognize one another in their self-affirmation. If I say “I’m an advocate for the GLBT community” and “I’m a Christian, “no one else can judge that, because that is precisely the kind of judging against which Jesus warns us.
Thus, the conversation is shifted from any effort to discredit one another at the faith-level of life; rather, we have to admit the complexity of the Christian family – people of good faith read the Text differently, and given the wide latitude of the last 2000 years of interpretation and living, we have to back off a bit and give each other the benefit of the doubt, while refusing to claim the high moral ground for our own views. It’s a matter of humility.
As for sexual surgery, why not? Should we then not fix cleft palettes? Or remove an infected appendix? A case can be made that cleft palettes are God’s will, for they were determined in the womb, maybe even genetically. And why remove the appendix; it may just be God’s will.
Lots of laws in the Bible – in the Jewish Bible, 613 of them – commandments, including prohibitions on eating shellfish and wearing garments made of two types of cloth.
In addition, unruly children should be stoned, along with all sorts of guidelines for sacrifice and incense.
In the NT, the specific intent of Paul’s few passages are not entirely clear. And one has to note, with some degree of appreciation, homosexual practice is never mentioned by Jesus. Fortunately, there’s been some great work done by a very respectable theologian, the Rev. Dr. Jack Rogers (see his book, now in a brand new edition, “Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality). Jack comes from an evangelical background and through careful studies and prayer, he came to his present position of advocacy.
The few Bible passages under consideration are not a clear-cut case by any stretch. Overall, it’s very difficult to build an ethic of exclusion on such a limited number of passages that are genuinely open to varying interpretations. On the other hand, the overwhelming numbers of passages that speak of welcome and mercy, kindness and love, must surely have the greater voice.
Marriage is not the be-all and the end-all of life. In heaven, there will be no marriage. Paul wasn’t married and actively encouraged others to forgo it, unless, of course, they couldn’t contain their desires. Neither was Jesus married, and he went so far as to redefine his own family as those who hear and do the will of God.
As for Sodom and Gomorrah, it’s all about their lack of hospitality, and their desire to use sexual humiliation for the strangers in their midst – think of prison and how sex is used as domination. And nowhere else in the Bible is Sodom used as illustration of sexual perversity.
All the fuss that was made about those who couldn’t be priests – physical imperfections and sexual damage – Isaiah and Jesus both say, “enough of this!”
Surely to be a Christian is believe in Jesus Christ and follow his commandments – and what is that, but to love God deeply and with the same kind of love, to love their neighbor. It’s love that stands at the heart of Jesus’ vision for the new community, and vast is the number of those who seek and live his love, albeit imperfectly, and in a thousand different ways.
It’s so hard to admit our commonality in Christ; it is the human instinct, it is sin, that compels us to draw boundaries and divide one from the other, claiming the high moral ground – “My Bible verse is bigger and better than yours.” “My love of Jesus is bigger and better than yours.” “My sense of social justice is bigger and better than yours.” When will this madness stop?
It’s easy to divide and love those of our own kind, but Jesus questions that kind of love – anyone can do that. Rather, real love is to love “the enemy” – real or perceived – the one who doesn’t belong to our circle.
I’ve written way too much … this and $4 gets me a cup of coffee at Starbucks!
Blessing and Joy, and let us be kind and welcoming to one another, and unlike the folks of Sodom, let’s not humiliate the stranger in our midst.
Enough of our fixation on sexual orientation. There’s a real place for everyone at the Table of the LORD.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Ordaining Gays and Lesbians
From: Shuck and Jive:
The day after the 87th vote was taken an overture was sent to presbytery en route to the 2010 General Assembly. Here is a news release from Northside Presbyterian Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Ann Arbor, MI – Today, Northside Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA), proposed a new amendment to the denomination’s constitution that would allow the ordination of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) members. This action was taken as a response to the narrow defeat of a similar proposed change that the denomination has been debating during the past year. Northside’s new proposed amendment would allow the ordination of anyone in the denomination whom God has called, regardless of sexual orientation.
Today, a majority of presbyteries, the local governing bodies of the PC(USA), considered, but by a razor-thin margin failed to ratify, a similar amendment to Part II of the denomination’s constitution, The Book of Order. This was the third such vote in the past 12 years. In contrast to those previous votes, this year an unprecedented number of presbyteries reversed their positions and now stand for justice and inclusion for their LGBT members. In spite of today’s setback, with such powerful momentum building for equality in the denomination, Northside Presbyterian believes it is imperative that the struggle for full inclusion in the life and ministry of the PC(USA) continue without delay and so proposes this new amendment.
“We are seeing something today akin to what happened in our denomination in the 1950s with the ordination of women,” said Brian Spolarich, Elder and Clerk of the Session, the governing body of the congregation. “It took over a decade of organizing, and multiple votes for our denomination to get it right, but in the end we recognized the Holy Spirit leading us to draw the circle of leadership more broadly, not more narrowly. I have faith that we will eventually get this one right, too.”
The new proposed amendment will go to the Presbytery of Detroit for action. If approved, it will be sent to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for action in 2010. Then, if approved by the General Assembly, the amendment would require approval from a majority of the 173 presbyteries in order to be ratified.
About Northside Presbyterian Church:
Located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, we are a small, dynamic congregation of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Celebrating our 50th anniversary this year, we attract a diverse membership from all over Southeastern Michigan. In our denomination, the PC(USA), Northside Presbyterian Church takes a stand as a More Light congregation, affirming and celebrating the Spirit’s marvelous gift of diversity in ministry and ordained leadership, welcoming all sexual orientations and gender identities. Find out more about our faith community on our web site, www.NorthsidePres.org.
About More Light Presbyterians:
More Light Presbyterians, the oldest gay rights group in the 2.3 million member Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), works for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the PCUSA. Web site: www.mlp.org
The day after the 87th vote was taken an overture was sent to presbytery en route to the 2010 General Assembly. Here is a news release from Northside Presbyterian Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Ann Arbor, MI – Today, Northside Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA), proposed a new amendment to the denomination’s constitution that would allow the ordination of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) members. This action was taken as a response to the narrow defeat of a similar proposed change that the denomination has been debating during the past year. Northside’s new proposed amendment would allow the ordination of anyone in the denomination whom God has called, regardless of sexual orientation.
Today, a majority of presbyteries, the local governing bodies of the PC(USA), considered, but by a razor-thin margin failed to ratify, a similar amendment to Part II of the denomination’s constitution, The Book of Order. This was the third such vote in the past 12 years. In contrast to those previous votes, this year an unprecedented number of presbyteries reversed their positions and now stand for justice and inclusion for their LGBT members. In spite of today’s setback, with such powerful momentum building for equality in the denomination, Northside Presbyterian believes it is imperative that the struggle for full inclusion in the life and ministry of the PC(USA) continue without delay and so proposes this new amendment.
“We are seeing something today akin to what happened in our denomination in the 1950s with the ordination of women,” said Brian Spolarich, Elder and Clerk of the Session, the governing body of the congregation. “It took over a decade of organizing, and multiple votes for our denomination to get it right, but in the end we recognized the Holy Spirit leading us to draw the circle of leadership more broadly, not more narrowly. I have faith that we will eventually get this one right, too.”
The new proposed amendment will go to the Presbytery of Detroit for action. If approved, it will be sent to the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for action in 2010. Then, if approved by the General Assembly, the amendment would require approval from a majority of the 173 presbyteries in order to be ratified.
About Northside Presbyterian Church:
Located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, we are a small, dynamic congregation of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Celebrating our 50th anniversary this year, we attract a diverse membership from all over Southeastern Michigan. In our denomination, the PC(USA), Northside Presbyterian Church takes a stand as a More Light congregation, affirming and celebrating the Spirit’s marvelous gift of diversity in ministry and ordained leadership, welcoming all sexual orientations and gender identities. Find out more about our faith community on our web site, www.NorthsidePres.org.
About More Light Presbyterians:
More Light Presbyterians, the oldest gay rights group in the 2.3 million member Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), works for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the PCUSA. Web site: www.mlp.org
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Mainline Clergy Going Liberal
Are mainline Protestant Clergy going liberal?
Well, the latest poll results are in, and it seems that mainline clergy are, indeed, going liberal.
In response to this report appearing in the Presbyterian Outlook, I wrote the following:
While some will decry the results, I celebrate them - to be more just, on the one hand, and to freely admit our diversity of thought and belief on the other. For 1500 years, the church traded in “the right answers” - we had them; others didn't, and if you didn't you might lose your head or be burned at the stake. We knew we had the answers – they were in the councils of the church and in the Pope; in the Reformation, we found them in the Bible and enshrined them in our confessions.
But God has been slowly unshackling the church from its self-imprisonment in answers. Answers fail us badly; they divide us, one from the other - "my answer is bigger and better than your answer," and the very moment we craft an answer and spell it with capital letters, we've cast a graven image of God.
We are recovering the original diversity of the Bible - Leviticus to Psalm 23, Deuteronomy to the Song of Songs, from Matthew to John, from Paul to Peter, from James to Revelation, and we're learning the heart and soul of love for the neighbor, the harvest of righteousness (Philippians 1:11, James 3:18) as an outworking of our love for God who shows no partiality (Acts 10:34, James 2:9).
We are learning that the truth of Christ is vastly different than our answers - thus, creating a new humility and a fresh openness. If this be liberalism, God be praised.
Well, the latest poll results are in, and it seems that mainline clergy are, indeed, going liberal.
In response to this report appearing in the Presbyterian Outlook, I wrote the following:
While some will decry the results, I celebrate them - to be more just, on the one hand, and to freely admit our diversity of thought and belief on the other. For 1500 years, the church traded in “the right answers” - we had them; others didn't, and if you didn't you might lose your head or be burned at the stake. We knew we had the answers – they were in the councils of the church and in the Pope; in the Reformation, we found them in the Bible and enshrined them in our confessions.
But God has been slowly unshackling the church from its self-imprisonment in answers. Answers fail us badly; they divide us, one from the other - "my answer is bigger and better than your answer," and the very moment we craft an answer and spell it with capital letters, we've cast a graven image of God.
We are recovering the original diversity of the Bible - Leviticus to Psalm 23, Deuteronomy to the Song of Songs, from Matthew to John, from Paul to Peter, from James to Revelation, and we're learning the heart and soul of love for the neighbor, the harvest of righteousness (Philippians 1:11, James 3:18) as an outworking of our love for God who shows no partiality (Acts 10:34, James 2:9).
We are learning that the truth of Christ is vastly different than our answers - thus, creating a new humility and a fresh openness. If this be liberalism, God be praised.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Creationism in Texas and Other Strange Goings-ons ...
Dear Members and Friends of The Clergy Letter Project,
With the Texas State Board of Education set to act on the state’s science standards later this week, it seems an appropriate time for an update – especially since those endorsing The Clergy Letter have been brought into the controversy. Additionally, there are a number of other issues that should interest you.
1. The Situation in Texas – And the Role of The Clergy Letter Project
The Texas State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on Friday on science standards to be implemented across the state for the next ten years. While the preliminary meeting which took place in January was largely positive, with the Board largely adopting the language recommended by the experts it empanelled, a number of troubling motions that open the door for creationism were introduced at the last minute by the Board’s chair. The actions of the Board are of great importance for all of us, even those of us outside of Texas, because Texas adopts its textbooks at the state level and because they purchase so many texts that publishers edit books to be certain that they are acceptable to the Texas market. So, if creationism enters textbooks in Texas, you can be sure that it will enter textbooks everywhere else in the US. You can read more about the situation at the web site The Clergy Letter Project co-sponsors with the Center for Inquiry (www.teachthemscience.org).
Don McLeroy, the Chair of the Board, is a self avowed creationist. A recent article in The Texas Observer (www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/The%20Texas%20Observer.doc) summarizes McLeroy’s beliefs quite simply: “McLeroy is convinced that teaching evolution leads to atheism. There’s not a lot of room for negotiation in that position.” Obviously, this position is in direct contradiction to what The Clergy Letter stands for!
Interestingly, and somewhat frighteningly, McLeroy has just written an endorsement for a self-published book entitled Sowing Atheism that attacks The Clergy Letter Project and calls the clergy who have signed our Clergy Letters “morons.” The book says, “In my judgment, only morons—more than 11,500 morons in this case—could sign a letter maintaining that the ‘timeless truths of the Bible’ are compatible with the billions of unpredictable aberrations of evo-atheism. What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity’s origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?”
It is exactly this sort of anti-intellectual name calling that The Clergy Letter Project is designed to combat. What a shame that the individual in a position to shape the framework for science teaching in the country for the next decade thinks that such actions are to be supported. You can read more about the situation on a blog written by Ryan Valentine, the Deputy Director of the Texas Freedom Network (http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/what-does-don-mcleroy-really-want-to-teach/).
2. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis Declares Moral Outrage Over an Action He Performed
This item falls well within the dictionary’s definition of hypocrisy! Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis, the group that built the $27 million Creation Museum-cum-theme-park in Kentucky, has recently railed against the BBC for “ambushing” a member of his staff (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/03/21/bbc-radio-and-ambush-journalism/). As you’ll see if you read the link, Ham claims that Jason Lisle was surprised to find that his scheduled interview on the BBC was actually to be a debate with Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. (I’ve not checked with Genie to get her side of the story since it is actually not relevant to the point I’m making here!) Here’s how Ham summarizes the situation: “By the way—the BBC has not responded to our publicist who has challenged them concerning their deception. Then again, for those people who don’t believe in God and there is no absolute authority, not telling the truth and deception would not be ethically wrong—as they have no basis for right and wrong!”
What makes Ham’s complaints so incredibly ironic and hypocritical is that this is exactly what he did to me a year ago. I was scheduled to do an interview last year on a fundamentalist Christian radio show only to discover, upon going on the air, that Ken Ham was also on the line, ready to debate me. When asked why neither the host nor Ken had the courtesy to inform me that I was to participate in a debate rather than in an interview, I was told that they believed that I wouldn’t have accepted their offer had I been told the truth. When I questioned them about the deception, I was told that since the debate was to further God’s wishes, a minor deception of this sort was acceptable.
That’s quite a double standard!
3. Canadian Science Minister Refuses to Discuss Evolution on Religious Grounds
When asked whether he accepts evolution, Gary Goodyear, Canada’s Science Minister refused to answer the question, claiming it pries into his religious beliefs. According to The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home), “’I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,’ Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.”
The response to Goodyear’s comments has been clear. Again, from the same news report: “Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution. ‘The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions,’ he said.”
4. Journal Editor in Turkey Fired for Publishing Story on Darwin
Cigdem Atakuman, the editor of Science and Technology magazine, a state-run publication in Turkey, was fired, according to the Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8i-0AuYSMrEzBR24V6tfdzQcrVAD96S22580), for attempting to run a story about the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species in the magazine. According to the AP, “Atakuman confirmed reports that the publication was stopped at the presses and the article was removed from the issue. Newspapers printed copies of both the original issue and the new issue without the Darwin article.”
5. Evolution Weekend 2010 – Call for Participation
With creationism continuing to spread as noted above, our efforts continue to be important. Although we are far closer to Evolution Weekend 2009 than we are to Evolution Weekend 2010 (12-14 February 2010), I’ve begun to build a list of participants for next year. What’s utterly amazing is that at this early date, we already have 89 congregations from 34 states and 4 countries signed up to participate. Signing up early will help us enormously by permitting us to focus on new congregations. So, please, if you plan to participate next February, let me know by dropping me a note at mz@butler.edu. I plan to post the list of participants in a couple of months. Remember that participation can take any form you think is most appropriate for your congregation – all that matters is that you help elevate the public discourse about the compatibility of religion and science. Please sign up now and please invite friends and colleagues to do the same.
As always, thanks to all of you who have been active in The Clergy Letter Project. Together we are making a difference.
Michael
With the Texas State Board of Education set to act on the state’s science standards later this week, it seems an appropriate time for an update – especially since those endorsing The Clergy Letter have been brought into the controversy. Additionally, there are a number of other issues that should interest you.
1. The Situation in Texas – And the Role of The Clergy Letter Project
The Texas State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on Friday on science standards to be implemented across the state for the next ten years. While the preliminary meeting which took place in January was largely positive, with the Board largely adopting the language recommended by the experts it empanelled, a number of troubling motions that open the door for creationism were introduced at the last minute by the Board’s chair. The actions of the Board are of great importance for all of us, even those of us outside of Texas, because Texas adopts its textbooks at the state level and because they purchase so many texts that publishers edit books to be certain that they are acceptable to the Texas market. So, if creationism enters textbooks in Texas, you can be sure that it will enter textbooks everywhere else in the US. You can read more about the situation at the web site The Clergy Letter Project co-sponsors with the Center for Inquiry (www.teachthemscience.org).
Don McLeroy, the Chair of the Board, is a self avowed creationist. A recent article in The Texas Observer (www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/The%20Texas%20Observer.doc) summarizes McLeroy’s beliefs quite simply: “McLeroy is convinced that teaching evolution leads to atheism. There’s not a lot of room for negotiation in that position.” Obviously, this position is in direct contradiction to what The Clergy Letter stands for!
Interestingly, and somewhat frighteningly, McLeroy has just written an endorsement for a self-published book entitled Sowing Atheism that attacks The Clergy Letter Project and calls the clergy who have signed our Clergy Letters “morons.” The book says, “In my judgment, only morons—more than 11,500 morons in this case—could sign a letter maintaining that the ‘timeless truths of the Bible’ are compatible with the billions of unpredictable aberrations of evo-atheism. What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity’s origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?”
It is exactly this sort of anti-intellectual name calling that The Clergy Letter Project is designed to combat. What a shame that the individual in a position to shape the framework for science teaching in the country for the next decade thinks that such actions are to be supported. You can read more about the situation on a blog written by Ryan Valentine, the Deputy Director of the Texas Freedom Network (http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/what-does-don-mcleroy-really-want-to-teach/).
2. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis Declares Moral Outrage Over an Action He Performed
This item falls well within the dictionary’s definition of hypocrisy! Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis, the group that built the $27 million Creation Museum-cum-theme-park in Kentucky, has recently railed against the BBC for “ambushing” a member of his staff (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/03/21/bbc-radio-and-ambush-journalism/). As you’ll see if you read the link, Ham claims that Jason Lisle was surprised to find that his scheduled interview on the BBC was actually to be a debate with Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. (I’ve not checked with Genie to get her side of the story since it is actually not relevant to the point I’m making here!) Here’s how Ham summarizes the situation: “By the way—the BBC has not responded to our publicist who has challenged them concerning their deception. Then again, for those people who don’t believe in God and there is no absolute authority, not telling the truth and deception would not be ethically wrong—as they have no basis for right and wrong!”
What makes Ham’s complaints so incredibly ironic and hypocritical is that this is exactly what he did to me a year ago. I was scheduled to do an interview last year on a fundamentalist Christian radio show only to discover, upon going on the air, that Ken Ham was also on the line, ready to debate me. When asked why neither the host nor Ken had the courtesy to inform me that I was to participate in a debate rather than in an interview, I was told that they believed that I wouldn’t have accepted their offer had I been told the truth. When I questioned them about the deception, I was told that since the debate was to further God’s wishes, a minor deception of this sort was acceptable.
That’s quite a double standard!
3. Canadian Science Minister Refuses to Discuss Evolution on Religious Grounds
When asked whether he accepts evolution, Gary Goodyear, Canada’s Science Minister refused to answer the question, claiming it pries into his religious beliefs. According to The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home), “’I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,’ Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.”
The response to Goodyear’s comments has been clear. Again, from the same news report: “Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution. ‘The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions,’ he said.”
4. Journal Editor in Turkey Fired for Publishing Story on Darwin
Cigdem Atakuman, the editor of Science and Technology magazine, a state-run publication in Turkey, was fired, according to the Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8i-0AuYSMrEzBR24V6tfdzQcrVAD96S22580), for attempting to run a story about the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species in the magazine. According to the AP, “Atakuman confirmed reports that the publication was stopped at the presses and the article was removed from the issue. Newspapers printed copies of both the original issue and the new issue without the Darwin article.”
5. Evolution Weekend 2010 – Call for Participation
With creationism continuing to spread as noted above, our efforts continue to be important. Although we are far closer to Evolution Weekend 2009 than we are to Evolution Weekend 2010 (12-14 February 2010), I’ve begun to build a list of participants for next year. What’s utterly amazing is that at this early date, we already have 89 congregations from 34 states and 4 countries signed up to participate. Signing up early will help us enormously by permitting us to focus on new congregations. So, please, if you plan to participate next February, let me know by dropping me a note at mz@butler.edu. I plan to post the list of participants in a couple of months. Remember that participation can take any form you think is most appropriate for your congregation – all that matters is that you help elevate the public discourse about the compatibility of religion and science. Please sign up now and please invite friends and colleagues to do the same.
As always, thanks to all of you who have been active in The Clergy Letter Project. Together we are making a difference.
Michael
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Doubt
A letter to a friend who's teaching a course on doubt.
David,
I've given a lot of thought to doubt - or whatever it is ... and there have been times in my life when "belief" in any conventional sense seemed impossible.
For my doctoral work, I wrote a chapter about the role of doubt in the believer's life - focusing on St. John of the Cross' "Dark Night of the Soul" - that doubt is always a segue to another chapter - doubt signals the close of one chapter, a chapter that worked well for a period of time, but since time never stands still, neither does faith. But we cling to "our faith" because it feels secure, but faith clung too, when it's no longer apropos become dysfunctional, if not destructive, which, I think, is the problem with fundamentalism (an issue Rob Bell is trying to address). Fundamentalism/various forms of evangelicalism have a harshness to them because they're angry about a faith no longer working, so they shout ever-louder, denounce all the more, and pump one another up in endless self-congratulating worship services and hyped up high-school-like pep rallies.
St. John of the Cross (late 1500s) suggested that God's best work was being done in our lives when we had no idea what God was doing. God conceals God's work from us, lest we rush in and muck it all up with our suggestions. It feels as if God is absent, but God is only moving ahead of us, and when the time is right, will reveal to us a further work.
John Calvin, too, works with doubt from a slightly different angle - that we needn't fear doubt, because faith is God's gift, and what God gives, God preserves. Our faith, at best, mostly limps along, but it never dies, because God sustains it.
For me, there's no sense fighting it or faking it - it is what it is ... and biblically, we are very much the one who says, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief."
Perhaps most important, Paul Tillich - his book, "The Dynamics of Faith" - he says that all faith, if it's a living faith, has the possibility of doubt, even radical doubt, and sometimes the possibility becomes reality.
A faith that cannot doubt is no faith at all. It has ceased to live.
It's not that doubt is always there ... sometimes in a moment, it's gone, and we believe with a rare purity ... even for months at a time, but then, doubt comes along.
Doubt is friend that keeps faith on its toes, so speak, or on its knees. Doubt is faith's best friend, keeping it honest and humble (another issue for fundamentalists/evangelicals - not the Rob Bell kind) who have to have all the answers all the time.
When it comes to dealing with doubt, it’s sort of like dealing with a cold – we let it run its course, and in the case of doubt, do its work.
But at the same time, we take Aspirin and get some rest … when doubt comes our way (and it’s really always there, sort of like a neighbor whom we only see from time-to-time), we can call upon some resources.
In yesterday’s message, I wrote:
And God sees to it that we have help along the way:
We have the Bible …
We have Moses and the Prophets …
We have the Apostolic witness of the early church …
We have the Holy Spirit …
We have great women and men to inspire us …
We have prayer and fellowship …
We have the gathered wisdom of the ages …
We have one another …
And we have Jesus!
I have never seen doubt as the opposite of faith; rather, doubt, is a traveling companion, if not beside us, at least only a few rows removed from us.
The opposite of doubt, if we can even speak of such things, might well be hyper-faith – faith that fearfully refuses to think, fearfully refuses to be honest about itself and what others might be thinking and feeling, too.
I don’t think God has a problem with someone who says, “I don’t believe” – sometimes they can’t, because they’ve only seen bad examples of faith … or sometimes, because they’re too proud to believe, and pride is only the flip side of fear and self-doubt – but whatever, this isn’t an issue for God.
The central issue in the Bible are people who “believe too much” but without mind and heart in the right place – they “talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk) – the people of ancient Israel who spoke of the LORD Almighty in traditional terms, and then went off after the baals! They were hyper-religious – that’s an issue for God. When they “take the name of God in vain” – talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
I think God might well say to the fundamentalists/evangelicals – relax! Learn to appreciate the doubt within your hearts and minds, and be kind to those who express such thoughts and feelings to you.
Hell is not made for those who doubt – we’d all be there, but hell is an experience right now of those who have neither the grace nor the courage to admit it.
When someone enters a period of doubt, we journey with them, because it’s our journey, too.
We’re all in this one together.
And then trust God … in some sort of basic way … the sun sets and the sun comes up again.
Things are born, and then born again …
Relax!
David,
I've given a lot of thought to doubt - or whatever it is ... and there have been times in my life when "belief" in any conventional sense seemed impossible.
For my doctoral work, I wrote a chapter about the role of doubt in the believer's life - focusing on St. John of the Cross' "Dark Night of the Soul" - that doubt is always a segue to another chapter - doubt signals the close of one chapter, a chapter that worked well for a period of time, but since time never stands still, neither does faith. But we cling to "our faith" because it feels secure, but faith clung too, when it's no longer apropos become dysfunctional, if not destructive, which, I think, is the problem with fundamentalism (an issue Rob Bell is trying to address). Fundamentalism/various forms of evangelicalism have a harshness to them because they're angry about a faith no longer working, so they shout ever-louder, denounce all the more, and pump one another up in endless self-congratulating worship services and hyped up high-school-like pep rallies.
St. John of the Cross (late 1500s) suggested that God's best work was being done in our lives when we had no idea what God was doing. God conceals God's work from us, lest we rush in and muck it all up with our suggestions. It feels as if God is absent, but God is only moving ahead of us, and when the time is right, will reveal to us a further work.
John Calvin, too, works with doubt from a slightly different angle - that we needn't fear doubt, because faith is God's gift, and what God gives, God preserves. Our faith, at best, mostly limps along, but it never dies, because God sustains it.
For me, there's no sense fighting it or faking it - it is what it is ... and biblically, we are very much the one who says, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief."
Perhaps most important, Paul Tillich - his book, "The Dynamics of Faith" - he says that all faith, if it's a living faith, has the possibility of doubt, even radical doubt, and sometimes the possibility becomes reality.
A faith that cannot doubt is no faith at all. It has ceased to live.
It's not that doubt is always there ... sometimes in a moment, it's gone, and we believe with a rare purity ... even for months at a time, but then, doubt comes along.
Doubt is friend that keeps faith on its toes, so speak, or on its knees. Doubt is faith's best friend, keeping it honest and humble (another issue for fundamentalists/evangelicals - not the Rob Bell kind) who have to have all the answers all the time.
When it comes to dealing with doubt, it’s sort of like dealing with a cold – we let it run its course, and in the case of doubt, do its work.
But at the same time, we take Aspirin and get some rest … when doubt comes our way (and it’s really always there, sort of like a neighbor whom we only see from time-to-time), we can call upon some resources.
In yesterday’s message, I wrote:
And God sees to it that we have help along the way:
We have the Bible …
We have Moses and the Prophets …
We have the Apostolic witness of the early church …
We have the Holy Spirit …
We have great women and men to inspire us …
We have prayer and fellowship …
We have the gathered wisdom of the ages …
We have one another …
And we have Jesus!
I have never seen doubt as the opposite of faith; rather, doubt, is a traveling companion, if not beside us, at least only a few rows removed from us.
The opposite of doubt, if we can even speak of such things, might well be hyper-faith – faith that fearfully refuses to think, fearfully refuses to be honest about itself and what others might be thinking and feeling, too.
I don’t think God has a problem with someone who says, “I don’t believe” – sometimes they can’t, because they’ve only seen bad examples of faith … or sometimes, because they’re too proud to believe, and pride is only the flip side of fear and self-doubt – but whatever, this isn’t an issue for God.
The central issue in the Bible are people who “believe too much” but without mind and heart in the right place – they “talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk) – the people of ancient Israel who spoke of the LORD Almighty in traditional terms, and then went off after the baals! They were hyper-religious – that’s an issue for God. When they “take the name of God in vain” – talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
I think God might well say to the fundamentalists/evangelicals – relax! Learn to appreciate the doubt within your hearts and minds, and be kind to those who express such thoughts and feelings to you.
Hell is not made for those who doubt – we’d all be there, but hell is an experience right now of those who have neither the grace nor the courage to admit it.
When someone enters a period of doubt, we journey with them, because it’s our journey, too.
We’re all in this one together.
And then trust God … in some sort of basic way … the sun sets and the sun comes up again.
Things are born, and then born again …
Relax!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)