The Problem of Pain

Every time you turn on the news you see the same thing. Horrible disasters occur, genocides, and terrible murders. These events are so pervasive in our society that we have become numb to them. Desensitized by thing after thing, by the time I reached college, I no longer felt any pain or real sadness from the things I saw around me. Our world no longer seems to care. Genocides occur in Sudan and in other parts of the world, largely unhindered. We are rapidly killing our planet in ways that will hurt our children immeasurably, and throughout all these crises, our country seems not to care. In his book, The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel conducted a study for American adults. He asked them each if they had the opportunity to ask God one question that they knew he would answer, what would they ask? The number one response of adults was to ask God “why is there pain and suffering in the world?”

Eighteenth Century Philosopher David Hume asked of Christians: “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” Hume’s problem led him to three possible conclusions:

1. If God is gracious and loving and still allows evil, it is because He is unable to prevent it.
2. If God is able to prevent suffereing, but doesn’t, it is because He is evil.

If you refuse to accept either of these alternatives, Hume leads his reader to believe:

3. There is no God, since evil runs rampant in this world.

Modern Christian theologians respond to Hume by saying that he uses parts of Christianity in order to indict Christianity. In other words, without a Christian framework, there is no such thing as absolute moral law, so how can anything actually be evil?

Others advocate the position that God wants to interfere in the events of the world, but cannot. They say that either God is inherently limited or has limited himself by either natural law or an inability to interfere with human freedom.

Here are some questions for our discussion:

1. Why do you believe suffering exists in the world?

2. What are some reasons that God would restrict himself from interfering?

3. Who do you think is ultimately responsible for human suffering?

Separation of Church and State

This week, I’d like to talk about one of the questions we generated a few weeks ago. Why do alot of Christians think that laws should enforce their religious beliefs? Isn't it better to keep church and state completely separate?

Whether you are a person of religious conviction or not, the separation of church and state has far-reaching implications for lifestyle choices that our government enforces upon us. Do we have rights to abortion? Homosexual marriage? Using birth control until or if we are prepared to have children? People with strong religious convictions feel so strongly about these issues that they wish to code laws preventing all citizens from having the freedom to make independent choices on these matters.

When the question was posed to him “Should the public square be naked of religion?”, Professor Peter Kreeft answered, “It is good that the public square be naked of religion. That is, it is good, in some sense of the word good, that the public square, in some sense of the public square, be naked, in some sense of the word naked, of religion, in some sense of religion.” In other words, this issue is complicated. It is complicated by definition of terms, by personal biases, by religious experiences, and by knowledge of the political history of the United States.

Kreeft explains concerning the role of history and perspective in determining the separation of church and state, “I don’t believe that it’s always true, though I believe that it’s probably true for our place and time. I personally would not, I think, favor the separation of church and state if I were a Jew in Jerusalem in 1,000BC, or if a Frenchman in Paris in the court of King Louis of France in the thirteenth century, or even if I were a Muslim in Pakistan today.” It is possible then, that there is an element of history that necessarily figures into our analysis of whether or not the separation of church and state is good for the nation.

So let's look at the issue historically. What role should God and religious beliefs play in the governance of our nation? What role has God and religious belief already played in the history of American government?

Many of our founding fathers drew their foundations for political liberty from their Christian faith. Although contemporary dialogue seeks to discredit the religious foundations of our early leaders by making claims about their secret relations with Freemasons or other sects, the entire accepted canon of the history of our nation cannot be overturned. Our founding fathers did in fact write letters to each other in which they debated the Christian principles of liberty. Perhaps they did not do so as frequently as religious conservatives would like to say, nor as seldom as secular liberals claim, but the textual evidence does exist. (For more detailed description of the founding fathers’ religious preferences, listen to the Bolton debate listed below). We must root out all historical bias on both sides of the political spectrum in regard to this issue.

At any rate, it cannot be argued that the fathers defended religious liberty. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement could be open to broad interpretation; however, it is important to note that the interpretation that has been chosen and popularized in American society is one originated in the mind of Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you may know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but rather in a letter of Thomas Jefferson’s. The letter which sparked the comment was written to Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on Oct. 7, 1801. As a religious minority, the group was afraid that their right to practice Christianity in their own way would be infringed upon. Jefferson’s reply does not come until Jan. 1, 1802, nearly four months later. It is in this letter that Jefferson uses the famous phrase, “wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson’s own religious background plays a role in this discussion as well. While upholding the right of all to practice religion without impediment, Jefferson himself was a Deist. Jefferson edited a version of Scripture which excerpted statements made by Jesus, removing all those that mentioned him in any way being the Son of God. Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin served as a religious minority among the founding fathers.

Recent scholarship has uncovered earlier drafts of the Jefferson’s Danbury letter which were then turned into a display at the Library of Congress in 1998. What had been thought of as a quickly drafted afterthought to a religious organization is now seen as a part of on going conversation Jefferson had about the establishment clause and its interpretation. (Read more about the Jefferson letter drafts here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)

Jefferson’s influential metaphor has influenced Supreme Court decisions, especially in the late 1940s. However, what if it was not what the founding fathers had intended to convey through the first amendment? Is there anyway to access that original historical intention and restore that to society? Here’s a better question: Would we even want to? Our nation is more religiously diverse than ever. Who gets to choose whose morality becomes the dominant societal paradigm?

Here are some sources that Tuesday’s discussion will draw from. If you are coming to join us at Davenport, I encourage you to do some of the reading and download one or more of the lectures. It’s not required, but doing so can only help you have authoritative sources to base your thinking upon for the discussion. We value everyone’s thinking, and we also value knowing why everyone is thinking what they are thinking.

Sources:
Bolton, Brian. God and Politics: Is There Historical Basis for Including God in Government and Public Institutions? Veritas Forum Media. Texas A&M University. 17 February 2005. http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/139 17 September 2006.

Danbury Baptist Association. “The Danbury Baptists’ Letter to Thomas Jefferson.” Separation of Church and State Home Page. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm 17 September 2006.

Hutson, James. “‘A Wall of Separation’: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html 17 September 2006.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Draft and Recently Recovered Text.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html 17 September 2006.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Final Letter, as Sent.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html 17 September 2006.

Kreeft, Peter. The Relationship Between Religion and Public Education: Must the Public Square Be Naked? Veritas Forum Media. Louisiana State University. 11 March 2005. http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/101 17 September 2006.

US Bill of Rights. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm 17 September 2006.

Questions to think about and comment on:
1. Do you agree with the separation of church and state?
2. Should we maintain the separation of church and state just because we have historically done so? Would it be feasible now to reintigrate some form of religion into American government?
3. Should there be a moral basis for American law? If so, what should it be?
4. What role does God play in our political life?
5. What do you think the founders intended by the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Or what are some valid interpretations? Does it matter that Jefferson's is the interpretation that has most frequently been adopted if that is an opinion contrary to what the founders intended?

Fundamentalism

Though it has sadly almost become a cliche, there is probably no better example of the dangers of religious fundamentalism than the 9/11 attacks. For the purpose of this post and to aid in our discussion, I'll use a definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

I remember being in school on 9/11. I didn't know anything about what was happening until I walked into my English classroom. On TV, in the front of the classrooms was the first tower burning. I remember watching one of the towers fall live on TV. I distinctly remember a classmate joking the the back of the room and not paying attention to what we were watching, and I remember thinking that he did not understand what was happening. It's strange that I thought that, because I feel that really no one understood what was happening at the time.

My mom picked me up from school that day. She knew people that worked at Cantor Fitzgerald and was in tears when she brought me home early. I think more than any other event that day, that affected me. While I understood the gravity of what I saw happening, it didn't evoke feeling in me until I saw how it upset my mom.

Both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism have large impacts on the world around us. They also cause a very good amount of discussion. In his book End of Faith, Sam Harris argues that people too often suspend their own rational thought for the sake of religious beliefs. With access to WMDs becoming more and more easy, Harris argues that the world will become more and more violent because of relgious belief.

Interestingly, Harris says that religious moderation also posses a threat. He views the encroachement of religion into society and politics as a result of moderate beliefs, and says that relgion's role is now so strong that its influence blinds people.

Here are some questions to think about and comment on:
1. What has been your personal experience with religious fundamentalism?

2. Is there a need for radical opinions in order to promote progress? Would only moderate viewpoints actually cause progress?

3. What role do you think fundamentalism(Christian or Islamic) plays in the world around you?

4. If you felt strong religious conviction, why wouldn't you completely follow the doctrines of your faith (e.g. be a fundamentalist)? What are some drawbacks of extreme viewpoints?

Tuesday night conversation: Questions and Doubts

Some great questions on Tuesday night. I have a feeling that this group will turn into an awesome community for discussion in the future.

Here are some question examples:

Why do I resent religious people so much?

Why do alot of Christians think that laws should enforce their religious beliefs? Isn't it better to keep church and state completely separate?

Does God choose who is going to believe in him?

God says he answers all our prayers, but I thought that his will was predetermined. Does that mean that he doesn't answer the prayers of the people he doesn't approve of? If God already knows what is going to happen, why does he just let us flounder around?

Does God honestly allow people who don't believe in him to go to hell?

Should Christians support the death penalty?

With everything the Bible went through to come into being in its current state (original transcriptions, translations, book selections), how do we know everything in it is "holy"?

Does believing in Christ/ the Bible have to come with the belief that that way is the only way?

This is some great stuff. We'll look forward to beginning to talk about it in the coming weeks. If anyone has any further questions, or thoughts on these questions, feel free to post them here.

Questions and Doubts

When we are children, we are told by our teachers and parents, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." As we grow older, when our questions become higher risk because they have implications far beyond ourselves, I think we stop asking questions. We want to look like we already know the answers, or we want to keep our world stable, safe, and unchanging. Whatever the reason, no one I know believes that there is "no such thing as a stupid question" anymore.

In his book Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell describes a Doubt Night he had with Mars Hill church. He explains that the Doubt Night was a time for the members of his congregation to ask their deepest questions about God and man.

He writes, "People were encouraged to write down whatever questions or doubts they had about God and Jesus and the Bible and faith and church. We had to get a large box to hold all of the scraps of paper. The first question was from a woman who had been raped and didn't press charges because she had been told that doing so "wasn't the Christian thing to do. The man then raped several other girls, and this woman wanted to know if God would still forgive her even if she hadn't forgiven the man who raped her."

He goes on to explain that the questions the church received consisted of "Heaven and hell and suicide and the devil and God and love and rape -- some very personal, some angry, some desperate, some very deep and philosophical."

In the past, I've felt that churches stifled my ability to ask certain questions. It is as though my theological curiosity is threatening to the Christian faith. It is as though because I don't understand everything there is to understand about God and because I am searching to find the truth about him by defending and refuting ideas, I have no place in the faith yet. I can belong when I learn to accept everything at face value without asking any questions about the unfathomable mysteries of the faith in order to know them more intimately. This is how I've felt about asking questions in the past -- like I'm a problem that the church isn't ready to deal with yet.

I'm going to take back the right to ask difficult questions, not in order to threaten anyone or to be bitter, cynical, and skeptical so that I can tear faith apart and replace it with my own ideas, but in order to learn and grow and change. I agree with Rob Bell when he says, "A question by its very nature acknowledges that the person asking the question does not have all the answers. And because the person does not have all the answers, they are looking outside themselves for guidence."

One of our goals over the course of this semester will be to generate geniune questions that we have about God and our human existence. We may not always be able to find the answers easily, but through study and conversation God will meet us. Ranier Maria Rilke explains a way of questioning patiently while waiting for answers that seems useful to me: "I would like to beg you dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language." When we ask questions, we cannot demand fast and easy answers. We must ask with patience and wait for the answers which might be a long time in coming. We must have faith that the answers will come.

I believe that we can all grow by being honest and open with our doubts and questions for God. I'd like to make this blog post the beginning of our desire to learn more about God by asking him the deepest questions that are in our hearts right now.

Take some time after reading this post, and be quiet to see what questions you might have. Perhaps there's something you are curious about and would like to learn more about from God. Perhaps something has happened to you in the past, and you'd like to ask God why. If the questions that come to you are something that you'd like to share, leave them as comments on the blog. You can make them anonymous if you want.

Ask anything and everything.

Expectation and Desire

I've decided to let this blog be taken over by a discussion group that one of my best friends, Chris, and I leading this semester through the Christian Fellowship we are a member of at American University. Here's the description of the group from an email that I sent to our small group leaders:

"One thing that I care the most about right now is bringing honest and intelligent discussion about Christ into the conversation that happens in college classrooms. I'm hoping that this group can be a community where Chris and I can feed our mutual desire to see that happen and to bring some others along with us.

We start this Tuesday night, September 5, at 8:30pm at Davenport Coffee Lounge. We're a co-ed group that will meet to discuss God in a way that, fitting with this year's XA theme, will truly be deep and meaningful. People at all places in their relationship with Christ -- whether they are anti-Christians, pre-Christians, or long-time Christians -- are welcome. You all are more than welcome to attend if you are interested, and also keep in mind friends you might have that would be interested in coming. This kickoff week will be a bit more informal, but there will be free coffee of some kind, made and funded by yours truly.

Over the course of the semester, hopefully the group will have a few speakers from the interfaith community on campus. Some general topics I'm throwing around in my head relate to Nietzsche's statement that God is dead, Soren Kierkegaard's thought on the leap of faith, social justice in Christian community, and the reliability of the Bible (especially in the OT). None of these are certain, of course, just things that I'm thinking about. Topics will ultimately be directed by the interests of those who show up. Also, If you guys have any burning questions for God or something that has come up in a class of yours that might relate, let me know. Each discussion will have a short time of teaching before hand so that we can all be on the same page for the discussion."

I have several expectations and desires for the group:

1. That God will meet us.
2. That I will take time in study to be fully prepared.
3. That I will post in this blog at least weekly.
4. That people will comment on my postings.

This group is the reflection of one of my greatest desires -- to keep an ongoing conversation about God running through all of us students at American in a way that is intelligent and honest, and doesn't ignore the work that we are doing in the classroom.

If you can't join us on campus because of your schedule, or if you only interact with us through the internet community, please keep coming back here to check out what we are talking about and join in our conversation by commenting on our postings.

Thanks.