Dan Sawyer answered my opening volley in our debate on science and religion in a post titled A Skin-Deep Territory Distinction. He makes some good points regarding areas where science and religion touch, overlap and even (as he says) aim for the same territory. For the most part I don’t think I can really disagree with what he said. There is one thing I’d like to examine though.

He says that the concept of Non-overlapping Magesteria, which is similar to what I’m proposing, isn’t historically representative of the relationship between science and religion. That may very well be true, in fact I guess based on his examples I know it to be true. I suppose when I think of religion I’m thinking of it as a tool though. Not how that tool has been used, but how it should be used. Again, just trying to think this through and I could well be wrong, but here goes.

Let’s go back, let’s go way back. Religion was a tool that man used historically to explain things going on around them and more than likely they didn’t make a clear cut distinction between the natural and the supernatural. if it rained, a natural phenomenon, they may come up with a supernatural cause. Let me pause here and say that I think all religions (even my own) were sort of manufactured by men. I think that Christians/Jews had the advantage of the basis of their religion, their relationship with God, being true. So, man historically used religion as a tool for everything from examining the natural universe, to making laws, to relating to their god(s).

Along comes science. Science as earlier defined is based on observation and reproducible test results and not on superstition or mythology. I think that gives us better results where the tool is appropriately used. Currently science does have a lot of useful things to tell us about human nature, consciousness, the ultimate nature of reality, origins, endings, and morality. I think religion certainly has things to say about those topics too. So I suppose making a stark contrast between the natural and the supernatural and thus making a stark contrast between science and religion may be a mistake.

It seems that the magesteria do overlap to a degree, whether its simply bumping up against one another or getting thoroughly muddled. It doesn’t surprise me. There’s nothing magical about either “magesteria” after all. They are tools and like any tools they can be misused. If the only tool you have is hammer then everything you encounter may look like a nail. Sometimes, just like physical tools, science and religion can be misused by themselves to answer questions they aren’t best suited for and sometimes they can be used in tandem for a better result.

Stephen Jay Gould, advocate of the NOMA view seems to indicate this in this quote:

[E]ach subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority … This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man’s land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult.

Dan goes on to say that religions’ focus is “on securing and/or maintaining power” and is “concerned with controlling the behavior of beings in the temporal world”. Again I can’t argue that this hasn’t pretty consistently been the case. I would argue that this is not the fault of the tool or in fact its actual purpose. People have used science and philosophy and probably another thing or two lying about for the exact same purposes. That is a people problem.

He closes by saying:

Besides, I daresay that a religion which made no claims about reality, made no demands on its patrons, promised no rewards (temporal, eternal, or existential), and said nothing substantive about human nature would maintain a hold on parishioners for very long. Don’t believe me? Look at the thin attendance of liberal protestant churches compared to moderate and conservative ones.

All religions I’m aware of do all of these things. My original definition said that religion was “to put us in touch with whatever we believe to be true about something that exists outside of the natural realm”. There will be claims about where reality meets god. There will be demands made on how we are to relate to the supernatural and the natural. There will be rewards, though in Christianity most of those rewards are rightly laid up in Heaven and thus supernatural, not all of them are. They do say something about human nature and since there is something of the divine in us it is right for religion to speak to those areas. So religion is not purely supernatural, but it is that which allows us to examine where the supernatural and the natural collide and influence one another, something science can’t do.

Periodically (weekly I believe) there’s a chat on Twitter about science fiction called appropriately enough, SciFiChat. The whole think is conducted by making sure that everyone involved includes the hashtag #scifichat in their tweets. This ensures that everyone can see what’s being said even if you don’t follow everyone involved. You can see most, if not all of it, here. This past week it was on religion in science fiction and being a big fan of both I definitely made some time to take part.

During the discussion the question was asked, “Is science diametrically opposed to religion?” Both Zach Ricks and I agreed that that wasn’t the case. He said, “Some people believe that science destroys faith, I don’t agree with that stance at all.” To which I replied, in agreement, the “the two are examining different things.” Writer, philosopher, and all around cool guy J. Daniel Sawyer tagged me on Skype and asked me if I’d like to flesh out and debate that point on our respective blogs. Always ready to cross swords, I agreed. We put it up to age before beauty and since we’re both pretty grizzly looking (in the bear sense) age won out so I get to fire the first volley.

Thanks to Sid I’ve learned that defining my terms is pretty important in these sorts of situations. The definition of science to which I refer is “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” aka natural science. That is defined as “any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena”. Science deals with the natural world. It tells us things like how and at what temperature water freezes. It tells us how species adapt to their surroundings and pass that on to their young. It describes the processes of the universe, at least so far as we are currently able to measure and observe them.

Religion on the other hand serves a very different purpose. Again, referring to Webster, religion is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”. The purpose of such a system is to put us in touch with whatever we believe to be true about something that exists outside of the natural realm, at least that’s how I see it. There exist things that do not belong to the natural world. God, angels, and demons, belong to this class of things. There may well be other things that are supernatural, but that’s a different topic. The point is that these things are not objectively measurable.

So, when I say that science and religion are not diametrically opposed, by that I mean one can be both scientific and religious when it comes to your world view. Science is used to look at and interact with our physical world and religion is used to look at and interact with the spiritual and supernatural world. In that sense science and religion seem to me to be dramatically different in terms of their purpose. The opposition, the downright animosity, that often exists between representatives of the “two worlds” is one that I frankly don’t get. Too often it looks like people who each believe that their particular way of looking at everything in creation can eventually answer the prevailing questions without any help from the other. That hardly seems necessary or productive.

Dan says that “science and religion can not meaningfully be said to be examining different things.” I’m not sure if we’re using different definitions for the terms or if our respective world views are different. Whatever the case I look forward to what he has to say.

His response.

So in a fit of… something last night I tweeted “Christians spend WAY too much time on “dos and don’ts”.” Nothing prompted it in particular. I’d like to blame the Holy Spirit for it, but he/she/it couldn’t be reached for comment. I suspect that part of the Trinity just sits back and looks at my meanderings and LAAAAUGHS.

Anyway, this particular brain dropping elicited a fair number of responses.

JT said “christians hold no special monopoly on that. that is a people problem not a christian problem”. That’s true enough. Folks have been coming up with rules for as long as there’ve been people. Rules are good things so far as they go. I’m not anti-rules, but more on that momentarily.

Jon Welborn said so you’re saying “don’t spend time on do’s and don’ts”?” Boy if that didn’t cut right to it. Jon’s sharp as a razor. I’m not trying to set up yet another thing to do/not do. But, of course, that is tempting. I’ve posted a number of posts (blogged a number of blogs?) that seem sort of like reverse legalism and that’s the last thing I want. I’m not about licentiousness or coming up with new rules, but more on that momentarily.

Comedy blogger extraordinaire Rhodester said “*snork* stating the obvious again, Scotty?” (and yes he and my Aunt are the ONLY ones who can call me Scotty) So I said to him I said, obvious to you and me maybe but I’m not preaching to you. Which he liked, cause most folk don’t like being preached to or at. No this particular missive was aimed at my regular church going, rule spouting brethren.

Ed Parrot, the prettier half (and that ain’t sayin’ much) of the writing team known as Ed Talbot said “especially don’ts ”
To which I replied, “We spend a lot of time telling each other what to do. Of course that’s usually couched in the terms ‘ur doin it rong’”. And that’s pretty dang true right there.

Renee Osborne, fellow writer and Messianic Christian (I think that’s the proper title), and I had a long back and forth about this since she and her husband Doug are both observant of a good number of Old Testament laws. What it boiled down to is that there are some decent reasons to be as observant as she and her husband are. They’re trying to be more like Christ and to be more obedient to God. I don’t think either of those things are bad. In fact, they can be quite beneficial.

So what was I saying exactly? Well let’s see. Rules are good, to a point. Ignoring rules meant for your benefit can be very bad. I believe that the rules God laid out can certainly be beneficial. I don’t believe that it’s his will that all people everywhere follow all of the rules laid out in the Bible. I do believe that, as Renee said, the covenants that these very rules come from build on each other. Ultimately I think the covenants point to Jesus and our need for him.

He said in Matthew 22 “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” That is a distillation of all 1700 or so laws that Renee mentioned. Everything hangs on these two things. So here’s the thing. I can’t do either one of those perfectly. Neither can you. That’s why we need Jesus.

Now should we try? Yes, of course we should try. Being obedient to those two rules and how they are broken out in the Bible and in your life as a believer is of vital importance. It can draw you closer to God. It reveals your need for and drives you to Christ. It makes you want to know Christ more so that you can be an imitator of Christ as we are called to be. Those are all great and wonderful.

“So get to the point Scott, what do you mean?”

Here’s what I mean, and check me on these.

I don’t believe we are called to use the laws that we have laid our for us in the Bible to run other people’s lives for them. If I feel convicted by God to observe the Passover, so long as it doesn’t become a law that I think others should follow to obtain their salvation, then I have the freedom to do that or not to do that. If I believe that smoking is sinful because it’s unhealthy and the body is our temple then I’m allowed not to smoke. I just don’t have the right or the obligation to tell someone else that they are sinning by smoking. We are not to spend our time looking for specks of sawdust to remove from others’ eyes in order to make them more righteous.

I also don’t think that we need to spend overly much time worrying about whether a particular thing we are doing is sin or not. There is certainly a place for examined life. If we do have a question about some activity or behavior we’re engaged in, we should go to the word and go in prayer to God to seek out the answer. Asking your brother/pastor is also a good idea. I see people getting eaten up by this though. I’ve even heard tell of folks making a list of every sin they can think of and using that in ways that I don’t think are healthy or beneficial to try and rid their life of sin. Some of these folks sweat and worry about missing one and the consequences of that. That’s unhealthy.

Now I do think that there’s a place for accountability in our lives. If I go to someone and tell them, “I struggle with this thing that is clearly a sin, can you help me by keeping me accountable?” I think that’s good and healthy. If I feel that someone has sinned against me then I need to talk to them, not harbor it in my heart. If they’re not receptive to that then once again the Word is clear that we need to get others involved. Hopefully maturity and a healthy perspective brought on by someone outside the situation can bring a resolution. These things shouldn’t be happening all the time though, really.

We are to be concerned with loving God, loving our neighbor, and spreading the news of the grace that we have received through Jesus Christ. This shouldn’t look like control or gutting out living under some code that’s a burden to us and those around us. It shouldn’t be a bait and switch job where we tell people that “it’s all about grace” and then when they come in we spring an Extreme Makeover on them. It’s not about reading the right books or the wrong books or being filled with purpose or saying the right prayer or listening to some music and not other. It’s about knowing Christ and him crucified and treating those around us and in our care like the beloved family that they are. Good families have good rules, but belonging to a family isn’t first and foremost about following those rules, it’s about loving your family.

Does all of this add up to even more dos and don’ts? Maybe so. The last thing I want to do is give you another thing on your mental checklist. What I hope it does is to encourage you to change focus away from that list and towards your brother who is there to love you and your father who is there to guide you gently.

A post from the Pugnacious Irishman and some posts by http://www.stufffundieslike.com/ on Facebook made me go digging for this post. I don’t ordinarily repost old content but I’m rather fond of this one.

Communicate, when necessary use words. Just make sure that you choose them and the order you put them in, carefully.

This post was inspired by the above cartoon I found at Wordsell. They’re sponsoring a little contest and so I might win a Nano. I might not, but anything that serves as inspiration for a post is a good thing. (Ed. note – the contest was in ‘08)

So anyway, it got me to thinking about how we as Christians market our message. There seem to be two major means these days as far as the written word is concerned. The first would be the ubiquitous Christian tee. You know the kind I’m talking about, that say things like “Property of Jesus” or the ones that rip off a popular logo. They usually have some sort of scripture verse attached and occasionally that verse might even have something to do with the logo/slogan being put forth. There was a time in my life when little other casual wear existed in my closet. I thought to myself, “Now this, this right here is evangelism!” I honestly thought that someone would see my “Not Without Jesus” tee and immediately fall to their knees in repentance, or something like that. Surprisingly it never worked that way.

The other thing I’m seeing everywhere is the Church Sign. You know what I’m talking about. There have been a hoard of memes thanks to sites that let you create your own. In case you don’t though, in place of the typical Name of Church followed by the times of worship, you get pithy sayings like “Give God what’s right–, not what’s left!” or the ever popular “Make your eternal reservations now— ’smoking’ or ‘non-smoking’?”. If that doesn’t make you want to veer into the parking lot and jump into the pew…

So what am I saying here? Are the signs or tees bad? No. I still have a few of those shirts left and if the sign is pithy enough I could see it drawing me in, of course I’m already a believer. I think what happens in most cases though is that if any thought occurs in the mind of the unbeliever that sees these attempts at distilling down the gospel into bite-sized chunks, it’s rarely a positive one.

If you really want to communicate the gospel to your community, I would recommend starting with your actions. When necessary, you should certainly use words. Those words need to be filled with love and wisdom and it may take time to use them to good effect. Sure it’s not as funny, but it is in fact What Jesus Did.

“God loves a cheerful giver” is one of those aphorisms that we often hear, but unlike some of them (“God helps those that help themselves.” for instance) this one is actually in the Bible. Second Corinthians chapter nine, verse seven says “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Our Pastor, Hunter, touched briefly on this a couple of weeks ago. He talked about an experience he had (that I witnessed) at another church where they cheered when the offering was taken up. It should be said that in that particular instance the monies were going towards feeding some hungry folk in Africa and towards meeting some local needs as well. He encouraged us to take that to heart and to express our joy in being able to give back to God from that which he gave us. That elicited a healthy amount of cheering and clapping.

So, when you give, do so cheerfully. That’s pretty clear. There’s a bit more I want to say though, I can’t just leave it there. Joe Harrison host of the podcast Christianese Radio posted a question about tithing, i.e. “Should we as Christians tithe?” The majority of the answers indicated that we should indeed. My answer was that we should leave it up to the individual. I don’t believe that a strict tithe of ten percent is required. We should, as Paul wrote, give as we have decided in our heart to give. That might mean more or less money as you are so lead. The amount isn’t the most important part, it’s your attitude. He does say earlier that there are consequences, you reap what you sow, and I take that as an encouragement to give sacrificially, not as an attempt to inspire guilt or fear.

So we should give happily and generously, but what should we give? Paul says we “will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion” and earlier talks about seed and bread. I think that those are certainly partly metaphors for money, but we also need to give food if we have extra and one of the most important things I think we have to give is time. Give what you have, where there is need. For instance, our particular situation is such that we don’t have an abundance of money, so we give time and food in service not only to our church but also to our community.

And that’s another thing, Christians focus an awful lot on giving to the church. We should meet the needs of God’s people but it shouldn’t stop (or even necessarily start) there. If you feel led to give out of your abundance to a homeless shelter or the YMCA or to a buddy down the road then that’s just as much the work of God as adding to the building fund. I could take this opportunity to opine on building funds and professional ministry salaries, but that’s going too far afield. Suffice to say I think you should give as much as you can of whatever you have to give where you feel led to give. We have a lot of freedom in the gospel and this is one freedom that we need to exercise.

This sort of beautiful giving has been acted out in two places in my online community and it continues to amaze me. Tee Morris, Podcaster General, had a personal family tragedy some time back and there is a ChipIn fund dedicated to taking care of expenses and his young daughter’s future. Almost five hundred folks raised over twenty thousand dollars. Another member of our community, SVAllie, voice of Brand Gamblin’s podcast novel Tumbler, has had some serious legal expenses revolving around her attempts to maintain custody of her daughter. She too has a ChipIn drive where folks are pouring our what support they can. It’s my personal feeling that giving what you have in situations like this, or to the people down in Haiti, might actually speak more about your love of God and your neighbor than dropping a check in the plate on Sunday.

That probably sounds like I’m trying to lay some guilt trip on you and I don’t want my blowing this particular horn to turn into another rule for you to follow. If God is leading you to give to the church then that’s what you should do. I know the money that goes into the plate at Redeemer on Sundays goes to do some wonderful (and some very mundane) things, all valid needs in my opinion. I just want to encourage you to examine your heart as I’m doing lately and give out of whatever abundance you have and to do so in the right spirit.

For those of you that have paid any mind to my podcasting posts you’ll remember the name Nathan Lowell. He’s perhaps one of podcasting’s most prolific authors and has recently gotten a book deal under way for the first of his Share series. I’m not here this time solely to pimp his podcast (I’ve done a fair amount of that and will no doubt do more) so much as I am to take a look at some characters in two of his stories that I’ve listened to most recently. Though I will say that you should really listen to his stories at your earliest opportunity.

The two that I wold like to draw your attention to are South Coast and his most recent outing Ravenwood. Like any really good fiction these particular stories spark some, I suppose you’d call them extraneous thoughts. The one in question was prompted by the main character in Ravenwood, Tanyth Fairport. Tanyth is an herbalist and has some considerable knowledge and wisdom gathered in her wanderings through the fantasy world that the story takes place in. At the point I’m at in the story, she’s become the healer and in some ways the spiritual leader of a small community. Mysterious things are happening and the villagers are beginning to look up to her in ways that she’s not very comfortable with. She thinks to herself that she feels like “a bit like an impostor being on the wrong side of reverence”. She doesn’t really feel like she’s anything special, at least not worthy of being held up in the same way as the others who she herself reveres.

That made me think about Lowell’s treatment of shamanism in South Coast. There we get to (among other things) watch two shaman’s discover their gifts. Richard Krug, the village shaman believes that a birthright puts him in the position and that this alone is enough and that the position alone is the gift. Meanwhile, his son Otto is destined to fill his father’s shoes and desperately wants to be a fisherman instead. They both seem to attach a fair amount of reverence to the position alone and revere it as something more, or less, than it is. Richard revels in what is basically the pastoral counseling side of the business and his position in the community. Otto believes that in order to become a shaman he must give up his dreams of going fishing. It turns out that both of them are wrong to a degree and that there’s more to this shaman business than meets the eye. There’s mystery to it and the gift (part magic, part meditation, and part connection to the planet) is that which should be revered.

So while the Krugs’ and Tanyth’s situation may not be the same, I think there are some things here that are of value to those in the “professional ministry” and to you, me, and the lamppost. A lot of folks, myself included for a time, attach a lot of reverence to the position of minister. When we see someone whose “job” it is to care for the flock the temptation is to think of how much more Godly they may be than we are and that it’s their calling and position alone to preach and teach, to heal the sick and comfort those who grieve. Putting minister’s on a pedestal like this isn’t fair to them and it isn’t what God desires. We are a priesthood of believers. Yes we’re to hold our teachers, preachers, and prophets to a higher standard, but that’s only so folks won’t be lead astray.

What does need to be revered is that connection that we have with God through Christ. That doesn’t come as a result of a birthright. If you grow up in a Christian family, that’s simply not enough. That connection is not cemented by a teaching position or a calling of men that comes with a title and an office. It comes from listening to God and communing with him. If you do happen to be in a position like Richard or Tanyth and you’re the spiritual leader of your flock, whether you want to be or not, then you’d do well to keep your head about you as Tanyth does. She doesn’t want to be revered. All she wants is to teach her people the things that they need to know in order to survive. There may be a certain level of respect that comes with that, but some of the gifts that she has aren’t anything that she learns or could ever learn. They’re just that, gifts. Giving people what they need and loving them is what we, regardless of position, should strive to do and that should come, not out of a desire to be revered by men, but out of a reverence we have for God and his creation.

That is the right side of reverence.

It’s amazing who God will use and for what. We’ve been going through Genesis in church and in our small group and learnign a thing or two about the patriarchs. This past Sunday we began looking at Abraham. Abram (as he was originally known) grew up a pagan. He likely believed in many gods and whether or not he ever believed in Yahweh prior to his calling is debatable. Having the one true god show up in his space and talk to him, telling him exactly where to go and what to do changed all that. And well it should. Still it took time for Abram to begin to understand that this God was different in some significant way and that not only did he mean what he said, but that he would deliver on his promises. It took not only time but a pretty epic quest.

That quest is what God used to ultimately lead Abram to believe in the promise to make him a great nation and for that to be “credited it to him as righteousness”. He was also faithful in the binding of Isaac and in his obedience to move where God told him to go. As faithful as he was though, I don’t think it was Abram’s overall faith that made him the patriarch and one of the examples of great men of faith that is lifted up in Hebrews 11. After all, this was also the man that laid with his servant to try and “make” the promise happen. This was the man who told his wife to lie about who she was, not just once but twice. He often questioned God and had troubles believing.

I say these things not to run down a person whom many hold in high esteem, but to give you and I hope. To remind us that God chose this very fallible man and made him into what he needed him to be. God made a covenant with him, knowing that if the man had any end to hold up, that he would fail. In that sense the covenant was unconditional. There was nothing special about Abraham, nothing unique in his character that made God choose him, at least nothing that you or I know of. God simply chose him and did with him what was necessary to fulfill his plan.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

1 Cor 1:26-31

That’s you and me right there. We have no place to boast, just as Abraham had no place to boast. What we do for God and what God does with us is a credit to him, not a feather in our caps. The lives I’ve touched I have only touched because of God’s calling. May I have faith and rest in that and not in my own abilities, the things that are not save for God’s intervention.

One of the things I love about the parables that Jesus used is that they are so often like those lenticular images. You know the ones, you look at them from a slightly different perspective and they present you with a new and completely different picture. Yeah, those. Now you have to be somewhat careful with this and not go putting in stuff that’s just not there, but examining the layers of the stories can bring out additional challenges.

Our pastor did that this past Sunday with the parable known as the Good Samaritan.

“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

This was prompted by the question, “Who is my neighbor?”

So it’s clear from the text that part of the message is at least in part that we should be like the Samaritan, loving those that have fallen by the wayside, even if that person is someone that we find despicable. He also lays out pretty clearly that this love should be complete. It wasn’t enough to just take him to an inn, but the Samaritan paid all of his bills and demanded the best care. Our love for the man in the ditch should be as sacrificial. That’s the sermon I’ve heard nearly every time this passage has ever been brought up anyway.

Hunter was talking about the offering and how thankful we should be to be able to make one and he said, “I am the man in the ditch.” And I was like… “Yeah.” He didn’t really go too much further with that, but here are my thoughts.

We have been beaten and left for dead. We have been salved and taken care of. We will be given a place beyond that which we could acquire on our own. All of this by a man that, under most circumstances, we would find despicable. I think this is a great picture of our lives as believers. I’m not so sure it accurately portrays our salvation (except perhaps as part of it in a larger sense) since I think we weren’t just half dead in our transgressions, but rather completely dead. However I think it’s spot on for our sanctification and our ongoing relationship with Jesus.

Sin beats us about the head and shoulders. Satan is the bandit who wants to take what we have and leave us in that ditch. Jesus comes to take care of us, to bind our wounds and put us back in the place that he has for us. He has not only paid for those sins, but has gone further and deeper, showing us a sacrificial love alien to many. He does all of these things for a person that many may call unlovable or unworthy.

This is an example for me of “what Jesus would do” and as we have been given such a great gift, so should we give to others. Now that we are out of the ditch (a place we may well wind up in again) we must become the good neighbor and live the life that he laid out for us. For me that makes the image more powerful and meaningful (even though it was already both) and gives me a clearer picture not only of how we should love our neighbor, but yet another good reason as to why we should. “We love him, because he first loved us.”—1 John 4:19.

My Sainted Mother once told me (I’m sure of this though I don’t remember the precise instance) that if I didn’t have anything nice to say that I shouldn’t say anything at all. Of course Mom also said that there was a Santa Clause and a Tooth Fairy so she’s not exactly batting a thousand. Still, I will try and keep the following words as nice and calm as I can.

There have been a couple of people in the last few days that have used a disaster for personal gain. Though this gain may or may not be expressly monetary, to profit in any way from the suffering of others and to not even bat an eye is not inhuman, but it is at the very least callous and in my opinion unforgivable. I wish I could expect different words from either man in question, particularly the one that calls himself a man of God, but I don’t.

Now would be the point where I would usually say something like, “We’re all sinners and none of us are beyond salvation.” I believe that to be true, no matter the person in question. The most “sainted” person isn’t perfect and the most evil could be forgiven if they would but ask. Still I find myself unable to generate any sense of Christian charity for these two men.

My preference would be that their respective audiences would turn off the devices that they consume the words of these men on, that they would write letters, make calls, and bring torches and pitchforks to the very doors of the institutions responsible for bringing not only these particular examples of hate filled speech but many other instances besides into the homes of people around the world. That part of me would be satisfied to see their careers fall into ruin and for them to be unable to earn a single cent or a shred of their credibility back for the rest of their natural lives.

I wouldn’t, as some have, wish them harm, whether here or in the after life. I would want them to have the health and opportunity so that they could eventually come to realize just what they’ve said and to sorrow for it. I don’t honestly believe that that would ever happen, any more than I really think that what audience they do have would be offended and then take action. Still, there is a part of me that holds out some hope in that direction.

The problem with all of this of course is that my own continued hatred of them would be no more healthy or righteous than their own misguided hatred. It feels good in the moment and I can see some of you shaking your head and thinking how right this anger of mine (and perhaps yours) is, but it’s not. I don’t think holding hatred in your hearts even for the most despicable of men is a healthy way to live. Feeling it in the moment is perhaps completely natural, but to dwell on it, to hold on to it isn’t.

These men deserve pity. Their lives have become something worse than anything I could wish on another human being. They have held on to their hate. It has born fruit and has poisoned not only their lives but the lives of those that idolize them. I don’t want that for you or for me. So, in honor of the man whose birthday this is, I’ll close with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote from Strength to Love, “Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” and by saying donate what you can to the folks down in Haiti and pray for them if you’re so inclined.

Sid asked that I drop a post on Dominionism and never one to turn down a reasonable request I figured I’d take a stab. I started out by taking a look in every blogger’s best friend, Wikipedia. According to that vast treasure trove of interesting (and occasionally accurate) information, this particular worldview derives its name from Genesis 1:28. “And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (KJV)

The definition of it is a bit tricky since there are apparently “hard” dominionists and “soft” dominionists and like any other political/theological belief system quite often the people who are called by the name don’t particularly like it and have adopted their own terms. Then there are those on the opposite end of the spectrum who (as often also happens) have developed a conspiracy theory about the hardliners. Because this represents a spectrum of beliefs, I will try and be fair to this view and make only a couple of (hopefully charitable) assumptions, if any.

According to this belief, generally, the dominion mentioned in Genesis extends not only to our biosphere, but also to people relationally. The thought being that we have some sort of responsibility to ensure that men either return to or come under the Law of God as the basis of our rule of law. The end result of this being that all men, Christians and non-Christians, would benefit from what is, arguably, the way God would have all men live. Often the Decalogue is portrayed as directly or indirectly being the basis of our laws specifically or all modern laws generally.

Because of this notion, at least it seems causal to me, and in no small part due to the belief that our founding fathers were at least in some large part Christian, this dominion has also come to include America specifically. This view holds that we were either at one point a Christian nation and need to return to that, or we need to become one in order to fulfill a particular eschatological view. I have also heard it said many times that if we would as a nation turn to God and repent for our sins (as a nation) that we would benefit (as a nation). So the view of America as some sort of body founded by God and beholden to Him also seems core to this point of view.

I have serious problems with both of conclusions. I know that this will not come as a shock to any of you. My problems are’t even mostly political, though I would like to start there. First, I have no problem with the notion that an uncertain percentage of the Founders were Christians. That many of them would have been burned at the stake had they been born in earlier centuries or disfellowshipped/excommunicated in many of our modern churches if born today seems more certain than their number. Let’s assume just for fun though, that a large percentage of them were Christians and that a percentage of that percentage possessed a theology that the Dominionists would be happy with. They simply didn’t seem interested in making this a Christian nation.

“Wait, wait,” I hear you say, “what about the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?”

Well as I said, I don’t have a problem with the notion that these men believed in a Creator or sorts, even one that was or looked like the Christian God. But the Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” seems to shoot the idea that we need to make laws establishing religious ideas… as law right in the foot.

“But what about Patrick Henry who siad ‘It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!’?”

He didn’t actually say that. He did say several great things that I agree with regarding Christianity and the Bible, but nothing indicating that we should be a “Christian nation”. One interesting thing did turn up in my research in this regard. One of the very first treaties we entered into as a country (The Treaty of Tripoli), ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, said the following:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That seems pretty clear to me. But you know what? This whole argument isn’t even the biggest part of where my problem lies. Let’s say that I give you everything that you believe that applies to our founding and the people involved. Suppose we were a Christian Nation in our history. Suppose that all of our laws and core beliefs once upon a time lined up with the Ten Commandments. So what? That doesn’t make it right or biblical.

I’m not trying to be flip here, but nearly everything I read in the Bible indicates that God doesn’t want us as his nation to be ruled by Kings. In 1 Samuel chapter eight the people of Israel asked for a king and God didn’t like it. He granted it though, making sure to have Samuel warn them. God wanted Israel to be ruled by Him, not be a monarchy or even presumably a democracy (though it’s somewhat ironic that apparently the need for a human king was arrived at by the people, the first democratic monarchy?).

Fast forward to Christianity. Paul in Galatians 3 says

“26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

That to me says that our national identity as Christians should be of no importance. Some take that to the place where they don’t even self identify as Americans, at least when it comes to things like politics. Perhaps that’s taking it too far, perhaps not, but at the very least it sticks a thumb in the eye of some Dominionists, or should. We aren’t, at our core as Christians, to put the importance on our gender, our freedom, or our nationality. Those are three pretty important things to most folk, but in Christ we are none of these things. So why should we be pushing to make our leadership consist solely of Christians? It just makes no sense.

One final point and I think that this is my main beef. All of the people I talk to who I would put (correctly or incorrectly) in the Dominionist camp are concerned about the laws of God being followed, not just by Christians, but by everyone. There should be no gay marriage because the Bible says it’s bad. We should have laws against abortion because murder is a sin. We should put the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and leave “In God We Trust” everywhere we can get away with it. Why? Why is putting the Law up front and center and making everyone toe that line so important? Well, why does the Bible say that the law is important?

Paul again in Galatians chapter three:

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

He goes on and on from there. The law is important, yes, but it is not of ultimate importance by itself. It is meant to drive us to Christ. Making those laws into the law of the land does not drive people to Christ. What does it do instead? It controls. That, in a nutshell seems to be what Dominionism is about. I don’t think that’s what God intended.

In the Genesis quote, Adam and Eve are given dominion over all the earth. They are to be its caretakers, its stewards. The Earth is to provide us all food and shelter, but only if we care for it. To take that notion and twist it to say that we should exercise some level of control over every human being so that they must fall into line with our interpretation of the Law seems adversarial to the Gospel to say the very least. If that’s not what Dominionism is saying then I would love for someone to tell me what it is all about. If it is as I suspect though, it’s hardly new. The Pharisees exercised a similar amount of control over their people. They too wanted every aspect of life to be controlled by the Law and we see where that put them in God’s sight.