Christian Inaction and the Second Coming

 Literal belief in Jesus and the Bible restrict climate change legislation

 

I am a scientist and a Christian.  I received my doctorate in chemistry at the age of 25.  I became a Christian at age of 29. The above article is very good on the views of scientists, but very poor on its analysis of the Christian belief in the  second coming of Jesus. I have a literal view of Jesus but still believe in all the tenets of modern science including evolution and that climate change is man-made.

The only conflict that exists lies between fundamentalist Christians (a small but media savvy group) and atheists who enjoy portraying all Christians as fundamentalists.  There is no conflict in belief about the reality of man-made climate change and their faith in the minds of mainstream Christians.  Mainstream Christians believe just as scientists do that we must take action now.  My own view is that we are too late.  We have sown the wind, we will reap the whirlwind.

The author of the article failed to realize that it is not the belief in the Second Coming of Christ that determines how a Christian acts, but whether the belief is that the Second Coming is predictable and imminent. The immediacy of the Second Coming is a staple of fundamentalists who believe that the trumpet shall sound and Christ return within their lifetimes. Most believers in the immediacy of the Second Coming will tell you that they expect it to occur at any moment. Essentially, they are always looking over their shoulder for God.

I believe in the Second Coming but do not believe we will ever know how close or how far it is from us.  Jesus himself said in the Gospel of Mark that only God knows the schedule, that he did not.  If the Word of God did not know, how can we? 

Ministers, tel-evangelists, and end times writers teach an all too gullible Christian fringe that the end is upon us, so get your spiritual affairs in order.  This teaching that we know Christ will return in the present day yields at least two results.

First, the imminent Second Coming scares believers.  This fear triggers a blind obedience to the purveyors of this fear.  Out of fear that they are not right with God, believers give money to or buy things from those who claim that they know how believers can be safe. The focus is on saving yourself and lost souls by converting them to the only correct faith. (For my views on the many paths to God, read this. )

Second, the idea of an imminent Second Coming encourages believers to ignore the injustices around them. They reason that if Jesus is due any day now there is no need for them to take action because Jesus will fix everything.  Better to spend their time focused on getting right with God than follow Jesus' command to help the least.

The time has come for mainstream Christians to make the media acknowledge a more complex faith than fundamentalists' sound bite theology, and to destroy the miasma of fear that too many create to line their own pockets.  We must stand up for the intellectual truths of Christianity, for knowledge and understanding.  We must embrace science and show there is no reason to fear it.  We must demonstrate a faith inspired by a holy book, not bound by it. Above all, we must make known the diversity and intellectual honesty of modern Christianity.  

 

 

Barack Obama: Closeted Non-Believer?

The title of this entry comes from a Huffington Post blog by Ali R. Rizvi.  To read it click on the title. I do not agree with the author. I believe President Obama is a man of faith and I do believe that matters.  I take President Barack Obama at his word; he is a Christian.

His 2004 interview about his faith is being used by fundamentalists and evangelicals to discredit his beliefs.  President Obama did not use code words such as "born-again" and "the Bible is the Word of God."  His failure to use the code and familiar references means that fundamentalists and evangelicals do not believe he is one of them, a Christian.

The problem, of course, is that President Obama is neither a fundamentalist nor an evangelical Christian.  Just as I am not one, even though  I was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church and am an ordained deacon in a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  Neither of us approaches faith from the believe it or leave it approach. Neither are we non-believers.

In President Obama's 2004 interview, I recognize an intellectual approach to Christianity that is scorned by fundamentalist Christians.  I grew up in a traditional Southern Baptist Church and was baptized at the age of 11.  I believe that I committed as much as I could at that time to Jesus Christ.  At 13, I left, pushed out by the refusal of adults to answer questions and my mother's insanity.  When Mom had her first psychotic break, the church blamed her and did not reach out to help.  Former church friends disappeared.  The minister did not visit.  The church made her insanity my mother's fault.  I would come to learn that Mom was schizophrenic, not exactly something she could prevent.  I returned to the church at the age of 28.  In those years between, I studied many faiths and through the writings of C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, and others found the intellectual basis for my faith and in the church the community of Christians I needed.

I found that Christianity is as much an intellectual challenge as one of faith.  Fundamentalists make all the issues depend on the Bible.  Yet, fundamentalists tell you that your personal relationship with Christ is all important.  That personal relationship is key for me.  Because I am over-educated, I approached my search for faith from an intellectual viewpoint.  I wanted questions answered, not brushed off.  I found that my questions were often answered with another question, but they were never brushed off.  Great minds have struggled with the meaning of Christianity for two thousand years. That does not mean I believe that an intellectual approach is the only way to true faith.  I believe there are many approaches to faith, all valid.

Baptist believe in the priesthood of the believer which means we can each have a direct relationship with God.  We do not need a minister or priest to intercede with or to bring us to God.  I fully embrace that philosophy.  I may not have all the answers, just as President Obama does not supply pat answers about his faith, but I know that God is real.  That his truest representation is in Jesus Christ. That I can have a personal relationship with God.   I know the God I worship is Love in its purest sense.  Love that does not care what you call her.

Resources in Pursuit of Christian Apologetics

In an article entitled the War over Religion, the author, Ian Boyne, notes that the atheists and secularists seem sometimes to have the better arguments, but that is due to lack of knowledge and rigor on the part of Chrisitian apologists. Mr. Boyne, a Jamaican journalist, goes on to give a list of intellectual rigorous works that can help Christians refute the arguments of anti-religion scientists, atheists, and secularlists as well as works by seculalists and atheists.

One statement by author Karen Armstrong reflected what I had noticed about the argument of some atheists. These atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are not arguing against Christianity as a whole but instead against Christian fundamentalism. Their choice of target inherently makes their arguments weaker.

After reading this article, I know I now have a new reading list. I plan to read works on both sides and broaden my knowledge. For me, increased knowledge has led to increased faith.

Photo by Bryan Cummings

The View and Mary Magdalene

This morning on the television show, The View, a reference was made to Jesus' interaction with a crowd and a woman caught in adultery. The emphasis was on "whoever is without sin, cast the first stone." At least, that was accurate. I believe that the woman was referred to as a prostitute, but she is not so labeled in the New Testament.

What set me off was not that reference, but the equating of Mary Magdalene with the woman caught in adultery. Never does the Bible make that connection. There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was prostitute, only a close follower of Jesus who never deserted him, even in death.

Why is this important? Jesus made women equals. He welcomed them to study at his feet. As the church formed, women had a significant role, but as years passed and the church became an institution, women's roles were deemphasized. Making Mary Magdalene a prostitute made her less of a model for women, made her a second class citizen in the church. Denigrating the women in the Bible made the men greater and a woman's role subservient. We need to set the record straight. Lift up the women such as Mary Magdalene as role models for Christians and equal disciples of Jesus.

In our society, there is a woeful knowledge of the Bible. Instead there is a cultural knowledge that reflects, not Biblical truth, but beliefs fostered by men and developed by writers, storytellers, and the desire to spice up the narrative.

This common knowledge tends to enhance the risque, downplay the ordinary, and denigrate the women. Often the viewpoint is that of a fundamentalist. If more moderate Christians were allowed to participate in television interviews, maybe a truer view of Christianity would be common knowledge and women would be treated as equals.