Do mass evangelism events like the  Greg Laurie  Black Hills Harvest 09 crusade deliver what they promise? These events have fallen out of favor in recent times with many Christian churches, which favor a more one-on-one relational approach. Will there be any lasting effect on Rapid City from it?

Rev. Brian Carpenter – Presbyterian

We did not really promote the Greg Laurie Crusade in my church and neither encouraged nor discouraged anyone from attending.  One of my elders was on his local Board, and contributed financially to the work, however.  His literature was in the church, but not mentioned in the announcements.  Thus, I am not aware of any impact upon my church at all.

I am ambivalent about Crusade-style evangelism for four reasons.

1.  My understanding of what conversion is and how it happens.

2.  My understanding of the great danger of false conversion.

3.  Some reading I’ve done on the subject, particularly a book called Evangelicalism Divided by Iain H Murray.  Rev Murray explains the negatives in a very compelling way without dismissing the truth that God can use who and what He sees fit to use. 

4.  My own experience with the Billy Graham Crusade in Cincinnati in 2004.

Crusade style evangelism grows out of the theological heritage of a 19th century Presbyterian minister named Charles Finney.  Finney invented the Crusade as we know it today.  Finney is a hero to the Evangelical movement, primarily because they do not understand what the man believed and how his methods grew out of his theology.  His theology was terrible.  He was actually a heretic, embracing an ancient heresy called Pelagianism.  Pelagius was a British monk who was a contemporary of St. Augustine, and was the main and most powerful opponent of Augustinian theology.  Augustine’s disputes with Pelagius and his followers are still available today in a work called Against Pelagius. Augustine was very successful in his arguments, and Pelagianism has been rejected by literally every segment of Christendom over and over again throughout history.  It is one of the few things we all agree on.  It keeps popping up, however, because it fits perfectly with how sinful man prefers to see himself and God.  It is a kind of endemic nonsense that humanity is prone to blunder into over and over again.

19th and 20th century Evangelicals thought they could adopt Finney’s methods either in total ignorance of what he believed, or in the mistaken belief that they could separate his methods from his theology.  But they can’t, and the absolute circus that is contemporary Evangelicalism is the result.

I don’t know Greg Laurie’s statistics, but I do know Billy Graham’s statistics.  I imagine Greg’s are similar.  In one year after coming forward to profess faith in Christ, if memory serves, a full 90% of those having done so are exhibiting no life change whatsoever.  They are not praying, not reading their Bibles, not going to church, not hating their sin and moving toward loving God with their whole heart and mind and their neighbor as themselves.  They have not been truly converted.  But if you ask them if they have been saved, they say, ‘Oh yes!  I went forward at the Billy Graham Crusade and prayed the prayer.”  In my belief they are still on the path to hell, but are now clothed in the finest armor against seeing their sin and their need of a Savior that I know of.  Jesus described the psychology of true and false conversion perfectly in the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:4-15.  God’s grace inexorably produces results if it is truly present.  The truly saved bear at least some measure of visible fruit and are known by their fruit.  If there is no fruit, then there has been no salvation.

My own experiences mirrored Billy Graham’s statistics perfectly.  I was an Evangelism Coubsellor, a Team Leader, and an Area Follow-Up Director for the Cincinnati Mission.  I was given ten names to contact and to go through a followup Bible study with.  It was a good study and gave good basic info for the living of the true Christian life.  Of the ten I was given to contact, only one man showed any interest whatsoever.  We met weekly for several months, and he was a different man.  I watched him be changed and grow in a very discernable way in that time.  I spent several weeks trying to follow up with the rest, but could not even get them to meet with me one on one.  I do not believe any of them were soundly converted.  When a man is truly born again, he knows certain things because he has experienced them, the way a woman whose had a baby knows more about childbirth than any male OB/GYN ever could.  She speaks with a confidence and a quiet authority when she speaks on those things.  Anyone who talks with her can tell that she has had this experience herself.  It’s the same with spiritual birth.

So then I did a little math.  We raised and spent several million dollars to put on the Crusade (I forget how much), not counting man hours and the things they had us purchase on our own in the months leading up to the Crusade… things like thousands of cases of Coke and Pepsi to give away on street corners all around the city.  I’m sure the soft drink bottlers were big fans of Billy. 

I took the number of decisions recorded and calculated 10% of that number, figuring that was the rough estimate of the true conversions.  Then I divided it by the millions of dollars we spent.

Basically, the Church could have just evangelized each of these people for free, as they are commanded to do in the Bible, and then we could have taken all the money we raised and bought each new convert a brand new Toyota Camry.  That’s a lot of money to spend just so the 95% terrified Christians who never share the Gospel with anyone can continue to be disobedient to their Lord.  It was an utterly sincere waste of God’s resources motivated both by fear and insecurity, and by a sincere desire to do good to the people of Cincinnati.

I see no reason to think any differently about the Greg Laurie Crusade.  Sure, some were truly born again.  But the invisible bad effects of this method far outweigh the visible good effects.  That’s a hard case to make to pragmatic, impatient, shallow, superficial, anti-intellectual, visible-results-oriented American Evangelical Christianity.

 Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

It would be difficult for me to present any significant information on this topic. Rev. Brian Carpenter covered it well. I would, though, offer that Pelagius is often shaded a bit too darkly in the West, while Augustine is seen too much the hero. But that’s another issue.

Crusade-style evangelism possibly may have seen its day, but in these Godless times in our country any public exhibitions, or mass meetings that aim to stir thoughts about Almighty God and have us look into our hearts and, perhaps, still the noise of the marketplace, even for just a few moments, is a wonderful thing. There had to have been some positive effect here in Rapid City. And that’s a good thing.

A few days after Pope Benedict issues the third encyclical of his papacy — “Caritas in Veritate” — which addresses the current economic crisis in light of Catholic social teaching, he will meet with President Obama at the Vatican.  Obama will be in Italy for a meeting of the G-8 summit.

Does the invitation to a private audience with the Pope on July 10 mean that, despite Obama’s reputation in many Catholic camps as “the most pro-abortion president in history,”  the Pope feels Obama’s economic policies have plenty in common with Catholic social justice teaching  on other issues?

The Anglican Church in North America completed the historic task of creating a church this week in Plano, Texas, as it installed an archbishop and approved a constitution that says its members “are grieved by the current state of brokeness within the Anglican Communion.”  That’s a dig at American Episcopalians, of course, who disagree with the ACNA on the ordination of gays and the blessing of same sex unions. Church schisms are usually portrayed in a negative light, but isn’t this a healthy parting of the ways of two groups whose interpretation of scripture is so different that they can’t be expected to share a denomination? And where is the nearest ACNA -affiliated congregation, anyway?

Below is the official Father’s Day proclamation from the White House by President Barack Obama on Father’s Day, courtesy of his Office on Faith. Following that you’ll find Johann Christoph Arnold’s view that a strong belief in God the Father makes earthly fathers better at fatherhood. True?

The journey of fatherhood provides unique and lasting joys. Cradling a baby in his arms, a father experiences the miracle of life and an unbreakable bond. Fathers imagine a world of possibilities awaiting their children and contemplate the privilege of helping them reach that expanse of opportunity. As kids grow and mature, they look to their dad for a special kind of love and support. Providing these necessities can bring great happiness.
Fatherhood also brings great responsibilities. Fathers have an obligation to help rear the children they bring into the world. Children deserve this care, and families need each father’s active participation.
Fathers must help teach right from wrong and instill in their kids the values that sustain them for a lifetime. As they encounter new and challenging experiences, children need guidance and counsel. Fathers need to talk with their kids to help them through difficult times. Parents must also help their children make the right choices by serving as strong role models. Honest and hard-working fathers are an irreplaceable influence upon their children.
Communities must do more to counsel fathers. Family and friends, and faith-based and community organizations, can speak directly with men about the sacrifices and rewards of having a child. These groups can support men as they take on the great challenges of child-rearing. Through honest and open dialogue, more men can choose to become model parents and know the wonders of fatherhood.
On Father’s Day, we pay tribute to the loving and caring fathers who are strengthening their families and country. We also honor those surrogate fathers who raise, mentor, or care for someone else’s child. Thousands of young children benefit from the influence of great men, and we salute their willingness to give and continue giving. We also express special gratitude to fathers who serve in the United States Armed Forces for the sacrifices they and their families make every day. All of these individuals are making great contributions, and children across the country are better off for their care.
more

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C. 109), do hereby proclaim June 21, 2009, as Father’s Day. I direct the appropriate officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on this day. I urge all Americans to express their love, respect, and admiration to their fathers, and I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA

Re-founding Fathers
by Johann Christoph Arnold

Many problems in our society will be solved when young men are willing to become good fathers. Of course, they can do this only if they have an example to follow. As fathers, we need to be the strongest role models for children, especially for our sons.
I loved my father. He had a tremendous sense of humor, but he also was strict and set boundaries which I didn’t always appreciate at the time. I always knew he loved me. Once when I was eight or nine, I angered him so much that he threatened to punish me.  I looked up at him and, before I knew what I was doing, blurted out, “Papa, I’m really sorry. Do what you have to do-but I know you still love me.” To my astonishment, he leaned down, put his arms around me and said with a tenderness that came from the bottom of his heart: “Christoph, I forgive you.”
Like many fathers today, my father’s work sometimes kept him away from home for long stretches. I remember as a five-year-old, if I refused to obey, all my mother needed to do was to show me his picture. “Your Papa wouldn’t like it,” she’d tell me, and I’d give in.
I felt very secure just being with my father. As a small boy I decided I wanted to be like him when I grew up. This relationship held me through hard times, even after his death. Now I want to pass this on to my children, grandchildren, and to all of you.
Fathers, if you love your wife and if you love your children, give them your time. Spending time together will give your family inner and emotional security. This is much more important than financial security. The Chilean poet Gabriela Mistral writes, “Many things can wait. Children cannot… To them we cannot say ‘tomorrow.’ Their name is today.”
The love we show our children by giving them our time and attention can hold them in good stead even years down the road. As Dostoevsky reminds us in The Brothers Karamazov, “You must know that there is nothing higher and stronger and more wholesome for life in the future than some good memory, especially a memory of childhood, of home…For if a man has only one good memory left in his heart, even that may keep him from evil.”
To be a father is to fulfill a noble vocation. But fatherhood is not for everyone: it is not for cowards or for those who are unsure of themselves. Once we become fathers, we remain fathers until we die. A true father must be a leader-a captain who guides his family’s ship through perilous waters to safe shores, a general who rallies his troops to take on the daily battles.
On the other hand, a father should also model love and compassion. Jesus was not afraid to compare himself to a hen gathering her chicks. He also wept. These qualities belong to true manhood, and a true father will seek to embody them.
Finally, I believe even the best intentioned fathers will not be able to fulfill their task without finding a firm faith in God. When they do, our families and the entire country will be strengthened, because strong families form the backbone of our nation.

[Johann Christoph Arnold is a pastor and author of ten books, which are now available as free e-books at www.plough.com.]

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis

I would argue that it’s not a “strong belief in God as Father” that transforms fatherhood, but a direct, deep, and personal experience of the Fatherhood of God as it comes in the adopting of a man into His kingdom through the finished work of Christ on his behalf. I think that’s the general way of things, anyhow.

For me, however, the usual order was reversed. I came rather late in life to the role of fatherhood. My wife and I were unable to have children, and we were providentially hindered (as we Presbyterians say) from adopting for a full 6 years after our infertility was confirmed. I often wondered what kind of a father I would be, and if I had what it took. I wondered if I would be so selfish that when the going got tough, I would find it burdensome to take care of this child who was not of my own seed. After all, there are plenty of fathers that are that selfish towards those who are of their own seed.

When I first laid eyes on my daughter in that incubator, only hours after she was born, God poured something into my heart that I will always be grateful for. I was overwhelmed by a love for this tiny child of a different race and from the womb of a woman other than my wife. It astonished me then. It astonishes me still. It has not dimmed to this day, but instead has slowly seeped into all the other relationships in my life. It was only months later that I realized that what I felt for my daughter, as overwhelming as it was and still is, is infinitesimally small and broken compared to the love which the Heavenly Father has lavished on me.

There is a lovely old hymn called “The Love of God” whose final stanza always overwhelms me and brings me to tears when I sing it. I can seldom finish the hymn without my voice breaking.

The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star,
And reaches to the lowest hell;
The guilty pair, bowed down with care,
God gave His Son to win;
His erring child He reconciled,
And pardoned from his sin.

When years of time shall pass away,
And earthly thrones and kingdoms fall,
When men, who here refuse to pray,
On rocks and hills and mountains call,
God’s love so sure, shall still endure,
All measureless and strong;
Redeeming grace to Adam’s race—
The saints’ and angels’ song.

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

Refrain

O love of God, how rich and pure!
How measureless and strong!
It shall forevermore endure
The saints’ and angels’ song.

The U.S. Senate is apologizing to African-Americans for the wrongs  committed against them by slavery, much like the U.S. House of Representatives did last year. Both resolutions are non-binding and contain no monetary reparations.  Can the U.S. government apologize for something as big as slavery? Should it even try? And will it make any difference to black people if it does?

 Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

 Almost 20 years ago when our family was in St. Louis we had a wonderful friend, Camilla. She was 100 years old then and lived in a nursing home, but we would often have her to our home. My wife would take her out for chocolate shakes, which she greatly enjoyed … and she would tell us stories.

At that time I had a large collection of Civil War history books. Her favorites were the large ones, with collections of Matthew Brady photos. She would always go to the same book and open it to a full page  photo of a federal soldier, an African American in full uniform with his medals. “That was my father,” she would say. “He ran away from his boss in Arkansas in 1862 and joined the Army. We were all very proud of him.”  She would always add, “you know that was before I was born, but he told me all about it. Now they are all gone. I am the only one left,”  this daughter of slaves would  quietly say. She was a gentle woman who loved to attend church. She wasn’t sure where her father was buried, but she thought it was in a national cemetery, perhaps in the South.

When I was working in Washington I went to Arlington National Cemetery a number of  times; the first time to visit President Kennedy’s grave. But then I started to walk by the graves of many Civil War veterans, thinking of Camilla’s father. 

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded. Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.  In just two weeks, on July 4, we will commemorate the bloodiest battle of the Civil War when 51, 116 were killed or wounded at the Battle of Gettysburg. 

In all our national cemeteries today lay many soldiers who helped bring an end to slavery by giving their lives.  The government-issued headstones with their stark markings  tell us clearlyof  the final sacrifice of those who gave all to right the egregious wrong of slavery in a country they loved. “They are all gone now” as our friend Camilla would say. But their memory tells us volumes about this country.

Hazel Bonner–Seventh Day Adventist

It definitely is too little, too late. Others have been paid reparations haven’t they? Of course maybe the senate thinks reaparations for this are not called for. What is needed is an end to the racism that continues not only for blacks but other minorities and women as well. The ending of the injustices in courts  is major with blacks having the highest incarceration rage of any group in our SD prisons, over 4,000. The incarceration rate of other minorities and the disproportionate minority confinement is also very high. More than 70 percent of youth in secure detention are minority youth with 65 percent being American Indians. We also  are not making reparations to natives for what the government did to them. We just have to change things today and that does not seem to be happening.

Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities and religion professor

I think that Father Williams makes a very fine, subtle point. I remember, at Harvard, walking through Memorial Hall, built in memory of  Harvard men who gave their lives for the Union side during the Civil War. The idea that whites in America have somehow a collective guilt for slavery is not wholly fair. I am from New England, and grew up among homes filled with remnants of the “underground railroad,” a system of hide-outs to bring slaves north to freedom. I can understand the sentiment that the resolution by the Senate is trying to express. But isn’t America’s repudiation of slavery far more powerfully expressed already in the fact that a majority of the white people of this nation voted for an African-American as president? And not only is our president black, but our First Lady is the great granddaughter of slaves, and the children of this couple–the First Daughters Sasha and Malia–are the great, great grandchildren of slaves. How better can America express its repudiation of slavery than to put the descendants of slaves into the White House, which was built by slaves? I have no idea what “reparations” would do for anyone, other than be used as a cynical way to redistribute wealth. Black people don’t need reparations. They need to follow the example of the Obamas: Work hard, graduate from high school, go to college, graduate from college, go to graduate school, get a career. THEN get married, and THEN, as the final step, have children. This is what the Obamas did, and it is a model that works. A symbolic check from the U.S. Government for a few hundred dollars will not help anyone. There needs to be a dramatic change in behavior in inner-city neighborhoods, where nine out of every ten black children are born to single black mothers. The Obamas are a great gift, and represent far more than any apology or reparation ever could.

Rev. Brian Carpenter– Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis

Well, I think it is a good thing to apologize for the past sins of a nation. It would be a better thing if the nation had apologized immediately after sinning, and thus that generation which perpetrated it could admit some measure of guilt over it. Alas, that opportunity is lost.

I would have been pretty skeptical about how much an apology would mean to African Americans had it not been for a personal experience I had a few years ago. A black woman, a fellow PCA minister’s wife, commented on Rev. Peter Marshall Jr.’s words. Rev. Marshall had openly said that white people owed black people an apology for slavery. This was profoundly meaningful for her. I’m sure it wouldn’t be for many black people, but it was for her. Perhaps the actions of the Congress will be similarly meaningful.

To my mind the issue to day is one of what we might call “generational sin.” No one alive today has held slaves. But those slaves were used (both in the North and the South) to build the basic infrastructure of this country. That infrastructure paid huge dividends. Those slaves were deprived of the lawful fruit of their labor and their descendants (both slave and free) were systematically deprived in many ways and in varying degrees of the ability to fully enjoy those fruits while white people were not. I came into this world with an advantage, just because I am white. So did my father and mother. So did my grandfather and my grandmother. It was only a few years before I was born that we had to pass a special law just so black people could vote, so the effects of that privilege are not too far removed, and their effects occur to this day. Are they decreasing? Yes, I think so. But slowly.

As for reparations, I believe that was why Lyndon Johnson tried to create the “Great Society.” I think that was as close to reparations as we could come. It was a dismal failure for the most part, but it was a noble effort.

The heartwarming story of a 23-year-old cowboy who was  eking out a living on a hard-scrabble South Dakota ranch spending $15 he probably didn’t have to lose  on lottery tickets and winning a $232-million Powerball jackpot in the process is hard to resist, I admit.  But the fairy-tale ending that Neal Wanless, Mission, enjoyed is not the real story. The real story, the much sadder story, is the millions of other low-income people, just like Wanless, who spent $15, or $50 or $150, on lottery tickets on a trillion-to-one chance (OK, I exaggerate, but just a little).   In many of those homes, other things didn’t get bought — like groceries or gas or maybe the rent — because the money went for lottery tickets. Where’s the happy ending there? What’s your opinion? Is the lottery immoral?

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

I am glad you weren’t pitching, Mary,  when I played baseball. This topic, as you introduced it,  is like a slow curve coming out of a big windup.

It is a topic that many of us have ignored because we are surrounded by this “harmless entertainment” called gambling, or better yet, gaming. We have grown numb to it. Churches have bingo and games of chance at parish fun-raisers; many states have casinos. Then there is the whole world called sports gambling. And state governments have come to depend on the revenues from lotteries.  Casinos, games of chance, sports betting: All what the Godfather called: Harmless vices.

And it is a great story about the cowboy who won the Powerball jackpot. It’s always nice to see good things happen to good people. But you are right. Millions of people across our country spend hundreds of millions they can’t afford, looking for that big break; looking for a new life. Right now gambling is like smoking was 40 or 50 years ago. Everyone’s doing it. What health problems? But when we scratch the thin PR veneer  covering our gambling culture we see what you referred to:  ” In many of those homes, other things didn’t get bought — like groceries or gas or maybe the rent — because the money went for lottery tickets. Where’s the happy ending there? ”

Rev. Brian Carpenter– Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis
I’m ambivalent about the lottery. It can be a harmless distraction. It can be an all-consuming passion. It depends on the person playing it. This is true of most things. This is why Temperance has long been considered a necessary Christian virtue. In “Mere Christianity,” C.S. Lewis wrote

Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened ‘Temperance,’ it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further….. One great piece of mischief has been done by the modern restriction of the word Temperance to the question of drink. It helps people to forget that you can be just as intemperate about lots of other things. A man who makes his golf or his motor-bicycle the centre of his life, or a woman who devotes all her thoughts to clothes or bridge or her dog, is being just as ‘intemperate’ as someone who gets drunk every evening. Of course, it does not show on the outside so easily: bridge-mania or golf-mania do not make you fall down in the middle of the road. But God is not deceived by externals.

In my understanding, whenever a man cheats his landlord out of the rent or takes food from his children’s table in order to buy lottery tickets, he’s not sick. He’s not in the thrall of some uncontrollable addiction. He’s sinning. In particular, he is violating the Eighth Commandment. He’s stealing. The Westminster Larger Catechism reads thusly:

“The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required… idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God has given us.”

In other words, God has granted that man a certain sum of money or level of income. It would be sufficient to meet his needs and the needs of his family if he carefully shepherded it. But he refuses to do that. He thus wastes his substance. And one day God will call him to account.

As with most things… guns, drink, sex, tobacco, and mind-altering chemicals, there is a legitimate use and there is an abuse. Under most circumstances I think that to take some lawful thing away because some abuse it is a fool’s errand. All you do is deprive the temperate of a lawful pleasure, create an opportunity for organized crime to exploit and grow rich, and do nothing to stop those who abuse it.

Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities and religion professor

In the “Comments” portion of this blog, “rdennis” writes the following: “For one thin dollar, you can sure get a lot of dreams.” I believe this is exactly the purpose of the lottery, and I think it’s a good purpose. The price of participating–a few bucks–provides the entertainment of daydreaming about what one would do with all that money. Such daydreaming seems to me to be harmless. There are much worse ways to spend much more money than a few bucks to be able to daydream a bit. Who among us did not daydream about what we would do with the $232 million, had we won it? I know I did, and had quite a bit of fun. I would have had even more fun if I’d actually spent a dollar on the lottery.

Now it’s true that some moralists look down on daydreaming. Daydreamers are considered lazy malingerers, indolent dullards, who are not spending their time properly. But daydreaming is an inward jouney that I believe we spend far too little time pursuing. Often, people are afraid of their own thoughts. They will avoid anything that stimulates their contact with their own minds. Buying a lottery ticket and allowing yourself to dream is an excellent way to cultivate one’s ability to go inward into one’s own head. Andrew Weil, M.D., has writtten that “daydreaming and fantasizing [are] activities that our culture deems unimportant at best. We tend to regard fantasizing as time wasted and often tell daydreaming children to pay attention. They are paying attention–to internal reality rather than external reality–and it is through the doorway of the visual imagination that we have access to the relaxation response and its many beneficial effects on health and aging. I recommend cultivating this capacity.”

Thus we see that buying a lottery ticket not only does not harm you, it may even make you healthier!

Anti-abortion forces across the board condemned the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was shot to death in his church on May 31.
From the Southern Baptist Convention to Operation Rescue, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Traditional Values Coalition, pro-life organizations issued statements expressing their outrage at the vigilante violence and affirming their belief in ending abortion through legal, peaceful means.

“No individual has the moral right to become judge, jury and executioner of an abortionist. The murder of George Tiller is not the act of a legitimate pro-lifer,” said Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition.
From the SBC’s President  Richard Land: “Murdering someone is a grotesque and bizarre way to emphasize one’s commitment to the sanctity of human life. People who truly believe in the sanctity of human life believe in the sanctity of the lives of abortion providers as well as the unborn babies who are aborted.”
Speaking on behalf of the USCCB, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the bishop’s committee on pro-life activities, expressed profound regret.
“Our bishop’s conference and all its members have repeatedly and publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society, including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion,” Rigali said. “Such killing is the opposite of everything we stand for, and everything we want our culture to stand for: respect for the life of each and every being from its beginning to its natural end. We pray for Dr. Tiller and his family.”

The murder suspect turns out to be Scott Roeder, a fanatical anti-abortionist who, according to some news reports, subscribes to the theory of “justifiable homicide” for abortion providers.

Does that just make him crazy, or does that make him a “domestic terrorist” whose actions are somehow supported or inspired, if not caused, by the extremist language of some anti-abortion groups?

Dr. Bill Bogard–a Jewish perspective
 
The question is asked whether the killer  is a “domestic terrorist” whose actions are somehow supported or inspired, if not caused, by the extremist language of some anti-abortion groups?  My answer, in short, is simple: Yes, of course.

Poplicola has documented well the support Scott Roeder has received from the Anti-choice spokesmen both before and after his act of murder and domestic terrorism. So, I won’t add to the obvious conclusion that the Right-Wing media (see Bill O’Reilly, for example), the conservative Religious leaders, and the frequent  “that baby murderer got what he deserved” blogs and posts pervading the Internet are in great measure morally culpable for the murder of a physician in his place of worship.

Rather, I’ll simply state why this murder is an act of domestic terrorism and should be prosecuted  by the courts and labeled by the media as such.  What is the function of terrorism other than to so terrorize your opponent that they fear acting in a manner that the terrorist opposes?  The previous murders of abortion providers,  Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders all had one thing in common: a hope that the act of violence could stop the social or historical changes that they feared.   When Bill O’Reilly  refers for months to Tiller as “Tiller the Baby Killer”, compared him to a Nazi,   described him repeatedly as “executing babies” and “operating a death mill,” he knew exactly what his words would accomplish,  namely to incite those would act in such a way as to instill fear  and terror in those who offer a legally protected service to woman.  And, he was successful: abortion providers are now less willing to operate openly.

There may be a legal distinction between those who instigate violence but then plead innocence when another carries out their  rhetoric and those who actually perpetrate the act and show now remorse, as does the murder in this case.  But I find the Instigators just as culpable—and morally guilty of being a domestic terrorist.

The summer film with the most obvious religious angle is the action thriller  ”Angels & Demons,”  which opened in May and is the second time Tom Hanks and Director Ron Howard have angered some Catholics by playing fast and loose with church history.  I haven’t seen it yet, but hear the suspension of reality required surpasses even “The Da Vinci Code” experience.  Fr. Robert Barron of Word on Fire has a good piece on it.  And the sixth Harry Potter film shows up in theaters in July.  What’s the effect, if any, of these movies  — with their dark, dastardly themes, that offend some religious sensibilities —  on the state of religion in America?

By Kevin Woster

We’re still on vacation, and Mary has the good sense to maintain boundaries between her work time and her vacation time

I’m so bad at that I not only keep blogging over on Take It Outside and Mount Blogmore, I’m now snooping around on Mary’s turf.

I can’t help but share a moment I had Sunday morning over in the Sioux Falls diocese, where Mary and I stopped to attend Mass on the way back from my son’s med school graduation at Creighton University.

Just so happened, the “retired” priest who said Mass at the Mount Marty chapel was the same priest who baptized my son at St. Mary’s in Sioux Falls 27 years earlier.

I reminded father of that, and also noted that that “baby boy” had just graduated from Creighton medical.

“Creighton, huh?” he said in mostly mock concern. “Is he still a Catholic?”

Indeed, I said my son had found plenty of room within his eight years of Jesuit education at Creighton to challenge and question Catholicism and the Bible, among many other things.

To which father replied: “Those Jesuits. We gotta do something about them.”

He was kidding, uh, mostly. But indeed the Jesuits can and do often operate in ways that some in the Catholic hierarchy find unsettling.

Allowing, even encouraging, a frank and detailed questioning of the faith is part of the Jesuit education, it seems to me. Or as a Jesuit priest once said when I confessed - in confession, a direct term that I still prefer to  “reconciliation” - my failures of faith and periodic doubts about certain points of church doctrine, biblical truths and even the very existence of God:

“There can be no answers without first having questions,” he said. “It’s those who think they understand it all with certainty who worry me.”

I’m not one of those. And I really struggle to understand those who say they are.

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis
Kevin,
I’m not exactly sure how you would have us respond to this post, so I will respond how I think best.

We live in a time where basic epistemology… the philosophy of knowing… is under attack. Thus doubt is fashionable and certainty is unfashionable. We must never underestimate the influence of the “Spirit of the Age” on us. It is the positive duty of every human being to discover who God is and what God requires of him. The Spirit of this Age makes that duty harder to even see as a duty. I am not one who sees all doubt as a bad thing. Nor do I see doubt as a positive virtue, as most seem to.

One of the greatest obstacles to communication comes in the ambiguous use of words, especially words that have several possible definitions and usages. “Doubt” is one of those words. There are lots of reasons for doubt and many layers or depths of doubt. Some are more serious than others. The dictionary defines doubt as:

1. A lack of certainty that often leads to irresolution.
2. A lack of trust.
3. A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: “reassured me by answering my doubts.”
4. The condition of being unsettled or unresolved: “an outcome still in doubt.”

If, by doubting you are saying, “I’m undecided or uncertain on a particular point, but I’m fairly convinced of the validity of the rest of the system.” then that is perhaps not so serious.

If, by doubting, you are saying, “I am generally unsettled or unresolved as to the truth of the things I’m being told.” then that is by several degrees a more serious departure from the system of thought. You begin to loosen the whole framework of things in your mind. It begins to sway and totter a bit.

If, by doubting, you are saying, “I lack trust in the veracity or competence of the people who are telling me that these things are so.” then that is perhaps only a step away from the total ruin of your philosophical or religious framework.

The whole thing comes crashing down when by saying, “I doubt.” you mean, “I am in an irresolute state on all of these things.”

In whatever state you find yourself, you have a duty to investigate these things for yourself and to make up your own mind. Honest brokers will show you their reasoning so that you can evaluate it for yourself. It will be a lot of work and very time consuming, but in my opinion there is no finer use of your time. I even question if each of us was given time for any other purpose.

But none of that really matters if the motives to doubt are not a pure search for truth. Doubt may be very honest, but it’s no good pretending that it’s very costly either. Rigorous and honest atheism and rigorous adherence to some sort of religious system both have their peculiar comforts. But they are also both very demanding and costly in their own way. It’s far easier and pleasanter to simply drift… to draw the comforts of each system when it suits you and to avoid the costly demands at every turn. In an essay entitled “Man or Rabbit?” originally published in the book, God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis wrote:

The man who asks this question (i.e. do I need to be a Christian in order to lead a good life?) has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, “Need I bother about it?” Mayn’t I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being “good”? Aren’t good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn’t someone inside?”

To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being “good” before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately “forgets” to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won’t look at his bank account because he’s afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won’t go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor might tell him.

The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—“Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.” 1 But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven’t noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.

I do not necessarily agree with Lewis that “honest rejection of Christ.. will be forgiven and healed.” It may. It may not. I do not think it will be forgiven and healed unless it is first overcome in this life. But the rest of the essay makes a solid point, and one worth considering, given the state of things you seem to find yourself in.

Regards,
Brian

Brian: Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. I’ve never been entirely comfortable or certain in my faith. Faith implies a lack of certainty, doesn’t it? But I believe completely in the search - for a better spiritual place, a stronger connection to God, a more Christ-like (in my particular religion) approach to life every day. I doubt not because it’s fashionable, but because I doubt. And I appreciate clergy who encourage me to explore my doubts as completely as I explore my certainties. K.W.

Kevin,
If this conversation progresses, I need guidance from you as the “Mary Substitute” as to how you’d like for me to proceed. Shall I use the comments section?

I don’t think that the word “faith” necessarily implies a lack of certainty. Once again, depends on how you’re using the word. I don’t use it that way myself (as far as I can remember.) The Bible defines faith as assurance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. In Biblical parlance, “hope” isn’t in the subjunctive mood, but the future perfect. It implies certainty, not uncertainty. For the classical Protestant in particular, the word “faith” has a very carefully defined and nuanced usage. And, of course, as a classical Protestant who still thinks that the issues surrounding the Reformation are still live, unresolved issues, I don’t mind a bit if you question Rome’s dogmas. Of course, you’d probably not find mine any more palatable.

With what, in particular (in addition to the existence of God) do you find yourself doubting?

Regards,
Brian

Brian: Proceed here or down in the comments section, which has some very interesting thoughts. I’d say I continue to have periodic doubts about the existence of God, and regular doubts about the male-centered “father” God and “Let’s all get together in Heaven” afterlife, as well as pretty consistent doubts about the Bible, and a logical (by a journalist who knows a bit about how easily trusths and facts can get distorted when written and re-written by someone else)  assumption that back in the hazy past men fiddled with it in very human ways for very personal reasons, as well as simple human technical failures and mediocrities. My pattern of doubts began in my college years more than 30 years ago and, while they continues, are less burdensome than they used to be. I’d like to think I have found some answers, and some level of real insight and spiritual comfort and connection. And I’m hoping for more.  And I’m deeply inspired, enriched and humbled by the search. K.W. 

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

The idea of of epistomology being either under attack or ignored today in all facets of society so that doubt and questioning become very acceptable, and even fashionable, especially regarding belief in God and faith, is very interesting. The idea certainly holds up when looking at American society as a whole today.  

Perhaps another factor may be that in the last century with its two great wars and the Russian revolution, with its consequences, we lost the Christ of the great cathedrals, the Christ of the splendidly architected liturgies; and we discovered the Christ who is vulnerable just as we are vulnerable, we discovered the Christ who was rejected just as we are often rejected and we discovered the Christ Who had nothing at His moment of crisis, not even friends, and this was similar to our experience.

 Occasions of doubt will always be with us on earth.  However the day when God is absent, when he is silent - that is the beginning of prayer. Not when we have a lot to say to Him, but when we can only say, “I can’t live without You. But why are You so cruel, so silent?” If we listen to what our hearts say about loving and longing and are never afraid of despair, we will find that victory is always there - the other side of doubt.

“”For You have no delight in sacrifice. Were I to give a burnt offering, You would not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” (Psalm 51)

By Kevin Woster

Hey, I’m standing in for Mary while we’re on vacation.  Well, at least for today. Or at least for right now.

We’re in Omaha, and she was just saying that she needed to moderate her blog but had other things to do. I think they involved a nap.

So here I am.

Quickly, before I get kicked off, have any of you read “The Physics of Immortality,” by Frank Tipler?
I just bought it for 50 cents off the RC library used book shelf before we left town.

Haven’t been able to sit down with it yet, but a scan of the first few pages indicates that Tiper was an atheist who believes he found proof of an afterlife through physics.

This, I gotta read.

Anybody out there already done that?

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis
Kevin,

I found that book by accident. I attempted the book, but was stymied by the mathematics and then I gave it to my father to explain the math to me. He’s got the PhD in molecular biology and the BS & MS in Physics. He attempted it and couldn’t get past the theology. So then we both attempted reading it at the same time. We were not entirely successful because I moved 1500 miles away in the interim.

It’s an interesting book. “Afterlife” is not quite correct. As I remember, the author predicts, using something called “endpoint theory” that there will be a general resurrection at the end of time. The basic argument starts with the idea that every human being is basically a quantum state, or signature or pattern. When you run out of possible patterns for a quantum state, then you have to repeat. So time as we know it can only go on so long before we end up repeating quantum states. Therefore, history has a teleology and a defined endpoint. The repeated pattern is identical to the prior one, so it can be considered the same being as the prior one. Ergo, resurrection.

I think he was not clear in certain things, so I had a hard time evaluating his argument. For instance, he defines the Universe as all that exists. But he is not clear if he means that God is part of the Universe or transcendent to the Universe. That is a major issue that needs to be resolved clearly. He’s also more than a little in love with Tillich’s theology, which is barely theistic. Finally, his “god” does not appear to care about justice and only love, so I can’t go there either.

It’s been five years. Some of the details are fuzzy, so my memories may not be accurate. It’s been on my bookshelf all this time but I recently loaned it to a friend and haven’t gotten it back again to strengthen my memories.

Hope that helps.

Brian

Brian: Thanks. It does help. I butted heads with the math, too, and veered off to read “The Return of the Osprey.” But I’m going back to Tipler when I buck myself up a bit. K.W.