American Christianity Deceived

I have  been thinking a lot about the gun issue in this country since the horrible shooting in Uvalde. I’ve always been a fairly strong 2A supporter, I do own a gun for a variety of reasons and have always enjoyed them. However, I’ve been thinking about the problem a lot since this school shooting. 

The issue I have currently is how striking the Christian response has been to guns and gun violence in this nation. Christians have made the 2A the 11th commandment, and honestly it’s pretty scary. Owning guns is not a God given right. How can we say that when we have Jesus as an example and the God of our religion? Moses made “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” A law, however, Jesus, in contradiction to the law of Moses states, “you have heard it said, an Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you do not resist an evildoer…love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” 

My fear today is that most American Christians are not actually worshiping Jesus anymore. It’s a strange religion of guns, violence, and war and a love for country over the precepts and character of Jesus. Even many Seventh-Day Adventists have fallen for this lie. They believe that God has called them to defend religious liberty with violence. Adventists are pacifists, or should be, if we claim to follow Jesus, yet many of us have fallen to a love of violence over a love for the teachings and example of Jesus. The God we claim to serve came to this earth, could have saved himself from evil, yet died a death on the cross. When his disciples attempted to break him free from his captors, he rebuked them, told them to put up their swords, and then he healed the man who was there to take him to his death. 

This nation was not founded on a right to kill people who oppress you. It was founded on liberty, most importantly for most of the first pilgrims who came to this nation, the freedom of religion. Our supposed Christian nation is no longer known for its incredible diversity and freedom of religion, it is known for its military might and right to bear arms and kill other people with guns. In truth, this nation has not been known for freedom for a very long time. This Christian nation was responsible for one of the most oppressive slave trades in history, and while we fought and died to destroy that evil, we bear its guilt still. Christians even now forget what the confederacy stood for, they fly its flag as a badge of honor, glorifying in what it means to them, supposed freedom and state rights, freedom of states to do what? Protect religious liberty for all people? No, freedom to buy and sell people as property, freedom to work human beings to death for profit. And now, in the modern era, it still isn’t about freedom of religion and diversity, it is freedom to bear arms, and ultimately kill others if necessary. How wonderful would it be if we were known for our religious diversity and freedom instead of our right to kill other people? 

The second amendment is all well and good for a secular society, it makes plenty of sense when history is reviewed and governments oppress their own people time and time again, or governments doing evil things such as killing 6 million Jews and tens of millions of others in World War II. However exercising your second amendment right is one thing, claiming it to be a Christian virtue on the other hand is quite another. 18 children were murdered last week for my second amendment right. Millions have been murdered over the centuries for my second amendment right. It is a price society has deemed acceptable so far, but it is neither Christian, nor a virtue. If it is a necessity in this world, it is an evil necessity with a horrendous responsibility, it is not sacred. 

Seventh-day Adventists have a belief that the lamb-like beast spoken of in revelation is the United States of America. The prophecy found in the book of revelation states that this beast will have the appearance of a lamb, but will speak like the dragon (Satan). Is there anything in this world that fits that prophecy better than modern day American Christianity? A version of Christianity that barely resembles the precepts of Christ any longer. 

America spoke of freedom and justice for all, but instead it gave oppression, slavery, and a perverted Christianity that holds the second amendment as it’s most sacred precept. The cry goes out in the book of revelation speaking of this lamb like beast, “Babylon has fallen, has fallen! That great city. She has become a home for demons!…come out of her my people, so that you do not participate in her sins…For her sins are piled high as heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.” Rev 18:2-5. 

Adventists teach that the United States is that lamb like beast that will deceive the world. Adventists believe that it will be religiopolitical power that will persecute God’s people, not the atheists in their indifference to religion, not the gays in their fight for equality and respect, not the democrats in their desire for a socialist state, no, according to Adventist teachings it will be Christianity grasping for political power that will oppress and kill in the name of God, thinking they are doing God a favor by their actions. 

I realize that many of my social media friends are not Adventist, and not even Christian, so this might not have much impact on you and that’s ok. I just have had a strong conviction in the last couple weeks that modern American Christianity is dangerous, and if anything is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and apostate Christianity, than what we are seeing in American Christianity is certainly it. 

Wether or not you support the 2A is beyond the point of this post. The second amendment may very well be a necessity in an evil world full of evil people willing to use government to oppress and kill its own citizens, but we need to be honest about what we support. It is an evil thing to need, born of evil. I also proudly support those who choose to serve our country even when they choose not to be pacifists. Yet again, we must acknowledge that it is not a sacred or righteous thing, it is an evil need born out of a need to protect from evil. If we believe any different as Christian’s, we are deceived and the God we worship is not the Jesus found within the New Testament. 

To the Unknown God: What Agnosticism Can Teach Us About Faith

To the Unknown God:

What Agnosticism Can Teach Us About Faith

            The idea of Agnosticism has been around since about the 1800’s. The name being first suggested by Thomas Huxley, the renowned naturalist and evolutionary apologist. Many in the scientific community immediately took to the idea of agnosticism as it gave a perfect explanation for how they felt about faith in relation to their study of the natural world. Prior to agnosticism, scientists had really only three options. 1. Be a Christian apologist seeking to prove the Bible’s accuracy through the study of science. 2. Be an atheist who did not believe God existed at all, And finally. 3. Claim to be a deist who believed in an original cause or the immovable mover, but not in a personal God. Most scientists in the 19^th century chose the later.

            Huxley’s agnosticism offered an incredibly appealing alternative to the stark options of the time. It was a way for thinkers to admit that they couldn’t actually rule out the existence of a god, neither could they prove “he” existed in any meaningful way, and that was ok. The word agnostic comes from the Greek term “agnost” which means “incapable of being known.”[1] Huxley believed that on the subject of God, it was impossible to know whether or not God existed, since he does not reveal himself within the dimensional world and thus cannot be tested or explored. Huxley invented the term agnostic while reflecting on the sermon by Paul at the Areopagus in Athens when he referenced the alter that the Athenians had dedicated to the unknown God.[2] Paul sought to reveal to the people that which they did not know, which Paul suggested was Jesus Christ. Huxley seemed to hold more in common with the thought process of the Athenians than he did with Paul, however. Huxley believed that the natural world is all that can be known, and anything else beyond it is essentially unknowable. He disavowed atheism and instead accepted that the original cause of the universe is by definition unknown and unknowable since such a God would not be a created being and thus would not be part of this universe.

            Many accused the agnostic of simply being the modern Greek equivalent of a much older term, that being infidel. Much of the religious community accused Huxley of simply hiding under the made up guise of agnosticism. They said that in claiming that one could not actively study and know God they were inadvertently denying Jesus himself since Jesus made claims on the existence and power of God that could not be refuted. Huxley responded to such claims in stating that he did not so much doubt the divinity of Jesus and his authority, but rather doubted the authority of those who wrote down the story of Jesus and his words. Huxley states, “Now, the question as to what Jesus really said and did is strictly a scientific problem, which is capable of solution by no other methods than those practiced by the historian and the literary critic…”[3]

            Agnosticism has a bad reputation of being used by those too lazy to actually articulate their own belief and understanding of God. However, it is unfair to discount it simply for this fact. We do not discount all of Christianity because the majority of Christians make the same mistake. As a tool for intellectual inquiry, agnosticism may in fact be the only legitimate stance one can take when approaching faith and experience with the unknown. Christianity has a bad habit of being far too arrogant about what it can and cannot know. Many a Christian scientist has staked their entire career on the pretense that their version of things is correct, and thus they have colored their findings so profusely with confirmation bias as to be laughed out of any legitimate intellectual or scientific society. The reason I can claim that Agnosticism may be the only legitimate stance for true seekers is because agnosticism is one of the only philosophical stances that approaches every question with the idea that you don’t already know the answer. Truth can only be studied and truly reached when the searcher is intellectually honest with themselves and starts from a baseline of absolute neutrality. This does not have to mean that the researcher does not believe in any objective truth, but rather that the observer opens him or herself up to the possibility that what they think they know may in fact be wrong.

            One of the major problems that organized religion faces in each successive generation is that they tend to back themselves into corners. They declare, “If this one teaching or theological ideal turns out to be wrong then everything is lost and there is no objective truth.” It is an all or nothing type of faith. Those who hold to such narrow-minded theology often find themselves forced to either ignore evidence and fact, or reject their entire faith system. One of the major advantages with a type of agnostic faith is that no matter what facts are discovered, and no matter what scientific inquiry is made, faith is not severely affected. It has the flexibility to acknowledge that God is always greater than what we, as dimensional creatures, can study and experience. An agnostic faith is never dependent on certain facts in order to substantiate its legitimacy; it does not have to seek to prove itself, and thus does not have to twist its data in order to fit within its previously accepted theology.

            Having an agnostic approach to faith does not mean that you cannot believe in the validity of certain unproved facts substantiated only by faith, such as the existence of angels, heaven, or the divinity of Jesus. What an agnostic faith does, however, is open up the mind to the possibility that what you thought was true may in fact be proved wrong. It interjects humility into the equation. With any scientific endeavor, however, it still may be necessary to operate as though your belief is the absolute truth, even though it lacks evidence. Gravity is an unproved concept, highly tested, and highly studied, yet still unproved, yet you still must operate as though our current understanding of the way gravity works is the absolute truth. Einstein’s Relativity is still unproved, highly tested and highly studied, yes, but never the less unproved, yet scientists use it every day to explain the phenomena of our existence. That all being said, most scientists have the humility to admit that these theories are simply highly tested theories that currently are adequate to explain our day to day existence, even if they are not completely proved.

            Faith should be held to no less of a standard to that we impose on the scientific community. Within western society there is a hierarchy of knowledge. In my estimation this hierarchy goes: science, philosophy, religion. This is because as you go down this ladder you gradually exit facts and observation and enter opinion and belief. The fact is that we hold religion to less stringent standards than we do science. This must change if religion is to maintain its relevancy within a rapidly changing and developing world. The first step toward closing the gap between science and faith may in fact lie with the ideas first proposed by an evolutionary biologist nearly 150 years ago and the unknown God to which he appealed as the foundation for his agnostic faith.

           

---

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

[2] Henry Wace. On Agnosticism. Read at the Manchester Church Congress, 1889.

[3] Thomas Huxley. Agnosticism. The Nineteenth Century (February 1889).

The Cosmic Constant and the End of God

The Cosmic Constant and the End of God

The modern era, now that was the time. Everything was so certain. We were discovering things we never thought available to mankind. Many a modernist bemoaned the arrival of postmodernism and its uncertainty and skepticism. Churches in western countries have progressively lost membership and attendance since the death of modernism, which at first glance doesn't make sense. Postmodernism should give rise to more spirituality since it admits unashamedly that we just can't know, whereas Modernism states unequivocally that we can know everything. 

The reason we see such a decline in religion is possibly because not only did modernism give rise to extreme faith in science, it also gave rise to extreme absolutism in religion. Einstein's organized universe just made so much sense to religious thinkers. It was obvious that God created everything, after all everything fit where it was supposed to and did what it was designed to do. 

The discovery of quantum physics really destroyed this certainty. The fact that electrons and photons behaved differently based simply on whether or not we were observing them really threw people for a loop. You have a piece of energy that was a wave or a particle depending on what you happened to be measuring at the time. This meant that we could no longer trust our observations. Everything became suspect because nearly everything is based on the human's ability to experience and observe it. You see, although modernism gave new authority to science and made people less likely to claim all things to be divine interactions, it also gave people a sense of stability in absolutes. The world of postmodernism destroyed all this. 

For instance, in 1917 Einstein theorized that our universe was held together by a force that negated the actions of gravity. This force would unify the universe and stop it from tearing itself apart. It was known as the cosmological constant and Einstein assumed this constant to have a value of exactly zero in order to hold the universe in static equilibrium. However, astrologists discovered that the universe was in fact expanding and speeding up. Every galaxy in our universe is moving away from every other one. Which can only mean one thing, not only are galaxies traveling further distances, but in fact the space between galaxies is expanding as well. You can picture it like a rubber band with several points on it, as the rubber band is pulled tight, every point moves away from the other while still expanding outward, and from any given point it appears as though it is standing still and everything else is moving away. 

So what did this mean? Well, a great deal. It just so happens that this cosmic constant is set at just the perfect ratio in order for life to exist. Any greater and the universe would expand too quickly for any matter to coalesce at all. Any smaller and the universe would never have expanded at all. The discovery of the cosmic constant was an incredible leap in our understanding. Before this we had no answer for why the universe was the size it is. The best we could come up with was, "Because God knew it would be most conducive to life." The cosmic constant proved this to be a simplistic and foolish answer. The universe is this size because it is a fundamental aspect of reality itself.

It could still be argued that because the cosmic constant is such a specific non-zero number the universe had to be created by a truly awesome and loving God who fine tuned absolutely everything in order to create a system that could perfectly sustain life. However with the discovery of particle theory this perfect system was also called into question. 

It all has to do with the Higgs Boson particle which is the central part of particle theory. Without going into too much boring detail that I don't actually understand, just suffice it to say that the Higgs particle gave rise to two separate theories of the universe. One theory claimed the Higgs had a mass of 115 GeV (giga electron volts) in size, which meant that there had to be other particles yet to be discovered that would unify our universe. This theory is known as Super Symmetry. The other theory proposed that the Higgs was actually 140 GeV which essentially meant that the Higgs Boson was the very last particle ever to be discovered inside our universe. What's more is that because the Higgs would be the last particle in our universe it had no particle inside this universe with which to balance it. This means it is fundamentally unstable and the only thing balancing it and keeping our universe from collapsing are other universes very close to our own with their own randomly assigned values for this cosmological constant. 

This last theory is known today as the multiverse theory. It essentially states that our universe is in fact finite and temporary, that there are millions of other universes out there all with their own laws of physics and without the perfection of our own system. You see if the cosmological constant is off by just a hair you would have a break down of the entire system, thus nothing would exist at all. That means that our universe is an accident of chance. It is reality playing with the numbers and arriving at one perfectly ordered universe surrounded by potentially endless universes that are nothing but chaos. This doesn't speak of a God of love and purpose. If it pointed to a god at all, it would be pointing to a god of indifference, a deistic god who set the universe in motion with no care as to its end. 

So which theory is correct? The elegant and potentially designed universe of Super Symmetry, or the chaotic and accidental universe of Multiverse? Well, it just so happens that we think we know the beginning to the answer. In 2012 CERN announced that they had finally found experimental evidence of the Higgs particle using their underground large hydron collider(LHC). Can you guess what size they found the particle to be? The answer baffled many because physics yet again refused to be stuffed into the boxes we so wish to create for it. The particle was found to be 125 GeV, right smack in the middle of two opposing theories.

What is more is that although the number is closer to the predictions of super symmetry, the LHC has not revealed any twin particles to balance the Higgs particle. This leaves us with an unstable field many times larger than gravity but yet at the same time coexisting with gravity in a way that shouldn't be possible. This leaves us with the implication that perhaps multiverse theory is correct and our universe is but a pencil standing on its tip balanced by the accidental equilibrium of random variables that could just as easily bring the pencil crashing down. 

So what are the philosophical implications in the fact that neither theory adequately represents reality? Why isn't God the absolutist of modernism that so many religious institutions are desperately trying to make "him" into? At the same time why doesn't the universe simply make sense in the terms of an accidental multiverse? Why does there have to be so much dichotomy? 

I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I will propose an alternative view. What if the study of physics and science in general is not simply the study of God's creation, but rather is the study of God Himself? What if we are not simply studying the properties of experiential reality, but in fact studying what religious persons would refer to as God. If this is the case than we should expect never to find the answers we seek, and to never come to the end of all that there is to know. How does something created understand that which created it? 

I propose that science will forever continue to baffle our small minds as we attempt to make sense of our existence. Religious persons solve this perplexing problem by simply putting our understanding off into the distant future by saying, "one day, in heaven, all things will be revealed." While the non-religious continue to struggle with a universe that seems to defy reason, but all the while attempting to force it to our brain power. Both approaches are foolish. Heaven is a pipe dream created by individuals who cannot handle the reality of our world, but at the same time, attempting to force our understanding on reality is an effort in futility. Can we not recognize the beauty and elegance of creation while embracing it's mystery, exploring it's theories, and standing in humbled reverence at its revelations? 

Heaven is hear and now. Reality is the revelation of God, we will never have a more complete picture than what has already been given through the universe itself. Science hopes that the Higgs Boson, known as the god particle by some, will give us the answers as to why we exist and what our purpose is, yet I suspect it will tell us no more than what we should already know by now, it is nothing but a piece in the giant cosmic puzzle that is so infinite it will never be solved. 

The Emergent Truth

It is possible that I am a little late on this subject. I have had many people ask me what I think of the emergent church movement that is sweeping across Christianity. Part of the reason I haven't jumped at the opportunity to write about something so controversial is that I didn't really understand it. Despite my love for controversial subjects I generally don't like writing about things that I don't understand.

I'd argue that my confusion is not unique to me. I think it's likely that even the emergent church's staunchest adversaries don't really understand. What they see is people leaving structured belief, and for most people that is enough to label it as heresy and condemn it as an invention of Satan. The emerging church is a threat precisely because of its unconformity to rite and ritual. It has no stated fundamental beliefs, no structured church government, and no denominational affiliation, there is absolutely no way for someone to point at a specific church, group of people, or a specific practice and definitively state it is the emerging church.

The emerging church is not spiritual formation, it is not contemplative prayer, it is not spiritualism, it is not pantheism, and it is not emotionalism. It seems to me that antagonists of the emergent church movement are frantically struggling to put a label on what they perceive to be the greatest threat to their religious system in the modern era. Once something has a label, real or not, it becomes easier to vilify it and label people you don't like. I have noticed a trend in certain religious circles, if there is something going on that they don’t like all they have to do is label it as the emerging church and it is enough to shut it down, in their minds, forever. The emerging church accusation is the go-to argument against anything that fundamentalists do not like. And just as an aside, it should be noted that if fundamentalist religion doesn’t like it you better take a close look because it is likely that God is leading it.

In reality the emerging church is not a unified group of people. It is not composed of a bunch of religious leaders gathering in secret rooms with a plot to destroy fundamentalist Christianity. The emerging church is merely the next step in the evolution of religion. It is an outcry against stagnant and restrictive religion. It is a rebellion against a system that cares more about its bottom line than it does the people it steam rolls over.

The emerging church movement is alive and active. Rather than attempting to exclude and contain, the movement is constantly pushing the boundaries, cutting holes in the boxes of religious idealism. The fundamentalist's cry rings out,  "conserve, conserve!" While those emerging from fundamentalism are crying out for change. One thing that is true for humanity, no matter what group or institution you are addressing, is that if you are not constantly adapting, changing, developing, and learning, you are stagnant, on your way to becoming irrelevant, and no longer a leader in the community.  

One thing that was pointed out to me by my pastor is that the church is not emerging, it has emerged. The emerging church is represented by all those who refuse to give in to mediocrity. It is full of young people who are fed up with the theological politicking and meaningless banter of our leadership. It is led by those with a true desire to know God more. Most importantly it is led by people who are advocating for social change and awareness. They will not stand by while the church oppresses and passes by those whom it deems unredeemable. While the church is arguing about women in leadership, the emerging church is fighting for equality and unity for all.

The emerging church cares more about unity and equality than it does about religious ideology. It cares more about unity and equality than it does about religious correctness. While the churches sling insults at each other, declaring themselves more righteous than all others, the emergent church seeks common ground on which to meet people in love, understanding and with an ear to listen. It is acceptance and love. It does not sit by advocating complacency as some would claim, it is active in forging the tools to use to advocate for social change and equality. Rather than worrying about condemning and correcting the sins of others, it seeks to advocate for those in need who suffer persecution and pain from the very institutions that claim to be followers of Jesus. The emerging church grasps a hold of the mission of Jesus in all its glory, "...go and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mat 9:13)."

In short the emerging church is plain and simply emerging truth. In fact I wouldn't even call it emerging, I should call it just plain truth. It is the message of Jesus carried forward as it should have been long ago. It is a recognition that Jesus came to seek and save those who are lost, not establish new doctrine with which to use to exclude those we feel are unworthy of everlasting life. Truth recognizes that the one true church is the church where people gather in community to strengthen, encourage, and uplift one another. It recognizes that God Works through all alike, regardless of gender, religious affiliation, age, race, or sexual orientation. It recognizes that God is just as likely to spread the gospel using the voice of a homosexual couple, as he is the voice of a ministerial graduate. Unlike humanity, God plays no favorites. God will use the atheist who does not even believe before he chooses to use the churches that slander his character.

If you are not a part of the emerging church, then you are a part of a church that has lost its mission and purpose. I for one intend to forge a new faith, one founded on the principles of God, and they are to know and love more. Christianity will change; it must if we are to see the fulfillment of the mission of Jesus. In the churches current state that mission will not and cannot succeed. Let the truth emerge!

Everlasting: The Problem of Death

Everlasting: The Problem of Death

There are some strange concepts and conversations that go on inside the scientific community. The ideas that are thrown around today are the witchcraft and science fiction of the past. One of these topics is the topic of mind transfer or mind uploading. The basic idea is that you map a person's neuronal sequence and make a copy or transfer the impulses to an artificial brain such as a quantum computer or perhaps a lab grown brain. This is proposed by some to be the future for the extension of the human life, a way to possibly gain immortality through the use of science. 

There is one problem with this theory however and that is that these proposed processes don't actually extend the life of the real person. They extend the idea of the person. For instance, if I were to create a complete clone of my brain and copy it into another body that new body ceases to be me. It may act and think exactly like me and contain all of my emotions and memories but it is no longer me, it is just a copy. Once I die I am truly dead, my clone may live on but I won't have any knowledge of it. We may be able to create a copy of ourselves or even attempt to transfer our consciousness from one body to another or from body to machine, but how are we to know if we truly were transferred or if we are merely a copy of what we once were. This would scare me half to death, the idea that transferring my brain may in fact not be a transfer at all but would in fact be death. 

What is even more scary, at least to people like me, is that you really have no proof that the person you are today is in fact the same person you were yesterday. It used to be believed that you were born with exactly as many neurons as you would ever have. Scientists did not believe that the brain had any ability to remodel itself. This was comforting to some as they believed our brains were the one constant in life. You are always the same person in your mind no matter how your body changes over time. In recent years this has been proven false. Your brain can and does in fact create new neurons. You can grow the number of synapsis in your brain. In turn, these synapsis are constantly being remodeled by the trimming process of microglia and the  addition of myelin by oligodendrocytes. So in actuality you are not the same person you were several years ago. 

This is quite frightening because it gives no continuity to life whatsoever. There is nothing to stop me from becoming a new person entirely. I can specifically testify to this by looking back at my own life just over the last 6 years or so. I am a completely different person now than I was then. In fact the person I was then would probably be horrified to know who I am now. This reminds me of Paul's "New man" allegory that he uses throughout his writings. It may in fact be true that the man Paul was at the end of his life truly was not the man he was in his youth. 

The only relieving factor in this whole narrative is the fact that you don't readily notice this process taking place. You don't experience the death of yourself everyday, even though it is likely that you don't wake up the same person you were the day before. You see, we use continuity of experience as proof that we are the same person. Without this continuity you are left with no proof that you are in fact you. Any break in that continuity leaves you no longer the same person. The only thing that continues on after you pass away is the brain waves that propagated through space and that eventually diminish to nothing. 

And here is where this topic meets religion. The church I grew up in believes that when you die you are dead, you have no more memory or knowledge of yourself or anything else. They believe, as do I, that apart from the body there is no life. There is no such thing as an immortal soul that goes on living after you pass. You are simply the make up of your biological processes and memories. Where I differ in my belief is what happens to you when you die. The church believes that God holds your memories and experiences in his mind and recreates an exact copy of you at the resurrection. He creates a more perfect body and simply "downloads" a stored copy of your brain into the new body. The only problem with this is the break in continuity of experience. Without that continuity you may wake up thinking and feeling like the same person, but you aren't. You are merely a robotic copy created by God to mimic what once was. 

So what is my position on the afterlife? Well I don't know if I really have formed a concrete theology of death yet, however, as stated above I reject the notion of a soul that lives on after the death of my body. Our entire experience is exclusively tied to the biological processes of our brain. We are our body. The only contradiction to this is the discovery of quantum computing in our brains. It is safe to say we simply don't understand the complexities of our brain or how it develops, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation. 

To me, however, it matters less about the details of the afterlife and more about what the afterlife represents. Jesus speaks extensively about the resurrection and it is evident that his closest followers firmly believed in the resurrection of the dead and the re-establishment of paradise. The theory Jesus and his followers propagated was a theory of hope for the future. Jesus was telling us something specific about God, mainly that God intended good towards creation. The ideal of heaven and the reuniting of lost family members inspired hope for a future, a future that could be positively altered by our actions in the present. The resurrection of Jesus filled people with the desire to change the world and indeed gave them the knowledge that it was possible to do just that. 

So will I have a chance at eternal life in the future? At this point in my life I don't really care. What I truly desire is to make the most of the life I've been given and use it to change the world for a positive purpose. I desire to live my life in a way that reveals the happiness and joy that life can hold. When the continuity of my life comes to an end I hope to breath a sigh of contentment in the knowledge that no matter what lies beyond the grave my life has made a difference. 

Doubt is Divine

            Recently I have started reading a book by Peter Rollins. The premise of the book is that to truly be an authentic and relevant Christian doubt must become a part of your belief system. This concept has really struck me, especially in recent years as I have begun to re-examine my faith and my beliefs. Belief is natural. To believe is to be human. It could be argued that belief is simply a human evolution used to cope with existence. We use God as a means to an end. God is simply there to be used to solve a fault in our reasoning; God is there to span the gaps and to give meaning to the emptiness that we feel. Dietrich Bonheoffer referred to this as Deus Ex Machina. Which, simply stated, means something that is interjected into the narrative in order to solve a seemingly hopeless problem.

So you believe, good for you, you are following in the footsteps of billions of humans before you who all strove to add meaning to a seemingly hopeless situation. Your belief could be described as nothing more than an evolutionary response to the absurdity of existence.

            What happens when a person doubts that belief? Suddenly you are thrust into the great unknown, the void in which you previous filled with your comfortable theology and Religious dogma. You are instantly faced with the hopeless emptiness of nothingness. The water begins to poor through the holes you previously stopped up with bits and pieces of your standardized belief system. What happens now? Peter Rollins argues that this is where divinity truly meets humanity. This is where religion becomes alive. No longer is your belief simply an evolutionary response; suddenly you are required to think. Rollin’s describes this in one sentence that should shake the foundations of your mind. “To believe is human, to doubt is divine.”

            No longer is God simply there to solve the gaps in your imagination or the emptiness of existence. God becomes alive. God becomes experienced day by day. Your belief system becomes something you live, not simply something you believe. Doubt drives growth. Doubt has the ability to alter your life, change the way you interact with people, change how you view reality, and how much you respect what we refer to as creation. When tragedy strikes, no longer are you left feeling as though the God of the gaps was not there to interject, you expect it, you question and wrestle, and you come out with the wisdom and clarity that only suffering can possibly bring.

           Doubt drives you to become a part of the process. You become an active participant in the narrative of God's story. No longer are you a bystander watching as the story of your life is written.  Restating Rollin’s sentence I would say, “Believing is programed humanism; doubt requires the thoughts of God.” Are you ready to join in the authorship of faith?