May 24, 2009
Rev. Rick Haverly
Proof and Problems
I had the opportunity to go to the Connecticut Forum in January to hear the panel on the topic of God: Big Questions, Bigger Questions. Featured on the panel were Dr. Peter Gomes,, Baptist minister and Harvard Divinity school professor representing the Christian perspective, Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of “Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People, representing the Jewish Faith, and Christopher Hitchins, author of “God is Not Great”, representing Atheism. It was an interesting evening with my biggest frustration being the limit of time for the discussion. So I’m going to continue that this morning but I’m afraid it will be a little more one-sided.
Christopher Hitchins raised the objection that much evil had been done in the name of religion over the years so we should move beyond religion. I will get to his objection later, but I wanted to start with his alternative. Clearly he was pushing for an end to religion and the replacement with atheism which he seemed to think was more rational and more tolerant for society. And at first glance many might agree with him. But the more I thought about it the more I came to the conclusion that the evidence does not support him. So I started to ask, what are examples of nations that have put his suggestions into practice, and I came up with three recent attempts.
The first is the Soviet Union, particularly Russia with the Soviet Union. Officially an atheist country, but was it any better? I had a member of my first church in North Carolina, Chick Craig, who was in the upper echelon of the EPA and had occasion to visit Russia on several occasions to consult with his counterparts there. He told me after his first visit he found what they wanted most there were Bibles. The Bible had been banned there and he found people were there were desperate to acquire them. So on his subsequent visits Chick traveled with two suitcases. One contained his clothes and necessities. The second suitcase was filled with Bibles which he gave away there, returning home with have the luggage he went with. So suddenly we find that atheism is not as open as rational as we are lead to believe because it seeks to ban the opposition rather than enter into any reasonable discussion. Add to that the common practice of removing citizens from their job if they practiced their faith openly and this in a society that defines a citizen as a worker and by their work and you start to see the extreme consequences of being a person of faith. This wonderful ideal of atheism turns out not to be so pretty.
Traveling further east we find the communist nation of Albania, the only communist nation other than China not aligned with Russia. It is another nation that was officially an Atheist country. Part of Karen’s family is from Albania and one of her relatives traveled back there to visit in the 1980’s. While there she wanted to visit the church she remembered as a little girl. But her friends and relatives living there told her that she couldn’t visit it because it had been closed and it was illegal to visit the church. She was persistent though and insisted on going to the site of the church. When the Albanian citizens realized she was actually going there response was, “When you get there, say a prayer for me.” Again atheist nation that is so repressive that it is illegal to visit a church but which is not able to wipe out faith.
Perhaps in our final atheist country we will make out better, but alas it is communist China. So insistent on atheism that those who are caught practicing Christianity, usually in house churches, are arrested and may be subject to long prison sentences and torture to make them renounce their faith. In fact the Christian church in China, that has been force to survive as a clandestine and underground movement, has recently declared that their persecution has prepared them to be Christian missionaries to Muslim countries because they are used to the severe opposition of the government.
So my question to Christopher Hitchins is, “If atheism is the solution and so much better than religion, which one of these countries is better than our own or any other where Christianity is a shaping force. You might add that these did not execute the theory properly but that then destroys any criticism of faith because it is the wrong practice not the religion or faith itself that is the problem.
To the criticism that much evil and violence has been perpetrated by religion, there are the unfortunate examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition from the Christian tradition, along with other forms of persecution, some of which drove people to immigrate from Europe to the New World. But it is unfair to single out religion as the source of conflict. As I have stated, atheism has shown itself to be a cause of conflict although there are limited examples of atheist nations so far in history. I can make a case that more evil, conflict and violence have been done in the name of nationalism and by nations but the same groups are not calling for an end to nations or government.
The call to atheism often holds up science as an alternative world view to religion. First, I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive but that’s a sermon for another day. But more to the criticism point of religion perpetrating evil and death, science and technology have been used to cause these on a massive scale. From simple technologies of machetes to poison gas in concentration camps to nuclear weapons, science and technology have increased the death count geometrically. Again, being consistent in argument, should we also be advocating doing away with science and technology as well.
It seems clear to me that human beings, unfortunately, are going to continue to kill each other. And they are going to use the means at hands to accomplish that whether it is religion, nationalism or science and technology. In all these cases I believe it is a misuse of these. In religions case it is using religion to accomplish my goals instead of conforming my life to the discipline of the religion.
It seems better to me in the argument between religion and atheism that it would be wise to use the scientific method. That requires people to live their lives conformed to the faith and see if there lives are truly transformed. I believe that the examples throughout history, in our own church and into the future will show that those who live intentionally into the faith will demonstrate positive change in their lives. Lives that are transformed and become more Christ like as time goes on. It has to be a serious commitment though.
The effort can’t be half-hearted. You don’t declare a diet ineffective if you only try it for a week and on Tuesday you cheat for two meals. To really test effectiveness you have to live out that commitment over time. And actually that is the experiment that each of us as followers of Jesus Christ say that we will make with our lives.
The associations Committee on Ministry is about to call an ecclesiastical council for the examination of Charlie Nichols to ordained ministry. Charlie is one who in his early years was a member of a street gang in New Britain but whose life was changed by a religious experience and whose continued growth has led him now to seek ordination. His journey is a source of delight and amazement for the congregation that has nurtured him.
And so as my closing proof against the argument of atheism, I invite you to live deeper into your faith, to allow your lives to be conformed to the teaching of Jesus Christ. You are a living experiment and your faith is proof of the truth and actual effectiveness of religion.