Princeton Theology Professor Embraces Same-Gender Marriage

I was pleased to find this article on the More Light Presbyterians web page. Dr. William Stacy Johnson of my old school, Princeton Theological Seminary, has published a book in support of gay marriage! The book is entitled,









A Time to Embrace: Same Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics.

Read the publisher's description here and download a study guide here.




Dr. Johnson served on the recent Theological Task Force. I wrote an article regarding their recommendations to the last General Assembly. I didn't like them. I wanted the GA then (and I still want) to remove what I believe are prejudicial and discriminatory policies.

However, I did admire the the views of the individual task force members and their willingness to come to some sort of unanimous decision. I am pleased that some of the members, like Johnson, are now coming out with their convictions.

To get an idea of Johnson's viewpoint, the Presbyterian Outlook published an article in 2005. If you click the More Light article you will find Johnson's six possible ways for the church to respond to gay and lesbian Christians. He begins with an example of

"...one particular type of person – a gay or lesbian whose sexual identity is firmly established, who is a baptized member in good standing of a Christian congregation, and who is involved in an exclusive, committed relationship with a partner. Where does that person fit, Johnson asked the task force, into “the grand gospel drama?”

Below are six ways of answering that question. The summaries of each view are posted. But do read the whole article for their descriptions.

1) Categorical Prohibition

CREATION: Homosexuality is a perversion of God’s intent.
REPENTANCE: Repent of being gay.
REDEMPTION: Return to the true heterosexual nature or abstain.

2) Welcoming but not Affirming

CREATION: Homosexuality is a tragedy, not a perversion.
REPENTANCE: Repent of acting gay.
REDEMPTION: Stoic acceptance of one’s faith through abstinence.

3) "It's a Justice Issue"

CREATION: Homosexuality is sinful, one of many sinful conditions.
REPENTANCE: Repent of singling out homosexuality and ignoring other sins.
REDEMPTION: Create a world in which difference no longer makes a difference.

4) It's Really a Pastoral Issue

CREATION: Homosexual orientation is morally ambiguous.
RECONCILIATION: Gay and lesbian relationships, while disobedient to Scripture in form, may actually be obedient in substance. Heterosexual relationships are imperfect too.
REDEMPTION: Exclusive, committed same-sex partnerships are better than promiscuity.

5) Welcome, Affirm and Celebrate

CREATION: Homosexuality is a fact of nature to be regarded as good.
RECONCILIATION: Gays and lesbians need to be reconciled to the goodness of their homosexual orientation.
REDEMPTION: One's sexuality is to be celebrated as God's good gift.

6) Welcome, Affirm and Consecrate

CREATION: Homosexuality is a fact of nature not to be condemned, but is also ambiguous and needs to be rightly ordered.
RECONCILIATION: Sin does not reside in orientation but in whether one rightly orders one’s life. Our relationships are a means of grace.
REDEMPTION: One’s sexuality is to be consecrated through an exclusive, committed covenant -- blessed by the church. People, not sexuality, are the objects of our celebration.

Near the end, Johnson suggested that the task force consider the metaphor of a card game – with homosexuality being dealt as the joker. The prohibitionists would discard the homosexuality card. The definitive guidance players would hide it. The justice folks would see it as “just another card in the game.” The pastoral folks would want all the other players in the game to help the person who drew the card. The celebrationists would consider it to be a very good card. And the consecrationists would find a way consecrate the card within the game itself.

Remembering Bill Silver

William "Bill" Silver, the first openly gay man to seek ordination in the Presbyterian Church, died yesterday at 59. Here is the obituary from the New York Times and a tribute from Michael Adee of More Light Presbyterians.

It was Bill's request for ordination that eventually led to the 1978 "Definitive Guidance" decision. Here is the story by James D. Anderson in an important article,

"The Lesbian and Gay Liberation Movement in the Churches in the United States, 1969-1993." Here is an excerpt:

When Bill Silver became the first openly-gay, happily-homosexual candidate for the ministry in the former United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., that denomination didn't know what to do with him. The issue was not addressed in the Book of Order, the part of our constitution that addresses qualifications for ordained office.

So a timid and fearful Presbytery of New York City, where Bill Silver was "under care" as a candidate for the ministry, overtured the general assembly for "definitive guidance" on this matter.

The 1976 General Assembly didn't know what to do either, so they set up a task force to study homosexuality. Two years later, the majority of that task force declared that homosexuality, per se, was no bar to ordination to the offices of the Presbyterian Church: deacon, elder, and minister.

"May a self-affirming, practicing homosexual Christian be ordained? We believe so, if the person manifests such gifts as are required for ordination. For some homosexual Christians growth toward mature Christian living may imply accepting celibacy; for some it may imply accomplishing reorientation to heterosexuality; however, for others it may imply remaining open to or attaining full companionship and partnership with a person of the same sex. Spiritual maturity or the absence thereof is an attribute pertaining not to any class of people but only to individual persons. Thus, it must be distinctively identified and separately evaluated in each individual candidate for ordination as the church, led by the Sprit and guided by God's Word, seeks to discern and verify that particular candidate's gifts for ministry" [4, p. D-172].

But this recommendation was entirely too much for the 1978 General Assembly. Instead they declared homosexuality to be sin -- "We conclude that homosexuality is not God's wish for humanity" -- and that therefore, "unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination" [5, p. 58, 61]. These conclusions were based not on fact or knowledge, but belief: "it appears that what is really important is not what homosexuality is but what we believe about it" [5, p. 58].

A key phrase in this 1978 policy was "persons . . . who affirm their own homosexual identity and practice," or "self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons" [5, p. 61]. It is clear that it was not homosexuality per se that was the problem, but the affirmation of homosexuality. Candidates who lie, who stay in the closet (as they had for centuries), and especially those who hated their homosexuality (and therefore themselves) were quite OK and could be ordained, and they continue to be ordained.

The new policy was aimed as much at discouraging honesty, integrity, and openness as it was at opposing and denigrating homosexuality. Good Presbyterian folk just wanted the problem to go away. "Why do you have to talk about it?" they kept asking. (Read More!)

The Task Force had the right answer in 1976, as task forces generally do, time and time again. They realized what the 1978 General Assembly would not, that

Spiritual maturity or the absence thereof is an attribute pertaining not to any class of people but only to individual persons. Thus, it must be distinctively identified and separately evaluated in each individual candidate for ordination as the church, led by the Sprit and guided by God's Word, seeks to discern and verify that particular candidate's gifts for ministry.

And yet our denomination continues its policy of prejudice by category. The last Task Force succeeded in encouraging the denomination to open the door a little bit, allowing candidates to declare a scruple. Heather Reichgott writes about this in "The End of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?"

Maybe the door will be opened wide enough for some candidates.

But it wasn't wide enough for Bill Silver. Rest in Peace.

Resurrection Hope

I want to continue the discussion of our future Is the World Getting Better or Worse? Other questions are related to it:

• Do you want the world to get better or worse?
  
• What do you think is God's will for the future of humanity and Earth?
  

We all know about apocalyptic or fantasy-based religion.

For this religion (which is not limited to Christianity), the world is getting worse and that is desirable as it hastens the coming of the Messiah.

Obviously, I am not there. I would guess (hope) that the majority of Christians and Muslims are not there either. I would also guess (hope) that majority of the world's political leaders are not there either. I would guess (hope) that the vast majority of humanity wishes

a) to continue the human race and
b) to leave the world in as best condition as we can for our descendants and
c) to hasten justice, peace, and equality for all people as well as
d) to envision and create a sustainable and equitable use of Earth's bounty.

This is the vision of shalom that we find throughout our scriptures. When I say scriptures I mean the Hebrew, Christian, Qur'anic, Hindu, and Buddhist scriptures, as well as sacred wisdom from native, mystical and humanistic traditions.

The vision here is a final banquet as opposed to a final war. Yet to say "final" is misleading as we are on an enduring journey. Time for a definition of "better" and "worse."

This is what I consider better:
1) an equitable distribution of Earth's resources,
2) food, shelter, medicine, and meaningful work for all people,
3) and end to war and violence between human beings,
4) a harmonious existence with the rest of Earth
5) an increase in consciousness, wisdom, love and joy.

This is what I consider worse:
1) increased inequity in regards to Earth's resources,
2) lack of food, shelter, medicine, meaningful work for more and more people,
3) an increase in war and violence between human beings,
4) an increase in the poisoning, destruction of and dis-harmony with Earth,
5) an increase in apocalyptic fantasy, hatred, ignorance, and misery.

Are we getting better or worse?

My faith: It appears that on the near horizon we are getting worse. However, if humanity can survive until 2107 and certainly 2207, we will have found a way to get better. I think this 21st century may witness the biggest changes and challenges humanity and Earth has faced. I think it going to be rough. I think civilization will collapse on itself as we move (unwillingly it appears at present) to a post-petroleum future. However, if we can survive this without destroying each other or Earth with our weaponry, we may move into an incredibly rewarding and peaceful future.


What is our task? I think we need to imagine and articulate two things:

1) The abolition of war. Slavery was once considered natural and inevitable. No longer. War is not natural for human beings, although it appears to be for civilization (based on the surplus of goods, private ownership, etc.) The latest issue of Network News is on-line and in the mail. In it are included some very important articles including Christians called to consider seriously the abolition of war by Bobbie Wrenn Banks and Kathleen Allen.

2) A global oikos. Oikos is the Greek word for household. From it we get the words, economics, ecology, and ecumenical among others. Humanity needs to move beyond its tribalism and celebrate and commit itself to being citizens of Earth. We share one house. With this reality, what are our values? We know how to solve our conflicts on a personal level. We know how to make a peaceful home. Even though we do not always succeed, we know how. This value of peaceful house-sharing must move upward as we recognize that all are our sisters and brothers.


Signs of hope: I see a renewed awareness for our future from many quarters. We are beginning to talk, to dance, to sing about a war-free, global home. It begins with a vision. Let us continue to articulate it.


What about God? I think we need to articulate a theology of Christian hope in which we rediscover the non-violent God who appears surprisingly at times in our scriptures. I think it is up to Christians to refute apocalyptic (fantasy-based) theories. This means being courageous in the face of apocalyptic bullies with their threats of heresy and other nonsense. For example, to the question: Is Jesus going to return in some literal way? The answer is NO. This is fantasy and it is destructive fantasy. To quote John Dominic Crossan in God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now:

That leaves me with these conclusions. The Second Coming of Christ is not an event that we should expect to happen soon. The Second Coming of Christ is not an event that we should expect to happen violently. The Second Coming of Christ is not an event that we should expect to happen literally. The Second Coming of Christ is what will happen when we Christians finally accept that the First Coming was the Only Coming and start to cooperate with its divine presence. (p. 231)

What about Church? I think it is time for Christian leaders to expand our focus beyond internal church politics to the critical issues facing humanity and Earth. Let the detractors detract. In the meantime, let us participate in communities of consciousness, awareness, hope, justice, healing and action. Our future is at stake. God is inviting us to participate in a new way of living. Call it resurrection. Let us live it.

The Aramaic Lord's Prayer

Last night at the church about twenty of us participated in dancing the Aramaic Prayer of Jesus. It was a powerful experience. If you ever get a chance to participate in that, I recommend it. It made me think about a number of things. One is that my seminary education was very "Greek oriented." We needed to take courses in Greek and Hebrew, the original languages of the Bible. And yet scholars know that the language of Jesus was Aramaic. Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than Greek, yet different from both, especially Greek.


Neil Douglas Klotz is one of the premier scholars on the Aramaic language of Jesus. You can read an interview with Neil here and browse his books here.






The prayer can be translated in many ways. Here is one possible translation by Neil. You can learn to say the Aramaic Lord's prayer here.

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.

Blue Monday

As I did a little browsing this morning I found Writing from the Inside Out. The author posted an important piece regarding depression. If you ever get the blues or love someone who does, check it out. She writes:

The absolute worst things you can say to a depressed person:

Snap out of it.
Count your blessings.
Think of all the people that have it worse than you. Maybe you just need to ____________ more or ___________ less.

PLEASE don't judge someone that has this affliction. Research shows that brain chemical imbalances cause depression, but many people still believe it indicates a weak personality or character flaw. Its not!





(Van Gogh: Questions about Depression? Click here)

Is the World Getting Better or Worse?

At my two previous congregations I asked for a show of hands.

Raise your hand if you think the world is getting better.
Raise your hand if you think the world is getting worse.

It was somewhat of a trick question. Many if not most folks thought the world was getting worse. So I pushed them on it. Let's get specific.

Will the world be better than it is now in 2020? Show of hands.
Will the world get better in 2040?
Will the world get better in 2060?
Will the world get better in 2080?
Will the world get better in 2107?
Will the world get better in 2207?
How about 2525?

What do you think? Where are we headed? What is the content of your faith in regards to this? Is there hope for Earth and life on Earth including human life?

Let's throw out another idea. Do you think God wants the world to get better or worse?

How you answer these questions says a great deal about where your hope (and perhaps your motivation) is grounded.

More later...

October 23, 4004 BCE

in 1650, Bishop James Ussher calculated that the universe was created October 23, 4004 BCE. Ussher was calculating about the same time that the Westminster Divines met to draft the Westminster Confession of Faith. This confession held sway for 300 years and still retains a prominent place in the PCUSA Book of Confessions. Ussher's date of creation still has a prominent place in fantasy-based religion.

Bishop Ussher calculated his figure based on information in the Bible. You can trace the genealogies, reigns of kings, and so forth to calculate the time periods. I have the Bible I was given in Sunday School when I was six. It is a King James Bible. In one of the tables in the back under the heading: "Great Periods in Bible History" you find ten periods of "Bible History" corresponding with Ussher's date.

The 17th century was a heady, rationalistic time. The Bible was the source of history and all knowledge. Everything had a place. Science served the glory of God. The Westminster Divines even postulated that God knew the number and identity of everyone who would be saved or damned. It was all fixed.

That was the 17th century. They wrote what they knew. Four hundred years from now our descendants (if they survive) will marvel at what we thought we knew. Since the 1650's, the date of creation changed. It wasn't until the 1950's that scientists have given us the date of the Big Bang at around 14 billion years ago.

The interesting question is why did the biblical authors date creation to that time period (around 6,000 years ago)? John Dominic Crossan asks this in his book God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now. In a fascinating chapter entitled, "God and the Ambiguity of Power":

Why does the Bible itself date creation to around 4000 BCE? Why date creation around four thousand years before Christ and not any other nice round number, such as 10,000 or 100,000 BCE? What is special about a date around six thousand years ago?

When the biblical tradition raised inaugural and fundamental questions of meaning in Genesis 1-11, it selectively adopted and serenely adapted very ancient stories passed down from the Sumerians, those intensely competitive and magnificently creative people who lived in sourthern Mesopotamia from about 4500 to 2500 BCE. What they were attempting to think through in those narratives was the Neolithic Revolution of their own contemporary world. In, for example, their parables about the disputes between summer and winter, between cattle and grain, between plow and pickax, or (as discussed later between shepherd and farmer), the divine judment is always given to what we might call the evolutionary future among those options.

Genesis 1-11 was using, in other words, stories that dated back to the Neolithic Revolution and were originally formulated in Sumer to think through its implications. In more ways than we might want to imagine or face, therefore, our world was "created" about six thousand years ago. (p. 50)

The Neolithic Revolution (from Bartleby):

The term neolithic is used, especially in archaeology and anthropology, to designate a stage of cultural evolution or technological development characterized by the use of stone tools, the existence of settled villages largely dependent on domesticated plants and animals, and the presence of such crafts as pottery and weaving.

The story of Cain and Abel is the biblical version of the rise of civilization. Cain (the Farmer) and Abel (the Shepherd) offer their gifts to God. God accepts Abel's gift but not Cain's. Cain kills Abel. Crossan writes:

That inaugral fratricide was the murder of a shepherd by a farmer on his own farm. That is the first act in the invention of human civilization--the farmer replacing the shepherd--and God does not punish the farmer but only marks him forever as the future of a lost past. There is not counterviolence from God--not even the appropriate divine vengeance when, as God, says, "your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground!" p. 60-1)

God does not want Cain's offering. Cain represents civilization. Yet civilization is where humanity is headed. Crossan writes:

Next comes the second act in the rise of civlization's normalcy. After the birth of his first son from an unnamed wife, Cain "built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch" (4:17). The farmer displaces the shepherd a builds a city--with a few biblical sentences covering several evolutionary millenia." (p. 61)

Cain introduces violence to the biblical narrative. It is no coincidence that Cain is also the father of civilization. Crossan quotes Robert McElvaine in his 2001 book Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of History:

"Cain, the introducer of violence, is, moreover, identified as the father--or grandfather--of sedentary culture or 'civilization.'...This story corresponds neatly with the understanding that agricultural surplus eventually led to an increase in individualism, aggression, warfare, and greed." (p.100 McElvaine, p. 61 Crossan)

These are the questions:

• Is God violent or non-violent?
• Is human violence a product of our nature or is it a product of civilization?
  
• Are we headed for a Final Banquet or a Final War?
  

A violent God, a violent nature, and a violent end are not inevitable. But humankind must choose. For Christians, the life of Jesus is the criterion. Look at the life of Jesus. Was Jesus violent or non-violent?

This morning, we celebrated Trinity Sunday in which is Jesus as the second person of the Trinity reveals the character of God. The answer for Christians is clear. How do we decide between a violent and a non-violent God in the Bible? As Jesus was non-violent, so God is non-violent.

Therefore, the work of the Holy Spirit is non-violence. A non-violent God pushes against the violence inherent in civilization. Civilization is not humanity, nor is it the crown of humanity's work. We can (and must) move beyond the normalcy of civilization to a non-violent future in which we seek and make peace through justice.

Fantasy-Based Religion Vs. Reality-Based Religion

I do not mean to insult or ridicule. I do mean to lampoon. I lampoon fantasy-based religion. The art of lampoon is to wake people up. When we lose our courage to lampoon, we will have handed over our freedom. Three points:

1) Fantasy-based religion is not Christianity as a whole.
2) Fantasy-based religion is not Islam (or any other religion) as a whole.
3) "Fantasy-based" is not limited to religion (but religion is my focus).

Fantasy exists within all religions. As I said in a previous post, fantasy-based religion is about itself. It is a belief about itself (by appeal to some sort of special revelation) that it is true and correct. In my last post I lampooned the Creation Museum. Check out Street Prophets for a review of this museum from various sources.

A couple of years ago, a Danish newspaper lampooned fantasy-based religion as expressed in Islam. Again, Islam is not fantasy-based. But it can become so, just like Christianity.






I like this cartoon. You can see more here.








Fantasy-based religion takes many forms. Remember the Heaven's Gate crowd in the 90's? They killed themselves in a belief that they would fly off to heaven trailing Halley's Comet. My daughter, a student at the University of Montana, took a couple of courses from sociology professor, Rob Balch, there. His work is on religious cults. He infiltrated Heaven's Gate as well as a number of others to study and understand them. These various cults are extreme examples of fantasy-based religion. All people interested in religion should read Eric Hoffer's, The True Believer.

The fantasy-based movement in Christianity, especially in the United States, is growing. It is not limited to any one denomination of Christianity. There are adherents in all denominations at various degrees of reality denial. Ultimately, fantasy-based religion is the denial of reality.

In contrast to fantasy-based religion, I am an adherent of reality-based religion. Reality-based religion does not deny what we know through the sciences and our intellect about the material universe. Reality-based religion does not limit itself to what we know, but it does not dismiss or deny what we know. Reality-based religion is open-ended. It welcomes discovery. It embraces scholarship. It seeks to discover what is. At the same time, it seeks to re-discover our traditions, particularly our religious traditions. It does not assume, for instance, that our forebears were stupid or unenlightened. It seeks to understand them in their time, and through that, to acknowledge what was timeless about their message.

Like love, according to the Apostle Paul, reality-based religion never ends. Why? Because it is curious.

I have observed that fantasy-based religion has the following characteristics:

1) It is humorless. [It can't take a joke (ie. the reaction to the Danish cartoons)].
2) It is apocalyptic.
3) Its God is violent.

I am sure there are more. I am not talking about conservative vs. liberal. I am talking about fantasy vs. reality. Nor am I talking about the freedom to believe in whatever you want to believe. There is no law against being stupid. This is not about freedom of religion.

This is about our future. More on that to come.

Fantasy-Based Religion or Meet the Flintstones

Fantasy-based religion is neither religion nor is it science. Yet it tries to speak the language of both. In this post and the next I will write about the dangers of fantasy-based religion in regards to our past and to our future.

Rather than look to what we observe and know through the scientific method, fantasy-based religion begins with a belief about a book. Notice I didn't say belief in a book or belief in the truths contained in a book, but belief about a book. Since I am writing from a Christian perspective that book is the Bible. Fantasy-based religion believes about the Bible that it is the inerrant Word of God. As such, it is without error in matters of faith, history, and science. This makes for problems in interpreting our past and our future.

Our past. From science we know that the Universe evolved over billions of years and that life evolved on Earth since the past four billion years. Homo sapiens are related to all other life-forms. The scientific theory of evolution is not simply a theory, but a scientific theory that has been accepted and modified. It will continue to be modified. That is what science is. It is open-ended. It does not try to prove anything. It tries to disprove things. That is how our knowledge builds.

We have many religious texts from antiquity. One of them is the Bible. Prior to modern science, folks thought the Bible gave an accurate history of the origins of Earth, its life, and its human-life. This early story is beautifully told in Genesis 1-11. With the advent of modern science, this story became no longer credible as history or science. It is still a beautiful story, but a story nonetheless. Religion has adapted to science, for the most part. Religious people did not lose their faith in God. They realized that God was much larger and much more mysterious. The story took on new meaning. The story told us not about the origins of the universe but about the people who told the story and about the God in whom they believed.

Enter fantasy-based religion. Threatened by science and by religious people who didn't read Genesis 1-11 as science or history, fantasy-based religion decided to react. Rather than read the narratives of Genesis 1-11 as myths or legends, they had developed a belief about the Bible as scientifically and historically accurate. This is what they thought Word of God meant. Since these narratives are the Word of God, they must be true scientifically and historically.

Something had to give. For them, it must be science. The scientific understanding of the cosmos and the development of human life must be wrong. It must be made to fit their belief about the Bible.

Meet the Flintstones. The Creation Museum just opened this past week. Here is a paragraph from their web page:

The Creation Museum will be upfront that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice, and in every area it touches upon.

We’ll begin the Museum experience by showing that “facts” don’t speak for themselves (click here for a proposed drawing of this exhibit). There aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. We’ll then explore why the Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

After that, we'll take guests on a journey through a visual presentation of the history of the world, based on the “7 C’s of History”: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history.

Here is a fun page that will tell you all about dinosaurs.

What'll it be this year kids? The Creation Museum or the Flintstone Theme Park? Yabba Dabba Doo! The Flintstone Theme Park will at least be more honest. It is a fantasy!



So what is the problem with the Creation Museum? Sure they are filled with nonsense. What's it hurt? We can all believe what we want, right? Yes. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. But no one has the right to their own facts. The creation theme park (and creationism in general) is a distortion of both science and religion. Ignorance eventually hurts us all.

The Danger of Fantasy-Based Religion

Question: What is the Bible?
Answer: The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Question: How do you know?
Answer: It says so in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Question: How do you know that 2 Timothy 3:16 is telling the truth?
Answer: It is in the Bible and the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Those who disagree are unbelievers and children of Satan.

***

Question: What is the Qur'an?
Answer: The Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God.

Question: How do you know?
Answer: It says so in al-Ankabut 29.48

Question: How do you know that al-Ankabut 29.48 is telling the truth?
Answer: It is in the Qur'an and the Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God. Those who disagree are unbelievers and children of Satan.

***

Hi Ho. So it goes.

To question the above logic about either the Bible or the Qur'an does not mean one is questioning the supernatural or the existence of God. One may or may not question the supernatural or the existence of God, but that has nothing to do with denying the circular logic regarding the Bible's (or the Qur'an's) inerrancy. Just because God could have written a book, caused a fish to swallow a man, dictated prophecies to Mohammed, or had golden tablets delivered to Joseph Smith, doesn't mean God did all of those things. One does not necesarily deny the existence of God or the supernatural just because one does not believe every crackpot who claims to speak for God either now or throughout history.

All kinds of scriptural texts and holy figures including the Hebrew Scriptures, the Book of Mormon, the Urantia Book, The Bhagavad Gita, the prophecies of Nostradamus, or the Oracle at Delphi, all claimed divine inspiration.

Belief in the inerrancy of one's scriptural text is not a sign of faith in God. It is a belief about oneself. Fantasy-Based religion begins with a belief about itself. We are the ones to whom God has given the correct and only true book.

Depending upon how far these believers in themselves will go determines how much reality they will try to interpret through the lens of their beliefs. Fantasy-based religion can deny a great deal of reality through beliefs about itself. Some go a long way to try to make their fantasies come true. Consider the creation museum in Kentucky. (More on that one next time).

Well, what is wrong with a little fantasy? Where is the harm? If it were harmless, I wouldn't care. But it is not. Fantasy-based religion has caused a great deal of harm. Here is an illustration of fantasy-based religion gone awry. In 1978, the PCUSA General Assembly passed a document on homosexuality. This document has had far-reaching effects, including denying ordination of qualified candidates because of their sexuality.

Here is the interpretive key to understanding this document. While the document referred to science, sociology and so forth, its drafters could not get beyond their own fantasy. They wrote:

Therefore, it appears that what is really important is not what homosexuality is but what we believe about it.

Think about that for a minute. This is what that sentence is saying: reality is not really important. What we believe about reality is important.

• The reality is that the Universe by latest estimates is 14 billion years old. But that is not really important. We believe it is 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve hung out with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

• The probable reality is that Earth will spin for 100s of millions of years whether or not humans are around to spin with it. But that is not important. We believe that Christ will return and violently destroy the unbelievers probably within the next decade or two.

• The reality is that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. But that is not important. We believe that homosexuality is bad, wrong, sinful, and fallen and so to hell with gays.

That is the danger of fantasy-based religion. It denies reality. Fantasy becomes reality. It begins with beliefs about itself. It believes that it alone is true, possesses the God-inspired texts and the keys to their interpretation.

It uses words like "biblical, biblically, and bible-based" in order to create a warm, righteous feeling. We are biblical; therefore we are moral, godly, pious and right. Fantasy-based religion is therefore isolationist. What we learn from the hard and soft sciences, higher criticism of the Bible, the humanities, other religious traditions and so forth are considered threats to the pure faith. Fantasy-based religion wishes to protect itself from so-called "secular" learning and retreat into its own self-made fantasy world in order to determine truth.

That is not faith in God. It is not trust in God. It is not spiritual maturity. It is a fantasy. It is a delusion of grandeur. When unchecked, it is dangerous.