Are we asking HOW or WHY?

Many of us have grown up in the Church. Our parents grew up in the Church. Their parents grew up in the Church. You get the idea. We have always been Christian and we may not know any different. Yes, we have questioned our faith from time to time, but we have always fundamentally believed that God exists, and that He wants a relationship with us. Some of the seeds of doubt that are sown in our hearts and minds are the questions: "What if it is all imagined? What if we are just starting with a set of assumptions that are simply self-validating? What if it is not so much the existence of God but rather the idea of God that really matters?" This is the position of some atheists who now practice a "Religion Without God". When our fundamental belief in God is challenged we may look for validation and are overjoyed when we hear that "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God." The reality is that this is not in any way a new question - for centuries people who don't believe in God have been using science to "disprove Him" and people who believe in God have been using science to "prove Him." Neither one really makes any sense.

The reality is that the existence of God is non-falsifiable. There is no way to design an experiment that will tell you that He does or does not exist. This puts the question outside the realm of science. Period. End of story. Any attempt to prove or disprove God using science is not scientific - this inexorable paradox puts us in the position to either believe that God exists or that He does not - either way it is an act of faith. To illustrate the futility of science in telling us anything about God's existence let us look at two extreme positions. 

The first extreme is the extremely simplistic person's view of the world - the one with really no science. You can make this as simple as you can imagine. Take away the internet, airplanes, electricity, sanitation, and even fire if you like. This prehistoric cave man existence may be seen by some as the perfect breeding ground for the ignorance that is necessary for someone to believe in God. Since this person cannot explain anything about the world then everything must be left to "the hand of God." This is what Newton did with physical phenomena that he could not explain so this cave man who can't explain anything will have to use it to explain everything. Yes? Well, I don't think it's that simple. Isaac Newton understood enough about the world to know that there are things that are beyond his understanding and in some cases the more we know the more we are in awe of the improbability of our existence. The cave man, who knows nothing about the world, has no concept of how complex the world is and has nothing that is in need of explanation. The world just "is what it is" to use a tired modern colloquialism. Therefore the lack of knowledge does not in any way impart a tendency toward theism. 

The other extreme is the current or even future understanding of the world. We currently have a great appreciation of the world that includes command of our physical world (aeronautics, modern medicine, computer science, etc.), a deep understanding of the creatures that occupy that world (biology), an ability to manipulate the invisible properties of matter (chemistry), and even the ability to "create" matter with high energy colliders (particle physics). In the future we will understand even more and with new theories and discoveries that may 1) integrate all known physical phenomena and obviate the need of the "hand of God" cited by Newton and others, and 2) address the mechanism of creation of our complex world and thus question the very need for God in a probabilistic sense. While I find these scientific discoveries very interesting and illuminating I take issue with the assumption that if I understand HOW something happened then I also understand WHY it happened. If a car is driving down the road, the designer of that car can tell you in great detail about how the engine works and how it is that the car is able to get from point A to point B; however, the designer can tell you absolutely nothing about why the driver is going to point B in the first place. 

My goal here is not to convince you to believe in God because He can't be disproved by science. Similarly my goal is not to make you doubt in God because science can explain how everything happens even if God doesn't exist. My real goal is to clarify that science can only explain the HOW but not the WHY of our existence. God is my answer to "why?" Someone else may have a different belief of why we are here but that is still a belief that is only true to them because on a faith that is often based on a priori assumptions (Abolition of Man by CS Lewis). May we all act in faith and in love allow others to do the same.

On Imperfection

We live in a world that values perfection. We idolize people that look perfect, act perfect, and seem perfect. We watch sports and entertainment events that instill in us a reverence for a perfect score, a perfect game, and perfect records. Why then are we surprised when we feel dissatisfied? The standard has been set for our psyche to refuse to accept our lives, which rarely meet this unrealistic standard of perfection. 

What does God say? He tells us to strive for perfection but accepts us despite our imperfection. So what is the requirement? Are we good enough as is or are we expected grow? The answer is "yes" ... we are both good enough as is AND we are expected to grow. In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis teaches us: "As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald) pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he said, 'God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.'" So at once we must strive for perfection and at the same time accept an intermediate stage that serves as a stepping stone on that path to perfection. We see this concept in Christ's healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26, who is healed in stages, first seeing "men, like trees, walking" before his sight is completely restored.

At every point in our spiritual warfare, our own personal Wormwood (Screwtape Letters, by CS Lewis) will try to keep us from striking an appropriate balance between accepting ourselves and striving for better by constantly trying to push us either to complacency (wallowing in sin) or misguided perfectionism (beating ourselves up and falling into despair). In either case the end result is that we find ourselves focusing on the sin by saying it is either too much for us to handle (despair) or that it is manageable enough as it is (complacency). In either extreme we are becoming "sin-centric" and taking our eyes off God, which is exactly what happened to Peter when he "saw that the wind was boisterous" and began to sink (Matthew 14:22-33). Peter was doing fine when his eyes were on Christ and it was only when he took his eyes off Christ that he became afraid and began to sink. So we need to constantly ask ourselves what is tempting us to take our eyes off Him - at this moment are we feeling overwhelmed by sin and being pushed to despair or do we feel ok and are thus being pushed toward complacency?

We sometimes struggle with despair when we have trouble accepting ourselves the way that God accepts us. We should stop and ask ourselves a very important question - do we accept his acceptance? Oftentimes we hold on to guilt because we don't feel that we are worthy of his acceptance. Sometimes we even feel that this guilt is from God because he wants us to be better and he (like maybe our parents) uses this guilt to "encourage" us to improve. I still remember when I heard for the first time that "guilt is not from God." This was a mind-blowing revelation and it took me years to fully process it. Soon after hearing that phrase I heard And Can it Be by Church of Rhythm, which I listened to over and over again, trying to convince myself to accept that God is looking to love me much more than I am letting Him.

As soon as we find ourselves comfortable in accepting God's love, our spiritual warfare immediately shifts to pushing us toward complacency, with our Wormwood telling us "good job, God loves you, relax and enjoy yourself a bit," which unfortunately sometimes means that we get dragged back into our former sins by "the remembrance of evil entailing death." When St. Paul struggled with this question he felt the need to stop and ask if God's unconditional love means that we are allowed to sin, to which he immediately answers himself: "certainly not!" (Romans 6:15) So then if we are loved unconditionally then what is the point of avoiding sin? Stop and think about that for a second. If we are loved unconditionally, then there is a natural temptation there to say "well, that's great, now I can do whatever I want." Clearly this idea does not hold water, and I can't give a better explanation than St. Paul did in Romans 6-9 or St. James in his epistle. The answer there is "you don't avoid sin because you want a reward or to avoid a punishment - you avoid sin because you don't need sin anymore because you have Christ." I am a sinner. I am imperfect. God loves me anyway and that love is unconditional. This should make me love God and avoid sin not because I want to impress God but because sin is no longer on my agenda ... or is it? 

The reality is that despite the grace of God's forgiveness I still find myself sinning. Despite Christ freeing me from the bonds of sin I still find myself going back, sometimes to what feels like square one. However, it is important to figure out whether I am actively struggling with sin or I have given up and let myself become someone who accepts sin. In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis gives us the example of the woman who grumbled so much that she ceased to be a person because she had become "a grumble." We each have our personal sins, but as long as we are struggling against sin then we agree with God that the sin is bad and we hope and pray and wait for Him to give us the strength to get rid of the sin. It is when we give up the struggle that we are at risk of sliding so far into the sin that we are no longer "people who do a a certain sin" and become "people who are that sin." Part of our spiritual warfare is to resist the temptation to submit to a sin simply because we constantly find ourselves falling. Would it be better not to sin? Yes, of course, but God accepts the effort that we make as long as it is genuinely and sincerely our best effort. We must embrace this intermediate stage where we "see men like trees, walking," not because it is good enough forever but because it is good enough for now. If we do not accept this intermediate stage then we fall into despair and if we accept it too much then we fall into complacency.

The next question I want to ask is "does this fixation on guilt and misguided expectation of perfection affect other things in our life?" Let's look at how the complacency-despair problem affects how I look at forgiveness, prayer, and unity in organizations.

Imperfect forgiveness: In dealing with others, we should strive to forgive others as God forgives us fully and unconditionally. I'll be the first to admit this is hard. There are people that I have "forgiven" in that I am not willfully holding a grudge against them, but no matter how hard I try to forgive, I still feel a twinge of resentment. This emotional remnant is an indication that my forgiveness is imperfect. How do I react to this? Just as we discussed with sin, there are two mistakes I can make: 1) complacency - "I can't fully forgive so this halfhearted forgiveness is good enough," or 2) despair - "I am a terrible person because I don't know how to forgive." In reading Romans 12:19-20 I was always confused that St. Paul was telling us not to avenge ourselves but rather forgive because this would make it worse for the person we are trying to forgive, "For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” This flies in the face of Christ's words on the cross that we should forgive completely and unconditionally. To me this is, once again, evidence of an intermediate stage of forgiveness that is only acceptable if that is the best we can do. In the end, I may eventually be able to truly forgive, or maybe I will not be successful. The result is not as important as the process of continually struggling and asking God to help me forgive as He forgives. 

Imperfect prayer: I was recently asked to comment about the practice of asking for a saint's intercession with the promise that if the request was granted a donation would be made in the name of the saint. This phenomenon is quite common, so I will first start with the bright side that there are positive elements here in that the believer is 1) praying in some way, 2) developing a relationship with a saint in some way, and 3) making a donation or performing a good act. The discomfort some people have with this practice is that it is a bit of a "genie in a bottle" type of magic trick and not reconcilable with the idea that we should not be praying for our will but rather for God's will. In the Great Divorce, CS Lewis says that “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'" So, yes, I completely agree that holding a donation ransom for a certain outcome is not ideal, but I hope we can see it as an intermediate stage that will hopefully eventually lead to a true relationship with the saint and with God that is not predicated on "what have you done for me lately?"

Imperfect unity: We are all part of multiple organizations in some way shape or form, and for many of us the Church is one of those organizations. The relationship that we develop with God and each other within the Church is called fellowship, or koinonia in Greek. This unity through the Holy Spirit has guided the Church through the ages and continues to bind us on multiple levels: individually to God, individually to each other, as a group to God, as a group to each other, etc. So now you may be thinking, "ok, so if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be unifying us perfectly, then why are people constantly disagreeing and arguing about things in church?" Once again, we are asked to accept an imperfect unity as an intermediate stage that may be the best we can do ... for now. We must not be complacent but rather strive towards a more perfect unity, and the Church in its wisdom reminds us of this every morning when we pray that we "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (First Hour Prayer excerpt from Ephesians 4). We also should not fall into despair, questioning the presence of the Holy Spirit, but rather work with Him to wage war against this disunity. 

In conclusion, when we struggle with sin, imperfect forgiveness, imperfect prayer, and imperfect unity we must find a balance between the frustration of things not being how we want them and the complacency of accepting something as a final product that should just be a work in progress. This is even true in how we approach how we follow the rules of the Church, which are set before us as a guide to help us get to know God but are not a goal in and of themselves. Sometimes we fall into despair because we can't follow all the rules or become complacent feeling that we "follow enough of them to get by." To quote a recent Sunday sermon, "the teachings of the Church are clear, but in teaching the teachings I have to know what is my intention." If following the teachings of the Church becomes a system of checking boxes then I am missing the point because it will never be about how many boxes are checked but rather whether or not checking those boxes is bringing me closer to Christ. Keep struggling. Keep forgiving as best as you can. Keep praying as well and as much as you can. Keep working towards unity. God loves us in our imperfection and will bless our effort to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).