BP logoSeveral weeks ago the federal government negotiated an $18.7 billion deal with BP to satisfy all state and federal claims against the oil company induced by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The penalties were mitigated by allowing the company to make payments over the next 18 years. The settlement includes the largest pollution fine in U.S. history, $5.5 billion.

That brings the final tally for BP’s obligations in the disaster to $53.8, more than all the profits generated by the company since 2012. That amount exceeds the annual GDP of 133 countries and dependent territories, according to United Nations figures for 2013. Last week’s settlement would have put many countries into bankruptcy. BP not only has survived these staggering payouts, but ranks 7th among companies listed by annual revenue ($359 billion) and continues to make payroll for its nearly 84,000 employees.

BP is one of 64 companies with consolidated revenue over $100 billion. Heading that list is the retail megagiant, Wal-Mart, which yields $486 billion in revenue annually and $16.3 billion in profits. Wal-Mart stores employ 2.2 million people worldwide, 1.3 million in the U.S.

Brad (not his real name) began working for Wal-Mart as a stocker. He is a high school graduate. He is married and has two children. His wife has serious health issues preventing her from working.

walmart employeeA conscientious worker, Brad continued to get pay raises, but was not eligible to receive promotions for jobs that required skills and qualities that Brad would never possess. Eventually he reached the top of the pay ladder. Suddenly one day, Brad was terminated. He could easily be replaced by a worker at the bottom of the pay scale.

Brad found another job as a stocker for a local grocery store. He began as a full-time employee, but the store soon began to reduce his hours until he reached part-time status. Federal law requires businesses employing more than 50 employees to provide health care benefits to all its employees. Many small businesses, like the grocery store, find ways around this ruling – at the expense of its employees.

Brad and his family fall into a special needs category. Their medial expenses exceed what they can pay, so they often forego medical attention, exacerbating their problems. The Brads in our country number in the hundreds of thousands, placing enormous demands on social service networks.

So where will Brad and his faction find help? Government subsidized social programs provide one option. Conservatives criticize these programs, however, arguing that capitalism, integrated with democracy, provide sufficient opportunities for every person. It rewards desirable character qualities, like diligence, industry, and initiative. These qualities very often go unrewarded, however, stifled by the economic strategies of business owners, leaving many people at the mercy of government programs.

Private charities offer a second source of assistance. These charities are funded through donations and grants. Grants some through foundations, which are funded by individuals. This system forces most social service agencies to work hard to subsidize their services and to compete for the generosity of donors. In spite of the compassionate outpouring of many thousands of these agencies, the under-resourced class has experienced virtually no attrition.

Some conservatives contend that families should create the safety net for those who fall into financial hardship. This is well and good, except that more often than not, the lack of resources extends to several generations. Poverty tends to breed poverty. One of the contributing factors to Brad’s financial deprivation was his willingness to help with his brother-in-law’s children when he died tragically. Although the family would have qualified for social services, Brad was unfamiliar with the system.

One source of help gets very little mention.

What if companies decided to quit treating their labor force like profit-loss line items and began treating them like human beings. What if employers viewed their employees like fellow sojourners on the path of life instead of negotiable overhead expenses that can be reduced with impunity.

povertyIt is mysterious why employees do not qualify for “neighbor” status, as in “love your neighbor as yourself.” It would seem that if this simple principle were applied by CEO’s, vice-presidents, and managers, another strand of the social safety net would be in place, a strand that is tragically absent in the corporate world today. Instead of providing a solution to poverty, the Wal-Marts of today are contributing to poverty by depriving employees of benefits and sometimes even a job for the sake of the company, as if the company had achieved “neighbor” status.

Undoubtedly, these issues shoulder greater complexities than this article addresses. This will hardly console the victims of callous business policies, like Brad. Government policies attract all the attention, but why does no one in the media want to hold corporate America accountable for elevating company over compassion and giving profit margin precedence over personnel misfortune? Why are corporations not viewed as some of the major culprits in contributing to poverty in this country? And where are the Christian employers whom Jesus says will be judged by the treatment of “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40)?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


I often wonder what Jesus would say to his professing followers of the 21st Century. Would it be “Well done good and faithful servants?” Or would it be “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites?” Of course, there is no official position of scribe in Jesus’s Church, nor does any Christian faction call itself Pharisee. Yet some of his followers seem determined to resurrect these labels in spirit.

An astounding series of events recently occurred in my community, Morton Grove, Illinois.

Scene 1: A member of the Park District Board refused to stand and say the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of a meeting, stating his personal objection to declaring public allegiance and choosing to act on his conviction. Whether one agrees with that position, we live in a country where he possesses that freedom.

Scene 2: The local American Legion makes an annual donation to the Park District. The Legion decided to withhold that donation this year unless the Park Board required the man to give some form of respect to the flag by at least standing. The Board decided against censoring its member, but defended the freedom to act on his conviction. The Legion denied the donation, overlooking that its organization represents hundreds of thousands of men and women who have died to preserve this man’s freedom.

Scene 3: A Chicago blogger, Hemant Mehta, picked up the story and decided to intervene, asking his readers to donate to his web site to replace the forfeited Legion contribution. Over 160 people responded with more than $3,000. Mehta offered the money to the Park District Board.

Scene 4: The Board refused Mehta’s offer. Park District Executive Director, Tracey Anderson, said in an email to Mehta that the District board “has no intention of becoming embroiled in a First Amendment dispute.” Anderson continued in the email to state that the board did not want to appear to show favor to any political or religious viewpoint.

That was prompted by Mehta’s blogspot, which is titled “Friendly Atheist.” Mehta began his blog in 2006. He has also written several books, including I Sold My Soul on eBay, in which he recounts his experience when he auctioned an opportunity for the winning bidder to take him to church. A well-known evangelist, Jim Henderson (Evangelism Without Additives), won and found the encounter delightful. Mehta visited more churches and offers a winsome critique of churches and how they appear to the outsider in his book.

Scene 5: Mehta decided that since the money had been donated to benefit the Morton Grove residents, he would redirect the money to another entity: the Morton Grove Library. When the check arrived at the library, the library board’s Treasurer intercepted it and announced that the board would have to approve the donation first. The Library Board meeting became contentious when the Treasurer adamantly stated her opposition to accepting the check. She cited two reasons: 1) Because the money was given to the Park District, it would be unethical to accept it without the approval of the 168 donors and 2) Mehta’s site constitutes a “hate group” (her words).

With respect to the first argument, the library’s director made it clear that money donated to a web site becomes the property of the web site’s owner, who can disburse it as he or she sees fit. Mehta even states “When … I said I would be giving the money to the library instead, not a single donor complained about it because it would still have the effect of benefitting (sic) the community” (author’s italics).

The second argument became the emphasis of the Treasurer’s diatribe. She brought a copy of quotes she found on the site, quotes made not by Mehta, but by people who read the blog and commented. In one instance, she attributes to Mehta derogatory remarks about a religious painting of Christ on the cross, although Mehta was simply reporting a story in which Catholic parishioners had made the comments.

The woman clearly does not understand how blog sites work. Most bloggers allow people to disagree with their view in the Comments section. Even those who agree may not state the position with the same tact or grace that the blogger does. And when hundreds of comments pile up on a blog, the blogger will not likely sift through all of them.

Scene 6: The Library Board video records its meetings, so this meeting is in public domain. Mehta has posted the video (53:31 long) to allow everyone to observe the debate. The Board voted 5-2 not to accept the check. Most board members who voted against it stated they were uneasy accepting money originally intended for another organization.

Mehta gives a fair, reasoned, and conciliatory response to the accusations made by the Treasurer. His site highlights the shallowness of the woman’s “research” and the determined bias she displays in arguing her case. The video exposes something very disturbing. The Treasurer has declared herself a Christian, but her tone contradicts her faith. While trying to convince her peers of the hatefulness of Mehta, she appears angry and hostile. Who is the hater here?

My wife was especially distressed by the incident. In a letter she wrote to the Treasurer, which she never delivered, she presented a different Christian perspective.

What did Jesus do? The Son of God even accepted gifts and hospitality from those who had a reputation for not following the law. Matthew, the tax collector, cheated his own people. The food he set set before our Lord came at the expense of others. Mary Magdalene, a well-known harlot, anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume. His critics could not believe he would allow such a woman to touch him.  Instead of rejecting their generosity, Jesus treated them with dignity. He was kind and gracious.

When passing through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus and his disciples were met with a cold shoulder. Two of those disciples went to Jesus and suggested that they “tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them.” After all, these Samaritans had disrespected the Son of God, King of heaven and earth. Many kings would assign the death penalty for much less. Jesus’s response? “But he turned and rebuked them.” (Luke 9:51-56)

The good news of the Christ’s message is the offer of forgiveness, acceptance, and love to the world. Jesus did not divide the world into those who deserve his love and forgiveness and those who do not. He did not show one ounce of hostility towards those who were outside his group of followers. On the cross he even prayed for his executioners. The only time he approaches a harsh tone is with those on the inside who act like those on the outside, the scribes and Pharisees.

The Jewish leaders claimed privileged knowledge of God and his law. With that knowledge they condemned those who did not measure up to their standards. They treated their enemies with hostility and contempt. Jesus called them hypocrites.

In a growing secular society, we face an increasing number of opponents to Jesus, enemies of the gospel. How we treat these adversaries will define the character of the kingdom where we serve.

We have acted poorly in our denunciation of homosexuals, abortion advocates, liberals, Hollywood, atheists and anyone else who does not conform to our moral standards or insider principles, calling down fire from heaven on these unworthy humans.

I wonder what Jesus would say to us.

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


same-sex marriageThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, but it likely will not end the strife or wrangling that this issue has inflamed. Although public opinion has accelerated in favor of same-sex marriage (50% of Americans favor it, up from 39% in 2008, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life), staunch opponents remain entrenched.

The subject has evoked a lot of attention in the media and many would argue that the coverage unfairly supports the homosexual agenda. Matt Slick is one of those making this claim. Founder of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) in 1995, Slick was invited to an interview by The Daily Show, Comedy Central’s show that satirizes the media and politics. The show’s producer explained that the interview would cover homosexuality and the anti-Christian bias in the media. Skeptical of their intent, Slick repeatedly expressed his concern about “being promoted as a wacko who they could mock.” The producer assured him that this was not the show’s objective.

Samantha Bee interviewing Matt Slick on The Daily Show

Samantha Bee interviewing Matt Slick on The Daily Show

The sketch, aired June 17, would argue otherwise. Slick claims that the 3 hours of taping was shrewdly edited to misrepresent him and his views. He gives a lengthy explanation of the events that transpired and his interpretation of them on his website, The show’s host, Samantha Bee, injected several dissenting – and humorous – comments to Slick’s assertions, especially when he claimed that “homosexuals go out and find straights to beat up.” Slick claims that this statement was edited, that he clearly said that he did not know if homosexuals actually bully straights. Yet, he goes on to say in his rebuttal that he believes such cases must surely exist due to sinful human nature. Sorting through the facts of this dispute would require the acumen of a team from The Good Wife.

Unfortunately, The Daily Show does not release copies of original footage. Was the producer underhanded? Was Slick misrepresented? Does this prove Slick’s allegation that there exists an anti-Christian bias in the media?

For several decades now, Christians have complained about being the target of secular persecution. Some Christians warn of an increasing hostility towards followers of Jesus. The IRS scandal has fueled the paranoia. The IRS was guilty of targeting political groups when reviewing their applications for tax-exempt status, delaying approval as long as 18 months in some cases. Words like “Patriots,” “Israel,” “Tea Party” or “Occupy” in the application flagged the group for more tedious scrutiny. Although the IRS was reprimanded by the Treasury Inspector General and at Congressional hearings, Christians interpret this action to foreshadow an intense crackdown by the government on Christian institutions.

same-sex marriage 3Where does this presumed persecution occur? Primarily in the political arena. When the Church decided to organize as a political action group, it subjected itself to the same battle tactics from opponents as any political party would experience. When Christians act like a political party, we should expect to be treated like a political party. The Democratic party does not bemoan being targeted by the Republican party for persecution, even though they have been treated with all kinds of hostility in the political fracas for power.

Attacks on Christians have increased with the decision to enter the political dispute over same-sex marriage. In an effort to present a biblical standard of holiness, some Christians have said mean things. Some speak with a condemning tone.  Some appear self-righteous. In the secular ring, why are we surprised when opponents use harsh tactics in retaliation to our attacks? Is this persecution? Hardly. It is politics, pure and simple.

A bigger question emerges from this conflict: When Christians publicly denounce homosexuality and its practitioners, are we faithfully representing Jesus? Would Jesus be compelled to appear on FOX News or Bill O’Reilly’s show to oppose same-sex marriage?

An examination of the gospels does not reveal a political activist, but a proponent of justice (which includes mercy) and redemption. The only place we might sense a condemning screed from the Savior is his public denouncement of the religious leaders, not the political opponents of righteousness. He condemned these leaders for their hypocrisy, their greed, their self-indulgence, their neglect of justice, mercy and faithfulness (cf. Matthew 23:13-36).

A woman condemned for adultery is forgiven by Jesus.

A woman condemned for adultery is forgiven by Jesus.

When dealing with sinners, Jesus was anything but condemning. When an accused adulteress was thrown into the dust at his feet, Jesus surprised her accusers by inviting the man without any sin to fulfill the law and cast the first stone. One by one, they all left. Jesus asked the woman if none remained to condemn her and she responded, “No one.” Jesus tells her, “Neither do I condemn you,” although as the sinless Son of God, he had every right to do so. In redemptive form he extends mercy and releases her, but tells her to sin no more. (cf. John 8:1-12)

Where do Christians acquire the notion that we are responsible to publicly denounce sin, such as same-sex sex, without offering forgiveness through the gospel to the guilty?

Political discourse truncates our message, leaving only the condemnation of sin and, by extension, the sinner. There is no place for the proclamation of the good news of God’s love of sinners and grace for their sin.

This reduction of our message should give Christians pause when we are tempted to fight for the preservation of righteousness in social law. That fight may alienate the very people we are fighting for: sinners who need the gospel. Instead of appearing as messengers of reconciliation, we are more likely to sound like political adversaries, attracting the ire of our opponents.

This has surely happened in the battle over same-sex marriage. Any public opposition immediately gets categorized as homophobic and self-righteous. We have forfeited a gospel pulpit for a political platform, losing the ear of those who need to hear about the saving love of Christ and God’s transforming power. Members of the LGBT community see Christians as their enemies rather than their friends. This sadly compromises the reputation of Jesus, who was known as a “friend of sinners.”

We have a lot of work to do to reverse this trend and recover an opportunity to love LGBTs the way Jesus would certainly would.

Posted in Homosexuality, Marriage, Politics and Christianity, The Gospel | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments


Sarah Palin - Suzi Parker

Sarah Palin – Suzi Parker

When Suzi Parker posted her blog in the Washington Post Tuesday, she had no idea that she had strayed into the land of Oz, where things are not what they appear to be. Parker posted her article, “Sarah Palin tries to stay relevant” on her blog site, She the People. She had done her homework as many bloggers do, researching her topic on internet sites. But this time she made the mistake of citing information as factual from a web site that is satirical.

The Daily Currant posted an article February 4, “Sarah Palin to Join Al-Jazeera as Host,” stating, “The former vice presidential nominee confirmed today that she has signed a multi-million dollar deal to host her own shows and to provide commentary on United States issues for Al Jazeera, which is best known for its news coverage of the Middle East.”

Palin 2The article presents the story with an air credibility, except for some tongue-in-cheek hacks at Palin, such as this quote attributed to the former FOX News commentator, “’As you all know, I’m not a big fan of newspapers, journalists, news anchors and the liberal media in general,’ Palin said. ‘But I met with the folks at Al-JaJizzraa (sic) and they told me they reach millions of devoutly religious people who don’t watch CBS or CNN. That tells me they don’t have a liberal bias.’”

Al-JaJizzraa? Even Palin, known for her quirky comments, would not likely mispronounce the name of her future employer. The entire quote sounds more like a Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) comment from “Parks and Recreation.” It provided a clue that perhaps this web site did not provide trustworthy information.

Parker might have saved herself a lot of grief if she had made just a few more clicks of the mouse. On the Currant‘s home page, under the About tab, we read, “The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media. … Our mission is to ridicule the timid ignorance which obstructs our progress, and promote intelligence – which presses forward.” Not the kind of site I would want to use for obtaining factual information.

Dylan Byers uncovered Parker’s faux pas in his article for Politic, “Washington Post erroneously reports Sarah Palin joining Al Jazeera” on the same day Parker’s article appeared. The Post immediately wrote a correction that admitted Parker’s error and removed the false statements from the article.

Palin 3Palin 4It seems fairly obvious that those who read the Washington Post expect information that is true, reliable, conforming to fact or reality or the actual state of things. Those who read The Daily Currant, should not expect such information. Truth has a clear demarcation. It is not fuzzy or ambiguous. Palin did not sign a contract with Al Jazeera, nor did she say the things quoted in the article. Not true. Not reality.

Thes story reminds me of the State Farm Insurance commercial where a young woman tells her friend that she did not think State Farm had special apps. Her friend asks her, “Where did you hear that?” “On the internet,” she replies. “And you believed it?” he aks. “Yeah,” she says, “They can’t put anything on the internet that isn’t true.” “Where did you hear that?” he asks again. Then in unison they both say, “The internet.”

A slovenly looking man approaches them and the woman explains that she has a date with him. She met him on the internet where he identified himself as a French model. Slouching, unkempt facial hair, slovenly, the man mangles a simple “Bonjour” to reveal to everyone but the woman, who believes in the credibility of the internet, that he is an impostor.

Woman meets her online date who claims to be a French model.

Woman meets her online date who claims to be a French model.

In this case, the definition of truth might be challenged. The woman sincerely believed in the identity of her online date as a French model. Some would say, it was “true for her.” If her date sincerely believed in his constructed online identity, some would argue it was “true for him” as well. Nevertheless, his identity does not conform to reality. Either he is French or he is not. He earns a living by modeling or he does not. Once again, truth has a clear demarcation.

Some people are challenging that line of demarcation. Our love affair with multiculturalism has opened the door for variations on veracity. Is fact or reality a universal criteria for truth or is it merely a Western construction?

Someone recently told me that Western culture defines truth by facts, but some cultures measure truth by sincerity. Some view the Western approach as cold, impersonal and hostile to the intuitive self. It emphasizes the head, minimizing the heart  The head can process facts while keeping the heart at arm’s length (or a shorter distance). Therefore, some argue that truth should be defined by its relationship tot he heart rather than the head.

palin 6This definition risks enormous danger if taken too far. Truth confined to the heart only can run into severe conflict with reality. Suzi Parker believed with her heart that she was reporting the truth, but her sincere truth did not coincide with Sarah Palin’s reality. Truth for the woman in the State Farm commercial has gripped her heart so that she risks her life in a connection with a man who may in reality be a scam artist or serial killer. What is “true for her” may not be true at all, but only what she wants to be true.

No one believed more sincerely in their construction of truth than did first-century Pharisees. They opposed Jesus with adamant conviction that he threatened that truth, that he originated from the devil (Matt. 12:24).

Jesus confronted them, denouncing their truth as lies. He claimed that they shared the spiritual nature of the devil, who “is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). The line of demarcation appears vividly in this interchange between Jesus and the Pharisees. They are both claiming that truth conforms to a single reality, but they disagree sincerely over that reality.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, sent directly by the Father to provide a path of redemption for a fallen world and a sinful human race. That identity was the reality he called truth. The Pharisees claimed he was a heretic, an impostor, an evil man who opposes  the Law, Judaism and the truth. That identity was their reality they called truth. The heart had no bearing in deciding the truth or determining reality. It boiled down to the facts of the case, the true identity of Jesus.

We must be very careful in our cultural sensitivity that we do not forfeit a definition of truth that enables to conform our lives with the real world that exists, the world where God has sent his Son to reconcile us to himself, the world where truth is defined by that Son, Jesus.

Posted in Multiculturalism, Truth/Reality, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


Pi 1We pick up where we left off two weeks ago in a discussion of Life of Pi, Yann Martel’s novel adapted into a movie nominated for 11 Academy Awards. Be warned that the discussion necessarily reveals parts of the novel and movie.

Martel describes in vivid detail Pi Patel’s 227-day survival at sea in a lifeboat, also occupied by Richard Parker, a full-grown Bengal tiger. Pi manages to “tame” the tiger to permit a mutually dependent coexistence. When their lifeboat washes up on a Mexican beach, Richard Parker saunters into the foliage, unnoticed by the rescuers who transport Pi to a hospital, leaving Pi’s account as the only evidence of his existence.

Two Japanese investigators visit Pi in the hospital, attempting to learn the cause of the sinking of the Japanese cargo ship, the Tsimtsum.  After Pi’s detailed description of his experiences with the tiger as his companion, Mr. Okamoto declares, “We just don’t believe there was a tiger living in your lifeboat.” Facing unyielding resistance to his story, Pi finally relates a different story, using people instead of animals, which satisfies the investigator.

Florence Stratton offers a brilliant discussion of Martel’s book in her essay, “‘Hollow At the Core’: Deconstructing Yann Martel’s Life of Pi” in the literary journal, Studies in Canadian Literature (found at She writes,

“Life of Pi is organized around a philosophical debate about the modern world’s privileging of reason over imagination, science over religion, materialism over idealism, fact over fiction or story. The extreme poles of this debate are represented in the latter part of the novel by the two officials from the Japanese government.”

Pi 2For Mr. Okamoto, the only basis for reality is the factual evidence that leads to scientific discovery of truth. Of course, no evidence exists to support either of Pi’s stories, but the one with humans is more believable because it complies with human experience. When Okamoto confesses that he “prefers” the story with the animals, he exposes the human predisposition toward transcendence, toward a pursuit of something beyond human experience, enabling man to escape the material world that only ends in death.

Pi’s responds to Okamoto, “And so it goes with God,” reveals Martel’s postmodernist approach to God. Early in the book Pi criticizes agnostics because they “lack imagination and miss the better story.” For Pi, God’s existence does not depend upon fact or faith, but only upon the better story, the one that appeals to man’s preference.

This approach enabled Pi to embrace three religions simultaneously, despite the protests of the religious leaders who claimed that they conflicted with one another. Pi preferred the better stories of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity without careful analysis of the doctrines that arise from those stories. Where the stories may be construed to supplement one’s love of God, the doctrines expose the incongruity of the stories.

Pi 3Only one of Pi’s stories conforms with Pi’s experience at sea. They did not both occur, even though one might represent the other. Either Pi survived with a tiger in his lifeboat or he did not. We do not have to suspend the laws of logic to discover God. The better story may also be the real story, the one that occurred in real time and real space. If it was not, then it cannot be qualified as true simply on the basis of its appeal to transcendence.

In the absence of Okamoto’s ability to personally experience the stories, they do require imagination. If the imagination is restricted by previous experiences or personal knowledge, the listener might miss the true story.

Clearly the truthfulness of the story depends upon the reliability of the narrator. If he claims to have experienced that which transcends “normal” or “usual” human experience, then he might be classified as traumatized, delusional or some other category that suggests a loss of one’s mental ability to determine reality. Or he might be accused of using deception for some perceived advantage to himself. Either way, the narrator must be discredited in order to reasonably dismiss his story.

Jesus raised this young girl from death.

Jesus raised this young girl from death.

Religions are built on stories. Some religions concede that their stories are only myths, ways of explaining spiritual reality without the stories corresponding to truth or reality. Islam, Judaism and Christianity claim historicity for their stories. The stories of Abraham, Jacob, David and Ruth occurred in historical time and space according to those who recorded their stories. The plagues in Egypt, the miraculous deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea and the miraculous provisions of the Israelites in the desert happened in time and space, according to the biblical texts.

Either they are true stores or they are not. Either they adhere to reality or they are only fictions. Our belief may be contingent upon our imagination, but our religion’s historicity is not. In fact, many people discount these stories because of their supernatural nature, because they escape the bounds of normal and usual human experience.

Jesus feeding a crowd in excess of 15,000 people with only a few fish and loaves of bread, healing a man born blind, walking on water, turning water to wine, raising a young girl from the dead, are all stories that demand our response. They do not claim to be fictions. The narrators claim historicity.

Thomas puts his finger in the wound of the resurrected Jesus.

Thomas puts his finger in the wound of the resurrected Jesus.

The climax to the Christ story explodes with the empty tomb. The witnesses to this event attest to the reality of the event. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands.” (1 John 1:1) Indeed, Thomas lacked the imagination to believe that Jesus rose from the grave and suspended belief until he could see him with his eyes and touch him with his hands. When Jesus appeared to this agnostic, his imagination was inspired and he believed. (John 20:24-29)

C.S. Lewis called the Christian story “the true myth.” It is not only the better story when compared with the other religious stories that try to explain the purpose and meaning of human existence in this broken world, it is also the most reasonable and satisfying story. It demands faith not because it is better, but because it is true.

Martel’s postmodernism offers an eclectic approach to spirituality, but it seems to compromise the structures of religion, which make specific requirements for adherence. Faith finds its object in the stories and the doctrines derived from them. Subjective redefinition of the religion qualifies as a new religion, a derivative different from the original. Adherents must believe the religion’s premises without picking and choosing.

It seems incumbent on any spiritual seeker to find the story that most corresponds with reality. I believe you will find the real story to be the better story.

Posted in Faith and Reason, Movies, Postmodernism, Science and Faith, Truth/Reality, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment