© 1998 Sheila Kemish
© 1998 The Brotherhood of Man Library
Reported in a parish magazine by Mrs.Sheila Kemish (wife of an ordained minister)
At the August Men’s Breakfast, Ken Glasziou was the guest speaker and gave a fascinating talk on “Religion, Science, and Outdatedness,” followed by a video of a very modern, youth-oriented worship service. His views on the Church will seem very controversial to some, very helpful to others; these are quoted verbatim from his talk. Because of space limitations, I have had to summarize his scientific introduction as below.
Since the 19th century, the West has embraced a philosophy that ‘matter’ is all there is: hence our minds are complex but machine-like; ideas of free will or of God are just a delusion.
Ken asserts however that since the 1980’s this theory has been blown apart by quantum physicists, indeed by studies that have been going on for most of this century into the bizarre sub-atomic world. An important phenomenon has been called a “non-local effect”—something that happens independently of space and time—and this is something classical physicists say cannot happen.
Yet French physicist, Alain Aspect, proved beyond doubt that “if two photons have correlated properties and one of them is put through a polaroid lens, it will become either horizontally or vertically polarized. Its twin will instantaneously do the same, even without being put through a polarizer and even though it could be miles away.”
It seems something “out there” is interacting with material objects and also with the minds of observers. Some great physicists call this “The Central Order of Things;” or “Universal Consciousness.” Others call it the “Ground of all Being” or simply “God.”
Ken sees God as “back in business” in much of current related scientific work at the highest level—and he believes more and more people will be looking for answers now that materialistic determinism is a ‘dead duck’ philosophy.
So, a wonderful opportunity for the Christian Church? Yes. . . but the problem Ken sees is that young people are becoming more educated, more critical, more sophisticated (and communicating more through the Internet) and that the Christian Churches are unlikely, as they are, to appeal. How then can we equate the “Central Order of Things” of the quantum physicists with the God of Christianity. He goes on:
“Presently most Christian denominations have some glaring anomalies and logical inconsistencies within their doctrines. Going along with the apostle, John, the concept that God is Love is preached universally—indeed a God whose love for his created children is infinitely greater than anything conceivable by us.”
“The parables of Jesus including the lost coin, the good shepherd, and the prodigal son, teach us about a God who actually goes out in search of sinners not even waiting for them to beg for forgiveness before welcoming them to the fold. Then there is a comment by Jesus about the earthly fathers who would not give their sons a stone if they asked for bread—so how much more will the heavenly Father know how to give good things to those who ask Him. In so commenting, was not Jesus inviting us to utilize our concept of the best possible earthly father that we could imagine and then to use that as some kind of guide to how we might expect our heavenly Father to react, even though we would still know that any evaluation of ours would seriously underestimate God’s love for us?”
“I can find no evidence in the gospels that Jesus had a vengeful side to his character. Just the opposite—his teaching appears to indicate that God requires only our sincere repentance as the price of forgiveness for our misdemeanors. And I take Jesus’ life as the best revelation there is of both the nature of God and his will for his earthly children. During Jesus’ life, he freely forgave sin while displaying no desire for retributive justice or vengeance. Even on the cross, his words about his persecutors were, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.””
“At least some of the new generation of highly educated young people are sure to construe Jesus’ behavior as indicative of a God whose infinite mercy, compassion, and love, as our heavenly Father, will always transcend his righteousness as our judge. How can such a concept be reconciled with that of a God of retribution who demands that his only begotten Son should die an agonizing death on the cross as the penalty for sins that he did not even commit?”
“Christianity must also take a good look at the problem of exclusivity, the doctrine that only those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior are eligible for salvation. This concept is deeply entrenched with some denominations, less so with others. I remember that, during my youth, there were notices displayed in the trams and trains of Sydney announcing, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36). Pretty intimidating, especially as it was presented as if it was the authoritative and infallible word of God rather than being the actual words of an eccentric, locust-eating man of the desert named John the Baptist.”
“Mind you, John, the apostle, does present Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14,6) But this is set in a discussion where Jesus also says, “In my Father’s house there are many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you.” (John 14,2) And surely the parable of the good Samaritan indicates that Jesus considered exclusivity to be inappropriate.”
“The youth of tomorrow (today even) will not accept exclusivity simply because it is inconsistent with a teaching that says God is perfect Love. They will ask whether this God of Love would condemn out-of-hand, those of his children who had never even heard the name of Jesus. And they will expect realistic answers. And if they receive an affirmative answer, they will respond that no decent earthly father would be guilty of such a despicable act.”
“Realistic answers will also be required about the status of the Old and New Testaments. It can’t be swept out of sight forever. I noticed that the Catholic Study edition of their Good News Bible (1979) abandoned the divine dictation theory and accepted that the Bible is the word of God in the words of men (p.xii). It also had the courage to state that John’s gospel appears to have been worked over during a period of several years and re-edited by John’s own community (p.xl). Surely also the presentation of Paul’s letters of encouragement to his congregations as being the infallible word of God needs re-assessment. I wonder what Paul would have thought about it?”
“Inevitably there will be a lot of mixed up people seeking for answers as the general community becomes aware that our quantum physicists have shown that materialistic determinism is a dead duck philosophy, and that maybe there is a God after all.”
“What can be done? My own belief is that by the time most of us attain adulthood, our ingrained attitudes are already set in concrete. Hence trying to change our church congregations, or its hierarchy, via any form of confrontation is likely to be disastrous. But neither do I believe that the logical and doctrinal inconsistencies within our Christian churches are so serious that those who hold them are in jeopardy of losing their ticket to eternity. However, it is already obvious that even the present generations of young people have little interest in the Christian religion as it now is.”
“An example of a possibly fruitful approach came up during the 1970’s when the new prayer book was introduced. There was such division among the congregation at the church I attended (Christ Church, St. Lucia) that its minister decided to hold two services, one using the old prayer book, the other the new. Then when the people who were unable to change died out, the church was able to re-unite with a minimum of damage. So could the church set up a similar situation with a different routine for those who desired something different? But perhaps there should be a minimum set of statements defining a basic Christian belief system devoid of inconsistencies, and let it evolve from there?”
“As an example, a minimum Nicene-style declaration of beliefs might be:”
- I believe in one God, the heavenly Father of Jesus of Nazareth.
- I believe in the dual nature of Jesus, and that his life is a revelation of the perfect nature of God and of perfected man.
- I believe that Jesus commanded me personally to love my fellows as He loved them—which .may be quite different from the old adage of loving our neighbors as we love ourselves.
- I believe in the Fatherhood of God over all men and women, regardless of race and religion.
- I believe that all men and women are brothers and sisters in the one family of God.
- I believe that, at my behest, the spirits of the Father and the Son dwell within me as my personal spiritual guides. (John 14:16,23; Gal 4: 6; Rom 8: 11)
Everything outside of the minimal creed could be personal. Something of this nature might just work, whereas confrontation has little hope of doing so.
Note: the video shown at the breakfast was made by a popular English T.V. program, “Songs of Praise,” and was about a church in England that is trying out the idea of running concurrent services. This particular church had three such services. Ushers at the door helped people to select the one most suited to their needs. It started as a desperation measure because of a diminishing congregation, approaching zero. Rather than close the church, this idea was tried with quite astonishing results.
My first reaction was that the young people attending were simply there to enjoy themselves because of the music. Careful observation revealed that what I initially thought were kids fantasizing about their current boy or girl friend was, in most cases, genuine worship. There is hope. Ken Glasziou
The theory (divine dictation or trance-like writing by human authors) has been rejected by the Church for two good reasons: because it implies the notion of a God who does not respect the freedom of his creatures, and because it cannot account for the very obvious diferences of the biblicai writing—diferences that can be adequateiy explained by the different backgrounds, styles, and purposes of the human authors.
Fr. Eugene H. Maly, Dean of Theology, Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, Ohio.