Between God and Mammon

A blog about religion, politics, business, and economics.

Author: rampinelli (Page 2 of 3)

photo of constellation
Photo by Felix Mittermeier on Pexels.com

The Fine-Tuning Argument

September 28, 2021 /

Greg Rampinelli

The famous neo-Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins writes in The Blind Watchmaker, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”[i]

The evidence from physics shows that the universe is fine-tuned for life, which strongly suggests design and purpose. This is widely accepted among physicists, including prominent atheists like the late Stephen Hawking, who attempt to explain it through naturalist means. This article discusses some examples of fine-tuning in physics as well as its implications.

Examples of Fine-Tuning

The Hoyle Resonance

The idea of fine-tuning may have originated with astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who was trying to discover why stars were able to create carbon. After the young universe cooled off enough for atoms to form, there were only two elements in the universe: hydrogen and helium. These atoms came together through gravity to form young stars. As these elements came closer together, the young stars heated up, and the resulting fusion process created the heavier elements, atoms with more protons and neutrons. Hoyle was puzzled because the fusion of beryllium (4 protons and 4 neutrons) with helium (2 protons and 2 neutrons) to create carbon (6 protons and 6 neutrons) was energetically unlikely: beryllium and helium together have a higher energy state than carbon. To produce enough carbon for the universe, there had to be a carbon excitation state with at least 7.596 and 7.716 megaelectron volts more than in the carbon ground energy state, which is a small range. He later discovered that this precise carbon excitation state existed, which is good because otherwise there would be no carbon in the universe (and hence no life).

Hoyle was impressed by the precision required. In 1981 he wrote:

“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”[i]

Fundamental Particles

The fundamental particles in the universe include electrons and the up and down quarks, as well as a few other quarks, leptons (electrons, muons, tauons, and neutrinos), and force carriers (photons, gravitons, etc.). Up quarks have a charge of +2/3, down quarks have a charge of –1/3, and electrons have a charge of -1.  Protons are made of two up quarks and one down quark, so they have a charge of +1. Neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks, so they have a charge of 0. Antiparticles, with opposite charges, also exist. The masses of these particles are important. The up quark has a mass of 2.3MeV, which is 4.5 times that of the electron, which has a mass of 0.511 MeV, while the down quark’s mass is 4.8 MeV, which is 9.4 times that of the electron. That means neutrons are heavier than protons. Since protons are lighter than neutrons, they are inherently stable. As neutrons are heavier, they will decay into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino within about 15 minutes, unless they are captured in an atom’s nucleus.[ii]

Examples of Fine-Tuning of Particles

The masses of the particles are very important and appear to be fine-tuned. If the mass of the down quark were increased by a factor of 3, the only element in the universe would be hydrogen, as neutrons would decay even in a nucleus. If the mass of the up quark were increased by a factor of 6, protons would fall apart and decay into neutrons, positrons, and neutrinos. There would be no atoms, just a universe filled with neutrons. On the other hand, if the mass of the down quark declined by 8 percent, protons would capture electrons and form neutrons, creating a neutron universe. The same would happen if the mass of electrons increased by a factor of 2.5.[iii]

Are these different values for the quark masses and electrons theoretically possible? As far as we know, yes. An absolute upper boundary for the mass of particles is the Planck mass, at which the particle would become its own black hole. This mass is 1.2 x 1022 MeV, which is astronomically higher than the mass of the up quarks, down quarks, and electrons. The largest quark ever observed (the top quark) had a mass of 1.73 x 105 MeV, which is over 37,000 times larger than the down quark and over 78,000 times larger than the up quark. Even if we take this value as an upper boundary instead of the Planck mass, the likelihood of the up quark and down quark falling in a life-permitting range is very small. As for the electron, the muon and tauon, also leptons, are 206 and 3477 times heavier than the electron’s mass. While there might be reasons why the range of possible values would be less, we don’t know what they are. In conclusion, if the masses of the up quarks and down quarks were determined by chance alone, we would probably not have any elements besides helium.

Neutrinos are extremely common particles, numbering about 340 million per cubic meter in the universe, compared to two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. They are leptons like electrons but have very little mass, only about one-millionth of the electron’s mass. If the neutrino’s mass increased by a factor of 2, the additional mass in the universe would have prevented galaxy formation.[iv]

Fundamental Forces

Physicists recognize four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. The gravitational force is familiar to us in everyday life: If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. We experience the electromagnetic force through electricity and magnetism, but its importance goes far beyond that. For example, the light we see results from this force. With the electromagnetic force, particles with opposite charges (e.g. protons and electrons) attract each other, while particles with the same charge repel each other. The strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together, while the weak force governs radiation but can also convert up quarks into down quarks, and vice versa. These forces can be described through equations. For example, Newton’s gravitational force equation is F = G(M1M2)/d², where M1 is the mass of the first object, M2 is the mass of the second object, d² is the square of the distance between them, and G is the gravitational constant. All forces have constants in their equations. But physics can’t explain why the constants have the values that they do.

Examples of Fine-Tuning of Forces

If the strong force were twice as strong, the early universe would have turned more than 90 percent of the hydrogen formed into helium, instead of the actual 25 percent. In this hydrogen-poor universe, stars would burn very poorly and probably not create more complex elements. Similarly, if gravity were stronger, the universe would have cooled more slowly and protons would have been locked away in helium, so the universe would not have enough hydrogen to make efficient stars or complex elements.[v] But if gravity were much weaker, stars and galaxies would not have formed at all. As for electromagnetism, if it were much weaker, there would be no chemical reactions. If the strong force were much weaker, nuclei larger than hydrogen would not exist. Likewise, if the weak force were weaker, we’d have more neutrons, and all hydrogen would be transformed into helium.

As an example, let’s look at gravity. The strongest of the fundamental forces, the strong force, is 1040 times stronger than gravity. If we take that as an upper bound, the range that gravity could fall in while still permitting life is quite small. If gravity’s force were increased by 3×10³, planets could not last for more than a billion years, which would not be enough time for life to develop. Divided by the maximum range of 1040, the probability that gravity would be consistent with life would be a minuscule 3×10-37. That’s 3 divided by 10 followed by 37 zeros. In contrast, 3 chances in a billion would be 3 divided by 10 followed by 9 zeros. If gravity increased by a factor of a billion (109), any land animals larger than insects would be crushed, or the earth would have to be reduced to a diameter of about 13 meters. But the probability that gravity would fall by chance even within this range is 1031, still minuscule.[vi]

The ratios of the fundamental forces are also important. The ratio of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force could not vary much from its current value, or there would be no stable stars. The range of ratios consistent with stable stars is about 1 in 1035 of all possible ratios.[vii]  The ratio of the strong force to the electromagnetic force must likewise be similar to its current value. If the ratio were significantly different (0.4 percent), stars would not create carbon (if the strong force were stronger), or the carbon created would all turn into oxygen (if the strong force were weaker).[viii] Furthermore, many elements would not be stable if the ratio of the strong force to the weak force were significantly lower.[ix]

The Cosmological Constant

Einstein originally introduced the cosmological constant, Λ, into his field equations of general relativity to offset the effect of gravity, which would otherwise cause the universe to collapse into itself. He later removed it, but physicists found that it was necessary and so added it back in. Cosmologists today interpret it as “dark energy”, the energy associated with the quantum vacuum. This energy causes the universe’s expansion to accelerate, which is what we observe. The problem is, if we add up the energies in the vacuum, we get a much larger number – by a factor of 10120 – than the actual observed constant. In other words, there must be something that offsets this and does so to an exquisite degree of precision. One possibility might be negative dark energy, which would offset the positive dark energy. If this is the correct interpretation, the ratio of positive and negative dark energy appears to be very precise, since the cosmological constant is 2.888×10-122 lP-2.[x] This is very close to zero, but not quite. If the cosmological constant were strongly negative, the universe would collapse since it would not offset gravity.[xi] If it were slightly more positive, the universe’s expansion would accelerate even more, and galaxies and stars would not have formed.[xii]

The Density of the Universe

The parameter Ω, commonly known as the density parameter, is the mean density of the universe divided by the “critical density”, which is the density at which the universe is flat and Euclidean geometry applies. The density parameter is very close to 1. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe needed to expand at just the right rate. If the expansion rate had been too small, the density would have been much larger than the critical value, and the universe would have recollapsed before galaxies and stars could form. If the expansion rate had been too large, the density would have been much smaller than the critical mass, and regions of small excess density (inhomogeneities) would have been too small for gravity to condense into galaxies. To avoid both cases,  Ω at one second after the Big Bang would have to be equal to 1 to within an error of 10‑15.[xiii] Put another way, the density of the universe one nanosecond after the Big Bang was around 1024 kg/m³. If it had been just one kg/m³ higher, the universe would have collapsed by now. If it had been one kg/m³ lower, the universe would have expanded too rapidly to form stars and galaxies.[xiv]

Entropy

Entropy means disorder. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a closed system over time will increase in entropy. That means, the energy it has available to do useful work will decline over time since its energy will be transformed into heat, which will dissipate. Eventually, our universe will die a heat death, with no useful energy available and all matter dispersed throughout space. That we obviously have not reached a state of total entropy means the universe is not infinitely old (which we already know from the Big Bang). It also means that the amount of entropy was less in the past as the universe was younger. The closer we are to the Big Bang, the lower the entropy. If the universe were organized simply by chance, high entropy universes would be far more likely than the low entropy universe we have. Oxford physicist Roger Penrose estimated the likelihood that our universe would have such low entropy as it has at 1 chance in 1010(123). That’s 101230. In comparison, the known universe has “only” about 1080 particles.

There are other examples of fine-tuning in the universe. These are just some of the most prominent ones. There are also arguments that our planet is fine-tuned for life and that the origin of life required a high degree of fine-tuning as well, but these will be the subject of other articles.

Explanations

Explanation 1: There is no real fine-tuning

Physicist Victor Stenger argued that the laws of physics had to be as they were, and no other self-consistent laws were possible. Furthermore, science can explain the apparent fine-tuning. A variant of this argument is, since we haven’t observed any other values for these constants of nature (since we haven’t observed any alternative universes), we simply can’t say whether there’s fine-tuning or not. This is a minority view. Most physicists, including prominent atheists like Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, recognized the reality of fine-tuning. Now, perhaps some of these examples of fine-tuning could not be otherwise, given the laws of science. And some physicists hope that a “theory of everything” will someday explain the apparent fine-tuning. There’s clearly some wishful thinking here.

Explanation 2: The Weak Anthropic Principle

The weak anthropic principle argues that any universe we observe would have to be fine-tuned for life since otherwise, we couldn’t observe it – we wouldn’t exist. This explanation is not satisfying. It’s like saying that a man facing a firing squad survives, but there’s no need to explain why, since if he hadn’t survived, he wouldn’t know that he did. The argument is circular. If a man facing a firing squad survives, the most logical explanation is that the shooters intentionally missed. The weak anthropic principle combined with the multiverse is discussed below.

Explanation 3: The Strong Anthropic Principle

As argued by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, the strong anthropic principle argues that “the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.” [i] One view of quantum mechanics argues that everything is in the form of potential particles until collapsed when observed. In other words, observers determine reality from potential reality by observing it. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Experiments show that light can be in the form of waves or particles, depending on how it is observed. Still, this is a minority position.

Explanation 4: The Multiverse, Combined with the Weak Anthropic Principle

The idea of the Multiverse is consistent with some “theories of everything”. One theory is that the quantum vacuum generates “island universes” eternally. The field of island universes expands (inflation) so that these universes are completely independent of each other. Each would have its own set of physical laws and constants. If an infinite number of universes are generated, sooner or later there will be one (or more) that would permit life. Then the weak anthropic principle applies: if we observe a universe, it must be one that supports life. This theory cannot be proved or disproved.

An argument against this is based on “Boltzmann brains”. Named after 19th-century physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a Boltzmann brain is a fully formed brain with memories of past events that didn’t exist. The argument is, it’s far more likely that random fluctuations in the quantum vacuum would create a small universe observed by a Boltzmann brain than a huge universe like ours. While the argument might sound ludicrous, is it any less realistic than the Multiverse theory?

The Multiverse theory is currently the most popular one among physicists attempting to explain fine-tuning without a designer. But if the Multiverse theory is true and the quantum vacuum is everywhere, why don’t we observe new universes popping into existence?

Explanation 5: Aliens from outside the Universe

Elon Musk and others argue that an advanced civilization from outside the universe might have created a computer game that mimics a universe. This simulation is so realistic that we think we are real, even though we’re only part of the simulation. This begs the question of how the aliens’ own universe came into being.

Explanation 6: God

Theists, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims, believe in a God who created the universe. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent, outside space and time. Such a God could certainly create a finely tuned universe and would do so if He wanted life to exist.

The principle of Occam’s Razor says we should prefer the simplest explanation. Assuming that fine-tuning is real, which it certainly seems to be, the best competing explanations are the Multiverse and God. While committed atheists reject God as an impossible explanation and so embrace the Multiverse, the Multiverse is a complex cause that requires an infinite number of universes to explain fine-tuning. Theists argue there’s also other evidence for God (such as revelation and experience), so it’s hardly surprising that God created a life-permitting universe. While not denying the possibility of a Multiverse (God could make one if He wanted), theists claim that Occam’s Razor favors a designer God.

[i] Dawkins, Richard The Blind Watchmaker, p. 133

[i] Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November 1981. pp. 8–12 Quoted in Wikipedia

[ii] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 47

[iii] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe pp. 50-53

[iv] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe pp. 173-177

[v] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 78

[vi] Holder, Big Bang, Big God pp. 96-97

[vii] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 111

[viii] Holder, Big Bang, Big God p. 91, Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 118

[ix] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe pp. 72-75

[x] Wikipedia Cosmological Constant, retrieved Sep. 29, 2021

[xi] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 158-159

[xii] Wikipedia Fine-Tuned Universe, retrieved Sep. 29, 2021

[xiii] Holder, Big Bang, Big God p. 88

[xiv] Lewis and Barnes A Fortunate Universe p. 167

[i] Dawkins, Richard The Blind Watchmaker, p. 133

Kalam Cosmological Argument

June 5, 2021 /

Greg Rampinelli

God is spirit, and so we can’t see Him directly. Some people argue that it’s irrational to believe in something that you can’t see. But rational people believe in atoms, and magnetism, even though they can’t see them. We believe in these invisible forces and particles because we observe their effects. We observe God’s effects, too. The biggest one is the universe, which comprises all matter and energy in existence.

One of the most important questions that philosophers ask is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The Christian answer is, because God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing. Atheists, of course, reject that. There are numerous philosophical arguments that make the case that God created the universe. One of the simplest is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which originated with the Persian Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali and was developed recently by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. It takes the form of a classic syllogism:

Major premise: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

Minor premise: “The universe began to exist.”

Conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

(William L. Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 111)

Theists argue that the cause is God.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Regarding the major premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”, some atheist philosophers argue against it. Philosopher J.L. Mackie, for example, argued that there was no compelling reason to insist on it. He further argued that, if God created the universe, who created God? But our universal experience is that all contingent things (things that do not necessarily have to exist, which is almost everything) have a cause. As for who created God, that doesn’t contradict the major premise, which states that “Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause”. God did not begin to exist, and so does not have a cause (that is, God is a necessary being, not a contingent being). Another argument against the major premise comes from quantum mechanics, in which random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum might cause a universe to pop into being. This will be discussed later, since a quantum vacuum isn’t nothing.

The universe began to exist

The minor premise, “The universe began to exist”, has solid support. It’s true that, until recently, many philosophers, including Aristotle, believed that the universe was eternal. In contrast, the Kalam Cosmological Argument denies that the universe could have arisen at some infinitely earlier time in the past, since we would otherwise not reach the present (this is admittedly a difficult argument to follow). Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics argues that entropy (disorder) increases in a closed system (such as the universe). The Law predicts that the universe will eventually reach a state in which no celestial bodies exist, but only widely distributed atoms. If the universe were eternal, we would have reached this state already. Hence, the universe cannot be eternal, and so it began to exist. Further, the evidence is overwhelming that the universe is expanding. An expanding eternal universe would have already reached the end state predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics – no stars, no planets, just isolated atoms.

The widespread acceptance of the Standard Model (“Big Bang” Theory), which states that the universe began from a singularity about 14 billion years ago, would seem to have settled the question. But other explanations have been touted. The Steady State Theory, for example, argued that the space left open by the expanding universe is filled by newly created matter. No evidence was ever provided, and the theory never explained how the light elements, such as helium and deuterium, could have been created without the “Big Bang”. 

Another theory, or set of theories, that argue for an eternal universe is the oscillating universe. According to this theory, the universe has expanded since the “Big Bang”, but it will eventually stop expanding and then fall back into itself in a “Big Crunch”. When the universe collapses to a single point, a new “Big Bang” will occur, followed eventually by a “Big Crunch”, followed by a “Big Bang”, and the cycle repeats itself for eternity. There is no evidence for this theory – but any evidence would have been destroyed in the Big Bang. This means that the theory is not falsifiable, and so should be considered a metaphysical theory, not a scientific one, even if scientists promote it. More seriously, the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate, which makes it unlikely that the universe will collapse again. On the other hand, in Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, the renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose argues that this ultimate “heat death” would be equivalent to the singularity at the start of the “Big Bang”, and so the next cycle would begin. This seems fanciful.

Stephen Hawking and James Hartle argued that the universe didn’t develop from a single point, like the apex of a cone, but rather had a rounded shape, like a shuttlecock. Prior to that, there was no time, and so, Hawking argued, the universe had no real beginning. In fact, near the bottom of the shuttlecock, time ceases to exist and becomes pure space. So that theory, for which there is no real evidence, would mean the universe didn’t come into being at a given time, but wasn’t eternal either. I admit, I don’t understand the argument (which is a modest way of saying it makes no sense to me). This model isn’t universally accepted among cosmologists, to say the least. It’s based on the use of “imaginary time”: when real numbers for time are plugged into Einstein’s general relativity equation, a singularity results. That means, if real numbers are used, the universe had a beginning in time.

The universe has a cause

The conclusion, “The universe has a cause” follows necessarily from the major and the minor premise. So, what is the cause?

The cause of the universe must be outside the universe, because something cannot cause itself. Since the universe consists of all matter and energy, the cause cannot be matter and energy. Further, the cause must exist prior to the universe. Since time presumably began with the universe, the cause must be eternal or timeless. And the cause must be exceedingly powerful to create something from nothing. There are two types of causal explanations: impersonal explanations, that is, the workings of natural laws, and personal explanations, that is, the will of someone or something that can choose to do something. Since no matter or energy existed prior to the universe, there was nothing that an impersonal, natural law could work on. Therefore, the cause must be personal. A non-material (i.e. spiritual), timeless, powerful, and personal cause is what we mean by God.

Of course, atheists reject this conclusion. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be atheists. The strongest non-theistic explanation for the cause of the universe comes from quantum mechanics. Both Villenkin and Hartle-Hawking argue that random fluctuations in a quantum vacuum can fleetingly create particles. If these particles are close enough to each other, gravity (assuming it exists in the pre-universe state) can collapse them into a point. This can result in the “Big Bang”, and the universe is created. So, the universe is created from nothing! Except, of course, the quantum vacuum is not nothing (pardon the double negative!). It has fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

So, an argument is that the quantum vacuum existed eternally, and the random fluctuations in the vacuum created enough particles – fleetingly – which gravity then attracted into one point. Voila! The universe was born! No one has proved it yet, but no one can disprove it, either, since any evidence would have been obliterated by the big bang itself. The observable universe has a mass of 1053 kg. Could so much mass really be created randomly through fleeting fluctuations? If so, why don’t we see new universes popping into existence, maybe between Saturn and Uranus?

Conclusion

Ultimately, it comes down to inference to the best solution. As a theist, I’m convinced by the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the universe was created by God. To an atheist, though, the idea of a creator God is impossible, or unacceptable, and ANY other possible solution is preferable. And so atheists are forced to accept arguments for which there is no evidence and that seem absurd.

A bit of irony: Stephen Hawking once wrote that philosophy is dead. His models for the origin of the universe are, strictly speaking, not scientific. According to Karl Popper, the influential philosopher of science, falsifiability lies at the heart of science. If a theory can’t be proved wrong, it’s not a scientific theory, strictly speaking, even if based on science. How could Hawking’s model for the beginning of the universe be tested? If it cannot, it really belongs to metaphysics, a branch of philosophy.

To conclude, I’m convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a powerful tool to show that God created the universe. It has its detractors. There are many other powerful arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. The next one I’ll discuss is the “Fine-tuning argument”.

A final note, this on language. I apologize for writing so much in the passive voice. That makes it harder to understand. But if we’re discussing atheist views on the origin of the universe, I see no way to use the active voice. Theists can say, “God created the universe”. Atheists can only say, “The universe came into being”, since they deny the existence of a personal agent (God). Perhaps linguists could develop an argument for the existence of God based on language style.

For a more complete discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd edition, Crossway, Wheaton IL, 2008 or William Lane Craig, On Guard, David C. Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, 2010

Introduction to Apologetics Series

June 5, 2021 /

Greg Rampinelli

We Christians have faith in Christ because the Holy Spirit worked in us. No one comes to Christ through logic and reason alone, but that doesn’t mean our faith is irrational. We live in a skeptical world, in which some of our friends and neighbors reject Christianity as a bunch of fairy tales, similar to belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Despite this prejudice, there are strong, rational reasons to believe in Christ, and it will strengthen our faith and witness if we’re familiar with them.

Let’s start by ridding ourselves of a common prejudice: Christians have “blind faith” while atheists are strictly rational, following the evidence where it leads. Malarkey! As a rule, atheists are as committed to their worldview as we Christians are to ours. That should not surprise us. A worldview provides assurance and makes us think we understand reality. A threat to our worldview is a serious threat to our identity. Nobody wants to give up their core beliefs, and atheists are no exception. When confronted with strong arguments for theism, they will resist and search for responses that confirm their beliefs.

There are many strong arguments for Christianity. In this series of articles, I will briefly discuss some of them and defend against some of the arguments against our faith.

Happy Easter – Jesus Has Overcome the World

April 3, 2021 /

On Good Friday, it looked like the powers of evil and darkness had won. Jesus, who had spent the past three years forgiving sins and healing the sick, who preached that loving God and our neighbor was more important than following religious rules, and who proclaimed the reign of God and reconciliation, this Jesus was arrested, shamed, beaten, whipped, and finally executed through crucifixion by the religious and political authorities. One of his followers betrayed him, the rest abandoned him.

On Holy Saturday, his broken corpse lay in a tomb. Dead. His followers huddled in a room, terrified that they’d be next. They had believed that Jesus was the Messiah, who would throw the Romans out and establish an earthly reign. They hoped to rule with him, but their hopes were dashed. Everything seemed hopeless.

On the third day, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb to finish the burial preparations that they had started on Good Friday. Suddenly, there was a great earthquake, an angel appeared, rolled away the stone in front of the tomb and sat on it. The Roman guard just stood there, shaking. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.” Then, as they were hurrying to tell the disciples, they saw Jesus himself. He had indeed risen from the dead!

The powers of evil and darkness – what the Bible often calls “the world” – threw everything they had at him. They lost, God won. Jesus faced death, the most fearsome weapon in the arsenal of evil, and he conquered it. He says, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live.” And so we can say with Paul, “Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

Death is still terrible, but it does not have the last word. As Jesus told the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” And someday, in God’s good time, Jesus will extend his reign to fully rule the earth, which we Christians call his “second coming”. Then, as Isaiah says, “The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them… They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” 

In the meantime, evil is still with us and people still suffer and die. Free will and the forces of nature still take their toll, and our mission of growth – spiritual, moral, intellectual – in the face of challenge and tragedy continues. We are still charged with making the world better. But we know that our victory has already been won, and even though we die, we shall live.

Have a happy and blessed Easter. Jesus is risen and has overcome the world. And with him, we have done so as well. Allelujah!

Good Friday and the Problem of Suffering

April 2, 2021 /

“If there is a god, and this god is good, why is there so much evil in the world?” This may be the strongest argument against the existence of God. Christians believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, that is, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. So, why is there so much suffering?

There’s certainly plenty of it in the world. A baby dies of a birth defect. A young child dies of leukemia. Children are swept away in a tsunami. Innocent people die in an earthquake. And then there’s the cruelty of war and conflict: in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, and many places throughout the world. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does he allow this evil to exist?  Christian and non-Christian philosophers have wrestled with this question for ages, and it remains as perhaps our greatest problem in apologetics.

My answer is not fully formed, but I’ll give my thoughts anyway.

Free will in a dynamic world

Imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God who loves His creation and loves His creatures, especially humanity, whom He made in his image. He creates a universe and an earthly home and prepares it for humanity over billions of years through physical processes and evolution, intervening as needed to prepare the way for us (including a meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs). He even put oil and coal in the ground – through natural processes – to power our industry and machines until we are ready to use solar, wind and other renewable energies.

When the earth was ready, God brought forth humanity, endowed with the needed physical attributes – upright walk, articulating thumb to hold tools, a large brain – and reason and consciousness so we could help develop the home God created for us. As our loving father, God wants us to participate creatively in the development process. God wants us to grow – spiritually, of course, and also morally, and intellectually. Growth requires challenge, so God gave us a world that would provide these challenges: a world of great beauty that operates according to natural laws, where food grows to nourish us, and bacteria and viruses can harm or kill us. This suffering is painful and certainly does not make God happy, but it does challenge us and cause us to grow.

God also gave us a free will, which we could use for good (moral growth) or evil. We have done both: evil when focused on our own selfish desires, such as greed and the lust for power, good when focused on making things whole. The world we see, with war, crime, and inadequate response to hunger, poverty, disease, is the world we humans have developed.

And if we’re honest, we know that not all is right with us. We’d prefer to blame others for their wicked acts, but we fail, too. For that reason, religions throughout history have used sacrifices – sometimes of food, sometimes of animals, sometimes of humans – to manipulate and appease an angry god or gods.

God shares our suffering

But God did not leave us alone. He inspired the Hebrew prophets to tell of Him, to give laws for our behavior, to convict us of our errors – sin – and announce God’s forgiveness. God also used great Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, to prepare the way intellectually for His next great move. In the political realm, great empires arose, allowing ideas to spread from land to land and peoples to peoples. Alexander the Great’s conquests, bloody as they were, created a Hellenistic civilization and established a common language in much of the Near East. The Roman Empire then expanded this realm where trade, people, and ideas could flow.

When this was prepared, God took the ultimate step: the incarnation. God the Son Himself, the Logos, became human, taking on our nature completely and experiencing the joys and pains of His fellow humans. When He was ready, Jesus began his ministry, traveling through a small area of Galilee and Judea, preaching God’s reign. His message was one of love and forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. He also proclaimed that we were children of a loving God and citizens of His Kingdom, which would one day reign throughout the world. In doing so, he gave us strength and knowledge to grow spiritually, morally, and intellectually to more resemble what God wants us to be.

But Jesus posed a threat to the religious leaders, who were convinced He opposed the truth. Moreover, He was a blasphemer, claiming he had authority to forgive sins. His miracles caused many to believe He was the promised Messiah. The religious leaders were not convinced and thought He was a false Messiah, who threatened their positions and could bring the wrath of Rome down on all of them. So they decided to get rid of Him and turned him over to the Roman occupiers for execution as a seditionist.

Jesus, both God and human, now suffered greatly at the hands of the people he made. He was betrayed by a follower and friend, Judas, a person he loved. Another follower and friend, Peter, got scared and denied Him. His other followers and friends ran away. Having come to fulfill God’s covenant with the Jewish people, He was brought before their leaders, who owed Him worship, and they struck Him and shamed Him. As he stood before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, the crowd rejected Him as well, so Pilate ordered him painfully and shamefully scourged. The soldiers mocked Him. Then they brutally led him to Golgotha, where He was crucified between two criminals, a painful and shameful execution.

Yes, we live in a world with both good and evil. Our mission is to respond to evil, to overcome it as best we can, and so to grow. God showed us the way by coming to us and suffering with us. But His suffering also fulfilled a greater plan. Through His sufferings, the creator of the universe paid the penalty for our shortcomings, and so He can accept us freely. There is no need for sacrifices on our part to appease an angry God: We simply have to accept God’s free gift of reconciliation. And we should also grow spiritually, morally, and intellectually, and do our best to overcome evil and promote good.

The sufferings of Jesus that we commemorate on Good Friday have a happy ending, which we will celebrate this Sunday. Our sufferings will also ultimately have a happy ending as well.

Book Review – Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore our Nation

March 4, 2021 /

By David French          2020, St. Martin’s Press, New York

David French is a lawyer and conservative columnist, formerly for the National Review, and now senior editor of The Dispatch. Before becoming a political commentator, he worked as a religious rights attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom. He also served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defended freedom of speech and conscience of students and professors at mostly liberal universities. He served in the U.S. Army in Iraq in 2007 and was awarded the Bronze Star.  Unlike most other evangelical Christians, he has consistently opposed Donald Trump.

Two scenarios

Imagine the United States in the near future under a Republican president. Reacting to a mass shooting at a school, the California legislature bans private ownership of most guns. Gun owners appeal through the courts, and finally the U.S. Supreme Court declares the California law unconsitutional. The state government, with strong support of its citizens, defies the ruling and continues to confiscate semi-automatic weapons. The federal government tries to enforce the ruling, and the situation escalates. Finally, California declares its independence. Oregon and Washington quickly join their West Coast neighbor. Northeastern states follow suit and likewise secede, joining together into their own new country. What was once the United States of America is now three separate countries.

Or another scenario: The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, and the abortion issue is returned to the states. Many Republican-dominated states already have laws on their books banning abortion, and these become effective. Democrats take control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Democratic Senators end the filibuster, pass a strong gun control bill, and expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 justices. Democrats then pass single-payer health care and a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while eliminating all religious freedom objections. Finally, they pass a law that makes abortion legal throughout the country, from conception to birth. Republican-dominated states object vehemently, and the situation quickly spirals out of control. After a series of escalations, Texas declares its independence. It is quickly joined by other southern and western states.

In both cases, the result is the same. The United States falls into a deep economic depression as economic ties are sundered. And the U.S. pulls back from the world stage, which emboldens Russia, China, and other actors to pursue their goals through force. Russia takes over the Baltic states and eastern Ukraine. China threatens Taiwan, which allies itself with Japan. War in the Pacific follows. The era of relative peace and stability, established since World War II and upheld by American military power, is over.

These scenarios, described with a novelist’s skill, were published in this book before the election. If they might have seemed farfetched then, they certainly don’t now, especially after January 6.

The problem

French argues that America is in danger of dissolution. We are politically and culturally divided, and this division follows geography. Most states are solidly Republican or Democrat. Moreover, the solidly Republican states are geographically contiguous, dominating the south and much of the west and extending into the upper midwest. The solidly Democratic states are clustered on the west coast and in the northeast. These regions are large enough and prosperous enough that they could be viable and economically powerful countries.  Red states (Republican) differ from blue states (Democrat) not only by politics, but also by culture. In blue states, religion is still especially important and dominated by conservative or evangelical churches. In red states, religion is widely considered a personal matter that should not intrude on public life. Fewer people go to church, and those who do often join more liberal, mainstream churches. Guns are another difference: People in red states value the “right to bear arms”, so they can protect themselves and their families. People in blue states want gun control to prevent further mass shootings.

Geographically based political and cultural division aren’t enough to tear the country apart, according to French:  two more elements are needed. A third element is the belief that one’s culture and essential liberties are under threat by those who “hate us”. Conservatives point to progressive corporations’ decisions to “sanction states that protect religious liberty or pass pro-life laws”. French argues, quite correctly, that conservatives see these as “expressions of hatred”. Progressives, on the other hand, see conservatives’ opposition to any restrictions on gun ownership as a threat to their safety and view religious liberty laws as permitting unjustified discrimination against LGBTQ citizens.

Finally, a fourth element is the conviction that the other side threatens our lives and property. We’ve always had politically motivated violence in America, but it seems to have spiked in the Trump years. White nationalists have recently attacked and murdered Jewish worshippers in synagogues and African American churchgoers in Bible studies. On the left, a Sanders supporter opened fire on Republican members of Congress practicing for a baseball game. This past summer, after the book was published, widespread protests against police brutality often degenerated into riots. In French’s words, both the left and the right conclude about their opponents that “they” are violent, “they” are dangerous, and “we” are innocent.

In other words, the four elements that made the American Civil War possible in 1860 are with us again. The extreme polarization of recent years, promoted by social media and both right-wing and left-wing media, but also by homogeneous churches, universities, and housing patterns, has broken the emotional bonds that held us together as a country. My group against your group. We are good, they are evil. And now the polarization is also geographical. Secession and disintegration are possible.

Pluralism, tolerance, federalism

David French argues that we need three related practices to avoid a break-up: pluralism, tolerance, and federalism.

Pluralism means more than just diversity, which we already have. French defines it as defending the rights of others to do what you would like to do yourself – even when they are your opponents. You should also defend the rights of communities to govern themselves according to their values and beliefs as long as they don’t violate the fundamental rights of dissenting members. For example, progressives should defend the right of conservatives to speak on college campuses, which has often not been the case. Conservatives, on the other hand, should defend the right of football players to take a knee in protest during the national anthem.

Tolerance is like pluralism but goes beyond it. It means showing respect and kindness toward people who are out of your group. An example of tolerance is the friendship between Ellen DeGeneris, a politically progressive lesbian, and George W. Bush, a conservative evangelical who opposed gay marriage.

Finally, French argues for federalism – less federal government influence and more local control, so communities can live as they wish.  This would make Washington less important in people’s lives and move many of our current political battles to the state level, where cultures and values are more uniform. For example, most conservatives oppose single-payer health care, while most progressives support it. If California could use its share of federal health care funding to introduce single-payer health care in the state, this would not hurt conservatives living elsewhere and would, presumably, make most Californians happier. On the other hand, America’s shoddy history with civil rights for African-Americans shows that federalism must have limits. French argues that essential civil liberties, written into the Bill of Rights, must be guaranteed throughout the country.

This would require politicians and judges to refrain voluntarily from using the power of the federal government to impose their preferred solution on the entire country. It would require pluralism and tolerance.

But problems remain

But a problem remains: We don’t agree on what constitutes fundamental civil rights, especially on the three major issues of abortion, religious freedom, and guns.

For pro-choice progressives, the right of a woman to choose what goes on inside her body, including the right to have an abortion, is a fundamental human right that should not be infringed. Hence, any laws restricting abortion violate this fundamental human right. Pro-life conservatives, in contrast, argue that the unborn child’s human right to live must take precedence over the mother’s right to choose, except to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, but it can conflict with the rights of minorities, especially LGBTQ Americans, to be free from discrimination. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case illustrates the conflict. The evangelical owner of the bakery believes that gay marriage is sinful, even though legal, and so did not want to participate in it by baking a cake for a wedding. For him, it was a matter of conscience. The gay couple argued that they were being discriminated against. For them, it was a matter of fundamental civil rights. Progressives come down on the side of the gay couple, while conservatives supported the baker.

Finally, we have guns. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms but can be interpreted differently. Conservatives argue that this right is essentially absolute. Hence, people have a right to own assault weapons with large magazines. Progressives, on the other hand, disagree, and point out the cases of mass casualty shootings in which semi-automatic weapons with large magazines were used. For conservatives, the right to own guns without restriction is a fundamental human right. For progressives, the right to live without fear of dying in a mass casualty event is the true human right.

So, federalism alone won’t save us. We must return to pluralism and tolerance. If we truly accept the rights of people to think differently, perhaps we can find a way forward.

Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project published Getting to Yes in 1981. It quickly became a classic. They argue that negotiators should follow four principles: separate people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; insist on using objective criteria.

If we separate people from the problem, we accept that our opponents are people with legitimate concerns, and we should build a good relationship with them. This is the essence of pluralism and tolerance. Focusing on interests, not positions, means understanding what’s most important for the other side as well as for yours. If you do that, you might be able to options for mutual gain, finding a solution in which both sides get what they fundamentally need, even if it’s not everything they want. Using objective criteria may be difficult, but at a minimum it means taking reality into account. The purpose is to have both sides follow agreed-on principles and accept objective facts rather than use power to force the other side to accede. When these four principles are followed – if they can be followed – no side loses.

French ends his book by citing Micah 6:8, which he calls humankind’s purpose: do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Progressives and conservatives both want to do justice, but they differ on what this means. If they love mercy, they will have tolerance for their opponents, even if they believe they are wrong. Finally, walking humbly with God means being humble enough to understand that our side might be wrong, and the other side might be right. If we follow these principles, perhaps we can hold our country together.

The High-Water Mark of Trump’s Insurgency

January 16, 2021 /

Trump’s Capitol insurgency on January 6, 2021, has some things in common with Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. Both failed.

Germany, January 13, 2021

It was July 1863. The American Civil War, launched by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, had been going on for over two years. While the Union’s General Grant was attacking Vicksburg, Mississippi, in the west, Confederate General Robert E. Lee had been marching his Army of Northern Virginia toward Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in his second invasion of the North. His goal was to seize Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital, then move on to Philadelphia or Washington D.C., in the hopes of destroying the Union Army of the Potomac and forcing the North to accept peace on the South’s terms.

When word came that Lee had marched his army through the Shenandoah Valley into Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union’s Army of the Potomac marched north to meet it. Elements of the two armies met near Gettysburg on July 1. After hard-fought battles, Union forces abandoned the town and established defensive positions on Cemetary Ridge, just to the south. The second day of battle was bloody but inconclusive, with Lee’s army trying in vain to take the Union flanks and roll them up. On the third day, July 3, General Lee decided to make one more massive attempt to destroy the Union forces by attacking their center, which he assumed was now weaker.

At 1:00 p.m. Confederate General Longstreet launched a massive artillery assault on Union positions on Cemetary Ridge. At 3:00 p.m. his troops, including Major General Pickett’s division, began to march across open territory for about a mile toward the Union lines. This assault is now called “Pickett’s Charge”. They were met with massive artillery fire and Union musket fire. Some of the troops reached the Union lines and broke through at the “Angle”, but a Union counterattack repulsed them. The furthest Confederate advance is called the “High-water mark of the Confederacy”. Longstreet’s forces failed to achieve their objectives, and when they returned to their lines, about two-thirds of the 12,500 soldiers were missing. Lee withdrew to higher ground on July 4, Independence Day, and then marched the survivors back south to Virginia. To the west, Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, giving General Grant control of the Mississippi River and splitting the Confederacy.

The war would continue for almost two more bloody years, ending when General Lee surrendered at Appamatox Courthouse on April 9, 1865.    

It is now January 2021. Two months ago, Democratic candidate Joe Biden defeated Republican President Donald Trump by a large margin: 306 electoral votes to 232. The popular vote, which doesn’t determine the winner, was also lopsided: Biden received 7 million more votes nationwide than Trump. Unwilling to accept defeat, Trump claimed the election was stolen through widespread voter fraud. His only evidence was some affidavits from supporters, who complained about apparent irregularities. His campaign filed 60 lawsuits: it won only one, a judgement to let poll watchers get closer to poll workers counting ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected out of hand the two suits it received. But Trump persisted, repeating his false claims of fraud. And many of his followers believed him.

The electors cast their votes in the states on December 14, with the results as expected: 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump. The only remaining step in the process was scheduled for January 6, when both houses of Congress would meet to certify the results. This was normally a formality, although Representatives and Senators could object to results from individual states. Trump saw this as his last chance and, through Twitter, called on supporters to come to Washington D.C. on that day: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Heeding the call, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington on January 6. Trump gave a speech at the Ellipse in the National Mall, in which he repeated his claim that the election was stolen. He called on supporters to march to the Capitol, which many of them did. The first clashes between police and Trump supporters started at about 1:00 p.m. The police were prepared for a peaceful demonstration but not a violent assault. They gave way. At about 2:00 p.m., Trump supporters broke into the Capitol building itself. Police whisked Senators and Representatives from their chambers and offices to safe places in or near the Capitol, while the mob roamed through the building, vandalizing offices, stealing and smashing objects, smearing excrement and urinating. Five people died, including two police officers. Reinforcements from the D.C. Metropolitan police, federal law enforcement agencies, and National Guard troops finally arrived and pushed the intruders out of the building and off the Capitol grounds.

With Pickett’s Charge, General Lee failed to dislodge Union forces and suffered heavy casualties, which forced him to retreat. The insurrection at the Capitol disrupted the vote to certify the results, but it continued after the mob retreated, and Joe Biden was certified the winner. Donald Trump finally admitted that there would be a transition to a new administration on January 20. He has now been impached by the House and will be tried by the Senate, although the date for that is uncertain.

Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, accurately called an insurrection, peaked in the storming of the Capitol. This was its high-water mark. The consequences of the storming of the Capitol will become clearer as time goes on, but one thing is already apparent: Like Pickett’s Charge, it was a strategic defeat for Trump and his supporters.

Lee’s army, though defeated, remained dangerous and fought on for almost two years, even threatening Washington D.C. in 1864. Trump’s ragtag mob, including QAnon conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, and others, also remains dangerous. New riots are planned for January 17 and again on January 20, Inauguration Day.

The analogy between Pickett’s Charge and the storming of the Capitol is striking in many ways, but it’s not perfect. The Confederate soldiers fought for white supremacy, as do many of Trump’s followers. But when the Confederates attacked, they did it as disciplined soldiers who knew they would pay an awful price. Trump’s mob was anything but disciplined, and its members believed they wouldn’t have to pay a high price. Let’s see if they’re right.

By Jan Fidler from Prague, Czech Republic - Prague New Year 2016 fireworks. Happy New Year!, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46100832

Welcome, 2021!

January 1, 2021 /

Germany, New Years Day, 2021

Earlier today, people throughout the world celebrated the end of 2020, which many describe as a terrible year. History will remember it as the year of the pandemic, in which societies throughout the world practiced social distancing, throttled back their economies, and even introduced curfews and lockdowns. The human toll from Covid-19 has been enormous, with deaths worldwide approaching two million.

But for some, 2020 was a good year: Couples got married, students graduated from school or college, children were born. And for many people, 2020 ended on a positive note: President Trump lost his reelection bid, and Joe Biden will replace him on January 20. But storm clouds are gathering for the world’s oldest democracy: Many Republicans believe that Trump lost due to voter fraud, even though there is no evidence for it, and before the election polls had predicted he would lose by an even greater margin. Some Republican members of Congress have announced they will vote to reject the results of the electoral college. If they somehow succeeded, which is unthinkable, it would spell the end of the American constitutional order and possibly lead to civil war.

The situation in the American church in America is not much better. Christians are bitterly divided between left and right, with white evangelicals still supporting Trump. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, persists with the disproved argument that Biden won through fraud, simply because he believes Trump. He predicts disaster for the country if Democrats win the Senate on January 6, because they will immediately pass the Equality Act. This would “change our nation at its very foundation,” Graham argued in a Facebook post.

The Equality Act would prohibit discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender orientation (i.e. LGBTQs). Whether the Equality Act as proposed is a good idea or not is a legitimate question. Given the case of the baker in Colorado who was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, I can understand the concern about religious liberty. But can Christians really support discrimination?

Evangelicals should negotiate with progressives to find a reasonable solution that protects people from discrimination but protects religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Instead, both sides demonize each other and predict the end of the country if the other side wins. Consequently, many on the right, including evangelicals, refuse to accept the results of the presidential election. When the evidence-free fraud argument is brushed aside, they are clearly ready to jettison democracy to keep the other side from gaining power. And while most on the left aren’t yet ready to go that far, intolerance is growing among them as well. Each side sees the other as the enemy, and how can we compromise with evil?

The cliché says that the night is darkest before the dawn. In Matthew 16, Jesus says the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church. He doesn’t say we won’t have conflict – the history of Christianity proves otherwise. But regardless of how bleak things look, God’s purposes will ultimately prevail.

We have reason to hope that 2021 will be better than 2020. And if it’s not, we can still be sure that things will turn out well in the end. Jesus promises that.

Joy to the World

December 25, 2020 /

Germany, Christmas 2020

This Christmas is unlike any in recent memory. With the Covid-19 pandemic raging in a second wave throughout Europe and America, public life has been stifled. There were no Christmas markets in Germany this year. Churches, while still open, remain empty. Families and friends, who in years past celebrated the holidays together, are separated. With borders closed or entry restricted, holiday travel is at a minimum. Airlines are hemorrhaging cash; bars and restaurants are closed; millions have lost their jobs; some families are going hungry or have lost their homes. Worst of all, the virus has killed thousands of people in Germany, hundreds of thousands in the U.S., and close to two million people worldwide.

When times are bad, we ask why. And with our limited, time-bound perspective, we often can’t find a sastisfying answer. For atheists, this is their strongest argument: If God is omnipotent and good, why is there suffering in the world? With no easy answer, countless people have abandoned their faith.

But as dark as the winter has been, there is light on the horizon. Scientists have developed and tested a vaccine against the Corona virus in record time. Vaccinations have already started in many countries. If all goes well, our lives could return to normal in a few months. That is a reason for joy.

But there is a deeper and more permanent reason for joy: Two millenia ago, in an act of great love, God took on human flesh and became one of us. Jesus was born in a stall, lived a modest life as the son of a carpenter, and then as a wandering teacher. He shared our sufferings. Finally, he was put to death on a cross by the religious and political authorities of his day. The creator and ruler of the universe died at the hands of his rebellious creatures.

Jesus’s death had a cosmic impact that his opponents could not foresee. His sacrifice allowed God to forgive us completely and still maintain justice. It dethroned the evil powers that had held the earth in their sway. Through his teaching and example, and with the power of the Holy Spirit, he began a revolution that is still going on today. The world is slowly being set right, incompletely, in fits and starts, but the “moral arc of the universe bends toward justice,” as Martin Luther King said.

So, even in the face of injustice, disease, and suffering, we Christians have reason to be joyful. In Jesus Christ, God has redeemed us and the entire world. Let’s spread the message of joy to the world.

The Ongoing Coup

December 11, 2020 /

Trump and his supporters are trying to overthrow the election results. That is a coup, which would destroy our democracy and have unforeseeable results. Christians must not support it.

December 11, 2020

When a revolution begins, you never know how it will end. The French Revolution began in 1787, when French aristocrats, objecting to new taxes levied on them to pay for France’s debt (much of it from helping the United States achieve independence), forced King Louis XVI to convene the Estates-General. In 1789, the Third Estate, which represented the commoners (including the new middle class of business owners and professions), insisted on a National Constituent Assembly to write a constitution for the country. Events took their turn, and soon the king was deposed and executed, and the aristocrats scattered.

After almost three years of bloody and fruitless war, liberals in the Russian Duma launched the February Revolution of 1917. But this was followed eight months later by the October Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks took over the reigns of power. They won the ensuing civil war and established a Communist dictatorship, which lasted until Gorbachev began his reforms in the 1980s. As for Gorbachev, when he launched his liberalization measures (Glasnost and Perestroika), little did he know that these modest reform measures would culminate in the end of the Soviet Union.   

The United States is a constitutional republic, a representative democracy. The guiding philosophy is rule by the majority, with minority rights protected. We have often failed to live up to these principles, as American Indians and African Americans can confirm, but over the years we have become more inclusive and have righted many of the most egregious wrongs, such as slavery and Jim Crow. Majority rule is based on elections, and elections have consequences, as Republicans have frequently reminded us. Minority rights are based on the rule of law, which most Americans claim to support.

Events since the presidential election of November 3, 2020, have been frightening. Donald Trump has ceaselessly complained that systematic voter fraud has stolen a “landslide victory” from him. For three weeks, he prevented the General Services Administration from assisting with the transition. Even today, his administration’s cooperation with the president-elect, Joe Biden, has been lacking. Refusing to succeed, Trump has directed his lawyers to launch lawsuits in all the swing states, alleging voter fraud and asking the courts to overturn the election. But the evidence they have supplied has been unconvincing, and the courts have rejected virtually all Trump’s claims.

Now Trump is following another strategy: He is trying to convince Republican-dominated legislatures in these states to overturn the election results and send Trump electors to vote for him when the Electoral College meets. In all of these states, this would violate state law, which awards electors to the winner of the popular vote. Since most Republican legislators are loyal Americans and committed to the rule of law, it is hard to imagine they would do this.

But what if Trump succeeded and these legislatures nullified the election? That would be a coup d’état. It would be a revolution that ends the American republic. And as in many revolutions, the ultimate outcome would be unpredictable. The only thing that we could predict with certainty is chaos. Civil war would be likely.  

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we should be subject to the governing authorities, which have been instituted by God to let us live a peaceful life, protected from wrongdoers. Some Christians have taken this to mean that we should be unshakably loyal to Donald Trump. They are mistaken. If God put Trump in his position, he also put Obama in the same position. But did Trump supporters say we should be subject to President Obama?

The governing authorities in the United States are those who faithfully execute their duties under the Constitution of the United States as well as federal and state laws. Those in authority who break the laws and undermine the Constitution are not legitimate authorities: They have broken their oath. If Donald Trump somehow pulls off his attempted coup, he is no longer the legitimate president, but a lawbreaker and an enemy of the Constitution.

What I find especially painful is the many evangelical Christians who STILL support Trump, even though he is clearly trying to overthrow the Constitution. Not only are they failing as American citizens to support and defend the Constitution; they are aiding a politician who is trying to destroy the republic. They are helping to overturn the true governing authorities, instituted by God, who may be Republican or Democrat, but who uphold the rule of law.

Most evangelicals support Trump because he does what they ask him to: oppose abortion, support religious liberty, and appoint conservative judges. But that hardly justifies a coup. And from a pragmatic perspective: If the revolution really takes place, can they predict where it will end?

A liberal democracy, in which the majority rules and minority rights are protected, is the system most likely to protect our rights over the long term. For Christians, religious liberty is an important good, to be cherished and defended. But if a dictator promises to uphold religious liberty, can you be confident he will keep his word? Unconstrained by the rule of law or the voice of the voters, what dictators give you today, they can take away tomorrow.

Evangelicals, repent of your devotion to Trump.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Between God and Mammon

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑