Giving Thanks

There's an interesting Thanksgiving prayer in the classis movie "Shenandoah"when the family patriarch, played by Jimmy Stewart, says the blessing over the dinner.



The prayer does a lot to establish Stewart's character who is a proud, self-relaint, and pig-headed. He believes in himself and his family and not much of anything else. Bhy the end of the movie the tragedies he experiences in the Civil War have opened his heard and broadened his world at least a little.

I thought of this prayer on this Thanksgiving day because it reflects other things I've heard about thanking not thanking God. It's been a trend for a few years now for celebrities to thank God first when they win a Grammy, an Oscar, or some similar award. It's also become routime for comedians to mock this because it seems to suggest that this person winning is a priority for God.

Sports figures who thank God for a victory, a championship, etc. are also mocked by comedians. they point out that, if God has miraculously helped one team win he has also caused the other team to lose. Some also chide the athletes for failing to take responsibility for their own victories.

Finally, I've seen some people mock celebrities who thank God for healing. When Magic Johnson's HIV went into remission he and his wife publically thanked God, and I saw an on-line column blasting them for it. The article suggested that it would have been appropriate to thank his doctors, or the researchers who came up with AZT and other medicines that helped. Thanking God, the article suggested, was stupid and showed a lack of appreciation for the people who really helped.

There are things here that I agree with. I can't see God caring that much who wins"Best Album" at the Grammies, or intervening in the Superbowl. Also, if someone blows off the contributions of doctors and researchers when they thank God for a healing, I don't think that's right. (BTW, I don't thing that was Magic's attitude, or the attitude of many people who experience that kind of recovery. I don't think I've ever seen a case where thanking God made the recovering person any less grateful to all the people involved. It's not as if someone who's just gotten their life back has a shortage of gratitude.

As for "taking responsibility" for our acievements... that seems like a strange argument. It sounds like they are suggesting that superstars and celebrities suffer from tiny egos and that an excess of humility is going to sweep through them like a plague. (Wouldn't that be awful?)

The critics of thanking God have got some fair points, but I think they've missed the point. It's not about imagining that God likes me better then the next guy, or that every little success I have is thanks to supernatural intercession. Thanking God is realizing that we don't accomplish anything all by ourselves. We are connected to others, to family, to friends, to teammates and opponents, to docrtors and nurses and scientists, to producers, and backup singers, and directors, and to so many other people whose contributions to our lives we may not even be aware of. And as we are connected to each other, we are also connected to God. When we feel joy, success, elation, we are feeling our connection to God in that moment and thanksgiving is the most natural response in the world.

Thanksgiving shouldn't be just about the victories in our lives, because God is always with us. When we realize that, we find ourselves seeing blessings in every little thing, and feeling thankful every moment.

It's a better way to live, celebrating your blessings and feeling thankful for them. To go back to the movies, it's the difference between living like the stern and angry Jimmy Stewart from the beginning of "Shenandoah" and the thankful, joyful Jimmy Stewart at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life."

Which Jimmy Stewart would you rather be?

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

The Burden of Proof

I run across a lot of interesting stuff while browsing the web. Yesterday I found a this poster on an Athiest perspective.

It's an interesting perspective. For one thing, it makes a point that not all Athiests disbelieve in the same way or for the same reason. For some, the problem of human suffering is the issue. I can see how an honest person with a conscience could have a hard time believing in a just and loving God. I think the problem of suffering is something that both believers and non-believers of conscience are bound to struggle with.

For some Athiests, I think it is the coolness factor. When you look at some of the mocking statements New Athiests make about how believers are stupid, delusional, superstitious, immoral, etc. the temptation is right there. Just declare yourself an Athiest and you can claim that you are smarter than the great majority of the human race. It's the flip side of people who become Christians thinking that will make them superior to everyone else. IMO, it's the shallowest reason to believe or disbelieve in anything.

Then there are some who just don't get believing. I've known a few folks in this category who aren't necessarily hostile to believers, but they don't see any logical reason to believe and don't feel any deep urge to believe. Without anything rational or irrational pushing them, the whole idea of believing in God just seems strange to them, and it's easy to see why.

The poster picks up on that, though it takes it in an angry direction. It implies that it is unfair to tell people that they should have to justify themselves by disproving the existence of God.

This is true. I can't make you believe and you're under no obligation to justify your disbelief. I completely agree with the poster to that point.

It's when you take the saying on the poster a little further that I disagree. If you take the "burden of proof" argument to suggest that believers should have to prove God's existence to justify our beliefs, I have to disagree.

I believe deeply and fully in God, but it's never been a matter of evidence. Faith in God seems as natural as eating or drinking to me, and I suspect that's the case for most believers. For us, needing to justify our faith in rational scientific terms is a bizarre idea. Faith, after all, is more about a relationship than about believing an idea.

I think I can get across what it's like with the analogy of falling in love. When you fall in love, there's no difficulty in proving the existence of the other person, but the bond between the two of you is a different matter. Your feelings of love are real, true, and powerful, but impossible to demonstrate. Imagine if someone said this about your love.

If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

As wonderful and useful as the scientific method is, there are areas of life where it's the wrong tool for the job. There are many unscientific questions that it is powerless to help us understand, yet things like love, beauty, compassion, justice, and (yes) God are still meaningful and important to the majority of people.

The bottom line for me is that the argument about proving God's existence is a silly one. In the modern world we talk about God vs. science, but trying to prove God in scientific terms doesn't make any more sense than trying to prove science in the terms of faith.

Faith and science are two different tools with different uses, different strengths and different weaknesses. Just because science can't answer a question doesn't mean it's a bad question. I really think that we need both the insights of faith and of science. I think that we should stop seeing this as a war and start seeing it as a conversation where each side has a lot to learn and a lot to offer.

The Bully Pulpit

I stole my title from Stephen Colbert this week because it kind of says it all.

In an attempt to protect kids from being bullied in public schools, the Michigan legislature has enacted an anti-bullying measure. Michigan Republicans, however have added language to the bill allowing bullying on religious and moral grounds.

Colbert says it better than I can.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Bully Pulpit
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

I hope it's obvious to everyone without me having to say it just how un-Christian this is. The idea that anyone needs the freedom to physically or even verbally bash another human being to express their religious or moral convictions is absurd. The fact that is it people who call themselves Christians pushing this is deeply offensive to be and about as blasphemous as anything I've ever heard. It shows a tragic lack of understanding of Jesus, who spent his life touching the untouchables, welcoming the outcasts, and standing up for the marginalized.

We have the freedom in the US to express our opinions, even our most hateful and mean-spirited opinions. That's a valuable freedom, but it was not and never should become license to bully.


"My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes