Is God Unknown Today?

Here are my thoughts for the 6th Sunday of Easter.

——————————————————————–

I cannot help but wonder how Paul would react in today’s world, especially in light of the first lesson for today (Acts 17: 22 – 31). Or rather, how would today’s society react?

For back then, as Paul spoke in Athens, he spoke of an idol dedicated to an unknown god. In a world where there was a god for just about everything, we have a utilitarian sort of god, one that covered everything that wasn’t already covered. Today, the problem isn’t that we need such a god but rather we don’t have this god. In fact, the God whom I personally call Father and who sent His Son so that I may have eternal life is virtually unknown today.

The atheists and secular humanists of the left would have us believe there is no god at all but they offer no option other than a religion of rational thought and logic. Instead of promoting their new “religion”, they simply attack other religions, often (I think) in anger because they asked for something and they didn’t get it.

By the same token, fundamentalists and other religious conservatives offer a god that bears little resemblance to the Father that Jesus Christ told us about. The god of the fundamentalists is an angry god, quick to seek retribution and vengeance, militaristic in nature and blind to the problems of the world. Their god is an authoritarian god, one that does not allow questions and forbids the seeking of the truth. They seek a world in which knowledge is limited and no one outside a select circle is allowed to know the truth.

And it would seem that the only god that the atheists and secular humanists see is this god. We live in a world where the one true God is unknown.

Fortunately, as Paul himself stated to the Athenians some two thousand years ago, God tends to overlook the ignorance of human beings. In that same speech, Paul makes it very clear that it was God who created the heaven and the earth but Paul does not offer a timeline. He does say that mankind would search for Him. To me, this is an affirmation of both the Genesis story and the nature of evolution. We are created by God and we are to seek God. We cannot do that in a realm limited to faith or logic alone. We must do it in a world of faith and logic.

There are those of us who believe in this God because we understand in our hearts the sacrifice His Son made on the Cross for us. We are a minority of believers however. We are the ones to whom Peter wrote his letter (1 Peter 3: 13 – 22), encouraging us to speak out and led the kind of life that Jesus taught us to live and those in the first Christian communities sought to live.

Ours is not a God of war and violence but one of peace. Ours is a God that cares for His children, seeking to include every one of them even when they do not know they are included. We understand the promise Christ made that we would not be alone; we understand that it is not easy, especially when those on the far right and the far left have louder voices and offer easier solutions.

It is easy to blame others for the ills of society; it means that you do not have to do anything to fix the problems that create the ills. It is easy to say there is no god but then you have to develop one to explain the things that logic and reason cannot explain.

God is not unknown; it is just that too many people are not looking for Him. They look around and they see death and destruction, they see sickness and disease, they see poverty and homelessness and they wonder why. And then they look around and they see people who, in the name of Christ and God, seek to exclude people, not include them. They see people who in the name of God and Christ seek destruction and violence instead of creation and peace. They see people who in the name of Christ and God seek to limit the knowledge of this world, not increase knowledge of this world. And they see those who argue against such people but offer nothing in return.

This is a time when we who are Christians must live up to our name. This is a time when those known as Christians must be the ones who seek peace, who seek to heal, who seek to bring freedom to the oppressed and who live according to the ways we were taught. It will not be easy to live this way; it will not be easy to get people to listen to you in a world that demands quick fixes and physical proof.

The fix will not be quick but the proof will be physical. For we have been offered the Holy Spirit (John 14: 15 – 21) and we have been give a new life. In us people will see the proof and they will wonder why. And then they will know that God is not unknown but among us today.

Turning Words Into Actions

For those who follow Star Trek, the words “Kobayashi Maru” have a special significance. For those that don’t know, this is the name of a ship in a Star Fleet Academy exercise. It is an exercise to determine how potential Star Fleet officers will respond to situations; in this case, a situation that is a “no-win” situation.

The Kobayashi Maru is a space freight trapped in the Neutral Zone between Federation space and Klingon space (at a time when the Federation and the Klingon Empire were not friendly) and sending out a distress call. Federation ships are forbidden from entering the Neutral Zone and thus the commander of the star ship in the simulation is faced with his or her first dilemma. Do they enter the Neutral Zone and rescue the freighter and its crew or obey the prohibition to not enter the Neutral Zone.

Should the decision be made to enter the Neutral Zone, the commander quickly finds out that it was a trap set by the Klingons. The Federation starship is out-numbered and out-gunned and is ultimately destroyed. No future starship commander had ever successfully passed this simulation test until James Kirk took it. It is said that it took him three times to pass the test and he only passed the test because he modified the program controlling the simulation so that a win was possible. In other words, he cheated.

The object of the simulation is to see how future and potential commanders face death and Kirk admitted that he did not like that option. I would agree; normal (and I stress normal) conflicts should never be a “no-win” situation. But conflicts are often never normal and while our thoughts and our feelings are directed maybe directed towards situations where there is a clear cut winner and a clear cut loser, we often are faced with “no-win” solutions.

A case in point has to be the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Those who lived during that time frame of thirteen days in October can tell you of the urgency and crisis that enveloped not only this country but the entire world. Those who have watched Kevin Costner’s 2000 movie, “Thirteen Days”, can get some sense of that crisis. I believe that a better depiction of the crisis is given in the 1973 made-for-television movie, “The Missiles of October”, if for no other reason that it is a starker, black-and-white presentation.

It is clear from watching either movie that the outcome could have easily been nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. One of the benefits of the collapse of the Soviet Union was an examination of papers and materials that tell their side of the story and the realization that we were closer to nuclear annihilation than we even thought back then.

It seemed to me from my reading of Robert Kennedy’s book (the basis for the two movies) and watching the movies that there were those on both sides who wanted war and there were those who wanted to avoid war. And it was also clear that one false step by anyone on either side would result in a war that no one wanted. Because what some might have thought might be a small tactical war would quickly expand in a global conflict with the exchange of nuclear weapons. And the result of that exchange would be a world where the living would envy the dead, a “no-win” solution.

It seems to me that we need to somehow include such visions of what the future might be in our current political process. We have the technology to make simulations that involve complex decision making; in fact, we make such simulations right now. But these simulations are treated as games to be played by children.

We need to expand such simulations and get those who desire to be our political leaders to actually show us what they would do when they are faced with potentially no-win situations. We need to see how they would react when one false step is taken or a word is misunderstood; we need someway to show politicians to the consequences of their words when they are forced to put their words into action. We need someway to see how those who seek to lead will respond when those who follow seek solutions that run counter to the desired outcome or whose solutions are for their own personal glory rather than the good of the people.

We love reality television shows; we love games. Here is a chance to put together the ultimate reality show. This will not replace elections; elections are the will of the people but the people need to be informed. We need to be informed as to what those who seek to lead will do when faced with problems where the only solution is a no-win one.

We have the capability to make it so (to borrow another Star Trek phrase); shouldn’t we find a way to turn words into actions so that we can make better decisions?

———————————

Cross-posted to RedBlueChristian