Belief...by Francis S. Collins

March 24 – Paul Brand & John Polkinghorne

Question 1.  Paul Brand certainly is not a “household brand” name (sorry for the bad pun…but hey, I’m not here this week to endure the groaning)!  I was struck by his sense of humility as a doctor, as well as his deep appreciation for the irreplaceable value of another person’s presence in times of crisis.  This guy is certainly not like House, the egotistical TV doctor.  I wished his article could have been longer (not to be confused, of course, with preaching).  His enduring story of Mrs. Twigg elicited warmth and respect.  Brand characterizes that drama “as a parable of the conflicting strains of human helplessness and divine power within us.  What mattered was my presence…willingness…and contact.”

Recall a time when you functioned in a similar role or situation…either as Mrs. Twigg or Paul Brand.  What particular emotions did you feel?  How did you relate to the person opposite you in that one-on-one moment?  What specific value did you place on that person, as well as yourself?

Question 2.  Brand goes on to relate this common experience to Jesus and his body, the Church.  “We are what Jesus left on earth.”  We are that body.  No one portrays this image more vividly and repeatedly than the Apostle Paul.  Brand’s closing example of the restoration of an English cathedral and its hand-less statue of Jesus further punctuates his point, “Christ has no hands but ours.”  What do you take from Brand’s writing as you examine your openness and availability to others?  Is there room for growth of “presence?”  If so, where?

Question 3.  John Polkinghorne is back, folks…including his gifted and lofty thoughts.  In his introduction on Faith, JP sets the stage initially by contrasting science and faith.  He acknowledges the differences of procedure, the similarities of intention, and the unavoidable tensions that emerge between the two communities.  He notes that “Scientists…live in the intellectual present.”  While, “Theologians have to live within a historical tradition.”  Why is this so?  What might this possibly mean? 

Question 4.  Moving on to God and Creator, JP discusses the stumbling blocks of conceptualizing God as the invisible Magician who tinkers with the universe…and of God’s nature as a cipher for the rational order of the universe.  He notes, “…the nature of faith is that it is a commitment and response to the real.”  In defining our aesthetic experiences in life, JP provides three criteria.  First, they refer to realms…that are culturally influenced.  Second, the acknowledgement of value plays an important role.  And third, "the status of value is fundamental to any metaphysical enterprise, such as the exploration of faith in God the creator.”  He concludes, “We are simply what we choose to make of ourselves.”  Lost yet? 

So…what is it about “truth,” whether scientific or theological, that precludes universal assent or agreement?  Is not truth, to a large degree, parochial both in its nature and its application?

Question 5.  In Perspectives on Reality, JP launches into a multi-faceted examination of metaphysics.  Specifically, he argues for monotheistic metaphysics…since “it provides the most satisfactory reconciliation of the views from the widest range of windows to which we have access.”  I have no specific question for us to ponder here.  Perhaps we could simply entertain the use of the more common term, “open-mindedness.”  But how open-minded should we be prepared to be…and at what risk?

Question 6.  In Window onto Reality: Light and Darkness, JP presents seven metaphysical windows whose views bear upon the question of belief in God the creator (pages 209-213).  These include: Cosmic order; cosmic fruitfulness; the dawning of consciousness; religious experience; moral evil; physical evil; and futility. 

Since these are inter-connected windows, examine both their individual and common values to us as Christians.  In essence, they form a narrative description of life as we’ve come to know it.  Consider one or two of these “windows” and consider why you’re drawn to look through them.  What is their value to you?  How do they work in unison with the other windows of reality?

Belief...by Francis S. Collins

March 17 – Tim Keller & Martin Luther King, Jr.

Question 1.  Keller seeks to expose a rationale for not intellectually supporting Christianity.  Christians and churches seem to provide ample ammunition.  The first hang-up is character flaws.  This critique typically excludes grace from the equation, either out of sheer ignorance or disagreement.  What, in your opinion, is the proper tension here?  How do we find balance between “performance” and “acceptance” as Christian human beings?

Question 2.  The second hang-up (intellectually) is the correlation between religion and violence (war).  Historically, we can make no excuses.  Human behavior, for better or worse, continues unabated in spite of professed religious beliefs.  Where have you witnessed this behavior, both from afar and near?  What is the driving motivation for such tactics?  Why does it continue to fail?

Question 3.  The third hang-up is fanaticism (e.g., Cubs fans).  Why do such folks behave in such a manner?  I agree with Keller when he states, “It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough.”  Why is this statement to powerfully true?  Again, where have you witnessed fanaticism locally?  A family member, a co-worker, a neighbor?  How might we best respond to this approach?

Question 4.  Keller notes that Christian “self-correction” is achieved by justice in Jesus’ name, citing the abolition of slavery and the Civil Right Movement as examples.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer also draws mention here.  Where, in your experience have you seen individual Christians and churches address evil by stepping forth in acts of justice?  Where have you participated is such efforts at any level?  What did you learn from your experience?

Question 5.  Martin Luther King, Jr. needs no introduction.  We are more familiar with his speeches than with his writing.  I love the way he comes out swinging: “Nothing pains some people more than having to think.”  Amen, brother!  The term, “soft-minded” (a rather kind term, don’t you think?), seems an ever-growing apt description of our culture at-large.  It continues to get us into all kinds of trouble…one that “purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan.”  Tough-mindedness is preferable, of course.  Where are we losing ground in this country and where are we gaining ground?  How does Christianity play a role here?

Question 6.  King yokes tough-mindedness to tenderheartedness.  Such is the nature and character of God.  The third component is nonviolent resistance, in order that unjust systems might effectively be opposed.  Jesus is our ultimate model.  Consider the contrast between Egypt and Libya…why one nation succeeded and the other continues to struggle.  What is the key to success with nonviolent resistance?  How does our Christian faith equip us with the moral strength and endurance to face injustice and violence?

Belief, by Francis S. Collins

March 10 – Desmond Tutu & Elie Wiesel

Question 1.  Tutu’s basic premise is that God believes in us.  “Indeed, God is transforming the world now – through us – because God loves us.”  Tutu states that his confidence is not in the present circumstances but in the laws of God’s universe…a moral universe that finally triumphs over evil.  As such, where do you see this transformation occurring around you and around the world?  How might we better recognize and lift up such transformation?

Question 2.  Tutu emphasizes the personal and individual love for each human being…no one is exempt or irredeemable.  He raises the question, “So why does God, then, permit us to do evil to one another?”  He responds by noting the biblical caricature of us as a mixture of good and bad…that they are inseparable to our nature.  Yet, God continues to believe in us…even relying on us to help shape this world that God is ever redeeming.  How does God’s view of us help shape our attitudes and opinions of those we simply write off or dismiss as incurable human beings?  How might we further broaden our self-imposed boundaries on forgiveness to better exemplify the limitless grace of God?

Question 3.  Tutu says that suffering is not optional…it can either embitter or ennoble.  Seeing the larger purpose of our suffering leads to transformation and thus becomes redemptive….providing opportunities for emotional, spiritual, and moral growth.  Citing the incredible journey of Nelson Mandela, we’re encouraged to stretch our imaginations and our faith in considering new avenues of growth through suffering.  Where have you see such transformation in your life…either voluntary or involuntary?  Where are you most drawn to recognize and participate in addressing the overwhelming suffering around us?

Question 4.  Elie Wiesel responds to a barrage of pointed and difficult questions.  His replies are short and candid.  Rather than attempt to summarize each of them, I’ll simply refer to a few that I appreciated.  Please list your own in your small groups.  On the subject of evil, Wiesel acknowledges the tragic absurdity of the human condition (p. 158-159)…citing “there was no barrier in Christianity preventing the killers from doing their evil.  What we are seeing today…is a failure of humanity, including politics, commitment, philosophy, and art.”  When asked whether this meaninglessness can be reconciled with the meaning of religious faith, Wiesel asserts “that faith must be tested.”  In fact, “there is nothing so whole as broken faith…but it must not remain severed or sundered.”  We must ultimately recover and rediscover the faith of our Masters.  Give example of people you know who have taken this courageous path.  If possible, please offer your own stories of this journey from anguish to recovery to rediscovery.

Question 5.  On page 160, Wiesel says, “Chaos is worse than chance, worse than anything, because if there is chaos, then Good is not good and Evil is boundless.”  He then encourages us to face our daily decision to choose Covenant over chance.  Assuming that this is not a routine inner dialogue for us on a daily basis, how might we more purposefully engage our thoughts and attitudes to better reflect our faith position in our daily activities & encounters?

Question 6.  In the section on “Responsibility and Meaning,” Wiesel notes the utter centrality of the ancient wisdom that permeates Scripture.  Such an ethic provides the “laws that govern the relations between human beings.  So long as these ethics are not explored, shared, and adopted, we are in danger.”  He then notes the great progress made in medicine, the sciences, nuclear physics, and computer technology.  “But in philosophy, literature, poetry, religion, and morality (see Charlie Sheen), there has been very little progress at all.”  What, in your opinion, has ultimately led to this predicament?  What can be done to address it?

Question 7.  In his final thoughts, Wiesel states, “Hatred is Evil and Evil dwells in hatred.  The two go hand in hand.”  “Let good be good and evil be evil; then we know that we must serve one and combat the other.  So it is very serious when evil takes on the appearance of good.”  Being morally bankrupt as a society, how can we tell the difference?  What are the greatest individual as well as systemic forms of evil today?  How, in faith, do we combat them?

Belief, by Francis S. Collins

February 24 Discussion

Question 1.  Keith Ward introduces us to the difficult task of defining religion…where, as he aptly states, “almost anything goes.”  Along with the “Jedi Knight” response of numerous Brits, American culture has produced its own proud assortment of offshoot religions.  Can you name some of the more notorious examples?  Ward cites Edward Herbert’s five innate elements of a religion at the bottom of page 126.  What, in your opinion, constitutes a “religion?”  Why are these of value to you?

Question 2.  Ward writes that, “For the unbeliever, this whole religious quest must be based on an illusion.  The trouble is that the illusion does not seem to be fading away...firmly rooted in human nature.”  Objections to religion involve scientific, psychological, and social rationalizations.  How does each of these function as an opportunity to dismiss or avoid the greater mystery of the divine?

Question 3.   Lindsley invites us down a path of discourse few of us have ever traveled.  “If there are no absolutes, then we cannot say anything really is evil or, for that matter, good.  The problem is, we know better.”  As C.S. Lewis points out, “If there is a real evil, then we must have a fixed standard of good by which we judge it to be evil.  This absolute standard of goodness suggests a God who is himself this absolute, infinite standard.”  Aside from religious our faith-based instruction, when did you become aware of the real presence of evil?  Under what circumstances did you experience this evil and to what did you ascribe its origins?

Question 4.  Lindsley continues with Arthur Leff’s assertion, “that there is no normative system of ethics based in anything other than the bare assertion of human will.  The common cultural move will not work because of what he called ‘the grand sez who.’”  He then raises the question, “Under what circumstances can someone propose an ethical statement that withstands the cosmic ‘Says who?’”  He also adds, “If law cannot be in God…then the only possible alternative is to say that the law is in us – one of us, some of us, all of us.”  First, where do we see such paradigms in operation around the world today?  Second, what are the implications of such mindsets, who believe like Leff, “There is no such thing as an unchallengeable evaluative system”?

Question 5.  From there, Lindsley says, “If someone is not yet willing to admit that evil exists, perhaps that person could be gently moved toward the logical conclusion of his or her false assumptions.”  How well has that worked in the hallowed halls of Congress?!  Citing the viewpoints of Rorty, morality boils down to “sentiment”…meaning individual preferences and tastes.  But whose…and on what basis?  As for us…who makes these decisions on our behalf today?  What are the boundaries of your own personal sense of morality and how do you define them?

Question 6.  Finally, Lindsley points out the weaknesses of New Age beliefs: “This leads to the conclusion that matter, time, and space, and the distinctions between true and false, good and evil, are illusory as well.”  His mention of Neopaganism is just downright creepy…so let’s just move on. 

“Which is true or good?” he asks.  The answer to that question takes us right back where we started: the existence of evil.  The Christian faith and others have built entire theological doctrinal systems upon this fundamental belief.  In the end, each of must decide…for all spirituality is deeply personal.  How has this assigned reading either challenged or broadened your perspective on the scope of evil?  Where do you still have questions or uncertainty, as we all do?

Belief...by Francis S. Collins

February 17 Discussion

Question 1.  Dorothy Sayers invites us to re-think our reading and interpretation of the scriptural narrative through different lenses.  She seeks to engage our imaginations by reading a bit between the lines.  She notes “it was Cyrus and Ahasuerus who prodded me into the belated conviction that history was all of a piece, and that the Bible was part of it.”  She confronts certain Bible critics for their “very leisurely mental growth”…ouch!  What is she getting at in this critique? 

Question 2.  In her “Memoirs of Jesus Christ,” Sayers goes after “the journalese jargon to which we have grown accustomed!”  The “root of the trouble is to be found…in the collapse of dogma.”  She then gives us “Prophet’s Smile,” and “The Persona Dei: The Image of Truth,” as further invitations to imagine the “real” nature and behavior of Jesus and God…the latter piece being profoundly insightful and moving.  How did you receive her argument and how does it channel our focus on reading Scripture?  How does “The Persona Dei” further illustrate our sin and God’s redemptive action in Christ? 

Question 3.  John Stott begins with the fundamental question, “Why should Christians use their minds?”  He answers by siding with Paul, who says, “Our war is not fought with weapons of flesh…”  Stott adds, “This is a battle of ideas, God’s truth overthrowing the lies of men.  Do we believe in the power of the truth?”  Do you agree with Stott?  If so, what is the relationship between ideas and truth?

Question 4.  Stott directs our nature as humans as related to the divine image.  What separates us from other creatures with brains is our ability to “understand.”  This capacity is naturally delayed in the teenage years, but eventually blossoms (but not for all).  So, what exactly do we “understand” about ourselves and God?  Why is there such diversity of thought on this subject?

Question 5.  David Trueblood begins with a discussion on the means of verification…not real exciting, I know.  But it gets better when he asserts, “In many areas of experience there is no such thing as rigorous proof and we have to content ourselves with what is called the weight of evidence.”  What do you consider to be the “weight of evidence” for Christianity?  What specific “evidence” matters most to you and why does it carry such weight?

Question 6.  Trueblood then claims that a new quality of life should be publicly observable.  In regards to religious experience, how is this most commonly demonstrated?  How is your faith “publicly observable?”  What specifically might others notice in you that would provide “evidence” of your Christian faith?  What such evidence do you see in those at your table with you this morning?

Belief...by Francis S. Collins

February 10 Discussion – Os Guinness & Madeleine L’Engle

Question 1.  Os Guinness…let’s go with OG for short.  (Kind of sounds like a caveman, doesn’t it?)  OG launches this essay with a chilling narration of Primo Levi’s tragic life and eventual demise.  We are immediately captivated and saddened by the end result of temporary survival, followed by ultimate self-destruction.  Describe the initial impact this story had on you as you read it.  In what ways could you identify with Levi as he struggled to bear the burden of “witnessing” to others?  How do you differ from Levi in matters of faith as a buoy or raft from which to cling on the turbulent high seas of life?

Question 2.  The myth of Sisyphus (p. 75) offers a powerful and poignant lens through which to portray our individual struggles to persevere and persist.  Both in relationships and vocation, we find ourselves pushing multiple stones uphill…only to repeat the process again and again.  What have some of those “stones” been in your life?  Why did you continue to push them?  What was at stake for you?

Question 3.  OG suggests the alternative to such a fate:  “It is that truth, like meaning as a whole, is not for us to create, but for us to discover.”  What we discover, he suggests, is that truth is grounded and anchored in God’s own reality and truthfulness.  Forget pragmatism, subjectivism, and relativism…which can only be partial and provisional.  What are the limitations and weaknesses of each of these?  Why are they so compelling? What are you “discovering” about the world, yourself, and God that illuminate greater truth and meaning?

Question 4.  “Without truth we are all vulnerable to manipulation.”  OG goes on to expose the gruesome and disgusting details of the manipulative life of Picasso.   OG’s subsequent discussion of freedom, particularly as misconstrued and abused in America, depicts a sobering analysis of denial and self-deceit with regard to liberty (p. 84-86).  As you review these statements again, which of them hits the target most directly?  What is your emerging picture of freedom and truth?

Question 5.  Madeleine L’Engle…let’s go with ME for short.  (Yes, it’s all about ME, folks!)  ME perpetuates this discussion by stating that truth is both frightening and demanding.  Literalism often confuses truth and fact.  She elaborates on the value and necessity of story to convey truth.  She labels literalism as a terrible crippler: tending to let us off the hook…and the cross!  Why are mere facts rendered impotent against the superior depth and power of stories?  

I would venture to say that stories convey a greater meaning and mystery that flow out of our intricate relationships with God and one another.  Stories move us out of the isolation of mere facts and into the broader community of stories and shared observations.  Facts alone – and our dubious interpretations and use of them – can often limit our understanding and growth.  Facts and mystery do not sit kindly at the same table.  As such, faith invites us into the greater mystery of both the natural and the divine…thus allowing questions, not answers, to be the conduit or pathway to revelation and truth.  Describe your position and movement along this continuum between reliance on fact and faith.  What is contributing most to your growth?

Question 6.  Finally, ME acknowledges that we have become “vocabulary-deprived.”  No argument there!  Reasons abound for this, yet the situation worsens in this country.  How can we, the church, address this dilemma via our stories and our Christian witness?  Are we free to lift up and wrestle openly with life’s ultimate questions…comfortable then to trust in the One who is the Answer?

Belief, by Francis S. Collins

January 27 Discussion Questions

Question 1:  Anselm is no doubt the only person to ever repeatedly use the term: “that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought.”  It just rolls off the tongue so smoothly, doesn’t it?  And he’s not referring to Michael Jordan…although that would be close.  Assuming you absorbed this line of reasoning without lapsing into a semi-coma, what do you make of this case for God’s existence?  Would Anselm’s circular argument provide any assurance or clarity for contemporary discussions on this topic?  Why are language & meaning – particularly theological – so difficult to transpose from one generation to another?  How do we bridge such gaps?

Question 2:  Aquinas offers five “proofs” for God’s existence.  Each of these is limited by abstract thought…providing little in the way of concrete, contextual demonstrations. (Aren’t you glad I don’t preach this way?)   Look at each proof again and imagine potential examples in our time…good luck! 

In “The Simplicity of God,” Aquinas explains what God is not, namely: God is not corporeal; not composed of matter and form; not in any genus; nor can there be any accident in God.  “God is, therefore, wholly simple…”  While it’s doubtful that any of these are in question today, can you imagine the mindset of the common person back in Aquinas’ day...along with healthy doses of superstition and a general lack of education that permeated that time and culture?  Even so, such an academic style of writing would have been accessible only to a select few.  Just for fun, let’s attempt the same task, but in our language.  Briefly complete these two sentences: 

God is not _________? 

God is _________?  Explain your responses.

Question 3:  John Locke carries on this discussion of God’s existence from a slightly different angle.  On page 55, he concludes, “There is no truth more evident than that something must be from eternity.”    His second conclusion is the distinction between cogitative and incogitative beings…material and immaterial.  Where have these distinctions surfaced in contemporary theological, philosophical, and scientific discussions of late?  How might we transpose such fundamental ideological components into a more coherent schema for current existential interpretations?  How do we explain our origins now?

Question 4:  In his first section, “Foundations,” Pascal claims that “we know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart.”  Contemplation of the whole of nature is essential.  He takes great pains to lay out this process and to cite the shortcomings of those who disregard or are careless with the task of contemplation…even (gasp) philosophers!  Hubris aside, what are the common limitations we tend to experience in our efforts to examine the inward and outward dimensions of our perceived world?  How has your sense of humility before God been shaped by such contemplation of the heart?

In his second section, “Of the Need of Seeking Truth,” Pascal states that all of us seek happiness and that this is the motive of our every action.  So far, so good…until he, too, lapses into an archaic style of prose seemingly confined to endless circular reasoning.  (This caused me to nod off more than once…Uffda!)  What to do with such “pure reasoning?”  From what I can gather here (and I do so with less than optimal confidence), Pascal invites us to consider not only the existence, but also the nature of the infinite…including God.  His best line (p.64) is, “But by faith we know his existence, by glory we shall know his nature.” 

From this point on, the discussion quickly dissolves into verbose speculation of dubious relevance and interest.  Whatever he meant to say, I’m pretty sure it was an encouragement of sorts to embrace faith in God.  Where does that leave us, the readers?  Perhaps our subsequent discussion is best focused on the question, “What is the difference between acknowledging the existence of something/someone and knowing its very nature?"  In other words, what is involved in discovering the true nature of something and how does that lead to a deeper relationship…especially with God?  What avenues, then, are available to us to further promote and enhance such journeys of faith?