"Accepting the Evangelical Jesus as your Lord and Savior is the only TRUTH and the ONLY way to have favor with God..."

These kind of statements are commonplace among mainline evangel]ical conservative churches in this country. This kind of statement is called "exclusive" because it claims that *this* particular understanding of Jesus and the Bible is the ONLY understanding that's valid. Is exclusivity right?

An attitude of exclusivity when it comes to Christianity generally arises more from dogma and tradition than from the Bible. Granted, you see some exclusive claims to truth within the biblical text itself, but if one is not a literalist (a very dangerous hermeneutical method in many ways and prone to forced and mutilated biblical interpretations), then one need not take on the mindsets of ancient Near Eastern authors in order to gleen insights, lessons and even evoke religious experiences from the text. The truth is, most people who claim to believe the Bible "literally" really don't because it not only ignores all the various literary styles and types within the Bible that are not subject to literal interpretation, but there are certain laws and ideas in the Bible that they wouldn't practice for ethical or other reasons anyway.

What most people mean when they say they believe the Bible "literally" is that they take it to be the 100% truth. Yet, truth is not something that is always that easily extrapolated...especially when dealing with writings from ancient times from ancient mindsets in ancient cultures quite foreign to our own. Understanding historical and literary contexts as well as redaction (editing) history play a huge role in fully understanding much of the biblical text. Sure, you can read the Bible and interpret parts of it at "face value", but you are still filtering ancient ideas and writings through a contemporary, Western mindset and will often unwittingly misunderstand what the writers meant (and hence what the text MEANS for you today).

All that said, I think that when individuals or denominations claim that THEIR doctrinal or dogmatic understanding of the Bible is not just the ONLY correct understanding (devoid of scholarship), but that their belief system in general is the ONLY true one in existence, it is not only presumptuous but unnecessarily divisive and the fodder for hate and war. So, based upon biblical scholarship as well as a general acceptance and realization that TRUTH is not something that any one religion can rightfully claim exclusively, I would opt against the exclusive standpoint...vehemently.

Apparently, due to the fact that somebody from my former (and most recent) parish discovered this blogsite of mine, there has been quite a buzz there at First Baptist Church in Paris, IL. I can certainly understand that since, while I did make more of an effort to diffuse -- and in some cases dismantle -- what I felt were poorly based or just flat out incorrect beliefs and ideas about the Bible near the end of my time there, this blog nonetheless represents a much more open viewpoint than they would not have fully expected. The truth is, I don't mind people knowing about what I think, but if they're going to talk about it, I'd rather them understand me rather than presume to know (and then gossip about) where I stand from something they heard from someone else or read and misunderstood in the context and purpose of this blogsite.

And so...to my former parishioners:

I certainly understand the confusion that might have been evoked -- as those who sat in a pew and listened to me teach -- to have heard or assumed from this site that I am an agnostic in some way or another. That being said, since the word is out (or at least some kind of "word"), I almost feel a certain ethical obligation to explain a few things...if for no other reason than to prevent wrong or misinterpreted information from hurting anyone who trusted me as their pastor and teacher.

I stated on the last Sunday morning I was at FBC that my beliefs had changed on some things and that my resignation was a decision based upon the desire to be honest and open about my thoughts and beliefs...something I just wasn't completely able to do in a Baptist church setting. I haven't really changed much belief-wise since I left, though my openness in this blog might have made it seem so.

I've always been a "truth-seeker", and so I've never been totally satisfied with any particular "set" of beliefs for any particular long stretch of time. I believe in asking questions, and questions often lead us to study, to analyze, to dig deeper...though that seems to scare the daylights out of some people. Some denounce asking "too many questions" since it can lead one to be "too skeptical" – but...what is "too skeptical"? After all, one can be a skeptic without being a cynic. A true skeptic is one who wants to know the truth and refuses to accept pat-answers or "just believe this because X or Y said so" kinds of answers. A true skeptic in the most positive sense is one who won't even just believe something because a religious tradition, a religious leader, or even an ancient religious book tells him to believe it. That doesn't mean that all religious traditions, leaders or books are necessarily wrong, but it does mean we are all responsible for what we choose to believe and should be careful about what we accept, what we reject, and (especially) what we teach our children. I don't think God is afraid of our questions; in fact, I would think God would *expect* us to use this amazing brain to its fullest extent. Despite what some may think, being skeptical doesn't always lead one to *abandon* beliefs...in fact, the whole point of digging and asking questions is to try to debunk false beliefs and hang on to good ones. I wish more people in general and Christians in particular would do that, don't you? Belief should always be a process open to adjustment.

I'm not a full-blown agnostic and definitely not an atheist. I previously stated in my profile that I had atheistic leanings. Well, I have theistic leanings too! And if we were all honest, most people have questioned God's existence at some time in their lives for one or more of a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, I took that description off because I know it is so easily misunderstood. I am not an atheist, and never will be. Atheism is not, in my opinion, an honest intellectual position. Agnosticism (or certain aspects of it) by contrast is much more honest...though again, I am not an agnostic. A true agnostic is one who (temporarily) suspends beliefs in the supernatural because he or she simply hasn't been personally convinced that the evidence is strong enough. "Agnostic" means "don't know for sure". Suspending belief and taking a stand to say you *don't* believe ( i.e., atheism) are two very different things. I am actually neither one of those things. I do have agnostic *tendencies* about some things, but I also believe that agnosticism and faith are two sides of the same coin in many ways. What do I mean? The objects of faith, despite how so many try to "prove" them, cannot be proven...that's why they are matters of faith! So, one may or may not have faith that there is a God, but that's not because they can *prove* or *disprove* God's existence. Faith or non-faith in God is based upon a collection of ideas, rational evaluations, and personal experiences. I do not "know" God exists in the same way that I might "know" I am typing this on my computer in front of me right now and you do not "know" God exists like you "know" you are reading this on yours. And so, one might say that I don't *know* that God exists, but I have *faith* that God exists. Honestly, I don't know (and niether do you) that there is an afterlife. Why? Because I've not yet experienced it. But I can have faith and hope that there's one. In that way, we are all agnostic ( i.e., we don't "know") to a certain extent in our faith claims. I don't think that cheapens faith, I think it defines faith. I don't think it weakens faith, I think it reveals the essence of faith. Indeed, there is no way knowledge can ever destroy faith since faith is a personal choice. Some of the most well-educated people in the world have faith, some don't. Their choice.

So where do I stand on certain things? Am I still a Christian? One place in a blog below, I stated that I wasn't. Of course, that (as well as certain other things including the title of this blog page) was intentionally provocative in order to spur on discussion and debate on this site (which I really enjoy). So, to unpack that statement a little and answer the question: I would say NO and YES and NO again. "No" I am not a Christian in the way Christians are defined in mainline evangelical churches today. I do not believe saying a prayer in order to be "saved from hell" is anything close to what Jesus originally had in mind when he called people to follow him. Popular Christianity has evolved into something more akin to American pop-religion with lots of beliefs and ideas based upon practically no biblical scholarship and replete with completely mistaken -- sometimes grotesquely so -- biblical interpretations. The modern conservative-evangelical movement has an interesting and surprisingly recent history, but I won't get into that here. Suffice it to say: modern, popular Christianity (especially in this country) is a very culturally powerful but misinformed movement. So, no, I am not a Christian in that way.

However, I would say "YES" that I believe in the mission of the Jesus of history. The Jesus of history is very different (and a lot more challenging!) than the Jesus preached in mainline evangelical churches today. Though I suggested this and other books to the church before I left, read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" by Marcus Borg to get a quick overview of the Jesus I'm talking about. It will amaze you. Incidentally, Borg is a Christian and a scholar. I don't believe Jesus was as interested in "getting us into heaven" as he was in trying to change the world here and now. He was a social revolutionary who was elevated by his followers to a position of divinity. Hold on there, though. This doesn't mean Jesus wasn't "sent" by God or that God didn't "speak through" or "use" or was somehow "one" with Jesus, simply that those ideas about him arose after his death...and the further from his death you get, the more the divine Jesus evolves in writings by his followers. Interesting enough, that evolution is seen in the very Gospels themselves, though parishioners are not taught this in mainline churches. The scholarship behind the current understanding of the early church and the Jesus of history is quite well understood and developed...it's just shielded from the masses by popular dogma. But (and this is important) scholarly understandings of the historical Jesus and the evolution of the early church doesn't preclude one's choice to believe that Jesus was somehow also God. That is a matter of faith from your own personal experiences with Jesus as you encounter him in biblical stories, in prayer, etc. Some Christians follow Jesus but don't believe that he was a "God-man", others do. My point is that from a historical point of view, Jesus was a social and religious revolutionary –- we need to get to know *that* Jesus first before we just decide all he wanted was for us to believe in him so we wouldn't "go to hell". That second version of Jesus (just believe and live forever) is the easy one. The Jesus of history challenges us to change the world if we want to claim to follow him.

So, YES, I do believe in the mission of the historical Jesus. But... NO I don't claim to follow him as he demanded and (without trying to sound too presumptuous here) I doubt you do either. When you peel back the layes of tradition about Jesus (even those found in the Gospels themselves), you find a man who is uncompromising in his ideals and purposes. Most people today who claim to be Christians simply do not represent what Jesus was truly demanding of his followers. When you come face-to-face with the Jesus of history through study and meditation, he will rock your world to the core. I will refer you to self-study for the details. Leave a comment or e-mail me at kdhuddleston@gmail.com if you'd like some resources for that kind of study. Again, suffice it to say, I am only being honest when I say that while I follow Jesus in some ways, I do not claim to be a disciple in the truest sense (in his "inner circle" as seen in the Gospels) because, quite frankly, some of the levels of personal sacrifice he calls for, I'm just not ready to embrace. Before you might be tempted to judge me on that, I would encourage you to shed *some* of the pre-conceived ideas about the Jesus you've learned about in Sunday School growing up; temporarily mentally set aside the "just-believe-in-him" Jesus preached in churches today that requires little more than praying to him, reading your Bible, and trying not to sin and get to know the Jesus who wanted to change the world...and is more relevant today than ever. Of course, there is nothing wrong with prayer, reading the Bible, and trying to be a good person, but Jesus demanded so much more than that of his followers.

Do I believe the Bible? The Bible is not some magical book handed to us by God. It is an anthology of writings from many people, many places and many times charged with many political and religious motives from the ancient world. However, it is also a book expressing the experiences of others with God through their cultures and times and mindsets. That said, people claim to continue to experience the presence of God through the stories and writings in the Bible – and who can say they're wrong? Nobody. That is a personal faith-experience. The Bible is Christianity's guidebook, and a powerful one at that. Unfortunately, in most churches (though not all!) it's not being taught to Christians correctly because the popular interpretations embraced by the evangelical conservative mainstream hold sway over (and prevent) informed education based upon good, solid scholarship. Preachers preach doctrine and dogma (and even superstition that has no biblical or factual basis), but they are not educating their parishioners. I personally think that is just tragic and (quite frankly) shameful. Christians can learn so much about the book they use, avoid so many hurtful and bogus interpretations, and actually be challenged in the right way if only their pastors would get an education or educate themselves.

Well, I could keep on going...but I will stop with this small book. If anyone who may read this has questions for me, wants to discuss any of this, or whatever, then just e-mail me at kdhuddleston@gmail.com . I would be happy to reply.

Whatever else anyone might wonder, I am not unhappy, not without faith, and not some "fallen" preacher (well, those in certain circles might think so...but I don't put much stock in their opinions anyway ). Yes, I can be very caustic and aggressively critical of conservative evangelical Christianity, but only because I believe that much of what it is teaching is simply wrong. There is a growing movement of churches that are finally getting in tune with scholarship and offering a new and powerful vision of Christianity more in accordance to what the original Jesus was doing, saying and wanted. Who knows? I may end up pastoring a church like that (which should tell you that I am not anti-Christian!).

Best wishes to all.
Kevin

Part 1 and Part 2 have responded, respectively, to these answers to the QUESTION: “Do miracles really happen?”

(1) “YES miracles happen! There have been and continue to be many amazing occurrences that defy natural explanation in the world, including documented cases of answered prayer. If you don’t believe in miracles, you’re just in denial!"

(2) “IF YOU SAY SO. A miracle is a purely subjective interpretation of some event or perceived event regardless of whether the phenomenon in question has a natural explanation or not. Someone can also choose to believe something is a miracle or is somehow miraculous without denying it is also natural. This personal layer of interpretation cannot be proved nor disproved because it is a matter of faith."

This third and final blog will address the following answer to the question:

(3) "NO, there are no such things as “miracles”. What is dubbed “miraculous” is either a phenomenon which has yet to be explained naturally (but eventually will be – like so many other natural phenomena previously thought to be supernaturally caused but since proved otherwise), or can already be explained naturally yet is nonetheless automatically characterized as miraculous because of already-held religious beliefs or a highly emotional experience (e.g., the “miracle” of birth)."

I can already hear the retort to this answer:

“How can you be sure that miracles don’t happen? One might not be able to PROVE a miracle happened, but by the same token, one can’t DISPROVE it either. If it is a matter of faith-interpretation, then how is the one who answers in this way any different than the fundamentalist who says miracles are provable?”

The proponent of this answer would likely defend his or her assertion by appealing to an argument of probabilities. In order to explain this position, perhaps a little primer on how science works would be helpful. Further, such a primer might surprise some of you who’ve been taught to be highly suspicious of the scientific method.

Most people don’t realize that science itself is based upon probabilities, not certainties. What scientists deem a “scientific fact” is essentially a theory that has been tested time and time again, yet consistently yields the same results. Each time a scientific theory is subjected to further testing and that testing confirms the theory, it inches closer and closer to what the scientific community would call a “fact”. Any theory that earns the title of “fact”, however, is always subject to further testing with the presupposition that it might just be overturned by another theory that better explains the evidence. Thus, scientific knowledge is measured in varying levels of certainty…but, from a philosophical standpoint, never absolute certainty. Science is guided by the foundational principle that every theory, no matter how well tested, could potentially be overturned by another theory if the evidence warrants it. In that way, science is based upon probabilities. Any real scientist will tell you the same.

Scientific knowledge is therefore always tentative. It’s important to note, though, that tentative doesn’t mean invalid. The obvious progression of understanding about our universe (expressed through and corroborated by dozens of scientific disciplines) and the exponential proliferation of technology make the staggering success of the scientific enterprise more than evident. Ironically enough, I always find it amusing (albeit sometimes infuriating) that many evangelical/fundamentalist Christian circles who condemn the scientific enterprise of being flawed, erroneous, biased, deceived, and even a "tool of the devil" nonetheless enjoy its fruits. Computers, microwaves, medical technology...all of it the result of the progression of science -- the same science using the same scientific method as those studying biological evolution but not receiving the same condemnation.... ughh.... talk about a double standard.

So, do miracles happen as evangelical Christians claim they do? The proponent of the perspective of this blog would probably insist that you consider the following:

(a) Most all events claimed to be miraculous can be explained naturally.

(b) Most all events claimed to be miraculous are not “large” miracles (i.e., someone blind from birth is prayed for and suddenly is able to see); rather, most are small, much more easily explained phenomena.

(c) Many miracles are simply the product of unusual circumstances. However, there are as many negative things that happen against the odds (i.e., freak accidents) as there are positive things that happen to us. Just because something happens out of the ordinary doesn’t deserve the name “miracle” any more than it deserves the name “bad luck”.

Personally, I have yet to read about (or see substantiated) an actual “miracle” which is so far beyond natural explanation that it actually deserves the title “miracle”. Just being honest. I'm not saying definitively that miracles don't happen. It's just, in my life, I’ve yet to experience or read about a documented event where the dead are raised, the blind from birth see, the deaf from birth hear, the crippled or physically/mentally retarded are cured, or any other truly unexplainable phenomenon occurs due to the prayers of people or obvious divine fiat. Have you? Nor have I read of truly documented (and not just passionately insisted upon) evidence that these things still occur today in the way the Bible plainly claims can happen if they are just asked of God in Jesus' name). Headaches, body aches, keys found, or even lotteries won are simply not enough to substantiate an actual miracle for me. For that matter, the occasional cancer victim who somehow survives is not enough. There are plenty of those who are not praying for God to heal them.

Maybe, when it comes down to it, life is life. People live, people die. Sometimes unexpected things happen. Some of those things are good for us, some bad. We get cancer, we get treatment, we pray, we beg, we live or die. Yes, people pray; and some prayers are “answered” and some are “not” (and there’s always some ad-hoc explanation for both). Conversely, other people don’t pray and some good things “happen” and other bad things “don’t” (and vice-versa). In fact, the latest, most controlled scientific studies show prayer of even the most devout to be...well...ineffective (much to the dismay of the very pro-faith scientists who conducted the tests).

Granted, Christians will continue to claim “miracles” for even the simplest things just because they are taught to believe that God works in all things to a greater or lesser extent. For those who hold to the answer offered in this "PART 3" blog, however, they would find that particular worldview to be far too fairytale-ish to hold onto with any real integrity.

This is where the proponents of this view would stand: "There are no miracles. If you want to try and explain why God would allow children to be raped, murdered, starve, etc., in a world where divine miracles happen, please, by all means, explain."

After undergrad and graduate degrees in biblical studies and theology, as well as many years of reflection and reading, it is hard to disagree with those who argue for this view. Nonetheless, in the spirit of siding with faith (and a certain level of agnosticism), I would suspend a definite stance with them. Still...

Sorry it has taken so long to even get to PART 2 (not that I have a huge fan base or anything ;) ). Recent events have brought my attention back to this blog. I realized I wrote part one without part 2 (or 3). So...here goes...

Assuming you've read PART 1, you'd know that it was dealing with those who would answer the question posed by this blog with a resounding YES. Obviously, I haver serious issues with those who claim to be able to prove or substantiate a miracle objectively. But, what about a more subjective approach? What about someone who answers the above question with:

“If you say so. A miracle is a purely subjective interpretation of some event or perceived event regardless of whether the phenomenon in question has a natural explanation or not. Someone can also choose to believe something is a miracle or is somehow miraculous without denying it is also natural. This personal layer of interpretation cannot be proved nor disproved because it is a matter of faith”

This is a less popular answer given by Christians but a more popular answer offered by Christian apologists. They are saying, essentially, that miracles are outside the realm of provability; however, that fact doesn’t make them illusory. They are, rather, purely a matter of personal faith and judgment. (A “Christian apologist”, by the way, is one who argues for the truth of Christianity – i.e., that Christianity can be shown to be likely true based upon alleged evidence or logical reasoning). So, a miracle is something interpreted by the individual, and perhaps agreed upon by others who either experienced the event or believed testimony about it, to be evidence of supernatural intervention in human history causing some otherwise unlikely or improbable reality to nonetheless obtain. In other words, when people experience something they consider amazing, many will attribute the cause of that event to God. The key for this point is that “interpretation” is very subjective (i.e., personal): what you consider a miracle, I might not, etc.

For many Christians, the issue of “faith” as a lens for interpreting real events in life is paramount to this subject (and for life in general) when it comes to the theistic worldview that God actually is aware of, cares about, and intervenes in our individual lives as well as the world as a whole. Christians will typically say, “If you don’t experience God intervening in your life, it’s either because you’re not looking for it or you just don’t believe it. “Not looking for it” is tantamount to exhorting you to “open your eyes” and begin attributing certain events to God’s providential hand at work in the world. Such examples of this, quite frankly, could be anything from hitting every light on green some day when you’re running late to someone surviving cancer. “Not believing it”, on the other hand, could either be suggesting that non-belief is blinding you to the obvious (that God intervenes in the natural world), or that because of your unbelief God will not or cannot intervene in your life.

So, in this case, the three sub-questions that need to be asked are: (a) Is having faith the key to *interpreting* miracles in your life? Or, (b) do you not *experience* miracles because of your *lack* of faith? Or, conversely, (c) are miracles not really miracles at all but really just natural events that seem improbable to you so that, because of your upbringing or training, you attribute them to divine intervention? Let’s look at them one at a time.

As for (a), I’m sorry, but it just seems so overwhelmingly subjective, I can hardly latch onto it with any sense of rational integrity. That a “miracle” is just what you decide is a miracle is so arbitrary that it means nothing with regard to truly trying to understand reality as it really is. For example, if I hit every light on green on a day I’m late for an important appointment, and (to add drama to the scenario) I’m asking God to “help me get there on time” to boot, then I can conclude one of two things. First, I could conclude that God has indeed intervened, making every light green to help me out. But such a facile and quick answer to prayer begs the question of why my prayers for so many other much more grave issues seem to go ignored. Am I to really believe that God cares more about me getting somewhere on time more than all the suffering and dying children in the world? People pray for them too, after all. Does God care more about making my travel time more expedient than about the child being abused at the same moment somewhere else in town? I once had a parishioner who insisted that God fixed his washing machine and that God helped him find a waterline buried in this front yard. I wanted to shake him, shouting “Wake up, man! Snap out of this fairytale world of yours!” Of course, I suppose I could attribute every successful endeavor or beneficial event in my life to direct divine intervention, but that’s just obviously silly...and, anyway, doesn’t that blur what a miracle is really supposed to be, i.e., something remarkable which could seemingly only have been caused by God? Surely so. So then what about that remarkable event I label “miraculous”? Well, other than the fact that many things seem remarkable only because we don’t expect them to happen (as opposed to whether or not they are really possible or probable), the truth is that most “remarkable” events have natural explanations. Oh, I could acknowledge that event X has a natural cause and still claim that God was the cause of that natural cause...but gee, that sure seems redundant! If an event has a natural cause, an additional supernatural cause is unnecessary and unwarranted. Yet, this is precisely the tact taken by many: miracles happen in the natural world and might be able to be explained naturally on some level, but that doesn’t mean God wasn’t still at work. In this sense, interpreting a miracle is said to be a matter of seeing events through the lens of faith. People are free to do this, of course, if they want. As mentioned, you can believe that finding your lost keys is a miracle of some sort, but that doesn’t make it so...or even rational. Adding a supernatural layer of interpretation over natural events in my life only complicates things unnecessarily. Instead of trying to understand why God did or didn’t do this or that (which causes serious cognitive dissonance, guilt and fear in many people’s lives), it is much simpler to just view the world the way it is: natural. But, of course, that doesn't really answer the question of miracles...it kind of circumvents it for a simpler worldview. Yet, simplicity is a key element in truth.

As for (b), there are many Christians who state unequivocally that without faith, you will never see God work in your life. This is not the same as saying that God intervenes but people don’t see it for lack of faith. This is saying that God does not (some theologians would say can not) intervene where faith is absent. This makes faith a kind of currency, a “key” if you will, that unlocks divine power in your life. Health and Wealth preachers often use this line of persuasion to incite their listeners to send money…and it works. If you show faith by sending money (especially in amounts you really can’t afford!), then God will perform great miracles in your life – one presumably being that God will award you with a lot more money…which you can once again send to the televangelist. The result? The preacher gets richer, the follower gets poorer, the terminally ill still die, and the handicapped remain handicapped. Amazingly, people will continue to follow these lying shysters since they are programmed to believe that any fortunate event in their lives must indeed be “miraculously” caused, hence reinforcing their trust in the preacher. It is a vicious cycle of nonsense. Is it true that as long as you have faith, God will do miracles in your life? I hardly think so. Over the years, I can’t tell you how many times I have been puzzled and horrified to see people of faith pray for the recovery of a sick (or missing) child only for the child to die (or be found dead with signs of torture). It seems that faith isn’t enough to clear our pediatric cancer wards. That’s going to take science. I have also had numerous adults with terminal illnesses say to me, “I have been praying for God to heal me, but I guess I don’t have enough faith...” Some preacher or Christian has no doubt planted that seed in their head somewhere along the line. Hey, why not add mental and emotional torture to their already tortured physical state? Appalling. Furthermore, there are stories of God supposedly acting independently of human faith, both in the Bible and in popular anecdotes. So, it would seem that how much or little faith one has seems to have little bearing on the existence or non-existence of miracles.

Finally, as for (c), well, as it turns out, that’s the subject of the next blog in this little series.

Do things really happen for a reason? (PART 1)

If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard "I believe everything happens for a reason..." or "Nothing happens by chance..." I would be writing this from my log cabin in the mountains.

Does everything happen for a "reason"? Well, I would say that depends on what someone is referring to as the reason. I think it's fairly safe to say that in our world things typically "happen" because something "caused" them to happen. The fuzzy world of subatomic phenomena aside, in the macroworld, the 8-ball went in the corner pocket because the cue ball I hit with my pool cue struck it in a particular way. If *that* is what people mean when they summon this cliché, then I would be inclined to agree. Yes, things do happen for a reason: something caused them to happen.

But we all know that is not what is meant.

While the chain of events for most effects can be traced to some initial natural cause, when it cannot, we either begin investigating for the cause, or we decide that the cause was something supernatural. Now, when it comes to invoking the supernatural or the divine to explain "why" things happened the way they did, there are basically three ways that people reach such a conclusion. First, some only decide that God (or some other supernatural force) caused some event or phenomenon when it seems that all natural explanations have been exhausted. Many people consider the phenomenon of human consciousness evidence of divine cause since, as of yet, a complete scientific explanation has not been formulated -- or at least it is not yet reproducible in the lab (though who knows what the future holds?). Similarly, many dub an event "miraculous" since, at least on the surface, it appears as if there is no other immediate explanation. "Rippley's Believe it or Not" is full of these kinds of anecdotes. Though thorough investigation of cause and effect is sometimes not done, there is at least usually some kind of thinking involved.

Second, there are those who immediately decide that because some event seems unlikely, unusual or is grandiose in some pronounced way that it simply must have a supernatural cause. That is, they are not interested in actual investigation for a natural cause since a supernatural one is more exciting, and it evokes mystery and a sense of awe and wonder. For example, when the shape of the Virgin Mary appears in someone's Belgian waffle, and hundreds of people make their pilgrimage to lay flowers and lift prayers to said waffle... obviously they are much more interested in believing that Mary likes to appear to us in breakfast foods (or office windows, or tree trunks, etc...) than in considering that the wafflemaker caused this random hodge-podge of bumps, curves, and shapes in a waffle (that should really just be eaten) but that our pattern-seeking brains "see" the Virgin Mary due to the influence of culturally induced ideas and beliefs. Of course, this example is an easy target, but human beings are chock full of ideas about the supernatural, so the trigger is always back, awaiting the opportunity to label some odd or strange event as supernatural in cause and/or effect...many times before we think rationally about it at all!

Finally, there is a hybrid option that both appeals to our common sense as well as to our penchant for seeking the supernatural in a natural world. This way of judging natural vs. supernatural causes is a little more subtle, it is very convenient, and also what's most likely meant by "everything happens for a reason". What is it? Well, it is the belief that although effects have causes in this world, there rides atop of (or underlies or is interwoven into) all causes and effects a divine "hand" such that all things are either literally caused by God or allowed by God. Therefore, all events in history are actually part of some overall "divine plan"; hence, all things happen for a reason...that reason being God's blueprint for history, or as some prefer, God's will. Now, how one defines "God" may vary -- for some a personal Being, for others an ultimate "Mind", for yet others, just some unconscious brute fact that is the basis for all existence, etc... -- but in the end, this idea is the dominant one behind the belief in question.

The popularity of this belief is not surprising; however, niether is it scrutinized for internal consistency very often. The reason? Because it provides a kind of comfort to many people, even an explanation, for notable events in our lives...and most often the not-so-good ones. And who wants to question something that brings personal peace-of-mind, right? After all, the good things in life need little more than celebration and perhaps a prayer of thanksgiving for those so inclined. But the bad things in life -- some of them *very* bad -- often defy reasonable explanations. This defiance taxes our minds and bodies as we try to understand certain tragedies. Sometimes we even know *what* caused a tragedy (say, a fatal car accident or cancer), but simply cannot get our minds around *why* it happened. And why would we wonder why? Because tragedy is itself tragic to us because it doesn't seem fair; it doesn't follow the natural course of life we have come to expect; it shatters our dreams and hopes into pieces that we are powerless to mend. When someone dies at 88 years old, we may miss them, but their death is hardly a surprise and sometimes even a bittersweet event. When someone dies at 45 or 25 or 5 years old, however, we fumble for reasons to justify it in our grieving. We grope for some kind of comfort, some kind of explanation, some kind of meaning. Thus, there is this worldview that insists that all things happen for "some kind of reason" which has nestled within it a quick answer: you may not understand it, but God does, and God is good and God is in control, and God knows what it best. The "reason" then is rooted in the belief that a benevolent God (or some other supernatural force) knows what's going on even if we don't...at least we don't know yet. So, we try to take comfort in the one thing we feel we do know (or believe), the one thing to which we can default when we need to do so: everything happens for a reason. We see it in the obvious ("8-ball, corner pocket"), so it must be so in the not-so-obvious too (an otherwise healthy five year old dies of brain cancer).

So, is this philosophy OK? Does it really work as well as we think? Could it even cause more pain than it salves for ourselves and others to whom we announce it? I'll give my opinion in the next blog (Part 2), but I'm sure you have some opinions of your own. I'd like to hear them.

Until Part 2,

- Kevin