Sermon

George Carlin and the existence of God

As I am sure you all know, George Carlin passed away last week. I have always enjoyed much of Carlin’s work but those of you who know his work will have surmised that I disagreed with his views on religion and God. It just occurred to me that part of one of his routines made up the "base text" of a sermon I preached on Trinity Sunday in 2004.

First Sunday after Pentecost
Trinity Sunday – Year C 2004
Isaiah 6:1-8; Revelation 4:1-11; John 16:(5-11)12-15; Psalm 29 or Canticle 2 or 13

Almighty and everlasting God, you have given to us your servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of your divine Majesty to worship the Unity: Keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see you in your one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit live and reign, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

The character and nature of God or What do the Seraphim Sing?

This morning is Trinity Sunday and for some odd reason, although I do not regularly preach, for 3 of the last 4 years I have been asked to preach on Trinity Sunday. As Garrison Kiellor pointed out yesterday, the Trinity is always a tough topic to pack into a 20-minute sermon. In reading today’s lectionary I was struck by the fact that the passages from Isaiah and Revelation both are focused on the vision of God upon his throne and the seraphim singing his praise. This led me to reflect more upon the overall character of God than upon just the Trinity per se. And this naturally led me to think about George Carlin.

I say “naturally” because this past Friday as I was driving into work I was listening to the comedy station on XM radio. The first comedian I heard was George Carlin and his routine was “Why God Does Not Exist.” For those of our younger and older set, George Carlin was at his height during the 70s and his character the “Hippy Dippy Weather Man” (“with your hippy dippy weather, man”) best exemplified his style at the time. He has aged more gracefully than some of his era (his is still alive, after all, able somehow to avoid the overdoses that took so many of that crowd), but his irreverence remains. Only now he has, if anything, an even greater sense of condescension towards anything or anyone who disagrees with him. He was always anti-establishment (such rebellion was obligatory for the non-conformists of his age), but religion has been receiving more and more of his ire over the ages. The routine I heard on Friday is his most forthright attack, not on the religion in general, but on God himself. Fortunately for me, someone has posted the content of this routine (© 1999) on the web. I will share with you the most salient points with appropriately adapted language.

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is ***** up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of {stuff} you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would’ve been out on his all-powerful {rear} a long time ago. And by the way, I say “this guy”, because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

George, we are on first name basis, insists that God must not exist because of all the bad things in the world. He is right, of course, that this world is full of the most awful kinds of suffering imaginable. What is even worse is that the most terrible examples of it is created and inflicted upon humans by other humans. And this is the key, fundamental error in Carlin’s comments and criticism of God. Carlin fails to understand, that the evil/suffering/sorrow in this world is not a reflection of God and his character, it is the result of human will. Carlin’s position is the ultimate in hubris as he blames God… well, to be more accurate, he believes he has disproved the existence of God because of what we as humans have done to ourselves and others. His solution, by the way, is to worship the sun because it “treats him fine” and he prays to Joe Pesci because “he looks like a guy who can get things done.” I think he was kidding about this last bit.

The fact is, and what makes Carlin’s routine so poignant and powerful, is that it is hard to reconcile the world of pain and sorrow and suffering that we experience with the concept of a God who loves us and cares about what happens to us. If he cares so much, then why hasn’t he done something about it? Isaiah’s vision of God and his reaction to this experience can, I believe, teach us much about the character and nature of God and what our response should be to him.

The prophet Isaiah lived during the 8th century BC and during his day the Assyrians, that great and fearsome power from Mesopotamia, swept through the region and conquered or subjugated all in their path. Into this context Isaiah received this vision from God calling him to preach to the people of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah.

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

In this passage, as in John’s vision in Revelation, God is depicted as the mighty king seated upon his throne who is surrounded by his angelic hosts declaring praise to God. It is tempting to refer to the seraphim as cosmic cheerleaders, “God, God, he’s our king, he can do it we will sing! Gooooo God!” Their “cheers” however, are far more profound. Consider also the praises that John heard
Day and night without ceasing they sing,

“Holy, holy, holy,
the Lord God the Almighty,
who was and is and is to come.”

The angels all declare that God is holy. When we speak of a person as being holy we mean that they are very good and are in some way close to God, but what does it mean to say that God is holy? It means that God is nothing less than perfect. He is without flaw or error. In the Isaiah passage the seraphim also declare that “the whole earth is full of his glory.” Elsewhere, the psalmist tells us that all creation declares the glory of God:

Psa. 19.0 To the leader. A Psalm of David.
1 The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.

Here we have to accept part of Carlin’s critique. The Church cannot very well say that all creation stands as a testament to the glory and handiwork of a perfect God… except for the naughty bits. But it is true. Or at least, we cannot say that without explaining that why it is true. In John’s vision the elders declare,

“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”

Think back to the beginning of Genesis and the beginning of “the heavens and the earth.” In Genesis 1 with each act of creation God declares that “it is good” and on the final day of his work God declared that it was “very good.” This too is part of God’s character. He is holy and worthy of glory precisely because, in part at least, he has created all that is and his creation is good. So what went wrong? Why is so much of it bad now? Because in his love and perfection God created humanity in his image, allowing us the potential to love him freely and, just as freely, to reject his love. No matter how you understand Genesis 3 and the story of the Garden of Eden, it conveys the fundamental truth that so many (like Carlin) refuse to accept: that so often in our lives, when given the choice between obeying God or taking that which is “pleasing to the eyes” we choose the latter. We disobey God and we are able to disobey God because he created us with the ability to freely choose between loving him and rejecting him.

Carlin’s routine ends with him offering a final proof that God does not exist. “In fact,” he says, “I’m gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened.” No one died in that moment in the audience because God loves George, loves them, and loves us enough to allow us to choose whether or not we believe in him, obey him, and love him. But none of that changes the fact that God “was and is and is to come” or that our sin, our willful disobedience of him, has consequences. It does, and those consequences are the atrocities that offend us all.

Yet where God loves us so much that he allows us to reject him, he also loves us so much that he will also offer us his grace and welcome us back into his arms. Consider Isaiah’s experience. He sees God upon his throne and the seraphim declaring God’s holiness and glory and as he does so, Isaiah realizes just how sinful he is, and his people as well. In the presence of God he realizes his own inadequacies.

And I said: “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

This too ought to be our response to God, to realize that while he is holy, we are not. This is not to dwell in some sort of self-flagellation, certainly there are some Christian traditions that have over emphasized the depravity of humanity so that some carry guilt that they believe is too great even for God to carry. One the other hand, we stand in a tradition that is often on the other end of the spectrum, embracing too fully the notion that we are all “OK” just as we are. The point is that in the presence of God, in the Holy of Holies, we should realize as Isaiah does, that we are not without sin and we must confess and declare that to God. “Most merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against you in thought and word and deed.”

And God’s response is to cleanse us, to forgive us and make us new and whole. Remember what I said a moment ago, his love that was so great as to allow us to reject him is also great enough to welcome us back when we return. It is always in his nature to have mercy. Notice the response to Isaiah,

Then one of the seraphs flew to me, holding a live coal that had been taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. The seraph touched my mouth with it and said: “Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out.” Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

This is nothing less than salvation; it is what we experience when we come before this altar, confessing our sins and accepting Christ’s sacrifice as our own. This is the character and nature of God: he is holy and in his love he receives the penitent. He cleanses us and prepares us for his service. For after God purifies Isaiah he calls and asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

God’s question is the answer to Carlin’s objection. Yes, suffering and hardship and all manner of evil continue to exist in this world. Why? Not simply because God has allowed humanity the freedom to sin, but because so many who have returned to God, so many of us who have been cleansed of our guilt and sin, have not answered God’s call, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” The suffering is not a sign of God’s absence; it is a sign of our inaction. God can and will ultimately step into history and transform it all in a moment. Yet at this time, he asks us to work with him, he offers to use us each to do his great work in this world. We are his hands and his feet. The trouble is we have atrophied; we have withered and become unresponsive.

You have been in the Temple and seen God in all his glory. Perhaps it was while praying one night in your room, or walking in the woods, or talking with a friend, but you have felt the forgiveness and the healing power of God’s touch. God has made you and now you are a new creation in Christ. And he asks you, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for me?”

Will we answer with Isaiah, “Here am I; Send me”?

Almost a sermon… “Faith”

Jun 8th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

1 comment

Last week I blogged with some thoughts about faith in preparation for the sermon I was to preach today. Except I was wrong. I was celebrating (leading the service to non-Anglicans and Catholics) but not preaching. Which was fine because the sermon preached was excellent. But so that there is no waste I will share what I had prepared here.

Proper 5, Year A

Hosea 5:15-6:6
Psalm 50:7-15
Romans 4:13-25
Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Therefore [Abraham’s] faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. (Rom. 4:22-24) — Amen.

If you are a regular NPR listener you may remember a few months ago that the notion of “faith” hit the news when the results of a recent Pew survey were announced. The survey showed that “more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion.”¹ There was much discussion at the time about what these results were saying about Americans and our religious convictions. It turns out that we are still a remarkably religious nation, especially when compared to our European cousins. But even as all the news reports talked about this report on “faith” it missed the fact that this was not about faith at all. Rather it was about religion, the set of beliefs that one confesses or espouses and the actions and modes of worship that one engages in as a member of a religious community. For instance, although there was a decline in those raised as Catholics and Methodists who said they remain in those traditions, a large percentage of those same people identify themselves as Christians, albeit now in an evangelical setting. They have not “switched religions” but have simply moved to a different expression of the same religion, Christianity.

What our readings today present us with is the very foundational question of “faith.” I have to admit that I find this topic perhaps only slightly less challenging to preach than the nature of the Trinity. There are all sorts of passages in the Bible that talk about “faith,” each with a slightly different angle or perspective on this fundamental concept.

Hebrews 11 tells us famously that, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Several years ago I had a student in a class on religious thought and he expressed a frustration with this definition of faith. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.” To him, “hope” was merely wishing, like “I hope I will win the lottery,” but faith, he argued had to be something more secure. (This student, by the way, is now finishing up seminary.) “Hope” in this context, however, is not about wishing or wanting something to be true even while knowing that very likely is not. Rather this kind of hope is the expectation of something that has not yet fully come to fruition. Our Christian faith is when we act upon these beliefs.
Faith is belief plus action.

Consider our readings this morning. In Paul’s letter to the Romans he refers to Gen. 15 where we are told that Abraham believed God “therefore his faith ‘was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” You remember the story, God had promised Abraham that his children would be endless in numbers and they would inherit all of Canaan, yet he was extremely old and his wife Sarah was barren, unable to have children. In Genesis 15 God reaffirms his promise to Abraham.

1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”

Abraham points out the obvious to God, that he has promised him children to be his heirs and yet he had none. Notice that Abraham is willing to question God, to challenge God on his promises. This is not the subject of this sermon, but here is a bonus point: we are allowed to challenge God, to remind him, and therefore ourselves, of what God has promised to us. And when we do, like Abraham, we will hear God affirm his promises again in our lives.

4 But the word of the LORD came to him, “This man shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir.” 5 He brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6 And he believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.

This is the faith that Paul tells us is counted as righteousness. It is important to realize that Abraham’s “belief” is not simple intellectual assent to a concept. But Abraham believes that God will make his descendants (rather than Eliezer of Damascus’) as numerous as the stars and thus does not pursue the “adoption” of Eliezer. In this case the “action” based upon belief is ceasing an activity. Abraham believed God’s promise to him and so acted accordingly. This is faith worthy of righteousness. Abraham of course goes on to have a few more missteps but his entire story is in fact, one of faith. When God first calls out to Abraham he tells him simply, “get up and go to the land that I will show you…I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.” Abraham heard God and believed that he would indeed bless him and so he got up and went, with no further assurances than God’s word. Faith is not simply believing something to be true, it is acting upon it as well.

In our Gospel this morning we find two stories, each about a person’s faith in Jesus’ ability to heal. The synagogue leader takes a great risk, knowing that his position within his community and synagogue would likely be ruined by associating with this crazy preacher was driven by the necessity of his child. But he also acted on his belief in Jesus’ power to save. “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” Did you notice what he said? His daughter was dead. Not just ill or feeling woozy. And yet we know he believed that Jesus could bring her back so he ran to him and said, “lay your hand on her and she will live.”

On his way to see the child a woman who had been ill for 12 years, sick with a hemorrhage, a flow of blood, which meant that for her to touch someone she would make them ritually unclean, reached out and touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment. Why? Because she believed in his power to heal her. She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.” There is no wishful thinking here, only the conviction that Jesus could heal her. “I will be made well.” She believed in Jesus and she acted on that belief and she is healed. Jesus reassures the woman who touched his garment, “‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.’” And instantly the woman was made well.”

Faith is belief plus action. It is not some abstract, esoteric knowledge to which we give intellectual assent. It is the firm conviction of God’s love and power and our response to that belief. If we merely say the creeds and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour, but it never causes a change in our lives or the way we act then is it really faith? As James tells us, “faith without works is dead.” Had the woman simply said, “I believe that Jesus can heal me,” but was too meek or timid to reach out and touch him, she would not have been healed. Such a belief, no matter how strong one “feels” it, is not transformed into faith until one acts upon it.

In a moment we will recite the creed together, the creed that begins, “we believe.” How will this belief lead you to action this day, this week, in this life? If we believe that God created the heavens and the earth, how shall we now act? If we believe that Jesus came down from heaven for us and for our salvation, how shall we now act? If we believe in the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead, how shall we now act?
Faith is belief in action.

Bonus quote:
“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” — Saint Augustine

“Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in U.S.“ [↩]

Defining “faith”

May 31st, 2008

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

Yesterday I posted this:

I always wrestle with this, not so much the concept but the definition. I am preaching on June 8th and the readings are Hosea 5:15-6:6, Romans 4:13-25, and Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26.

So I ask, what do you all think of this ultra-simplistic definition of faith?

Faith = Belief + Action

This led to some very good and constructive comments. Michael Halcamb and Alex Lampros (“SHC,” let’s hope his not yet created blog is as engaging as this comment!) both tackle the question of definition of “definition,” as it were. Michael suggests that I still need to define the terms “belief” and “action” and Alex’s appropriation of Sextus Empiricus questions the very value of definition and is right, in my mind, that it can lead to an infinite regression. I think, however, all but Bob MacDonald miss the context of my definition. Or perhaps Alex gets a part of it as well when he says

There is a time and place for it! I don’t think that any definition will be sufficient to grasp faith, which leads to a question of adequacy. Adequacy is relative to context. Some situations demand a definition of a higher degree of adequacy. In other situations, much can be said for keeping things short and sweet!

But no one seemed to consider the context of the service and the readings listed above. So, when Bob asks “What is believing? What is Action?” My answer is and will be the examples from the readings of the day. In the case of the Gospel it is the combined story of the woman with the hemorrhage who touches his tsitsit “in faith” and is healed and the man whose daughter healed.

To consider the woman, she “said to herself, ‘If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.’” When she does, Jesus’ response to her is “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” Thus I think I would define her “belief” as the conviction that if she did X she would receive Y and her action would doing something based upon that conviction. The faith that made her well then was the belief in Jesus’ healing ability brought to life by acting upon it. Had she merely held to this belief without ever reaching out to touch his tsitsit then she would not have been healed. What good is that? How does that improve her and we might even ask if she truly believes it if she is afraid or unwilling to act upon her belief.

Now as Bob points out, one of the passages is Rom. 4 and in that passage Paul invokes the famous reference of Abraham’s faith in Gen. 15:6 where we are told that Abraham “believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Even in this case I would argue that Abraham’s “belief” is not simple intellectual assent to a concept but that he believes that God will make his descendants (rather than Eliezer of Damascus’) as numerous as the stars and thus does not pursue the “adoption” of Eliezer. In this case the “action” is ceasing an activity. It is important to note as well that Abraham’s taking of Hagar and producing an heir with her is not going against that belief in God’s promise since Ishmael was Abraham’s descendant. God simply had not made it clear to Abe in Gen. 15 that it would be the product of a union with him and Sarah.

In all of this I am keenly aware that “belief” could be viewed as an awful lot like “faith.” This is where I would introduce a definition of a term, “belief.” I alluded to it a moment ago, that “belief” is an intellectual assent to a concept, such as I believe that my car can achieve 60 MPH. I have faith when I am driving and accelerate past 55 to the (legal limit) 65. Maybe not the best analogy, but perhaps it is useful.

Finally, any conversation on “faith” and the Bible must reference Heb. 11:1 and in fact, during Lent I posted a long thought piece on that passage and further elaborated on it in this post referencing the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

What is faith?

May 30th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

6 comments

I always wrestle with this, not so much the concept but the definition. I am preaching on June 8th and the readings are Hosea 5:15-6:6, Romans 4:13-25, and Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26.

So I ask, what do you all think of this ultra-simplistic definition of faith?

Faith = Belief + Action

Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us!

Mar 23rd, 2008

by Christian Brady.

6 comments

Easter Sunday, Year A

Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor. 5:7-8)

- Amen.

Last Sunday I spoke of our expectations and the expectations of those who witnessed Jesus in the flesh. Most Jews of Jesus’ time were eagerly awaiting for a messiah, for the one anointed by God, to come and drive out the Romans, to remove the wicked leaders and establish God’s kingdom with a son of David upon the throne. We know that several men claimed to the messiah and attempted to do just that only to be destroyed and killed by the Romans. Clearly they were not the messiah. Jesus too was killed, executed by the Romans. Yet…yet he rose from the dead and he lives!

All expectations were shattered. The son of David and God was not a mighty warrior, but a sacrifice for all humanity. As we entered into Lent I preached about Jesus’ death as sacrifice and commented on how difficult this concept is for so many, both then and now. Yet there is no doubting that this is exactly how the church has understood Good Friday since its inception. Described by the author of Hebrews and in John’s letters as our atoning sacrifice.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Jesus’ death is the final ransom for our sins, making us again “at one” with God. The Day of Atonement was and is the most solemn and important festival in Israelite worship. It was the only day of the year when the High Priest would enter the most holy place in the Temple, the inner most sanctuary, and there he would offer the sacrifices for the sins of the entire nation.

In the Holy of Holies the High Priest would sprinkle the cover of the Ark of the Covenant with the blood of the sacrifices for the priests and the people. Thus it is called in Hebrew Yom Kippur or the “Day of Covering.” The term we know, “atonement,” was coined by William Tyndale to express the function rather than the mere action. In this ritual the High Priest was making the nation again “at one” with God.

So too Jesus’ death is an atoning sacrifice that reunites us with God. His death was for the sins of the world, not just Israel. And whereas the High Priest had to enter the Temple every year to offer the sacrifice of animals for Israel’s sins, Jesus as our Great High Priest and sacrifice made one offering for all, for all time. As the author of Hebrews has said,

Heb. 9:11 But when Christ came as a high priest … 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

And yet although Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice, we also find that there is another sacrificial image associated with Good Friday. It was, of course, for the festival of Passover that Jesus went up to Jerusalem and I have often wondered, since Jesus clearly chose when he would give himself over into the hands of those who would kill him, we he did not choose Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, as the festival at which to ascend Zion’s hill. Why not simply go into Jerusalem at that holy day? The city would have been just as crowded and the Romans just as nervous about a revolt. Why not make this connection with the sacrifice of atonement explicit in day and time?

(more…)