Because I write as a Christian in favor of marriage equality, I receive a lot of correspondence from people who feel I'm mistaken. There seem to be a large number of suggestions, for example, that I will burn in a lake of flaming sulfur. I usually respond, as kindly as I can, if there is some hope of dialogue.
But then, last week, I received a letter that truly broke my heart. It did so, in part, because I know well the claims of atheists that religion does more harm than good in the world, and have often responded in the defense of faith. But there are some times that the harm done by religion is so clear that I doubt myself. A letter I received this week from "Kevin" presented me with one of those moments of doubt.
As with many other of my correspondents, Kevin responded to an article I wrote which was filled with references to the Bible by accusing me of ignoring the Bible -- a book that he reads to require condemnation by all of us of those who sin (at least so long as the sin is homosexuality).
After several paragraphs complaining of "the homosexual agenda" and "lifestyle choices," Kevin laid bare a real, awful, and certain tragedy:
Lastly, I can speak on this subject very clearly as I am the Father of a child that has chosen the homosexual lifestyle. Even now as I'm writing you this email, my son is lying in a hospital bed dying from his acts of homosexuality. His Mother and I raised him to know Christ, but as a young man he took up this lifestyle against our counsel. Because of his lifestyle and nothing else, he is now facing death. Just know that our sins are forgivable and God is a gracious and loving God, but he is very, very clear about the penalties, especially homosexuality. We are saddened and heart broken that our baby son is going to die such a horrible death and is suffering because of his decision to live the homosexual lifestyle. But we also know and knew what God say's about the wages of sin. The wages of sin are DEATH.
Sincerely,
"Kevin"
Perhaps the atheists are right. If religion, my religion, can twist the truth, the Gospel of love, to the point where a man expresses such hate to his own dying child, I despair of that religion.
I am still struggling with a response. My own beliefs are so different from Kevin's that I find it difficult to find an overlap, that small shaded area of a Venn diagram where my faith intersects with his.
Yet, we do read the same book. I do know that.
And there, in the Book of Luke, is the story of the prodigal son -- the younger of two, who demanded his inheritance and then squandered it through "dissolute living." He hits bottom, having run through the money, and resolves to return to his father and repent. However, before he has a chance to say anything, his father runs to him, puts his arms around him and kisses him. There is love there, before repentance, even in the apparent absence of repentance. There is love before all; that is what Christ directs us to do.
If Kevin's letter was honest, there is a boy dying whose father stands nearby in angry judgment, seeing that death as just and right. That scene is now etched in my head, a photo-negative of the manger scene of warmth and light and love, a reversal of the story God chose to write.
I do not want the atheists to be right, I do not want love to be diminished, I cannot bear to see us become a nation of angry Gods who must each impose judgment on one another, even denouncing our own children on their deathbeds. Not all who oppose gay marriage, of course, take this path, and many people take their position out of true religious conviction rather than a base prejudice bled clear of love. There are people of good faith and compassion on both sides of the marriage debate. Others, though, address this issue only in a language of judgment and anger. To those who preach the gospel of hate, of stark judgment, of demand and control, I invite you look upon the fruit of your work: an unbearably sad fate for two of the least of those amongst us.
By taking on God's task of judgment and condemnation even to his son's deathbed, is Kevin denying the existence of an extraordinary and loving God any less than the atheists, and with harsher consequence? If his view of God is right, of a God who tells us to harshly condemn that dying child, then the atheists are right -- we are better off without that God, to live alone in a Universe wrought by chance.
But perhaps his certainty is wrong. He reads the Bible and sees himself in the role of Jesus in John 8, telling the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more." That is not our role, though. There is a God, but it is not me. We are the people Jesus was talking to in John 8, where he teaches that "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" -- we are the people with the stones, being told to put them down, which is always the first step toward love. I hope that Kevin puts down his stone, and takes that first step toward being a true Christian father to his own dear son.
Follow Mark Osler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@oslerguy
I'm very sorry, but as an atheist, I become Mark Osler's example how his faith fails when it should rise and excel. If I were to look upon his son, I would not look at a man whose "sin is upon him" but I would look on someone who is struggling with life's last act, to depart in dignity, knowing that his life meant something to someone. I would stand in to let him know that his life did matter, that his death is a loss to those around him. I would do what I could to ease his grief and comfort him with love.
And when I step back after his last breath, I would wonder why his Christian family could not give what I gave, at no cost to myself, but for which I received the great reward of knowing that for a moment, I was truly human.
But for the certainty that their religious beliefs are true (or the desperate need for them to be confirmed), it is unlikely that the ID proponents would try to interfere in the science classroom. This is dangerous for two reasons: (1) it degrades science education in the U.S., where it is already in need of repair; and (2) it degrades coherent public discourse on reality.
Sometimes there is no "other side" to an argument or proposition.
Kevin is a father who is hurting and angry. His son is dying. He needs to reconcile his love for his son whose actions he sees as contributing to his dying with his love of G-d who he holds resonsible as the Judge of all. His son's death though is not punishment by G-d. G-d said "Today I have set before you life and death. Now choose life" meaning make good decisions.
But what is needed is not what could have been but rather what to do now between a father and son to prepare for the inevtiable and ease the pain that each is experiencing today and after the death of Kevin's son.
Having said that, religion has been much more a force for divisiveness, torture, murder, bigotry, etc., etc. than a force for good. The bloody and intolerant history of the Church (see this: http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm for a rundown of a few of the Christian abuses) makes this clear. While Mr. Ostler may be a "liberal Christian," Christianity, as a whole, has done too much damage to society for it to be accepted as having anything to do with any theoretical "loving god" that may exist. It is long past time for this superstition to die a long-overdue death.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." - Matthew 7:7,8
Speaking as an atheist myself, I find these words inspirational and motivational and because that's something I seem to share with a lot of other people (some much smarter than I, I'm sure), I'm pretty confident that they represent a healthy way to view reality, regardless of whatever else the Bible may say.
You're right, we could interpret the Bible to "...justify everything from slavery, genocide, and rape to the unconditional love and charity..." but, when we choose to allow them, not only do our interpretations allow us to see into our own hearts and minds but the interpretations of others allow us to see into theirs as well.
I believe that you have misinterpreted the meaning of "Kevin's" words. You wrote, "...a man expresses such hate to his own dying child..." I don't read hate in what Kevin wrote. I read heartbreak. I read the reality that, despite his best efforts, Kevin cannot save his son. I read the outpouring of a man grieving over his son and powerless to save him. If Kevin believes that his son's sinful choices led to his desperate condition, who are you to judge this as hate or to pin this on religion?
Who defines sin and who but society has the power to define it?
Sin is defined by morale, which is different, sometimes only i vague nuances in many cultures.
Kevin watching his son slowly die has to be painful, and moreso if it could have been prevented. Perhaps Kevin's expressions are the pain of watching a child die, rather than anger toward his child or anyone else. Perhaps he is blaming a condition for taking his son, but only he knows.
People in emotional pain scream and shout sometime; angry people scream and shout. A closed mind would never know the diference, or even ask which; just assume the worst.
"Truth, like a rose, has beauty and thorns"