Joshua 24:14-15; Matthew 12:30

Among the great benefits of being a child is that, compared to the demands made on adults, the need for children to make choices is quite minimal. At an early age, much of what appears to be the making of choices is actually an instinctive response. As age increases toward independence and adulthood, family and societal law and the making of choices in response to "law" become important factors. Most children learn the relative values of reward and denial at an early age. For an obedient child with a strong urge to please, life is quite simplistic until the pressures for alternate decisions, from outside the family circle, become reality.

For the very young, the following of one's instincts and obedience to the dictates of mom and dad keeps life quite simple. When one reaches an age of maturity where general issues of right and wrong are often related to God, many choices then become theological issues. When law is clear and the urge to please is strong, life is simple. When a "law" is questionable or questioned, and there is a need felt for alternate kinds of choices, life becomes more complex.

A child who strives early for independence adds complexity to life. This complexity is forced on both the child and its parents as a result of challenging the "law" of mom and dad. If, however, each generation was obedient without testing or questioning the law, and if each generation was satisfied to think only the same thoughts and make the same choices as their parents, progress would not occur.

SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF CHOICES
This analogy is also valid for adults in relation to the complexity of human society. When a given geographical area is sparsely populated, both the need for law and the pressure for making independent decisions that have to do with others is minimal. There is, for example, an agreement on which part of the fence, indicating boundaries of property ownership, will be maintained by whom. As long as the fence is kept in good condition and a reasonable effort is made by each owner to keep interests and activities within boundaries of ownership, law and decisions related to such concerns are not necessary.

In a simple society, the Ten Commandments are quite sufficient. In a simple society, if everyone has reverence for God and seeks to treat others as they wish to be treated, the need to make many complex decisions, which are so important in modern society, does not exist. As the complexity of society increases, there is a proportionate need for the making of decisions, by each individual, that keeps the interests of others in mind. The greater the numbers of human beings become, the greater the need will be for either understanding and cooperation, or a profusion of laws.

Persons in simple or primitive societies did not need to make decisions related to many of our modern day concerns. They did not need to make decisions related to the internal combustion engine and its impact on the environment. Because there were not many of either people or cattle, they didn't even need to raise the issue of whether or not the methane released by cattle was sufficient to threaten the environment. In a simple human society, nature was able and permitted to take care of itself.

Although there are "pockets" on the face of the earth where a specific segment of society remains quite simple, in general we must think of the human family of today as being a global society. Not only is it global, but the present need for networking increases its complexity. Decisions made by any part of human society are likely to impact the whole in some manner.

In modern society, change is occurring at such a rapid pace that it is not difficult for persons to encroach on one another without realizing it. Care in making choices must also be exercised, for example, lest the environment, which supports all animal and plant life be threatened.

THE CHALLENGE OF CHOICES IN OUR CONTEMPORARY WORLD IS AWESOME
Just consider the magnitude of challenges in the world of today, many of which demand that we human beings make decisions. In some cases, not making a decision is in itself making a decision, which may have far reaching results!

Today we are challenged with decisions related to such issues as the following: to clone or not to clone; to prevent conception or impregnate artificially; to initiate fertility outside the natural processes, thus permitting couples to experience parenthood who otherwise would not, or deny them parenthood; to participate in the procedure of selective reduction, or permit human beings to give birth to "litters"; to build atomic, neutron, or biological weapons, or run the risk of other nations having such destructive power at their disposal before we do; whether to "pull the plug or not pull the plug" in relation to our own longevity or that of a loved one; or to permit euthanasia under any circumstances. These are only serious examples of a much longer list of challenges related to choices to which we, as a human family, must respond.

The list is long! It is so long that not one of us as individuals comprehends its magnitude. Many are decisions, which affect us and we don't know it. Many are decisions, which others must make for us because our knowledge or power of decision does not extend sufficiently in that specific realm. Of interest and concern to us all is the fact that the list does not shrink. In fact, as knowledge and power available to the human family increases, the list demanding the making of choices increases at a rate that is alarming.

These decisions are not only often associated with matters of morality, i.e. right and wrong, but they are matters which are associated with life and death. They have to do with the quality of life we insist on for ourselves and are willing to permit in the experience of others. They have to do with what is at the heart of moral, practical, and religious concern! They are theological issues!

THE NEED FOR THEOLOGICAL BELIEFS TO EVOLVE--A MATTER OF CHOICE
It should therefore not be surprising that we are faced with decisions concerning theological beliefs. Some sciences are known as exact sciences. In an exact science, the same procedure can be repeated again and again, with dependable and predictable results. Human beings are not that predictable. Our knowledge about God is not complete. Theology has to do with an understanding of God, human beings, the relationship between the two, and all possible spin-offs from that relationship. In the broad sense, theology thus encompasses the totality of life. In the narrow sense, it deals with a specific belief system which then impacts responses to all areas of life.

Theology is one area where it may seem that we can either put off the making of decisions or simply ignore the need indefinitely. Does it really make any difference to us in this day whether or not the Trinitarian formula for defining God is factual or symbolic? The answer is "yes." Regardless of what we believe, God is what God is, and human beings are what human beings are! In fact, however, perception is often as powerful as truth. This is true even though perception may be wrong.

In other words, what we really believe about God and what we really believe about human beings makes a tremendous difference in the quality of, and potential for, life. It makes a difference because if we really believe something, we behave in a manner different from what we otherwise might, whether or not our belief is defensible.

As is true in all other areas where the making of decisions is critical, sooner or later there is a reward to receive or a price to pay for what we believe. As my mother used to say, sooner or later " the chickens will come home to roost."

The relationship of what we believe theologically, that is to say, about God, human beings, and the potential relationship between the two, is directly related to decision-making. In an exact science, a decision can be made on the basis of our desire for a predictable outcome. We make a decision to plant and nurture a garden, for example, which is based on our desire to raise vegetables, which in turn may be based on our instinctive appetite for fresh vegetables. If all necessary ingredients are present, we can expect to reap vegetables.

With religion, and the theology on which a given approach to religion is based, we choose, i.e. make a decision to embrace certain beliefs, either on the basis of convenience or on the basis of what appears to make most sense to us. It is either more convenient to embrace a certain system of beliefs because our parents did or because our spouse insists on it, than it is to embrace beliefs that make sense but run counter to prevailing teachings.

I am not suggesting that all traditional beliefs be discarded. I am suggesting that they be viewed as a point of beginning from which we are always seeking to move on to something more truthful and therefore better. This "moving on" recognizes that some beliefs will need to be discarded because they are no longer helpful, and in some cases are absolutely detrimental.

A GOD OF FAVORITISM AND REWARD
The traditional view of a God who rewards certain behavior and certain beliefs with heaven and certain other beliefs and behavior with hell is suspect. A reasonable case can be made for the strong probability that this belief about God does more harm than good. Furthermore there is a real possibility that it is absolutely wrong. Nevertheless, a recent poll by the Princeton Research Center indicates that 76% of our teenagers believe in a "personal God who observes, rewards, and punishes." (Emerging Trends, Vol. 21, No. 3, ISSN 3567890-1, March 1999) This is a God of favoritism and reward! This idea is not original with teenagers--it has been passed down from generation to generation for centuries.

Maturity teaches human beings that attitudes and behavior both have consequences. That portion of our lives over which we have control and about which we make decisions is affected by this knowledge. The literal idea of immortality, with heaven as a reward and hell as punishment, represents considerable leverage utilized by the church in its efforts to control the minds of its adherents. Some good is accomplished through the teaching of both children and adults through this mind control in relation to "right," "wrong," "consequences," and "hope." The integrity of such a belief needs to be questioned.

First, can it be substantiated? The answer is "no." A decision must be made, for whatever reason, either to believe it or not to believe it. The authority and teaching of the church is often involved in whether or not to be a "believer."

Second, does the good accomplished by such a belief system outweigh the bad, or vice versa? One can certainly say, with supportive evidence, that much behavior modification has been accomplished for centuries by the promotion of a belief in heaven as an eternal reward and hell as eternal punishment. Some lives have been "kept in line" in an effort to gain the reward and avoid the punishment. It is this line of belief that gave rise to the Ten Commandments. Moses certainly accomplished much for his people then, and for the world since, through this simple and understandable law relating to human responsibility to God and to one another. Besides, who would dare say anything negative about the Ten Commandments? Jesus believed, however, that they are "second best." He taught that the commandments should therefore be subordinated to goodness as an expression of love. Through this kind of subordination they were, in fact, fulfilled.

Surely we cannot be proud of some of the "fruits" of this belief! Great cathedrals, that we love to visit, were built in Europe during the middle ages by using this basic belief as a fundraiser to extract money from the poor through the loophole of indulgences. Many who have "lived like the devil" during their life, at its end have experienced "death bed repentance" which has at least given them some peace, along with their loved ones, prior to dying. Such repentance, however, does not change the negative contribution they have made to the world throughout their life. The idea and application of the "last rites" is a further example of the belief in a God who administers eternal reward or punishment. Whether a belief in such remedial rituals does any good, and whether or not it may contribute to much that is negative, needs to be examined.

WEIGHING THE VALUES OF BELIEFS
It is therefore reasonable to ask whether or not does this belief about God and the ultimate destiny of human beings contribute more good or more bad to the human situation?

I am suggesting that it contributes more bad than good. First, it is misleading. Second, it is contrary to the Gospel message of a God of unconditional love. Third, it nurtures a life lived in either fear or arrogance. Fourth, it serves as a leverage of power for an institution that is struggling to maintain the integrity of its own power structure. Fifth, it nurtures a subconscious validation of violence as a means of relating to those who do not behave as we believe they should. There are more--you can complete your own list of negatives related to such a belief!

Another question needs to be raised about this general belief. Does this belief encourage an attitude toward life, and/or a sense of responsibility to life, that nurtures violence or peace?

It can be said without contradiction that it nurtures a belief in a God of favoritism. God loves me better than you! Why? Because I "believe right" and you "believe wrong." And so holy wars have rootage. Christians kill Muslims and vice versa. Protestants kill Catholics and vice versa. Can any good thing be said about the promotion of a belief system that dictates believing in a God of favoritism?

A GOD OF FAVORITISM CREATES DISSENSION AND VIOLENCE
This traditional belief about God promotes the idea of a God of violence. Do we need more violence than we have in the Balkans? Do we need more violence than we have in our high schools? Do we need more violence than we have on our streets? Do we need more violence than we have among those who have different ideas about "right and wrong"?

I was chilled while watching television the other evening as I listened to a Lutheran pastor who gives support to the bombing of clinics where abortions are performed. He justified his killing on the basis of preventing the killing of others. He made no comment on the virtue of preventing unfortunate pregnancies as a means of preventing the need for even considering abortion.

Violence is part of our life, it is part of our entertainment, and unfortunately, it is part of our religious history and system of belief. If God does it, why can't we? If our nation does it, why can't we? If our State does it, why can't we? If killing is glorified on television and in the movies, why shouldn't we?

It was once o.k. for persons to choose this kind of theology because it was the best available. It made perfect sense in relation to the prevailing understanding of the world. It is no longer o.k.! Furthermore, it is a matter of choice. There is no need to embrace such an outdated belief system.

We each make a decision as to what theological beliefs we choose to embrace. We choose for a variety of reasons to either support outdated beliefs which made sense at the time they were conceived or we choose, as they did, to develop a belief system that is harmonious with what God is permitting us to learn about "things as they are."

An alternative belief system that makes sense in our world in our time is one which can afford to become unconcerned about immortality. Faith makes concern about immortality unnecessary. A healthy belief in and about God contributes to making this life sufficiently meaningful as to require total commitment with the result of absolute fulfillment. When we become totally committed to and absorbed by this life, there is no need or time for concern about immortality, and this life becomes better for everyone. Our belief should include that of a God who is capable of handling the matter of immortality in a capable and wonderful manner.

This doesn't mean that we develop a belief system, which denies immortality. It only means that we leave the future, about which we know nothing and over which we have no control, in the hands of the Source of time, space, and life. It means that we are consequently free to give everything to and extract everything from this life that is possible.

GLOOMY PREDICTIONS FOR A WORLD OUT OF CONTROL
Just consider what this belief system contributes of a negative nature to the insecurity and future of the human family. It assumes that God is in control of everything and that God has a timeline. Under this umbrella, it assumes that everything that happens, happens for a reason, and that the reason fits neatly into God's plan. Included in God's plan is an end to the world as we know it. It teaches that there will be a great battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. Evil will be destroyed along with the earth. There will be a new heaven and a new earth, and all the folks who "believed right" will reign eternally in the presence of God forever.

Predictions of when the "end" will occur are made on the basis of "revelation" concerning events that will happen as the end of the world draws near. One example of a sign is the prophecy that "There will be wars and rumors of wars." So when has that not been true!

The negative point of this belief system needs to be made clear. It assumes that ultimate decision making concerning the future of human beings is made by God apart from human beings. Whatever decisions human beings make are predictable and fit neatly into this fatalistic plan. In other words, we human beings have no control in relation to the future.

Experience supports the idea that we human beings have more control through the kinds of decisions we make than was once thought. We might like to avoid responsibility, but we can't. God has given us the power, the ability, and the freedom to make critical choices. Our decisions make a difference.

SUPPOSE THAT CHANGE CAN NURTURE HOPE
Would the turmoil and fear, presently being experienced in America, be as it is if different decisions had been made a generation ago? Would the predictable future of our society be brighter if different decisions were being made now?

Suppose that every generation of parents understood the heavy responsibility they carry from the moment they make a decision to create the possibility of personal parenthood. There is that about parenthood in any healthy environment that is romantic, wonderful, and awesome. Suppose that parents gave this responsibility priority over all other values, including their striving for status, wealth, and entertainment. Suppose that every parent who looked into the eyes of their creation saw the potential for saint or sinner, for citizen or criminal, and realized that a major contribution toward what that child becomes will come either from them or from those with whom they share parental responsibility.

Suppose that all parents really believed that their responsibility involves exercising sufficient control in the lives of their children to protect children and society from themselves, until children have sufficient maturity and wisdom to protect and promote the sanctity of life for themselves and for others.

Suppose that society determined that it has a primary responsibility to encourage and support parents in good parenting. Suppose that in relation to this understanding, society made a decision to oppose the glorification of violence in every form, even as entertainment.

Suppose that society viewed character development so important that certain agreed-on principles would be taught in every school setting and supported by examples in the home.

Suppose that churches concluded that their task should be that of character development and the nurture of the human spirit, rather than "pie in the sky" ideas related to immortality. Suppose that all churches made themselves worthy of their calling and of wholehearted support of society.

Suppose that instruments of killing would be viewed with disdain by society in general, and instead of gun control being an issue of dissension among us, for the sake of innocents and children, the availability to children of such instruments would be viewed with the same disdain as the sexual abuse of children.

Suppose that the entertainment industry, whether movies, television or music, understood that the glorification of violence and abusive sex will not be tolerated, much less supported. Suppose that all who make money from communication viewed the consequences of that which is communicated as of greater value than "the dollar."

Suppose that these and other worthy considerations had been reality two generations ago. Would our children live in fear of going to school or walking alone in our parks today? If we, the people, show ourselves unwilling to pay some price for the salvation of our children, wherein lies the hope of a future for our children?

THE CHALLENGE OF CHOICES IS NOT EASY
The weighing of values related to the bearing of arms and the killing of children may sound easy, but in a society where the right to bear arms has been a building block in our society, it is not easy. What freedoms are we willing to give up in the interest of human life?

Freedom of speech is a value inherent in our way of life. This past week the news reported a judge unwilling to throw out a case where parents were suing a School District for denying freedom of speech rights to a youngster who threatened to kill the principal.

One parent described the violent death of her child as being part of God's plan, which we do not yet understand. What kind of theology is this! What a prime example of a need for a belief system that makes sense rather than parrot the teachings of tradition! God is not in control. God has chosen to share control with us and a major share at that. The power of this control is evident through the decisions that we human beings make.

We are challenged with choices. The privilege of making decisions is part of God's gift to us that makes us human. Theological choices are only elective if we don't care about quality in life or about the future. But we do care about these things. It is not easy to move beyond what we have been taught, or beyond where our parents are in their belief system, but we must.

The challenge of choices in relation to a theological system of belief is inherent in the nature of human life. Both the present and the future are dependent on our response to the privilege of choosing what we will believe about God, about human beings, and about the potential relationship among them all.

Click here for sermon in Word document format. (33kb)