Westboro Baptist Church: Weeds Among the Wheat

The Westboro Baptist Church has been busy inciting the righteous indignation of Christians and non-Christians alike since at least the 1990's. Most recently they have drawn criticism for demonstrating in Newtown, Connecticut, the site of a tragic school shooting.

There is even a White house petition to classify WBC as a government recognized hate group. I am not sure what the practical result of such a classification might be, however, I do think that it is a wrong-headed move. The purpose seems to be to silence the group legally, but WBC has already won several court cases because the courts end up confirming WBC's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. As irksome as some of us might find this, consider the alternative: if hate groups like WBC do not have free speech, then neither do you or I.

However, the purpose of this post is not to defend WBC's rights.

To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. - G.K. Chesterton

The WBC is not "Christian" in any meaningful sense of the word. To be a Christian is to follow Christ. Christ never proclaimed a message of hate, or taught His disciples to hate people. In fact, He said,

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. - Matthew 22:37-40, ESV

While WBC does outwardly appear to uphold Jesus' teaching against sin, they distort the gospel by preaching hatred toward sinners. However, their true purpose may be even more heinous than merely twisting the good news. It seems that their true purpose is not to preach against sin, or even sinners.

Phil Weingart made this observation on a thread on Facebook:

They are not a church. They appear to be a collection of attorneys engaged in a money-making scheme that involves inciting others to violate their rights. They make obnoxious statements in public, but stick scrupulously within protected behavior. Then they get attacked, and they sue--and win. They've apparently won a fair amount of money through these lawsuits.

Phil also provided this article in support. Phil is a published author and a very smart guy (in my humble opinion), so I think he's probably right.

The question remains: How should we deal with Fred Phelps and company? The best thing most of us can do is simply ignore them. They feed off of controversy--in fact they make their living from it. No controversy means no cash flow to WBC, and no money means Fred Phelps' little hate group can no longer afford to travel around the country picketing funerals. Eventually their protests will diminish, and Phelps will pass away at some point, most likely ending the group completely.

The Bible contains much sound wisdom on dealing with offensive people.

Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. - Proverbs 19:11, ESV

Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent. Selah - Psalm 4:4, ESV

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. - 1 Peter 3:9, ESV

Should the evil of WBC never be confronted? No, I am not saying that. Sometimes we should, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" (Proverbs 26:4), and sometimes, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5). It takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit, along with God-given wisdom, to know what to do in any given situation. However, generally it is best not to "feed the trolls."

Consider Jesus' parable of the weeds:

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. - Matthew 13:24-30, ESV

Even if WBC continues to prosper until the end, they will be judged along with everyone else. God will hold them accountable. Rest peacefully in that knowledge. Christians might also well heed Jesus' warning not to pull out the weeds before the proper time.

Has Science Destroyed the Need for God?

In most of my blog posts, I usually think an issue through fairly thoroughly, and study hard the ideas I blog about before even publishing a post. This will not be one of those posts. This post will most likely be a somewhat discombobulated collection of thoughts on the relationship between science, science fiction, and religion. It may have the inkling of some conclusion, but my main purpose at this point is to simply get these thoughts out of my system.

I have been watching reruns of the sci-fi cult classic Firefly today. Firefly is set in a distant future universe in which humans have used a process called terraforming to colonize formerly uninhabitable planets and moons. As I enjoyed the science fiction of the show, I began to wonder how plausible terra forming might be in science fact.

This lead further to a Google search of terraforming, and then a search on Amazon for books on the subject. As it turns out, some serious thinking has been done on the concept of terraforming Mars and Venus (and probably the moon, but I didn't find any literature about terraforming that particular celestial body). On a more terrestrial scale, a strong movement in favor of seasteading has emerged in recent years to colonize the earth's oceans.

The primary motivation for seasteading is freedom from the taxes and laws of strong, centralized governments (the Serenity, spaceship of Capt. Malcolm Reynolds and crew on Firefly, serves much the same purpose). The primary motivation for terraforming is the fear that one day humans will exhaust the resources of our home planet. Whatever the motivation for making the inhabitable habitable, new worlds and the possibility of new rules and new ways of living is exciting. This is one of the things that made Firefly so entertaining.

Science has given modern humanity access to myriad new worlds and ideas. This has led some to reject old ways of living and seeing the world. The Christian worldview that gave rise to modern science is now mocked as arising from tribal, bronze age myths. But is this justified? Have we evolved beyond the need for a supernatural God, Christian or heathen? Has science proven religion to be an outmoded superstition? Has scientific fact shown that the supernatural is only mythical? Can we actually burst the bonds of faith, or cast away the chords of a transcendent Creator and Lawgiver?

I think not. Not even close.

If the natural world is all there is, there is no reason to think that any one thing is greater than any other thing. Yet, everyone persists that somethings are important, and some actions are better than others. Oh, there are certainly some who give lip service to nihilism, but none if those people actually live as if there were no good or bad, right or wrong. For the seasteaders, is freedom really better, or is it just their personal preference? If there is no inherent worth in the continuing survival of the human race, why bother with terraforming?

If we have causes or moral standards they are real or they or not. Unless, and until, humans are prepared to give up completely on any notion of moral duties (right and wrong) or moral values (good and bad), then we can never be rid of God.

I do not believe this will ever happen. We know intuitively that some things are true, and some are not--even if we cannot agree on what is true. We know intuitively that some things are beautiful, and some things are ugly--even if we disagree on what is beautiful. We know intuitively that some things are good and some things are bad--even if we disagree on the value of things. We know intuitively that some things are right and some things are wrong--even if we disagree about the details of a moral standard. We know intuitively that freedom is greater than tyranny. We know intuitively that life is better than death.

1. If God does not exist, then moral duties and values do not exist.
2. Moral duties and values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Contrary to what some scientists and sci-fi authors have concluded, we cannot evolve beyond our need for God. Science needs truth, and truth must transcend us. We cannot run far enough to escape from God in the ocean, or on Mars, or in the science lab. Nor do most people really want to, if it means abandoning truth, beauty, meaning, or morality. As I warned at the top of the post, these are just some random musings, but I hope I've got my readers thinking. At the very least I've gotten these thoughts out of my system.