Back from the Dead...The Demand for a Sign

Recently I have seen a number of blog entries by people about the book Heaven is for Real as well as (by extension) 90 Minutes in Heaven.  Both books, which have sold millions of copies, deal with the first person accounts of people who claim to have died and gone to heaven, only to return to life as we know it.

I haven’t read either book.  Though I'm certain I would take issue with some of the things said in them, I’m equally sure that many people have been blessed through reading them.  My interest here is not to criticize the content of these books. 

What I would like to address is the fact that there is such a hunger in the first place for this type of book.  It would seem that their primary focus is to reassure people that heaven actually is a real place that awaits (at least some of) us after death.  I find it curious that we need someone, be it an experienced pastor or a four-year-old boy, to tell us that there is a heaven, as if there was a doubt.  What is it about their word which we find more reliable than the Word of God?  Jesus already told us there is a heaven.  Didn't this pretty much solved the matter?

The reality is though, we are always demanding signs from God.  It is true today, just as it was in Biblical times.  In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus told of a rich man in Hades, calling out to Abraham, asking him to send Lazarus (a poor man who had also died) back as a messenger to his family members so that they might believe.

There are any number of issues I would take with the particulars of Roman Catholic theology, but Pope Benedict XVI hits the nail on the head with the following words from his work, Jesus of Nazareth:

The rich man, looking up to Abraham from Hades, says what so many people, both then and now, say or would like to say to God: "If you really want us to believe in you and organize our lives in accord with the revealed word of the Bible, you'll have to make yourself clearer. Send us someone from the next world who can tell us that it is really so." The demand for signs, the demand for more evidence of Revelation, is an issue that runs through the entire Gospel. Abraham's answer -- like Jesus' answer to his contemporaries' demand for signs in other contexts -- is clear: If people do not believe the word of Scripture, then they will not believe someone coming from the next world either. 

But God has indeed graciously given us a sign.  Benedict goes on to write,

One thing is clear: God's sign for men is the Son of Man; it is Jesus himself. And at the deepest level, he is this sign in his Paschal Mystery, in the mystery of his death and Resurrection. He himself is "the sign of Jonah." He, crucified and risen, is the true Lazarus. The parable is inviting us to believe and follow him, God's great sign. But it is more than a parable. It speaks of reality, of the most decisive reality in all history.

Is Christopher Hitchens Right?

Christopher Hitchens wrote an article yesterday for Slate.com decrying “the wall of silence” within the Roman Catholic Church that has shielded abusive priests from legal prosecution. In the article, Hitchins issues a Reaganesque call to Pope Benedict to tear down this wall.

Though this is often not the case, I must admit that I find myself agreeing with Christopher Hitchens on a number of points. For instance, Hitchens is right that there ought not be “men and institutions that are above and beyond our laws.” The abuse of defenseless children (as well as shielding the perpetrators) is inexcusable, and it ought to be punished. Not only do I agree with this, but I think the vast, vast majority of Christians would as well. Far more importantly than majority rule though is the fact that the Bible agrees with it, and thus it is the true Christian position.

He is also right in his unspoken (yet implied) sense that forgiveness ought to be available for “sins like divorce, abortion, contraception, and homosexuality between consenting adults.” It is not that these are not sins (though there certainly is diversity of Christian opinion at the very least on contraception), rather that the grace of God is larger yet than ANY sin, and the blood of Christ Jesus is capable of cleansing one of ALL unrighteousness.

Where Hitchens is wrong though is in his assumption that those who hold to certain unbiblical positions and yet call themselves Christians, are indeed the voice of true Christianity. Thus they become the straw man that he (rightly) argues against.

Hitchens also states, “Invariably and without exception, (Christians) inform me that without a belief in supernatural authority I would have no basis for my morality.” Hitchens is slightly off base here. The argument is not that the belief in a supernatural authority is the basis for morality, but rather that the actual existence of a supernatural authority is its basis.

The idea is basically this: Without a divine law-giver, there can be no over-arching law of morality. Hitchens is right to condemn child rape. But on what basis? It is on the basis of the fact that it stands in opposition to the moral law which emanates from the character of God. There is morality, therefore there must be a God. This is quite different than saying you have to believe a certain set of precepts in order to have morality.

May the lesson that we as Christians learn from this all be twofold:

1) Let us live Christ-like lives in the midst of our world so that they can see what the true Body of Christ looks like, making it harder for them to caricature who we are.

2) Let us take care not to use the same tactics in our argumentation, but rather seek an honest and open discourse wherein we attempt to truly understand what others are saying so that we can rightly apply the truth of the gospel to their thoughts.