Category Archives: Church

What Should We Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Submitted for publication

I start with the note that the following are my thoughts and my conclusions.  I will also note that I made no use of any AI technology in the creation of this manuscript.

I offered some thoughts on the use of AI technology in “The Questions We Ask AI – https://godandnature.asa3.org/mitchell-questions-for-ai.html.   

I am writing this from the perspective of a chemist and chemical educator.  Those who are in other sciences may have episodes in their lives which echo what I present in this manuscript.

I was also a lay speaker/minister in the United Methodist Church and while that was not part of my teaching, it was part of my thinking.

Why do we “do” science? 

Is it because we can create new things?

Is it because we see a problem and we want to know the answer. 

Or are there other reasons for doing science?

No matter why we “do” science, we must also understand that while science may provide us with an answer, it cannot always answer all the questions we may pose.  We must also understand that the answers we obtain are not always going to be the answers we sought.

And we must also consider that results of our work may lead to consequences that we may not have anticipated when we began our research.

Early in my own studies, I was given the idea that science was neutral.  You “did” science to answer a question or solve a problem.  But science, nor any other subject, can never be neutral, for we use the information we have gained for our own purposes, whatever it may be and whether for good or evil.

What would you do if you discovered something that could make you rich beyond your wildest dreams?  What if it didn’t make you as rich as you might have wanted but it made society better?

In the fourth Star Trek movie, “Voyage Home”, Scotty gives Dr. Nichols the necessary information for making “transparent aluminum” in exchange for some plexiglass panels so the Enterprise crew can make a holding tank for the whales they will transport back to their time to repopulate the species and save the Earth.

Dr. McCoy had promised Dr. Nichols would become rich beyond his wildest dreams if he accepted the information.  He also asked Scotty if, in doing this, they were not changing history’s timeline.  Scott asked, “How do we know that he didn’t develop the process”, thus preserving the timeline.

We are beginning to see such questions arise from the development of AI (artificial intelligence).  While the possibilities for good seem endless, there are too many examples to suggest this approach still has a lot of work before we can rely on it – link to my AI paper. 

When I was still teaching in the classroom, I would spend the first couple of days discussing “The Processes of Science” (The Processes of Science | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com)).  I did this because most of my students did not understand how science worked and knowing how science worked was essential for success in my courses and in their later coursework and after they got out of school.

One year, during this discussion, one student commented that science had eliminated God from the equation (not his exact words but close to the point).  As many before him, this student pointed out that humankind had long created gods (lower case) to explain natural phenomena and as science developed and began to offer physical explanations for natural phenomena, the need for a god disappeared.  There was only a need for God to explain the material that science could not explain.  The student made the argument that science would ultimately find an explanation for everything and thus God would be eliminated.

I responded by saying that science could not explain the presence of good and evil in the world.  Were good and evil measurable quantities?  Or were they somehow encoded in our DNA?

If good and evil were part of a person’s DNA, what was society going to do?  That is a question that has haunted society since the idea of good and evil were first defined.  And history has shown that bad things happen when society has tried to make evil to the property of being a human being.  As I pointed out to the student, that was a path that I was not willing to go down.

If good and evil are not measurable quantities or part of our DNA, what then are they?  More to the point, what are we to do?

This is not about the concept of free will.  I believe that the choices we make are of our own volition, and based on what we have been taught, knowingly or otherwise.  From my own life experience, I know that, knowingly or otherwise, good and evil can be taught (see https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/its-not-about-a-piece-of-cloth/).

What then should we do with the discoveries we make today or will make tomorrow? 

When Alfred Nobel saw the consequences of his inventing dynamite, he created the Nobel Prizes. 

Do we limit what we teach to limit evil? 

Or do we focus on the good and hide the evil?  And who decides what is good and what is evil? 

Do we do something for the good that it provides now and wait to see what happens later?

Do we limit our work today because others may use the results for their own malevolent purposes tomorrow? 

Do we limit our work today knowing that it will make reaching tomorrow harder to reach?

Should we create courses that study the mistakes of our past (Agent Orange and Times Beach, MO; Love Canal, thalidomide) so we do not repeat those mistakes in the future?

Do we see the present and seek options for the future?  (see https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/23/alternative-energy-resources-reading-assignment/ for some thoughts about alternative energy resources).

And while the combination of good and evil may be the result of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, we must still answer the question, “What should we do?”

We created a class of chemicals now known as “forever chemicals” that had a unique set of properties.  Now we know that those same properties are leading to disturbing environmental questions.  Should there have been more study concerning those environmental questions been completed before releasing the compounds for public use?

Whatever we do, we must first ask what we, individually or collectively, should do?

It should be noted that I have never watched an episode of “Breaking Bad.”  This is because episodes in my life echo much of the plot.

When I began studying chemistry, one major chemical manufacturer’s advertising slogan was “Better living through chemistry.”  Because of many factors, this slogan was changed.

Early in my chemistry career, someone approached me at a party and asked me if I could make them some LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide).  I replied that I could, but it would cost that person $250,000 with ½ up front and ½ upon delivery.  This person was shocked that I would put such a price tag on a reasonably easy synthesis.  To which I replied, if I made this compound, it would probably mean the end of my career, and I wanted to make sure that I was covered. 

What I didn’t tell him was that I really didn’t have the skills, the equipment, or a place to do the work.  This person went looking for someone else to make his life better through chemistry.

A few years later, I was in graduate school.  One morning, there was a note in every graduate student’s mailbox telling them that effective that morning, any materials or chemicals that they might need for their research required a signed note from their research advisor.  It turned out that one of the graduate students had been making amphetamines in his research laboratory.  Since it looked like a typical project, no one questioned what he was doing.

This graduate student was so proud of his work that he bragged about it at a campus watering hole.  The weekend before the memo, the DEA and other law enforcement agencies raided the laboratory, seized his materials and equipment, and arrested him.  His life got worse through chemistry.

In 1986, NOVA broadcast an episode entitled “The Case of the Frozen Addict” (https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict).  It described the health concerns of several addicts who had become “frozen” after taking what they thought was heroin.  It turned out that it was another compound, synthesized by a local chemist. 

This chemist had taken advantage of a loophole in the drug laws by synthesizing a molecule with the properties of heroin but with a different structure.  Unfortunately, the material that was sold on the street was contaminated and the containments caused neurological problems, resulting in the patients being in “frozen” or catatonic state.

The patients were “cured” by treating them as if they were stricken with Parkinson’s disease and several research areas developed from this discovery.  The chemist was arrested on a tax charge (failure to declare income) rather than any drug-related charge (the drug he synthesized was legal under the laws of the time).  While he denied making the drug, it was evident that he was suffering from the same effects from the containment in the product he made.

While an examination of the by-products provided an insight into the onset of Parkinson’s disease and offered a possible pathway for a cure, it also illustrated the problems involved with the synthesis of drugs.

In 1938, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn published a paper that described nuclear fission and the subsequent release of energy.  At that time, most physicists felt that this would allow nations to develop a weapon of immense destructive power.  Would they have felt this way if the winds of war were not blowing and getting stronger every day? 

Many of those who worked on the development of the first atomic bombs did so because they saw it as a problem to be solved and were appalled at the degree of devastation it wrought and argued against the further development of such weapons.

Others wanted to develop the hydrogen bomb with its increased destructive power, arguing that knowing that the devastation that would come from its use would prevent its use.  We have come to know this as Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. 

Others sought to use the promise of unlimited energy in a more controlled manner and develop nuclear power as an energy source, saying that it was cheap and clean.

We have learned that even the peaceful use of nuclear power produces waste that would haunt society for untold generations.

Was the development of atomic weapons and atomic power truly worth the outcome? 

In 1909, Fritz Haber developed a method for converting atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia under high pressure and high temperature with a suitable catalyst.  Carl Bosch took the method Haber had developed and scaled it up to produce ammonia on an industrial basis.  Haber would be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1918; Bosch would be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1931.

The Haber-Bosch process (named after its inventors) requires high temperatures and high pressures. The cost of production is directly related to the price of fuel; as the cost of fuel rises, so does the cost of fertilizer.

And as we have become accustomed to using ammonia-based fertilizers, we have stripped our farmlands of natural sources of fertilizer. One reason for rotating crops is to allow land to recover from repeated usage.

That is why farmers plan soybeans.  Soybeans are one of the major agricultural crops of this country, not so much for what can be done with them (which is a lot) but for what they do when it is in the field. The soybean plant is one of the few plants that contain a bacterium that take nitrogen from the air and “turns” it into fertilizer.  However, we do not have a complete understanding of how this is done.

Are there other alternatives?  Do these alternatives come with hidden costs?

In 1914, Haber worked on the development of chemical weapons such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, believing that the development of such weapons could limit or reduce warfare.  And the legacy of the development of chemical weapons during World War I remains with us today.

Regarding war and peace, Haber once said,

“During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country.”  This was an example of the ethical dilemmas facing chemists at that time. (Novak, Igor (2011). Science: a many-splendored thing. Singapore: World Scientific. pp.247–316. ISBN 9814304743. Retrieved 16 September 2014 – from Wikipedia)

Do the needs of the country outweigh the needs of society?

Does loyalty to one’s country outweigh loyalty to one’s conscience?

I began this manuscript with the note that I was writing from the standpoint of chemistry and chemical education and my own faith.  These are areas that deal with the future.  The challenge I present to you today is to see how you will prepare your students for the future to maximize the good and minimize the evil.

What Is Your Favorite Bible Verse?

Posted on by
Reply

Submitted for publication

I start with the note that the following are my thoughts and my conclusions.  I will also note that I made no use of any AI technology in the creation of this manuscript. (I offered some thoughts on the use of AI technology in “The Questions We Ask AI – The Questions AI Answers”)

While I am presently working on some ideas related to science and faith topics and a need to address the future, I thought I would present something a little less serious but still of importance.

What is your favorite Bible verse?  Was it a verse you learned many years ago in Sunday School or Vacation Bible School?  Was it one that inspired you?  Perhaps it was one that comforted you?  Was it one that offered guidance when you were faced with a problem?

Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not a big fan of memorization.  I suppose this is because of the amount of chemical related information I must know.  I have memorized some of that information, but I also know how to find the information I need as well.

As you will see in the following paragraphs, many of my favorite verses come from encounters in life.

Many years ago, I was watching a football game involving the University of Tennessee Volunteers.  The Vols had lost six straight games, and the alumni and fans were not too happy.  During the game, one individual held up a placard that said, “Luke 23: 34”.  I have no idea how many people turned to their Bible that day but when they did, they read, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I began singing in the church choir when I was a sophomore in college and this would lead me to singing in an off campus “coffee house”.  It was there I learned “Turn, Turn, Turn”. 

It was when I was teaching in Missouri and helping build a computer network, that I discovered the relationship between the song and Ecclesiastes 3: 1- 10.  It would be much later that I learned that Pete Seeger wrote the music and adapted the verses of this unique passage from the Bible.

When I first heard the group Jefferson Airplane sing “Good Shepherd”, I heard the words “O Good Shepherd, feed my sheep.” I marveled at these words and how they seemed to echo words from the Gospel of John (John 21: 1 – 19). 

In looking at the history of the piece, I discovered that the rock and roll piece that I heard evolved from a mid-20th century blues-based folk song.  And that folk song had evolved from a 19th century Gospel hymn with roots in an early 1800s hymn written by John Adam Grande, a Methodist preacher from Tennessee (Some of this was first written in “For What It’s Worth”)

The lyrics for the rock and roll songs “Along the Watchtower”, written by Bob Dylan and “Crossroads” by Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, and Jack Bruce (aka Cream) also have roots in Biblical phrases.

In one of Tom Clancy’s novels is a note that the motto for the Central Intelligence Agency comes from John 8: 32 – “Seek the truth and the truth shall set you free.” It is perhaps a fitting verse to know when one is involved in education.

We must be careful though when we speak of our favorite verses.  Many will quote “that money is the root of all evil.”  But the actual verse is “the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 2: 10)”.  Removing the first three words changes the meaning of that verse rather dramatically.

As I noted in “What Is in Your Heart?”, some will say that “God helps those who help themselves” is one of their favorites, not knowing that it is not found in the Bible but rather Ben Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac”.

Others will quote verses or parts of verses that justify hatred, exclusion or justification for their actions and behavior towards others.  But such verses reflect more the mindset of the speaker rather than the actual words of the Bible.

While many of the verses that I have come to consider my favorite ones have come from music and literature, there have been times when others have come to me because of time and place.

A few years ago, I traveled to the Detroit area for a job interview.  As I was driving across the plains of central Kentucky back to my home in Whitesburg, KY, I saw the Appalachian Mountains rising before me.  I was reminded of the worlds of Psalm 121: 1 – 2.

I look up to the mountains; does my strength come from the mountains?

No, my strength comes from God, who made heaven, and earth, and mountains.

Those words, with the mountains rising before me, led me to turn down the job offer in Detroit and continue with the job I had in Whitesburg.  Shortly after that I received the invitation to serve the small United Methodist Church in Neon, KY, and begin my service as a lay minister.

There are verses which bring us joy; there are verses which bring us comfort; there are verses of celebration, and there are verses that offer hope and guidance.

What are the verses that echo in your mind and heart?  What are the verses that give you joy, comfort, and wisdom?  I would invite you to spend a few moments and think about those verses, then put them down on paper and send them to the church to share in a future newsletter.

Will We Have a Future?

Posted on by
Reply

This will appear in the June issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

——————————————————————————————————–

What is your vision for the future?  Do you fear the future or look forward to what it may bring?

My great-great-grandfather John August Schuessler and his twin brother, Nicholas, came to America from Germany in 1840.  I do not have any information about why they came to America or why they moved from New Orleans, their point of entry, up the Mississippi River to St. Louis.  One can assume that they sought to escape the turmoil and war that dominated Europe at that time and seek freedom and a better life in America.

It is a story that most Americans understand.  Many, if not most, Americans have roots in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America.  They all came to America because they wanted to escape the troubles of their homeland and seek the freedom and opportunities that America has always offered.

Some 13,000 years before John and Nicholas came to America, another of my ancestors (we have members of the Creek Nation in our heritage) stood with his family and friends on the west end of the land bridge connecting Asia to North America.  All they saw was a wall of ice with an opening that suggested a pathway beyond the ice.  They knew nothing about what lay beyond that imposing wall of ice and it was probably simple curiosity that drove them to see what might be at the end of the corridor.

And while we know that many individuals made the passage across the land bridge before the ice melted and the land bridge disappeared under the waters of the Bering Strait, just as many or perhaps even more turned away, preferring the life they were living over a life in an unknown country.

Today we stand on the edge of an unknown country called the future.  It is a land clouded in the mists of uncertainty and the unknown.  We cannot see what might lie on the other side.

There are some today who feel that the future will bring Armageddon and the destruction of the world.  They do not fear the future because they have “been saved” and will be lifted to Heaven before the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (conquest, war, famine, and death) reek havoc upon those who are left behind.

But conquest, war, famine, and death are part of the human condition, and we have the capability to prevent them.  (We may not be able to prevent death, but we can work to improve the health of people, and we can seek research to find the cures for many diseases.)

To say otherwise is to say that you have no desire for the future and are, perhaps, only interested in your self-preservation.

There are those today who fear the future because the future brings change.  They have no vision for the future, and as the writer of Proverbs wrote, “those without vision will perish.”  The Message offers “if the people cannot see what God is doing, they stumble over themselves.” (1)

Heraclitus wrote, “No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.”  Those who fear the change the future brings feel they can stop the flow of the river.  But when you build a dam to stop the flow of the river, you must spend all your time and resources keeping the dam intact so that it will not break and flood the present, destroying all one tried to save. 

Our journey into the future requires that we have a set of skills that allow us to adapt to the changes that come with the future and faith that will carry us through.  My great-great-grandfather came to America with a set of skills that would allow him to create a new life in America and a strong faith in God (as evident by the number of Lutheran ministers among his descendants).

In 1962, Robert Kennedy said,

The future is not a gift: it is an achievement. Every generation helps make its own future. This is the essential challenge of the present. (2)

Albert Einstein once remarked,

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking.  It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” (3)

We cannot create a vision for the future when people try to take away the tools that will allow us to feed the people, find cures for the diseases that threaten the health of the people of the world(all the people and not just a select few), and remove the causes that allow people to seek conquest and war as the solution to the problems of society.

We cannot create a vision for the future when we, our children, and future generations, do not have the ability to develop the skills that will allow us to solve the problems that will come tomorrow (we can solve today’s problems but even those skills are stripped away).

We cannot create a vision for the future when secular and sectarian fundamentalists demand a society based on a single thought and obedience to those who have that one “true thought”.  The vision for the future will come when there are many thoughts working together.

During his visit to South Africa in 1966, Senator Kennedy said,

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment [- – -]

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is [ . . .] neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live. (4)

Today we stand on the edge of an unknown country called the future. 

To borrow a thought from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, the future will either be the best of times or the worst of times.

The future will either be an age of wisdom or an age of foolishness.

The future will either be the epoch of belief or the epoch of incredulity.

It can be the season of light, or it will be a season of darkness.

It will either be the spring of hope or the winter of despair.

Everything lies before us but only if we step into the mists of uncertainty and the unknown.  To take those steps, we must develop the skills and abilities that will provide us with the abilities to solve the problems we encounter.

To take those steps, we must strengthen our faith so that we have the strength to move forward.

To take these steps, we must be a community of all people and not just a select few.

Notes

The Commencement Address I Might Give

Posted on by
Reply

Were I invited to give a commencement address this year, this is what I might say.

I graduated from Nicholas Blackwell High School in 1968.  Historians tell us that 1968 was a year that changed America.  But, as we were in the midst of that year, we did not know that and while certain events had occurred, we had no idea of what was to come.

1968 began with what has become known as the Tet Offensive.  We had been at war in Viet Nam since 1961 (though our involvement probably began as early as 1953).  The Tet Offensive was a coordinated attack by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces against population centers in South Viet Nam.

Up until January 1968, the people of the United States had been told that we were winning the war and perhaps with a few more men we could bring it to a successful completion.

This attack caught our military forces completely off guard and, while it was tactical defeat for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, it destroyed the image that we were winning this war.  After the Tet Offensive, public opinion began to shift from support for the war to a desire to end the war.

On March 31, 1968, President Johnson spoke to the American people and outlined a plan for a cease fire and the beginning of peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese.  He concluded his speech by announcing that he would not run for reelection as President.

President Johnson was elected in 1964 with one of the biggest election victories in the history of our country.  And with the mandate given to him by the people and with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, he set out to establish what he called “The Great Society”.

But as the cost of the war increased, both in terms of personnel and finances, his support evaporated, and he felt that he could not run for reelection.

Four days later, on April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis.  While his death reverberated across the nation, it was perhaps the loudest in Memphis, my hometown (Where Were You On April 4, 1968?).

This is what we knew as we walked across the stage on graduation night.  Still, as we walked across the stage that night and saw a world in disarray, we also saw a world of promise and opportunity.

But it was a view that was tempered by what we knew and the uncertainty that is always a mark of the future.

We knew that there would be an election in November, but we could not vote and express our thoughts on the direction America should take (the law that lowered the voting age to 18 did go into effect until 1972).

For the young men who walked and were 18 or about to become 18, the walk also meant that we were now faced with the draft and probable deployment to Viet Nam.

As we walked across the stage that night in Memphis, we did not know that Senator Robert Kennedy would be assassinated a few weeks later. 

We did not know that the Democratic National Convention would be marred by riots in the streets of Chicago and the Democratic Party would be almost destroyed by the riots and differences over the war.

We did not know that Richard Nixon would become the Republican candidate for President or that he would win a narrow victory over Hubert Humphrey in November.  We did not know that he would go on to reelection in 1972 with the greatest electoral victory in the history of the country or that his desire for an “imperial Presidency” would lead to the Watergate affair and his resignation in 1974.

And with all the trouble and turmoil, both what we knew and what we didn’t know, 1968 ended on an optimistic note when Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and William Anders would crew the Apollo 8 spacecraft to the moon and return to earth.  It was the first mission to leave the boundaries of earth’s gravity and marked a four-year period where we explored the moon.

Sadly, just as the Viet Nam war took away many young men and demanded more and more of America’s resources, it would take away our exploration of space.  Our exploration of the moon ended in 1972, and we have not been back since. 

We, as graduates in 1968, were beneficiaries of the science and math explosion that began in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I.  The end of the Apollo program also marked the end of funding for science and math education.

I know that you didn’t expect a history lesson as part of the commencement address, but I wanted you all to have a framework for what lies before you as you shortly walk across this stage.

As you walk across the stage tonight, we are a nation technically at peace.  We have no combat operations taking place, but it is not a peaceful world.  It seems as if war has become the norm and we are the arms supplier to many nations.  I know that many will disagree with me, but we have allowed some of our allies to commit what would have been called war crimes in previous conflicts.  We have allowed innocent people whose only fault was to be in a war zone to be called terrorists to justify the actions of our allies.

We support dictators and tyrants because it serves our interests (or at least the interests of some politicians).  We, or some politicians, are quite willing to repeat the appeasement of Munich in 1938 that destroyed the nation of Czechoslovakia and laid the foundation for World War II simply because they and their minions place their own personal interests before the values of this country.

We say that we are the land of opportunity but call those who seek that opportunity criminals and terrorists.  While Richard Nixon may have secretly subverted the Constitution, we have watched politicians openly subvert the Constitution and other politicians turn a blind eye to the crimes being committed by officials of this country.

We no longer have a viable space program, relying on other countries to send our astronauts into space while turning our space program into a billionaire’s playground.  Just as the rich and powerful exploited the natural resources of this country, I do not doubt that today’s rich and powerful are seeking to find some way to exploit the resources of the moon, Mars, and the asteroids.

One outcome of the diminishing support for science and mathematics education in the 70s was that we now see a growth in disinformation and the apparent lack of discerning what is good and what is bad.  We are seeing the rise in AI technology which, while it seems to have some good, is also capable of generating more disinformation (1).

The dissent that marked 1968 and the years before did not just appear “out of the blue.”  It was, to the dismay of many, the product of an educational system that challenged students to find the answers for themselves. 

Today, many authorities seek to change that system, because they do not want to be challenged in what they do, and they do not want to explain why they feel that only certain individuals are worthy, and all others are not.  Theirs is a system, rigid and unbeing, with allegiance not to the ideas on which this country was founded but allegiance to an individual and his or her supporters.

This is not a pretty picture.  But there is one shining ray of light.  While we who graduated in 1968 could speak out (and many did), we had to rely on others to make the changes that needed to be made, for we did not have the vote.

You, the graduates of 2025, have the vote and that gives you a degree of power that we, the graduates of 1968, did not have.  We have seen in the past few years the results achieved when the youth of the world spoke out.

I challenge you today to speak out against the injustices that you see.  I challenge you today to speak out against the crimes being committed against people whose only crime is that they may have the wrong skin color or the wrong sexual orientation or the lack of money in their back account.

This may be the end of one part of your life, but it is also the beginning of a new chapter.

How you move out into the world that lies beyond this stage, how you respond to the needs of the neighbors, your friends, your family, and the people with whom you share this planet will determine how 2025 will be viewed by historians.

Through your works, your words, your thoughts, and your deeds, 2025 will be known as the year that changed the world.

Notes

 Encroaching Fascism Accelerates

Posted on by
Reply

Additional thoughts from my brother

Folks, it’s pretty obvious what they are trying to do.  Musk is ransacking the gov. dept. by dept. They are moving quickly to try to overwhelm us.  They will fire all those who are too scared to quit.  They will fill whatever is left with minions (I personally expect to see “loyalty oaths” required of all govt. employees), then trump will personally direct each agency to do whatever his angry, distorted mind can come up with.  Holy Moroni, I wish this wasn’t happening – but this is not a drill.  Trump wants to take over the country.

First and foremost, this is not a political problem, it is an American problem.  The issues that divide us will still be there after this over – we can deal with those things later.  Right now we have a country to save.  Since my last message, trump has seized control of the Kennedy Center.  (Then what?  Trump-approved art only?  How Soviet can you get?)  The Senate, cowards that they are, has voted to confirm every one of trump’s unqualified nominees.  (Interesting that Mitch McConnell has voted against these people.)

Musk has announced that “the Department of Education no longer exists” and that it will be “necessary to eliminate entire agencies.” This is criminal, period; I would call it traitorous, but Musk is a foreign national, not a citizen, which makes it all the more egregious. No one, not even trump, can empower one man to dismantle our government.  Remember that trump want us to believe he is empowered to do all these things; then remember that he isn’t.  Fortunately, it appears that the Judiciary is holding the line as best it can.  But the muskrats won’t rest so neither can we.

None of this, you will note, has anything to do with America, with the American people, or the price of eggs for that matter.  Trump is trying to make himself dictator – and he is being enabled by cowardly republican senators.  Our country’s democratic republic is hanging by a thread, but I believe we can still save it.  Some of the links below might help.

https://www.commoncause.org/  – Common Cause has been in the fight for decades.  Now they need our support as much as we need their efforts. 

https://www.aclu.org/ – The American Civil Liberties Union has also been leading the charge for a long time.  Now the situation is the most serious our nation has faced since the Civil War.  Please consider supporting the ACLU in its efforts to uphold the Constitution (which even Republican Senators are required to do) on our behalf.

https://solidarity-project.org/fighting-fascism-is-a-full-time-job/ – Don’t know anything about these people but the article is worth a read.

https://thesurvivalway.com/how-to-survive-fascism/ – The same topic from a survivalist perspective.

Okay, so you get the point.  Here is the Attorney General of Arizona issuing a scathing indictment of the trump/musk power play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrE0DOEcbRE

Also check out videos by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders.

More ideas:

Own any stock?  Then send a letter to the board, the president, all the VPs for that matter, demanding that they take a stand against trump, musk, the destruction of our government and this encroaching fascism.

Buy any consumer products?  See above.

If you are in a blue state, call all your reps – local, county, state, national – and give them your voice of support.  They will very much appreciate it.  If you are in a red or mixed state, call them all.  Tell the repubs that you expect them to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution, that you are ashamed of them for their cowardice in refusing to call out trump for what he is trying to do.

I have sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune asking him to stand up to trump before it is too late, that America needs real leadership – and unity – right now, and that he is in a unique position to lead.  I’ll be sending a version to various media outlets. Next to write to:  Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Write!  Call!  Speak up! 

Be part of the solution.  Do something.  Join The Resistance.  Please forward as you see fit…tm

What Will You Do?

Posted on by
Reply

This will appear in the upcoming issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

In one of my first messages as a lay speaker, I stated that I saw Jesus as a revolutionary and a radical.  Paul Schuessler, my cousin and patriarch of the Schuessler family (my grandmother’s family) was visiting my church that Sunday.  Paul was also one of the many Lutheran ministers in the lineage of the Schuessler family.  Afterwards, Paul chided me for being so bold in my pronouncements about our Savior.  Yet, a year later, he would state that Jesus was a revolutionary and a radical.  When I asked him about this change, he just commented that such a change is possible with Christ.

As I have written before, I grew up in the South during the 50’s and 60’s so the schools that I went to were segregated.  Even in high school in Memphis, TN, from 1966 – 1968, I, along with my classmates, experienced the effects of segregation.  I doubt that my classmates truly understood that because it was the system they grew up in.  However, because of the moves my family had made, it was a bit easier for me to see and feel those effects.

And those effects, while not as obvious, were still present when I went to college.  In 1969, the Black Students Association of NE Missouri State College (now Truman State University) organized a sit-in of the administration building in protest to the lack of off-campus housing for black students.  Because I knew those who were involved in the protest, I was inside the administration building in support of their efforts.  It should be noted that I was the only white student inside the building.  The campus ministers, including the Wesley Foundation minister, were busy helping negotiate a safe conclusion to the standoff between the students inside the administration and the administration officials and police outside.  Most white students were on the outside but not in support of their fellow students. (note 1). 

I went into the administration building that evening because the people inside were my friends, and one needs to stand by their friends at times of need. 

Later that same spring, I would come to understand that my acceptance of Christ as my Savior allowed me to receive God’s grace. And this meant that my life could never be the same again. As Methodists, we understand that our lives can never quite reach the level of perfection of Christ; but that doesn’t mean that we stop trying.

I work for justice, freedom, and good not because it will get me into heaven but because it is what is expected of me because I am a citizen of the New Kingdom (Note 2).

What did you do when you sat in the synagogue and heard Jesus tell the people of Nazareth that he come to preach the Good News to the poor, to pardon the prisoners, give sight to the blind and set the burdened and battered free?

What did you do when Jesus fed the multitudes, not once but twice?

What did you do when the people sought out Jesus to heal them, their family, and their friends?  Did you help the four friends who found a way to lower their friend through the roof so that Jesus could help their friend walk again?

What did you do when the people gathered outside Jerusalem and pooled their resources so that all could share?

What did you do when Jesus turned no one away?  What did you do when Paul suggested that the message Christ gave was for all and not just a few?

What did you do when the early Methodists created the first credit union so that people could pay their bills instead of being thrown into debtors’ prison?

What did you do when the early Methodists created the first health care clinics to provide health care to the many people who did not have access to health care?

What did you do when the early Methodists created the first schools so that children could learn to read and write?

What did you do when the early Methodists opposed the sale and trafficking of human beings?

Because the early Methodists sought to change society and help those that society considered unworthy, they were considered threats to the organized/established church.  Our spiritual ancestors were considered outsiders and troublemakers because they sought to bring the message of the Gospel to the people!

Why was there no bloody revolution in England when there was one in France at the same time?  Some historians believe that because of the efforts of the Wesleyan Revival, England did not experience a bloody revolution like the French revolution of the same period (note 3).

Some years ago, I used the phrase “vision with action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world” in a message.  (from “What’s The Next Step?”)

Now, as it happened, eight months later I was at that same church and I used a phrase that Willie Nelson said, “one person cannot change the world but one person with a message could.” As I recall, he pointed out that Jesus and the message he carried on the back roads of the Galilee was one prime example. (from “What Does Your Church Look Like?”)

Two thousand years ago, we were given a vision for the future.  Some two hundred and fifty years, a mission was begun to make that vision possible.

John Wesley first expressed the vision of the church and its need to minister to the community in this interchange with Joseph Butler, Bishop of Bristol:

Butler – “You have no business here. You are not commissioned to preach in this diocese. Therefore, I advise you to go hence.”

Wesley – “My lord, my business on earth is do what good I can. Wherever therefore I think I can do the most good, there must I stay so long as I think so. At present I think I can do the most good here. Therefore, here I stay.” (Frank Baker, “John Wesley and Bishop Butler: A Fragment of John Wesley’s Manuscript Journal)

And when the church becomes a part of the community, its impact is wide. Bishop Earl Hunt, who served as President of the United Methodist Council of Bishops spoke of the impact of the church in a community.

“. . . whenever the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is turned loose in a community to help human beings and meet their needs and lift up the name of Jesus Christ, that church becomes indispensable in the community.”  (Pages 173 – 174, New Life For Dying Churches! Rose Sims) (note 4)

We, the people of the United Methodist Church in the 21st century, see a world that is not unlike the world of Israel two thousand years ago or England some two hundred and fifty years ago. 

We see poverty and the widening gap between the classes; we are beginning to see health care denied because people cannot afford it; we are seeing the oppression of many simply because they seek freedom, or they are somehow different.

What will you do?  Will you stand aside?

Or will you remember what those who came before you did, and do the same?

Notes

Note 1        see Side By Side | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/side-by-side-2/) for information about this protest

Note 2       from “The Changing of Seasons” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/the-changing-of-seasons/)

Note 3       Notes on the Methodist Revival and the non-English Revoltuion are in Generations | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/generations/)

Note 4       from The Family Business | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/the-family-business/)

What Will Be Our Faith Legacy?

Posted on by
Reply

I am a little bit behind in my writing. This was my contribution to the Fishkill UMC December newsletter. Some of this appeared in earlier posts.

Back in 2024, I wrote about the legacy of the wise men and how science and faith were linked in our lives today by the journey of wisemen to Bethlehem two thousand years ago (1).

Our faith journey comes from many different sources.  Some found their faith in the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity, others found their faith in the non-Abrahamic faiths of the East; other found their faith in non-traditional forms.

Others may have never accepted a path of faith, choosing to seek their own path.  And others may have rejected the faith of their past or are still seeking to find their faith (2).

I choose to walk with Jesus Christ as my personal savior.  As I have written before, my mother laid the foundation for my journey with Christ by insisting that my siblings and I be in church every Sunday, no matter where we were.  And one Sunday in 1962, I began to think about walking with Christ.  It was this contemplation that led to my earning the God and Country award in 1965.

The legacy of my faith is through the Evangelical United Brethren Church (EUB)and its predecessors and the efforts of Jacob Albright, Martin Boehm, and Phillip Otterbein.  I am a member of the United Methodist Church (UMC) because of the merger of the Methodist Church and the EUB church in 1968. These denominations merged because each shared the beliefs of John Wesley.

The Wesleyan approach was open, inclusive, and a practical theological vision of the Christian life as opposed to the restrictive, exclusive, dogmatic approach to matters of faith and practice seen in traditional churches.

Our legacy was and still is to preach outside the normal boundaries of a church. Methodism began as a spiritual movement to renew a decaying institutional church and serve the outcast, the marginalized, and the poor, those that traditional Christians called the “unwashed rabble”.

The early Methodist movement was everything the traditional church wasn’t.  It was often messy or unregulated.  It was based on small groups, it empowered women, gave enslaved persons a sense of freedom, and created a vision of justice and liberation.

In 18th century America, Methodism was a “volatile, alienated, defiant, and charismatic” movement that empowered “those who were demeaned and degraded” with a revolutionary sense of God’s liberating loved (“Religion in the Old South”, Don Matthews, University of Chicago Press, 1977).  Methodism was seen as a threat to the establishment of the time because it was revolutionary, inclusive, heart-centered, and Jesus-fired (3).

Early Methodists found ways to feed the hungry and established free health care clinics to provide medical care.  Because people were denied basic financial services and put into jail because they could not pay their bills, the early Methodists created the first credit unions.  Because children worked in the mines and factories six days a week, the early Methodists created Sunday schools to educate them and their parents.  Because of the efforts of the Wesleyan Revival, some historians think this is the reason England did not experience a bloody revolution like the French revolution of the same period (4).

But where are those efforts today?  How do we respond to the questions Dr. Tony Campolo asked?

What do we do about the poor?

  • What do we do about education or the environment?
  • What do we do when the system that is in place ignores the little children of this country in favor of big business and greedy corporate interests?
  • What do we do when other Christians tell the parents of gays and lesbians that their children’s sexuality is their fault, that they somehow have lived a sinful and wrongful life?
  • How is it that we have allowed Christianity to become so judgmental when our own Savior never judged anyone? (5)

We have seen Christianity coopted by the secular realm.  People who claim to be Christians act as if they were the religious and political authorities who opposed Jesus two thousand years ago.

Evangelical pastor Russell Moore told NPR in an interview that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”

“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.” (6)

What will those who proclaim the legacy of Christ but see his teachings as subversive say when they read in the Book of Acts where those who came before us pooled their resources so that all would have enough?

As we enter the season of Advent and begin preparing for the coming of Christ, I ask you consider your legacy.  Why did you begin your journey with Christ?  What will be the legacy you leave for those who follow you?

Will our legacy be one of hatred and ignorance?  Will it be one of exclusion?  Will we forget that we were once immigrants, strangers in a strange land?

Or will it be one of hope and promise, of redemption and acceptance, of liberation and freedom for all, no matter what path they walk?

Notes

  1. The Legacy of the Wise Men | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2020/01/01/the-legacy-of-the-wise-men/
  2. Seeing the future | Thoughts from The Heart On The Left -https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/12/02/seeing-the-future-3/
  3. Generations | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/generations/
  4. Evangelism and the United Methodist Church | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2024/06/07/evangelism-and-the-united-methodist-church/
  5. Generations | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/generations/ and references within.
  6. From an interview with Tony Campolo posted on Beliefnet.com on 12 November 2004) – Evangelism and the United Methodist Church | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2024/06/07/evangelism-and-the-united-methodist-church/
  7. Christianity Today Editor: Evangelicals Call Jesus “Liberal” and “Weak” | The New Republic – https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak

What Is Wisdom?

Posted on by
Reply

This is my contribution to the August issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

Reinhold Niebuhr is credited with a variation of the following:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

When he became king, Solomon asked God to give him the wisdom needed to make the proper decisions.

The compilers of the Old Testament thought enough of wisdom to include five books (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) devoted to the topic of wisdom.  The wisdom books in the Old Testament offer shift from the historical books that preceeded them and focus on existential questions about God, humanity, Creation, and the nature of evil and suffering.  It focuses on daily human experiences: how is life to be lived?

The wisdom literature of the Old Testament is comparable to other ancient Near Eastern compositions from Mesopotamia and Egypt that reflected on the problems of everyday life.

But this raises the question, “What exactly is wisdom?

Wisdom is the ability to use your knowledge and experience to make good decisions and judgments.  Wisdom involves an integration of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding, as well as a tolerance for the uncertainties of life. There’s an awareness of how things play out over time, and it confers a sense of balance.

Wisdom is an art.  How do we deal with various situations and achieve a good life?  It is by teaching; the lessons gained from experience and transmitted at various levels, from education at home all the way through traditional education processes.

The task of wisdom is often to ask, “What is the best path to walk?”

But wisdom is not something that one automatically gains.  It requires everyone to act.  You must ask questions.

And therein lies the problem.  We have stopped asking questions.  We have allowed others to tell us the answers without stating the questions.

As I have written before, we have become very good at answering the questions when the answer is in the back of the book.  But what will happen when the question asked comes from a book that hasn’t been written yet.

I see in the discussion of “forever chemicals” the results of being unable to answer such questions.  These chemicals have some value for society, but they do not break down over time and remain in the environment forever.  It would seem that when these chemicals were made, the focus was on what the chemicals could do and not what would happen after they were used.

The discussion of climate change is another topic that demands we, the people, ask questions.  There is, in my mind, no doubt as to what is happening to the climate of this planet but too many people are not willing to ask the questions needed to slow down and perhaps, if it is not too late, reverse the changes humankind has made to this world.

Some people would rather we not ask questions.  They will say that asking questions, especially about one’s faith, will lead to a diminished faith.  But asking questions should help one understand their faith.  Go back and read the Book of Job again.  It is a dialogue between Job, Job’s friends, and God that teaches and enlightens everyone, including each of us.

Many years ago, our ancestors were gathered around a fire, perhaps looking at the stars above or perhaps preparing for the next day.  No doubt, some of the children asked the elders, “Where did we come from?”  And the lesson began when one of the elders, answered, “In the beginning . . .”

Some may be satisfied with that answer, but we are curious and want to do more.  And each question that we answer generates two more questions.  And from this our wisdom grows. 

As we grow in wisdom, we find that God values and responds to our questions and wisdom.

Evangelism and the United Methodist Church

Posted on by
1

Editorial note – The ideas expressed in this piece are mine and are based on materials and ideas that I have written and presented in the past.

This was first published in the June 2024 issue of the Fishkill UMC Newsletter.

I was baptized in the Evangelical Reformed Church, and I was confirmed in the Evangelical United Brethren Church.  Thought my heritage, through my words, through my thoughts, and through my deeds I consider myself to be an evangelical Christian. 

But the term “evangelical Christian” has taken on a rather negative connotation, in part because of the actions of many who use the term as a means of identification.

Today, many proclaim themselves to be a “evangelical Christian” but their actions suggest that they neither understand what evangelism is or what it means to be a Christian. 

Theirs is a view defined in black and white, and you must accept it.  It is their view that the Bible is the source of all knowledge, even when the early Christian church did not hold that view.  They loudly profess to have been saved from sin but you and I have not, and, as a result, we are going to live the rest of our lives in Sheol.

That, to me, is not evangelism and, to be honest, it is the very attitude that almost drove me from the church, and which is probably driving many people away today.

But I didn’t leave because there were those who showed me that the church could be a force for good, a force for justice, and that it was possible to be a representative of Christ on Earth. It would be very difficult for me to leave today just as it is very difficult for me to watch others tell the world that the Gospel is about the rich and the powerful, the mighty and privileged.

Contemporary evangelists see the “Great Commission”, Go out into the world, and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28: 19 – The Message), as a commandment to get other people to become Christian.

If we read Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch Gospel translation of the “Great Commission”, we read,

As you travel, then, make students of all races and initiate them into the family of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to live by all that I outlined for you.”

I think that because Dr. Jordan was working with the original Greek version of Matthew, this is more reasonable interpretation of the original work and speaks to what we, as evangelists, are to do in today’s world, teach the people.  Instead of forcing or requiring people to become Christians, we need to teach people to live in the manner that Jesus taught the Twelve.  As Dr. Francis Collins noted in his book, “The Language of God”, each person must make their own decisions concerning the existence of God and what one believes.  By teaching people, we give them the opportunity to find Christ on their own.

Tony Campolo, noted evangelist, Baptist minister, and conservative Christian, feels that the concept of evangelism has been hijacked by the political motives of the “religious right”. He feels that the Gospel message, of reaching out to the poor, the sick, the homeless, and the oppressed, has somehow been lost in the politics of the times.

Dr. Campolo asked,

What do we do about the poor?

What do we do about education or the environment?

What do we do when the system that is in place ignores the little children of this country in favor of big business and greedy corporate interests?

What do we do when other Christians tell the parents of gays and lesbians that their children’s sexuality is their fault, that they somehow have lived a sinful and wrongful life?

How is it that we have allowed Christianity to become so judgmental when our own Savior never judged anyone? (From an interview with Tony Campolo posted on Beliefnet.com on 12 November 2004)

What Is Evangelism?                                                                   

Evangelism can be defined as declaring the good news about all that God is doing in the world; but it is much more than simply challenging individuals to yield to Jesus, letting Jesus into their lives, and allowing the power of the Holy Spirit to transform them into new creations.  It is also about proclaiming what God is doing in society right now to bring about justice, liberation, and economic well-being for the oppressed. (From Tony Campolo’s forward to Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch Gospel: Luke and Acts)

An evangelical Christian is one who presents the Gospel message of hope, justice, and freedom from oppression to the world. If that means taking action to relieve poverty, heal the sick, feed the hungry, house the homeless, give aid to the needy, and free the oppressed, so be it.

Henri J. M. Nouwen wrote,

Only when we have come into touch with our own life experiences and have learned to listen to our inner cravings for liberation and new life can we realize that Jesus did not just speak, but that he reached out to us in our most personal needs. The Gospel doesn’t just contain ideas worth remembering. It is a message responding to our individual human condition. The Church is not an institution forcing us to follow its rules. It is a community of people inviting us to still our hunger and thirst at its tables. Doctrines are not alien formulations, which we must adhere to, but the documentation of the most profound human experiences which, transcending time and place, are handed over from generation to generation as a light in our darkness. (From Reaching Out by Henri J. M. Nouwen)

Senator Cory Booker stated,

Don’t speak to me about your religion; first show it to me in how you treat other people. Don’t tell me how much you love your God; show me in how much you love all her children. Don’t preach to me your passion for your faith; teach me through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.

Many churches today give people exactly what they want.

They give them a sense of “being filled with the Spirit”; they give them a sense that their sins have been cleansed. And they certainly give them messages that bring purpose to their lives without making them feel guilty about what they have done. They hear that the poverty of this world, the death and desolation that come to this world are only signs of God’s return, of Christ’s Second Coming. They find in these new churches comfort and sanctuary.

The Gospel Message                                                                     

But this is not the Gospel message! The Gospel message is not meant to make you feel good; it is meant for you to hear and then act.

“Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness, and pride of power and with its defense for the weak… Christianity has adjusted itself much too easily to the worship of power. It should give much more offense, more shock to the world than it is doing. Christianity should take a much more definite stand for the weak than to consider the potential right of the strong.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Barbara Wendland, a United Methodist layperson in Texas, pointed out that many of the things that make us comfortable in church often make us less effective as a church.

Patriotism is effective if it reminds us of our nation’s commitment to justice for all people, yet flags and martial hymns in worship tend to glorify war rather than remind us that we have been called to be peacemakers. We may find that tradition provides a sense of continuity, but it can also make it difficult to bring about change.

Emotion can inspire us to do God’s work in the world, but wrapping oneself in a blanket of emotions can often block critical reasoning. The church can only be effective if it keeps reminding us how far we must go before God’s will is done on this earth. An effective sermon on poverty and disease in our own community should leave us feeling rightly uneasy about not doing more to help and it should inspire us to do that little bit extra. (From Connections, April 2005)

The Gospel message cannot be pared down to something that fits on a bumper sticker. The Gospel is meant to transform us, not protect us. Unfortunately, this is not the message of many of these big churches. Without the cross, without reason, the message presented is sugar coated and self-serving. People come to these services because they are not required to do much more than that.

The Gospel message is to be shared, not hoarded, and we must work to find ways to share it. This is something we are often unwilling to do. We hesitate to respond as Jesus would have us respond because it is so radical a notion. We would much rather focus on a quiet, private, personal relationship with the Lord rather than follow the teachings that call for a public, prophetic witness. We like being on the mountain, we do not want to come down and must work in the valley. We can live with reports of poverty, sickness, and oppression; we just would rather not have to deal with it.

Our heritage                                                                               

Today, the United Methodist Church is considered a traditional and mainline denomination, not an evangelical one. Yet, evangelism was the hallmark of the early Methodist movement; our growth in America came during the major revival periods of this country’s history, driven in part by the evangelical fervor of Methodists. But we are no longer considered an evangelical church.

Methodism began as a spiritual movement to renew a decaying institutional church and serve the outcast, the marginalized, and the poor.

John Wesley did not start a church. He wanted to renew a church that had become narrow, moralistic, cold. He wanted to renew it through new hearts, a courageous spirit, community that included the least & the unwanted, and passion for Jesus.

John Wesley understood that it was the primary purpose of the church to present the message of Salvation through Jesus Christ but a church blind to the needs of its members or the community that it was in could not do its work. You cannot preach the power of the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ when people are hungry, homeless, or suppressed by an indifferent society. John Wesley also understood and preached that it was the responsibility of everyone having accepted Jesus Christ as his own personal Savior, had to go out into the community.

John Wesley understood the need for the church to present a message the people understood. A church blind to the needs of its members or its community cannot do its work. You cannot preach of the power of the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ when people are hungry, homeless, or suppressed by an indifferent society. John Wesley also understood that an individual, having accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior, had the responsibility to show that he had done so. This meant helping the community.

Our unique and combined heritage is more than simply meeting in a church somewhere on a Sunday; it is a heritage of being in the field, of being involved with the people, of being God’s representative here on earth at this time and place. As United Methodists we believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith, and we are saved so that we can do good works. All that we do follows as a response to the radical grace of God.

Let us remember that we are the inheritors of a movement that gathered in the homes of believers and invited not just believers but non-believers to be a part of their community. Let us also remember that we are also the inheritors of a movement that faced intense opposition and persecution, and I am not necessarily speaking of the early, post-Easter Christians.

Methodism here in America was often marked by the clergy of other denominations denouncing Methodist preachers for “preaching delusions,” “working to deceive others,” spouting heretical doctrines,” and “promoting wild singularities”. These “wild singularities” included dramatic preaching, exuberant worship, and weekly class meetings where members shared their inner most selves.

Ours is a heritage of evangelism, not the evangelism of today which seeks to control the human spirit and tell others the right and wrong way to do things. Ours is an evangelism based on what Jesus did and what John Wesley did. Ours is the evangelism that brings the Good News to the people so that they can find Jesus for themselves.

Our theological heritage was and still is to preach outside the normal boundaries of a church. Methodism began as a spiritual movement to renew a decaying institutional church and serve the outcast, the marginalized, and the poor, those traditional Christians called the “unwashed rabble”.

The early Methodist movement was everything the traditional church wasn’t.  It was often messy or unregulated.  It was based on small groups, it empowered women, gave enslaved persons a sense of freedom, and created a vision of justice and liberation.

In 18th century America, Methodism was a “volatile, alienated, defiant, and charismatic” movement that empowered “those who were demeaned and degraded” with a revolutionary sense of God’s liberating loved (“Religion in the Old South”, Don Matthews, University of Chicago Press, 1977).  Methodism was seen as a threat to the establishment of the time because it was revolutionary, inclusive, heart-centered, and Jesus-fired.

What Will tomorrow bring?                                                             

The United Methodist Church has been lost in the wilderness for the last thirty years.  It has struggled to find itself amidst the turmoil and change of society.  Against the turmoil and change of 18th century society, the Methodist revival begun by John Wesley sought to bring hope and renewal to the people.

That mission does not change over time.

Perhaps we, the people of the United Methodist Church, having found our way out of the wilderness should remember who we were and become those people once again.  Let us remember from where we came and once again bring hope and promise to the people.

The Questions We Ask AI – The Questions AI Answers

Posted on by
2

This is my contribution to the April 2024 Fishkill UMC newsletter; it appears in the Fall 2024 issue of God & Nature.

I am a chemist because of a question I was asked in 1966.  Some questions that I was asked in 1974 and could not answer caused me to evaluate my career path.  (It should be noted that I know the answers to those questions today).  I earned a Ph.D. in science education with an emphasis on chemical education because of some questions I was asking about how students learned chemistry.

I became a lay speaker/servant in the United Methodist Church because, in 1990, I asked myself what the best way was to fulfill the commitment I made in 1965 when I earned the God & Country award.

The path I have walked over these past years was determined, in part, because of the questions I was asked and how I answered them. 

It is perhaps an axiom of research that the answer to one question leads to the development of two new questions.

When chemists were still known as alchemists, they asked the question, “Is there a substance that dissolves everything?”

Can there be a substance that dissolves everything?  If there was, what would you put it in?  Obviously, if this substance dissolves everything, it would dissolve the container you put it in.  It would also dissolve everything which it contacted, creating havoc and destruction.  This leads to two questions.

First, how could we study such a “super solvent’?

Could we use AI systems?  We could provide the AI system with information concerning the nature of solvents, the nature of solutions, information about the nature of materials that make up containers, as well as a discussion of bonding and why containers normally do not react with the materials that are put in them.

AI systems have already been used to “solve” other chemistry questions.  One research group already used an AI system to reconstruct the periodic table from existing data.  However, it was not clear if the results included the noble gases (Stanford AI recreates chemistry’s periodic table of elements | Chemistry – https://chemistry.stanford.edu/news/stanford-ai-recreates-chemistrys-periodic-table-elements).

AI-systems can achieve results that humans may not achieve.  We can set up an AI-system to analyze a series of digital images (such as X-rays, MRI, and CAT scans) to detect the presence of cancer cells at a resolution beyond the capabilities of the human eye.  But to do this, someone must supply the images that have cancer cells so that the system can “learn” what to look for.  If the system does not have this information, it cannot determine what is a cancer cell and what is not.

At the present time, AI systems are not intelligent.  They do not create new information, only copy current information.  It still takes a human to create new information.

While some may use AI systems to write reports, all the system is doing is gathering all the information that can be found on the web that is related to the topic and putting it together in a readable format.  But this system has not created any new information, and, in my opinion, the ability to create new information is one hallmark of intelligence.

Joshua Conrad Jackson, a professor and lead researcher at Chicago Booth, conducted a study about the ability of an AI-system to produce a sermon.  He concluded,

“Our research arrives at a point where automation is pervading every job industry, and it suggests that some professions may not be automated so easily.  Robots may struggle in professions like priests or monks, that require high levels of creativity.” 

see Researchers tried out AI preachers — and it didn’t go so well (zmescience.com)– https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/researchers-tried-out-ai-preachers-and-it-didnt-go-so-well/

For all the benefits we might gain, the study of a “super solvent” generates two new questions:

“Why would you want to synthesize such a substance?”

“What value would there be in even designing a substance that might destroy the world?”

AI systems can gather large amounts of data, but it is becoming clear that this process cannot differentiate between good and bad data.  Reports created from this approach contain serious errors, so the veracity of any reports generated may have to be questioned.  A chemistry teacher reported on a Facebook group that their students were using AI-systems to gather information about various chemistry topics, but they were not checking the validity of the information.

AI systems are also being shown to be discriminatory.  Not everyone gains from the use of such systems.  The use of AI systems may only widen the digital divide we see developing today.  In addition, the approach used by AI systems seems to ignore standard privacy protections (granted that even we humans often have this same problem). 

What is to stop AI-systems from being used to develop potentially hazardous materials?

In the end, do the benefits gained from the use of AI systems outweigh the negative values?  Can AI systems be taught to differentiate between good and bad data?  Can AI systems understand the nature of privacy protection and other laws related to the use of personal information?

Notes on AI

I am not opposed to the development of new technologies, such as AI systems, if it will make my work easier to accomplish.  While I tend to prepare the initial drafts of my manuscripts with pen and paper, I do use current technology (personal computer, the Internet, online correspondence, etc.) to share the results of my work.  But the systems that I use only aid in what I do, not do it for me.

In the Star Trek movie “Resurrection”, Sojef, one of the Ba’ku leaders, says to Jean Luc Picard why his group rejected technology.

“We believe that when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man.”

Perhaps the ultimate question that must be asked is “what will the future be?”  Will the future be human driven or technologically driven?  Will it be progressive and positive but will our reliance and possibly subservience lead to the destruction of mankind?

As we move to an even more technologically oriented society, we must not be blinded by the movement.  There must be an active effort to keep humans in the equation and in control, not just part of the solution.

Notes

AI and humanity – Lutheran Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology (luthscitech.org)

What Is Artificial Intelligence? How Does It Work? – Sinai and Synapses