Learning to Read

In his comments, Democracy Lover says the following:

Frankly, I think the interpreation modern thinkers might make of the itinerant prophet from Galilee are much more appealing and helpful o us than the interpretations of first century evangelists.

More than anything else in his long, thoughtful comment, this caught my eye because it lies at the heart of the whole issue of Christian faith, an is part of the reason Wright is pursuing the project he has embarked upon. We need to relearn how to read Scripture and the early tradition of the Church without certain prejudices that our modern and post-modern thinkers have insisted are non-negotiable: the superiority of contemporary ways of thinking over "primitive" (Bultmann) ones, and the opacity of texts to readers, leaving them barren mirrors reflecting neither what early modern sciprture scholars thought they saw (early church controversies placed in texts) or late modern scripture scholars thought they saw (metaphors wrapped in symbols surrounded by an ever-retreating enigma named Jesus of Nazareth, always out of reach in his unsullied purity), but our own concerns and prejudices, which usually include the above, but are void of any actual content of their own. Wright is waging a one-person war against the deconstruction of Bibilical texts with a simple dose of interpretive common sense. As such, while I far from agree with everything he says, I find his approach refreshing, and some at least of his conclusions to be a wonderful counter to the "sensible" approach of too many non-believers masking as scripture scholars.

One of the things DL wrote concerns the mission of Paul to the Gentiles. Indeed, Paul's mission work was to Gentiles, but as Craig Hall, a student of Wright's from Oxford who now teaches at my seminary alma mater, Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC, has pointed out, much of the so-called "Hellenists versus Hebrews" controversy is front-loaded with gross (in all senses of the word) anti-Semitism, and a complete miscontrual of the complexities of first-century Jewish life, not the least of them Jewish evangelism in the diaspora. Many of the "Gentiles" were, in all likelihood Jewish proselytes who had not yet completed the very rigorous conversion process. Paul was not out to invent a religion; there is nothing in his letters to even pretend such a reading is credible. Indeed, he protests constantly that his message is no different from the tradition that was passed to him (part of which he repeats verbatim from the Gospel accounts in his first letter to the Corinthians in re the institution of the eucharist). It is difficult to get around the simple truth that Paul no more invented the divinity of Jesus than did the writers of the Gospels make up stories of resurrection to say something else. I will grant that the God-man, as you call him, is nonsensical in a variety of ways. I will not grant, however, that it is a later gloss by those intent on distorting a message to serve ends other than those of Jesus.

This, in fact, is part of Wright's point. We completely misunderstand early Christianity if we think the divinity of Jesus was easier to understand for early Gentile Christians than for either their Jewish counterparts or contemporary thinkers. In fact, the idea was and is preposterous on its face. Part of the struggle the early church faced was that Jesus' teachings, not their teachings about him, were a complete re-writing of Jewish thought on messianism, not the least of which included the inevitability and necessity of his own death. I do not try to rescusitate substitutional atonement theory; it is a viable reading, although my reading of it is not traditional, nor is it Wright's. As to why God would require it, ask God. Part of the problem with a question like that implies that there exists some general idea of what God can and cannot do to which the Christian God must conform. I do not ask you to either believe in God or like what the Christian God does and does not do. I struggle with this issue no less than you do, but I cannot escape something that is both simple and, to me, profound - God isn't me, and God's ways aren't mine, or yours, or anyone else's. The situation is what it is, and there comes a time in any person's life when that person is forced to take it or leave it. If you leave it, it doesn't make it any less real or true. If you take it, though, it just might mean all the difference in the world.

We have to surrender our own prejudices and, perhaps, open ourselves to the possibility that those first century evangelists knew a thing or two we sophisticated moderns and oh-so-cynical and knowing post-moderns do not. We should take them at their word, although not in any literal way, and read them for what they say, not what we want them to say. In the same way, we should come to God not expecting God to conform to our thoughts and ideas about what God should be and do and say, but as God is. God did the same, and asks no less of us than God was willing to do.

The Church and Sexual Minorities

Democracy Lover and I are having a conversation. The rest of you are welcome to listen in. There are some points in the comments he placed on the wrong thread yesterday (snicker) to which I want to return, but I promised this first.

Sexual ethics in the church are dangerous territory. No matter what one says, the end result is few are happy with the outcome. What is worse, the easiest softball insult of all - "Hypocrite!" - can be tossed with abandon, because, to quote St. Paul, "all of have fallen short of the Glory of God" (I will say no more, but allow others to draw their own conclusions). Yet, if the Church is to be the Church and not some God-club thingy where we all go to sing pretty songs from the 19th century and feel good about being together and not much else, then the Church needs to say something about human sexuality, and do so in a way that respects the good gift of sexuality and the message of love and service that is at the core of the Christian confession.

I cannot speak for other denominations. In fact, I cannot "speak" for my own denomination. I can speak of my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, and its own evolving position of human sexuality in general and its stance on sexual minorities in particular. Along with a new set of laws and rules regarding structure and function that is produced every four years, TheBook of Disciplinie, the UMC also produces The Book of Resolutions which is a compendium of legislation on matters not pertaining to church governance. Taken together, these two publications provide a good snapshot, every four years, of the development of thought across the entire denomination on a variety of questions, including human sexuality.

First, the UMC affirms that sexuality is a good gift of a good God. This is neither controversial nor surprising. As my mother says, "If God made anything better than sex, he kept it to himself," which is another way of saying the same thing. Where people usually have a problem with the Church is its insistence on abstinence, or as the Discipline says, "celibacy in singleness" (what a tortured neo-logism I have always found that to be; do I now live in "marriedness", or perhaps "wededness"?). The reason people object to that usually comes down to an argument something like this: "Come one, get real. Single people not only are going to have sex, they are having sex right now, even as we speak. Let's be honest then move on, OK?" My response to this is two-fold. The Church is not denying the reality of premarital sexual behavior. Nor is it legislating how people are to behave. Indeed, the Judicial Counsel of the UMC has ruled that the language is such that it is not proscriptive at all, but rather advisory, even in relation to clergy behavior (this after a case was filed against a clergy woman caught sleeping with a man). In that sense, it is unlike Roman Catholic teaching at least as I understand it.

The gift of sexuality, our desire for the physical and emotional and psychological pleasure that comes from the sexual act with others is to be treated with respect. I find the UMC position on sex to be both healthy and wise. It understands that we are far too blase about how we act as sexual beings; we couple with a frequency and lack of concern that is breathtaking in its superficiality. Somehow treating this most intimate of moments as no different in kind from masturbation is seen as an act of maturity, while adivising people that, like all gifts, this too can be abused and such abuse can lead to dangerous, even deadly consequences, is somehow thought of as unrealistic. I find that absurd to the point of parody. It is one thing to recognize that people are going to have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. It is quite another to simply give a clerical stamp of approval to these passing fancies in the name of some "reality" that is never quite defined or defended.

The other part of the response is this: the Christian life isn't supposed to be either easy or "normal" however that may be defined. Why should the church change its teaching to accomodate a reality that is antithetical to its core values? Why should the UMC say, "Yeah, fine, you're right, go couple when- and wherever you like, and with whomever you like"? There is a reason the UMC's governing document is called the Discipline after all; that is one of our principles - the Christian life is a disciplined one, not haphazard. You want easy, stay home Sunday morning and watch Meet the Press.

As far as sexual minorities are concerned, the Church has a two-fold stance. It supports the inclusion of sexual minorities in our social and civic life without discrimination. At the same time, it insists that sexual minorities are excluded from the clergy and from affirming their relationships in public in United Methodist houses of worship. Seven years ago, a clergy person here in northern Illinois was put on administrative leave for a year for doing just that (our Bishop supported the act but his hands were tied by church law; the man could have had his orders stripped, as happened in Washington State about a year later). Our church has been struggling with these two issues - gay clergy and gay marriage - for many years, and the struggle continues.

I want to add a personal comment here. As a general note, again, why should the Church automatically change its views to accomodate contemporary standards of conduct and belief? I will not deny the reality of power-politics within the Church plays a huge role in distorting the direction the Church is moving - to do so would be a lie - but there is also a serious point here. Because two of the most liberal denominations, the UCC and UUA, have moved to inclusiveness in their ordination process does not mean all liberal Protestant denominations should do so. Nor does such changes as happened within these groups negate the reality of struggle within them, and struggles that go on. They simply reached a socially acceptable end point sooner than others have. Or may not ever. Who knows? I think the process of debate and struggle is as important as the conclusions we reach, because we all learn something, not least of which is to listen to one another. In a church of 8 million people that is never easy.

Another point that is important to note, at least as far as the whole gay clergy thing is concerned, is that, let's be honest here folks, they're already there. I used to argue that the entire issue would disappear in a day if all the gay clergy stood up at Annual Conference and, in unison, declared their sexuality, then dared the denomination to throw them all out at once. For reasons of pragmatism, the debate would end then and there. Of course, such a dramatic action will never happen, but a person can dream . . .

Am I defending an indefensible position? I don't think so. I disagree with our official position, both on the ordination of sexual minorities and on gay marriage. I also understand the compromise the church has made, at least as far as gay clergy is concerned, to be something that, while not pleasing to everyone, allows people who are gay and lesbian to serve with a certain integrity if they so choose. I also have much sympathy for those who want the issue to just disappear; one can go over the same ground again and again and again, but the result is always just a big muddy mess. We are still slogging, though, because we have to. People's real lives, their calling, the recognition of their love for one another is at stake, and the church is an institution that, if nothing else, takes these things much more seriously than bumper-sticker Christianity and politics could or can imagine. I hope my side wins (who doesn't?), but I also respect the process, and love and respect those who disagree with me because, again to quote a parent (my father), "You don't know every Goddamn thing."

Short Take, Part II

Apropos of what I wrote yesterday Fire Dog Lake has this and takes a somewhat different view of things. I actually agree with some of what TRex wrote. The politicized elements of the Christian Right have long since abandoned the more mundane parts of chuch life - love for others, service to others, sacrifice for others, in an ever-more-shrill quest for power. I also think that, apart from whatever "church" stuff they might do, the IRS is very late in investigating their activities in violation of partisan politicking.

I can't help but feel sad, however, for Joel Hunter. He sounds like an earnest, thoughtful conservative. Maybe the inmates really have taken over the asylum.

He Might as well Have Stayed Home

I heard a report on NPR this morning about President Bush's trip to Estonia that said he would not be out in public during his stay in Tallin. Last week in Vietnam, an aide was quoted as saying that even though the President would not appear publicly, there was a "connection" as Bush's motorcade travelled from the embassy to the meeting hall in Hanoi. Apparently the person who made the comment forgot that the President's limousine has frosted glass windows.

The most striking part of the story about Bush's trip to the Baltic's was the comment that Queen Elizabeth, in a recent visit, spent time meeting and greeting folks in public, but that security officials in Estonia insisted people stay indoors when Bush's motorcade passed. So, if I understand this correctly, a monarch was willing to mix it up with the commoners but the head of state of the world's most powerful democracy wanted no dirt from the plebes on his suit.

He goes to Vietnam and manages to insult the leaders of a nation with which we are trying to repair relations, and refuses to meet the people he avoided protecting thirty-five years ago. He goes to a NATO ally and manages, again, to not actually learn who our allies are, and why they might be worth risking our blood and treasure.

It has been nearly twenty years since Reagan and Gorbachev stopped a motorcade in Moscow and the two of them strolled through Red Square meeting the people of the Evil Empire. How Conservatives have fallen.

Jesus, Paul, and the Message of the Church: Democracy Lover Again

It would take several very thick volumes to detail the ways in which the Gospel accounts of Jesus and the teachings of Paul in his existing correspondence converge and complement one another. It would take several more volumes of equal thickness to discuss the philosophical and theological understandings of who Jesus was, how he was understood by his earliest followers, and how that understanding morphed as time and place and circumstance and language changed. In fact, those volumes have been written, and constitute the vast corpus of Christian theology from the Bible to contemporary works. I shall focus my attention here on the writings of Anglican Bishop and New Testament scholar Nicholas Thomas Wright, who is working on a multi-volume study of early Christian and Jewish literature and the origins of the Christian faith. Although some of his suggestions are, to put it mildly, controversial (the Fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle John) his approach in his repudiation of recent New Testament and theological approaches to these questions applies a combination of historical humility and good old common sense.

Some general comments, then, and even those will take more space than I might wish.

First, the common contemporary (for the past one hundred years or so) understanding that Paul was not interested in the message of Jesus and therefore distorts Christian teaching ignores something so simple it is easily missed - Paul is the earliest Christian teacher whose writings are still in existence; even the Gospels as written documents are later by almost a generation. As such, had there been serious disagreement between what the Gospel writers wanted to say about the tradition of Jesus and what Paul was teaching as he traveled the Mediterranean there surely would be some record of it somewhere. In fact, there is none. Even the later, non-canonical writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria follow the route of Paul, dealing with programmatical questions rather than the substantive issues of the teachings of Jesus. Rather than showing a cleavege between the teachings of Jesus and Paul, this would show that, in fact, the teachings of Jesus were non-controversial and above any question.

Paul was writing to various churches for a variety of reasons - church practice was not in line with common practice in Corinth; the church was suffering some sort of persecution in Phillipi; Paul was introducing himself to the Roman church prior to a visit; Paul was defending his authority to teach and preach after it was questioned by teachers in Galatia - and that he never mentions the teachings of Jesus, rather than showing he didn't care about them, shows that they were accepted for what they were. Had Paul wanted to, he could have written all sorts of things that run counter to what Jesus taught, but there is nothing in Paul to suggest he ever thought about doing so.

As to the whole question of Jesus' identity - what has been traditionally called the doctrine of the two natures, i.e., Jesus was fully divine and fully human - while the explanations became ever more convoluted and involved all sorts of metaphysical gymnastics that are irrelevant to a non-metaphysical age, the basic theme is the same today as it was 2000 years ago: God loved this creation. Through human acts, a rift was driven between God and creation, and humanity no longer could fulfill its divine ordination to be a caretaker of this creation. No propitiation could suffice to set this relationship right except for divine action. Such was God's love for creation that God was willing to fully invest a human person in order that through the life and death of this person, the final power of death - the ultimate enemy - could be broken. The resurrection story is not some coda attached to Jesus' life by those who came later, but the central fact of his presence and ministry. It provides the authority to all he taught, all he did, all he suffered.

Even contemporary New Testament scholars, as Wright shows in abundance in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, are uncomfortable with the resurrection narratives because, to be blunt, they don't believe them. Not only do they not believe them, they do not see how any thinking person can accept them for anything other than metaphors for some spiritual experience followers of Jesus had (following the NT scholar Rudolf Bultmann). Part of the problem with such a reading misses a point Wright makes emphatically throughout the work noted above - resurrection was no more plausible to first century A.D. residents of the Roman Empire than it is to early-21st century residents of the American Empire. As Wright further notes, in a look at first and second century comments by Roman authorities, more than anything else the early Christians shared a devotion to the resurrection that was unshakeable, even under torture. Rather than renounce this teaching, they suffered horrible pain, and many were put to death. As condescending and demeaning as Richard Dawkins and other critics of contemporary Christianity, these Romans were amazed that anyone could hold beliefs that were, to say the least, unbelievable.

Part of the problem in the (mostly fake) Jesus-Paul controversy is a streak of Romantic primitivism that believes, without justification and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that there exists some pure unsullied message of Jesus to which, if we could only return, the Church could rescue itself from its two thousand year history of metaphysical nonsense and political and theological repression. Such primitivism ignores the truth that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted life and uninterpreted message. It assumes that all persons at all times and all places can hear certain words and understand them in the same way. It assumes also that we live our lives moment by moment, without recourse to any narrative structure, and that others do the same. Alas and alack, both these assumptions are wrong. The primitivists forget not only that all wordws need some sort of interpretation, but all lives do so as well. We may not be aware of it; we may even argue strenuously against such an idea. That does not make it any less true.

There is no "pure, simple message of Jesus" existing somewhere to which the Church must or should turn in order to appease its contemporary critics. How would such an appeasement satisfy those who are unwilling to accept the heart of the Gospel message about a God whose love is shown through suffering, exclusion, and a horrible God-forsaken death as a failed political agitator? As Paul wrote, the cross is a stumbling block to the wise because they refuse to accept what is, on its face unacceptable.

This very long post hardly does justice to a topic that is well worth further treatment. The specific context in which was brought up - gays in the church - I will try to treat later.

Short Take

Courtesy of Faith in Public Life.org comes a story that shows the growing rift between true evangelicals and the politicized Protestantism of the recent past. The Rev. Joel Huunter of the non-denominational Northwood Church in Longwood, FL was recently elected head of the Christian Coalition of America. He resigned because he was "unable to broaden the oranization's agenda beyond opposition to abortion and gay marriage."

He hoped to include issues such as easing poverty and saving the environment.
"These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," Hunter said.

Thus endeth the Christian Right.

Christianity and Secular America: Who Speaks for Whom?

This entire discussion is a wonderful example of two things: Why I blog, and the interconnectedness of different ideas. Again, I can't thank Democarcy Lover enough for continuing to respond. This is the kind of thing I love.

The public face of Christianity in America, for a generation now, has been a combination of Billy Graham's evangelical Baptist fervor and the various political preachers, of whom James Dobson (around since the beginning, but little noticed) is the latest entrant. The problem with this parade of media stars is that they are too often taken at their word to be spokesmen for Christianity in America. In his comments on my last post on this topic, Democracy Lover asked what a non-Christian is to make of the distinctino I wish to draw between these media darlings and the reality of multiple denominations with a variety of differences and legal structures, etc. The simplest response is this: exercise a little skepticism and do a little research. We are prone to question what the media present to us in areas where we each have a bit of understanding; why not be skeptical when Dobson is called a "Christian leader"? The internet is a wonderful thing, and anyone can access the websites of a variety of denominations, find out what they believe, what they practice, who speaks for them, how they operate, etc. The difference between the media appearance and reality is so wide, one wonders how we lived with the fiction for so long.

As for the idea that secular America has no "leader" (apparently unlike the various Protestant Christians who all believe what Jerry Falwell believes), that is true. Yet to say that there is no cohesion or coherence in American ideology is simply wrong. Our political and social consensus, one could even argue conformity, is so clear - from musical choices to what stores we shop at and why to the need to prop up our shaky capitalist economy to what movie to watch - it hardly needs explicating. As these are generalities, or expressions of generalities, there need be no spokesperson, as it were. There are enough persons who accept certain ideas and practices, while never doubting the reality which is much more diverse and diffuse, that to address these notions with counter-claims from a Churhc perspective is all too easy.

A good example is consumerism. We are no longer citizens. We are consumers. Our existence, whether political, educational, or social, has been reduced to its barest economic reality. We no longer think or vote or learn - we consume what is given us. I keep picturing baby birds, their mouths open, their cries deafening, and the mother regurtitating down their throats. This is how Americans are viewed, and how much of both the media and its corporate sponsors wish us to perceive ourselves. This is how we are addressed - as children who need to be led to feed on whatever is vomited at us. A failure to act as a good consumer is to fail to act as a good American.

This is such utter nonsense - the idea that we individuals acting in our own self-interest are the real engines powering the great economic ship of state - one wonders how anyone can believe it. Yet, this is what we are not only told; it is practically screamed at us from a variety of sources. Our political debate, our social discourse, even our economic thinking, is debased by such ideas. Our personal lives, our social existence, our spiritual lives existing only as a function of what we purchase demeans us, dehuamnizes us, and leaves us defenseless in the face of the onslaught of corporate rapacity. One need not even be a Christian to find the flaws in consumerism!

As to the disturbances in some mainline denominations over gays and lesbians within their ranks, I can only speak for the denomination to which I belong (the United Methodist Church) and say that much of the debate in the past fifteen years has been over ordination. It has been settled for some time that there cannot be discrimination in membership based on sexual orientation (although a recent Judicial Council ruling argues otherwise; it is being reconsidered, however, because the basis of the decision throws our entire connection - our legal structure - into question). The debate is on-going, but our current practice - we do not ordain "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" - has been interpreted in such a way that a both parts of the modifier must exist in order for legal action to be taken within the Church for the removal of orders. While it does not satisfy everyone (what compromise ever does?) it certainly has allowed people to answer their call and live their lives under a certain disciplpine and with integrity.

Our social discourse is injured by a media too ignorant and lazy to actually do the work of learning about a topic before reporting on it. Complexity does not sell papers or work well in limited air-time. The reliance upon a corporate-controlled, herd-minded media creates too many false impressions, and too much misinformation for a healthy society. I am increasingly impressed with the way the internet actually helps us move things forward. This is where America comes to talk, listen, learn, and most of all - to think. We speak for ourselves!

Musical Interlude and Promo

When I first heard Seal I marvelled at several things. First, the mix of styles and influences, everything from progressive rock to 70's era funk to late-80's dance club slickness. I also thought former-Yes vocalist Trevor Horn's over-production was a bit much, distracting from the essential power of Seal's music. The pile of overdubs and effects become distracting, even dizzying. Yet, I could not forget songs like "Crazy" and "Prayer for the Dying". When, on his third album, Seal switched producers, I found that, in fact, Horn's production values were exactly what Seal needed to create the effect he wanted (although I believe his insistence on the liner notes to his Gold, best-of collection that he prefers the simplicity of acoustic performance).

Give a listen to "Furture Love Paradise" and try not to sing along. Give a listen to "Human Beings" and try not to dance. Give a listen, and remember, "If we're ever going to survive, we've got to get a little bit crazy."

Free Speech and its Discontents

Over here at my right-wing neighbors (and budding friends) to the north in the land of cheese and badgers (Badgers?), is a good discussion in the comments section on the place of pornography in a broader understanding of our First Amendment rights (have you ever noticed those two wrods are, more and more, capitalized, like Holy Bible?). The context is the careful content control exercised by China that includes an almost total elimination of "adult" content on Chinese websites. The standard argument (Standard Argument?) against the censorship of pornography is that the Constitutional ban on laws restricting freedom of the press does not say "except for those that portray sexual acts or nudity". In other words, it is a, ahem, literalist reading of the First Amendment. There is, of course, the "slippery slope" argument, which is not so much a legal argument as it is social commentary. Once we decide certain things are off-limits, what is to stop us from becoming Nazis who burn Picasso and smash Mondrian?

I wish to make it clear that I accept the legal argument concerning censorship. I shal return to the whole slippery slope thing in a moment, but I want it understood that I am not advocating limiting anyone's access to Juggs magazine or the on-line edition of Barely Legal. The First Amendment, in its individual content - the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, religion and the official separation of church and state, and the right of petition to redress grievances - has to be understood as a whole that is greater than the sum of its very wonderful parts. These freedoms are primarily, and to those who wrote and ratified them, political freedoms. The Bill of Rights was inserted into the Constitution in 1791 after Patrick Henry led a serious threat to ratification in Virginia. He insisted that there be codified guarantees to protect the expression of political discontent with the national government. None of those who sat and argued in the earliest Congresses on the various amendments would have even thought it plausible that the right to sit and peruse naked people performing acts both silly and embarassing was included in an understanding of the amendment. Precisely because the entire amendment references public, political acts solely and exclusively.

As to the slippery slope argument, it can be dispatched easily. What keeps us from sliding down the hill from freedom to despotism is the collective discernment of the people that certain things are acceptable and others are not. We already restrict access - not very well and usually in the breach more than in actual practice - to porn to those over the age of 18 or 21 depending upon the jurisdiction. If we were seriouos about the slippery slope thing, we would open the floodgates. We don't because we are wise enough to understand that people not emotionally, psychologically, or sexually mature enough to udnerstand can be seriously damaged by exposure to sexually explicit material. Can we not be wise enough to say that our society as a whole is seriously damaged by widespread access to and consumption of pornography? What does it say about us as a people that we are willing to tolerate, not just the viewing of salacious material, but its production, which by its very nature exists on the fringes of society, and too often ends in destruction of those engaged in it? To stifle this debate with First Amendment arguments is disingenuous at best, because it ignores the truth that we are not a better society for the wide availability of pornography. We also would not be a better society if we arbitrarily denied access to it; perhaps we need to debate the issue thoughtfully, perhaps even worked toward a time when it was less prevalent - through education and awareness. A nice thought, eh?

Christianity and its Social Responsibility

Again, Democracy Lover has given me much food for thought, but there are some specific issues I wish to address here. First, in his comment below, he says that those Christians who are not fundamentalists have "a duty" to uphold the separation of church and state, as well as to make clear to non-Christians that fundamentalism is "an aberration". It is to these I wish to respond here.

To take the second first, I would never say that fundamentalism is "an aberration" of Christian teaching. There are elements within fundamentalist teaching that could be understood as heretical by those who hold to the notion of heresy. There are teachings within fundamentalism that seem to run counter to much of the modern spirit, although I think that is a misreading of fundamentalism. Like all the various branches of the Christian faith, it holds a piece, or perhaps even several pieces, of the truth, while much else that it professes is erroneous. This is no less true for mainline Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Churches, and the Evangelical Churches. The disagreements concerning what is and is not true in Christian teaching is something between and among the various Christian churches, confessions, and denominations. We need answer no one outside for the veracity, or lack thereof, of the truth of Christian teaching, because that assumes there is some arbiter of Christian truth that exists outside of Christianity. What might that be?

As to the duty of mainline Christianity to uphold the constitutional separation of church and state, I concede that is always necessary. Yet, it is done in contless ways and countless times. All the mainline churches have legal and political divisions that are vigilant in defense of that principle. It is rarely discussed because it is much sexier for the press to cover violations. The denomination to which I belong, the United Methodist Church, has been an active participant in a multitude of legal cases, filing friend of the court briefs to ensure the continuation of the legal separation of church and state. What more need we do?

Simply because some Christians believe some things does not mean all those Christians are in error about everything. Simply because various Christian confessions and professions disagree on a multitude of issues does no mean we are beholden to anyone to disavow any of our Christian brothers and sisters because of the feelings and sensibilities of those who are disinclined to accept Christain teaching anyway. Secular society has as much to answer for in its destructive ideologies and pathological social practices as do various Christian groups. When was the last time they felt it necessary to even deign to respond?

Happy Thanksgiving

Have a great day tomorrow with family, friends, turkey and dressing (especially dressing!). I offer this hymn as a prayer, by Jacob Neander, it is #139 in The United Methodist Hymnal (1988, Nashville, TN: United Methodist Publishing House):

Praise to the Lord, the Almight, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise him, for he is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to his temple draw near;
Join me in glad adoration!

Praise to the Lord, who o'er all things so wondrously reigning
Bears thee on eagle's wing, e'er in his keeping maintaining.
God's care enfolds all, who true good he upholds.
Hast thou not known his sustaining?

--

Praise to the Lord! O let all that is in me adore him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before him!
Let the amen sound from his people again;
Gladly forever adore him.

Dr. Keroack - Christian or Ideologue?

Think Progress.org has this piece on the latest attempt by the Bush Administration to put into place a political nominee who holds beliefs directly contrary to the mission of the office to which that appointee is being sent. Like John Bolton being sent to a United Nations he despises, Eric Keroack, appointed to oversee family planning at HHS, is against birth control. Like the congressional Republicans putting a pedophile pradtor in charge of the committee to write laws to protect children from predators, this is the kind of nonsensical thing one reads and then shakes one's head at.

One point that is often brought up when Keroack's nomination is mentioned is that he has worked for Christian-based groups in efforts to bring down teen pregnancy rates. A noble venture indeed. At the same time, his oppposition to birth control is also mentioned as part and parcel of his Christian faith. Of course, we all recognize that most Christian conservatives are opposed to abortion, but the opposition to contraception is a little-known fun-fact of right-wing Christian sexual thinking. Now, before we start humming "Every sperm is sacred" from Montym Python's The Meaning of Life it is important to remind ourselves that the wide availability of contraception did not just bring about a certain freedom for women to compete in the social, cultural, and economic spheres with men, it also, to conservatives both Christian and secular, allowed them - and by extension, I guess, men as well - to have as much sex as they wanted. This is often discussed as "sex without consequences", the consequence being pregnancy. For many - not all, but many - Christian conservatives - the main role for women is to be a baby factory, a regular assembly line for future soldiers in God's Army. There is also an insidious, quasi-racist undertone to this view as well; we need to be out-producing the less worthy. Some groups even oppose vasectomies and tubal ligation for the same reasons; it is interference with the divine decree to go forth and multiply.

Now, we can argue back and forth over whether or not this is or is not proper Christian teaching on sexual ethics. All I want to say is there are many wonderful ob-gyns who are Christians who hand out pills, condoms, daiphragms, do tubal ligations, and generally counsel women on proper contraceptive practices. Why? Because it is their job (a), and (b), they are not so blinded by silly ideas that they think they can trump science and professional practice with assertions having no merit whatsoever. A person who refuses to allow reality to interfere with his or her way of seeing and interacting with the world - at least to some extent - is not a religious nut of whatever variety (a Christofascist, a Zionist zealot, an Islamofascist terrorist, whatever the label du jour happens to be) but is an ideologue.

When ideas replace reality, that is kind of the definition of ideologue.

The Harm that Christians Do in Bolivia

After reading this article about a United Methodist Missionary in Bolivia, I can see what Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris mean about how harmful Christians are. Kay Twilley is plying her evil notions, building a dormitory at a school for boys in the jungles of Bolivia, and working at the Hasta Crecer (Center for Children) helping children to break the cycle of poverty. This must be stopped as soon as possible. Who knows how many people have been harmed by her irrational behavior?

The argument that her work could be done, and perhaps done better, without any reference to her religious faith, or any religious faith, misses the point - and it is so simple it is too often missed - that it is in fact being done precisely because of her faith. Where are the secular folks building schools in the jungles of Bolivia? Where are the non-believers leaving behind home and family and career and comfort and all that they know and understand to live for others? I do not doubt that non-believers could do what Ms. Twilley is doing. Yet, they are not, and she is. There are children in B olivia who right now are benefitting from the work she is doing. You can argue that she is misguided in her beliefs. You cannot claim that she is doing more harm than good because she is motivated by reasons some do not understsand.

I do not doubt that morality and ethical behavior exist outside any religious frame of reference; it would be ludicrous to argue otherwise (although I will grant some Christians do so argue). To insist that moral action motivated by faith is somehow fundamentally flawed, however, is intellectually dishonest, and dishonors the commitment Ms. Twilley, and thousands like her have made. We should celebrate her achievements and commitment to others, even if some do not see her faith as containing anything intrinsically valuable.

The Christian Faith, Society, and Reason: A Response to Democracy Lover

Commenter Democracy Lover has read and commented on my recent posts on science, religion, and the recent attacks upon religion by Sam Harris. In order to treat the issues he raises properly, I have decided to go into detail on several points, to make clear how the position I take fits into a larger picture of the Christian faith in society, and the recent comments attacking religion in favor of reason.

First, part of the problem with any view such as Harris' is the mistaken notion that "religion" is monolithic and univocal - that all Christians believe the same things at all times, and speak with one voice on all matters. Such a view is so wrong, it is difficult to imagine how someone who claims to be speaking about religion could hold such a view, especially someone who wishes to be taken seriously on the issue. As Democracy Lover notes, some Christians are adamant in their opposition to the teaching of evolution, and therefore pose a real risk to the teaching of science in the public schools. It is important to note two things concerning this. First, they are "some Christians" not Christians in general. There are multiple debates going on within and between various denominations over how to deal with those who take such a stand. The general rule, at least for the mainline churches in the UNited States, is not to interfere with the science curriculum in the public schools. Indeed, many of the mainline denominations have filed friend of the court briefs against teaching ID and creationism, partly because they recognize that "creationism" is a perversion of Christian teaching. Indeed, in the alte 1980's, theologian Langdon Gilkey was brought as an expert witness to testify against the New Orleans creationism law and made precisely that point. And he should know; his doctoral dissertation, later published as Createor of Heaven and Earth was on the doctrine of creation in Emil Brunner.

Second, while the battle over creationism, now a battle over ID, continues, it is one with which we shall have to live unless we wish to dictate how people are to think. On the fringes is where the issue of free speech versus the common good becomes most difficult. I do not wish creationism or ID taught in the schools. I also do not want those who believe such silly things to be silenced in the public square, or prevented from teaching their children such things. Scientists do themselves no favors when they take a stand such as the one taken by Harris, or Richard Dawkins, that some for of rationality, or reason, be imposed as a counterweight to religious teaching. To steal part of the title of Alisdair MacIntyre's book, which rationality? It is one thing to protest the nonsense spouted by those who hold views that include nonsense; it is another thing altogether to say that, because some people hold these views, therefore all who claim to be faithful Christians are as nonsensical, and therefore need to be silenced for the good of society. As an evolutionary biologist said at a recent conference on the issue:

There are six billion people in the world . . . . If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming - it is like believing in the fairy godmother.

Another scientist at the meeting, Lawrence Krauss, said:

Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. . . We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.

These much more reasonable and rational approaches to the issue, spoken by those who hold little or no religious faith at all, appear much more fruitful than anything Dawkins or Harris has said or written.

Finally, as to the specific issue of fundie Baptists and MCC members working side by side, it helps prove my point because my point is that while discussion over theoretical issues in important, even necessary, it is only in actually doing something, in the living of our lives with all the muddle and confusion and real human interaction, that we can understand the dynamism and diversity of religious faith. It is not just that two very different branches of the Christian faith found common ground in working to restore those devastated by Katrina. In so doing, there were opportunities for both to meet one another, to talk to one another - about their faith, about their lives, their hopes, their dreams, their fears - in a context where shared sacrifice and a commitment to working for others became a starting point for real dialogue. I am not suggesting that by so doing either side would be converted to what the other believed. Rather, my only point was that, by coming together, they could see that the labels with which they live are usually inadequate to describe the reality of real people living their lives. I do not believe dialogue will resolve differences. I do believe it is a place to begin, and it has to begin, not in conferences that include people who see no good coming from religious faith they neither understand nor consider worthy of serious consideration. It has to begin where people are living their lives. Real encounter is the beginning of the discovery that there is no "other", and that God's transcendent love may be greater than we can imagine.

On Rescusitating Public Debate

Our public discourse is dead. There is no attempt anymore to debate, to get into a good argument and see if minds can change. It has become about exercising power - about hailing one's own opinion, demonizing one's opponent, and not allowing dissent. Our opponents are our enemies. Those who disagree with us are evil, stupid, corrupt, irrational, and hate America and what it stands for. Our opinions are based on facts and reality; our opponents live in some fantasy land made up out of whole cloth.

This is not something only the left or right does. We all do it. I have done it. Those who have commented here on this blog have done it. It is a disorder that has infected our body politic to the point that we would rather ignore those with whom we disagree once we have achieved a certain amount of political power, than continue to engage in debate.

I am tired of it. Our country is tired of it. I do not wish to engage in that nonsense anymore. It achieves nothing. It accomplishes nothing. It proves nothing. We have forgotten that real debate and disagreement are possible while personal relationships can remain unaffected. I would rather engage in a heated exchange over something of vital importance then go somewhere and have dinner with my interlocutor than rhetorically beat that person to a pulp and bask in my glory.

It is partially to that end that I have included one right-wing blog on my link list, and visit there daily. I have posted there, and tried more and more to make sure my comments never strayed beyond the point at issue. The reason for public debate is to come to an agreement on certain means toward the end of making our society better - not more efficient, but more free; not more economically independent, but just more equal; not to protect those who pay our legislators the most, but to guarantee equality before the law - not to prove who is right. That is a game in which I no longer wish to participate.

Debate can be heated, because the stakes are so high. Part of my anger at the Bush Administration is their role in aiding and abetting the destruction of public discourse through manipulation, deceit, and a preference for symbolism and rhetoric over substance. I am not just angry that we were lied to about the war. I am angry that the Administration held the American people in such contempt that they continued to lie even after they were caught. They honestly believe power is its own end and reward, even though their actions have has such destructive consequences.

Let us be serious then. Let us never flag nor flinch. Let us also respect the fact that those who disagree with us are Americans who work, raise families, pay taxes, and are trying the best they can within the rules of public discourse as they are now set to express themselves. Let us make sure we accord to others the same honesty of purpose even if we can find fault with their political preference. I hope from now on that this blog becomes a model for a way to put forth serious ideas without ever sinking to insult or cant. The stakes are too high to fail.

Some General Comments on Science and Faith

Along with a degree in Political Science (B.A., Alfred University, 1987) and a Master of Theological Studies degree from Wesley Theological Seminary (1993), I spent two years in the graduate program at the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, where my original plan was to study philosophy of science. I ended my academic career early because my wife and I decided to start a family. I try to keep up on the subject, although I have other interests equally pressing, not the least of them being helping to support my family, so it isn't like I have the latest publication from the various academic journals sitting on my night stand.

I am hesitant to enter into a conversation on the relationship between science and faith, because my views are extremely nuanced. I do not believe much good is done in any conversation on the issue, at least as it is carried out under the current rules of the game, because there is such a lack of understanding, not just by lay persons (both scientific and religious) but even practicing scientists and people of faith. The amount of scientific illiteracy, not just among those with deep religious faith but the population in general is troubling; the amount of religious illiteracy among scientists, not least those who profess to be hostile of it because of their study of it (see the posts on Sam Harris below), is equally alarming. Too often people are saying things about religion that are simply factually inaccurate (again, see Sam Harris), yet insist they are to be taken seriously because they are scientists.

I consider myself as someone who straddles a divide, largely artificial, between two ways of viewing the world. As I said below in response to Richard Dawkins, I am a faithful Christian and someone who accepts what science says about any number of natural phenomenon. I see no conflict between them because I do not understand them to be speaking of the same things at all. To put it quite simply. The conflict between religion and science is not about religion or science, but about power. As someone who is opposed to the imposition by the powerful of any worldview that violates individual integrity, I am equally opposed to the efforts to impose any religious wordlview - Christian, Muslim, Santeria - upon others and the claims by some not only that religion is either outmoded or deficient but actively hostile to the ongoing human project, and therefore religion needs to be discarded for a trust in reason, rationality, and evidence.

Science is a method for describing physical phenomena. It is a tool for understanding how the world works. It is incredibly complex, using arcane mathematic concepts and tools to substitute for less precise qualitative descriptions of these pheonomena. One important thing about science is that it considers itself self-corrective; while it insists its views on a variety of pehonena are accurate, it is always a provisional accuracy, recognizing that tomorrow some phenomena, some theory, some experiment, some something will come along and bring the whole tapestry of scientific theory crashing down, to be rebuilt on the new theory, experimental result, etc. Science, then, is an ongoing project, never finished, and it recognizes its own contingency in the very day-to-day practices that are the heart of the scientific enterprise.

Religion is a complex social phenomenon, best described as a way human communities, sometimes locally, sometimes scattered across vast distances of space and time, come to understand themselves and their place in the world. Religions deal with questions of the conduct of human relationships, how best to live a life within the tenets of the religion in question, and how to live with those who live outside the religious community.

While I admit these are only my inderstandings of these two projects, they are based on years of study, reflection, thought, argument, and reflection. Both serve deep human needs, needs that cannot be wished away or argued away. Both see themselves as integral to a fuller understanding of human life and the place of human life in the much larger grand scheme of existence. Neither one contains an inherently superior epistemological framework - one isn't better at figuring everything out than the other - nor an inherently superior ontological status - one doesn't make more clear than the other all that is or can be or could be. In other words, I see them as operating in entirely different fields of inquiry, with entirely different methods of operation, with entirely different goals and presuppositions.

There is nothing inherently superior in the scinetific method. There are many, past and present, who think there is, because science has been remarkably successful using this method at figuring out all sorts of things. While the case has been made again and again for the inherent superiority of scientific ways of thinking - often labeled rational or reasonable without any clear understanding of what those words mean or how they relate to the scientific enterprise - it has always failed because the scientific method is not designed, nor was it ever intended, to deal with anything other than that for which it developed, over time. The scientific study of and engineering of society, inaugurated by Auguste Comte, has been a dismal failure, despite the prevelance of sociology departments in our universities and colleges. Psychology, too, has only blossomed as we moved away from Freudianism and behaviorism and toward a cognitive, neurologically based understanding of the human mind. It is still limited, however, in how far any of its general statements can go in covering a vast array of individuals.

In other words, I believe the conflict between science and religion is largely artificial, created by those who exist outside either sphere of understanding, using each one or the other as a tool for control. My own preference is for a humble faith and a humble science, each operating within its own sphere of expertise and within the limits of its own way of knowing. The reality, of course is far different, and while I fear my own views sound a bit like Rodney King's during the LA riots in 1994, I cannot help but think that we would all be better off if, rather than push one way of knowing as better than any other, we allowed ourselves the liberating thought that maybe, just maybe, both have something to contribute to the human experience of living.

What is Reasonable?

Thanks to Democracy Lover for the original link to this interview(.pdf) with Sam Harris. I was going to leave Harris alone, but I found an article by New Testament Scholar Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite that I want to use for a contrast with the repugnant ideas Harris expresses. By "repugnant", I am not refering to his atheism (something to which he refuses to own up in the interview, for reasons to which we shall return) which is neither here nor there to me. What I find repugnant is his totalitarian insistence that his way is the only way. I also find it odd that someone who is so insistent on "evidence" would be so consistently factually inaccurate. To name just one, to claim as he does that Christians believe God wrote the Bible is simply wrong. Even the most die-hard fundamentalist does not say such a thing, and to claim that as a part of "religious dogma" is wrong. To claim that Judaism is a "cultural identity" rather than a "religious identity" is not only wrong, it buys into the worst stereotypes about Jews spread by the most vile anti-Smites. Finally, as a third example of factual inaccuracy, he says that "it would not be a good idea to believe in a creator God now, in a twenty-first century world that has ben shattered into separate moral communities on the basis of religious ideas." What is inaccurate about that statement is this - when was the world ever a unified moral community without religious ideas playing any part whatsoever? As someone so concerned with evidence, when in human history has there ever been a time when all human beings, at all times and all places, believed the same thing, therefore sharing the same "moral community" and has the same or perhaps no religious beliefs? In other words, this line of argument is based upon a lie. Or perhaps ignorance. Or perhaps even prejudice against religion so strong it blinds him to how erroneous his argument is. In any case, this is a sign of a dangerous ideologue, I do not care how virtuous he claims he is (think George Bush without the cross necklace).

In seeking to justify his attack on religion, Harris says that "the problem with religion is that it is the only type of us/them thinking in which we posit a transcendental difference between the in-group and the out-group." Again, that is wrong. From 1933 to 1945, Germany was ruled by a man, a Party, and an ideology that saw "racial" identity (and, here, along with the "normal" races, there were the "made-up" races of the Aryans and thew Jews) as a qualitative distinction between human beings, transcendent to the extent that one race, that fake one called the Aryans, was so vastly superior to the others, especially that other made-up one called the Jews (be careful now; I am not saying Jews are fake; I am saying that to call Jews a "race" is fake), that their elimination was necessary to make the world safe. Six million Jews, another three to four million Slavs, and two to three million others "racially inferior people" like the Roma were efficiently, one might say (with Richard Rubenstein) rationally put to death because of that transcendent distinction.

Finally, there is his outrageous statement that he would rather rid the world of religion than rape. This is a person to be taken seriously? This is a person whose beef with religion is the danger it poses? While he dismisses it as untrue (why would he accept it?), he is a fundamentalist ideologue, convinced of his own correctness and virtue, and refusing to see the very human dimension in a variety of religious experiences. A factually-challenged, hateful person who insists that his way is the only way for the world to escape destruction is hardly the person we should be discussing serious matters with.

As a counter to Harris (of whom I have said all I plan on saying) I would like to consider some of the words of Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite. Of coure, Harris would discount anything she says as irrational; after all, not only is she a Christian, she has dedicated her professional life to a detailed study of the Bible, that holy book he finds so disgusting and violent, full of hate for other people. While noting that doctrinal differences between different branches of the Christian faith are real and not to be minimized, and that interreligious differences are very real, and also not to be minimized, she offers this:

[T]he best way to open the [inter-religious] conversation is thru doing good together and then looking each other in the eye and asking, "What in your faith motivates you to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless?" That's when common ground stops being a metaphor and starts being a description of where people of faith can stand together to bring hope and healing to this world.

As false an argument as those I pointed out above? Professor Thistlethwaite points out that, in New Orleans after Katrina, fundamentalist Baptists and members of the Metropolitan Community Church worked side by side in relief efforts, and in doing so, learned from one another. A small example, I know, but one that offers hope - real hope - because it is an example of real people learning to live with differences that are real and substantive, yet not so much that they seek to destroy. Harris wants to rid the world of religion because he is afraid of difference. He sees difference as a source of conflict, something else which he fears so much that he refuses to publicly acknowledge that he is an atheist, not because he isn't, but because of the hostitlity such a claim engenders. If you believe something, or even claim it as a matter of fact rather than one of faith, at least have the courage to say so. I find such moral cowardice, coupled with intellectual dishonesty and more than a tendency towards totalitarinism far less attractive, and far more dangerous, than a person of faith offering the possibility - based in faith, but a faith steeped in the experiences of people of faith - of real human contact across all sorts of differences.

Who, then, is more reasonable?

Clarifications, Policies, and some Thoughts on the Future

Before we march much further into the future, and with a post even now brewing in my brain, I wanted to clarify what this blog is about, how I decide what to write about, and to insist that there are some thing about which I will never write.

First, this is not a "Democrats versus Republicans" blog. I will not evade the truth by saying "I am not partisan" or "I have a lot of friends who are Republicans" (I do, but that is another matter). This blog is a place for me to express my opinions on issues surrounding the intersection of politics, culture, society, and the Christian faith. I am not "partisan", nor will I endorse any candidate (despite my own preference for some over others) of any party. My views on the actions of the leadership - and please understand it is the leadership (the PResident and his cabinet, the public faces of the Republican Party in the national media, and their unpaid shills in the mainstream media) of the party who I find abhorrent - are based not on crass partisanship. This is not about "us vs. them". My disdain for and rage with our current "leaders" stems from the utter contempt they have shown for Constitutional government; their brazen and unapologetic lying (they continue to lie even after they are caught at it); their utter contempt for any and all who may disagree with them; and the lack of respect they show the American people by governing so poorly. More than anything else, however, I am enraged at what has become of the United States in the past six years. Our once great land now sits, our military on the point of being broken, our diplomatic status non-existent, our influence gone. Our economy is a wreck. Our public dialogue is a farce. I place responsibility for all this at the feet of the Bush Adminsitration, their lackeys in Congress, and their mindless enablers in the press. If it were a Democratic government who had done this, enlisting the help of the press, I would be no less contemptuous.

There are some other things, besides candidate endorsement, that I shall never write about. I won't cover politics for its own sake - the horse race nonsense - or repeat nonsense (or at least try not to). I will not deal with garbage, such as (I hate even typing the letters!) the whole OJ thing over at Fox. Finally, while I have strayed from this particular "never" in more than one egregious case, let us just say that I will attempt, in the suture, to never, ever personally call into question the personality or integrity of those with whom I disagree. We are all Americans. We have to relearn how to disagree with each other without trying to destroy one another. The extremes have ruled our dialogue for too long; it is time for healthy debate with the opportunity to go to the pub afterward and pop the tops on some cold ones together (as Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan famously did).

I write all this because, when I started blogging last spring, I wasn't sure what I wanted to write about, and it showed. As it has developed, I have started to find a voice, but I wanted to make sure I didn't "flail", just write about anything and everything, but consider thoughtfully what I was posting, why, and what doing so said about me and my intentions for doing this whole blog thing in the first place. I have been tempted to write things that went far afield, because they interest me personally, or because others have written about them. I decided, however, that it would be better if I set out, publicly, what it is I am doing here, and why. As it is still relatively early in my blogging career, and these things are still developing, I think this is as good a place to start as any.

Finally, to correct the error I made, personally attacking someone with whom I disagreed, I would like to publicly apologize to my turtle-loving neighbors to the north for calling them "unhinged". I will let the post stand, but only to remind me that, as hard as I try, I will make mistakes. I hope our future debates are lively, but never sink to the level of name-calling.

Taking on Atheists, Part II

I am able to complete this little two-fer after all. Not having slept in 28-and-one-half hours, I just hope it's coherent.

Sam Harris is a vocal atheist who insists, among other things, that there are no such things as religious moderates. He claims that religious beliefs, and claims about religious beliefs, should receive the same treatment as claims concerning UFOs and Atlantis, and that they are an impediment to truly human living. He sees the God of the Hebrew Scriptures as psychopathic, and Islam as an inherently intolerant religion. BeliefNet was willing to interview him, and while there is a greater sweep and consistency to his professions concering the dangers to our corporate huamn existence posed by religious belief than Richard Dawkins, and while he is willing to grant to people of faith the willingness to act on behalf of others, often at great sacrifice to themselves, he counts it of less worth than other types of selflessness. His remarkably shallow insistence that only a literal reading of scripture is acceptable - as if we ever read anything literally - as well as his claims that any views other than his are intellectually dishonest is a wonderful device to shield himself from critics. The wholism of his worldly disdain for those whose view of the world and human existence is breathtaking. It is also, alas, as mistaken as many of the beliefs he purports to describe. The fact that much of what he says is inaccurate on its face should lead many who would turn to him to question his intellectual integrity.

There is something impressive, no doubt, about a person so convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority that he is willing to consign the vast bulk of humanity to the outer darkness of ignorance and irrationality because they think differently than oneself. It kind of reminds me of, well, of Pat Robertson, profiled in a Short Take yesterday saying that believers in other faiths actually worshipped demons! People who disagree with me are damned, whetehr because they worship demons, or because they include the act of worship, and all the intellectual, moral, and existential baggage it entails, in their life.

The totalitarian nature of Harris' ideology is plain in his response to the very first question posed to him. He says:

[T]his whole style of believing and talking about beliefs leaves us powerless to overcome our differences from one another.

It would be better if all of us see the truth of Sam Harris, a truth of reason, a truth of rationality - a truth that transcends any and all questioning. We are not to question; we are not to be different; we are certainly not to celebrate our differences, even those of creed and faith. We are not to learn how to live together with all our differences - not just of religion, but of nationality, of history, of ethnicity, of class - but are to become one with a reasonable approach to the world. That Harris is unable to see the horror emebedded within this statement should be very telling for those willing to understand the implications of such a wholistic, totalitarian ideology. What else does totalitarianism mean but that it encompasses all aspects of life - most importantly how we think about ourselves and our relationships with other people and the world aorund us. No doubt Harris would argue strenuously that is not at all what he meant, how dare such a peon, such a religious peon at that, dare impugn his integrity, his morality, or his intention by claiming he has a secret desire for us all to become . . . Harrisists!

Actually, what I am saying is that there are totalitarian implications in his words, and the idology he insists is better for all humanity than the myriad ways human beings go about ordering their lives. Rather than celebrate our differences, and learn to live with them, and sometimes even through them - not surrendering to conflict, but making conflict creative and even productive - Harris sees differences as fundamental to personal and social identity as religious differences as a hinderance to the furtherance of some moral goal that, alas, is never stated, explicitly or implicitly in this interview.

Part of the beauty and majesty of totalitarian ideas are, well, their totalitarianism. They cover any and all contingency. By placing any and all claims of religious belief outside the pale of acceptable discourse, and all those who use such claims as equally untouchable, he is insulated from the criticisms of people of faith. Even thought I have not one in this entire article made a claim concerning the correctness or incorrectness of any religious belief, because I am aperson of faith, I am ipso facto irrational and therefore there is no need for him to ever even consider what I have written here.

We just ended, less than a decade ago, a century which introduced totalitarianisms into human existence. All of them were horrid, none of them were Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Zoroastrian), and at least one of them wore the mantle of "scientific socialism" as a badge of honor. To somehow turn around, now, and use such totalizing ideology as a bludgeon to beat people of faith - again, and not just those of one but of any faith; the act of faith, it would seem, is to Harris a crime against humanity - is to resurrect horrors which we had all hoped were now buried. We must never forget that those who would insist that theirs is the only true way for a truly human existence have written large chunks of the population out of the human race and are, and have been, quite willing to dispose of them because they are a nuisance of one sort or another. That Harris would insist he wishes no such thing is really beside the point. After all, since there are no such things as religious moderates anyway, why should I believe there is such a thing as a moderate totalitarian?

Taking on Atheists, Part I

Note: This is the first of two pieces I shall be writing referencing BeliefNet, a resource I think I shall come to use quite often. Because of a crazy, hectic day, I doubt I shall get to part ii until tomorrow.

Over at BeliefNet (a new link, by the by), there is this article by Richard Dawkins, writing in opposition to "religion" because of the danger it poses, in his view, to science. He cites the current head of research at some creationist institution in Dayton, TN (where the Scopes "Monkey Trial" took place) as a "casualty" of the conflict between faith and science, a promising young geologist who surrendered his scientific integrity for a fundamentalist Christian faith. Dawkins dismisses the idea that he is a fundamentalist because, of course, he is a scientist and all he believes is based upon evidence and a willingness to change his mind about what he believes. As a fer-instance, he cites a scientist who taught his students certain "facts" concerning a cellular organ, even as the scientific community was coming to understand the function of this organ, and, after years of struggle, accepted the change.

One hesitates to begin, because there are so many points of entry. First, I do want to agree with something Dawkins says, to whit, that a little philosophical understanding is a dangerous thing. He is tired, he says, of discussing philosophical issues - such as the epistemological status of the underpinnings of scientific knowledge, the validity of the truth claims of science, and the ontological status of religious claims over and against those of science - because, of course, he is much more knowledgeable about these things than his interlocutors (especially those he dismisses as relativists). I must say, I am glad I never encountered him when I was a student. With a mind as closed as his, so utterly convinced of his own correctness and the imbecility of those who might question him, his views, his assumptions, or even his choice of tie, how can any learning take place? From his mouth to his students' ears, with grateful acknowledgement to be in the presence of so brilliant a man.
(I would apologize for the sarcasm, but there in reading the article, this is the conclusion that is inescapable)

I guess I shall just go right to the heart of the matter, since I don't want a ten-thousand word post here. "Religion" is a human phenomenon of incredible diversity and wonderous power. There are Jains in India who weep over the bee that stung them because, in so doing, it has killed itself. There are Buddhist monks from Nepal who, after years of training and devotion, can actually vocalize multiple pitches simultaneously, creating chords with a single human voice. Serious Jewish scholars of Torah can place a pin through the cover of their book and recite the words on each page the pin has passed through. Christians refusing to surrender their faith to the prevailing political powers in China are harassed, lose their jobs, blacklisted, imprisoned, and killed. Muslims in the United States offer wonderful counterpoint to the hollow, "bourgois-fied", middle-calss "Christianity" professed by many of their fellow citizens, in their devotion to God, the tenets of their faith, and the seriousness of their commitment to a land that, in recent years, has become hostile to them. To somehow say that "religion" is a problem for science, for the growth of scientific knowledge, and for the sustaining of scientific imagination and curiosity is not just intellectually dishonest, it is just plain ignorant.

If one wants to argue, however, that a certain type of Christianity, imbued with a rationalistic devotion to Christian "truth" as they understand it, and convinced that one can, using the tools of the human intellect, provide conclusions to religous syllogisms, provided one accept certain statements as axiomatic, is hostile to another way human beings happen to come to understand the world they live in, and insist that, since they are competitors in the whole "figuring out the world" business, and that as such they are adamant that, based upon their axioms as to how the world is structured, what is true and not true about that world, they can show that they are correct and this other way of knowing (for lack of a better word) is not - this rather long, probably run-on sentence is a much more accurate description of what Dawkins is trying to describe. Dawkins plea for "rationality" shows that he has not, in fact, studied either the history or methods of fundamentalism, as one would be hard-pressed to find a more rationalistic, ideational way of coming to the faith. To claim that science is "rational" and, by default, faith is not is to misunderstand what rationality is and how it functions. Rationality is simply a way human beings have of thinking. It can be applied just about anywhere - religion, game playing, horseback riding, sex, you name it, there is a rational way to do it and discuss it.

These arguments are neither new, nor particularly interesting. They are, in fact, the kinds of arguments one would expect from a (ahem) sophpomore college student, suddenly emboldened by the left-Hegelians, Bertrand Russell, or perhaps (closer to home) Richard Rorty. The argument Dawkins makes is as old as the Enlightenment, and about as easy to refute, provided one understands the game. And it is a game, please make no mistake about it. No matter how serious the stakes, no matter how important the subject matter, in the end, such intellectual mumbo-jumbo as Dawkins provides, and I provide in response, is just a game that ignores the much more complex, interesting, confounding, enraging, and satisfying task of living one's life, and figuring out how to navigate between so many claims that insist they are total, but all end up being smoke and mirrors, passing from truth to falsehood in the blink of an eye.

I am a devout Christian. I not only believe, but profess the reality of God, the salvation of sin through the intercession of the crucified and risen Jesus, the Messiah. I anticipate the final resurrection of the dead. I would no more surrender that confession to an intellectual bully like Dawkins than I would surrender the testimony that our planet, formed not quite five billion years ago, has developed life over a long and torturous process called evolution, the exact mechanics of which are still difficult to figure out, if not to dismiss in a broad outline. As a scientist, would Dawkins admit that one refuting instance, one case where his entire understanding of what is and is not acceptable, rationally, brings his entire theory crashing down? I don't want to turn blue, pass out, and die, so I won't be holding my breath.

I will be praying for him, though.